Chamaco

Even people who hate Bergen raises generally agree that the 1M:3M preemptive raise is quite effective. Also, the concealed splinter raise is quite respected. There is instead a debate on the effectiveness of the complex given by: a. 3C/3D = mixed/invitational raise b. 2NT = GF raise. a1. the invitational raise (3D in direct Bergn raise, 3C in RevBerg) is not so bad; however, it is indeed a little selfpreemptive. A slammish opener may find himself at the 3-level before relaying for pard's singleton/shape. The Jacoby+ structure (see ETM Victory and Ben's pots) seems to work better for slam going hands. a2. The mixed raise This is the most criticized for many reasons: 1- it commits to the 3 level without being forced to. If pard opens and we have a mixed raise, often hcp are split about evenly, and the ensuing partscore battle is not always clear. Especially when we hold spades, there is not always the need to go to the 3 level without being forced: many times we can stop in 2S and opps won't dare the 3 level. Often the 3 level will be in jeopardy, and we are likely to be against the field playing only 2M (unless the rest of the field is playing Bergen too :D ) 2- most important for me: everytime I have a good opening hand, and my pard raises a mixed Bergen, I don't know how to reevaluate my hand. This is because the mixed Bergen raise tells me responder has about 6/7-9 hcp, but it DOES NOT TELL ME WHERE THEY ARE. Mixed fitshowing jumps work much better in my opinion for that goal. Minisplinters perform the same goal, emphasizing shortness rather than good sidesuit, but they follow the same principle, e.g. "tell your pard which features we have not just counting hcp" 3- finally, another criticism vs Bergen raises is the ability for opps to double (or nor double) for lead direction. In my opinion this is a minor flaw (virtually any artificial call gives such a chance) b. The Jacoby 2NT artificial raise People playing 2/1 in the Lawrence style, and in Gitelman's style, require that a 2/1 bid in response to a major suit opening is a 5 card suit. Using this agreement, they play hat 2NT is a natural GF with a balanced hand, and find other bids to show the forcing raise in a major (e.g. cheapest jumpshift in Fred's 2/1). Personally, I like to keep the Jacoby(+) raise, and use 2C as 2-way (either bal GF OR with 5+ clubs)

Weak responder has a problem rebid with 5♥+4♠. Holding its symmetric shape (5♠+4♥), the problem is not really awkward. There are usually 2 cases: a) 1D:1S:1NT:? Now reponder can safely bid 2H, showing a weak hand (otherwise he'd bid 3C = inv hand, or 3D = GF) :D 1D:1S:2C/D In such a case it rarely hurts to pass or simply preference to diamonds (in case of 2C) with a weak hand.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sk762hj98d3ckt642&s=saq3h6daqjt7cqj93]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South - Pass Pass 1♣! Pass 1♦! Pass 2♦! 2♥ Dbl! Pass 3♣ 3♥ 3♠ Pass 4♠ Pass 5♣ Pass Pass Pass ---------------------- 1C = Strong Club, 16+ any shape 1D = 0-7 hcp 2D = natural 5+ diamond, minimum reverse (16-18) West's pass then bid show a strong hand (either hcp or distribution), which might envision game even vs a strong club. Nort's dbl is negative (a max for his 0-7 range, spades and clubs) ---------------------- Hi' I would like to know the best line of play. I'll write below in hidden characters the line I chose, I would GREATLY appreciat any suggestions ! :D Opening lead: A followed by K of ♥ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said in other reply, the problems for the responder with SJS-hand is when opener rebids at the 2+ level, not when he rebids at the 1 level (then XYZ does his job).

Yes, when opener rebids NT or 1S, all is fine with XYZ/XYNT. But the problem with the strong Jumpshift type of hand is when oper rebids at the 2 level, e.g. bidding goes: 1D:1M 2C/2D Then responder if forced to make all kind of weird rthings to convince pard that the final contract will be in his major (usually opener will be short in that suit). So most of the time, opener will understand that responder has a strong slammish 1 suiter only at the 3 or 4 level, losing much bidding room. Even worse is when opener rebids at the 3 level. Now it gets really ugly for responder to set his suit as trumps.

2H Right now we play 2M as strong Jumpshift (either distrutional, at most 5-5.5 losers, self sufficient trump suit, or 18+ hcp, suit at least with KQxxx/KJTxx): this does simplify A LOT slam auctions, often setting trumps in one go, rather than messing around by bidding 1M first, and then employing 2 more round ofs of bidding to convince pard your suit is good but you do not intend to signoff: using strong JS you can start cuebids lower, because trumps are agreed at lower level. So, there is a price indeed for incorporating Reverse Flannery... :(

Hi all, I would like to hear from all of you about this system agreement with my pard and hear suggestions :( We play Precision, with variable NT, 10-12/14-16 and 2C opener may have 5c+4M. So 1D can be either balanced, 13-15/11-13, or max 15 with 4+D (can be 4D+5C). HOW DO WE PLAY XYZ/XYNT ? We play XYZ/XYNT 2-way checkback, that is, after both of the following sequences: 1D:1H:1S 1D:1M:1NT -2C is puppet to 2D; if responder rebids, it shows a generic invitational hand -2D is artificial "normal GF" -suit rebid is weak, to play -3C is weak, with 6+ clubs, to play -all jumps are picture jumps in slam-going hands. ONE MORE IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION After 1D:1M, opener tends to raise responder's major with 3+ card support (unless hand is NT oriented, e.g. 4333 and/or lots of quacks) THE QUESTION Suppose opener has the following hand and you open a 13-15 bal 1D: KJxx- Kx- Axx- QJxx Bidding (uncontested) goes: 1D:1M: ? With my pard we have agreed that with a balanced hand, we rebid 1NT even holding 4 spades, to describe better the hand, and to rightside the contract when there is no spades fit. It does help to have a clearer picture of opener's hand: nebulous diamond can be VERY nebulous, and knowing that a spades rebid is unbalanced vs 1NT rebid is balanced does help responder. On the other hand we can lose the spade suit. There are no headaches when responder has a rebid (XYZ does the job). But occasionally it fares poorly when responder is weak and does have spades and we play 1NT instead of 2S. I am asking you the following questions: 1) in your opinion/experience, how bad is this agreement ? 2) how much does it improve incorporating Reverse Flannery responses to 1D ? Reverse Flannery help in 54 M hands, but not in weak 44M hands where opener will bypass spades after the 1H response. Please note that it is very important the fact that the opening is not a "SAYC-ish" better minor opening but a nebulous opening, so I'd appreciate especially responses by "big-clubbers" (and yes, I know I would not have this problem if I opened 4 card Majors, but so goes life :( ) Thanks a lot ! :(

Hi all, I am getting interested in the "Bourke Relay" and its variation, and I am trying to gather the best possoible description. So far I have found the following descriptions: -from the RGB archive, this post by Chris Ryall: http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~heng/.../conv/slbrk.txt - from the Bridge World web site, this article by Jeff Rubens on "TSAR", a variation of Bourke relay: http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=e...ica&f=TSAR.html - a couple of BBF threads on "TSAR", and Phil Clayton's and Hannie's recent threads on responder's "next step forcing" after 1m opener rebids his minor after a 1 over 1 response; However I would like to collect more descriptions, if possible, and I am looking for anything else might have been publkished either online, or on hardcopy, ar in any other possible form (verious Forums threads etc.). So I would greatly appreciate any suggestion on available material on the Bourke relay, given the sources I found in my research. So far, I could find out that there are: 1) an original paper by Bourke, published on the July 1996 issue of The Bridge World; do you know if I can buy an electronic format, or if I have to buy the hardcopy (long overseas delivery time to Italy, additional shipment fees, bla bla... all feasible, but annoying :( ) 2) Tournament ACOL (David Bird & Tim Bourke, 1995) : in the description of this book, they mention the Bourke Relay. The questions on this book are the following: Question 1 I am not an ACOL player: I play 5 card major 2/1 and/or Precision according to partnership. So, if I purchased "Tournament ACOL ", my main interest would be the Bourke relay. Is the discussion of bourke relay worth the price of the book ? (see also question 2) Or, are there are good bidding tools translateable into other systems ? Question 2 is the Bourke relay discussed in depth or is it just mentioned "en passant" ? I have found that in many commercial books, the most sopisticated methods are just mentioned briefly, and not discussed in detail, in order not to scare intermediate reader, and in order to spare pages to discuss other more mundane situations. As a consequences, most often, advanced methods are dealt more superficially in commercial books than in articles in specialized magazines such as The Bridge World. ------------------ Thanks all ! Mauro

Here is one anti-LOTTraise example: One of the teachers of the Junior National Team of Italy is known to say: when pard is weak with 6+ trumps and you are weak, raise at the appropriate level with 3/4 trumps, but pass if you have 5 trumps, because you will be outgunned anyways, and, more often than not, your raise will only help opps to bid a slam with 28 hcp or so. Actually this is not even an anti-LOTT example: it is just a tactics to conceal your length to avoid opps smelling a "Lawful" slam <_<

I cannot think of anything else but 4 spades. I do not think this means punishing pard for balancing. I expect pard to have more or less a (perhaps marginal) opening bid for balancing at the 3 level; Pard is likely to hold 4 spades, and if he had only 3 spades, he is likely to have extra hcp more than a minimum. Despite my 8 hcp, my hand is a 6 losers hand, which means a playing strength in offense equal to a GOOD opening hand ( when fit is there, a 6 losers hand usually makes game even opposite only an invitational 10-11 hcp hand): this is due du the great club suit, no waster values, and decent spade 4 bagger. So this hand should try for game even opposite 10 hcp without wasted values by pard. Think of it this way: if pard had opened and shown later a 4 card spade suit, wouldn't you like to be in game ?

With plenty of side entries, low to the D8: - if it holds, back to hand and run the DJ (trying to pin doubleton DT) - if it does not hold, repeat the D finesse I think there should be close to 75% to play D for 2 losers only and discard a club loser on the good diamond; of course if LHO wins and leads early a club through dummy, you have to guess the clubs before having developed a long diamond.

I suppose that, if this is the layout and we pass (my choice), pard will likely pull the redouble to 3D, acknowledging his earlier overbid.

Ty Hannie, your suggestion sounds a good one :-) I'll just keep 3S = Minor Suit Stayman and a direct 4C as a slam try in clubs.

Now that I have it at home, I can write about my impression of the book. 1) it gives a number of examples. Maybe too much for an expert, but not too much for a non expert. The more examples, the merrier, for a low-midlevel player. 2) the use of statistics is not documented in depth enough for testing whether an alternative hypothesis may work. Basically the authors are "playing with the numbers" of statistics to demonstrate their hypothesis, without giving a chance to others to use the ame numbers for the contrary. The numbers are given only is a summarized way, but the way they summarized them can be subject to criticism (see my post above related to the more detailed numbers given in Wirsgren 's web site). So their method is only apparemtly "quantitative/objective". 3) Most of the concept given by Lawrence, except the SST+WP criterion, were already given in his previous books 4) Almost all of the hands Lawrence shows where LOTT fails, have associated MIRRORED DISTRIBUTION and in some cases duplication of honors, and in sme others 4333 shape. These factors are mentioned by Cohen too. The problem is that duplication of shape or strength is very difficult to diagnose in most sequences, and- no matter if you use LOTT-based system or SST+WP system or whatever, it will lead to a number of tricks lower than expected. So, duplication of shape/strength is not a problem of LOTT only, but of all system. And, 4333 hands are usually discounted and downgraded in total tricks even by LOTT-players. So basically Lawrence is applying the LOTT in a biased way. 5) LOTT is not a system to estimate the number of tricks you can actually make; it tries to estimate TOTAL tricks (e.g. even if you go down, a better alternative opps contract could be cold). WP+SST is a system to estimate the number of tricks one side can take, so it is oriented towards constructive bidding; SSP+WP in itself says nothing of the cost-benefit of taking a sacrifice. So it makes no sense at all to try to compare the 2 methods: one method may justsay "we'll make 4H and not 5H", the other may say "who cares ? 4S for opps is cold", and they may be both right. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My own final comment: it seems to me that most people criticizing harshly the LOTT had discussions with some "LOTT-BOT", using it automatically, without any adjustments. This can be seen by the examples they bring: - 4333 hands taking less tricks - hands with duplication of shape/strenght taking less tricks - hands very pure (double fit) or with a long running suit (squeeze) taking more tricks. - some will just show how bad things can go if you bid LOTT-based with a lot of wasted values But all these are well known minus/plus factor to people who do not use the Law mechanically, there is no need to say "Look at how things go bad without applying judgment". every decent player knows or should know that. I think it is fair to say that most expert do not need the Law, they have already grown their "pattern recognition" engine. But, if you accept that 30% of the time 25 hcp count in misfit do not make 3NT, yet you bid it, you may also accept that 40 % of the time the LOTT predicts EXACTLY the no of total tricks, and about 20% is predicts one TOTAL trick less and 20% of the time 1 TOTAL trick more. (Note that 1 total trick means about 1/2 a trick for each side) These are pretty good numbers, documented by Anders Wirgren himself. However, just as Milton Work point count should be viewed only as a starting point t asses the potential of the hand, LOTT seems to provide a good starting point in determining the right level of competing. Sure, do not use the LAW blindly: - Cohen's suggestion to "use adjustments" is just another way to say "apply your judgment": recognize wasted values, double fits, duplication of shape/strength, etc

Oh ok, sorry, I was concentrated on the Precision-type nebulous diamond :)

That's my point: when I have 3 card support as opener I need to know whether pard has a 5 bagger or NO hearts at all. after 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♥-? Responder needs a tool to force to game without confusing his pard: opener in the followup will NEED to know whether they are in an auction with hearts agreed or not. So, responder must have asking tools but he needs to let opener know *below the 3NT level* whether hearts are agreed or not. One reason for this is that in my pship we play SERIOUS 3NT with major fit agreed.

When pard overcalls 2NT over a weak 2, there ar a couple of structures orientated towards safety. What i like is the following, perhaps too simple, but it has the advantag of scrambling in 3D diamonds without losing too much of the common Stayman + xfers structure: (2X)-2NT-(pass)-? 1) 3C = weak/strong puppet to 3D; can be a hand with D, weak (to play 3D) or slammish; or it can be a hand that wishes to inquire for a 4 card major. After overcaller bids 3D, the advancer: - pass = weak D - 3H = asks for spades - 3S = asks for hearts - 3NT = 44 S+H 2) 3D/H = Jacoby xfers 3) 3S = Minor suit stayman 4) 3NT = to play You can use the sam structure vs 2D Multi.

After 1D:1H(nat or relay with good hand) 1NT if responder is weak with 4H, can't you lose many 44 heart partscores ? :)

I have the Viking precision Club book where they suggest the 1H relay as "either natural or GF". The idea is nice, but the developments can be cumbersome- unless one wants to use the full-relay followup to 1H (which is the VikingClub scheme). For example: 1D:1H(nat or generic GF) 2H(natural 4+) Now there is a need to: - force game WITH 4 H - force game with 3 card support in H - force game with short H - game try with 4H - game try with 5H Any EASY suggestion is most welcome (EASY = if you want to relay, the relay should last only 1 round of bidding :) ) :o

Could you post your full relay structure ? I am particularly interested to the sequences where opener has 3 or 4H and needs to resolve whether there is H fit or not, either for: - signing off in partscore if the relayer has really H and a weak hand - low level slam investigation in H when the H fit is found. Thanks ! :)

Ty Richard and all the other folks who contributed. I'll discuss these points with my pard and teammates, hopefully to agree keeping the "standard" 2H 3-suiter short in ♦ :)

What ML (and most competitive bidding books) says is "never let opps play at the two level" IF THEY HAVE A FIT. If they have a fit, most of the time, we have a fit too, and it's our job to discover it. If they do not have a fit, better let them play, doubled or undoubled, according to the combined strength and defensive tricks. In some cases, the fit is explicit (opps bid+raise), in some others you can gues wheter or not they have a fit, analyzing the auction. In this auction: 1- they did not bid and raise; so the fit is not guaranteed, neither for their side, nor for our side; 2- by looking at your hand and the bidding, you can estimate that it is a no-fit auction. In fact, pard has denied a fit in clubs (he would have raised at least at the second round) and a 5 card spades. 3- in one of the suit of opps you have strength and length (AKxx in H), usually a sign of misfit, and an indication to defend 4- in the other suit, diamonds, you have Qxx, a doubtful value in offense, another indication suggesting to defend 5- if opps had a decent fit in diamond, pard would be short in D, and, having adequate strength, would have certainly supported clubs or would have 5+ spades (since he is certainly short in H); 6- 4333 hands are not well suited to compete; some people deduct 0.5-1 hcp for this shape; some others consider 4 cd support in 4333 = 3 card support, 3 cd support in 4333 = 2 cd support, etc, because of no ruffing values. I cannot say whether this is going too far, but I think that usually, the 4333 bidder is better off leaving any aggressive decisions to his pard, who's the only one that might have the suitable distribution for aggressive bids; 4333 hand are happy to sit fo defense. 7- finlly, would DBL be a good balancing bid ? I do not think so; you have moe or less bid your hand, and you have little extra. Actually, your pard did overbid with his negative double and as a consequence you may be thinking that your side has the balance of power; still, pard, with an invitational hand and no fit, would have bid a second card-showing double or 2NT. I think the safest course is pass and defend.

I did not notice pd was balancing, sorry for lack of attention. In that case, I pass.

Plan 1 I would open 2C, I have 9 top tricks:this is worth a GF bid. BTW In Italy, many players using Multi include strong Minor 1-suiters into it. Plan 2 Do we use support double ? If so, we keep biding open for game/slam in H. If pard shows 5+ H I will bid 5H = bid slam with good trump honors. Plan 3 No supp X ? I cue 3♠ and pull to 4D, hoping to hear a ♥ cue. If pard rebids Hearts, I bid 5H = bid slam with good trump honors.

Allego la risposta finale da parte del Settore Arbitrale FIGB al mio dubbio. Riporto nuovamente la mia domanda e di seguito la risposta FIGB DOMANDA Chiedo scusa se chiedo un'ulteriore precisazione, è soltanto per capire fino in fondo le sottigliezze nel caso di un'eventuale contestazione. Dalla Vostra risposta mi sembra di capire che le aperture 2NT-3F/Q/C sono ammesse come barrage in sottocolore o bicolore contigua associata. Tuttavia, nel caso della bicolore alterna, ho le idee piu' confuse, che cerchero' di esporre con due esempi: a. bicolore alterna 4-4.5 con 13+ p.o. AKxxx-x-AKxxx-A In questo caso, l'ambito di punteggio cnsente di trattare la mano come "apertura forte", avendo 13+ p.o. Di conseguenza, il fatto che l'apertura 2P non prometta un palo specifico non è un problema. b. bicolore alterna 4-4.5 con meno di 13 p.o. AQT9xx-x-AQT9x-x In questo caso ho 12 punti e non 13, tuttavia la forza di gioco in attacco (4 perdenti) è paragonabile ala mano dell'esempio 1. Pero', con meno 13 punti onori, sono penalizabile se non prometto un colore specifico (come accade in prima istanza con l'apertura in bicolore contigua generiva ) ? Grazie nuovamente per la vostra disponibilità Mauro Casadei RISPOSTA Se lei specifica che le aperture sono calcolate unicamente a perdenti (4), l'apertura è ammessa. Se invece le aperture prevedono un punteggio in punti onori, il minimo consentito è 13 per considerare la mano forte. Cordiali saluti. Settore Arbitrale FIGB