Chamaco

Welcome back Ben !! B) Next time nudge it down to Italy !! :D Are we not "LOTT-protected" ?

1m:1H:2H: ? The simpler scheme is the following: 2NT = invitational with 4 cards in M; pard will place the contract in NT or H according to his had 3NT= pass or correct to 4H 2S/3om (other minor) = help suit game try with 5 trumps, looking for help in the suit bid. May prelude to a slam try 3m = artificial looking for possible slam, asks opener to bid 3NT with 3 card support, or to cuebid otherwise. 3H = help suit game try with 5 trumps, looking for help in opener's minor suit

Hi all!! :D [hv=d=w&v=n&s=s7432haqdqjt9xcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♣)-1♠-pass-?[/hv] This post is on hand evaluatioon using fitshowing jumps and Robson/Segal scheme. I know there are many other overcalling/responding schemes, but I would like to focus on this one in this post, Thanks !! B) Pard made an overcall. As advancer, I have more ore less 4 choices: - 3♦= fitshowing jump (FSJ) raise to 3 spades. This raise shows less than invitational values, either a mixed or preeemptive raise, with values concentrated in the 2 suits - 4♦= FSJ to 4 spades. This raise commits to game, either on power, distribution or preempt, with values concentrated in the 2 suits - 2NT= this shows a limit+ hand with 4+ trumps, high ODR. - 3 clubs = a jump cue shows a mixed raise (9 losers) with sparse values At the table, feeling "excited" to try the new FSJ feature, I bid 4 diamonds, leading to 4 spades doubled, which made with luck and help from opps. With hindsight I am trying to reconsider te hand to see what would be a better call: in my view the hand is too strong for a 3 diamonds FSJ, since it has 7.5 losers, so it is too strong for any call that promises only a mixed raise. I would still bid 4 diamonds opposite an opening hand (e.g. if using fit showing raise when my pard opens 1 spades and opps overcall), but admittedly, since pard made only an overcall and may have well have more than 7 losers, my 7.5 losers hand (maybe 8 losers, since the finesse to the H king is bound to fail) may not be enough to force game. That leaves 2NT: if I bid 2NT, I promiuse more or less 10+ hcp with 4 trumps, invitational values (8 losers). Here I have only 9 hcp but still the hand should be evaluated as invitational opposite a full opener. Bidding 2Nt also avoids another flaw in bidding a FSJ here: a FSJ tends to promise values concentrated in thge 2 suits, with little wasted outside. Here, I have AQ stiff in hearts, 70% of my hcp, outside of my 2 suits ! So, sitting calmly at my desk, out of the heat of the batle, I would say that 2NT is probably the most reasonable bid. Comments from people using Robson/Segal scheme ?

Another advantage of using Multi is that your strong 2C opening are "cleaner": they will be either balanced or one suited GF in a major. This is because: - minor suit gf are included in Multi - major suit semiforcing are included in 2M - 2 suited with a 5+ major are opened via 2M Having narrowed the range of hand types in the 2C opener, you can use Paradox resposes to 2C openings, which I think is fairly effective given the underlying flaws of the 2C opening: http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/tw...s.htm#responses

Hi Free ! :) I have to say that several question I also post have sometimes been answered in previous posts. Unfortunately, the sad truth, is that the search on past BBF posts is not really efficient. :) Usually the most interesting discussions are nested inside topics that have nothing to do with it; so, if you make a search with rather restrictive constraints, you will miss the most important posts; if you use looser constraints, you end up with a list of posts too large to be able to discriminate the relevance. Therefore, I think it is still more effective to ask again; after all, that's how most usenet discussion groups work; the most organized newsgroups keep a "FAQ" list to avoid these recurrent questions, but since there is not - so far - a BBF FAQ, I think one should simply accept the recurrence of common themes, and simply ignore them if not interested B)

Invitational NT hands have to go via 1NT I guess.

Hi all. Robson/Segal in their book "Partnership bidding at bridge" (available free online at Dan Neill's systems page) advocate the use of a system of responses to pard 1 Major overcall based on: 1x:1M-pass-? 2M/3M/4M etc = preemptive 2NT = limit+ raise with 4 trumps and high ODR (offense(defense ratio) 2x = limit+ raise with 3 trumps or low ODR 3x = 4 trumps, mixed raise (9 losers), sparse values 4x = splinter, either high card or preemptive. 3y= fitshowing = mixed raise with values concentrated in trumps and side suit (y) 4y= fitshowing = high card or preemptive raise with values concentrated in trumps and side suit (y) I'd like to know from someone who adopted such scheme for overcalls, if there is a suggested scheme of responses by overcaller when advancer bids 2NT. E.g. (1♦)-1♠-(pass)-2NT (pass)-? 3♣ 3♦ 3♥ 3♠ 3NT 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ 4♠ Thanks all !! :D

1- dal punto di vista regolamentare bisogna adeguarsi, volenti o nolenti, alla normativa vigente 2- dal punta di vista meramente tecnico-tattico, l'importante è essere d'accordo con il compagno, specie dal punto di vista delle prese difensive promesse dall'apertura. Detto questo, se il mio p non si aspetta 2 prese di controgioco dalla mia apertura, sarei piu' che felice di aprire a livello uno con Kxxxxx-Kxxxx-xx- vuoto. Specialmente con le mani sbilanciate è importante anticipare l'avversario. Se il regolamento me lo consentisse, sarei felicissimo di sbagliarmi e fare qalche zero in + anche io.... :) Comunque a proposito della valutazione delle mani sbilanciate, segnalo un sito molto interesaante sulla valutazione in "Zar points", che sta prendendo sempre piu' piede fra diversi esperti. http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/TheAnnotation.html http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/TheNeverMiss.html

Non sono d'accordo. Se giochi contro quelli bravi, la licita ti ritorna a livello di 2/3, quando sanno gia' se è giusto punirti se osi fiatare. Specialmente se sono debole, è meglio licitare per primo, a livello 1 piuttosto che aspettare che ritorni la licita, magari a livello di 2 o 3, dopo che gli avversari hanno gia' limitato la mano o mostrato eventuale fit/misfit (con relative indicazioni sull'opportunità o meno di ppunire eventuali interefenze). Se parli per primo: 1) rendi piu' difficile agli avversari descrivere la mano (il contre informativo è molto indeterminato); 2) puopi passare serenamente in seguito. Non è altro che il principio dell' "in quick/out quick".

3S should show some sort of reverse, either in HCP (a good 16+) or distributional (less than 16 but no more than 5 losers). Your hand has about 6,5 losers: 2.5 (clubs) + 1(diam) + 1(H)+2/2.5 (spades). Therefore it should be evaluated as a minimum opener and rebid 2 spades. N's redouble is uncommon but not so bad, given his expectations to find a reverse in S. There is a book by Blue Team member Pabis Ticci where he deals in a chapter on the odds needed to redouble a doubked game contract, and, based on a cost-benefit analysis, he suggests to redouble either close games OR slam going hands, but not regular games contract where they have a potential suit for a sacrifice.

Hello Wayne, nice to see your 5C bid worked out ! :blink: Anyway, here are a few considerations about the choices you had to face: 1) passing the 1D bid. When you have a good hand with values in opps suit, you can usually pass, bid your suit (if you have any), or bid notrump (if enough hcp). Passing with a very good hand is often described as "trap pass". How should one decide when making a trap pass ? I think that the use of "trap pass" at mid-low level is often an abuse: people pass with a good hand with values in opps suit and then they feel compelled to bid at a higher level, when it is much more dangerous. My tip of "trap-passing" is the following: "Make a trap pass if, - and only if - you are happy defending vs the doubled contract at the level just bid by RHO" That means that if you have a feature, either distributional or strength, that suggest you may play the hand, that is usually more rewarding than penalizing opps at 1 or 2 level. In such cases it is better to bid your feature at a low level, and pard will place the contract. In the current hand, your feature is the club suit: your hand may well penalize diamonds, but your distribution tells you for sure they will land in a major, so it is much better to bid 2C and then if opard is weak pass throughout. 2) your 5C bid over 2H 5C is basically a preemptive bid. In that case much better was to preempt one round before before they exchanged info on the heart fit. Now, your hand is not a preemptive hand. You have some defensive tricks, so you can afford to bid 3C forcing opps to a higher level, and bringing in your opartner in the bidding dialogue, rather than doing all by yourself. Finally- or maybe I should have started with this point - the diamond suit tends to discourage to bid, rather than the opposite: they have bid diamonds, you have values in their suit.

In similar situations it is useful to adopt the "Gazzilli" convention: 2C rebid by opener = either natural OR artificial with a "half-reverse" hand or better, not suitable to a 3 level jump. Reposnder should bid 2D atyificial with a hand worth 8/9+ hcp, otherwise he makes a natuarl weak bid, other than 2D. In the current situation, opening 1NT will help; however, there are other hand patterns (6322/6331 hands with a mediocre 6 bagger) where you will have the same problem: the Gazzilli convention really helps in those cases.

My 4S preempts are more lousy :(

I *think* I read somewhere that hands too strong to preempt in front of unpassed pd, and not strong enough to open (e.g. no 2.5 defensive tricks) should pass then bid. Not that I like passing these kind of hands (that's why I prefer to stretch to bid), but, now and then, it occurs to me to play with people whose favourite sentence is "Why should you preempt your pard? If I am unpassed, just pass and make your bid at a later turn". In this case there is the added info that RHO has passed so odds of preempting p is 50% as opposed to having to make a choice in first seat (33.33%).

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sakj987xxhxdxxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Is *THIS* hand worth a Namyats ? Assume you play Precision (limited openings). If not Namyats, do you pass or how many spades do you bid, second seat, in front of an unpassed pd ?

:)

Perhaps I am not so experienced, but here my generic risk-benefit analysis: - the risk at IMPS which suggests more caution than MP is to be severely penalized - the risk at MP that suggests different actions from IMPS is to goive away overtricks. I think that, when bidding is wrong, it is much more ofrten wrong at matchpoiints for lead-directional issues: they buy the contract and pard blows a trick on the lead. So, I am a bidder at both IMPS and MP, but if I were in a cautious mood, I'd rather pass at MP than at IMPS.

I have a question: was pard's 2NT a good bid ? It seems to me that east hand is NOT a NT oriented hand, with empty red suits. It is a suit-oriented hand, BUT IN OPPS SUIT. I would think this strongly suggests a penalty pass.

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa7532h53d732ca74]133|100|1♣-?[/hv] I was asked by a friend about this hand. I said that this hand, in my opinion should overcall 1S at first round. The minuses are that it is not a good lead directing bid with an empty suit to the Ace; and "classical" bidding states that a 1 level overcall shopuld either show a full opening or show a good lead directing suit. Also, a 5332 shape is not the best, especially vuln. We may risk a penalty or we may get pard to blow a trick and/or lose a tempo by leading spadeswhen he might have another appealing lead. The pluses are: - we hold the spade suit: we force responder to bid at the 2 level or to resort to ill-defined negative double sequences - IN QUICK/OUT QUICK: if we do not mention spades at the one level, (and it is already risky enough), it will be MUCH riskier to show them at a higher level; - if pard has some spade support and we play preemptive raises, we may jam the auction effectively What do you think ?

1S-(4C)-p-p 4D-p-5D all pass

Thx a lot Ben, these two were the pieces of information that were not quite clear to me. 1) I was playing Dbl as "cardshowing" 8+, with only some tolerance guaranteed for clubs, and not as long clubs. I suppose this is more a subject for ptship agreement 2) more importantly, I igored that the most reasonable requirement for a sandwich 2H was a 6 bagger. Thanlks again, these discussions are always VERY helpful ! :D

All the hints are useful, Ben. All I was saying in my choice to start with a double was: I will raise pard, but I will do it showing a delayed preference rather than a direct raise, to avoid an advance sacrifice by pd if he has extra distribution. If I give a weak raise, pard may still consider a sacrifice even if my raise is weak, if he has extra distribution to allow it. The point is that I want to make surre we do not play 4H unless pard has a really distributional hand If I start with a double, I expect the following cases: 1) pard leaves the double in playing me for 8+ hcp, 2 cards in H and 4 cards in clubs. I think this should not be a disaster (although that may occur, occasionally). And in any case, given my shape, I rate the chances for pard to leave the double in close to 0.01% 2) pard rebids his suit. I will happily pass 3H. 3) pard bids clubs (the suit shown by my responsive double). In this case I will give a preference to hearts. Pard will bid then 4H only if he really has extras in distribution or strength. What I am saying is that in all these scenarios we will play 3H. Pard will decide to bid 4H if he has the hand to bid it opposite a balanced hand (= he should have a high ODR to compensate my low ODR). I do not think giving a delayed raise means slapping partner as Ron says: in my opinion it means raising him telling him that the raise is not only bad, but has a really low ODR. The direct raise does not give that piece of info: I mean if my pard raises me to 3H, everytime I have extra distribution and vuln is not unfav., I consider raising as advance sacrifice. I want to avoid this, and I try to ease my pard's choice by dopubling and later giving a weak preference. Is my thinking so terrible ? :D

I was taught by mentors on BBO that with 4333 you consider ur support shorter by one card because of no ruffing power. If that holds true, it means that in the given hand it should be counted 2 card support.

Richard is correct. However, I think this structure has one small flaw. Suppose pard opens 4C (=Hearts). We respond 4D = asking for 1st round controls or side K. (If pard bids a suit, he has 1st round control there.) Pard bids 4NT = no 1st rnd control, but one side K. Now, in the "standard" structure, 5C asks "which King " ? But what will pard bid if his K is the Spade K ? He does not know whether the SK is useful or not, and bidding 5S may get us too high. Yet, there is a solution. The solution is that, in the specific sequence of Namyats for H: 4C:4D ? The meaning of 4S and 4NT are switched: instead of the "normal" meaning of: 1) 4S = 1st round cue in S and 4NT = I have an unspecified K we shall use 2) 4NT = 1st round cue in S and 4S = I have an unspecified K. In this second version, after 4S = 1K, we have room to inquiry with 4NT for which of the 3K.

It seems to me that this hand should be a clear example of "adjustments to the law": - our length in spades suggest they will have only 8 trumps - 4333 shape is a minus - wasted SQ is a minus - quacks honors also are a minus It seems to me that these elemnts tend to suggest this is one of those hands where there are less tricks than trumps, but I am not Larry Cohen .... B) ----------------- As for what I'd bid, I'd be torn between pass and a slightly offshape responsive double to show my values (if p bids clubs I correct to 3H). IMO a direct raise in H could encourage partner to bid (4H to make or sacrifice) too much, because he is likely to be short in opps suit and get excited. Double gives values denying a good fit, which is what I think of this hand; I much rather give a 2nd round preference to H.