Chamaco

Agree with Frederic (only that in my strong C, I prefer to reverse the meaning of 2NT and 3 ♦, 2NT = 3 card support in major , 3 ♦ = no support)

I think bidding is reckless. Bidding over 2/1 sequences (and a Drury auction can be classified as such) without great shape is reckless in general, the more so if we have to bid a 4 card suit in a balanced hand. Even worse is the fact that we are not even hindering opps bidding: the fact that responder is a passed hand AND has an invitational hand with spade fit is already a huge info for opener: now they are in a perfect situation to decide whether the best spot is game, slam or defending doubled. Give the fielder's choice to opps only to suggest a good lead ? No thanks :-)

If we talk of control cuebids in uncontested auctions (not cuebids of opps suit), the "Don't lead it" double has the big danger of being redoubled to play. Then the matter depends on whether you have a suit to run to, and at which level the cuebid was. Of course the risk of a redouble is close to zero if the cuebid is in a suit that defenders have bid.

I think it depends on the range of the 2C overcall. If it promises an opener and can go up to 16 hcp or so, I'd bid 2NT: I have a potential source of tricks in diamond, tolerance for pd suit and hearts stopped.

Adam, ty a lot ! I have a few other comments/questions on this topic. How much would things improve by opening 2H 4432 with DIAMOND doubleton only ? - Guaranteeing 3+ clubs would help responder when deciding to scramble in a minor. - Furthermore, this would "clean up" the nebulous 1D opener, which would then guarante 3+ diamonds, useful for partscore contested bidding - on the minus side, there is still the need to open 2C when holding 5431 hands IMO this is not bad when clubs are good, whereas it IS bad indeed when clubs are weak. I just wonder the frequency of this occurrence (5431 short in D with bad clubs).

Hi Ben , I have checked with some TDs and the scheme you suggest is legal in Italy. Therefore I am interested in verifying it :) However I have the following 2 major doubts. 1. Problem 1: HOW TO SET TRUMPS BELOW GAME (useful for cuebidding and keycard asking) Il'll explain this with an example. Suppose pard opens 3C = Diamonds preempt OR H+S 2-suiter. We have a fair hand, say 10-11 hcp, and bid 3D. Now how does pard show he has the strong hand ? I suppose by bidding 3H. But then, how does responder agrees hearts below game ? One possible solution is to change opener's rebid scheme, leaving an extra step, e.g.: 2NT = club preempt, or hearts and spades; if responder bids 3C, 3D shows the strong hand, and lets responder pick the suit, 3C = diamond preempt or spades and clubs; if responder bids 3D, 3H shows the strong hand, and lets responder pick the suit 3D = heart preempt or clubs and diamonds; if responder bids 3H, 3S shows the strong hand, and lets responder pick the suit 3H = spade preempt or diamonds and hearts; if responder bids 3S, 3NT shows the strong hand, and lets responder pick the suit However, even this approach has 2 minuses: 1. it is not clear, when reponder picks a suit, wheter it is to play (responder may hold a yarborough), or sets trumps below game to start cues 2. when opener is strong with C+D or D+H, it is impossible to signoff at the 3 level for a weak responder in misfit 2. Problem 2: WHEN OPENER IS INTERESTED IN GAME OPPOSITE A PREEMPT (finding best game/slam) I'll also explain this via an example. Assume opener bids 2NT (C preempt or D+H), and responder has a strong hand, say a reverse, with 5/6 good spades. Bidding goes(opps silent) 2NT:3S ? How does opener discriminate between: - preemptive hands with fit in Spades - preemptive hands without fit in Spades - strong 2-suiters (red suits in the specific case) with Spades fit - strong 2-suiters without Spades fit NOTE THAT FOR EACH OF THESE 4 OPTIONS THERE SHOULD BE ROOM FOR RESPONDER TO AGREE BELOW GAME ONE OF OPENER'S 2 SUITS, LEAVING ROOM FOR CUES AND SLAM TOOLS Thanks ! :-)

Ho ricevuto in tempi rapidisimi una prima risposta da parte del Settore Arbitrale FIGB, a cui va tutto il mio ringrazamento e plause per l'efficienza del servizio ! Riporto di seguito l'email, da cui evince che piu' o meno il sistema di aperture oggetto del post è consentito. Al termine di qusto post, riorto anche l'ulteriore email che ho inviato alla FIGB per alcuni chiarimenti finali. ciao a tutti :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- RISPOSTA DEL SETTORE ARBITRALE FIGB Vanno tutte bene, con la precisazione che nel caso di 2P= bicolore alternata generica di 4 perdenti, non deve essere specificato il punteggio poichè la versione 11/15 in 6-5 è considerata per carenza di punti (minimo per l'apertura forte 13) debole. Settore Arbitrale FIGB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mauro Casadei" <casadei@geomin.unibo.it> To: "Federazione Italiana Gioco Bridge" <figb@federbridge.it> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:13 AM Subject: Esperto Risponde > Buongiorno, vorrei sapere se le seguenti aperture sono ammese nelle competizioni FIGB "ordinarie". > So che non sono ammesse le aperture deboli senza un colore dichiarato di 4+ da 2 Fiori a 3 Picche; ma in questo caso (ambiguità fra ap. forte o debole) è chiaro che se l'apertura è debole il colore è ben definito. > > Vi ringrazio per l'attenzione > > Mauro Casadei > ----------------------------- > 2P = Bicolore alternata generica di 4 perdenti (indicativamente 16-18 in 55 oppure 11-15 in 65) > 2NT = barrage a fiori OPPURE bicolore quadri/cuori da 4 perdenti > 3F = barrage a quadri OPPURE bicolore cuori/picche da 4 perdenti > 3Q = barrage a cuori OPPURE bicolore picche/fiori da 4 perdenti > 3C = barrage a picche OPPURE bicolore fiori/quadri da 4 perdenti ---------------------------------------------------------- A seguito di questa risposta, ho inviato una ulteriore mail per ottenere un ultimo chiarimento, che probabilmente è una formalità, ma mi serve per essere piu' sicuro nel caso mi imbatta in qualche giocatore e/o TD rompiscatole che si metta a dire che queste aperture sono Brown Sticker. Postero' su questo thread la risposta della FIBG. Vi ringrazio per la risposta rapida. 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. :) 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

This is true. But the decision to open 2H with all 44M hands, including 4432 would have at least these bonuses: 1. increase A LOT the frequency of the opening. 2. clean the nebulous diamond opening from some hand types 3. allow weak NT opener hands with 44M to find a major fit even when responder is not strong enough to respond. On the minus side: 1. we have to open 2C more frequently on 5c4M hands, and 2. when we open 2H, weak responder with no tolerance for majors ignores our holding in minors so he is less well placed to give a preference So, IMO, the question revolves around these issues: what is your cost-benefit analysis ?

Hi all, i the version of Precision I am currently playing, we use - 1D = 13-15/11-13 bal OR max 15 with 4+ D; - 1NT = 10-12/14-16 - 2C = 6+ clubs OR 5c+4cM - 2D =Multi - 2H = 4441/5440/5431 short in diamond, no 5 card Major Recently my pard has suggested that he feels a bit insecure when responding to 2H as 3-suiter: when he wishes to signoff, he always feels doubt when deciding to signoff in 2 of a Major, especialli if it's a 3 card suit, since he is afraid of being in a 3-3 fit. E.g. 2H-? Responder holding Jxx-Qxx-KJxxx-Qx has to guess whether opener has 5 clubs for a 5-2 fit or which opener's major has 4 cards. For these reasons, he has suggested he'd feel much more comfortable opening all 5431 hands with 5 clubs with our 2C opener (which allows for 5c+4M). Then, we could open 2H with all hands with 44M (including 4432), 11-15. If so, I'd like to hear from you: a. which followup you recommend ? a possible one could be that all bids except 2NT are to play; 2NT = positive relay asking for singleton. b. Including ALL 44M hands improves the ambiguity for 5431 hans, but adds to the opening 4441 with singleton club; in this case, pard holdoing long clubs may not dare to offer a signoff to 3C fearing a misfit. Do you recommend including all 4441 and 4432 hands in 2H or excluding hands with short clubs and opening them 1D (whose balanced range is 13-15/11-13 according to seat+vuln)? Thanks !

So che la FIGB non consente aperture deboli a livello 2/3 che non garantiscano un colore specifico almeno 4o (o 5o? Mi sembra quarto). Tuttavia, le aperture che ora vi sottopongo, sono "ibride" sotto questo punto di vista, perchè (tranne ap. 2 ♠ che pero' è necessariamente forte) garantiscono un colore preciso nella versione debole e due colori precisi nella versione forte; l'ambiguità riguarda solo il fatto se l'apertura sia forte o debole. Ho postato la domanda su BDI Online (Rubrica L'esperto risponde) ma in attesa della risposta mi piacerebbe sentire l'opinone di altri. Grazie a chiunque risponderà! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2♠ = Bicolore alternata generica (♣+♥ o ♦+♠), da 4-4.5 perdenti (MOLTO INDICATIVAMENTE, 16-18 p.o. in 55xx oppure 12-15 p.o. in 65xx, la forza di gioco è la stessa) - 2NT = barrage a ♣ OPPURE bicolore 4-4.5 perdenti (vedi descriz. apertura 2♠) a ♦+♥ - 3♣ = barrage a ♦ OPPURE bicolore 4-4.5 perdenti (vedi descriz. apertura 2♠) a ♥+♠ - 3♦ = barrage a ♥ OPPURE bicolore 4-4.5 perdenti (vedi descriz. apertura 2♠) a ♠+♣ - 3♥ = barrage a ♠ OPPURE bicolore 4-4.5 perdenti (vedi descriz. apertura 2♠) a ♣+♦

Ben, I like the idea very much, but unfortunately I have to play within the rules set by the Italian Federation, and I am not sure whether these openings are legal. FIGB does not allow (in mid/low flights) any weak bid ranging from 2C ->3S that does not specify 5+ cards in a well-defined suit. Even Gambling 3S opening is forbidden.

I have to say that actually the Ultimate Club bids xplicitly the touching 2 suiter by bidding the lower ranked suit from 2S up, skipping 2NT (used as generic nontouching 2suiter). So the title of this post is misleading. However, I'd like opinions on this sequence anyways :)

Hi all. Ultimate Club uses the following sequences to show 16+ minimum (16-18) 2 suiters (which correspond to about 4-4.5 losers hands) : a. 1C:1D 2S = 55 or better, touching 2suiter b. 1C:1D 2NT = 55 or better, nontouching 2suiter In both cases, the next step by responder asks for which is the 2 suiter. Any other bid except next step up is simply pass or correct, not promising any strength. Now, for a lot of reasons, I am inclined to use the DIRECT 2S and 2NT OPENINGS to show that type of hand, with the same followup. The question is NOT whether you think this is a good idea or not (I posted the question in a previous thread). I know several of you prefer more preemptive 2S/2NT openers, so this is a discussion I would like - if possible - to skip in the reminder of this thread :D The question is rather the following, and assumes that - whether or not a good idea - 2S and 2NT are actually used as touching/nontouching 2suiters with exactly 4-4.5 losers (with more losers, open a suit planning to jump in the other suit at level 3, with less, use strong club). THE QUESTION In the following sequences, what is the best way for opener to handle RHO's overcall after pard's positive relay ? Sequence 1 2S*-(pass)-2NT**-(3S) ? *= generic touching 2 suiter, 4 losers ** = positive relay Now what is the best policy for opener ? What are the best meanings for double pass and bid suit ? What about: A ) - DBL = PENALTY - pass = nothing to say, pard can double for penalty B ) - DBL = PENALTY - pass = touching suits immediately below the overcalled suit - bid = bid the lower of touching 2 suiters this is better to describe the shape, but it becomes almost impossible to penalize them unless they overcall in one of opener's suits. Sequence 2 2NT*-(pass)-3C**-(3S) ? *= generic nontouching 2 suiter, 4 losers ** = positive relay Now what is the best policy for opener ? What are the best meanings for double pass and bid suit ? Thanks !

Oops ;) ho dimenticato il bisturi dentro allo stomaco del paziente tendenz :blink:

La scelta è fra: - contre, che oltre alla ricerca dell'altro nobile mantiene l' opzione supplementare di permetter al compagno di trasformare; - 3 cuori - 4 cuori - considerare la mano 64 come bicolore e trattarla di conseguenza: per es. se il vostro sistema consente di dichiarare 4Q in bicolore nobile, allora dichiarare 4Q. Voto per 3 cuori, perchè: a. la mano è tropo debole per il contre (a livello 3per contrare bisgna avere una mano da apertura molto meglio che minima, 15 +, o ad essere MOOOOLTO ottimisti, 14 belli, e non usare la distribuzione per sopperire al punteggio richiesto) , e detesto usare il contre in mani sbilanciate 64 a meno che non siano vere e proprie "bombe" ma non è questo il caso; Inoltre dicendo le cuori, è piu' facile "cadere in piedi" quando in compagno è debole. Si perderà qualche volta il fit a picche, ma il bridge è fatto di scelte percentuali, ed in percentuale mi aspetto che sul contre il compagno in mano debole mi risponda 4 fiori + spesso anzichè 3/4 picche. b. dire 4 cuori è una sovralicita: nonostante la buona distribuzione, la mano ha comunque 6 perdenti (1.5 in ogni nobile, + 3 nei minori), ovvero una dorza offensiva discreta ma non sufficiente per chiamare 4 cuori da soli; inoltre il colore AQxxxx non è eccezionale; la licita a salto tende a garantire un colore semichiuso, che gioca bene anche opposto a singolo/vuoto del p. c. la mano non è forte a sufficienza per forzare a manche, quindi nemmeno se volessimo "tirare per i capelli" la licita potremmo andare a livello 4 (per es., 4Q)

Ok, here goes then the next question on hand evaluation to those who use advancer's XX as "we can make it". I use as a criterion to bid over preempts Lawrence's "rule of 7" = bid assuming pard has 7 hcp. This means that I will bid 3NT over 3 spades with any 18+ balanced (sometimes a good 17), or, quite often, with a long running suit. So, let's say I can bid 3NT over 3S with all of the following: 1. AKx-QJT-AKxx-Jxx 2. AKx-QJT-AKxx-Axx 3. A-Qxx-Kxx-AKQxxx 4. A-xx-Jxx-AKQJxxx Now, if bidding goes (3S)-3NT(me)-Dbl - (pass)- ? Now that I have described what he can expect from my 3NT bid, let's put ourselves in advancer's shoes. Assume he has 6-8 non descript hcp, say a. xx-Kxx-AJxx-Txxx b. xxx-Kxxx-KJxxx-x c. Qx-Kxx-KTxxx-xx How do you assess these hands (a,b,c)? - do you redouble to say we'll make it ? - do you pass ? If you pass, and pard's redoubles (he will with any minimum, including 18-19 balanced), will you run from 3NT (which will likely make if pard has th strong bal hand and not the running suit)

In your approach, I suppose that then after (3S)-3NT-(X)-pass- (pass)-? here Redouble is SOS, "Pick a suit" ?

Hi all, I'd like to know of the following escape sequences from 3NT doubled. What do you think are the meanings: 1. considered "standard" 2. your preferred agreements even if they are non-std Thanks !! :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sequence 1: meaning of ADVANCER's bids (3♠)-3NT-(X)- ? a. Pass: does it mean "nothing to say" or does it force a redouble ? b. XX = is it SOS or "we can make it" ? what does the failure to redouble mean ? c. 4/5 of a suit: I assume this is natural, weak(ish) d. I assume cuebid at the 4 level is a slam try although not clear in which suit and which type of hand it might show Sequences 2.1 and 2.2: meaning of OVERCALLER's bids 2.1 (3♠)-3NT-(X)- Pass (Pass) ? Here the meaning of Pass, XX and suit bid is related to the meaning of advancer's pass 2.2 (3♠)-3NT-(X)- XX (Pass) ? Here the meaning of Pass, XX and suit bid is related to the meaning of advancer's Redouble.

By elimination process, I would guess a 18-19 hand with 5431/4441 with a singleton in spades.

Ditto, Mrs Guggie :blink: SJ Simon's books were not designed to cover bidding methods (plenty of stuff out there), but to explain "commonsense" to bridge readers. Is there a need to explain commonsense to bridge players ? I would guess that a kibitzing session wandering randomly through BBO advanced/expert tables (or at your local club) would suggest that, even 50 years later, most concepts of the book still apply (which will not be true in 30 years for any book on esoterical bidding methods ). As for the Rubber Bridge session: this part of the book is my favourite, and as a matter of fact I enjoyed even more the followup, "Cut for partners", entirely devoted to the adventures of the 4 fictitious characters ! :) Sincerely yours Futile Willie :P

Sure I agree with the criticism, and personally I use ZAR as a tool to evaluate the potential of a hand once a fit is found, since it works better in NON-misfit hands. However there is a point in using ZAR when deciding if/how to open freak hands: a 6-5 hand or better with 8 hcp, 99% of the times has a fit with pard, and in such a case ZAR works quite well. For more mundane hand types, I prefer to open according to "standard" rules, and - as I said - wait until a fit is found before switching to ZAR evaluation, avoiding the problems with misfit hands, 3NT contracts, and penalty doubles.

Gerben, there is a large number of past BBF posts on ZAR evaluation methods, mostly due to Zar himself and Ben (Inquiry). A few of them are available at: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=5108 http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=4975 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Basically, ZAR evaluation method accounts for the offensive potential of the hand, but: 1- does not promise the usual 2+ quick tricks if opps buy the hand; responder then has to be careful about doubling opps, since it is less clear when it is our hand; but the same apply to opps, they never know whose hand it is, and you get to open more frequently light, with all the added bonuses; 2- does not promise substantial hcp content if the hand is a misfit, so NT contract cannot bid so confidently. Having said that, Ben has posted quite a large number of hand where zar evaluation worked pretty well, as long as both partners know what to expect and what NOT to expect from his pard's bid (which is dramatically different from classical bidding). I am sure there are also ZAR-induced disasters, but on the whole it does seem a very god way to assess the value of combined hands when there is a fit, at least as good as LTC.

Hi all, I have performed both a google search and a search on past BBF threads to find out what are "Garozzo 2/3 doubles". But without success :( I have seen them mentioned in various posts, but I could not see a clear explanation anywhere, so I will be grateful to any of you folks if you can either post good links/sources etc, or explain what are "Garozzo 2/3 doubles". Thanks !! Mauro PS -Yeah yeah, I know, an Italian folk who asks about Garozzo's stuff ... :rolleyes: :lol:

1NT natural ok, but what is the suggested hcp range ? - 5-7 NF - 1R force, 5-7/12+ bal - 8-11, GF limited - 8-13, GF limited (wider range- use other bid for GF 14+ bal) - 8-10/14+GF, minimax (use other bids for 11-13) - 8+ generic GF, unlimited - other

Ditto. Blind belief in the mechanical application of the LOTT on each single deal is as ridiculous as discarding the LOTT it if it fails by +/- 1 TOTAL trick about 24+24% of the time. But it is sad to see some credited authors play with numbers to claim one theory is wrong.