Chamaco

Today my music mood is Flip your wig - Husker Du

I think Caren was not referring to her choice but to the info passed to his pard by the 5H cuebid that could leave NORTH wondering on the nature of South's hand: the 5H cue, which effectively would be intended to help pard choose the level of the contract, could be confusing to HIM, not to Caren, because, while Caren KNOW that there is a club fit, pard can assume that S is looking for a slam in a suit BUT he has some trouble in determining the strain, since the club fit is still unexpressed. For this reason, i tend to agree with those who would just bash into 6 Clubs rather than start with a 5H cue.

Hey folks, let me state my absolutistic view in this respect. The worse ever invention is by far COFFEE TO GO !!! As once I wrote to my gf in the US, "For me coffee to go is like sex to go : I am sure there are many people who would not mind having it in the streets, but I think that for certain things one needs to take his time" :rolleyes:

If one is really to use the LOTT, then, according to Cohen (and commonsense) Qxx in opp suit should be a NEGATIVE adjustment (EVEN IF IT DISCLOSES THE TRUMP POSITION), lowering the number of total tricks available, and making it more appealing to defend than to bid, in borderline situations. I have not enough experience to evaluate whether this is a "borderline situation" or not, but if one is to use the LOTT, here it would tell us to sit for the double, regqardles of any adjustments...

Pass, a nobrainer for me. Misfit hand, I am not going to encourage pard to bid. I am not scared of selling out in 1S nor of selling out in notrump. If defending any of these contracts turns out to score poorly, it is very likely that sticking into the auction would be even worse...

A question to the experts here: can you provide some concrete examples of the hands that pard might have for his double ? E.g. what is the minimum high card content requirement for his double, assuming he has shortness in the opened suit ? This criterion would of course also impact some hands that, despite the ideal shape, would be too weak too double because the hcp content does not match the abovementioned criterion. No state of the match issue, let's just consider it's just a normal board in a normal match.

I am not sure about such a statement. 1C-1S-2C-2D can be used as an artificial GF (or inv+) relay , much the same way as after the Precision 2C opener, but asking for a 3 card major. Actually, in the sequence mentioned in this post, responder is placed much better than after a Precision 2C opener. The use of 2D as artificial relay frees 2-level rebids for weakish/constructive hands as well as 3-level jumprebids for "picture jumps" slam tries. I am not claiming this approach is cost-free, but I think that it's quite exaggerated to argue that the use of the artificial 2D relay is bound to be significantly less effective in the search for the best game.

Ty very much keylime :angry: I would also like to know if you have any suggestions for the best structure in the sequence: 1C:2D:2NT

I think we have talked about a similar suit before, and it was said that a perfect defender would win ♠K only on 2 cases: bare A, and AJ bare, then playing low to the Q even if it losed is still better. Hmm, sounds weird. :huh: It i true that a good defender will very often not cover, but: a. at least the same amount of time, he won't cover just because he does not have the Ace LOL (see restricted choices) b. in many cases when he could cover but it not covering would be better, taking the suit in isolation, he might have other reasons to get in quickly and open a sidesuit. Yes, this falls otside of the "theoretical analysis" in isolation, but still,, it seems to me that - despite the fact that RHO playing low does not guarantee he does not have the Ace - there will be > 50% chances that he indeed won't have it. Indeed, the reason of many defensive falsecards is to induce declarer to play according to the % play :) But the fact that a falsecard is possible does not mean - IMO - that we shuld refrain from making the % play (unless "table feel" comes into play): that would be equivalent to bidding weird in eeach and every boeard just for fear of a psyche LOL Just thinking aloud, actually I'll be happy to change my mind and learn something from this :-)

But RHO might duck the Ace on the first round.... Of course. this would not be the first nor the last time one pays off to a falsecard. Having said that, I think the option of RHO falsecarding does not change the fact that - theoretically - it is slightly the better % to play low to the K and if it loses, low to the T at second round. This, from the theoretical viewpoint; but lots of better players than myself have commented on the role of "table feel", which is often used by experts when two lines' percentages differ by very little. Nonetheless, this thread was - I think - on the *theoretical* analysis of this card combo.

This layout would be picked up by the 2nd round finesse (low to the T), which I believe (correct me if wrong) is the % followup if the K loses to the Ace offside. B)

At first I had used the following structure: 1C:2D:2H/S (Paradox) ..... Pass/2S = weak hand, natural ..... 2NT = 54/45 in minors ..... 3m = natural one suiter, not selfsufficient ..... 3M = very good weak 2 ..... 3NT = 55 or better in minors ..... 4m = natural, selfsufficient suit, slam try one suiter, first step by opener dislikes the suit, other steps are RKCB responses. 1C:2D:2NT ..... 3C = natural one suiter, OR 54/45 in minors ..... 3D = natural one suiter, not selfsufficient ..... 3M = weak 2, nat ..... 3NT = 55 or better in minors ..... 4m = natural, selfsufficient suit, slam try one suiter, first step by opener dislikes the suit, other steps are RKCB responses. This is not very sophisticated - to put it mildly - so I was wondering if anyone could come up with a different solution B)

If responder is strong (5 controls, no 4 major), he may have any of the following: 54 in minors, 31 in majors 54 in minors, 22 in majors 55, 65, 66 minors 6 minor, 332 6 minor, 331 64, 74, 84 minor 7+ minor, one suiter etc etc :-) Not sure that simply showing singletons is the most efficient development, at first sight I am thinking that extreme shapes (one/two-suiters) should be shown, but again, my ideas are not quite clear on this topic.

Hi all. I would like to have feedback-proposals for the following sequence in a strong (16+) club system. The system is not really standard so it might not really be of interest to everyone. However, if you do have some suggestions (besides "Don't play this crap!" LOL), I will really appreciate it ! I did not include the rest of the system in order to avoid being too "boring" but if you feel a critical piece of info is missing, I'll be glad to add it. :-) Thanks ! Mauro =============================================== 1. Note: 1C opening is 16+ and excludes 17-20 4441s a s well as 4 losers 2 suiters (usually 16-18 hcp 55s) 2. We play control responses (in uncontested auctions) 3. The question revolves around this sequence 1C:2D 2D is a "Multi"= a weak 2 (say 3-6 hcp with a 6cM) in a major OR AN UNBALANCED HAND (no 5m332) WITH EXACTLY 5 controls WITHOUT a 4 card major After 2D, responses by opener are similar as if responder had opened a 2D Multi: 2H/S = Paradox (Pass/correct if responder is weak) 2NT = strong relay Now, I have toyed with some ideas of how to respond, but I am still quite confused about the best way to show responder's shape when he has the strong hand (5 controls) without majors, especially when opener relays with 2NT. NOTE: I would like to keep this structure as similar as possible to the following one: 1C:1NT (4 controls, unbal) 2C(relay):2D (no 4+ card major) ..... Thanks everyone !! Mauro

Just a question to the "expert panel" here. Discarding any possible artificial meaning from the 2NT rebid, what would be the meaning of this bid ? I interpreted that the 2NT rebid should show a natural balanced hand > 15 hcp, say in the 16-17/18 range hence i voted for 2NT. The 1NT bidder would hopefully be able to bid 3NT in those hands where it's right, no ? Had I held a 15 count, I'd have passed, not rebid. Do you think this approach is too conservative or outdated or outright wrong ?

In the chess server, this issue is dealt in a similar way. There, people do not play for money but .. for rating (yes, people are nuts LOL). And they care a lot for it. So, there are occasionally people who shall logoff in a clearly lost position, to avoid the completion of the game and the loss of rating points. The procedure to handle this is the following: 1. the game is stored, recorded in the list of "adjourned" games. 2. at any times the 2 players are on, they can agree to resume the game. 3. at any times 2 players with a pending game are logged at the same time, they are both notified that there is online XXX player with an unfinished game 4. any given player can have AT MOST 10 unfinished games; when this number is exceeded, he cannot play other games on the server 5. if we are having an adjourned game for a long time against another player, and we have tried unsuccessfully to contact him to complete, it is possible to contact a service similar to ABUSE. This service is called ADJUDICATE, and can basically assess the result of a game when there are reasonable elements (e.g. the position is clearly lost for the disconnector AND/OR one player has tried hard to complete the game for MONTHS, but the other player has always avoided the solicitations) The above are just ideas, not sure how much of this can be applied in a money game, and not sure how much ches and bridge can be different from these viewpoints. But they have worked quite well. For more info on these chess servers and how they handle such issues, lookout for the FICS server and ICC server (there is another server called Playchess): FICS http://www.freechess.org/ http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/adjudication.html ICC http://www.chessclub.com/ http://www.chessclub.com/helpcenter/b2primer/introadj.html

I agree with Adam. From what I have learned from literature, double should show more something like a 17+ hcp hand, AND doubler'w partner, with any nondescript yarborough, should sit for the penalty rather than tring a "rescue" by bidding a suit at the 5 level... I am not claiming this is right, just that this is what players are taught in books by the usual authors (e.g. Mike Lawrence). It is possible that this is outdated, this I cannot tell. But, playing this way, I'd rather bid 4NT than double with a hand that has only 13 hcp: yes I know the void makes it much more powerful than 13 hcp , but only in offense. Playing the above mentioned style, I think double should show much more defensive power in case pard passes.

A good compromise - based on common sense, and that does not require too much memory strain - is the following meta-agreement, used by some top level Italian League players. "3NT is artificial when there is an explicit 9+ card fit in the major. In case of an 8 card fit, 3NT is to play". This argument is generally used for "Turbo" 3NT, but IMO it can be used also for serious/nonserious 3NT

In most situations, Last Train is nothing but a "squeeze cuebid" to checkback for a control that could not be verified previously. This is perfectly compatible with serious/unserious 3NT. On few other occasions, Last Train is the only chance for opener/responder to show extras without bypassing 4M. Thus, the combination of seious NT + LTTC is not necessarily redundant, IMO. The above approach relies on the principle that cuebidding above 4M is not to be recommended (see Fred's article). This of course is not to everyone's taste. However, I do feel that if a partnership is to use cuebidding above 4M, then it seems to me that it is better to drop altogether RKCB + serious NT + Last Train, and adopt 3NT Turbo, followed by natural cuebid.

I agree with this view. The point is, there are a lot of *real* experts (not to be confused with BBO experts) who gets annoyed when a BIL player tries to "be smart". Bidding offshape, and other deviation from mainstream, is most often viewed by such players as "masterminding" rather than "subtle hand evaluation". In other words, until you are not recognized as a good player, trying to adopt offbeat paths is the best way towards being labeled of the "Futile Willie" type among the circle of local top players, who usually try to avoid as hell such players type. So I agree with Winston here: a good BIL instructor must be practical above all. Sound foundations, even with some "hardcore principle". Might sound like preaching sometimes, but beginning players need some hardcore basic principles at first, before they start learning when to break the rules aand find the "exceptions". Once one gets good, or at least he has a solid partnership where mutual trust is not broken by frequent offbeat choices, then all is well...

Hi all ! In a Matchpoints club tourney, weakish field (even for myself LOL), RHO deals and passes. You hold Jxxx-K8xxxx-J-xx With this partner, you have agreed that 2nd seat preempts and weak 2s are disciplined, so that means you have to pass this hand. LHO opens 1C (a real 4+ suit, playing vanilla 4 card major). When your pard overcalls 1H, you are about to jump over the table and start breakdancing, as phil clayton once suggested... After RHO's 2C raise, how many hearts do you bid ? RHO.......you........LHO........partner pass......pass........1C.........1H 2C.........????

Ditto. Furthermore, AKT8 is not that much worse than AKJx

Justin, don't get me wrong, I am talking here just as a student of the game, not as a lecturer, so take all of the following as "thinking aloud", not as lecturing. We ordinary players are taught many principles, such as: 1. Principle 1: if you invite heavy, then pard accepts light (or viceversa if you wish). Here the principle is the same: if one is aggressive, the other one should be conservative, *unless the hand has some special feature*. I simply do not believe that KQJxxx in an unsupported suit, RED vs white is a special feature, but give me the KQJTxx and I will (or if we are white, then even down 1 doubled or -2 undoubled could be a good gamble vs opps likely partscore) I have seen way too many hands where KQJxxx lost 2 tricks in the suit, when pard did not support in the bidding. 2. Principle 2 Do not play pard for the magic hand. Here, opener rebids 3D and even if pard produces an 8 count, we are off 1. And note that pard's hand is among the best 8 count he could produce: think if he had a singleton or a void in diamonds, with a shapely hand. Really, I am not trying to be "resulting": I do think that responder has a pretty good 8 count and yet we are off 1. If we allowed responder to bid the same way with just 2 kings, here we would be easily off 2 or 3. Finally: I know a decent bridge player should not rely on slogans but analyze every single deal, critically. However, sometimes old, trivial wisdom does work out (after all it is just a set of empirically-derived principles, which - on average - have worked in the past, just as the common thinking that 26 hcp = game). But here, in my opinion, there are too many "old wisdoms" to violate (including vulnerability issues and the fact that we should be wary to compete at the 3 level in no fit auctions). I agree that sometimes the deck was just dealt in a magic manner by the God of bridge and percentage actions fail. When this happens, I agree that one should just shrug and accept it. But sometimes bad results could indeed be foreseen in advance, without dismissing them with the motto "***** happens". I do think that - in this specific instance - the bad result was predictable from the earlier bidding. However, if double indeed promises a minimum of 8 hcp, it might fall in the "grey area". But, back to my main point, I meant that, if we indeed allow for superlight negative doubles when red vs white, I think that THIS really increases the chances for such accidents. But perhaps this is only the influence of my current readings ("Picture bidding" by Al Roth, together to the "Galactic guide for hitchhikers" :rolleyes: ) So, Justin, just pass me the crack pipe :rolleyes:

This raises another point on bidding aggressively /conservatively as opener vs responder (and especially about negative doubles). We all like to bid (this is true especially if you are good declarer-unlike me). However, I have seen that there are some people who: a. like to be pushy when holding opener's hand here ( I do think that KQJxxx suit quality is often overrated, lacking intermediates- in situations where pard does not guarantee a fit) b. others like to be pushy as responder when making a negative double; for instance, in this sequence, they would have Xed with responder's hand, even holding only xxx-K9xx-xx-Kxxx which is even weaker than the hand you posted Of course, I think all approaches are plausible after pship agreements. However, my point is: if we are going to bid 3D with opener's hand, then in the same partnership it is not advisable to double negative with light hands such as xxx-K9xx-xx-Kxxx If one side is aggressive, the other one must be conservative, at least at red: if opener is to decide whether bidding 3D, he should know if he can expect some "good stuff" and NOT just a pair of straw kings with a side 4 card major. Or, we can watch the same situation the other way around: if - by pship agreement - I am going to make a negative double with just 2 Kings and a side 4cM, I want to be sure that pard does not hang me at the 3 level just because he has KQJxxx in his suit that I did not support. I think the outcome of the posted hand (which turned out badly despite responder having a textbook negative double) is self-explanatory

OPENER: 1C is ok, 3C is already taking a very big risk, after hearing LHO bid spades (offside). 4C is unbelievable RESPONDER: IMO this negative double is too light to force at the 2 level, but of course this is matter of partnership discussion. As I said in a previous post, perhaps I am becoming too conservative... however, it seems to me that bidding on such light shapeles hands might reap rewards in MP events, where the partscore fight is really hard... (although the contrasting argument would be that such light bids make it harder to double frisky opps at MP, because you never know how light partner can be)... but I am wondering whether in a Team Match bidding on such values really helps... Perhaps, rather than being too conservative, I should recover my previous recklessness and rather improve my card play... ;)