Chamaco

To me, close call between 1NT and 2NT. Without all the intermediates, 1NT would be automatic; with intermediates, probably the hand has to show invitational values. I do not like 2C "per se", it does not really decsribe the hand (yes, 4 clubs but this one is a real FLAT hand), but I admit it does have an advantage of potentially rightsiding the NT contract.

Hi Nuno :-) I totally agree that suit preference makes more sense here (what is count good for?). I just wanted to verify IF giving suit preference from start can be assumed as standard in an undiscussed partnership, in this specific situation (solid suit). :-)

Hi all, I am curious to know which is the standard meaning in a totally UNDISCUSSED pship, between good players, in the following situation. We are either in a notrump contract OR in a suit contract and trumps have been drawn. Declarer (South) runs a long suit AKQJTxx 9742 x x Is first discard BY WEST (following suit) count or suit preference ? What about 2ndand later discards ?

Hi all, I am curious to know which is the standard meaning in an UNDISCUSSED pship, in the following situation. We are either in a notrump contract OR in a suit contract and trumps have been drawn. Declarer (South) runs a long suit AKQJTxx 9742 x x Is first discard count or suit preference ? What about 2ndand later discards ?

The problem of consective ranges is NON-existent in uncontested auctions: F-N use minimum acceptance of the xfer with 3+ cards and 14-17 range, more or les, and various superaccept schemes with stronger hands. What worries me of contiguous range is opps intereference: if opps jumpovercall 2S, either in direct or sandwich seats, opener mani times will have trouble to show: - bal 15-17 - bal 18-20 - bal 23+ - 14-17 with clubs WITH takeout shape (spade shortness, 4H) - 14-17 with clubs WITHOUT takeout shape (spade length) - 18-21 with clubs WITH takeout shape (spade shortness, 4H) - 18-21 with clubs WITHOUT takeout shape (spade length) - GF hands I want to remove from 1C opener at least one of the hand-types that would double, thereby reducing the indetermination of the meaning of double

David, could you elaborate with some detail this ? I would be interested in analyzing potential pitfalls. If playing a NON-forcing 1D opener, the scheme of 1-level opening tends to resemble VERY closely the Nightmare system (nothing wrong with that ::):) )

Hi all ! :-) I received before the weeknd a copy of Boehm's "Demon boubling, demon defense", and there is one thing that puzzled me. He first presents a hand with a standard "discovery play" in NT: Against 3NT pard leads low in a suit where dummy has xxx, and we hold AQx: in this case, the correct play is to play the Q as "discovery play", to see whether declarer has the K or not. This is one of the first play taught in beginner-intermediate classes. However, I was puzzled when he took things further: pard leads low in a SUIT contract, dummy has xxx and we have KJx. Boehm says that, as we know pard does not underlead Aces (if he did, his fault), we should play the JACK, not the KING, to discover who has the Q. In this second case, all looks logical, but is it "standard" enough ? I mean, I am afraid that if I play this way (the J) with an occasional pard, with no special agreement, he will play the rest of the hand assuming I do not have the K, and perhaps reconstruct declarer's hand on a wrong basis. I'd appreciate comments on whether this Discovery Play vs suit contract is standard or not in an undiscussed partnership. Thanks ! Mauro

I completely agree,would be great Just my 2 cents, but I doubt that increasing the "Other info" textbox would lead to more bidding agreements listed. I think that 90% of BBOers would only use it for adding more stuff to the current prevailing style of info provided such as "Today I'll eat rice cake, tomorrow maybe pasta, next week perhaps burritos"... :D My point is, I think more space for bidding info should be allowed only in a separate form (which people won't use for funny and pleasant- but frivolous - quotes), but accessible more easily than the current CC :-)

True. There are 2 kind of people: a. those who will NEVER have a conv card (e.g. even at the club game they often are without CC) b. those who usually fill it. I am arguing that - with the current tools - even people "b" (who normally would care to fill the CC) do not fill the card anyway because it is not straightforward to access it. With improved tools, there are better chances it will be filled. Of course I might be overoptimistic, and it is not clear how much this improvement would be a real priority :-)

Hi all, I'd love feedback on this idea (pros-cons etc etc). In Fantoni-Nunes scheme, all balanced hands 15+ go via 1C. The 1D opener is always 5+D (occasionaly 4-4-4-1 with C singleton), 1R forcing. What I do not like of their 1C opener is the contiguous range of balanced hands. 1C, if bal, can be 15-17, 18-20 or 23+ (21-22 opens 2NT right away). In my opinion, this creates 2 problems: 1) opener, over a negative response (0+), in absence of fit with responder's suit, has to jump to 2NT to show the 18-20 bal. It is not pleasant to play 2NT 18-20 opposite a yarborough; 2) if there is competition by opps, it does not seems straightforward to discriminate between the 15-17 and the 18-20 hand. ---------------------------------------------------- On the other hand, the NIGHTMARE system by Buratti Lanzarotti has some similarities (and some differences). 1) they do include 18-20 hands into 1D pener, which becomes either natural or 18-20 bal; However, the 1D opener is limited to about 20 hcp in Nightmare, since ALL the GF hands open 1C, which is different from the Fantunes system. As a consequence, in Nightmare, responder can pass with a yarborough over 1D; this does not apply in F-N system (1D is 1R forcing). In Nightmare, over 1D, responder bids 1M = natural 0+ 1NT=GF 2C = GF 2D and higher = various single-suiter/2-suiter bids NEGATIVE responder without major can simply pass In Fantunes, the negative response is 2D (since 1D does not include 18-20 bal, and 99% has 5 diamonds): 1M = 8-9 hcp, natural 1NT = 10+ bal GF 2X = natural GF, except 2D = signoff without majors ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE BEST OF BOTH WORLD ? (OR WORSE? :) ) Now, I would love to be able to keep the Fantunes style (GF hands open their own suit rather than 1C as in Nightmare) , but moving the 18-20 into 1D, while still having a negative bid that cannot be 2D (because we do not know yet whether opener has 18-20 bal). This implies changing the response structure, though. What do you think of "Paradox responses" at the 1-level ? 1D-? ....1H = 0+ hand, MIGHT have spades. ........1S = 14-17 range, usually 4 spades (may be 3 in 5431 with minors) ........1NT = 18-20 bal ........2m= natural, 14-17 nonforcing ........2H= reverse, 18+ ........2S=4+ spades, reverse, 18+ ....1S = 0+ hand, guarantees hearts. ........1NT = 18-20 bal ........2m= natural, 14-17, nonforcing ........2H= good support, 14-17, nonforcing ........2S=reverse, 18+ ........2NT= good heart support, 18+ ....1NT = GF balanced ....2m= GF with the minor bid ....2M= to be defined (majors 2-suiters, flannery/rev flannery?) With such a scheme, responder has always a negative available at the 1-level, to allow opener to show the 18-20 bal hand.

With shortness in pard suit, a common agreement is to deny the cue during the first scan. If a second cuebid scan is performed, you may then cue, pard will understand you have shortness. An even better agreement is to be able, whenever possible, to describe shortness BEFORE embarking in cuebids :-) I prefer a cue shows AK if pard has shown a 4+ card suit; AKQ if the suit has 5+ promised length

I am not trying to prove anything. This hand is a problem and I am trying to analyze the various aspects. As a result of this post, I have seen 3 popular choices: -3C -2NT -Double. Each of them has flaws which are self-evident: I am trying to hear how every poster handles the most awkward sequence (such this one). It is obvious from my posts that I am not fond of doubling, I think the minuses outscore the pluses (it gets even worse if LHO bounces to 4S, when pard with a 6 bagger and spade void will often bid 5H, and risk losing trump control bigtime being tapped with spades), but I do not really know what's right or wrong here, otherwise I would not post :-)

Worse problems may arise if pard does not pass but bids 4H with a decent hand and 5H over the 3S raise: (2S)-X-(3S)-4H (p)-? Will you bid then 5m risking a big misfit at 5 level ?

Could be fitshowing with a 2suiter unsuited for NT.

Yes, that was my understanding too.

Knowing that each hand tends to lead to interesting debates, I would suggest at most 8 hands per set.

If you double, LHO bids 3S.

I voted 4D but I am reconsidering now... I do believe that many features tend to suggest that the hand will take 2+ trick in diamonds than NT: - void in clubs - good support - length in H (probably heart shortness in opener's hand) = likely x-ruff - TOP controls in spades The big risk is that heart shortness is NOT in p's hand but in LHO's hand and they start with AK and a ruff in H. So, while I believe the hand is better suited for diamonds, starting low with 2H allows to verify where are pard's side values, and to evaluate better the prospects.

I agree with Roland. Ben's draft is fine. The only things I would like to have added are: - A link to a description of Lebensohl since there are several versions out there. Personally I prefer somthing with transfers but that's not so crucial. - In what situations does Gerber apply? (Maybe it's better to drop Gerber altogether, my impression is that it isn't that popular). - How to proceed after partner's overcall. Is it obvious that "everything" is non-forcing? Most French and Dutch players play certain advances as forcing. Ditto. A few general guidelines on forcing passes would also be nice, but I suppose not fundamental. On the contrary, I would *strongly* recommend a clear definition of when doubles are for takeout, when clear penalty, and when cooperative.

I agree with Roland too. Many people I know on BBO were unaware of the Forum until I talked them about it. Perhaps there is a better way to advertise BBF, the more we are, the merrier ! :-)

Gonzalo, the main agreement is that pard with 0-7 hcp is allowed to pass a nonforcing bid. with your example hand I think I'd bid a minimum 3C with: ♦Qxx

♠Qxx ♥x ♦AQJx ♣AKQxx Matchpoints, all vulnerable RHO deals and opens 2S, a weak 2. What do you bid ? You have to make your choice assuming the following listed agreements (if you do not like some or all these agreements, please respond under the given conditions, then I will happy to hear suggestions about improved agreements) Thanks a lot !! 1- 4m is leaping michaels 2- 2NT is natural, 16-19 3- 3m is Nonforcing 4- 3S is stop ask, may prelude to slam investigation with HUGE hand (say, 3 losers or less) 5- If you double and RHO passes, 2NT by pard is Lebensohl, puppet to 3C either with .....a. weak hand in pass/correct, or .....b. some gameforcing hand types with a stopper 6- If you double and RHO passes, 3 of a suit by pard is natural invitational 7- If you double, pard with 4-5 hearts and GF hand, will tend to jump to 4H

What do you folks suggest as best choice for the following: 1) Game tries after 1M:2M 2) Game/slam tries after 1m:1M:2M ......a. if 2M promises 4 card raise ......b. if 2M promise 3+ 3) Game/slam try after Bergen mixed and inv. raises

As promised, I post here some example hands taken from Mike Lawrence's book "The uncontested auction", where he describes guidelines for his 2/1 style. You will find that Roland was right in saying that ML would not mind if opener takes some liberties in raising with a minimum as long as it has shape. (Roland I owe you 4 Cokes ! :D ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since someone mentioned the possibility of a splinter in support of diamonds, I also posted a few ML suggestions about that. Chapter 3, Hand 19, page 50 (C3/H19/p50) ♠4♥AT875♦KQ86♣K73 1H-2D-? "3D or, even better, if you use splinter raises, 3S" MAURO's comment: After a fit is found, this becomes a better than minimum hand, and the LTC (6-losers) confirms it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3/H38/p62 ♠QJ7♥AQxxx♦KJ8♣Tx 1H-2D-? "3D. You don't have much extra. But with a proven fit, the combined extras go up in value. ... Opener is allowed to show some discretion with his raises on minimums" MAURO's comment: This hand looks like a real minimum to me, yet ML raises anyway. As far as I can tell, this hand looks to me worse that the hand that started the thread (even with less hcp, that hand has nothing wasted, this one has the spades quacks). This seems to clearly say that Roland was right in his claims. Oh well, I think I just lost 4 Cokes, hehe ! :rolleyes: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3/H47/p67 ♠K32♥KQT86♦3♣AQT7 1H-2C-? "4D. This hand is good enough to splinter with." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3/H61/p75 ♠Q73♥KQXXX♦QX♣ATX 1H-2C-? FINALLY A HAND WITH GOOD SUPPORT BUT THAT CANNOT RAISE ACCORDING TO ML. "2H. Your clubs are ok for a raise but your points are poor. 3clubs does not promise a huge strength but it does promise something above a minimum. It might be extras in hcp or in shape. This hand is minimum in all regards" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3/H66/p78 ♠Axx♥KQxxx♦xx♣ATx 1H-2C-? "3C. This hand has the same shape and hcp of hand 61, which rebid 2H. The difference between these 2 hands is that this hand has no questionable values. ..... It is a min raise but it is a raise"

One question here to all those who did bid 3C. Playing 2/1 with 2/1 absolute GF, so that: - 1S-2C denies the invitational hand with long clubs but is instead absolute GF (e.g. you do not play that 2C followed by 3C is only invitational) - the only way you can show invitational hand with clubs is via 1NT forcing (1S-3C is already taken as something else). 1S-1NT* 2C-? If you bid 3C with this hand a (the original) ♠ Q8 ♥ 974 ♦ Q83 ♣ KJ986 what would you bid with, say, hand b: ♠ xx ♥ Kxx ♦ xx ♣ KQJxxx (suppose you allow for light openers so you have agreed with pard NOT to respond 2/1 with such a hand) and, hand c: ♠ xx ♥ Axx ♦ xx ♣ KJT986 The strength of the 3 hands is quite different, yet all 3 hands MUST go via 1NT forcing. Which of these hands should pard expect as "normal" 3C raise, ( nonforcing) ? What do you do with a hand worth 9-11 hcp (that could not bid a 2/1 because of pship requirements for solid 2/1 responses) ? How does pard discriminate between 8 hcp with 2 side quacks and a hand with concentrated honors ? And according to that, do you bid 3C with all 3 hands ? (Consider that with hand b you do not want to bid 3NT and find it's wrong sided because pard's K/Qx(x) stopper was led through in dummy)