Chamaco

Yes I recommend it as a practice, very realistic training for matchpoints competitions.

Justin, firstly thanks a lot for your advice. Your contributions on hand evaluation are great for us improving players. Secondly: do you think it is too conservative to consider (as I did here) that, I am not going to try guessing later ? In other words, my initial pass is made with the intention of passing anything even at a later round unless pard makes a move: basically I would bid this hand just as if I had no QJ in spades (a 5 count), UNLESS pard shows a real reverse, in which case I'll move towards game. I am discovering I am becoming more conservative than i was a while ago at least in likely no-fit auctions. Again, I have another hand evaluation doubt here: it is true that 55 is great, but this shape seems to warn heavily that pard's rebid will be the dreaded 2 HEARTS, or, worse, 3 hearts... I have a hard time having a plan if pard rebids his suit... unless I pass in a 5-0 or 6-0 fit....

E' possibile fare una dichiarazione da... maiale (di cui , è noto, non si butta via nulla....) ? Vabbè, lessico o non lessico, mi cimento in un bel 3 cuori, al grido di "Siamo uomini o caporali??" ;) (no, infido ardf... non darmi la risposta.... :P )

Is there anyone who would contemplate PASS for the second hand ? Is it so horrible ? In many textbooks on neg X, they mention that a double that virtually forces the bidding at the 2-level, such as this one, should guarantee 8+ hcp (at the 1-level, requirements are less strict)... but here, it seems to me that QJ in opps suit as well as the void in pd suit, make the hand very borderline (e.g. I am driven to consider it more like a 7- count rather than an 8 count) ?

Just my opinion here... Playable. However, I prefer the "all doubles are t/o" approach (which indeed loses some penalty chances when responder does have a penalty pass and opener cannot reopen because he is not short in opps suit) Pass. If double is takeout here, then it is not an option, and any other option sounds weird. Once we have decided (at the previous round, by passing) that this hand was not worth an invite, it makes no sense to bid 2NT, at least at IMPS: let's just defend undoubled and collect our small plus

Amen, pazienza:) Ogni dichiarazione (o nondichiarazione) si assume dei rischi, e questo è il rischio che preferisco assumermi, in termini di frequenza e di entità degli swing che possono acadere sulla base della mia scelta. Di fronte ad un barrage del p credo sia piu' importante non sovralicitare piuttosto che preoccuparsi di come andra' se gli opps riaprono... Tra l'altro, se la licita va cosi', ORA posso dire 3 Picche, non forzante, dopo che ho limitato la mano col pass. E se invece gli avversari chiamano 4 cuori prima che noi facciamo in tempo a dire 3 picche, nulla ci dice che non riusciremo a mandarli sotto... Tutto sommato non credo che dire 3SA sia la dichiarazione "normale". Mi sembra una "ricerca del colpo", una dichiarazione "tattica" e a volte puo' funzionare,ma spesso nelle risposte a quiz, si assiste alla mania di voler fare il "colpo" a tutti i costi anzichè dichiarare in modo "ordinario"... :P) Va cpmunque detto che molto, anzi moltissimo, dipende dalo stile dei barrages del p. Io preferisco barrages distruttivi, per aumentare la frequenza: se il colore è bello, spesso le carte sono solo 6, mentre se le carte sono 7, nella situazione giusta di zona, il colore non ha sicuramente 2 onori maggiori (esempio, barrage tipico = JT8xxxx), altrimenti il barrage lo farei a livello 4.

Dipende dal significato del contre su 4 picche. La tendenza moderna è di giocarlo informativo (anche se comunque garantisce sempre almeno 18-19 p.o.) cosichhè 4NT sarebbe una bicolore generica. E' plausibile giocarlo punitivo, ma uno sguardo alla letteratura moderna e alla CC dei giocatori piu' forti, illustra come oggigiorno quasi tutti i giocatori di classe mondiale lo giochino informativo. Nel caso il contre sia informativo (cosa non certa, magari il nostro p dell'occasione lo intendeva punitivo), l'unico dubbio è se chiamare 5 o 6 cuori... Personalmente direi 5 cuori.

I see I am in a minority, but at this vulnerability I shall pass. I'd bid 3D holding better intermediates (say the T or the 98, not just the 8), in other words, at these colors, I rebid 3D with a suit that is very likely to play for 1 loser opposite pard shortness. KQJ8xx vs a singleton is not guaranteed not to lose 2 tricks if diamonds split badly, and, at red, -200 might be a bad board. Pass has the advantage of flexibility: pard can still double for business, or, it is still possible that our best strain is not diamonds but clubs. Passing indeed relinquishes chances to compete in diamonds (if we do not rebid diamonds, pard will hardly bid them, I suppose). However, I'd feel better about my pass if I were playing weak NT and 1D opening guaranteeing an unbalanced hand....

Personalmente dichiaro 3 Picche: è forcing 1 giro, è una licita plausibile anche perchè se il p è proprio steso è possibile riportare a 4 quadri. Certo, molto dipende dallo stile dei barrage del compagno: se il compagno è soito dichiarare 3 quadri con mani molto deboli, anche il passo è plausibile. Anzi, quasi quasi, piu' ci penso e piu' cambierei il mio voto nel sondaggio da 3 picche ad un bel pass....per l'accesso al Louvre...

If the 1H rebid guarantees 4+ clubs, then 4C by responder should NOT be a splinter ( I do not like splinters in pard's bid suit)... I much prefer 4C as keycard for clubs. If, instead the 1H rebid does not guarantee clubs, then the 4C bid seems like a real enigma to me, probably a splinter could be a possible meaning....

Indeed, thinking again of such sequence, 5C = Last Train does the job. After pard's 4S, any nonsignoff promises a heart control (since pard denied it, we'd just sign off without one), and implicitly asks pard to keep the bidding open if he has one. So 4NT= I have a heart control, even keycards, please cue clubs if you have a control otherwise sign off in 5D 5C = I have a heart control, odd keycard, please cuebid above 5D if you've got a club stopper.

Playing Turbo, in most sequences there should be a way to guarantee/deny a club control while setting trumps in diamonds. Of course this depends on the specific sequence: opps might have stuck into the auction, and then it will be harder, but this (lack of bidding room to check everything due to busy opps) applies also for slam bidding in the major using Turbo or LLTC+seriousNT....

That's what I meant in one previous post where I mentioned that Turbo sometimes leaves you "endplayed" in the bidding ("endplayed" = you'd like to *ask* something but you are forced to *show* something because no room otherwise). There are 2 possibilities here: a. more flexible use of 4NT = "Declarative/interrogative", Neapolitan-Club style. Basically 4NT becomes a sort of "Last Train". You can find a writeup on this at: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...ddingToSlam.zip However this might screw up the rest of the scheme. b. use 5C as "Last Train" with the agreed odd number of keycards (4NT = even no. of keycards; but you can switch odd vs even if u like)

Rodwell: So you do not agree on Ingberman ? Perhaps to avoid problems with reverses we could give a try to a Strong Club System then....

I agree Arend, but the problem I refer to does not arise when we are on offense. This problem arises if we end up defending: opps end up in 4H and our pard would like to double but does not know whether we have a REAL response or not. A normal rsponse should (in my opinion) guarantee a moderate amount of real values that opener can account for if he intends to double. Yes, yes, I know.... "Points schmoints" .... but there must be a limit, or at least there should be a way - from the 1st round of bidding, before opps can bounce too high for us to clarify - to discriminate hands with value only in offence and others that can carry their weight for NT or in defending.

Right. Playing that structure (e.g. constructive wjs) means that you pass hands with a bust a a 6 bagger. Hence if pard opens 1D and you hold Qxxxxx-xx-void-xxxxx you have to pass.... unless you play a system where every 1m opening is forcing, but then the system must have tools to find out whether responder has real stregth or is just responding because forced- this would become a system totally different from 2/1 or similar

Even so, there are (at least) 2 ways to play wjs: a. totally preemptive, say 0-5 and a 6 bagger b. weak but semiconstructive, e.g. 5/6-9 and a 6+ bagger

2NT, might go down, but I bid my hand...

If you want, that means discussing "the effectiveness of agreements", which one you prefer and why... so it's too easy to just say "it's a matter of agreements, any agreement will work as long as you have one", but I think that if you want to make a meaningful discussion rather you should explain which one is more efficient and why :) It's way too easy to respond "matter of agreement " LOL, that could be said for almost any topic :) One should discuss further the details :-)

This time I agree with Mike: it is true that virtually anything can be played "upside down" by agreement, but in some situation there exist "bridge logic" that indicates one choice is better than the other... For example, If pard opens a weak 2 and opps overcall, what's the meaning of double ? You may say that it's a matter of agreements, but indeed most players play it as penalty. From what I read it seems to me that this thread is trying to sort out the best approach, and I do not think that choosing penalty or takeout is only a matter of agreement, in this situation there is a high likelyhood that one will fare better than the other.

It's too late to decide whether bid,Just getting not too many dirty water! I am sorry I did not understand what you mean... ;)

No absolutely. This player- despite strong - is a very pleasant person and usually he never shows signs of irritation even when I commit some bad mistakes. The same happened here. The one and only reason why I posted the question was that the fact that if a real expert (not BBO expert) had been ready to pass this double, perhaps other stronmg players would do that, and, in this case, I had probably to listen and learn, perhaps reconsidering my previous view about such balancing situations.

Life is a game, so why shouldn't bridge be ?... :)

Mike, after my Mike Lawrence readings on doubles, overcalls and balancing, I thought that doubling immeddiatley 1H would be MORE dangerous than the actual action I did: my reasoning is: after the 1H response, both opps are unlimited, and I can be sandwiched easily. True, that would happen at the 1 level but still, sticking the nose in an unlimited auction without a long, good suit seems risky to me. Instead, when a simple raise is getting passed out at the 2-level, opps are limited, and chances are that they won't be able to penalize us (sadly, this is not always true LOL). And indeed, I was always taught that it's losing bridge (= doouble partscore swings, etc etc), even at IMPS, to give up on 2-level partscores battles when the shape and vulnerability allows us to compete But, I am here on this forum to listen and learn from you folks, so I'll appreciate any further comments...

Yes I lead a trump.