Chamaco

3D was unalerted, and East was an intermediate-, does not play Robson/Forrester style.

Both hands come from a team match. I was South in both deals. One question here to the BBO readers/posters: do you prefer to have in the same post 2 or more hands (with different topics) or one thread for each hand ? ciao Mauro -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hand 1: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq86542hajd84ck82&s=skjhq6dakj53caq54]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] E......S......W......N 2H...Dbl....4H.....4S all pass 2H was a natural weak 2. 1) Do you agree with the first t/o double ? 2) Should south make a move towards slam ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hand 2 All vulnerable. West dealer I held: ♠T653 ♥932 ♦KQ ♣AQ83 W......N......E......S 1S....2H....3D.....?

This seems a 3D opener to me in 4th seat. It avoids opps competition, shows a great suit with full opening and asks pard to bid 3NT with something on the side

I chose 4H but not too happy about it. The reason is not so much that we may go down too much, nor that maybe 5H puts real pressure. What I dislike of the bid is that when opps have a clear established fit higher ranking, and it is clear they are going to bid even over our raise, quite often the knowledge of our raise helps them to reevaluate their combined hcp: when one preempts and the other raises, often the strong side has nothing wasted. It would not be the first nor the last time that even very good pairs miss a slam if the preemptor pard does NOT raise whereas they bid it confidently even with 26 hcp because they know nothing is wasted.

True, but there has to be an agreement with pard when it comes to the minimum playing strength (call it ZAR points or losers or whatever) AND minimum defensive strength (say quick tricks) promised by an opener, in case pard has to guess at high level whether to double opps preemption or whether to take a sac . This agreement means that your hand evaluation must comply to what pard will expect. Otherwise, many players just use "hand evaluation" just an excuse to open on whatever they feel like, putting in trouble pard that never knows how much defense they indeed have. I think in most "standard" agreements, an opening guarantees 2+ quick tricks in terms of defensive strength. In terms of offensive strength it's less straightforward, playing in a pickup partnership I'd use "Rule of 20", without wasted honors and sometimes upgrading the hand due to good intermediates, but always guaranteeing 2 QT.

Forcing.

Hi all, I'd like to hear from you about the following. --------------------------------------------------- I just ask one favour: I am sure the agreements we have might not be the best, and I am sure most of you have better ones. But if your post will focus on changing RADICALLY the structure, it will hardly help me with my current p :( (I cannot change the system every week). Of course, suggestions for minor modifications and corrections are more than welcome- that's why I post here :) . But, even in the case you dislike the structure, I would greatly appreciate if you also included, maybe at the end of your post, what would be your choice if you were forced with a gun on your head to play something like that ! ;) Thanks !! ;) --------------------------------------------------- THE CURRENT SYSTEM In my partnership we play Precision, so 1M opener is max 15 hcp. We have coupled this limited opening style with the 2/1 framework similar to Mike Lawrence style: 1) a 2/1 is absolute GF (actually may stop in 4m) 2) a 2/1 in a minor guarantees 5 cards of at least QTxxx quality (if the suit quality is lower, we treat it as a 4 bagger); if 2/1 is a major (2H over 1S), requirement may lower down; 3) 2NT is a forcing raise a la Jacoby, 3m are Bergen raises , jump raises are preemptive; 4) the balanced GF hand goes via 2C which is 2-way: either balanced (2+ cards in C) OR with 5+ clubs and good suit; We play a fairly simplified scheme on this, perhaps too simplified, and I'd appreciate feedback onn the followups. Keep in mind I have to play with a pard who often forgets even simple conventions, so some gadget that lasts one round of bidding is ok, but tools that start relays for 2-3 bidding rounds would be unplayable with such a pard Over the 2C response, opener may use a 2D = a "waiting bid". It is used for most featureless hands , unsuitable for 3-level rebids (distributional reverses), or for weak single suiters. (other responses are "natural"- keeping in mind opener has 15 hcp max, so extras are in shape - except opener's major rebid, which corresponds to a raise of clubs if responder's clubs are real). Other bids except 2D are natural (bids at 3 level are distroibutional reverses, usually with concentrated values, 5 losers), except opener's major rebid, which shows a hand that would raise responder's clubs if they were real. Over 2D, responder should clarify his hand. We have set this simple agreement: - any NT rebids show the balanced hand. Jump to 3NT is 16-18, whereas 2NT is 12-15 OR 19+ balanced. - any suit rebid shows real clubs and the side suit. --------------------------------------------------- THE QUESTION Keeping in mind this, I have discovered a "hole" in this agreement after the sequence 1M:2C:2D:? The point is: WHAT SHOULD RESPONDER REBID WHEN HE HAS A BALANCED HAND WITH 3 CARD SUPPORT IN THE MAJOR ? Bidding NT does not deliver immediately the support, and this can be awkward in some cases; on the other hand supporting over 2D relay may give a distorted picture of the hand (unbalanced). This choice affects the developments. Example: Let us assume that balanced responder with 3 card support rebids 2NT 1S:2C 2D:2NT ? Now the critical point is: what would 3 clubs or 3 diamonds mean. Option a. So far, we have played it as showing a natural suit, but not good enough to bid it immediately at the 3 level, so usually the qualkity of the hand is bad: so it is not a slam try (also because opener has max 15), but rather tells pard: "Hey, I am subminimum opener with 2 suits, not unlikely I might have a good 9 up to bad 11 in 55, so watchout if you want to play 3NT". A decent opener would simply signoff in 3NT instead. Option b. Using 3C by opener over responder's 2NT as a sort of checkback to find out about 3 card support. This may work fine, but loses the option of "pulling the brakes" as in option a.

Throw west in with the 4th low trump after unblocking spades. Now no matter what west returns, declarer will be able to reach dummy. ---------------------- [Edit]: sorry I had skipped the replies (not to read other folks' suggestions).

I did not know that "standard" was a synonym of Roth-Stone :-)

Richard, I agree with you. I indeed fancy the Viking Club structure (1NT = generic GF, 2C = generic invitational hand, 2X = nonforing constructive), but cannot change system every season, in oder to selfprotect myself from the aggression of my partners :-) --------------------------------- Addendum: we respond 1NT forcing (with Kaplan inversion over 1H opener) also with VERY light hands (except total misfits) at white, to steal the hand, so the widerange problem is even moe frequent, but it did not damage too much so far: in fact, in a limited opener system, eventual further actions will be taken by the 1NT bidder.

What about win clubs in dummy and run the HJ ? Or testing the trump suit and only then running HT if they break ? Keeps spades protected and if it wins, it is likely to bring 13 tricks home, if it loses, the contract should be safe unless bad club break: 50% chances of overtrick with virtually no risk of going down.

I think it depends on how light an opening can be. I'll try an example to be clearer. In my current pship we play Precision (1C = 16+) and we allow for light 1 of a suit opener (2C has stricter requirements). But, the 1x opener must ALWAYS comply (in 1st/2nd seat) to the follwing: no more than 7 losers, 2+ quick tricks in defense. So, opening with 2 aces and nothing else is indeed playable, as long as the hand has 7 losers (and usually a few Tens :D ). Responder plays a 2/1 GF if he has in turn no more than 7 losers, 2+ QT, but usually less aggressive than opener (e.g. not bid 2/1 GF hlding 2 Aces only, minimum is usually about 10 hcp and great shape/intermediates): with more than 7 losers, he'll invite even holding a 12. ------------------------------------------------------------------- So I simply suppose that the key to modifying the requirements for a 2/1 GF is simply to have light penings but DISCIPLINED in terms of losers and Quick Tricks. And I believe this discussion should first set the minimum standards for the light openers befoe setting the requirements for a GF response :-) Tell me, "How light is light??" for opener, and I'll tell you "How strong is strong" for responder :rolleyes:

I will not begin to worry about what I have on defence. I have a hand suited for declaring. I will feel much more comfortable about passing 3♦ if I bid 2♠ first, than pulling 3♦ to 3♠ later. Roland That's fair enough, but you have to consider what will happen if opps bounce over your 2S. All methods lead to a playable contract (not the best at MP, but plausible at IMPS) if opps shut up. For all methods, the problems arise when opps jump raise to 4-5H. And in that case WE SHOULD INDEED WORRY OF LACK OF DEFENSIVE TRICKS WE PROMISED. Because by bidding 2S we have distorted the ODR ratio of our hand, and pard does not know our hand is great in offense but so-and-so in defense, and there is much less room to explain it. 1D-(2H)-2S-(4/5H) In these auctions you have advantages /disadvantages vs doubling: PROS You gave part of your shape. You have more chance to introduce clubs. CONS Pard expects you have more defense, he plays you for more defensive tricks. If he doubles you are likely to set the contract, but most likely your side has game on and you are RED vs white. Pard cannot picture your ODR, and it's harder to cooperate.

Roland, I agree that 65 is great and improve our hand: but it improves it ON OFFENSE , NOT IN DEFENSE. The Quacks in our long suits are likely not to score a trick in defense. Bidding 2S we are promising more defense. That's all my point: we do not have the defense that pard will expect if we get to a high level decision (eg forcing pass and bla bla bla). because of this, I'd rather risk 4S directly rather than go slowly via 2S, although this risks missing the club fit.

Then I think 2-level negative double should be explained in a different way. A negative double at the 2 level shows either of the folllowing: a. a side 4 card major, usually balanced hand OR b. a long major that cannot be bid because of lack of hcp. In this case the major will be bid at the next turn. In both cases, a negative double at th 2-level guarantees 8 hcp (or and Ace and a K) --------------------------------------------------------------- One may not like this agreement and it's ok. But this is the "standard" agreement, and if bridge is a partnership bidding game, under such agreement, bidding a 2/1 FORCING here is like opening a hand with 8 hcp in the 1st/2nd seat, when my pard expects 11-12+. Both actions may occasionally work, but they are one-sided and certainly not partnership actions: if opps compete, pard doubles, and we get a poor score because our hand has more offense than defense, he will be right to complain.

Forcing to 2NT or 3 of a suit. Forcing 1R. Nonforcing in "standard". Nonforcing in "standard". Nonforcing Nonforcing Nonforcing. There is a point of playing it forcing if not using strong jumpshifts. Forcing in standard. There is a point in using such sequences as invitational only, but then one needs a tool for responder's slamgoing hands with a 5 card major, such as specific Stayman developments which are definitely not standard. This should be a "Raptor hand" = 4S and longer clubs. It is forcing to game, with a hand better suited for play in a suit, often a slam try.

Over a wjo, I play the same as over a weak 2 opener (except for a cue). 2NT would be either Ogust or feature ask, whatever you use over an opener. -------------------- I would bid 2NT to find out whether overcaller has a max (about 9-11 hcp, 7 losers or so, at these colors), or a dead minimum. If he has a max hand, 4S should be a good bet at XIMPS.

1) Using NFB one is in trouble when opps preempt and he holds a good hand and a suit not so good to bid it directly at the 3 level. 2) using 2/1 forcing in competition, instead, one is in trouble if they raise at high level and you hold a long suit with a nonforcing constructive hand and you have to double ------------------------- Basically, you are in trouble in both cases when your system tells you to double with a long suit and they preempt you. However, in both systems, there are indeed hands where you have to double. So what shall we do ? Shall we ban doubling with a long suit even when systems tells it is right, just because we are worried of preemption ? I think that once one chooses a system (or has to stick to a "standard" in undiscussed pship), he should accept the bids the system tells even if he does not like it. Therefore, NOT using NFB, holding about 8 hcp without 2 QT, the bid is either double planning to bid the suit. There are plenty of bids that are vulnerable to opps preemption, yet people still use it, because they are part of their agreed system. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS YET ANOTHER PROBLEM IN BIDDING 2/1 FORCING HERE: pard may play us for a quite stronger hand and drive to an unlikely slam. If we bid a 2/1 forcing with these hands, even when it works fine, pard will never know how strong we are when we next bid a 2/1 in competition, if it can be as low as a distributional 8 count (which- by system - should belong to double + new suit): so, many times, both slam biding AND forcing pass issues in high level competion will be VERY distorted.

I read something in the BBF thread, but what do you do with a good balanced hand, say 10-11+ hcp

If you are afraid of opps preempting, then it0's better to use Negative free bids. Negative freebids are used exactly for that: bid your shape ASAP with invitational- hands. But if one uses "standard aproach", he should accept that with a constructive hand and long suit, double is the bid. If we do not like it, that's fair enough, we can change methods: after all, noone n this Forum seems to like anything "standard" :-) But, if you agre "standrd", you play "standard": a 2/1 here overbids by 1 quick trick the hand....

Nah. Pickup partnership should assume some sort of SAYC or 2/1, as most casual pships play on BBO unless agreed otherwise Double and 2/3S (nonjump), in "standard" SAYC or 2/1 is exactly that hand: no confusion. So just bid it

Sure, this is obvious also for me. However, when players like me (and I believe not to be on any blacklist) has a problem finding tourneys, that means something is changing, and it's hapening quickly. I am not saying that a 1$ fee is too much, but only that the some people who run pay tourneys are playing "a bit dirty" to avoid other enthusiasts running free tourneys. I know some bridge enthusiast who wanted to run some free pairs tourney is his club and organize a small team league and was "strongly suggested" by other organizers to make it pay, not to spoil their pay tourneys... So, to summarize: if we end up paying 1$ per tourney it's not the end of the world, but the way it's happening i do not like the least bit... ;) Of course, I know you and Fred are only providing the medium to play, and are not related to these facts, not complaining for that....

In an ideal world yes, but the world is not ideal. You've got to bid the hand you are dealt, and 2♠, although forcing as I play it, is significantly better than double. Roland Well, if I double at the 2 level and then I bid my suit over pard's rebid (at 2 or 3 level), I show 8+ hcp, with a 6 card suit, and more or less invitational values in terms of ditribution (if I had invitational values in terms of plain hcp, I'd bid a 2/1 directly). This is what we have here, so I double and plan to change suit. the main point is that a 2/1 shows more defensive strength than we have here. ---------------------------- Yes, I know this approach is not perfect, and it is exactly for this kind of hands that many play NFB: if one is afraid of the risks of this approach, much better go for NB. If instead we play 2/1 forcing here, we have to live with this dbl+new suit.

Then bid 2S anyway. I disagree. The forcing 2S should be a "power force", inv+ based on hcp and defensive tricks, close to an opener also in terms of defensive tricks. Those who play 2S as forcing, use dbl and new suit to show length in a decent suit, and invitational values in terms of distribution. This hand complies with this one. Losing the club suit is annoying, but you will lose the club suit also when you bid 2S and pard repeats diamond (which will happen 90% of the times), so the issue should not be "to lose or not to lose clubs", but rather, to bid more accurately your values in hcp not only shape: since dbl followed by 2 or 3 spades does the job, I'd settle for that. If one does not like this style, muche better change the system and use negative free bids.

Uday, this point is only partial. Let me make an example: when I find myself online with my usual pard and we look for FREE tourneys that are not individual, the most frequent scenario is the following: - PAY MP TOURNEY "xxx" starting in 15 minutes - PAY IMPs TOURNEY "xxx" starting in 30 minutes - FREE MP TOURNEY "xxx" starting in 20 minutes: Restricted to Country xxx - FREE IMPs TOURNEY "xxx" starting in 40 minutes: Restricted to Club xxx - FREE INDY tourney "xxx" starting in 10 minutes. And, here and there, some free tourney open to all but VERY rarely. Many times we would have to wait over an hour, and in the end, in the absence of other free tourneys you "give up" and decide to pay the fee rather than waiting: this may sound reasonable in a sense, but, some months ago, you would find a free tourney every 20 mins/ 30 mins. The point is that the FREE , NON-INDY tourneys, without restrictions are shrinking by a lot compared to say 3 months ago. I mean, the absolute number of free tourneys has not decreased so much, but many of them have applied restrictions, so many times you cannot play in them, and from the practical viewpoint this is equivalent to a decrease in the number of free tourneys. I know for sure that some people who run pay tourneys are asking to people who organize free tourneys to apply restrictions. (Because I know more than one TD of free tournamnts, they told me that). In my opinion it's unfair to ask TDs of free tournament to apply restrictions. Of course, if they decide restrictions on their own it's ok, they do what they want: but if they are asked to do that not to interfere with the growing number of pay-tourneys, that is very bad... ;)