Chamaco

Ty Ron, save a glass for me pls :rolleyes:

Ty very much all folks !! :rolleyes:

Ron, in your agreements, what are the obligations of balancer when bidding goes: 1NT-p-p-? What is the minimum HCP strength required for doubling in the balancing seat with a balanced hand (remember, using double to show a balanced hand only and not including a long suit with a good lead) ?

That was my point. Note that FN will often open 1NT also with any 5422 with a scattered 12-14 count. One can decide to loosen up a bit the requirements for the 2 level openers according to style and priorities (e.g. opening lighter but more often, with 8-9 count, you pay ur price inn cosntructive bidding, you win when you preempt more often), but my understanding is that 12-14 1NT opener fits better with the scheme EXACTLY because it helps defining better 2-level openers. I like the idea that the unbalanced 2-level opener in 1st/2nd seat should guarantee 8.5-6.5 losers, independently of hcp.

Why does switching to a 12-14 NT decrease 2-level definition ? Please correct me or specify better if I am missing something, Richard: it seems to me it simply mean that you do NOT open balanced hands with less than 12 hcp: you may widen a bit the range of 1NT to include good 11 count, and simply pass with weaker balanced hands. F-N system does NOT embrace a destructive approach, so Ekren 2s, Frelling 2s etc.etc., with 4432 and a hand weaker than a 1NT opener are not contemplated, you just pass with those hands. In such a system, usually constructive bidding does not suffer too much when pard opns at the 2-level, so it seems to me an improvement to the EHAA structure you outlined.

As much as I like 10-12 NT, I think this is the problem in the scheme you outline, Richard. 12-14 balanced hands (including any 5332) should be opened 1NT: these are the hands too weak for a forcing 1 opening and too strong for a 2-level opener. If you lump into 1NT 12-14 all 4333/4432/5332 hands, then 2-level openers are 1 suiter (6+ cards) or 2 suiters (at least 54), which do not envision game if responder has less than opening strength, or equivalent in shape. If you have a 2-suiter of 12-13 hcp which can make game opposite less than an opening bid, just open at the 1-level, forcing.

The idea of having all 1-level bids as forcing is to anticipate opponent competition. Being able to bid your longer suit first is a big advantage, especially for unbalanced hands. Of course, in a system like, say, 2/1, you run the risk of responder passing. But, quite a few time, in 2/1 or Standard American, you would wish to be able a forcing NATURAL bid at the 1 level, rather than having to open a strong 2C: a typical case is strong 2 suiters. Using all 1-level bid forcing is not so bad as it seems: most experts nowadays, even playing 2/1 would respond to a better minor opening with 1M holding a virtual yarborough and a 5cM. Or, many players respond a forcing NT with almost nothing to pard's 1M opener. If the right gadgets (Gazzilli-like in 1M opening sequences, and some sort of multireverse relay after 1m openers) can be agreed for opener to gather more info on responder's hand, then the auction is not as cumbersome as it may seem. Of course F-N 1-bids guarantee a sound opener (14+). The price Fantunes pay is to give up weak 2 with less than 7/8 hcp, but that makes the weak 2 rather sound, and suitable to double opponent's competition. On the other hand they gain 2C as weak bid.

If things were that clear, then big club systems would be dead (responder to 1club HAS to bid regardless, he is after all "giving up the pass" :P ). Just as in big club systems there is a negative step response (1D), and other positive and/or semipositive responses, the same can be implemented in an unlimited opening system: it's just a matter of limiting responder instead of opener, and having a suitable relay scheme. As far as "sorting out both responder and opener's range": this is not strictly necessary, as long as one hand(*either* opener *or* responder) is pretty well-defined, the other hand can often make the right decision Fantoni-Nunes use such a system, and they seem to fare no worse than others, to put it mildly ;)

Some people seem to regard both the weak NT AND the semiconstructive (or solid preemptive, according to point of view :ph34r: ) Fantunes 2- bids, more as a plus rather than as a minus :-)

The idea is that when yo have a HUGE hand, you won't be able to penalize because pard will pull way too often. Of course, if depends which school of double you are: 1- if your doubles mean "I set them alone", then doubling with balanced nìbattleship will fare well (hopefully) because pard will lave it in even holding close to nothing; but on the other hand the frequency of you doubles, and of your overall action, will be much lower, and put much pressure onn balancer (or lose many penalties or game opportunities where hcp are split and neither you nor pard has a battleship); 2- if your doubles show only "cards" (14+ or 15+ or 16+, according to style), but do not guarantee to set the contract, a broke responder will often pull. So in this case (doubler has, say, 18-20 balanced), the doubler will have a hard time bidding on if pard pulls, either missing games, or overbidding (the usual problem being "pard is weak, but by how much? Can we have game on anyways ? "). Even when doubler rebids, there is a need to discriminate 18-20 vs 21+ balanced hands. The schemes I mentioned are geared towards that. Also, both Mike Lawrence and other authors (incluing Rosenkranz) suggest using direct 2NT overcall over a weakNT to show the 20+ balanced hand: this is because they know from experience that when you have too strong a hand, you won't be able to penalize (pard will pull too often), so after all better show the strength right away giving up penalty hopes but easing constructive bidding. Basically, the schemes I mentioned: - give up hopes of penalty with very strong (18-20) and huge hands (21+), - give up hopes of penalty with a (semisolid) suit to run (but usually in that case opps have also a long suit and they'll play a partscore there; - give up hopes of penalty when we are unbalanced (but here too, responder will often be unbalanced as well and have a decent place to run) - maintains the possibility of cooperative penalties with pard when one hand ahs a 14-17 and the other has, say (7+)8-9+ hcp. The latter option, not only is more frequent, but is usually also more effective than having a single strong balanced hand doubling unilaterally for penalty: defense plays better when hcp are well split between us and pard, rather than when one defender holds all the strength. Of course, it also includes additional risks when the doubler hits a broke pard and opps double. That makes sense, and actually was implemented in the first defense I posted. Yes but in constructive bidding I want a defense that guarantees whether the major is 4 or 5+ in length. I can live with 2-suiters that guarantees 54+ *if holding both majors*, but when it is *major-minor* I want to be sure if the major has 4 cards OR if it has 5+. I like 2-suited overcalls that only promise 4 cards as preemptive bids, e.g. vs strong NT (at the right vuln). It does hinder opps bidding machinery and the relaxed criteria guarante a higher frequency of use and damage. BUT, when opps open a mini/weak NT, when bidding starts one level higher, I want my 2-suiter to be more accurate, to be able to bid close games with subminimum values IF FIT is there (e.g. if my pard REALLY has a 5 c major , and not just a 4 card with longer minor). This is very important to me.

I agree on this point. Actually, an approach quite popular vs *strong* NT at the local club is the following: X = minor 1suiter 2C = Landy (54 or better in majors) 2D/2H = transfer overcall, may be a 2suiter 2S = Raptor hand with 4 spades, NF 2NT = minorsv 2suiter 3m = Raptor with 4H and minor suit bid Despite the fact that people employ this vs strong NT, I had thought of employing a variant of it, vs mini/weak NT, using X as "penalty". I like how it deals with major-based as well as Raptor hands. However, it does discriminate less the balanced hands AND the minor 1suiter: 15-17, 18-20 and 21+ balanced, as well as long minor hands are all lumped into dbl. Comments ? (Keep in mind that I do not like to be forced to double only with hands "with a good lead", especially minor 1 suiter: I'd like a defense that allow me to bid also with a minor single suiter and a better than minimum opener- even without a good lead -, without being hung by pard that penalty passes with a few hcp: so basically I want to be able t resolve between various balanced hand ranges AS WELL AS minor one suiter) One approach could be to use: 2D and 2H as "multi-bid", e.g. 2D = EITHER xfer to H OR 18-20 bal 2H = EITHER xfer to S OR 21+ bal This would leave double as EITHER 15-17 OR minor single suiter. Alternatively, double could be further "cleaned" into ONLY (14)15-17 balanced, and 2C would also become multi, e.g.: EITHER single suiter in a minor OR 54+ or better in both majors.

Perhaps one point in favour of Reese is that he comes from a country where weak NT is routine, more than Lawrence. I have the book of Lawrence "Doubles", but his section on defending vs weak NT does not look so confident and convincing as other sections where the reader "feels" the author is at ease: he does not deals with "nuances" such as the effects of methods in direct seat to balancer's obligations, and more stuff. Instead, when dealing with other auction types, he is often very focus and povides usefu examples of bad and good things that can happen. Just a feeling of mine, though, and I am certainly no expert.

Two more questions: Question 1 if opps open 1S, which suits does your specific Michaels cuebid show ? Hearts + diamonds ? Question 2 I like that a Raptor shape is well-defined, e.g. a limited opener. I would not bid Raptor with 8 hcp and Raptor shape, unless it has exceptional playing strength and 2 Quick tricks. Also, I would not bid Raptor with the right shape but 16+ hcp (too much power, pard might just make pass or correct jump even with a constructive hand). However, my approach to 2suiters is different. We play 55 or better overcalls following the "Minimax approach", e.g. either sub-opening values (6-9) or quasi-reverse hands (15+), whilst 10-15 hands just bid the suits. Issue 2a Do you see trouble with this policy ? Issue 2b Do you think it is compatible to mix Raptor hands with a limited opener AND a 2-suiter in minimax values ?

Hmm.... The way I started to play Raptor was that over a ngative dbl, Pass and Rdbl fit into a runout schemes to show explicit which major is held by overcaller, Double showing hearts, Pass showing spades ("DOPI" style, I find it easier to remember than apparently more popular reversed meaning as P = spades, Dbl = H). I was wondering about this runout scheme, since it fits well to the pure Raptor hand where only the major suit is unknown, but it may not be able to "resolve" the hand if the "RaptorPlus" includes top+bottom 2suiter....

Thanks again. No problem to give my email address here: m_casadei67REMOVE_RED_TEXT@REMOVE_RED_TEXTtin.REMOVEit

Ty Richard. Are your Moscito Notes available online ?

Thanks all so far!! :D 3RD QUESTION THEN FOR YOU RELAY-ADDICTS ! :D In your respective parterships, how do you define "top honors" ? Basically, what is your approach for finding Queens ? Or, if ANY Queen is considered a top honor, how do you discriminate ? In Rosenkranz/Truscott's it is suggested the following simplification: consider the Q as "top" honor for the 2 first suits (the longest and, if equal length, the highest ranked- the second criterion may as well be substituted by Free's suggestion, e.g. ♥♠♣♦). Now, using this criterion, suppose that the 1st two suits are ♠+♣, but the relayer wants to bid a small slam solely based on the ♥ Queen (of trumps). He cannot know this on the first relay, so he might lose useful bidding space ?

Ty Frederic :D One more q: when you "deny" a honor in a suit, how do you show later that you actually held AKQ ?

Hi all, I am reading the fine book "Bidding on Target" by Rosenkranz/Truscott. I have read with interest the chapter on "Truscott 2D" relay over 1NT, basically one form of Forcing Stayman with subsequent relays. I won't enter all the details, but I'd like help in order to better grasp the logic , especially in slam bidding. As far as I understood, responder inquiries in order: 1- shape 2- if shape is resolved leaving room below 3NT, then next step asks whether opener is minimum or maximum 3- subsequent relay (or direct relay past 3NT, skipping the minimax ask) asks for controls; SO FAR, THINGS LOOK RELATIVELY CLEAR TO ME, BUT NEXT STEPS ARE LESS CLEAR 4- SLAM BIDDING After steps 1-3 have been performed, responder may have slam prospects. Next step is a relay EVEN if it is a 4M bid. It asks opener to show the honors location. The scheme used is Denial Cues, using the following logic for the spiral scan: ....a. the order of suit is .........a1 longer suit first .........a2 equal length suits are scanned in rank order (higher rank 1st) .........example: 3-3-5-2 are scanned as: Diamonnds, Spades, Hearts, Clubs. ....b. opener responds to the relay bidding according to criterion "a" the first suit where he misses honors (OR, rare, where he holds AKQ), so, for instance, bidding the first step would deny a honor or show AKQ in the longest suit, bidding 2nd step would do the same for the 2nd longest suit, etc. HERE IS THE QUESTION I suppose now next step by responder is another inquiry. What should opener bid now ? E.g. would 1st step mean longest suit again ? OR would 1st step be the 1st suit After after the longst suit ? E.g. Assume I have opened a weak NT with Axx-Kxx-Qxxxx-Ax After a series of relay, my pard has managed to know my shape and controls. Now, say responder bids 4H relay to start the spiral scan. I respond 4S = no AK in longest suit (diamonds). Now, responder bids 4NT relay. And here is my doubt: what would my first step mean ? Would it be diamonds again (thereby controls in all other suits)? Or would it be spades (the suit coming immediately after diamonds, according to the ranking scheme given above) ? ANOTHER Q: I am puzzled by the fact that responder's first step is ALWAYS a relay. Is it true at all levels? So it would never be possible to signoff in first step suit if always a relay? Thanks !

Ben, would you mind posting the details of your modified 1NT overcall Raptor scheme (pure Raptor + 55 2-suiter, I forgot whether it is top&bottom suits or highest ranked suits) ? I am especially interested in: 1) advancer's behaviour in competitive auctions e.g. ........a. RHO raises opener ........b. RHO bids 1 over 1 ........c. RHO doubles MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE OF ALL! ........d. RHO bids a 2/1 1) advancer's behaviour if RHO passes e.g. ........a. how does advancer scramble if weak ........b. how does he relay if strong, and overcaller's followup

Sure, all this thread does not deal at all vs strong NT

Sure, you can capitalize also using cardshowing double (say a 15+ balanced) ;) What is more frequent ? A "pure" penalty hand (sets the contract alone) or a hand with "cards" (that would allow pard to leave the double in? I think it is a matter of frequency of hand types and magnitude of losses/gains. Of course in the frequency-magnitude analysis one should also include the hands where advancer is broke, so he'll pull the cardshowing dbl, and WE are going for a telephone number instead than opps. The construuctive auction starts at the 2 level only for unbalanced hands, which are usually better suited for playing than penalizing.

Agree. My policy with double is not hoping to penalize, but rather as cardshowing. Partner can decide. I have to disagree. If you defense scheme it based upon the theory that it is not worth considering doubling 1NT for penalty when they open weak, you give your opponents liscences to steal. The one great fear to a weak or mini-NT is the opponents will double you. That is one of the two huge disadvantages to these 1NT opening bids (there are a lot of advantages to them). If you take away this threat, well, heck everyone would play them Ben Ben, the meaning of my sentence is the following. There are people who double meaning "I set 1NT on my own". Others that double to show "I have more than xxx hcp", but not necessarily set them alone. Doubling as cardshowing loses the option of one-sided penalty (e.g. the times where one player would set the contract on his own and his pard has a yarborough), but gains the times where the cardshowing double is left in by his pard (because the other doublers-who required to "see" 6-7 tricks in hand- would not double with such hand). I am in the second category (cardshowing). I: - double with a balanced hand or with unbalanced battleship - bid my shape with 1/2 suiters and minimum opener - bid 3 of a suit with single suiter reverse

Agree. My policy with double is not hoping to penalize, but rather as cardshowing. Partner can decide. Sometimes you drive them in a better contract, sometimes they nail us, sometimes we nail them soetimes we find game. There are risks associated in sticking the head vs weak NT but same vs a weak 2 or a preempt. So goes life. I disagree with this statement. When both of us hold a combined holding of 24 (even 23 if one of us has 5332), MANY times 3NT is cold. This is because: - you can play doubledummy, knowing which finesse is on - lots of endplays vs the weaknotrumper: many times the weak notrumper is endplayed since the opening lead - frequent squeeze possibilities (aall high cards in one hand) I can (and probably will, but not today) run a simulation on this and post the hands. This is a good point and I appreciate it. I will probably lower the range to 14-17 in direct seat for the double. This will allow tu use a (12+)13-16 in the balancing seat, which sounds more prudent. I have not enough experience about Lionel, but DONT is discarded by most expert pairs vs weak NT. This is because of the lack of definition of strength/shape. It is imperative to know if pard has a REAL 2suiter or simply a balanced hand with 4432 both in constructive bidding (bidding close games) and when deciding to penalize (when they are nonvuln, penalizing when we have fit for pard's 55 VERY often results in a worse score than buying the contract). So my choice is to have specific bids for real 2suiters, and scramble via a pseudostayman with balanced hands. awg's suggestion of using 2D/H/S as "to play" and 2C as "pseudoBaron" (asks 4 bagger up the line) has merit.

2D. The 2 diamond bid shows either a 18-20 balanced or any single suiter equivalent to a minimum opener (say 10-15). If you evaluate the 15 hcp single suiter as too strong for a minimum opener, you jump overcall to 3 of a suit, natural, showing the playing strength of a reverse. That was taken from Lawrence's book "Double": system on responding to pard's double vs weak NT. I am not sure it is good. My views about it: - I could live without transfers responding to the double BUT - I coould NOT live without a scrambling scheme if responder has a 4432 hand. - a weakish responder (say 0-6) might leave the double in if opard doubled in the direct seat; BUT we ABSOLUTELY NEED a scrambling method when double comes from the balancing seat, when doubler can have a weak NT hand. If you have any suggestions for scrambling methods other than a "scrambling stayman", I'll be happy to hear about them :-) My priorities vs the weak NT hand are: - constructive bidding - safety Because of this, I am willing to adopt vs the weak NT the same tactics than vs a weak 2 opener: because I consider the weak NT a "semi-preempt", I won't preempt over a preempt. So, accordoing to vulnerability, I might upgrade a 3S opener to the playing strength of an opening bid, and treat it like a single suiter, bidding 2D, or simply bid 4S at favoirable vulnerability or simply pass when the options are too risky. Alright so that answers my previous question. Basically your scheme saves the 2 diamond bid for a 5 bagger. QUESTIONS: What are doubler's priorities in response to a double ? What does he bid with a 5332 ? How does advancer know whether the suit bid by opener is 5 or 4 cards long (so that he does not run from a 52 fit to a 43 fit) ? How do you find slam hands with a 44 fit if not using stayman ? (yes I know slam vs a weak NT hand are rare, and usually it pays off more to penalty pass with those, nevertheless, at red vs white, it pays off more to use constructive bidding even with good hands rather than simply pass: so there is a need also for a strong relay looking for 44 fits, and not only for scrambling realays) ---------------------------------------------------- Finally: I like the extra preemption in the defense you use, but I really prefer to have 2 suiter bids available right away. The use of 2-suiters is both safer (offers 2 places to play) and helps bidding tight games. Bidding simply 2D/2M when I have a 2-suiter is not appealing to me. One more thing: I have seen people using defenses that show simply 44 in suits, even with balanced hands: I think it is important to discriminate whether the hand is a REAL 2suiter (at least 54) or simply a balanced 4432. Balanced 4432 has a much weaker playing strength, and I think it should be shown with a bid that specifically shows a balanced hand. I really appreciated the comments on doubling sequences, look forward to further insight (e.g. the questions above) ! Thanks !