Chamaco

Double, Responsive. I pass and lead a trump. Maybe 1S was a psyche and he got us, too bad. The only move made by pard was a balancing seat 2D, so we shd not gamble on him having to much. I would open South's hand with 11 hcp and 2 quick tricks, so the problem would be solved from the beginning. This hand demonstrates that the old adage "with a good hand you do not have always to bid, you'll have another chance to show your strength" often leads to awkward situations. So, thinking of THIS hand: pard has a full, sound opener (his 2nd round double shows that) and we are at favourable vuln. 3NT should payoff more than defending 2C doubled.

BAM or matchpoint, easy pass, respect pard's invite. If we desperately need a swing (BAM) or a top (MP), I bid 3NT. IMPS, 3NT. Xfer and invite by bidding 3M, exactly as your example. But if it was an IMP match, I would take a chance xferring directly to game, without sending back the ball in pard's court. ------------------------------------------------ As a side issue: do you use a 3 card support 2NT superaccept of xfers ? Does it show HHx support ? Does it show a max ?

I guess it wd be nice if you added an option for right-clicking on a players name, such as: "Show this player's default convention card" Maybe one player may have one or more conv card, with one default listing his general bidding system, and a couple of more elaborated, perhaps due to specific pships ? Just my 2 cents :-)

What about: 1D-p-1NT-p-p-? What do you do now ? LHO has no interest in the major but opener may still have them. Pard may have some decent 6-7 hcp with a long major or even up to 9-10 hcp: nowadays many pairs open routinely with an 11 count and respond 1NT with 5 hcp or so. Even when hcp split evenly this can easily be a double partscore swing. So, the risk of passing is significant, even if game is not on. On the other hand, the risk of reopening is MUCH bigger now than taking action (double) at the 1-level.

True, but we have prime values in a majors and a non minimum hcp content, which allows for some offshape action. I am not sure: 1) I dislike 1H overcall, because pard will raise with many hand types that will produce a dsaster 2) for a 1NT overcall I like to be on the 16+ hcp side rather than on the 15- side; here we have a good 14. Fair enough, but I REALLY cannot see how double is more dangerous than 1NT. If I double, if pard is broke, 90% of the times we'll be in 1M. If pard is broke and bids 2C most likely he'll have a 5 bagger, and most probably his 5 bagger will be more useful in a suit contract rather than in a 1NT contract. 3) Pass is reasonable. However, in a world of light bidders, I feel much more comfortable with the "in quick/out quick" principle: when we have some values, stretch as much as possible to bid right away at a low level and then leave the decision to pard. Passing with such kind of hands often results in later, more dangerous action at high level, or in putting too much pressure to pard if he has to balance with 6-7 count at the 2 level. And having to stretch to bid, I feel safer doubling than bidding 1NT. Sure, if we pass we won't miss many games, but we'll lose many partscores, often as double score for them. So, having said that I like to stretch to bid right away at a low level, IMO doubling has less flaws than the other bids. I do not like doubling, but I like less passing and bidding 1NT/1H.

Just a question to the other folks here: why discard completely an offshape t/o double ? I am puzzled by the fact that noone considered it. Let me try to list, in my view, the pros and cons of doubling with this hand: CONS A double is misdescriptive in term of honors location: it tends to suggest few values in opps suit and support in all others. Pard may bid clubs and we'll not be happy PROS - In response of a to dbl, my pard will strive desperately to bid a major: if he bids clubs he is very likely to have 5 cards. Of course it may occasionally work poorly, but the same applies for alternatives such as 1NT or 1H overcall; - The higher the hcp content, the more it is reasonable to double offshape; as Mike Lawrence says, you cannot always wait for a 4441 short in opps suit to make a t/o double; here we have 14 hcp, a non minimum opener, of which 11 GOOD hcp are in unbid suits, so I'd prefer to stretch for a t/o double rather than stretching for a 1NT overcall; - Yes, doubling is dangerous, but, in my opinion: .......- it is less dangerous than bidding 1NT .......- if one (like me) has agreed with pard aggressive preemptive raise of 1M overcalls, bidding 1H might be easily raised preemptively to a level to high for such a balanced hand; I would love some comments on the above points by the BBF "gurus" :)

True enough, a raise could be fair by N, but certainly the power of S 6511 was understated BY FAR by South, who should not even invite, but force to game on his own.

I may be wrong, but the power of South's hand, with a 6511 seems to me considerably higher than a weak 2 opener. A good weak 2 opener is usually 8-7 losers (actually with 7 losers I tend to open often at the 1 level, but in a strong club context). This hand is even better than that (6.5 losers) AND has 2 places to play. So I still think the big underbid is by S, although a single raise by N would not be unreasonable.

with 33 split all is well. With 42 split, need to find a doubleton keycard. I play low to the 9: if lose to Ten or J, I next lead to Qx, guessing whether 4th hand has Ax, but probably playing the Q (even if loses, I make 2 tricks with 33 split)

1. vs diamond lead, I lead to ♠7, covering if LHO plays high. 2. vs heart lead, presumed singleton, I cash K♠ and lead low to ♠10. The reason of not cashing Ace and leading to ♠7 is that I want to kep RHO off lead to give a Heart ruff to west. I lose when West holds exactly QJxx (= about 8.4 % = 3/5 of the 14% associated to the related 41 split) , but I avoid a ruff when west has any xxx/Hxx in trumps and east has Hx/HH (= about 21.7 % of the times = 16/25 of the 34% percentage associated to the related 3-2 split).

I would pass pard's 1H opener. I'd bid 1NT forcing below values only if opening is 1S and I have H to retreat to, OR with the possibility to give a later preference. As it is, with such a weak hand, 3 bad things are very likely to occur bidding 1NT: 1- if I am broke, the chances are that pard has a reverse or similar, and that will bring us to the 3+ level 2- misfit in the major is very likely 3- pard will play us for more hcp content than we actually have, and we may end up in a hopeless 3NT contract (if we pull to 4m, pard is likely to have none, and we'll get doubled) Bidding 1NT forcing here may have 2 benefits: 1- find a better strain 2- steal from opps However, given the high likelihood of misfit, both things are likely to backfire IMO. Better reconcile with playing in a 5-1 fit at the 1 level, and if opps compete: - it may be not too bad given the general misfit. - if opps compete pard will have a chance to show extras in hcp or shape; by our pass, at least he won't expect anything from us.

Today I logged and saw a friend of mine playing in a team match. I right-clicked to go to his room, but there was not the "Join xxx's room" option... :) Either I did something wrong, or, that would be my next wish B) ------------------------- EDITED: Alright, I understood why: the team match had kibs disallowed B)

I agree with whereagles that the "who's to blame" formula does not seem very nice (despite its popularity in many bridge forums), even when one or both players are indeed criticizable. Anyway, here is my thought: North has bid more or less his hand (except for th 2C rebid, which seems weird unless one plays some sort of Gazzilli relay); he might have raise, true, but he has a 14 count which will hardly produce game if pard has anything but this perfect hand. So I don't feel like criticizing his choice (except for the 2C rebid, maybe a system-driven choice). South on the other hand did not deliver the playing strength of his hand: he has a 6.5 losers hand (1 spade, 1.5 H. 1D, 3C), which is equivalent to the playing strength of a non-minimum opening, if/when you find a fit. After opener's 2C rebid, responder knows of (or I should say "expects") a club fit, at least, so he is committing to bid game in a suit (even an invitational bid would be an underbid). Admittedly, he might have headaches deciding whether bidding 5C (after the weird 2C rebid by opener) or 4H. So, IMO, if anyone should take the push, it is certainly south.

Very good job Fred&Uday ! The features added are of such a kind that they will impact many frequent tasks performed by all level of users. Indeed a dramatic improvement, thx !! B)

Hi all, yesterday I was browsing through the "Suit combination flashcards" by Alan Truscott, and this rather common suit combo drew my attention. AJxx K9xx I got right the solution of how to play it for 3 tricks (given here in hidden text): Instead, my choice in the play for 4 tricks was not the one illustrated by Truscott. My choice was (hidden text): Instead, Truscott just says (hidden text): but does not elaborate further on why my choice is a mistake. Anyone cares to explain pls ? Thanks !! Mauro

If you use as criterion a 5-5.5 losers hand with self sufficient suit, you'll find it comes up more often. You can use SJS with: KQT9xxx-AQx-x-Ax 15 hcp but 4.5 losers, and the hand can be 1 losers weaker than this one. E.g. AQJTxxxx-xx-A-xx 11 hcp but 4.5 losers (and in fact it's easy to see how, even a misfit hand can have slam if pard has anything resembling an opener) Do not use hcp but losers+ suit quality for SJS definition: SJS will be well-defined anyways, but they'll come up more often. BTW: I use SJS only at the 2 level (in a major). The SJS-type hand in a minor is shown by biding 4m over pard's likely 3NT bid.

The idea that of privileging destructive bidding to constructive is, IMO, cetainly sounder at MP. I value the ease of slam bidding a big plus in team matches, so the form of scoring might pull its weight. Now, to discuss your point, e.g. WJS in a 2/1-based scheme vs WJS in a limited-opener schme such as Precision. 1. it depends whether JS are defined as "REALLY weak" or "intermediate". In my textbooks on 2/1 or SAYC, a "really weak" JS is defined as a long 1-suited with no defensive tricks: Hand 1: JTxxxx-xxx-Qxx-x is about par for such a WJS. Hand 2: QJTxxx-Kxx-xxx-x is already too strong for a WJS, according to such criterion, because, in a 2/1 scheme, opener can still hold a big hand, so the first hand is a danger signal to opener if he holds a big hand without fit. The same does not hold true in a precision context: in Precision, Weak JS can be stronger than hand 1, because opener is limited. Before moving to Precision, I had agreed REALLY WEAK JS (see hand 1) over opener. However, in 2.5 years, they never came up. In the meantime, a significant number of hands suitable for SJS came up. So, I'd say that , in the comparison SJS vs REALLY WEAK JS, SJS wins even in frequency of occurrence. ------------------------------------- A totally different bird is the intermediate/"weakish" JS. This makes more sense when responding to a limited opener, especially if they are wide range (0-7 hcp, at least 9 losers) or so. These certainly put much presure, and they are more frequent than the yarborough JS. Still, I value SJS more (at least at teams), just a matter of tastes I guess :)

Yes but it says nothing of the quality of your suit. In this sequence 3H strongly suggests H, but pard can retreat to 3NT, and when you have, say, KQJT98x, all you want is starting cues at thelowest level possible. Going via 4sf with slammish 1suited hands just leads to awkward auctions most of the times, because it does not guarantees the suit quality. In most hands suited for SJS, you are mostly worried about sidesuit controls, not shape of opener. Typically, SJS has a void or singleton, and would like simply to check a critical suit before asking keycards. Actually, a case can be made to allow for CABs by responder or control responses by opener.

They sure have to be disciplined: I use them as strong single suiter (selfsufficient opposite a void) max 5-5.5 losers OR 18+ semibalanced with good 5+ suit (3 of top 5 honors). This is inherited from Mike Lawrence 2/1 (we dropped the 2 suiter JS - e.g. strong suit + strong support for pd - because in Precision 1D does not guarantee diamond, it can be 13-15 bal in our case). Actually, responding to a Precision opener, I am thinking of excluding the 18+ semibalanced hand from the JS (very little risk if we start the auction by simply responding 1M). I have to say that using the strong JS in a disciplined manner rarely has preempted our side, and is actually extremely useful for - slam exploration from a lower level (easier to set trumps and start cue at 3 level) - bidding distributional hand without jumping to 4M right away: you are better placed if opps save, and you won't need to take the last guess. As a matter of fact, with a strong distributional hand, the strong JS tends to SAVE space rather than lose bidding space, because with most standard tools, responder is rarely able to set his trump suit below the 3 level. You lose weak jumpshifts, but it's a price I am willing to pay if playing teams; losing "Reversed Flannery" 2M responses is somewhat more annoying, but again, the frequency/magnitude of the negative impact is acceptable.

It can hurt, yes. Suppose it goes 1D pa 1H 2/3C pa 5C ?? There. Are you happy with the way things deveolped? You're taking the last guess here. That's one more reason why I love strong Jumpshifts. Here it goes: 1D-p-2H and here, regardless of opps preempt, opener's side ahas a clearer picture than overcaller's side: opener knows responder has a 5 losers or better hand with good hearts and responder knows opener is limited. The combined potential of the hands is easier to evaluate than after an ambiguous, "normal" 1-over-1 response.

Repeated cues are often prone to misunderstandings: their meaning is clear in the mind of the cuebidder, but his/her partner often has quite a headache, such as guessing whether the cue is a hand with fit in advancer suit and slam interest OR "pick another suit pls". This is not theory but practice- unfortunately - it has happened to me in a similar sequences, when one partner of mine (a good player who participated to several italian National finals) was playing with me for the first time, and was not 100% sure of the meaning of my 2nd cue: he had a reasonable doubt, but in an undiscussed pship, he settled for a "practical" bid which landed us in a wrong strain. This obviously would not have occured if the same repeated cue would have been made by his regular pard, but I guess the lesson is that, unless the partnership has discussed everything in detail, I'd try to avoid them altogether.

Well, let's say we include in 1C opening either of the following: x-xxx-Kxx-AKJxxx x-Axxx-xxx-AKxxx KJx-Kxx-AQx-KTxx AJx-KQx-AQxx-KJx I think they have a different power in competition, and it shuld be important to deliver it to pard. I'd rather have one hand type removed from this bid. If I am playing Fantunes style, then all 1-bids guarantee 14+, then fine: in this case I'll open marginal openers at the 2-level. But playing in an 5 card major context, I'd like to be able to open 11 and 12 count, unbalanced, with 1C.

Right, but the same strategy is played in some 5 card major systems in Italy. To quote one, many players in the Bologna club (where the top players were Facchini and Zucchelli, yes, the ones of the soldiers foot episode, sigh....), play the 2-way diamond, and use strong 1NT opener and weak NT is included in a 2-way 1C opener. Since I am a weakNT-addict, I prefer to switch 1C and 1NT balanced hands. Including 18-20 into 1D does not hurt so much, at least not more than including into a "supernebulous 1C" :-) BTW: I I were playing this system, I would be playing it in the Fantunes/EHAA style rather than KS style, e.g. all 1-level opening forcing. Not sure I like this approach. Let's say I am not feeling happy at this thought :D I much prefer having two 2-way bids, relatively well defined, rather than a single catchall bid which may be nearly everything. More in general, I have been taught that continuous range bids tend to lead to trouble. I do not understand why, could you explain further ?

IMO putting ALL strong balanced hands into 1C is too vulnerable to opps preemption. Say bidding goes: 1C-(2S)-p-p DBL or 1C-(p)-1H-(2S) DBL What balanced hand are you holding ? Ambiguous (2-way) bids are always vulnerable to competitive bidding, but it gets worse as we add contiguous range balanced hands in the same catchall bid. The key to "get ready for the battle" is separating the ranges. If you include the 18-20 into 1D then the contested auction of 1C is much clearer, and the same approach will be used if our 1D is overcalled. After all, the 1D bid as diamonds OR 18-20 has already been played with reasonable results by top class players (see Buratti-Lanzarotti, Nightmare system). Luckily enough, it's not an idea of mine, therefore it should be reliable :D