Chamaco

Leading a club to me does not seem wrong even at IMPS. It may be leading through dummy strength, or removing dummy's entry prematurely, or hitting something useful from pard. Even at IMPS, underleading spade K or leading from Jx puts all the eggs in one basket. It may be as well that 3NT goes down (so many people raise 2NT to game on thin values) , I think that in this specific situation an attacking lead is much more likely to give declarer the 9th trick than stting up our 5th trick. I like attacking leads but vs a 2NT opener I'd like to have good spots to underlead my honor.

Vincenzo, non sei stato frainteso, nel mio post probabilmente permangono i residui di una discussione avuta tempo addietrto nel Forum in lingua Inglese e mi sono lasciato trasportare... Colgo l'occasione per spiegare meglio la mia personale posizione al riguardo della scelta dei commentatori: secondo me è meglio avere il classico asino vivo che un dottore morto, o meglio, se devo avere un Garozzo che pero' invece che commentare le mani fa cabaret, allora preferisco un pellegrino qualunque, che pero' almeno si sforza di fare un commento tecnico, magari anche sbagliando...

Thanks very much :-) I am not willing to be perfect, but I would like to know the upper and lower strength requirements for 2 suiters. Just saying "this bid shows 54 this other 55" is very vague, and not enough for me . :-) Otherwise you (or at least, *I*) never know how high to bid in response to the 2-suited overcall. Soi please, specify the best and worse hand you may have for each 2 suiters .-) This is the real meaning of this thread: specify *quantitatively* (or by example hands if you do not like to give quantitative ranges) the strength ranges of 2 suiters, either in hcp or losers. Since they say that 1/2 suiters are best evaluated by losers, I think it makes sense to use LTC to classify upper and lower strength requirements. But any other way to describe 2 suiters will be ok if it can be quantified and put on a system notes on paper (so it constrains the instincts of pards who have trouble passing :angry: ). Just relying on "judgment" to evaluate wherther the 54 or 55 hand is too strong or too weak, will work if you are on the same wavelength, but many times, without precise requirements on the system notes, it may raise pship discussions. In the specific case this will be especially true if the advancer will raise preemptively to the wrong level, based on the assumption that overcaller should have a given offensive potential. So I have come to the conclusion that written notes are the best way to avoid this: none of the partners will be lecturing the othwer when things go wrong, there will be the system notes to refer to without need of "lecturing" . Of course, this does not mean that one cannot deviate, but it helps a lot to have specific requirements for the "ideal hand", so that based on this, you can occasionally deviate a bit. (Much like when you open 1NT with 14 hcp: you deviate from the 15-17 hcp range, *but the range is there*- here I need to specify strength range for 2-suiters, and occasionally there will be some deviation, provided it happens only occasionally)

Siccome si parla di un tema a me caro, intervengo. Anticipo subito la mia convinzione che non mi piace il discorso "E' volontariato quindi anche se è fatto male fatevene una ragione": ho fatto volontariato nella didattica scacchistica oper oltre 20 anni, gratis, ed al termine di ogni sessione era mia cura chiedere a tutti (allievi ed altri istruttori) se e dove potevo migliorare. La stima per i volontari va sempre manifestata e tenuta in considerazione, ed io sono il primo a mostrare gratitudine. Ma se le cose vengono fatte male, non è solo giusto, ma imprescindibile, fare critiche, purchè costruttive, non si puo' perpetuare ed avallare una pessima qualità di servizio solo xchè gratis... Detto questo, procedo con le mie osservazioni La qualità dei commenti Vugraph è variabile. A volte il commento è di buon livello, talora ottimo, altre volte non ci prende proprio. Dal mio punto di vista non sono urtato dal fatto che talora un commentatore possa essere tecnicamente non all'altezza. Sono piuttosto urtato da chi- che sia all'altezza o meno - va a commentare sul Vugraph come se fosse un salottino per mettersi in mostra, non parlando mai dei dettagli tecnici delle mani "scontate", ma piuttosto affliggendo il pubblico con una serie di battutine insieme con i suoi amici. Per carità, so benissimo che il bridge deve essere alleggerito con un po' di spirito, ma ci sono sessioni in cui per l'80% delle mani si assiste solo ad un salottino in cui non si parla quasi mai degli aspetti tecnici del bridge, se non marginalmente ... Io preferisco un giocatore scarso che *prova* a commentare *tutte* le mani, anche i parzialini banali, piuttosto che un giocatore di classe mondiale che usa il vugraph solo per esibizionismo gratuito. Chi ha avuto la fortuna di seguire i commenti Vugraph di Fred Gitelman, sa benissimo quale tipo di commento mi auspico. Fred parla sempre della mano, e non si lascia andare a una serie interminabile di battutine ammiccanti con i suoi conoscenti. Si puo' dire che lo schema dei suoi commenti spesso segua i seguenti punti: - appena scende il morto si comincia a vedere non solo il probabile contratto finale , ma anche l'eventuale battaglia licitativa e come potrebbe andare la dichiarazione con eventuali altri sistemi - poi si procede a identificare il colore chiave: per giocare questo colore vengono evidenziati le varie linee alternative, ed eventualmente linee anomale (compressioni, eventuale uso di scarto falso per dare opzione perdente al dichiarante) - ultimo punto e cosa piu' importante: ANCHE QUANDO LA MANO è BANALE, SI SPIEGA LO STESSO PER FILO E PER SEGNO COME ANDREBBE GIOCATA, INVECE DI LIMITARSI A DIRE "parzialino facile facile per EW" oppure "Questa la farebbe anche Ferraro". E' importante spiegare per filo e per segno la mano per i giocatori di livello medio-basso, e questo, i migliori commentatori Vugraph (per es., Fred, AlGraves, Junior, Irargerich, ghinze, lc) lo hanno capito bene. Queste mani "banali" possono essere ottimi esempi per spiegare ai giocatori principianti/intermedi figure/strategie tipiche e ricorrenti nel bridge di tutti i gg . In altre parole, non è giusto che un commentatore si "abbassi" a commentare la mano solo se c'è un triplo squeeze carpiato perchè cosi' mostra al pubblico quanto è bravo a vederlo... Oppure, altro esempio: ho appena assistito ad una mano, ora, in cui i giocatori si sono fermati ad un parziale nobile quando c'era manche: i commentatori si sono limitati a dire "4 cuori sono stese", ma avrei volutoi che fossero entrati nei dettagli di come valutare la mano, ovvero specificassero da quali indizi un giocatore o l'altro avrebbe potuto "annusare" la manche, oppure che dicessero chiaramente che la manche era indichiarabile a carte chiuse... In alrtre parole, da parte di certi commentatori manca la cura per i dettagli ( e la cosa non è un dettaglio :(, perchè distorce di parecchio le modalità del commento) , ed è mia opinione che questa mancata cura per i dettagli sia conseguenza del fatto che l'impegno di commentatore Vugraph venga preso piu' come un'occasione piu' o meno goliardica per mettersi in vetrina, anzichè uno sforzo di mettersi al posto degli spettatori "medi" (che non sono nè i prima picche ne' i prima fiori, ma di livello ben piu' basso) per capire di quali informazioni avrebbero bisogno. ------------------------------------------------------------ Di sicuro, chi organizza I Vugraph - che sia la FIGB o BBO Italia o chiunque - svolge un'attività per la quale tutti noi dobbiamo essere riconoscenti: gli spettacoli sono spesso emozionanti ed altamente istruttivi. Semplicemente, credo che, quando cio' è possibile, si potrebbe proporre il commento Vugraph ad altri giocatori meno inclini a "partire per la tangente" ... :-) Inutile dire che- qualora cio' sia assolutamente impossibile (anche se mi suona strano, considerando la quantità di ottimi giocatori italiani presenti su BBO) - in caso contrario ci si arrangia con quello che c'è... ------------------------------------------------------------ Devo dire che la tendenza ad usare il vugraph come vetrina di esibizionismo non c'è-purtroppo- solo epr i commentatori italiani, anzi... Devo dire che avendo assistito ad un paio di smazzate dell'incontro Padova-Catania (credo), nella sala con commento inglese, l'amico Tendenz era molto piu' concentrato sull'incontro rtispetto a Roland Walddk (come al solito impegnato sul Vugraph a fare a sua volta salottini alla Maurizio Costanzo ), e se non altro interveniva per chiarire i metodi e gli stile dei padovani, in maniera puntuale e non sopra le righe.

After 1 over 1 by opps, please describe the PRECISE strength, either in terms of losers or hcp. Say bidding goes 1C-pass-1H-? (but the question refers more generally to ANY 1 over 1 by opps) 1) 1NT (assuming unusual) What is the worse shape and the best shape (can it be 44, can it be 54, etc)? Max losers and min losers (or hcp if you want )? 2) double If balanced (4432), what is the min and max strength ? If unbalanced, what is the difference from other takeout bids (quantify pls in terms of losers or hcp :-) )? 3) 2NT What is the best and worse shape ? is is strictly 55 or better? In that case what is the difference from other takeout bids (quantify pls :-) )? 4) 2C = cheapest cue Is it a 2-suiter ? If so, how differentfrom other 2-suited bids in terms of promised length and losers ? 5) 2H = highest cue Is it a 2-suiter ? If so, how different from other 2-suited bids in terms of promised length and losers (quantify pls in terms of losers or hcp :-) )? 6) 3C = cheapest jump-cue What does it mean ? How does it differentiate from other similar meaning bids ? Can it be stopper ask for NT ? 7) 3H = highest jump-cue What does it mean ? How does it differentiate from other similar meaning bids ? Can it be stopper ask for NT ? 8) 3NT What does it mean ? How does it differentiate from other similar meaning bids ? Can it be to play ? 9) 4NT If it is unusual, what is the required strength in terms of losers and how does it differentiate vs other 2 suited bids (quantify please in terms of losers or hcp :-) ) ?

I open 1D, mostly because I have all primary honors and the texture suggest this is a SUIT oriented hand, and not really a NT oriented hand, with all thoose AKs + supported Qs and no slow tricks in terms of intermediates. Open 2C and 2NT rebid, and we'll lose many laydown ♦ slams (or many 5D games when 3N goes down). Open 1D and we'll lose only when pard passes, but as someone said, in that case we are likely not to have 3NT. With the right gadgets (Ingberman or Multi-reverse), opener may be able to describe the strength of the hand even without resorting to the 2C opener.

Hi all, I'd like to know from the experts what strategy they adopt in the sandwhich seat after 1 over 1 auctions by opps. Textbook strategy is to be extremely cautious: - avoid "natural" 1NT overcall - bid only with distributional hands - avoid bidding with flat hands (or hands with honor concentration in opps suits), even if the hand is strong in hcp. The rationale behind this is that one opp has opened and the other has responded, so it is likely that pard is broke if we have a good hand but poor shape. This strategy holds quite well assuming that opps open with sound openings (say 13 hcp or a good 12) and respond 1/1 guaranteeing 5/6+ hcp. But nowadays, many pairs open routinely, event 1st/2nd seat, with as low as 9-10 point count (with decent shape). And, many pairs respond 1M over pards' 1m opening, even with JTxxx and nothing else. This fact seems to suggest that sandwhich bidding tactics should be revised, when playing against very light bidders. What is your strategy in those cases ? e.g. 1) you KNOW your opps open and respond light 2) you only suspect opps might be opening and responding light (even more dangerous)

pass and bid 3H if they compete

Advanced bidding has SOME good suggestions: e.g. - xyz - Hardy major raises and a few more. However, on the whole, I would not recommend it. BTW: My name is Mauro :-)

I do not know that book, I might get it if that treatment is becoming std for 2/1 (and not ACOL).

To reinforce Ron's point, I should add that even the "Fantunes" go as far as opening *weak* NT with a 5 card major and, judging from the results, they do not seem to suffer too much damage from it.... So I guess that used with judgment, NT opening with 5cM cannot be that bad as long as both pards are on the same wavelength... ;)

Hi all, I'd like to know whether there are recommended books on 2/1 for the following very specific topics: - 2nd and 3rd round rebids in NO fit auctions , especially by responder. The reason is the following: after reading a previous thread, I learned that many experts nowadays play that after 1M:2m 2M or, say, 1H:2C 2D: The next step up is not natural but just relaying for knowing more of opener's hand. Also, 4th suit forcing does not apply since we are in a force anyway. I suspect there are many more subtleties. Therefore I would like to know whether there are good source boks to study the details of modern approaches to 2/1 : I do NOT mean the details of 1NT forcing NOR dealing with the various ways to support opener major and/OR deciding whether to drive to slam or game after the major fit was found. I do mean the details of second round responder's rebid or of 3rd round opener's (and or responder) rebid WHEN WE HAVE NOT FOUND A FIT. I will list below the sources I already have: 1) Lawrence's Workbook on 2/1 2) Lawrence's Uncontested auction 3) Lawrence's 2/1 CD 4) Hardy's 2/1 5) Hardy's Standard bidding for the 21st century 6) Hardy's Advanced bidding for the 21st century 7) Fred Gitelman's articles on "Improving 2/1 GF" 8) Better bidding with Bergen 9) Bergen's Understang 1NT forcing (not relevant for the topic of this thread) Do you recommend other sources ? Thanks !

All In all I am saying that even in the best case scenario (no D void), the hand is worth 8 hcp and not more (as it would if AJTxx were in OUR suit). I believe this warrants a single raise but no more :-)

What I meant with "very few hcp are working " is: - Ace of diamonds has high likely hood to nbe wasted in case of p holding a void (very likely since he did not balance with double) - JT of diamonds are totally wasted, and besides we risk ruffs there - K of spades is good but in general, offensive hands have honors in long suits, which can develop tricks: here AJTxx are in THEIR suit, so no big plus, and the other long suit (hearts) has terrible holding. So perhaps not totally wasted but certainly my 8 hcp should be - deevaluated in terms of of the JT of diamonds (they won't count) - maybe deevaluated in terms of the A of diamonds - reevaluated in terms of the K of spades. - no extras for the fit because of xxxx support; give me the T or J there and I might be more optimistic So, all inn all, I would evaulate this hand as exactly 8 hcp, no more, no less. To me, a hand worth 8 hcp with fit is worth a single raise, so I bid 3H; if pard likes his hand he will bid on.

Obviously, SOS :)

Gli episodi sono evidentemente spassosi da un lato, e dall'altro mostrano l'impreparazione di molti giocatori. D'altra parte sappiamo tutti che una lista analoga di castronerie potrebbe essere fatta sulle decisioni ridicole di molti TD, sia su BBO, sia nel bridge reale... Secondo me, al di la' degli aspetti indubbiamente divertenti e folkloristici, varrebbe la pena realizzare una lista di "FAQ" (= "Frequently Asked Questions"), che elenca le domande e contestazioni tipiche che si ripetono nei vari tornei. La consultazione delle FAQ aiuterebbe i giocatori "di buona volontà" che portrebber consultarle e farsi un'idea della corretta applicazione del regolamento nella maggior parrte dei casi "canonici".

I should add that we use xfer responses after 1-level overcalls to LIMITED openings, and that invitational NT-oriented hands can be bid via a neg. double.

We do play the same structure after a 1-level overcall (excluding 1NT overcall). All the transfers are the same , and Double is negative, and may be played in different style according to pd , e.g. 1) 1m-1H-? Now double can show exactly 4 cards or deny the suit according to pship 2) 1m-1S-? Bidding a suit above 2m can be forcing or Negative free bid according to pship (below and including 2m, 1NT/2C/2D transfer or weak raise bids apply).

This is what I play. Basically: - Redouble is 10+ usually balanced 1-level responses are natural, forcing - single raise is weak - all responses from 1NT to below the single raise are xfers, whose strngth is different in various situations. We lose the xfer at the 1 level, but so far it has not been a big deal... 1C-X-? -XX = natural 10+, usually no 5 bagger (otherwise use xfers) -1♥♠ natural 4+ forcing 1R - 1NT = GOOD xfer to clubs, invitational+, forcing - 2C = weak raise, NF - 2D/H/S = free for partnership agreement (weak/strong, FJS, etc) 1D-X-? -XX = natural 10+, usually no 5 bagger (otherwise use xfers) -1♥♠ natural 4+ forcing 1R - 1NT = xfer to clubs, either weak or strong (inv+) - 2C = GOOD xfer to diamonds, invitational+, forcing - 2D = weak raise, NF - 2H/S = free for partnership agreement (weak/strong, FJS, etc) 1H-X-? -XX = natural 10+, usually no 5 bagger (otherwise use xfers) -1♠ natural 4+ forcing 1R - 1NT = xfer to clubs, either weak or strong (inv+) - 2C = xfer to diamonds, either weak or strong (inv+) - 2D = GOOD xfer to hearts, 8+, if opener has a good hand, he either superaccepts of makes a help suit game try - 2H = weak raise, NF 1S-X-? -XX = natural 10+, usually no 5 bagger (otherwise use xfers) - 1NT = xfer to clubs, either weak or strong (inv+) - 2C = xfer to diamonds, either weak or strong (inv+) - 2D = xfer to hearts, either weak or strong (inv+) - 2H = GOOD xfer to spades, 8+, if opener has a good hand, he either superaccepts of makes a help suit game try - 2S = weak raise, NF

3H. Very few hcp are "working". The Kx of spades is great, sure. A of diamonds is a great holding if opposite a singleton, but the fact that pard did not reopen with a double, suggests he has good chances of holding a diamonds void, in which case our ♦ Ace is close to useless. Not to mention the minor honors in diamonds, which are totally wasted. Aside of that, we provide no useful cards. So, we owe pard a raise, because of the (ugly) ♥ support, but outr honors were by no means reevaluated. The useful honor points are no more than 7, maybe less if pard had the D void. Our 3H raise should show exatctly some decent 7-8 count with support and without great shape, which is what we have: so if he has a 5-losers 55 or 65 in a major OR a genuine reverse in hcp, he'll bid game.

I have played with players who claim that a single raise of pard's 1 spade here is NOT suggesting a strong hand but simply a "total tricks raise", and when they have any better than minimum they will cue instead. However, i will assume here that a raise shows a non-minimum opener, say a good 14+, or a 6 losers hand (since the double was in balancing seat, requirement more relaxed; if it were a direct seat double, I would assume it shows a hand worth a real reverse, either in hcp or distribution). I bid 4 spades. Hard to see a slam here, but Axxx in opps suit is a huge plus.

2H here isnt a weak two, its an overcall at the two level which show alot more then weak 2, Argh sorry, just got a flu, did not realize it was not a jump :blink:

Ron, may I ask you to explain this better ? I thought that: 1) bidding 3H is less constructive than 2H 2) the hand is a "textbook" 2nd seat weak 2 (opposite unpassed pard, disciplined suit requirements and length should help him taking an intelligent decision) 3) opposite unpassed pard, my NV 3-level bids may well have quite bad hands, but 2-level jump overcalls should have a "classical" weak 2. Is there any of the above points you recommend reconsidering ? Thanks ! :D

Are you sure ? Ace of hearts planning to continue H if no honor drops. But when a honor drops I have additional chances: I can ruff 2 more diamond losers and discard the last diamond on clubs, leaving only a trump loser. -------------- Oh, not true. In this line, 3-1 split with stiff honor still poses problem since ruffing the 3rd diamond with the Q will lose to H8x in either side, so this falls back on deciding for or against the finesse... :P

Ben, I am sorry but I do not understand why Q lead would be better at IMPS. I do not think so. Let us say the Q loses to K offside, when you take the return, are you going for the double finesse or cash Ace ? I assume you go for the double finesse. So the double finesse loses in the 2-2 case with KJ offside and it is not true that all 2-2 cases it is equivalent playing A and and small vs double finesse. In the 2-2 cases A first always limit to 1 loser, whereas double finesse loses to KJ offside (25% of all 2-2 splits). So the 2-2 split favours A first. Now let us consider the 3-1 splits. Playing Ace first succeeds if there is a singleton honor (50% of all 3-1 splits). It loses with any opps holding KJX (50% of all 3-1 splits). Now let us consider the chances of double finesse vs 3-1 splits. It loses to KJX offside (25% of all 3-1 split). It wins to KJX onside (25% of all 3-1 splits). It loses to stiff K offside (12.5 % of all 3-1 split) because a diamond return forces to ruff in dummy. Then you have entry problems: if you use the last dummy trump for finessing the J you have a diamond loser left and not enough entry to set up and cash clubs for a discard. It wins to stiff K onside (12.5%). It wins to stiff J in any hand (25%). so it wins overall in 62.5% of all 3-1 splits. Given that 2-2 split has 40.7 % prob and 3-1 split has 49.7 % prob Option 1 Ace first works in 100% of 2-2 splits = 1 x 40.7 = 40.7 works in 50% of 3-1 splits (e.g. stiff honor) = 0.5 x 49.7 = 24.85 Total = 65.55 % (of all the 3-1 splits + 2-2 splits; this does not include 4-0 splits) Option 2 Works in 75% of 2-2 splits (fails to KJ offside) = 0.75 x 40.7 = 30.525 works in 67.5% of 3-1 splits (fails to LHO holding stiff K or KJX ) = 0.625 x 49.7 = 31.0625 Total = 61.5875 % (of all the 3-1 splits + 2-2 splits; this does not include 4-0 splits) ----------------------------------------------------------------- So if my calculations are right, excluding 4-0 splits, Ace first is better in 4% of the combined 3-1 and 2-2 split cases (which means that overall, the difference between the 2 lines will be lower than 4%). If the above is true, that should mean that the difference is so small hat ANY indication (including "table presence") will tip the balance in favour of one or the other line.