Chamaco

The example you used seems constructed on purpose, but good LAW followers would not apply it that way: 1) opener should not have a 7.5 losers hand but better off guaranteeing 7 losers 2) 4333 hands should consider their support shorted , e.g. 4 card support with 4333 is considered 3 card support 3) LOTT and LTC *can* be put together ny chhosing to use the invitational 4 card support with 8 losers rather than using straight hcp count (and using mixed raise with 9 losers). The only guarantee is that opener should guarantee a no of loser not greater than 7. Having said that, it is obvious that the type of disaster you mention should not occur. More generally, it is very easy (and unfair in my opinion) to try to shed bad light on one theory by applying it mechanically in specific cases. LOTT/ LTC and any other theory should be adjusted with the aid og judgment and commonsense. And even then there will be times when it fails, just like other widely accepted evaluation tools :-)

I think first priority is to show ALWAYS HEARTS IF I HAVE THEM (either 3 cards or 4 cards), in any sequence, to save space: a. responder first bid was spades: then if I have 4H and 3S I'll bid H; if responder does not like H, I'll show spade at next round. b. responder first suit was H: then opener will show 3 card support in H even holding 4S; if responder does not like H I'll show my 4 card spade suit later.

Ty Ron ! What does 1NT mean in this scheme ?

Thx a lot, the observation is very helpful ! What do you think like that: minimum opener completes xfer, max opener refuses xfer Hmmm tougher... Responder might cue opps suit to show slammish hand ? With 2 suiter he may make a picture jump at the 2 level ?

Ty Frederic, your proposal is interesting. :D But could you comment on the set of responses I listed, do you have any specific criticism or appreciations on the scheme ? ------ As regards to your question, I am no authority, but there are indeed many experts (e.g. Wei-Radin: "Precision 1 Club Complete") who do alter the system after opps overcalls. The point is, after opps overcalls I have found that often the auction is unpleasant (at least to me ! :( ) if responder cannot immediately show the shape of his 5-7 hand. However this is not the main point of this post, and I much rather prefer to have your detailed opinion on this system rather than starting a phylosophycal discussion on whether changing the responses after overcalls is good or not :)

Yes, in competition, I believe there is a strong urge to communicate shape, and frequency issues make me lean towards being able to show immedialy 5-7 hcp hands :-) Double = hi power/low power = 5-7 hcp bal with right shape (neg double), or 8-11 any shape

Hi all, I would like to ask suggestions about the following scheme after strong C (16+)overcalled at level 1. What do you like/dislike of the following ? 1C-(1H)- ? a. new suit at level 1 = 1R force, 5-7 OR 12+ b. 1NT = xfer to clubs, 5-7/12+ c. 2C = xfer to D, 5-7/12+ d. 2D = ??? = could it be stop ask in xfer ? e. 2H = ???? could it be psyche-exposing ? f. hi power/low power = 5-7 with right shape (short in H no wasted values) or any 8-11 The scheme would be the same for any overcall at 1 level: 1- xfers are on from 1NT to step below 2 of opps suit and show weak/slammish hand; same for new suit at 1 level, nat. 2- double includes 8-11 or 5-7 balanced with decent shape We still have to define whether 2NT should be used similarly after 2-level overcalls

3NT Vulnerability suggests trying for game, so the choice is between 3S and 3NT. I have most values in H, and those values are likely to work better in a NT rather than suit contract. As they say, "When in doubt, I bid 3NT".

Got it, my question was meant in a Precision context, now that I see you include strong 16/17+ hands, things are much clearer to me :) So, if I get it right, you use jump rebid to 3D to show good diams + 3 card support, and if you have distributional reverse with good diams without 3 card support you'd use 2C as "nmf" ? That makes sense too, thanks ! :-)

Ty Ben :) 55 minors or better, 5-5.5 losers hand. Something like x-xx-AQJxx-KQTxx I never thought about this, I understand the point :) I will consider adding this agrement to our repertoire as soon as we have digested the rest of the system :-) --------------------------------------------------------------- One more question, Ben. I see your rebid system does not account for opener having a distributional reverse (about 5-5.5 losers) with 6D and 3 card support. E.g. 1D:1H ? x-KTx-AQJxxx-Axx Without a conventional raise, opener is stuck between a. single raise of the major (gross underbid) b. jumpraise the major (but pard will never know whether 3 or 4 card support and we'll oftn end up in wrong game/slam) c. jump raise the minor, running the risk of losing H fit (next time opener will have to bid 3D anyways on KTx-xAQJxxx-Axx) or having awkward sequence to 3NT Don't you think that a "2NT superduper" 4-card raise of responder's major could be lumped into 3M, and that 2NT could be used for this hand ? BTW what do you mean with "superduper" :)

For this sequence I am more inclined to use the 6-4 type of hand (3C is only positive relay- other bids being signoff offer - asking the side 4-bagger; opener bids the side 4 bagger, or rbids his major if holding clubs). With a maximum balanced I'll bid something, and pard with any good 10 or decent 11 count will invite anyways. About this choice: why use 1D/2NT as no-fit and 1D/3D as 3 card fit ? Wouldn't it be better to use 2NT as fitshowing so to allow more room for slam ? Or would the extra room be more useful to check for clubs stopper in no-fit sequences ? (e.g. 1D:1H:3D might create problems to checkback the club stoppers ?) In the latter case (using 2NT as "no fit" with long diamonds) , however, 2NT is more likely to wrongside the 3NT contract ?

Hi all, I'd like any suggestions for the definition of a still unused bid in the system I play with teammates. System is very close to Precision using: - 5cM - nebulous diamond (bal 11-13/13-15 or 4+ diamonds <16 hcp) - 1NT = 10-12/14-16 - 2C opener = 5C+4M or 6+C - 2D = multi - 2H = 4441-5440-5431 short in diamonds, < 16 hcp The question here relates to the meaning to reserve to the 2NT rebid by opener after a 1 over 1 response. Obviously, in a strong club cntext, the bid will not describe a strong balanced hand, so it should suggest some distributional feature, and I'd like to have your suggestions on which would be best. The sequences are: Sequence 1 1H:1S 2NT Sequence 2 1H/1S:1NT(forcing) 2NT Sequence 3 1D:1M 2NT Sequence 4 1D:1NT 2NT --------------------------------------------- We already have a definition for sequences 1 and 2(e.g. 2NT rebid after a 1M opening): in that case it shows 6M+ a side 4 card suit, distributional reverse (5-5.5 losers). So the question revolves on the use of 2NT rebid after 1D opener (sequiences 3 and 4). Sequence 3 1D:1M 2NT What do you think is the best use for this ? Some options: a. distributional 4 card raise of the major (sort of minisplinter); if this is the case, what would the direct jumpraise to 3M show ? b. shows a good 6 card diamond suit WITH 3 card support, so that when opener jump rebids 3D it denies 3 cd support; c. other (please suggest ) In order to pick the best choice, it will be useful to know that we play 1D:1M:2M as a 3+ card raise (if 3 cards, usually with side shortness or weak doubleton). Sequence 4 1D:1NT 2NT Here there is not the need to suport a major, so do you recommend 2NT to use as simply quantitative ? Thanks all ! :)

Playing Precision with nebulous 1 diamond (bal 13-15, or <16 with 4+ D), I play that a. 1D-3C is the invitational club 1 suiter so that b. 1D-2C can be invitational only if semi balanced: basically, 2C and 3C rebid is GF (cannot be NF otherwise responder would bid 3C right away) and the only NF rebid is 2NT. c. With 5C + 4cM and invitational values, I bid 1M in response to 1D and then use XYZ. I believe this scheme is playable also using better minor in a 2/1 framework.

I think that when a fit is found, "minimum" or "max" should not longer be expressed in terms of pure hcp but in terms of losers. Having said that, North's hand is aceless, and it may be reasonable not to be so enthusiastic; however, pard must have his good reasons to take the risk of reopening at the 5-level with 5C. Hence, I think N has the moral obligation to bid his cheapest cue, at least if he trusts his pard.

I strongly suggest to purchase and read the GREAT book by Kit Woolsey, "Matchpoints". This covers the bidding tactics. For card play tactics (DECLARER: different ways to combine chances, how to handle safety plays, stealing overtricks, "safety" plays to secure 1 down, etc; DEFENSE: opening lead choice, cashout situations, deceptions to lure declarer into overtrick, etc) and the subtle nuances vs IMPS strategy, read Hugh Kelsey's "Matchpoint bridge"

Multiple channels sounds a great idea. I know it was already mentioned some time go. All I can say is that I had the chance to watch the online live broadcast of the great CORUS chess supertourney (Wjik An Zee- Netherlands), with the aid of multiple channels (on the FICS - Free Internet Chess Server), and that was a great fun for everybody ! :ph34r:

It seems to me that in virtually ANY hand evaluation system, tens are rarely accounted for, and even jacks are left to subjective hand evaluations (unless we apply faithfully Milton Work Point count, which seems to be not so highly regarded). So I would say that basically, almost any hand evaluation system largely depends on "adjustments" and "common sense" to account for Jack an Tens, and that LTC - if aplied with common sense adjustments as any other method - cannot be indicated as much worse than most other methods in this regard. Is that true ? In my experience, LTC, when used in its non-basic form (e.g. Qxx is NOT 2 losers but rather 2.5/2.75 or so, account for likely working or not working finesses based on bidding etc), tends to work rather well, ESPECIALLY for weak distributional hands. Of course, the loser count of a side suit can be dramatically off if the hand is distributional but the side suit is in misfit, but the misfit disasters are common also using hcp evaluations or LOTT. On balance, using LTC leads you to bid more wild/light game slam making as well as going more often down; but even in the latter case, many times either it is a good sac or opps save you from a phantom sac. Obviously, the blind application of LTC will lead to disasters much the same way as using blindly ANY method, such as LOTT , or hcp hand evaluation + shortage 531 count, or whatever you like.

Micky, I agree with the concept (see my post on using LTC rather than hcp for this). This phylosophy is aggressive and I like it ;) , however, it needs to handle the overloading of the 2NT limit+ raise: 1. at the origin it should be a POWER raise, worth at least 12/13 hcp. This was needed also to differentiate it from more distributional signoffs, in case of opps sacrifices, to set up forcing passes and such. 2. then came the school of 2NT = inv+: dump your 10+ high card raises there and use higher bids to find the features. This "polluted" a little the message of great strength ("There is no doubt whatsoever, the hand belogs to our side!") intially given to J2NT. 3. if now, we start using 2NT ALSO for 7+ hands, the 2NT bid becomes extremely nebuslous and prone to preemption: now, whenever opps compete, we never know who the hand belongs to.

In my opinion, the best way to define the range of these "feature-showing" jumps(minisplinter for shortness, fitshowing jumps for good sidesuits) is in terms of LOSERS, not hcp. I personally like minisplinters or FJS (whatever pard prefers) to show about 8-8.5 losers, but I guess anther pair might prefer another range, which is ok as long as pard knows what to expect (and as long as the frequency of coccurrence of the selected hand type is high enough to get to use the bid). For example, this LTC criterion, while not explicitly mentioned, actually matches the system of raises proposed by Robson Segal, which uses a system of support based on giving shape-first, then (maybe) later hcp. If you chck the example he gives to show how he bids the same way with very weak and very strong hand with similar shapes, we may see that often the LTC of the weak and strong hand is the same.

Basically a splinter is GF and a slam try if the hands fit well (no wastage opposite responder's shortness). A minisplinter has the same shape but it is a game try (not slam try) with invitational values. The use of minisplinter or fitshowing jumps is considered by many to be moe helpful than plain (or reversed) Bergen raises: this is because in Bergen Raises, 3♣/♦ are used for invitational or mixed raise, but does not tell to pard WHERE is your strength or weakness. E.g. how many times opener, with a fair hand, does not know whether signoff in 3 opposite pard's mixed raise ? This is becase opener only knows the range of strength (say 6-9 hcp, or 9 losers), but knows nothing else about the hand features. Instead, having a bid that communicates 4+fit and a side singleton (minisplinter) or good sidesuit (fitshowing jump), helps much more to evaluate how well the combined hands fit.

I sure use adjustments, ben :) Usually, Qxx in one suit and another suit cancel out reevaluation and deevaluation (because often one Qxx is fitting and the other is misfitting). In the given hand I have values in 3 suits and it is likely LTC will underestimate some of the holding and overestimate the misfitting one, but until the bidding has progressed showing where pard's side values are, I tend to cancel out these things, because while I already know ♠Qxx is fitting, I expect some of the other values to be misfitting and account for this possibility. Moreover: 2.5 is already an OVERESTIMATION (treated as Kxx), so treating Qxx in pard's suit as 2.5 is already a reevaluation in some way. Unless I have extremely good redeeming values in other suits (so I might SUPER-REEVALUATE to less than 2.5 losers) OR pard has shown a 6 bagger there, I won't treat it as a 2-loser hlding. I personally would apply your reasoning to a Kxx holding but not Qxx unless I have a 4th trump. At least that's what I try to do ! <_<

♠Qxx = 2.5+ losers (NOT only 2, but worse than 2.5 losers) ♥ x = 1 losers ♦ AJ9x = 2- losers (less than 2, closer to 1.5/1.75 because of lower tenaces) ♣ Qxxxx = 2.5+ losers (NOT only 2, but worse than 2.5 losers) TOTAL = about 8 losers (not 7.5 <_< ) and, IMO invitational only strength (BTW, I am among those who do not like to bid a 2/1 with a Qxxxx suit, unless I have really no alternative... So, if treating the hand as genuine GF, I'd prefer a GF splinter, lying on a 4th trump rather than about a source of tricks in clubs) I am posting this only to try to emphasize that the simplified way of counting losers (e.g. Qxx = 2 losers lost like Axx or Kxx), which seems to have become popular (because its simplicity) has problems. I believe that teaching right away, also to non - experts, the "advanced" LTC count (accounting for finesses percentage) does not necessarily scare students: actually, in most italian books on bidding which deeal with LTC (e.g. most of Belladonna and Garozzo's books) do start right away with the table of losers with different holdings.

I do not know ACOL, but I believe you made the best possible bid. In Italy, some players who play 2/1 with Walsh responses to 1C opening (e.g. with non-GF hands, bid a 4 card major instead of a 5+ diamond suit ) , do alert 1D response to 1C as "natural OR strong without major". In the latter case, responder might NOT have diamonds. I believe best would be to add this "small trick" in your convention card.

In my view, responder underbid, because he has extra in distribution. Fitting hands are best evaluated in terms of losers, and a 8 losers hand (such as responder's) is worth an invitation, which will be obviously accepted by opener. I would invite with 1NT forcing because I do not like to splinter with 3 card support, but I suppose this is not a crucial point (up to pship style). So my chosen auction is: 1S:1NT* (forcing) 2C:3S 4S but in light of "semi"-forcing 1NT, I have no objection to 1S:3H* (minisplinter) 4S

K di picche, se cade un'onore, impasse all'altro onore attraverso Est.