Chamaco

My doubt here is not about methods but on hand evaluation: even using thrump doubles and Non Leaping Michaels, is it not too light to bid immediately over the 3H preempt ? I was taught that to overcall a 3-level preempt I should have a *sound* opener, and even a minimum opener is not enough and is better off pasing even with a decent shape. Here, even with a 55, hand is 7 loser-hand, more or less equivalent to a minimum opener, so, if following the above-mentioned criterion, would be better off passing ? :)

I think this is very similar (if not the same) to the ETM 2/1 structure (am I correct Ben ?? :) ). It does have the advantage to discriminate some "problem" hands of "standard" 1NT forcing (namely, weak and invitational hands with hearts unsuitable to bid 3H) when pard opens 1S.

Does not have to be balanced to be inv

TY Helene, that answers my question: basically you agree that simply saying "invitational", without specifying hcp range, is a correct answer. Then perhaps "answers" problem was his lack of knowledge of english: we are talking of nuances here, and to use nuances you have to master the language. In my opinion, when he said to the TD "Bridge is a game of tricks", that's what he meant, but I am only assuming hypotheses.

5C diretto dovrebbe dare una mano un po' meno forte di quella in esame, diciamo compresa fra 4 e 5 perdenti. Oops, naturalmente interpreto "2/3/4/5C" come "Clubs" (fiori), non come "Cuori"... Io procederei a fare la licita + forte possibile ammessa dal sistema (giocando Leaping Michaels, la surlicita; altrimenti il contre) e poi mostrerei le fiori. Potendo giocare le Leaping Michaels, uno dei rischi del contre è che il p salti a cuori troppo in alto per mostrare le fiori ad un livello utile. Nnostante l'ipotesi appena enunciata sia remota, la surlicita è piu' prudente perchè a differenza del contre non promette in prima istanza le cuori, e tiene la licita sotto controllo: in sostanza, con la surlicita non abbiamo nulla da rimetterci e solo da guadagnare rispetto al contre.

One question to people who know well the rules: does one always have to give "hcp" answers ? I mean, the auction 1X:3NT by many people means just "I want to play 3NT", and not "I have xxx hcp": the "I want to play 3NT" maycome from far less than 12-13 hcp, if there are tricks. Could not this apply to the 2NT bid ? It seems to me "arrows" reply to the TD intended that: he said "Bridge is a game of tricks", implying that he does not necessarily have hcp, but could be a long suit. What am I missing ? :P

:rolleyes:

Certainly nothing is perfect, but playing Leaping Michaels, cuebid then suit shows a huge distributional hand, unsuited for double (such as this one is, IMO).

I like the idea of a Public BBO users Directory. Perhaps concealing the email looks like a good idea but othrwise, it seems a nice feature :-)

You might use 2NT as concealed splinter, since the 18-19 bal would be lumped into 2S. Then your pard could decide or not to ask your singleton with a 3C relay, if interested in slam: in case you do not go to slam, the concealed splinter will not give away too much info to the opening leader.

I think that passing when one has opening values often backfires, and is at least as dangerous than marginal 2-level overcalls. The point is, the old motto that "with a good hand and unclear bid, do not rush, you'll be able to show your strength later" often does not hold in modern bidding, when people open and respond on nothing: either the opponents raise the bidding (say using a forcing NT), or, say, bidding comes back to you in the balancing seat, and when you bid your pard does not know whether you are balancing with a full opening or with a marginal hand (result = missed games our side or pard fails to double their partscore). Basically, once you passed once, it is often VERY hard to convince pard that you reallly have a good hand, so, with values, much better stretch to show them at the first round. -- I definitely rule pass out, and the decision ranges netween 2D and double. Both are dangerous, but so is passing, especially if opps are playing 1NT forcing and are light bidders. I think that at White I might bid a marginal 2D, whilst at Red I would double, but I sure understand others who'd rather double than bid diamonds at white too.

(Already posted this in the italian section of the Forum) With a 2.5 loser hand, if I play Leaping Michaels, I bid 3S then 5 clubs over the likely 4D/4H response by p; this will show my huge hand, even stronger than double+ new suit. a. Bidding directly any number of clubs would be an underbid b. 3NT will probably make but 6C needs almost nothing from pard.

Su un barrage, una buona regola per decidere se intervenire a colore o di contre è la "Regola del 7 " di Mike Lawrence: si licita (o forza il p a licitare) al livello plausibile assumendo che il p abbia circa 7 punti "normali". E' una regolina "banale" se vogliamo, ma aiuta a dichiarare correttamente piu' spesso di quanto mette fuori strada. Soprattutto, aiuta chi deve rispondere all'intervento, poiché con 0-7 p.o. fara' una dichiarazione debole (pass se il p è intervenuto a colore, licita a livello se il p ha detto "contre", licita "forte" - per es. a salto se possibile - con 8+ p.o.). Partendo da questo presupposto, qui le 2 uniche licite plausibili sono: - 3SA - 4 fiori - 3SA non mi piace: se il compagno avesse 17-20 con fermo, avrebbe dovuto licitare 3SA lui, anche se avesse avuto la 4a nobile a lato. Pertanto il suo contre tende a negare un fermo serio a picche; ora, è vero che puo' avere il complemento (jxx), ma non si puo' sempre sperare nella mano perfetta da parte del compagno. I giocatori d'azzardo potrebbero arrischiar un 3NT sperando che chi ha detto 3 picche abbia AKTxxxx ed attacchi di piccola per tenere aperte le comunicazioni, ma non è il mio stile... - 4 fiori non è una bella licita, ma escludendo 3SA, la mano non è abbastanza forte per dire 5 fiori. Morale della favola: forse perderemo 3SA, ma preferisco un 4 fiori sicuro. Inoltre, per una scelta accurata è indispensabile avere buoni accordi con il p: ribadisco che se il p avesse 17/20 semibilanciati con fermo, avrebbe dovuto dire lui 3SA, fregandosene anche di un eventuale 4a nobile a lato.

I have found that passing with weak hands opposite pard's limited openings is rarely a good idea: it gives away too much info to opps, who know that our pard has <16 AND that we passed, so they know the hands likely belong to them, and it's easier for them to bid game if they have one. Instead, responding with very weak hands, eve opposite a limited opener, even if we have no chance for game, usually lets the opps in the dark: they will not know how the balance of power splits. The THEORETICAL PLUSES would be that with a hand without game prospect but quite good, say, 8-9 hcp and a misfit, we may pass and opps may enter the bidding and we may get them... A few times it will work... But many times, the penalty won't be as much rewarding at 2 level, other times we'll have game because pard has distribution opposite our 8-9 hcp... Also, the limited opener may be quite weak some times, and our penalty doubles will backfire then... Too many ifs... So, even with a decent 8 hcp without a great fit, I think it's almost always right to use the bidding tempo advantage on opps. So, with support in a major, I use - 3 card raises, 0-7 goes via 1NT forcing - 3 card raises 8-9/10 hcp (more or less 9 losers) = single raise - 3 card rais, inv go via 1NT forcing - 3 card raise GF go via a 2/1 - 4 card raises are conventional (preemptive, mixed, invitational and GF) Without support and a very weak hand, I might use 1NT forcing to pass any response by p, when not vuln. -------------------------------------------------------- I want to add a further point related to the original question (e.g. "do we need to differentiate 3 vs 4 card support to a limited opener?"). IMO, the answer is YES!!!! we need it ! The difference in playing strength of 5-4 fit vs the 5-3 fit is often 1-1.5 trick, so opener will know that with 4 trumps support he may accept with most hands whereas with a 3card support limit raise he'll need more. For some examples on the importance of the 9th trump, see the following articles by Mike Lawrence: http://www.michaelslawrence.com/Articles/012_frm.html http://www.michaelslawrence.com/Articles/013_frm.html http://www.michaelslawrence.com/Articles/014_frm.html These article refer to "Standard bidding" but the importance of the 9th trump applies to any system, regardless of whether opener is limited or not. It is also the reason why I STRONGLY dislike the use of Jacoby 2NT (or similar GF raises) which do NOT guarantee a 4th trump but could be generically 3 card support or better. GF raises (actually, ANY raise) should definitely distinguish 4+ trump support from 3 cd support, because that will strongly impact the slam potential.

Back to the initial question: discriminating 3 card support from 4 card support. In the strong club context I play with my teammates, we incorporate 1NT forcing and 2/1 GF over 1 of a major. This way we can give a limit raise with 4 trumps (using a Limit JumpRaise, or Bergen, or 2NT JacobyPlus, or anything you like), differentiated from the 3 trumps limit (1NT forcing then jump). In the context of "Natural Precision", I really like to merge it with 2/1 structure, it helps keeping the bidding open when opener has opened a limited opening with a good hand which can see slam opposite another good opening. An alternative is using relays over 1M opening: one of the many examples is Viking Club, which uses 1NT as a GF relay to investigate further opener's hand, 2C as invitational relay, and 2D/H/S as nonforcing

After a Minor suit opening, Italian Juniors are taught to use what they call "Multi-reverse", e.g. first suit above suit rebid shows a GENERIC REVERSE, can be any shape (even the balanced hand), then responder gets to know more of opener's hand after a relay. All hcp-power hands go via the Multireverse. This works fairly well, and frees the use of the 2NT and 3 level jump-bids for more distributional hands.

Parole sante, da far ricopiare sul quadernino e ripetere 100 volte al giorno a tantissimi giocatori di qualsivoglia forza .... :-)

As opener I would have bid 3S over responder's 3H bid, showing values in S and basically asking for C stopper.

Tutti i problemi di natura disciplinare vanno segnalati ai membri "gialli" di BBO. Fra gli italiani, quelli di solito collegati s BBO sono "Vincenzo" e "Beky". Ad ogni modo, se il comportamento è sgarbato ma non particolarmente grave, la cosa migliore è evitare di ritrovarsi nuovamente al tavolo con il giocatore in qustione, evitandolo in futuro. E' inoltre possibile "segnare" il gioicatore come "nemico" ("enemy"). ciao Mauro

Ben, is this "standard practice", e.g., would you expect yourpickup partner to understand it without previous agreements ?

This is not bad, but in my opinion, the main issue is to whether the DONT overcall will suggest a good lead or not: if I have a good lead directing bid, I'll stretch to make it; if my 54/55 may cause pard to lead a bad suit, I won't. -------------- If you switched 2C and 2D bids you are more or less usinga variant of Landy, which I personally like better than Capp. Vs weak NT I play X = (semi)balanced 15-17 or bal 20+ or huge unbalanced hands. Advancer will bid assuming I have 15-17 bal, using stayman weak/strong (usually weak, scrambling), transfers, lebensohl in competition, etc 2C = 54 or better in majors or "Raptor" hand ( 4cM + longer minor) 2D is weak relay, over which 2H =majors, 2S = Raptor with S, 3m = Raptor with H + the bid minor 2NT is strong relay, over which 3C = majors with a longer major (3D asks), 3D = majors with equal length, min; 3M = Raptor + M, 3NT = majors equal length, max; 2D = "Multi" = ANY single suiter, minimum opener OR 18-19 balanced 2H/S = 5+, usually has a side minor, opening srength 2NT = minors, opening srength 3X = single suiter, reverse The use of double is not strictly "penalty" but rather a "balance of power" bid. In the balancing seat, the ranges of balanced hands lowers down: X = 12-15 or 20+ bal and Multi2D includes the 16-19 range, the rest is the same.

I do not expect to be original, but my opinion is that in future "myhands" engine version, one should provide also a password to access his own hands. This would eliminate the "privacy" issue.

So, after 1C:1D, how do you show a 16/17 hcp hand diamonds-based (e.g. a hand that does not want to play at the 3 level opposite a broke pard) ?

This would be true if responder did not pass. But if responder does passes, the 2 following sequences will often be similar: 1NT(12-14)-pass-pass-? 1NT(15-17)-pass-pass-? In both cases, if you bid, sometimes you'll stumble in opps having 23-24 hands, some other times you'll get a good contract that would be missed otherwise. The likelihood is about the same. Actually, if our line has about 23-24 hcp, it will be much more likely that we have game vs the STRONG NT rather than vs the Weak NT, since all the defensive strength being in one hand it will be easier to read the hand, with marked finesses and frequent endplays. I want to emphasize that the use of disruptive methods in a balancing seat, when opps already gave up the hopes for game, appears to me to be VERY inadequate: disruption should be used to prevent opps bidding the right game or slam, not when they are passing out, and this applies regardless of whether they opened a strong or weak NT (or 1 of a suit for what matters). When opps are passing out, I believe one should be able to have ALL of the following options: 1. compete safely, 2. cooperate with partner in case game is there 3. cooperate with partner in case we can penalize 1NT or any other partscore. Disruptive methods handle well only option 1, and in the balancing seat it is a serious handicap in my opinion. This is why I advocatite using in the balancing seat cs Sttrong NT the same methods used vs weak NT: it has nothing to lose and much to gain. (Please note that I DO NOT advocate reopening with ANY hand vs neither strong nor weak NT; this is a matter of judgement; I only say that *if you judge that reopening is wise*, then it is better to do so with your defense vs weak NT).

The point of having a specific bid for 4441 hands 17-20 is the following: 1) we do not use relays "à la Moscito or Viking club or Symmetric relay", only exception is opener's 1H rebid after 1D negartive response, see point 3 below; 2) after 1C:1D, if opener bids a suit it MUST be 5+, not 4+ 3) 1C:1D:1H is artificial, 19/20+ 4) 1C:1D: ? now 1S/2C/2D/2H are natural, minimum 16-18. 2S/3C/3D/3H are used to show a self sufficient one suiter. Given the above points, hlding 17-20 hcp 4441, opener has an awkward rebid after 1D , and NO, after 1D response, I do not want to rebid 1S or 2m as 4 card suit, nor give up the artificial 1H rebid for non-minimum 1C opening :-)