Chamaco

Question A ) Could you please post the worse hand you'd overcall at UNFAVORABLE vulnerability ? I really need concrete examples B) 1- 1M-(2NT) Unusual 2NT 2- 1m-(2m) Michaels 3- 1M-(2M) Major-minor 2 suiter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question B ) For those who use losers. How many losers do you promise with a 2-suited bid at: 1) none vuln 2) non vuln vs vuln 3) all vuln 4) vuln vs not

It was a joke !!! :D (Probably a bad one, since nobody is laughing... :) ) But since the topic is so delicate I shd have made it clearer, I guess :-)

Hehe just add this hand to one of the TD threads on psyches LOLL

Ty Frederic :). Another question (I'll add to the original post) is: DO YOU THINK IT IS WISE TO USE A 2 SUITER HAVING 65 SHAPE (ONE SUIT LONGER)?

I think that Gambling and Namyats are similar (both semipreemptive with solid suit). If the hand is too strong for namyats, I do not see why the same does not apply for using Gambling; at least Namyats tells right away to pard what suit I have, if the auction becomes competitive.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=shxxdq9xxxckqjtxx&s=skq9xhatxxxdxxcxx]133|200|Scoring: MP 1♠-(2NT)-4♠- Dbl all pass[/hv] I was S and I took North's unusual 2NT as a good hand, given unfavourable vuln. At equal vuln, I would have passed, but given the vuilnerability, I assumed N to have more defense potential, so I doubled. Declarer picked the trump suit for 1 losers (he wd have done it anyway even if playing undoubled, given the announced minors in N) and conceded the A of H. So let's take this hand as a starting point to define your suggestions to deal with partner's 2-suited overcalls. I assume in the rest of the post we use Michael's cuebid and Unusual 2NT. I know there other good methods out there (other 2 suited overcalls such as Roman or Ghestem, transfer overcalls, Meta defense, etc), but for the purpose of this post please do not start the discussion on other bidding methods: I want to focus on hand evaluation. Thanks ! :) We currently play MINIMAX ranges when not vuln or when at equal vuln. MINIMAX is defined as either less than opening in HCP (say 6/-10-11) OR reverse in HCP (15/16+), since intermediate hands (11-15) will just bid the suits. 1) do you think defining two suiters in terms of LOSERS instead of HCP will work better ? The problem I can think of in using losers is that pard will have more trouble deciding to penalize. 2) what are your suggested requirements for a 2-suiters at unfavourable vulnerability? Could you opost an example hand of the worse hand that would use Michaels' or Unusual 2NT ? 3) DO YOU THINK IT IS WISE TO USE A 2 SUITED OVERCALL HAVING 65 SHAPE (ONE SUIT LONGER)? Does your opinion change on this issue whether the 65 is in a ) the minors b ) the majors c ) major-minor

I do not really care whether during bidding all cards are hidden or all are shown. I'd just not watch the auction. My wish is to kibitz declarer during CARD PLAY, whoever becomes declarer, with the defender's cards covered. :-)

Hi all !! Here's another piece of idea ::-) When I try to start a team game, usually the process is painful: -I start with 4-5 players and fill them in in the related boxes. - then i start to look for others players, and then you will find many undecided people. Thois process may take quite a few minutes, during which you woiuld like to keep up-to-date all the other invited players to the team match - also, some times there may be people who change ideas. Now, here is my point: everytime there is an info to communicate to the people who agreed to the team match, you have 2 options: 1) chat to the entire lobby 2) chat to them, one by one privately I think it would be neat if, in the duialog box used to set up a team match, there was a button allowing to chat to all the players invited to the team match (e.g. all players whose names are in the text fields of the dialog box). It would be a sort of "chat to tournament" before the tournament has started at all. Thanks !!

Hi all !!! Here is an option I think would be neat (if not already possible !! :) ). In the kibitzing options in one's profiles there are: - kibitzing North - kibitzing South - kibitzing East - kibitzing West - kib partner when dummy. Now, I often kibitz the "stars" on BBO, to try to see how they play dummy. What I do is that when declarer is east, I have to change my profile setting to "kibitz east", to try to guess the play whith defender's cards hidden. Then tyhe next hand , North becomes declarer; so I have to change the setting to "kibitzing North". Then the next hand West is declarer..... and so on. It would be really neat if there was an option like "kibitzing declarer", regardless of NSEW, so that I can always have defender's cards covered, without having to manually change my profile setting at each deal. Thanks !! :-)

1) any suit that does not "accept" pard's xfer is Support Asking Bid 2) As I wrote before, my current teammates would kill me if I propose a full relay structure. That means that for memory issue, every bid should be linked to one or at most 2 pieces of info; remembreing all the steps for various shapes and the meaning of the next realays and related responses is absolutely unfeasible right now. But I like the structure you gave ! Thanks !

2♦= min, ♥ and may have another suit, 2NT asks again for side suit 2♥= min, ♠, may have another (no hearts), 2NT asks for side suit 2♠= min, no majors, 2NT asks again for shape 2NT = max 44 ♣+ major 3♣= max 44 ♦+♥ 3♦= max 44 majors 3♥= max 44 ♠+♦ 3♠= max 44 minors 3NT = max any 4333 or minors 5332

1♣ (16+):1NT (8-13 bal) 2♣(stayman):3♠ (maximum with 44 in the minors) ? Now what do you suggest to: - set ♣ as trump suit asking cuebid - set ♦ as trump suit asking cuebid - ask keycards with trumps ♣ - ask keycards with trumps ♦

Si' infatti la mia era piu' una critica a quegli avversari che sono sempre pronti a chiamare il direttore per deviazioni marginali. Come dici tu, mi sembra logico che le deviazioni macroscopiche vengano considerate alla stregua di psichiche e trattate come tali (ammesse o meno)... Buon Ferragosto !! :)

Yes, sure :) It is not a "who's to blame " issue, it's just to fine-tune my judgment and the agreements with my pard :)

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=s76hakq63djtcaqj9&s=sakq985432hdq943c]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South - - Pass 4♦! Pass 4♥! Pass 5♣! Pass 5♠ Pass Pass Pass 1) Is S's hand too strong for a Namyats (4D = 8.5 tricks in spades) ? 2) 4H is relay asking for 1st round outside controls (and 5C shows 1st round control in clubs); responder's new suit other than 4H or any number of Spades would have been control asking bid (CAB). So N, instead of bidding 4H he could have used 5d. The debate was: is it better to choose a "scientific" approach asking for diamnods control (giving away the lead to opps) or to ask for generic controls, concealing the dangeroius lead but risking to miss slam (if S's 2 voids include diamonds, slam is laydown) ? N argued for this reason that a hand with 2 voids may not be well suited for a Namyats. (We play limited openings, 1S would be max 15). Comments ?

TY Ben. One more question on this. Suppose adopting Robson/Segal + Rubens advances (1Nt natural, no xfer to clubs). (1d)-1S-(p)- ? Does it make sense to lower the minimum range of 2H to constructive 3 card raise, about 8-9 hcp ? In the original Robson/Segal scheme, the direct cuebid shows low ODR raise with limit+ values, so roughly a good 10+. The direct raise is basically preemptive with 3 cards (high ODR mixed or preemptive raise will go via a FSJ or jump cue). Hoiwver, in the Rob/Seg approach, the direct raise encompasses also rather decent hands such as a 8/9 hcp raise which is not good enough to cuebid. The use of Rubens advances adds the possibuility to use a transfer to differentiate: 1) really preemptive 3 card raise (o-7 to a bad 8) Direct raise 2) constructive raise (about 8/9 = 9 losers hand with low ODR) Transfer then pass if pard does not super accept. 3) limit raise Transfer then raise to 3M or bid new suit 4) GF raise Transfer then bid new suit (in principle only invitational) or bid game The questions are: A ) Is it wise to transfer then bid again with an invitational hand (say 10-12) with Low ODR ? Because of the low ODR, if pard has a minimum overcall, the 3 level may be too high B ) Is it wise to put 3 different ranges (constructive, limit, GF) into the same bid ? If the auction gets competitive, pard may not know what to do. E.g. 1d-1S-(p)- 2H* (constructive+ raise) 4d-? Pard here may well be in trouble holding KQJxx-Axx-xx-xxx He knows of a 5-3 fit but he cannot show that he has a non minimum overcall but not enough to force game opposite a limit hand (let alone a constructive raise). Maybe my example is not the best (better examples are welcome) but I think the point is clear.

non è di pari opportunità tra il tuo pard e gli avversari (non a caso ora dici che se le aspettano anche gli avversari), ecco il perchè delle licite allertate interminabili.... Il discorso secondo me è al limite. Le "libertà" a cui mi riferisco sono leggere "distorsioni" della mano dovute a valutazione della mano: le cose che uno trova normalmente sui libri di bridge con le mani commentate dai campioni. Cose tipo: -se ho un vuoto, il mio appoggio 3o o 4o al p viene considerato 4o o 5o (allungato di 1); - se sono in 4333 il mio appoggio al p viene accorciato di 1; - se sono in 4333 posso nascondere 4a nobile; - se sono in 4441 con pezzo secco posso trattare la mano come bilanciata - eccetera Sono miriade le "cosine" che concorrono a fare determinarte scelte, ma fanno parte della valutazione della mano, non del sistema. Se bisogna allertare tutte le cose che concoprrono alla valutazione della mano, allora bisogna allertare anche ogni singola licita spiegando che: " la tal dichiarazione significa xx-yy punti, ma se ha una Q secca non la conta", altrimenti gli avversari sbraiteranno perchè avevo 2 p.o. in piu' del dovuto. Quello che intendo dire è che bypassare una 4a nobile o il resto non sono cose fuori dal mondo, ma fanno parte di un normale processo di valutazione della mano e l'avversario se lo dovrebbe aspettare (altrimenti qui si perde 1 minuto ad ogni singola dichiarazione a spiegare il tipo di deviazioni possibili). Questo anche perchè il compagno non ha piu' informazione degli opps: se bypasso la 4a nobile non la viene a cercare , se apro SA in 6332 o 5422 minore, per lui ho al max una 5332. Quindi le pari opportunità ci sono :) E la gente invece che chiamare l'arbitro dovrebbe studiare di piu' i libri ed ammettere il fatto che fare dichiarazioni tattiche "distorte" (non per ingannare gli avversari, ma per cercare di spiegare meglio la mano al p) spesso fa parte del buon bridge, e metterlo in conto SEMPRE, a priori, sia in fase di licita sia in fase di gioco/controgioco. :) Continuo a pensare che se un giocatore legge sui libri dei campioni certi suggerimenti, il regolamento dovrebbe consentire di applicare le tecniche dei campioni senza dover perdere mezz'ora ad allertare: la valutazione della mano non fa parte di un set di convenzioni, ma del buon senso. E se un regolamento vieta o limita a giocatori di basso livello la possibilità di applicare principi e tecniche raccomandatae dai campioni, secondo me c'è qualcosa di profondamente sbagliato nel regolamento (probabilmente la puerile idea di "proteggere i giocatori piu' deboli", con l'inevitabile risultato di non farli mai crescere perchè non affrontano queste tecniche di gioco ma si confrontano solo con chi dichiara "rasoterra"). Non capisco perchè il mio p deve allertare che posso bypassare una 4a nobile mentre i miei avversari non allertano il fatto che aprire 1♥seguito da robvescio a 3♣/♦ puo' essere colore 3o: anche in quel caso, si tratta di valutazione della mano. Smettiamola di chiamare l'arbitro tutte le volte che la licita degli avversari non è conforme a quanto ci aspettiamo *NOI*.

In this example it works fine, but I am still confused. Let's forget that hand. Suppose bidding goes 1D-(1S)-pass-? And I have a hand that wants to transfer to CLUBS. If I recall correctly this implies the use of 1NT as transfer bid. Now here is the question: is the use of 1NT xfer compatible with Robson/Segal given the fact that: - the other 2NT bid is taken for high card raise with high ODR - simple cuebid guarantees a high card raise with low ODR - jump cuebid is a mixed raise with 4+ trumps ? If 1Nt is xfer to clubs, what should advancer bid with a misfittting 4432 with adequate stoppers and: 1) 11-12 hcp 2) 13-14 hcp ?

No, it was an italian federal tourny, I think OTB (from what I could understand from principe's a bit chaotic post). In Italy, you cannot open at the 1 level with less than 8 hcp, even if it's a psyche. At the 1 level, you are allowed to psyche distribution in one of a suit, provided you hold at least 8 hcp. E.g., if u have 8+ hcp, u may open 1 of a suit where u are short; 1NT psyches are not allowed altogether (e.g. you may deviate by max 2 hcp from the range and you have to stick to specific distributions). This applies of course to low-midchart flight events. I am not saying I agree with all of the above, just stating the rules.

Hi all ! I am almost ready to try to adopt the overcall system described by Robson/Segal (Ptship bidding in bridge), and I have ran some simulations to make some practice. I have come across to a couple of hands where I do not feel sure of the right action. Below is one hand that raises (to me) the following question: - is it possible to integrate into the Robson/Segal scheme a "rescue" structure in response to a 1M overcall ? Something like a "negative free bid" (NF 2/1 ) or a 1NT forcing to seek safety in a long minor when playing in 1M rates to be bad. Here is the hand: [hv=d=s&w=saqj72hxxdxxxckqx&e=shkqtxxxdqjt8xcxx]266|100|1C-(1S)-pass-?[/hv] Now here is the problem: 1) If i could play 1NT forcing, I'd try that, although it may be dangerous if pard repeats spades at the 2 level. However, I doubt that using 1NT fits well with Robson/Segal scheme: because the jump to 2NT shows 4+ cd support and 10+ hcp, then the notrump oriented hands should go via 1NT. Is there anyone combining 1NT forcing with 2NT as high card unbalanced raise in the major ? 2) If I could play Rubens advances, I guess I'd just transfer in my longest suit then pass. However, in order to play Rubens advances I think I need too give up the 1NT invitationbal, and I am not surre that this fits with Robson/Segal structure. Is there anyone combining Rubens advances with Robson/Segal structure ? Thanks all !! :P)

Purtroppo no. Io questa mano l'aprirei tutta la vita a Mitchell, ma se non fai uso di aperture per le bicolori in sottoapertura, non puoi aprire- secondo il regolamento attuale - a livello 1 con meno di 8 punti. E' un'assurdità - perchè il potenziale offensivo di questa mano è evidente - e perchè il passo seguito da intervento in bicolore non rende giustizia a questa mano (meglio anticipare gli avversari quanbdo ci sono mano sbilanciaate, anzichè perdere un giro di licita lasciando che gli opps si scambino info). Come giuistamente accenni, queste mani vanno valutate a perdenti e non a punti, e una mano da 6 perdenti, è un'apertura OTTIMA. Detto questo, il regolamento purtroppo è quello che è e dobbiamo adeguarci sia pure malvolentieri.

Issue 1: Ron, could you clarify this Michaels/non leaping Michaels concept ? I used to think that 4H over a 3H preempt should be Michaels, 55+ Spdes/minor of adequate strength. Howeverm, this does not work well with a 3S preempt, as H has to be played at the 5 level then. Is this the reason to play 4m as Michaels ? And, if so, how do you deal with a minor single suiter ? Issue 2: Where can I find good comprehensive documentation on these defenses to 3M preempt ? (eg how to bid all sort of 2 suiters and single suiters) Issue 3: What of all the above should be considered "standard" in an occasional partnership ? Thanks all ! :)

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxhdkqtxxxcakqtxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 3H-p-p-?[/hv] Team match, you hold the above hand at unfav vuln. West opens 3H preempt and it is passed to you. I assume the reasonable bids are: - double - 4NT Unusual - 5NT Unusual (if evaluating the hand as a sure slam) - 4 of a minor - 5 of a minor I'd like to know what is Question A 1) the "right" bid in "standard" methods (e.g. the one you'd do with a good pickup partner without discussion) 2) your bid in your preferred nmethods (and why your methods are better than std) Question B Would you bid the same if the Hand was one Ace stronger ? E.g. A- void- KQTxxx-AKQTxx x- void- AKQTxx-AKQTxx Question C Is there a way to find the slam ? North had AKJTxx-xx-xx-Jxx

I do not like 3H, that should be a pass/correct competitive bid IMO. If X is not takeout, then 3♠ is the bid: you are willing to play game opposite any possible pard's hand (H preempt, strong minor, big balanced)

After finding the major fit, would not 5NT be a Grand Slam Force rather than pick-a-slam ?