Chamaco

1H. Only possible rebid isue is after 1NT response: -If pard bids 1NT i Pass if 1NT = NF. -If we play forcing NT I'll bid my 3-card minor.

Ditto. I voted 1H, not enough defense for 2C, too strong for a namyats.

With such a hand, at equal vuln, I'd give a serious thought to passing pard's takeout....

Whatever competition you try, MAKE IT SHORT ! :) Short = at most 2 weeks (the shorter, the better). It is very hard to commit many persons for a long timespan: if that happens, usually there will be a lot of retirments, replacements, etc etc...

Ditto :-)

I agree that XX/2C will land us in the same contract than garbage stayman. The problem is: if we anticipate the use of garbage stayman BEFORE they double 1NT, the likelyhood of being doubled is lower (many partnership play that double is for takeout here, and more often than not, opps won't have the right t/o shape OR the double will be taken out). If instead, we use an escape AFTER 1NT has been doubled, in this specific hand, any 2-level suit contract will be doubled. In this case, it will be much clearer to opps that they have the balance of power, and they'll be in a condition to decide whether doubling a 2-level partscore will payoff. Of course, it makes sense to ask oneself "why should I run before they X, if I am not sure they can x ?". Fair enough, but some time, trouble can be anticipated: with my current p, we doubled with any balanced 12 in the reopening seat vs any NT range.

I ran a quick simulation assuming the follwing constraints: a. 1st to 3rd seat have <12 hcp b. 1st to 3rd seat have at most 4 controls (no one has 2A and a K) c. 1st to 3rd seat have more than 7 losres d. 3rd seat does not have a 5 card major (most players would open in 3rd seat with about 10 hcp and a 5cM) The results seem to justify in most cases the 1D opener, as often the 3S partscore will be down. (BTW, my vote was for pass.... :) ) I might post the simulation in case anyone is interested

Playing garbage stayman I'd bid 2C weak/strong stayman and pass any response. Even when opps can double us, it is more likely they leave in the double vs 1NT than vs 2 of a suit, especially if they do have a fit in the other major. The key is running BEFORE 1NT gets doubled: if you let them double 1NT, it's too late, they know they've got you; if instead you anticipate the trouble and bid immediately to a 2-level partscore, the pard of the doubler won't be so sure that his pard simply isn't competing for a partscore.

I just checked the F-N system notes of 1C opener, and the extra step below 1NT you refer to is not used for strong hands. Actually, when they have a GF hand opposite a (semi)negative response, they never rebid at the 1 level, but they rebid: - 2D= natural reverse +, can still be GF - 1C-1D(showingH)-2S = either natural reverse+, ♣+♠, OR GF single suiter in Clubs - 1C-1H(showing spades)-2H = same as 1C-1D-2S (2suiter with oM, rev+, or GF with Clubs single suiter) ; - 3X (except 3 clubs) = various 23+ balanced The bottomline is: even in 1C opener the "extra-step" at the 1 level is not used for GF hands, so maintaining a similar scheme for 1D opener (using Multireverse instead, e.g. 2H or 2S-according to responder's promised/denied major - to show a natural reverse+ OR GF D singlesuiter) will probably work just as well as the 1C opening.

Questions 1) and 3) should go together IMO. I vote for about 8-10 hands a month. That means either 2 polls per moth, each having 5 hands OR a single 8-hand poll in a month. ------------------------- Question 2) As we all are quite impatient to start discussing :lol: , I suggest that we wait 3 days before starting the discussion, while still accepting late votes for 2 extra days. This concludes the poll within a week (1 day to post the poll, 3 days + 2). ------------------------- Question 4) The one-hand/one-thread concept is great!! ------------------------- Question 5) I don't understand the question. Does it mean we should use the result of this poll to upgrade the BBF-bidding system ? If so, I do not think one problem hand is enough to change a system.

This works fine in major suit contracts. The REAL problem arises, especially at MP, when responder and opener have a fit in the MINORS, and responder has no way to know wheter opener has extras without bypassing 3NT. When opener and responder have a MAJOR fit, serious 3NT works fine, but when the fit is in the minors, it is invaluable to know right from opener's rebid whether he has extras or a crappy 11-13 count.

I passed. I anticipated opps reaching 3S and I started to count my defensive tricks. I evaluatd my hand worth at most 2 tricks in defense (diamond values are suspect) and my passed hand pard would hardly provide more than 2 defensive tricks. There is indeed the chance that he can provide an extra defensive trick if he has length in spades, but I am not so sure. So, since the chances of defeating 3S seemed slim to me, I preferred to pass.

Is there a possibility, to get this done using VISA or using a regular channel like Amazon. I live in Germany. With kind regards Marlowe I have Robinson's book. It's a system book, even a good system book. But Mike Lawrences books are much more: you might prefer the mechanics of Robinson's system, but Lawrence's books are much more, they are book on hand evaluation, they communcate you th "soul of the deal". having said that, I ordered Robinson's book via www.baronbarclay.com.

West should open, even vulnerable, 3rd seat. He has 2 Aces and a K, plus one T and a T9 combination. If West opens this hand, you don't get robbed.

I agree, it's a style, not gospel. Not necessariliy the best, but it is consistent. I personally prefer that pener limits his hand if he has minimum values. The criterion that I use myself to show extras is to allow a "reverse" after a 2/1 with 14 good hcp OR a 6 losers hand. I do not claim it's the best criterion, but I really like that opener's 2nd bid limits the hand in some way, whichever way you like better. :-) The situations are quite different: 1) 1M:2x-? 2) 1d:2C-? 1) and 2) are totally different beasts. Even playing 2/1GF over a major, 1D:2C is inv+ only, so everything changes. I believe we should make 2 separate threads to discuss "reverse showing extras" after a 2/1 over a major and after 1D:2C :-)

You are definitely right. The mechanism cannot be the same. In this regard, however, there is not much los between the 2 systems (indeed, if there was a big loss in competition, probably Buratti-Lanzarotti would not play the 2-way diamond I suppose :unsure: ). It can be handled via the use of Multireverse (http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6187) with any 18+ unbalanced: it does lose some useful steps compared to 1NT, but in general it works just fine.

In my opinion this is sound if you have direct 2-level openings for the 8-11 55+ hands. This takes care of subminimum 2-suiters, so that when you do show a 55, it is a full opener. If you do not have 2-suiter weak 2s for 55 8-11, then I prefer to be able to discriminate the strength of the 55 if I decide to open 1M.

I do not agree completely. Playing precision, I want to open 1 spade at the 1 level with both a. x-AKxxx-xx- AKxxx and b. x-KQxxx-xx- ATxxx (No, I will not open this hand at the 2-level :-) ) Playing a 2/1 scheme I want to be able to show a distributional reverse with hand 1 and NOT show the ditributional reverse with hand 2. So, EVEN in a limited-opening context, bidding goes: hand a. 1S-2D-? 3C = this shows extras hand b. 1S-2D-? I cannot bid clubs, it would show a 5-5.5 losers hand. So I rebid spades. The point is: EVEN IN A LIMITED OPENING CONTEXT, 1-level openings have a wide range of playing strength and it is important to limit further the hand anyways.

If the 1D and 1M openers are not forcing, but limited to, say, 21-22 (GF hands going via 1C), the 1-level scheme of the system is basically very close to Nightmare

- Mike Lawrence: "2/1 Workbook" - Mike Lawrence: "The uncontested auction" - You might even order from BridgeBase Mike Lawrence's CD on the "2/1 system"

It seems easier to me having two 2-way bids , applying to both the same mechanism to show the balanced hand in competition rather than a single 3-way 1C bid with contiguous range. My reasoning is that the 2-way 1D bid can be easily be handled the same way Buratti-Lanzarotti play it, and it does not seem a huge price to pay to reduce the indetermination of a catchall 1C bid. I understand this might add occasionally some awkward problems if opps overcall over 1D, but I suppose that this can reasonably be handled, just like Buratti-Lanzarotti do. Do you think this is too big a price to pay ? :)

Put this way, this claim seems quite strong. Another player may as well say that "There is NO NEED of exact shape description if you can't limit the hand first". Who's right or wrong ? It depends if you get the "right" hand for your approach. In any cases, in most hands it won't make a difference. I understand that a good shape description has advantages and that many players have switched to shape first, but there are quite many good players who think that in a 2/1 auction, it is very important to limit the hand early in the bidding. In some auctions, it will turn out that responder would really love to know early on if opener has extras or not. In some others, shape-first will be a winner instead. I suppose this also depends from the gadgets we are used to play in order to cater for the pitfalls of one approach or the other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to the question hand: regardless of whether it's a reverse or NOT, pard has denied club controls, so I just pass quickly

I think it's a good idea, although I would very much like that any mouseclick/keyboard stroke i the BBO environment is recognized to break the idle period. :-)

This agreement should be posted in the "expert section", here we are still in the BIL section... :)

:-) The question here is the meaning of WEST cards, when following suit. What does it mean if he plays 9 then 7 then 4 then 2 ? What does it mean if 2 then 4 then 7 then 9 ? And what about 9 then 2 then 4 ? Etc. Ciao :-)