Chamaco

I pass, even 3rd seat, white vs red.

The 1NT psyche is not allowed in Italy in most tourneys except top-level flights. According to such rules (which I do not agreee upon, but I won't open the Pandora box here), 1NT bid should guarantee a range within 2 hcp deviation of the announced range AND in any case to open a hand at 1 level, a player should have at least 8 hcp.

Hi all, I would like to have some constructive suggestions from the strongclubber gurus of this Forum :-) The help I need is in the construction of a simpler way to respond to strong club openers, without losing too much in terms of effectiveness, trying to copy as much as I can from previous systems. I only ask you one favour :rolleyes: : there is already a thread on the effectiveness or not of using "shape-first" or "control -first" responses, so please :blink: , do not respond in this thread only to say that control step systems are outdated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY DO I NEED THIS ? (skip this- as I myself would :D - if you do not care) The point is, having started to play with my pard a Precision variation using various types of asking bids (SABs, TABs, CABs etc etc) after 1C opening and positive responses, we have come to the conclusion that the memory burden is too much for her. She constantly forgets the sequences, and even when she remembers them, she has trouble selecting the best strategy for each situation (e.g. which is the asking bid that will work better here?). What's more, she cannot read english, so she does not have access to all the english language literatue with the examples available in books and online. Even worse, the pressure she feels from the complicated system, reflects badly on her card play, and she plays much worse now than when we played simpler systems. Hence, we need to simplify the system. I won't argue on the effectiveness of relay systems or of a full comprehensive use of asking bids, for a good pair, but this won't work with us, in the immediate future. BUT, we both love the advantage of having limited openings and having strong hands go via 1C. Hence our need to simplify the 1C developments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY USE CONTROL-STEP RESPONSES TO 1C ? (skip this if you do not care but MOST OF ALL DO NOT START A DISCUSSION ON WHY SHAPE-FIRST RESPONSES ARE BETTER! :P ) It seems to me that in Precision one of the main reasons to use asking bids (not the only one of course) during positive auctions, is to limit the hands, in terms of controls usually. So I thought that maybe using the step control responses to 1C, such as those use in the Blue Team Club, would limit immediately the hand. What's more, in the Blue Team Club style, the auction proceeds in a semi-natural manner, which will be good for our memory strain. Although in some auctions I will regret dropping asking bids and relays, it will help playing with my current pard (and NO, don't suggest to change my pard, it's xmas after all! :lol: ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now here are the SYSTEM QUESTIONS. They only refer to 1C sequences. The idea is to use after 1C(16+): 1D = negative, 0-1 controls, or 2 controls < 6 hcp 1H = semipositive = 2 controls 6+ hcp. Following auction is only invitational+, forcing to 2NT or 3X. 1S = 3 controls, GF 1NT = 4 controls, GF 2C = 5+ controls, GF 2D = "Multi" = 4-6 hcp with a long major, may stop in 2M 2H = balanced 8-10, GF 2S = bal 11-13, GF 2NT = bal 14+, GF 3X = 4441, GF, various ranges As you see, there is a slight difference from the std Blue Club /Neapolitan Club structure: a. the 8-10/11-13/14+ balanced are given with 2H/S/NT. They are evaluated in terms of absolute hcp rather than controls (because I believe NT bidding should take in full account the value of "quacks"). Ron suggested me to invert the ranges (e.g. 2H = 14+, 2S = 11-13, 2NT = 8-10), but I prefer that NT is played by a strong hand, e.g. I hate if 3NT is played by a 8-10 balanced, whereas letting a 14+ balanced hand play NT does not feel so bad :D b. as a consequence the positive responses (1S thru 2C) all have at least a 5 bagger. So, when opener hears a positive control response, he has the additional info that the hand is not balanced (yes, I know, it may be 5422 or 5332, but still, it is a valuable info). The 1H response is ambiguous (e.g. either a 8+ unbalanced OR 6-7 balanced) c. 2D is used as "Multi", which means the contract in the major will likely be played by the strong hand. The "traditional" 2♦ 6+ controls step responses , can be reasonably collapsed into the 2♣5+ controls without too much loss, in MY opinion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now the questions are especially directed towards the following: a. Which development would you suggest after the positive balanced responses? 1) 1C:2H (8-10) 2) 1C:2S (11-13) 3) 1C:2NT (14+): this last one is not really an issue since there are quite a few schemes available in the literature Let's make an example: 1C:2H: ? Which bid is Stayman ? How does responder bid when holding both majors ? Which bid by opener shows a 5 card suit looking for game/slam there ? How to handle 2 suiters ? How to look for minor suit game/slams ? How to ask straight Aces and how to invite quantitatively to 6NT, either directly AND after some form of inquiry (e.g. "Stayman" or after trying to find a 5-3 fit) ? The same questions arise after 1C:2S b. Which development would you suggest after the 2D "Multi" response ? E.g. 1C:2D - 2H/S = paradox responses ? (pass if holding the major I bid) - 2NT = positive, but what does it ask ? should responder show a side singleton (directly or bidding the suit under?) ? Or should responder clarify his strength ? eg: 3C = max with ♥, 3 D = max with ♠, 3H/S = natural minimum - jumpbids = CABS ?

Le risposte alle tue domande sono condizionate dal significato attribuito alla surlicita diretta 3♠. Poichè usi le Leaping Michaels (4♣/♦ per la bicolore minore-nobile), la surlicita diretta non è Michaels, ma puo' essere usata come richiesta di fermo o come mano generica slam-going. La scelta dipende dal significato concordato col p per la surlicita. Credo che sia abbastanza standard usare surlicita come richiesta di fermo in prima istanza, ma se il surlicitante riparla, si tratta di invito a slam, ampiamente giustificato dalla forza della tua mano (2.5 perdenti, basta pochissimo da parte del p). Vedi sopra. La mano è molto forte, slam-going, e quindi la mia scelta è 3♠ e poi 4 o 5♣: buon invito a slam. Si', è plausibile, anche se sottostima un po' i tuoi valori. No. La mano ha 2.5 perdenti, è sufficiente che il pard porti anche solo K di ♣ o ♦ affinchè manche sia quasi di battuta e con poco più il piccolo slam ha ottime probabilità. 3F sarebbe una licita passabile, e mostrerebbe una mano molto meno forte, con circa 5/6 perdenti, diciamo qualcosa del tipo: Axx-Axx-x-KQT9xx. 5C diretto dovrebbe dare una mano un po' meno forte di quella in esame, diciamo compresa fra 4 e 5 perdenti. Ma la cosa più importante è che è una mano senza interesse per 3SA. La mancanza di interesse per 3SA *tende(nz... :rolleyes: )* a indicare un buon colore di atout a fiori ma con qualche onore di testa mancante (con una 7a capeggiata da AKQ spesso è meglio cercare la possibilità di giocare 3SA) Quindi, Qualcosa del genere: x-Ax-AKJ-QJT9xxx

1) [Team Matches] when setting up team matches, a "chat to subscribed players of team match" 2) [Team Matches]: the team matches host should be able to receive private chat by external players when looking for a substitute player 3) [Convention Card] : as it is now, very few people fill a CC and virtually nobody checks out opps CC even if it was compiled. I do believe that the interface could be improved: a pull-down CC window would appear just by pointing the mouse to the player's name. The CC would be simplified, with a limited set of options (e.g. 5CM/4CM, major raises, minor raises, system on NT, 2/1 GF or not), the same options which are normally condensed now in the profile info. I believe it is better to have a simplified CC which everyone reads than a comprehensive CC that nobody will compile nor watch.

If you really cannot do without commenting the hand, one way to start the discussion in a non-aggressive tone could be: "I am sorry, pard, with my usual pard, we play negative doubles promising *this and that*. In your style, what are the max and min requirements for the double, so that the next time we'll be in tune ?" Better yet avoiding altogether comments if you are only in a pickup pship.

Merry xmas everybody, hope Santa Claus brings you a 2005 full of joy and happiness ! As for me, dunno about 2005 but 2004 is ending quite well (sipping a glass of Morellino di Scansano, Ron ... :P ) ciao! Mauro

I double (regardless of shape 4432 or 5332). In my methods 2NT is quite an underbid (16-18/19-). So, in my view, the alternative left are 3NT and double. In my opinion double is more flexible: I can get more info about pard's hand. In response to my double, if LHO passes, pard can bid directly at 3 level to show a semipositive hand, or show a bad hand via 2NT Lebensohl. If pard bids 2NT Lebensohl, I will refuse the puppet to 3 clubs and go to 3NT (this may lose if- and only if- pard was planning to show his 4 card heart suit after the puppet to 3C; refusing the puppet will lose the heart suit here).

I like namyats overcalls myself (3NT broken minor, 4m namyats, 4M bad preempt). I just wonder whether resolving by agreement the ambuguity between ggod/bad 4M will help more pard or opps... :)

Here I will assume we are NOT playing support double, otherwise it seems pretty straightforward to double. It should be defined whether opener's double is primarily a takeout or primarily a mild penalty suggestion. I believe Opener's double shows extras with no clear rebid, with tolerance for pard's eventual penalty pass. If we assume that 1NT rebid shows just a fair hand, either balanced or with shortness in pard's suit (say a decent 14 to a crappy 16) with serious stopper, then 1NT here is a clear underbid.

In competition, splinters are better used to show shortness in opps suit, not in a side suit, so I might venture a splinter if I had spades shortness here, not diamonds singleton. Whether or not pard plays support double, double stands out as the easier bid, IMO.

Mah, io non sono del tutto d'accordo... <_< Meglio un giocatore + scarso che limita l'esibizionismo piuttosto che un giocatore forte che usa il commento Vugraph piu' come palcoscenico che come servizio... Il fatto che il + forte "se lo possa permettere" è irrilevante a mio parere. Cio' non toglie che in ogni caso è sempre una qualità il saper alleggerire l'atmosfera al momento giusto :)

4-4-1-4 opens one club.

1) Assume you are playing "short club", e.g. 1C is 2-way , either natural with clubs or balanced, minimum or 18/20. 2) 1D opener guarantees 5 cards (with 4 diamonds and a balanced hand you open 1C anyways) This is more or less the "standard" italia 5 card major, with some other nuances which are not relevant for the following hand. NV vs Vuln, IMPs You hold, first seat Q98-7-KQJ986-AQ6 1D-(1NT)-p-(2D*) ? 1NT is natural, about 16-18, 2D is transfer. 1st question What is the difference between 3D and Double ? a. Does 3D show a reverse ? Or b. does 3D show a distributional hand (consider pard already knows we have at least 5 D and generally unbalanced, according to the short club scheme) and double is a power reverse ? 2nd question What do you bid here according to your previous answer? Pass Double 3D Other

Hi all, in a previous thread I asked people about their views on positive responses to strong club (e.g. shape showing vs control/hcp showing). In this thread I'd like to know where I can find references to modern approaches to control/hcp showing responses to strong club (if no overcall over 1C). I would prefer that this thread does not become another thread on the soundness or not of control showing responses, since that topic is already covered at another link: http://forums.bridgebase.com/ind...?showtopic=5057 So I encourage all the folks who will simply tell that control showing is not the way to go, to post their comment at the related link. Thank you !!! :lol: Do you know where I can find modern strong club schemes based on immediate control showing response (when 1C is NOT overcalled) ? Any source (online, books, etc) will be ok. I already have the Chiaradia book on the Neapolitan club (I also have stuff on the Blue Club and Roman Club), but I would like to browse also other sources to verify the scheme that suits me better, and especially I'd like to verify which modern system still employs control showing responses. The basic idea of Hamman-Soloway club seems appealing, but I could not find any detailed rebid/followup scheme. Thanks Mauro

Most versions of Namyats - regardless of suit quality requirement - require 8 playing trick, so this hand would be 1 trick short.

1♠:2♦ 4♠ all pass

I think that even if you DID bid 1NT, your pard has - at best - an invitational hand (ugly ♠Jx and ♦Qxx, club 5 bagger not so good to upgrade the hand) not enough to force to 3NT. So, your pard would have invited to 3NT (via 2NT or whatever quantitative invite you agreed upon), and you would have declined the invitation for the very simple reason you are subminimum for a 1NT overcall. The Kaplan-Rubens hand evaluator (http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi), one of the best tool to assess the value of balanced hands (recommended by most teachers on BBO for the evaluation of balanced hands) evaluates South's hand as 14.15 hcp, not even enough for 1NT overcall, let alone to accept the invitation. K/R also assesses N's hand as worth 6.6 hcp, not even enough to invite to 3NT. Bottomline: you would have missed game anyway, and in my opinion, it is the % choice to stay in a partscore, at any form of scoring and at any vulnerability. After all, bidding 3NT with 23 hcp is not exactly a percentage choice (unless your card play is at the Meckwell level).:rolleyes: So I guess this one is one of those cold games that can be missed without too much regrets. :)

In my limited experience, I am much more comfortable to use support X when playing limited opening (eg strong club), because then I do not need the X to show extra power so I can concentrate on shape showing bids. Using "standard" SAYC-ish methods, I think the double should show powerful hands. Also, not to be neglected is the fact that when the fit is 4-3, weak responder may have an awkward rebid very often. 1D- (pass) -1S- 2H X-(pass)-? Now the awkward cases all include when responder has only a 4 bagger. Responder may be weak with 4S and longer clubs, e.g. QTxx-Qx-xx- KTxxx Or he may be invitational in NT without H stop QTxx-x-Axx- KJTxx Or many other types of hands which will find awkward to suggest the right contract because responder has wasted 1 round of bidding to describe a single feature (3 card support) but not many other features of his hand which are often more important (strength range, overall shape, etc). Instead, playing limited openers, at least the strength range of opener is known already, so responder has more info, and bidding sequences are generally less awkward. Comments ? :D

2H-p-p-Dbl p-3C(*)-- all pass 3C(*) = Lebensohl = close to opening hand values (may be a minimum opener unsuited for immediate action), strongly invitational, if balancer has a full opener he'll look for 3NT or invite game in a minor. Weaker hands would bid 2S or 2NT Lebensohl relay followed by pass/correct.

Hi Hongjun, I did not say that Contested auction is bad book :-) I simply hink that it is not outstanding as the other 2. Mostly because nowadays there are other books which cover, in my opinion, better the contested auction such as: Better Bidding with Bergen-contested Pship bidding at bridge - Robson/Segal Competitive bidding for the 21st century- Miles and others. So the main difference in my own evaluation of the books is the amount of original material/suggestions unavailable elsewhere in pusblished books.

There are 2 boos: 1) Lawrence's "2/1 work book" This is more a textbook on specific 2/1 auctions (1M:2x, 1M:1NT forcing, and 1D:2C auctions). There a small chapter also on the 3 card raise by opener in the sequence 1m:1M:2M. Even if Lawrence's writing style make it hard to figure out quickly the full biding scheme of a system, the book is really worth the money; 2) Lawrence's "The uncontested auction" This one also overs one over auctions. In my opinion it is a very good book. However, it is a set of commented examples, not really organized. Despite the lack of organization, al the examples are commented very well, and it helped me a lot, therefore I strongly recommend it. I purchased it 1.5 year ago via Baronbarclay, if I remember correctly. Both books are worth reading There is also a 3rd book, "The contested auction", which IMO is not as good as the others, although it still feaures the usual series of examples which will help the reader understanding how an expet hand evaluation works.

It seems debatable as to whether North should open 1st seat in normal methods (unless there is a specific agreement to open any semibalanced 10 count with a good 5 card major).

First of all, welcome to the BB Forum rigour (it seems to me this is your first post ? if not, ignore my welcome :( ). Secondly, I agree with your points: most probably some commentators cannot fully understand the needs of several mid-low level players, because their level is far superior. So the main meaning of this thread was, in a way, to serve as a reminder, that there is nothing wrong lowering the comments level down to apparently trivial points, *as long as the comments is technical and not a talk show dealing much rather of cokes or football or people's socks rather than bridge* :-) (yes, there have been SEVERAL recent sessions where the above were the most popular topics rather than bridge and every hand was just dismissed quickly as probably too easy to comment upon; and I will repeat here that, IMO - joking is a nice way to entertain audience, but not when it is done for over 80% of the playing time) And yes, Fred definitely spoiled us :-) but there are indeed some commentators who stick to the technical details without being boring. Praise to them ! :-)

3NT was not such a bad bid. 3NT by passed hand can be reasonably thought of as "to play". And a well known bridge rule says that when you do not understand pard's bidding, pass and be ready to blame him :P. Here 3NT is a sort of gambling NT bid, which makes some sense. A long running minor is a good reason to force to game, even by a passed hand, so I do not see a problem there. Moreover, as others pointed out, without agreements, there is the risk that 2 diamonds response is understood by opener as "2-way drury" (invitational with 4 card support in the major); the 3 diamonds response may on the other hand be mistaken for some kind of fitshowing jump or Bergen raise. So I think 3NT is ok. ---------------------------- As for the rest of the bidding, what kind of sin is it for opener to rebid 3 times one's own hand and values ? :) I suggest you both find a good priest to confess all of those evil sins anbd be ready to start again the day after !! :D