Chamaco

This is the wrong part. You lose the second suit. 1D:1S 2C/D:? (2C is passable) Now you have 55 in the major, not strong enough to rebid, and opener has 3 card support in H. With, say, 7 hcp or so, you'll give a preference to opener's minor. Can't they play it because of tradition? If you only use them to set the trump suit they are a real rare bird. IIRC they are also used on some other hands (GF fit + side 5+card for example). It can be tradition, but usually, many traditions have their good reasons to exist. I have learned to try to understand "oldfashioned things" rather than dismiss them early :-) Obviously, there are more than one hand type that can fit into the SJS. Sure, the frequency of the hands may be low, and at MP they may make litle sense. But at IMPS, where slams make the big difference, I much rather prefer using SJS(not playing relays) rather than cumbersome 4sf sequences or similar.

In xyz, weak responder won't look for the spade fit. But invitational and GF responder will have a chance for it. Are you saying that xfer checkback allows for it ? How does xfer checkback work ?

I know. But frequency is crucial at Pairs, whereas at IMPS, infrequent slam hands matter much more than occasionally playing the wrong partscore (which often will make anyways). So, if you play teams, I believe it is better to sharpen the slam tools rather than the partscore tools. At Matchpoints, I agree with a system "partscore oriented". Fourth suit forcing to show strong one suiter interested innslam, often leads to VERY awkward bidding. Responder, when he holds something like KQJTxxx in spades, will have a hard time convincing pard that spades are the trump suit, and in the meantime you find yourself at the 4 level with less room for cuebidding. Strong Jumpshift do solve a real problem: if there are World Class players who choose to play SJS, there must be a reason, namely setting the trump suit early. I now on the other hand, Meckwell do play 1D:2M as major 2-suiters, so there are merits on both sides. My attempt is to keep the advantage of SJS scheme, trading it with a first round natural invitational+ bid in a minor. In a precision 1D scheme this price does not look too high. The real risk of not showing you long invitational minor is, in natural bidding, the risk of losing slam in the minor. Usually this is not a case opposite a limited opener. I would like to have opinion specifically about my scheme, e.g. details on what might work poorly. Thanks ! :)

Hi all, I'd appreciate any suggestions on the following ideas. Criticisms is also welcome, but before saying "try using my scheme" (every bridge player tends to say that :) ), please try to criticize the details of this one I am proposing and describe specifically what would be the pitfalls. :D WHAT ARE WE USING NOW ? We play Precision with 1NT = 10-12/14-16, so 1D is a. 13-15/11-13 balanced, 2+ diamonds b. max 15 with 4+D. The scheme we use now. 1D:? - 1M = natural - 1NT = natural - 2C = 5+ clubs, can have a 4cM only if GF; can be invitational without 4cM - 2D = inv+ with diamonds - 2M = strong JS, slammish hand with semisolid suit; if suit is repeated, sets trumps - 2NT natural - 3C = invitational with C single suiter - ............................ We also use XYZ and XYNT when bidding goes: 1D:1H:1S 1D:1M:1NT Opener bypasses spades to bid 1NT if balanced ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT CHANGES WOULD I LIKE TO MAKE ? a. 1D:2M sequences I would like to use something like Reverse Flannery, e.g. 1D:2H = constructive (less than invitational) with 5H+4S 1D:2S = constructive (less than invitational) with 5H+5S These hands are awkward to bid with our curent system. 5S+4H is not a problem in XYZ. Invitational hands with 54/45/55 also can be bid reasonably with xyz or oher squences. b. 1D:2C/2D as artificial bids "a la XYZ" 1D:2M sequences as Reverse Flannery do not allow the strong Jump Shifts. This is a problem for me, since it is important to set a selfsufficient trump suit early in the bidding. I know there are some "turnarounds" to do that (using Bourke relay or 3rd suit forcing, or whatever), but they all mess up what already works in our sequences. Therefore I have thought of using something similar to XYZ: 1. 1D:2C This is a Puppet to 2D, and includes either a weak D raise OR any invitational hand. It denies a 4cM (in that case we start with 1M). After the puppet to 2D, responder bids naturally. This bid could also free up the 2NT and 3C bids from their natural invitational meaning. 2. 1D:2D = this is a generic game force which: ----a. denies 4cM OR ----b. shows a self sufficient major interested in slam ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think ?

1) I disagree with your pard's choice to open 2NT. Opener did have a quite reasonable 1C opening planning to reverse in spades 2) why should opener blame responder for not assuming opener has controls ? esponder did cuebid after opener's superaccept. Responder's cue did show something, and more or les responder has already made his step forward. After responder's 4H cue, opener's 4S is a signoff offer, unless responder has extras. Here, responder sees wasted club values, so I agree with her pass. On the other hand, it is opener who should have moved forward: he knows responder has something, and he knows all suits are stopped.

Multireverse does solve this specific problem. Multireverse uses the first "reverse" step as artificial strong hand , with various hand types. For a short description, see one of post followups at: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6187 However, it is not clear to me why the original poster hates Ingberman.

Your memory must be special. To remember something that hasn't happened yet is very difficult for the rest of us :) Roland Hehe, my memory is good, want some psychic reading about your future ? :D However, just corrected the post, it was 2001 :)

I started out around july 2001. I remember that for a little bit I and Gerardo used to play together a lot (we shd do it more often even now, G :) ).

Np, sorry if I misunderstood. Fantunes do have "weak 2" very disciplined, e.g. 5+ bagger, 8-13, always constructive in 1st/2nd seat. While this loses preemption for hands very weak (too weak to open a "constructive" weak 2 as well as a 3-level preempt), it adds preemption to hands we would normally open at the 1 level. Wild souls may preempt at the 3 level with hands too weak for a constructive weak 2.

Maybe not: Fantunes do have a forcing opening bid, ANY 1-of a suit opening in natural and forcing 1 round, promising 14+ hcp unlimited, and lumping minimum openers together with weak hands into the 2-level openings.

In my partnership I bid "Scrambling Stayman", 2C (2D would be xfer to H, 2H = xfer to S, and so forth), and pass any response.

The main point here is that we are at IMPS and not at MP. I will try to make my point as a cost benefit analysis. 1- WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT TO BID 5D, the likely scenario is that they make 4S (or more) and you go down 2 or 3 doubled. You lose 300 or 500 v 620-650 of their game making, so the net gain ranges between 350 and 120. On a very good day you might even go down only one, but I would not count on that (in that case probably pard has so many tricks that 4S would go down so it would be a phantom sacrifice). On an extraordinarily good day, you may make 5D, but I would not count on that, because: - a. opps are at unfavourable vuln so it is likely it is THEIR hand after they bid 4S - b. even when 5D does make, if pard has such a good hand, he is likely to raise you to 6D 2- WHEN YOU ARE WRONG when you are wrong, there are many cases: a. THEY HAVE 4S but you go down more: you may score -500/-800/-1100 b. THEY DO NOT HAVE 4S, and this is the worse of all: your net loss in that case can be huge. In the best case your loss is "only" 200 (100 for their down 1 and -100 for our down 1 doubled), in the worse case it can be 1200 (100+1100) or 1500. --------------------------------------------- BOTTOMLINE: When you are right, the gain is between fair and modest; when you are wrong, the losses range between modest to huge. So you are betting against the odds.

Under such agreement, what is the difference between a. 1m X pass 3m and b. 1m X pass 2m My point is: lots of expert play that auction b can be 44M inv+, but if auction a is used for 44M invitational, this is redundant. Any recommendations ? -------------------------------- Oh ok, I had not read the message carefully, I see that you recommend:

What would be the "std" meaning of a JUMPCUE at 3 level in response to pard's dbl? E.g. (1♣)-Dbl-(Pass)-3♣ (1♦)-Dbl-(Pass)-3♦ (1♥)-Dbl-(Pass)-3♥ (1♠)-Dbl-(Pass)-3♠

I bid the 1H relay followed by 4S in case of double negative.

Say that, instead, case a. west discards a spade. case b. west discards a heart

Thanks a lot for your contribution! :) A few more questions I am not able to answer about the line you suggest: Question 1: There are 6 outstanding spades and 7 outstanding diamonds. If East has 4+ spades, most line based on a squeeze shall work. According to which reasoning should I assume is East marked with 5+ diamonds and not 4+ spades ? (remember, if east has 4 spades, most squeezes will work) Questiion 2: it seems to me that the x-ruff requires a 3-3 spades break, in which case any other line will work, and that if I embark in a direct cross ruff, one spade winner will be ruffed ?

I think the posted hand is the demonstration that 2 suiters should be given in terms of LOSERS (or playing tricks if you prefer), rather than hcp. For example, I like to play 2 suiters as either weak or strong, but rather than defining them in terms of 6-11 vs 15+ I mucy rather prefer to define them: weak = at least 6-6.5 losers (typical holding = KQxxx-QJxxx-xx-x but may be weaker) strong = at most 4-4.5 losers (typical holding =AKJxx-AKxxx-xx-x but may be stronger) 5-5.5 losers hand type (say KQxxx-AQTxx-xx-x) will bid naturally the 2 suits. The hand posted by Pork Rind is ♠ AJ109x ♥ AJ10xxx ♦ x ♣ x This hand is borderline. It is worth between or less 4.5 and 5 losers (AJT is about 1.25 losers, especially if we have the 9): in such a close case, I'd use the 2 suiter bid (Michaels or whatever you use) because it delivers immediately my shape, rather than risking to bid one suit and either being passed out in misfit (when the second suit would be a great fit) OR being preempted losing the second suit.

Say pard opens 1S. Responder holds: Hand 1 Kxxx-Qxx-Jxxx-Jx Hand 2 Txxx-x-QJTx-KJxx Hand 3 Kxxx-xx-AJTxx-x It is obvious the 3 hands are completely different, and an pener may have game/slam cold or even the partscore in jeopardy if the honors/distribution do not fit. With hand 1, there is a "neutral mixed raise" With hand 2, here is a "minisplinter" type (if you play them as mixed raise as I like to do and not invitational) With hand 3 there is a fitshowingjump hand type. Too many Bergen raisers will bid a mixed raise with hand 1. To be fair, good players will just raise a constructive 2S even playing Bergen, reserving the mixed raise for hands which have a distributional feature rather than just bidding the hcp. Yet, even when they do have a feature and bidding the mixed raise is justified, opener has very little bidding space left to find out which feature it is. Instead, other systems allow for that, e.g.: you can use FJS for mixed raise with sidesuit; 2NT for invitational +; and minisplinter-type of hands may go via a constructive raise and then opener can use Romex 2-way game tries (to ask for help/shortness).

Let me try to explain further my reasoning. line a = ruffing diams first line b = testing spades, running clubs and fall back on the finesse case 1= RHO has 4+ spades - line a wins on most layouts where DK is offside (it will drop Kx or Kxx) and wins ALSO with DK onside (squeeze) - line b wins if DK is onside and loses with DK offside case 2= RHO has 3 spades irrelevant = all lines win case 3= LHO has 4+ spades - line a wins on most layouts where DK is offside and loses if DK onside - line b wins DK is onside and loses if DK offside So it seems to me it boils down to deciding which is more likely: RHO having 4+ spades (independently of DK) OR RHO having the DK (indepenently of 4+ spades). Do you think this is one case of "table feel" (which I do not have) ? :)

Ty a lot Ron :) How do you decide whether to ruff in dummy a couple of diamonds to see whether Kx or Kxx falls or simply run the trumps BEFORE ruffing diamonds ?

for the other, maybe a Margarita would help ! :P

Hi all ! Yesterday I posted a hand in the "Interesting bridge hand" section, but nobody replied, so I guess i probably posted it in the wrong section. Here is the link: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6756 I apologize for crossposting, I do not mean to annoy anyone, I just wish someone would help suggesting the line of play and/or commenting on the one I chose. Thanks all :) Mauro

Oh, no problem about that, I am sure there are lots of improvements for it :-) For now, I can only say that the one I am playing (borrowed by Hamilton's article included in Hardy's Advanced bdding for the 21st century) is simple enough to remember for us, and did not cause problems so far. Let's say that there are so many other holes to fill in the system that this one is just low priority :-)

Two different issues: 1) what does one gain by the simple "shift" of the responses ? By having a specific balanced raise, your 2/1 bids in a minor guarantee a good 5 card suit (with a bad 5 bagger there is often a better bid available, such as using the balanced GF response): that makes easier to evaluate the hand in 2/1 auctions, especially for bidding slam in a minor. E.g. If you open 1S and pard bids 2D, you know he has a GOOD 5 card diamond suit, and not a crappy 4 card suit in 4333 (with such a hand, he has the balanced raise). Knowing that pard is balanced vs unbalanced with some fitting honors in pard's 2/1 suit cane make a dramatic difference. 2) I personally do not like the "generic" mixed raise, if that does not communicate any specific feature (shortness or side suit). This, regardless of whether it is shown via the Bergen structure or the Gitelman structure.