Chamaco

I think that this hand may qualify for a minimum double. All points are useful, and despite only 8 hcp, the hands is invitational from all other viewpoints: LTC = 8 losers ZAR points = 22 zar points. The only serious risk is that both ZAR and LTC do not account really for defensive strength and if pard leaves the double in, 3H doubled may actually make (especially if we have a diamond fit).

I agree with Eric that with hand 3 the main alternative to Michaels is a 2S WJO; however, I have been burnt in the past enough :ph34r: for bidding 2 suiters as if they were a singlesuiter. :angry:

Playing precision, 3D is - IMO - the very best call (= distributional reverse) because 1H is limited to max 15 hcp, no ambiguity on whether the reverse is a power-reverse or just distributional. Not playing precision, however, I think it may easily mislead pard. Jump to 3D should show HIGH CARD POINTS, not only distribution. HCP should be at least 18, I guess with extreme distribution even a good 16 will do. However, if you bid 3D on such a hand AND on the follwong hand ♠ x ♥ AQJT86 ♦ KQJT5 ♣ A then pard will often misjudge best contract?

Add my vote for double: - safest available bid - right on values - spade suit is not so strong to be a huge loss if pard has only 3 card support.

Hi Wayne !! :-) You are right in thinking that many modern standard american (and/or 2/1) books suggest to skip the spades and show support with a moderate hand. That would be the case for example of: ♠ AK9xx ♥ 987 ♦ xxxx ♣ x This is the same hand as before with one less Ace. In this case, supporting immediately has the advantage of giving at once immediate fit and limiting the hand, the most important priorities, rather than looking for a super accurate description of the hand. This approach is useful in semi-preempting opps and in helping a strong partner to locate immediately the possibility of stretching to a game contract. On the other hand, is some hands, it does not help him to evaluate/devaluate his hand, especially in close competitive sequences if opps compete in a minor. But if responder is holding 3 card support and a limit raise hand or a GF hand, he can, and should, make another bid before showing support . In fact, regardless whether you use Bergen raises or plain limit raises, the immediate invitational raise tends to sho 4+ trumps: if you have 3 trumps you make another bid then show your delayed raise. The posted hand is, in my opinion, a GF hand (despite only 11 hcp), so I would bid 1 spades and, if opener does not show extras, I will jump to 4H. A possible auction: 1♥:1♠ 2♦:4♥ 4NT:5♥ ? Now close call, slam is on a finesse. Theoretically, a pass would be better, I think, but hard to stop the enthusiasm I guess... :-)

1) 2H 2) 1S 3) 2H ---------------------------------------- If you bid Michaels with hand 3 despite concentrated values in spades, you have solved this problem. Michaels in this case puts emphasis on spades so you are likely to get an eventual spade lead anyway if opps play the hand. The advantage in starting with michaels is to put pard in control, and with his hand he will simply look for a safe minor spot unless the cuebidder shows the strong hand. Hand 2: I have a minimum opening hand, yet still an opener, I guess I'll try 3D to show my values and shape; pard will decide between 3Nt or another contract. Hand 3: If I have decided not to show my diamonds (using Michaels) at the previous turn because they are bad, I won't show them now. I pass 2NT. That's why starting with Michaels is better despite the honors concentration disparity. It puts your pard in control with one bid.

Pass w/ both hands.

I think OSH referred to the diamond layout as one of the reasons why it would be better fort N to be declarer: he would not be forced to decide immediately how to play diamonds and would have an extra tempo to try the spade finesse without having to ruff in S hand with entry problems for cashing spades once established.

Are you suggesting there should be a "standard" (unless explicitly agreed otherwise) also for defensive tools vs weird openings so no need to discuss them everytime ?

Happy B-Day Ben ! I wish you as many other birthdays as the number of useful posts of yours on the BBF :D

L'uso del support double è controverso: VANTAGGI differenziare il tipo di appoggio SVANTAGGI 1-Eliminazione del contre punitivo, e non è poco. 2- Difficoltà a differenziare una mano da rovescio con appoggio 3o da una mano minima con appoggio 3o. Per es. 1♦-pass- 1♥-1♠ X-3♠-? Il rispondente ha xx-QJTxx-xxx-KQx Questa mano deve dichiarare 4♥ se l'apertore è in rovescio, ma non se ha una mano minima con appoggio 3o. E' altrettanto vero che il altre situazioni iun cui gli avversari sbarrano a 3 piucche, è utile sapere se il compagno ti ha appoggiato con 3 o 4 carte. Ma, avendo giocato il support double per 3 anni, secondo me sono piu' le volte che il contro è utile per dare forza anziche' distribuzione (a patto che si usi - come secondo me è vantaggioso, appoggio 3o al nobile del rispondente anche se puo' essere 4o). Ci sono altre sequenze in seguito al support double che diventano rapidamente spiacevoli e non è il caso di citarle tutte qui (si puo' aprire un thread apposito). I detrattori del support double, asseriscono che è troppo importante l'uso del contre per dare forza e che è possibile comportarsi semplicemente ignorando l'intervenmto avversario e dando appoggio diretto al nobile del rispondente anche con 3 carte (prassi standard nella 5a nobile americana e nell'ACOL) da notare che il support double è stato inventato da Eric Rodwell per utilizzarlo nell'ambito del "Fiori Forte": nel fiori forte, l'apertura è limitata a max 15 p.o. (o 16- a secodna degli accordi), per cui il contre per mosrtrare mano da rovescio non serve piu', e l'utilità del support double è superiore a quanto avvenga in un sistema "naturale". ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fra tutte le convenzioni utilizzate, le miglioiri per me sono: 1) contre informativo in tutte le sue forme 2) stayman e blackwood 3) Lebensohl in tutte le sue forme (in primis su 1SA interferito, in risposta al contre informativo su sottoapertura, e Lebensohl/Ingberman su rovescio del compagno)

serious/unserious 3NT was not part of the agreement.

I sat in the BIL class by luis for about 40 minutes or so. Let me say that Luis did an EXCELLENT Job. He not only was giving an excellent class with interesting and informative deals, he also explained it in a wondeful way. Yes, definitely. His classes are absolutely great :D Thanks to all who responded: finally my doubts are cleared now :)

Maybe this is what they were trying to make me understand :) Two more points about this scheme then: 1) what should opener bid- instead of 4H - with a slam going hand without heart control ? 2) what could be an example hand for 4H = cuebid with a hand unfit for RKCB ? We know all suits are stopped so what may be a reason for hand unsuitability for RKCB?

Sorry, probably my post was chaotic :D (and yes, most BIL players do play splinters and J2NT). Lat Train and Lackwood are not taught in the BIL, as far as I know. Last train was mentioned to me privately by Luis, just to make quickly a point that 4H may be a tempo bid, a sort of squezze cuebid (we know already of the minors control, so 4H is a "superfluous cue showing that the hand still has slam interest but misses something) But squeeze cuebids were dealt with i the BIL (actually one example occurred the hand before this one), so I took 4H for such meaning: not necessarily showing (nor denying for what matters) a H cue, but not enabling me to ask RKCB cos I was unaware of H controls. So please let's not focus on the Last Train issue but rather on whether or not responder should bid 4NT.

Hi all ! Yesterday I was lucky enough to be awake by the time Luis was doing his BIL clas on slam bidding, and it was a great one ! (ty again Luis- and Rado too :D ). So here is the q. I held the following hand: ♠Kxxx ♥xx ♦AKQJxx ♣x Partner opens 1♠ and i decide to bid 2♦ rather than splintering or using Jacoby 2NT (actually there were very useful comments also on this kind of choice but it is not the subject of this post). 1♠:2♦ 2NT:3♠ 4♣:4♦ 4♥:? Both 4C and 4D are mixed cuebids. The question here is the meaning of the 4H bid. Since the class was a group class, there was not the chance to discuss this better so I still have doubts on this, hence I post them here... :D Basically, it was said in the class that after 4H I should take over and bid 4NT RKCB, because H shows a H stopper. I objected that, since we have shown control inn the minors and miss only H control, AND opener still shows slam interest, it sounded to me that 4H was more ASKING for H stopper. If opener had a slam going hand AND H control, he may bid RKCB himself, knowing all suits are stopped. Due to the collective nature of the class, there was not the time to discuss this more thouroghly, but the reply to this comment was that 4H is similar to "Last Train" here, opener is still undecided. (This Last train reference was made very quickly in private chat, since we needed to move on to the following board; this means I may have misunderstod some part of this explanation because of english language). Now, my doubt after the "Last train" point is that Last Train does not deny NOR promise anything in the Last Train suit (hearts here): so if 4H shows a hand that wants to keep the bidding open but lacks something, I still do not know whether he has a H control. (The "Lackwood" convention would help here). And If I do not know whether he has a H control, I cannot bid RKCB. :) Thanks again to all, these BIL lessons are great.

No one mentioning "Matchpoints" by Kit Woolsey ?

I'd like to say something about psyches here. In Italy most psyches are outright banned at low-midflight tourneys, and allowe only in toplevele play. One argument often brought as a reason for this is that the average low-level club player is virtually defenseless vs pysche. Well let me tell you one thing. I am one of those low-level club players. yet I wish psyches (and any method) would be allowed everywhere (provided no concealed agreement). As it is, so far I have been able to develop ways to cope vs preempts, vs light openings, and several bidding methods (strong club/diamond, canapè systems, weak/strong NT), but not vs psyches. One learns to defend vs a weapon only by facing it several time and finally "digesting" it. Now let's see what such rulings are doing: they are just delaying the time when I will learn how to defend vs psyches. I expect/hope to become one day a decent player, reach some good tourneys and then, guess what ? I will be a beginner about psyches. Moreover, most beginners do not have a clue even about how to defend vs a preempt or a miniNT, should these also be banned because destructive ? I am from a seaside town, and we know the best way for kids to learn how to swim is to throw them in the water and let them drink some saltwater a few times; so the best way for a beginner to learn how to defend vs a destructuive method is the "hard way", getting the bitter end of it a few times; a few bad boards due to a psyche won't do that harm to a beginner (and this applies also to myself). :)

Of course not, I did :) , as it is was explained to me in the other posts :D

LOL, everytime I handle it that way, my play becomes superficial... Another case of Murphy's Law ? :( More seriously, most "trivial" expert plays (safety plays, throw ins , correct handing of card combinations) are not quite easy as you say :) Therefore it is easy for a learning player to "mastermind himself", sometimes looking for the "non trivial" even when the play is straightforward. I have a long experience too, but in chess, and I have seen many of my chess students do the same. I guess it is normal... sigh... :) :D

Ok, ready to listen here :)

My first thought was to follow the line described by Fre: - trump A then 4 round of spades discarding a diamond. I thought that this was safe if: 1) Kx of trumps anywhere (odds should be around O1 =40%) 2.1) spades 3-3 (O2.1 =36%) OR 2.2) spades 4-2 and Kxx of trumps held by the "right" opp (O2.2 = about 24% e.g. half the time of any 4-2 split) the combined possibility of 2.1 and 2.2 is O2 =(100 - [(100-36)x (100-24)]/100 ) = around 52% or so The combined odds of O1 and O2 is OC(o1,o2) = (100 - [(100-40)x (100-52)])/100 = about 71 % of all the times the club finesse fails, which brings the total percentage of the play to about 85% (= (100- [(100-71)*(100-50)]) / 100). So I thought that this chance was ubstantially better than finessing trumps (50%). However, I did not realize at first that finesing trumps gains in an additional case: when trumps split 4-1 with the king fourth onside. In that case, the finesse picks up the K and saves a trump trick. This layout of trumps would occur roughly 14% of the times. This aditional constraint is making me confused about the odd calculation :) . Any help ?

Just my 2 cents here. Please remember we are guests here, we have free access to what seems the best bridge playing site online, included A LOT of free services available. This does not mean we must necessarily agree with any of the BBO staff decisions nor with any parallel group that runs any initiatives on BBO. This is why there are forums, and it seems to me that the possibility of polls and of opening threads, is a god enough way to give feedback to these people who devote much of their time for these activities. But creating a committee seems going too far.

This way you risk losing 1 club, 2 diamonds and possibly a trump. You are not sure yet you will be able to pick trump K.

After trump lead wo by the J and cashing trump ace at second round, if trumps are 3-2 , no trump can be led after ruffing a spade. If trumps are 4-1, then another story :)