Chamaco

Omero, se ti riferisci a BBO Italia, è un conto (ma la cosa mi sembrerebbe grave comunque, vedi considerazioni a fine post). Se invece ti riferisci al regolamento tecnico della FIGB (e virtualmente di tutte le Federazioni) cio' che dici non è corretto al 100%. Secondo il regolamento FIGB le psichiche non sono vietate di per se'. 1. Sono vietate SOLAMENTE ALCUNI TIPI BEN SPECIFICI DI PSICHICA. Fra questi, alcuni esempi ben noti sono che è vietato aprire con meno di 8 p.o. a livello 1 e deviare di piu' di 3 p.o. dal range annunciato di apertura 1SA o 2SA; oppure certe psichiche di lunghezza per dichiarazioni BEN SPECIFICHE. Ma questo non significa che tutte le licite siano proibite, tutt'altro. 2. Naturalmente, ancora piu' importanto del punto 1 è il fatto che il compagno debba essere ignaro della psichica quanto gli opps, altrimenti viene meno l'eticità della psichica. Ma ripeto, le psichiche sono ammesse TUTTE tranne quelle esplicitamente dichiarate illegali dal reglamento FIGB, am queste ultime sono casi in un numero limitato e preciso. ------------------------------------ Detto questo, se è vero che BBO Italia ha deciso di mettere al bando tutte le psichiche, mi sembra una scelta infelice: applicare un regolamento diverso da quello applicato dalle federazioni equivale a dire che si sta giocando ad un altro gioco. Il Bridge, quello vero, INCLUDE LE PSICHICHE. Le psichiche sono state fatte da tutti i giocatori di classe mondiale di tutti i tempi, da Culbertson agli assi del Blue Team, a Zia Mahmood, fino ai campioni contemporanei. Non consentire le psichiche significa negare la tradizione, la psichica è un elemento della tecnica (esistono almeno 2-3 libri in commercio sulla "tecnica delle psichiche"), non semplicemente una maniera per cercare di approfittare dei giocatori meno esperti. "Bannare" le psichiche per proteggere i principianti è assurdo (prima o poi dovranno imparare a difendersene e prima cio' accade, meglio è), e lo è ancora di piu' applicare regole diverse da quelle utilizzate nelle competizioni ufficiali (in cui le psichiche non esplicitamente proibite devono essere accettate- purchè anche il p di colui che esegue la psichica ne sia all'oscuro). Dal mio punto di vista, proibire le psichiche (e piu' in generale la scelta di adottare un regolamento diverso da quello FIGB) da' l'impressione di una grossa debolezza, o da parte dell'organizzazione, o da parte dei TD che adottano tale scelta.

Hi all, I don't know whether the following is a good idea or not, however, here it goes. In the past there have been - among the BBO audience - different views on the quality of some viewgraph shows. Some people have expressed disappointment fo some issues (e.g. some would like more focus on technical issues). On the other hand, Vugraph commentators are volunteers, and in my opinion, it is not so nice to make bad comments AFTER a broadcast where they devoted their times. Also, very often commentators do not have any idea of what the auduience would expect from the comments, and therefore they will base the comments on the basis of their feelings, which will be good or poor according to different occasions. Therefore, I wonder if maintaining a wishlist here on the BB Forum would help: this would be a wish from the audience, and a quick read by the commentators BEFORE the actual Vugraph show might be helpful to them ? Perhaps other BBO users, even with different tastes from mine, may express their views ? Anyway, I will start with my wishes below: 1) I will not focus on the analysis of difficult hands: this is usually taken over with enthusiasm by every commentator, because they find it challenging 2) I would rather try to focus on "apparently trivial" hands. Way too often some commentators dismiss quickly a hand as the cards appear as "a dull partscore" or "a push", wihout going into the details, and the rest of the hand features only some chit chat totally unrelated with bridge (cokes, football, etc), or loosely related. In virtually all of these hands there is the possibility to use the time to (BIDDING SECTION) - try to describe different bidding methods of the pairs, and anticipate the potential bidding battle nsuing with different methods - try to describe explicitly the hand evaluation process(e.g. when pair A+B misses or bids a hard game or slam, describe which is the mental process of the expert to take the correct choice) (CARD PLAY SECTION) - try to describe (even basic) suit combinations, and deviation from assumed standad play - point out potential defensive falsecards and in general, any form of potential deception techinque by declarer or defenders - try to describe the inferences done by the expert for choosing the lead or a the moment of a critical switch I want to stress here that I do not expect ALL of the above scheme being followed all the time: commenting is hard and I know it, and I am VERY thankful to all the volunteers. Also, I do not expect all commentators to always get the hand right (especially in such little time). I only want to say that I enjoy much more Vugraphs where the commentator tries constantly to make technical comments (even with mistakes), rather than those in which commentators just dwell too much (in my opinion) in jokes between friends. I hope no one gets offended, it is not my intention :-)

GF because 5 card suit headed by AK; even opposite a weak NT, it is conceivable to score -in 3NT - 4D, 1 C, and 2 in each major. E.g. in worse case one of those infamous Meckwell 22 hcp 3NT I am lost here. I think pard is "prebalancing" (he obviosly has the right shape and knows I cannot have the right shape to balance, hence he is bidding my values), so I won't get wild because my hand has extras. I bid 5 and accept losing the slam if it's there.

Ok, Free, just out of curiosity, could you send me those "2 pages" you gave to your f2f pard ? Thanks ! :) My email is m_casadei67*REMOVETHIS*@tin*REMOVETHISTOO*.it

Richard, you and most of the BBF posters are by far better players than me, so I won't argue with your point of view :) I only suspect that the standard of your partners is also much higher than both my level and my pard's ability to memorize bidding sequences. :D Mauro

This is a very good point. If West was NOT a passed hand, in the 2 combined holdings I showed, would you pass ? West KQx-QTxx- KTxxx-x East xx- Kx-Axx- KQJTxx E S W N 1C-(1S)-X-(3S) ?-pass-?

pass. Pard is likely to have at best something like KT9xxx- xxx- Kxx-x and even then 3NT will be a gamble because it is likely no Ax of spades will drop, and than QJxx of clubs are offside. Misfit hand.

Whereagles, I agree with some of your points, but I would try to avoid to get sidetracked on the issue: is it better to use forcing pass or not here ? If we want to discuss the practicality of such approach, I suggest we start another (interesting BTW) thread :-) My original post is rather: just assume- right or wrong - you use forcing pass after 5 level overcall. Do you also use the same tactics for 4 level and/or 6 level ? Where is the threashold ?

I assume in both case RHO will pass. In this case: - If 2NT is a jump: invitational to 3NT - If 2NT is NOT a jump = Lebensohl --------------------------------------------------------------------- More interesting to me is the case where responder bids something. Could anyone provide a list of: 1. what is supposed to be standard ? 2. what you think is most effective ? Case a. New suit at 1 level 1X-(Dbl)-1Y-(2NT) Case b. New suit at 2 level (non jump) 1X-(Dbl)-2Y-(2NT) Case c. New suit at 2 level (weak jump) 1X-(Dbl)-2Y-(2NT) Case d. New suit at 2 level (fitshowing jump) 1X-(Dbl)-2Y-(2NT) Case e. Single raise 1X-(Dbl)-2X-(2NT) Case f. Redouble 1X-(Dbl)-Rdbl-(2NT)

In the thread I refer to, Misho says it should be forcing because opener has promised 2+ defensive tricks. Howver, I agree that many will play pass as NF, but the post i a question to those who do play it as forcing :-)

Ok, so what should EW bid with this combined holding ? West KQx-QTxx- KTxxx-x East xx- Kx-Axx- KQJTxx E S W N 1C-(1S)-X-(3S) ?-pass-?

Hi all, reading a past post :) , I noticed that quite a few good players suggest that in a sequence such as 1♠-(5♦)- ? , responder's pass would be better played as forcing. This needs agreements of course, since it is far from clear whether this is standard or not. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=974 Now my question is the following, and is for all those who play this kind of forcing pass: Question 1 if pass is forcing on a 5-level overcall, is it forcing at the 4 level? E.g. 1♦-(4S)-? is pass forcing here ? Where is the lower boundary for the pass to be forcing ? Question 2 Is there an upper boundary ? (E.g. 1♠-(5♦)- ? , is pass forcing ?) Thanks !

I believe the strong club hand types which can give more headaches are 2-suiters. Balanced hands are relatively easy to handle, and strong one suiters will usually come out alive from a contested auction. But 2 suiters are: a. VERY vulnerable to preemption (side suit may disappear) b. even in uncontested auction, minor suit slams are often missed, especially at MP (when 3NT is an option). Most of the pitfalls you mention can be avoided by using Fantoni-Nunes system (all 1-level bids forcing unlimited, 14+ hcp - weak NT- 1♣ may be clubs OR strong NT or stronger bal - 2 level opening bids natural 5+, 8-13). The system gives up wild weak 2s (daring people can use 3 level bids for them), but on balance has a sound mix of solidity and aggressiveness.

What would you bid with West after: 1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(3♠) pass-pass-? Holding this hand ? KQx-QTxx- KTxxx-x This hand: 1) does NOT want to bid 3NT 2) has only invitational values 3) has a stiff in opener's suit; 4) does not want to leave 3S undoubled So, if double is only takeout, what can West bid ? (If you would simply pass the actual example hand, just add 1 or 2 hcp, so that he hand is still unsuitable to bid 3NT but is suitable for penalty, and tell me what you would bid)

Ty Ben for the suggestions ! A couple of points: 1) Actually reading the post, it occured to me that good hands could go via a "Martel 2NT" or Jacoby+ structure ! 2) About jumpshifts: I thought of using it as FSJ. However, I liked the ability to show shortness controls: pard already knows the honor controls, and showing the singleton/void completes the picture in terms of controls. One solution may be to use the cheapest JS (3S when H trumps or 3NT for spades) as undisclosed splinter à la Bergen, and 3NT(when trump is H), 4m and 4H(when trump is S) as good side suit. 3) finally, the question is: regardless of being splinter or FJS, should the JS show or deny extra values beside showing the distributional feature ? I suppose it should show no substantial extras (e.g. no more than 3 hcp in Quacks); stronger hands would go via martel 2NT. Does this all seem reasonable ?

Oops, mistyped the title: Ben, could you correct the title to: " "Responsive" doubles after opps overcall and jumpraise" ? (BTW, for distracted people like me :D, it would be a nice feature in the forum to be able to correct title typos)

[hv=d=w&v=a&n=skt973hj753d843cj&w=s5h9642dat96caq86&e=s2hakdj752ckt9742&s=saqj864hqt8dkqc53]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South Pass Pass 1♣ 1♠ Dbl 3♠ Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass 3S is a preemptive raise. I was East and I was confused from the bidding My first doubt was immediately if bid or pass over 3S: If I doubled, what would show ? Should it show extras ? Or could be also a minimum hand with shortness (takeout) ? I chose to pass, assuming that Dbl would show extras: but this creates a problem in the interpretation of my pard's double. Initilally I thought pard's double was takeout, but after some quick thinking, I thought "What is pard supposed to bid if he REALLY wants to double for penalty?", say holding a hand that does not want to bid 3NT and has no other prospective game on ? So the questions are Question a. immediately over 3S, by east, what does double show ? Extras or just shape ? The shape-showing X clears the smoke, because now pard can leave the double in if he is penalty oriented; but it becomes harder to differentiate strength Question b. What does west double show after east passed ? If it is takeout, what should west bid if he wants to double but cannot bid 3NT ? If it is penalty, what should he bid if he has a t/o hand ?

To see how bad ratings perform, it is not necessary to be far-sighted: just look at your country's rating system. The rating system tends to be related to *how often* one playes rated tourneys, rather than its real skill. Sure, there are awesome players who are high rankd; but there are also many discrepancies (e.g. many times high-ranked players are not SO good as it might appear, and this occurrence is VERY frequent). Moreover, "rating discrimination" also lead to rudeness etc etc. All in all, I really believe there is no reason to copy a system which tends to fail even for live bridge.

I thought that the Law of Symmetry worked: usually when one player yells at his/her pard, he/she gets yelled back ! B)

I bid 6♣ showing the ♣ King. I have already bid and rebid diamonds, nothing to show more there; instead, pard could be interested in my ♣ K to make "solid" a side suit, or to "see" a 13th top trick. I have told my story, now the ball is in its court, isn't he a bidding machine ? B)

Club to Ace, Club Ruff, Diamond to Ace, Club ruff, Ace of H and H ruff, hoping H split or that D Ten is in the hand with long hearts, and combining chance of dropping Kx in clubs.

With the K of ♣ added, I agree with the bidding of both sides. After all, 3♥ is not a terrible spot (it is on the ♦K finesse), and both payers had reasons to keep the bidding open (opener did not like 2H and looked fr alternative partscore, responder could still have game prospects). I would open 2♣ the hand, since if I open 1D, bidding will go 1D:1H 2C and now we have close to zero chance to find spades.

I agree with Ben in the assessment of 2♣ opener. The problem is the following. While 1M precision openers can be done fairly light, 2♣ sequences are already awkward on their own: often responder has trouble evaluating the hand because there is little room to investigate the best partscore. If responder never knows whether opener has a real opening, things can get crazy. (and while this happens with 1M openers, there are some bult-in mechanism to prevent disasters, especially since there is more bidding room) Because of this, IMO, it is necessary to have strict rules for 2♣ openers: I play with pard that 1st/2nd seat 2♣ openers should have some redeeming features: if it is light, it must have a great ♣ suit to retreat to a safe 3♣. Otherwise, it should at least conform to Bergen's rule of 20 with 2+ quick tricks. (3rd seat things are a bit different, but, there too, I would not open the hand you posted even in 3rd seat)

A of H. Not unlikely pard can get a ruff

Ho votato 4 cuori (splinter). In questa sequenza dovrebbe avere TUTTI i seguenti requisiti: 1. corto a cuori; 2. apertura MINIMA in termini di punteggio onore: con mano + forte in p.o., meglio dire 4♣. La licita splinter deve essere utilizzata con mani LIMITATE, per permettere al compagno di poter decidere se chiudere a manche o meno se ha valori sprecati opposti al nostro singolo. Per questo, con mani TROPPO FORTI per una splinter, meglio cercare una forma alternativa di appoggio. Un ultima osservazione: è bene accordarsi con il compagno se la splinter puo' avere un vuoto oppure è specificamente di singolo: molti giocatori di alto livello preferiscono evitare uno splinter di vuoto, proprio per evitare al compagno problemi nella valutazione della mano(per es, Axxx opposto a singolo è ottimo, opposto a un vuoto è assolutamente inutile, ed altri esempi si sprecano).