Chamaco

Ciao a tutti ! Sto studiando i vari metodi di accorstamento a slam ed ora sono alle prese con la famigerata "Turbo". Breve digressione: quando lavoravo per pagarmi l'università, come cameriere in pizzeria, la "Turbo" era la Pizza Tonno Fagioli Cipolla, cosi' denominata per gli effetti "propellenti"... :unsure: Da quanto ho capito, la dichiarazione 3SA Turbo: 1) viene utilizzata a fit nobile concordato 2) indica un numero di Assi (o carte chiave) pari 3) invita a sequenza di cuebid 4) poichè le carte chiave sono già not dopo 3SA, la dichiarazione 4SA non è piu' richiesta di assi o carte chiave, ma viene usata con altri significati (controcuebid, dichiarativa/interrogativa, eccetera, a seconda degli accordi) Ora, la domanda è la seguente: chi non usa la Turbo, utilizza di solito la richiesta di carte chiave 4SA, che consente di determinare anche la presenza della Dama di atout, che spessissimo è fondamentale per la riuscita dello slam. Chi invece usa la Turbo, dal momento che non usa 4SA come richietsa di carte chiave e le reletive risposte per la dama di atout, come fa a interrogare per la dama di atout ?

Go Singapore !! This will be my next profile flag on BBO!! :D

Unfortunately, you got this one right Ron :( In mid-low chart events, any weak bid ranging from 2C to 3S has to promise at least 4 cards in a specific suit... :unsure:

Just I do not understand why not playing for spades ruff without drawing trumps. 1) we know LHO has the spade ace, so the K will not be scored via a finesse. 2) I could delay playing on sidesuits to try to engineer a throw in for S so he has to return spades or diamonds, but I do not have enough dummy entries to eliminate clubs, so that won't work 3) therefore, if I play a spade at trick 2, I'll be able to score 2 spades ruff, hope trumps break, and guess diamonds. Anything wrong with this reasoning ?

Is this (hamman-Soloway) approach documented/commented in some detail somewhere else besides their CC (which tells something but does not seem inclusive of all sequences- or maybe it0's just me who cannot find them in the CC :( ) ? Thanks ! :(

I bid 4S. Vulnerable at imps, I want to be in game even if it were below 50%, which I do not think in this case: almost any high card provided by pard will be a useful cover card.

Hi Ben ! :-) All is fine (sort of :) ) if 2NT used for 55m hands "minor two suiter " does it include 5431 and 5422 hands ? Say I have 5 diamonds and 4 clubs and 12 hcp, what is the plan ? If I bid 1D then 2 clubs I am not promising much in diamonds, according to this scheme, so pard won't find a safe 5-3 diamonds fit. Maybe other problems may arise for hands with 5C and 4diamonds ?

I would like to add another possibility I read of. Some people do play 2NT opener to show 5-5 in a major, and among them some do it to show a weak hand, others to show a "normal" 55M opener. Comments ?

Ok, this would then be option 6 :-) What I would like would be a critical analysis of the various option one vs another, according to the posters' experience :-)

Hi all, I would like to have feedback on your thought on Precision 2-level openers. I'll explain here the scheme we have started to use 5 months ago. We play 1C = 16+; over a 1D response, 1H opener artificial rebid shows 19/20+hcp or 4 loser hand 1D = nebulous, max 15 1H/S = 5+, max 15 1NT = variable: 10-12 NV 1st/2nd seat, 14-16 otherwise 2C = 5+ clubs, max 15 ---------------------------------------- so far, "almost standard" ---------------------------------------- 2D = Multi = weak 2 in a major or 17-20 4441 2H = 3 suiter short in diamonds (may have 5 clubs and a 3 cd major), max 15 2S and 2NT are still undefined ---------------------------------------- 3-level openers are standard natural preempts ---------------------------------------- Right now, we are trying to decide to plan the use for the 2S and 2NT bids. Below are some options. The main problem is a physlosophical one: some approaches will increase the preemptive power, whereas some others will help constructive and competitive bidding (e.g. especially removing ambiguity from the nebulous diamond). I'd like feedback on the various possibility, based on frequency of coccurrence of the various hand type and the pluses and minuses in your experience. Also, keep in mind we want to avoid Brown stickers (e.g. 2NT as unspecified bad preempt, or 3S gambling, and in general all 2/3 level opening bids which do not promise 4+ cards in a specific suit). Option 1 2D = multi (weak 2 + strong 1-suiter) - as original system 2H = 3-suiter short in diamonds - as original system 2S = weak 2 suiter spades + amother 2NT = weak minor 2 suiter Advantage = greater preemption. Disavantage = nebulous diamond still unresolved Option 2 2D = multi (weak 2 + strong 1-suiter) - as original system 2H = canapè, 4 H + 5 minor (or specifically 5D), max 15 2S = canapè, 4 S + 5 minor (or specifically 5D), max 15 2NT = 55 minor 11-15 ( or 55 major 11-15) 1D opener must include hands with 1 diamond only so 1D cannot be passed Avantage = 1D opener includes only hands with 5+ diams, or bal or 4441 Disadvantage = not much preemption . Weak reponder with no 4 major must respond 1NT even with 0 hcp. Option 3 2D = natural 5D/4C or 6+D 2H = natural weak 2 2S = natural weak 2 2NT = 55 minor 10-15 1D opener must include hands with 1 diamond only so 1D cannot be passed When holding 17-20 4441, the 1C opener has awkward rebid after 1D response (since 1H is artificial strong), because he cannot use the 2D opener for such hands. Avantage = 1D opener includes only hands with 5+ diams and 4M, or bal or 4441 Natural weak 2can be raised more easily than multi. Disadvantage = not much preemption . Weak reponder with no 4 major must respond 1NT even with 0 hcp. Problem for opening and rebidding when holding 17-20 4441. Option 4 2D = multi (weak 2 + strong 1-suiter) - as original system 2H = 3-suiter short in diamonds - as original system 2S = 1st-second seat= good/bad transfer preempt to clubs (strong responder may use next step as relay) 2NT = = 1st-second seat= good/bad transfer preempt to diamonds (strong responder may use next step as relay) 3C = good-bad xfer preempt to H 3D = good bad xfer preempt to spades 3H = gambling-type hand with clubs 3S = gambling with diamonds 3NT = broken minor 4C/D = Romex Namyats (I would love to be able to us 3S = generic gambling, but it's Brown sticker) Avantage = Preempt more often with trash hands in 1st second eat without squeezing partner when he is strong. Disadvantage = Give up weak 2suiters; nebulous 1D unresolved. Option 5 Any combination of the above.

I did not vote for any of the options listed. 1) I think JT's idea is not bad at all (BBO Hand of the Week tourney) 2) However, I do think once a week is too much, better make it the "hand of the month" contest. Let's not forget that the regular BB Forum contributors (e.g. not counting the "lurkers") are maybe around 10 per day. It is true there are more lurkers, but for their nature, they tend to read but not participating to the threads (hence to the polls too). Soo in my opinion it is nice, but 15+ voters from this audience will probably be a disappointed expectation.

Hello Sandy, welcome to this lunatic Forum !! :) The "Law" of Total Trick ("LOTT") is a tools used to evaluate hands where we have a fit with partner. When we have a fit with partner, many times opponents have a fit too, and they will start bidding their suit, while you and pard instead are bidding your suit. In this situation the goal, for both sides will be one of the following: 1) Bid and make game or slam, if it is on 2) Bid and make a partscore, if it is on 3) Push the opponents one step higher, when they will go down; 4) Bid a partscore or a game/slam, not with the hope it makes, but in the hope that even opponent double us, our penalty will be less than their partscore/game or slam bonus. So, some times, we "sacrifice", for example bidding, say, 5 clubs not vuln and going down 1 doubled = 100, whereas opponents have a good game contract of 4 spades vuylnerable = 620 points; in this basic example, even if we did not make the contract, we saved 520 points ! But, if bidding 5 clubs not vuln is defeated by 4 tricks, doubled, non vuln, our penalty will be 800, and we'll lose 180 compared to the alternative score (620). There are lots of such situations, and the real problem is to evaluate how high you can bid when you have a fit for partner and you do not know whether sacrifice or not (or in other cases, you do not know whether you'l collect more doubloing opponents or bidding your suit one step higher). The "Law" of Total Tricks, is not a real "Law", but is rather a principle deducted empirically by the French Jean Renè Vernes, who studied a lot of deals, and came to the conclusion that the optimal contract depends from the combined length (you + pard) in the trump suit. THE MORE TRUMPS YOU HAVE, THE HIGHER YOU CAN BID SAFELY, EITHER FOR SACRIFICE, OR TO MAKE, REGARDLESS OF HIGH CARD POINTS. The details and examples for this theory are given in the article whose link was posted by Inquiry.

I agree on most points here. Just saying that *if and when possible* (e.g. need to act immediatley, unavailability of other yellows, or any other reason) , in my opinion it would be much smoother the way I posted previously. *If and when this is not possible*, one should do what has to be done, the way it is possible (I am feeling quite silly to write such an obvious statement B) )

As usual I agree with most of Ben's comments. I would only like to make one point here: if a BBO member is both a yello AND a tourney organizer, I do believe it would be MUCH preferable that he would not be involved in ANY BBO DISCIPLINARY SANCTION related to irregularity/offenses occurred in relations to the tournaments that he runs. In other words, in the ACBL yellow member case here, I believe that any BBO sanction relating to facts in the ACBL tourney should be under the scrutiny of a different yellow. Of course one may decide to exclude the person from his own club/tournaments, as a tournament/club organizer (they are privately run, the "yellow" status does not matter there) , but the sanctions relating to BBO (limiting access to BBO, booting people, various abuse reports) should in my opinion be applied by yellows not involved. In other words, when it comes to facts happened about one's own tourney, one should not be able to use his "yellow status" but rather ask to another yellow to handle the case. This would be helpful both for ACBL (the sanctioned players won't say that it is a "revenge" ar anything like that), and, I believe, for all BBO. Please do not take this post as being for or against anyone, it's just my considerations on what would be a better procedure overall.

Agree on all the post by Earl. The point is that too many players seem to claim that preemptive overcall is damaging, without discussing the difference in different situations. We should not discuss here the policy on overcall in DIRECT seat [e.g. 1C-(3S)], since it is not the subject of the original post. We should discuss the sequence where the responder bids undisturbed and the interference occur before opener's rebid. After a strong club opening and a response based on controls (or hcp), despite not having idea of the shape, overcalling is FAR more dangerous at IMPS (I won't discuss Matchpoints here, where it might have a point). The discussion should obviously focus on the case where both pairs have adequate methods, e.g. the strong clubbers have methods for handling jump overcalls. And I think that we' find out that most of the time, doubling opps and defending will in the long run payoff much more than anything we have lost for the extra preemption by opponents cause by our choice of using step-responses to 1C instead of shape-showing bids.

Hi all, I was considering ordering the book "Tactical bidding" by Harold Feldheim. Question 1 Is it a good book ? Question 2 It is hard to find (e.g. not in Baronbarclay nor in Amazon, and even most online shops who list it as available in catalog, when you try ordering do not really have it- and they tell it to you AFTER you have ordered it ! grrrr). Any suggestions on where to order it ? (European shops more practical, but overseas are ok anyways in absence of a better source....)

We had auctions like this in th last 5 months :-) Yes it's rare, but that's exactly the main problem. Other auctions, even more comlicated sometimes, are easier to remmber as they occur more often. Here, since the auction is rare, and it has peculiar problems (very high level, fear to miss gnad slam etc), everytime it happened we never did it right (we started "trying" precision about 5 months ago), and even at the end of the biding, neither me nor pard had a clear idea of which would have been a precise bidding plan to avoid the trouble. So, even if the auction is rare, we are trying to put down a clear logic pathway to slam bidding for all sort of hands, basically: a ) 2 suiters and one suiters, using SAB, and b ) balanced/semibalanced, using xfer stayman; differentiating followups for fit and nofit auctions. Of course I am well awar that rare auctions should be practiced with simulated deals, and we already tried some and we'll do some more, but still we needed to fix the logic of the auction. Thanks a lot

Whereagles, thank you very much, the suggestions you just gave are the best I could hope at this stage. I'll try some simulations on 1C:2Nt sequences, and maybe come back with other questions, but so far your contribution was really helpful ! :)

Sorry I forgot my extra deck in my sleeve :D Hands fixed now :P For CASE 1 maybe a better example is CASE 1 AQxxx.... Kxx AKxx......Qx Ax..........Qxxx xx..........AKxx Here no alternative 4-4 fit is available, so, if using xfer stayman, bidding would go: 1C:2NT 3C:3S (44 minor) Then , here, would 4S be Support asking bid in spades ?

Ty whereagles ! :D Now another question. CASE 1 AQxxx.... Kxxx AKxx......Qxxx Ax..........Qxx xx..........AK After 1C 2NT What is the plan ? 1) Looking for spades by bidding 3S = SAB ? If no spade support, how do we find hearts then ? OR 2) Bidding transfer stayman 3C ? If responder bids 3S showing 4-4 minor, do we look for a 5-3 spade fit by bidding 4S ? CASE 2 AQxx..... Kxxx AKx.... Qxxx Axxx......Qxx xx..........AK After 1C 2NT 3C 3D (= 4 hearts) Do you suggest looking for the eventual spade fit by bidding 3NT asking for second suit ? Should second suit be bid in transfer too ? If the above is true, does it mean that 3S would be a support asking bid (since if spades was only a 4 card suit I'd bid 3NT looking for 44 fit) ?

Sorry I did not understand the sentence well :D "Leave the 3round contol step" = what does it mean? 1) Give up the 3rd round step responde to the CAB ? OR 2) Keep the 3rd round control step it into the structure even if it is space consuming ?

Hi all, I'd like some advice on the following sequence, in a version of Precision. The following assumes that over a 1C opener, responder bids : - naturally the 5+ card longer suit (except 1D) holding 8+ hcp - 1NT with a balanced 8-13 - 2NT with balanced 14+ - other bids with a 3-suiter I am aware there are better schemes (e.g. different ranges for balanced hands, transfer responses, semipositive responses, etc etc), but, PLEASE, I'd like to keep the discussion on the validity of such scheme maybe in another thread. In this thread, let's just live with the fact that 1C:2NT shows a 14+ balanced hand, and not discuss the alternatives. We decided to use this basing it on the scheme given in the Berkowicz book "Precision today". After 1C:2NT He suggests that the bidding should be forcing to at least 4NT (natural) or 5 of a suit, (otherwise too little space left) Furthermore, he suggests that opener bids now would be: 3C = Baron 3X = Support Asking Bids However he does not deal in much detail with this sequence. So, after reading books by Jannersten, Wei, Garozzo-Belladonna, and more, I thought a decent scheme would be: Question 1, 1C:2NT:3C = option a Baron. However, I am not very comfortable with Baron, in the sequences where I'd like to agree a suit and later use RKCB. E.g. 1C:2NT 3C:3H Now how do I discriminate: 1) RKCB with trump agreed; 2) Nirmal Ace ask; 3) trump agreement asking for a cue ? You see, the point is to have a bid for "implicit agreement", keeping in mind I do not want to start cuebidding at the 5 level. option b Transfer responses to 1C:2NT:3C. E.g. 3D = 4 hearts (may have 4 spades); if transfer is accepted, fit is assumed 3H = 4 spades, no 4 hearts 3S = 44 minor 3NT = 4333 with a minor (Just an idea, suggestions for a smarter scheme welcome ! :D ) Not all the problems are solved, though 1C:2NT 3C:3D 3S*: ? * transfer not accepted., no 4 cd in Hearts, but 4 spades Now which is the implicit agreements below 4 spades ? Question 2, 1C:2NT:3X = Support asking bid I like the scheme described by Jannersten in similar situations (not quite the same), where 1C:2NT:3X asks for support in the suit and controls step 1 = no support, min range of controls step 2= no support, max range of controls step 3 = at least Hxx/xxxx, min range of controls step 4 = at least Hxx/xxxx, max range of controls If responder shows no support, then a new suit is another support asking bid in the second suit (useful when opener has a 2-suiter). If responder shows support: a ) new suit should be a control asking bid. I have tried using this but sometimes it is very space consuming. Especially the fact that 2st step is 3rd round control, forces the biding to high level very quickly. Do you suggest giving up the step showing 3rd round control, when the bidding is too high (and how high) ? b ) after having shown support, repeating the trump suit should be "trump asking bid" (TAB), asking to clarify the holding in trumps. However, I still feel more comfortable with RKCB sequences for checking trump quality (although I cannot check for Jacks). Neither I nor pard can remember the TAB responses if we use a detailed scheme, and if we use a simplified scheme, we reach a level of description accuracy not better than RKCB. Comments ? ( fobidden responses: 1) using a relay system is much better :P 2) if you had used another scheme of NT ranges you would not have this problem 3) try playing golf :D )

the only way to answer quantitatively "how often" is to try a simulation, not picking up the right hand to support a theory. below are just the first ten hands from a simulation I ran (no filtering for selecting "favourable examples). I have kept fixed the 10 hcp invitational hand as north, and used as constrain: 1- south has 13-14 hcp 2- south has at most a semibalanced hand with 5332 minor 3- there is no 8 card fit in te major (note that this often we do not know, so many times we can invite and discover only on our way that we have a fit, e.g. checkback auctions, making even more appealing the potential for inviting) I can post more hands, no problem at all K843.K43.72.A863 A5.AT87.K965.Q42 K843.K43.72.A863 J7.AQT2.KJT5.Q54 K843.K43.72.A863 AJT.A75.AJ95.752 K843.K43.72.A863 QJ9.A8.KQT8.Q942 K843.K43.72.A863 A9.AT72.AQ864.42 K843.K43.72.A863 T75.A6.KQ84.KQT7 K843.K43.72.A863 A97.AQJ.Q986.T52 K843.K43.72.A863 QJ6.QJ86.AKT4.52 K843.K43.72.A863 AQ7.J987.KQJ9.75 K843.K43.72.A863 QT7.AQT7.Q85.K54

Ditto. Agree on every point by Justin. Don't let the opponents decide for you and your pard. Describe faithfully your hand, your pard will love you even if you score bad :)

sometimes you go down, it happens even for some 28 hcp games. But on balance, you'll find out that opening 11 counts made of AK only (and nothing wasted) and inviting with 10 count made of AK only (and nothing wasted) tends to payoff. (DISCLAIMER- do not provide 4333 hands please :) ) Remember, most of the time you won't have the overlapping of the 2 most minimum hands you posted, worst case scenario, admittedly possible, but not the percentage scenario. Most of the time you'll have: - a "normal" opener opposite a good 10 count made of AK , which makes 2NT (min opener) or 3NT (max opener) more often than not, OR - an 11 count opener made of AK opposite opposite a "classical" GF or invitational hand, which also makes quite often. You'll bid many games that have play in a combined 24 count, sometimes you'll go down, sometimes game will be cold, and sometimes you will make thanks to your magnificent dummy play technique :D You'll also put moire pressure on opponents which will need to defend very accurately to avoid sllipping. And the increased frequency makes it such that defenders tend to slip here and there or on opening lead (ask the Meckwell... ;-). Furthermore, we have the added bonus everytime we discover a fit after inviting. (e.g. typical example, checkback after 1x:1y:1NT)