Chamaco

Ty Richard. You summarized the flaws of the system. If you had to sum up the good part of the system, does anything come to your mind ?

There are issues that are different between SAYC-basic, SAYC-advanced, SAYC-"custom", and the various 2/1 GF styles. 1M:2m 2M is invariably played as at least 1 round forcing in all styles, the followups depending on whether we are in GF or not. Since 2m guarantees an invitational+ hand, it makes sense to stick to the common rule that invitational auctions are forcing to 2NT or 3 of a suit. Sometimes you jeopardize a partscore (safer at 2 level), but the payoffs are bigger and more frequent when you are able to stay lower and be more accurate on a game/slam- going auction. 1M:2m 3m can be played in many ways. Some play that it can be minimum, I prefer Lawrence's 2/1 GF approach (which is also largely used), where he suggests that it should show a non-minimum hand (e.g. a good 14 is ok, even a good 13 with prime values, fitting honors and distribution).

:)

Basically it boils down to this: at any form of scoring, you want to take big risks only if you may have great rewards. The amount of the reward is determined by the form of scoring. At IMPS (or team match or rubber bridge), a big plus, such scoring as Game bonus, Slam Bonus or severely penalizing opps (+500-800-1100) will be cumulated over the boards, and will have a great impact on the final result. At MP, it does not matter the amount of the bonus (or penalty) you score on the given board: what will be accounted will not be the magnitude of your score, but the number of opps who did better or worse than you. So, at IMPS, you want to take risks to bid games: you risk a safe partscore (say 140 points), in rder to go for the bonus (scoring 400/420 for NV game, 600/620 for a Vuln game). So, at IMPS, you bid very tight games even if you think they are below 50% of success (usually around 40-45% NV, 35-40 Vuln) because the game bonus justifies the risk. The converse applies to slam bidding: it is true you have a slam bonus to shoot at, e.g. 6H = 980 NV (1430 vuln), but if you go down you will not score the points for 4H making ( 420 NV - 620 Vuln). So the choice here should be more conervative, and you won't be bidding dubious slams unless you have well-founded chances to make. Even more conservative should be the choice between small and grand slam: the extra bonus (500 NV, 750, Vuln) for the Grand is even higher but the potential loss of a cold small slam (980 NV, 1430 Vuln) is almost twice as big, so it is too dangerous to look for a grand slam which does not offer solid guarantees. More points that should be dealt with talking of IMPS vs MP are: 1) preemptive tactics 2) penalties 3) defense issues (risking overtricks for declarer on opening lead or during play) Certainly someone else can do it better than myself :-)

Good defenders will lead trumps. Then your only hope to make is that both of these conditions are met: 1) 3-2 trump break 2) opps trump suit is blocked (AK doubleton) This chance is 1/5 of 68% = roughly 13.6 % actually the chance is even lower than that, if the defender holding the 3rd trump is overruffing the first round of either one of your red suits. You may like to increase the chances so calculated to account for a non-trump lead(I would not hope for that), but still the chances to make game are well below 50%. Of course you'll never get to play this game, as opps will be in 7 clubs or 7NT.

Hi all ! :-) I am reading with interest some of G. Rosenkrantz books on Romex and its derivations. There are several nice ideas and the books are written in some entertaining way :) However, I was wondering why Romex seems to be less popular than other systems. So I'd like to hear from you folks some comments on the fine points and the weaknesses of Romex compared to: - 2/1 - Polish Club - Precision - Viking Club - Symmetrical Relay - Moscito - others... Besides the popularity of the system (which is a factor, e.g. you do not want to waste energy learning a great system if you can't find a pard who plays it) what do you gain/lose in effectiveness vs these systems using 1- Romex 2- Romex Forcing Club Thanks all ! :-)

Not so difficult in my opinion. the rating points won or lost by a pair should be calculated on the basis of Expected "a priori" score- actual score of the pair, not of each single player. It is said that the value of the pair can be approximated to the rating of the weaker player. Therefore the expected score of a pair which features an expert and a beginner will be the expected score of a beginner. Obviously a beginner has a low expected score, which means it is much easier to gain points if you are ranked as beginner pair (e.g. even if you are expert, when paired with a beginner, you'll be considered a beginner pair). Every player of the pair will be added of subtracted on his personal rating opoints the amount won or lost by the pair in the event. Therefore, an expert will be able gain potentially more points playing with a beginner than with another expert (since when he plays with an expert, the pair is rated as "expert" -> higher expected a priori score -> you need a much higher percentage to gain points and you actually risk losing points even if you do a good percentage but lower than the a priori expectedpercentage). This would avoid the problem of good players avoiding pairing weak players for fear of losing masterpoints. Obviously it is much debatable whether an improved rating system would actually improve the fun or the competitive activities.

That would be similar to the chess rating system. In a chess tourney you can win or lose ELO rating points, acording to the difference between your expected result (calculated on the basis of the respective values of your opps' and your own pre-event ratings) and the actually scored result.

If I have support for partner suit, I support and I prefer much more to conserve this kind of double to show a misfitting hand with points (partner can sit or run!) I just wonder how many times are we supposed to have points ? Opps have opened and bid a 2/1, pard made a t/o dbl. Assuming nobody is psyching, if I hold hcp, pard made a distributional double (say a 6-5), so holding a misfitting hand I'd better pass: if we are in a misfitting hand and he has to run, he will play doubled a misfit hand at a 3+ level, usually not a lovely choice. As I said, the only reason I can think of for playing this double as penalty is to expose a psyche. Otherwise, I'll almost never have a hand suitable for double, and if I have it, it means pard is light, in misfit, and I am putting him in trouble at a higher level...

A general rule states that most doubles opposite a pard who has always passed are intended as takeout. This rule can be relaxed as the bidding level gets to the 3/4 level, so one partnership agrement shpuld state thru which level doubles opposite a silent pard will be t/o. If we give this double the meaning of penalty, opener should "see" that he can take 7 tricks on its own even if pard has a yarborough: this is almost impossible, so better use (= higher frequency and less dangerous) the double as competitive t/o Double (1) In "standard" approach, double here is reserved only for very distributional hands. If opps know how to bid, they have the balance of power, so doubling on hcp only (no matter whether for penalty or t/o) is plain foolish, since pard will be broke, the more so if we hold 15+ hcp. Playing this double as penalty is VERY risky: both opps are unlimited, and you just give then the "fielder's chouice" - they may as well redouble and catch you, or pass in 2H X with overtricks. - or they may just reach the par contract in the alternative case - they'll play double dummy whatever the final contract Playing the double as "normal" takeout, with no extra distribution, is also crazy: they'll still have the choice among many attractive possibilities. The double here should show a very distributional hands: e.g. 55 (or a VERY good 54 with shortness) with concentrated values, inviting pard to jam the auction at a higher level. Double (2) It is a consequence of double (1). Because double by pard is not based on power but distribution, the double is substantially responsive, saying to pard you have something and support for both suits. Proposing to double opps does not sound a good idea in such sequence, most of the time they'll hold the balance of power. Only reasonnI can think of a penalty here is to expose a psyche.

Caro il mio Lambruscone :rolleyes: , i nostri post "tecnici" non sono cancelati, ma semplicemente la visualizzazione del forum è impostata in maniera che vengano mostrati automaticamente solo i thread attivi negli ultimi xx giorni. Ma selezionando l'opzione giusta è possbilie visualizzare anche i thread inattivi da parecchie settimane B) ciao :P

only problem of this auction is that if you play RKCB (kickback or not), 6 of a non-trump suit is SSA = Specific Suit Ask = a control asking bid looking for a Grand. So if you "agree" diamonds to find the queen, you may be unable to stop in 6 Clubs, and you'll have to play 6 or 7 diamonds. E.g. 4H (kickback for diams)-4NT (1/4 keycards or 0/3 if playing 1430) 5C(Q ask)- 5D ( no queen) ? Now, if you bid 6C it's Grand Slam Try asking for control in clubs

holding a max overcall, you may overcall and double later. You will have a chance to clarify unless your overcall is pased out, which means you have not lost much, while still limiting the trouble, being at the 1-level undoubled.

Ben, 1st of all ty a lot for the anwer to question 1 As far as question 2 is concerned, I think I was not clear enough (the chaotic and verbose poster = myself, strikes again :rolleyes: ) Question 1 and question 2 are basically the same, e.g.: Assume in both case you play Multi 2D as weak 2 or strong 4441. Both in question 1 and question 2, 2D is overcalled Question 1 What is the "standard" set of responses with a pickup partner, undiscussed agrements Question 2 What is your favourite set of responses if you have time to agree them with pard (e.g. can be NON-std) As in question 1, the problem involves responding after overcalls at 2-3-4 level and double.

Hi all ! :rolleyes: I hope this topic was not totally covered previously, I tried a search but just some bits and pieces came out, so I figured a brand new thread would make things clearer. If indeed this is redundant, I apologize in advance -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question is 2D-(2Y)-? 2D-(3Y)-? 2D-(4Y)-? 2D-Dbl -? The following assumes that 2D is NOT only a weak 2, but encompasses also at least one strong option. In my case the only strong option is 17-20 hcp, any 4441. Question 1- The practical question (Multi 2D overcalled "for dummies") What are the "standard" agreements ? E.g. if you meet a random player and you are forced to play Multi 2D (wdoes not matter if u like it or not :P ) including weak 2 and strong 4441, and you have no time to discuss the overcalled multi 2D responses, what are the implicit agrements you assume ? I know there is some material on web pages, and I hav veiwed the approach suggested by Chris Ryall, but I don't know if this one cane be asume as the "standard undiscussed" agreements case A 2D-(2Y)-? what does it mean if you bid - 2Z - 2NT - 3Z new suit up the line - 3Z = jump new suit - 3NT - 4Z = single jump new suit - 4Z = double jump new suit - 3Y = cuebid - 4Y = jump cue - Double Case B 2D-(3Y)-?what does it mean if you bid - 3Z new suit up the line - 3NT - 4Z = new suit up the line - 4Z = single jump new suit - 4Y = cuebid - Double case C 2D-(4Y)-? what does it mean if you bid - 4Z = new suit up the line - 4NT - 5Y = cuebid - Double case D 2D-Dbl -?what does it mean if you bid - 2Z - 2NT - 3Z new suit up the line - 3Z = jump new suit - 3NT - 4Z = single jump new suit - 4Z = double jump new suit - 3Y = cuebid - 4Y = jump cue - ReDouble --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question 2- The theoretical question (Multi 2D overcalled "for smart guys") Which is the approach you like most to respond to 2D multi overcalled with the given constraints (weak 2 or strong 4441) ? What are the followups in the sequence I listed above ? Thanks !! :-)

Hehe was just a silly joke of mine :)

Q of spades. Pard's entry should be in hearts (he signalled with an udca 2H) and we want that he plays spades after the spades K has been knocked out. If declarer ducks I play on hearts

Ron, thanks for the example (real handas are always the best way to get things :))) ). However, my point was that in the given hand, I have 3 hearts, with the possibilkity of playing in the moysian if things go wrong. Sure, I run the risk that my pard too looks for the moysian and we play in 3-3 fit :) BTW in the given hand I'll look for game in a minor, if I did not agree the use of the thrump double. --------- In any case, for the original hand, I have run a set of simulations in PBN format, constrained by: 1) west + nort do not have an opening hand 2) east has < 10 hcp, at least 6 cards with 4+ hcp iand < 3 losers in spades, and no 4 side 4 card suits. (obviously in a 3rd seat preempt some of these criteria are more or less relaxed according to the style) If anyone is interested I can send the pbn file or upload it somewhere. B)

Question from a learning player For bidding 3NT i'd like either an extra hcp (at least 18), or an extra stopper. As it is, why is double so bad ? Is it worse to "steal" a stopper and 1 hcp or to steal a heart ? I am all ears ! B)

In an italian system strong-club-based, they open 1NT without 4cM and 1D with 4cM. When they open 1NT without 4cM major, they use 2D asking for a 3 card Major and 2C as a relay to 2D to: 1) pass or correct to 2M with weak hands; or 2) for slam-oriented hands if responder rebids 2NT or higher.

Since, according to the poster, 2H was forcing, I bid a forcing pass. It implies a fit diamonds in such situation, and a hand unsuited to double or too weak to bid 5 diamonds on its own despite having a fit. Basically, a forcing pass here is equivalent to asking pard: "with which kind of hand did you bid 3NT?". With a defensive hand he'll X, with an offensive hand (more likely from opponent's bid) he will bid. Whatever he does, I'll pass.

Hehe, if the NT bidder were on ur left, you would not be on lead vs No Trump ;)

I have also chosen the passive 8♥. They seem to be minimum, let declarer struggle for his 9th trick: with this bidding sequence I won't risk underleading a tenace or K with only a 4 card suit, the potentially wasted trick will not be compensated by developing a long trick in the suit. If I held a 5th spade, a spade lead would be my choice.

Hi all ! :-) I know many playes leaping Michaels over a natural weak 2 in a major, jumping to 4 of a minor to show 55 in suit bid + other major. However, the situation is different after a Multi 2D opening. 1) Multi 2D can be strong. Often the 20-21/22 hcp balanced hand is included. Others include the 17+ 4441. In both cases bidding at the 4-level may be very dangerous. However, the highest Multi frequency is related to the weak 2 in a major, so the fear of the strong hand - even if worrysome, is a secondary point of this post; I am rather more concerned of the next point. 2) Even if we discard the strong option, 2D still leaves the major suit undetermined. This means that , for example 2D-(4C)-pass- ? Jxx-xx-AQxxx-Axx Now, if I were sure of which major my pard held, I would be in a better position. I do not want to play at the 5 level, so I do not want to hope to hit par's major and having to correct at the 5 level. If he holds spades, I would bid 4S. But if he holds hearts, I'd rather stop in 4C. Note that the problem is even worse if we switch diamonds and clubs, e.g. pard bids 4D Leaping Michaels and I hold Jxx-xx-Axx-AQxxx since here I do not even have a 4D available bid for some sort of "pick a major" sugestion. 3) Do you think using Granovetter's defence over 2D solves, or at least improves, this ? Just to remind Granovetter defense: 2D-? X = unspecified 5 card major 2H = good hand with clubs 2S = good hand with diam 3C/D = natural preemptive Other bids natural (jumps with semisolid suit and a reverse, 2NT with 16-19 and stopper, other balanced good hand will pass and bid later).

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakq32hk95da742c2&s=stxhj743dk863caq9]133|200|Scoring: IMP South deal and opens 10-12 NT. Bidding uncontested reaches 3NT. West leads a low club: attitude lead from unknown length. East plays the club K.[/hv] Easy if spades break 3-3. But how should I handle the case where spades do not break ? 1) Play spades immediately to check the break, and lan the play on other suits accordingly ? 2) Play on diamonds ? (Duck 1 round) 3) Try stealing a trick in hearts ?