Chamaco

[hv=d=w&v=a&n=sak94haq742djtcj3&s=sqj7hjt6d97caq982]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South Pass 1♥ Pass 1NT! Pass 2♣ Pass 4♥ Pass Pass Pass After ending up playing 4H, you receive a trump lead and dummy's J holds. What is the best percentage play to guarantee the contract if club K is offside?

I found only one topic "Puppet stayman" started by Easy, but it discussed more the "phylosophy" of using Puppet (pros and cons) rather thean the specific details of how to bid 1/2 suiters of various strength. Of course I may have missed other threads, but I tried to look for them :)

Hi all, I would like to know which scheme do you think fits best over 2NT opener assuming you are using Puppet Stayman, namely for: - slammish single suiter in minor - slammish minors 2-suiters - non slammish one suiter minor - non slamming 2-suiters minors - slammish 2 suiters majors - non slammish 2-suiters majors - 5 spades/4 hearts hands (e.g. Smolen-type; how do you bid them if using 3S as Minor Suit Stayman; or, if u suggest using 3S Smole, how do you deal with MSS-type hands) - if the scheme you are suggesting means giving up 4C Gerber in place of another meaning, how do you ask for aces. If the answer is too long, any pointer will be appreciated Thanks ! :P

1. Opener should be balanced, with strength to play game opposite aboiut a min of 5/6 hcp (therefore somewhere in the 18/20 hcp range). If he had a singleton/void he wd splinter (3S/4C/4D) showing 4 cd support and a singleton/void in the suit bid. 2. Pretty much similar to auction 1. 4C/D would still be splinters (in standard methods- UNLESS using fitshowing jump). Opener is balanced with 4 cd support and GF values 3. This is nastier. We do not have guarantee opener is balanced. Bidding 3S and 4C here would not be showing a sut, so there is not a way to show a singleton there (4D is probably still shortnes showing). Also, weaker hands with shortness (say a good 16/17+ hcp with shortness- especially in enemy suit) would bid game as there is little space to invite. 4. The most ambiguous bid: here opener will stretch on most minimum reverse hands with 4 cd support, no matter if balanced or not. --------------------------- A final word on dealing with these balanced hands: it should be made clear (to beginners/int.) that the range promised by opener in the most "scientific" sequences (1 and 2) is strictly dependent on some details of your system, namely: 1- the range of your 1NT opening: some people play 15-17, others 16-18, others 14-16, and others the weak no trump (usualy 12-14 or 13-15 or even weaker ranges). Opener's rebid promises a balanced hand STRONGER than a 1NT opener. 2- the minimum strength promised by a response. If you respond very light to 1 club opening. e.g. some player use a "short club" approach, opening 1C all balanced minimum hands (12-14 usually), and they require responder to never pass a 1C opening bid, even with zero; in this case, the 4H rebid must be substantially stronger.

Hi all, I have just downloaded from Dan Neill's site the notes of the "Overcall structure" (OS). I would appreciate a brief outline of what one gains and loses in adopting this structure. Some of the specific details I am interested are: - the OS recommends NT as takeout, is the OS compatible with Raptor (Ben??) - the OS recommends jump responses to simple overcall as mini-splinters and single up the line new suit as fitshowing; do ytou think this works better as compared to the Robson/Segal scheme ? - OS recomments Roman Jump Overcalls, how much do you think this is better or worse as compared to one suited preemptive JO ? - OS recommends the range for 2 suited cuebids/RJO (as well as 1NT t/o) as very wide (6-15), is this not too wide for advancer to take a decision ? Thanks all !

Agree 100%

The only way I think this would work is making it impossible to cheat, and the only way I think will make it impossible is a SUPERFAST pace of play, similar to lighning chess: 1) you have 3 seconds for every bid and card play; if your play is slower, you get a penalty for every single slow play or bid; making it so fast, people will have very little time to message themselves nor call each other 2) this can be made independent from connection speed with techniques similar to online chess where the thinking time is computed independently from the delay from connection speed ("timeseal" program).

3Nt is a fine contract at any form of scoring, and definitely the best at IMPS. If you methods allow 4-way xfers, as a responder I would try first a transfer to diamonds to see whether opener superaccepts: if you find a diamond fit, the potential for diamonds slam allows to investigate further. If no superaccept, 3NT seems the normal contract.

Su questo caso concordo con la decisione dell'arbitro. Un sacco di volte io bypasso una 4a nobile in risposta oppure "accorcio" un palo se sono in 4333 per esempio. Oppure per esempio se il p ha una 5a nobile, a volte dichiaro a SA "negando" appoggio 3o anche se ce l'ho, semplicemente xchè ritengo la mano piu' idonea da senza atout. Questo fa parte della valutazione della mano. L'esame delle partite dei campioni mostra chiaramente che molte scelte vincenti non sono vasate su una rigida applicazione dei principi del sistema, ma cercando di cogliere le sfumature della mano e cercando di apportare gli opportuni aggiustamenti in valutazione, al'occasione anche con qualche dichiarazione eccentrica, a patto che sia il p sia gli avversari abbiano le stesse informazioni e noi ci siano accordi nascosti. Le prime volte che licitavo cosi' col mio al circolo che frequento (eravamo scopnosciuti), ci siamo beccati tutti i tipi di contestazioine possibile, del tiopo "ma se lo sapevo non attaccavo li'" o "se lo sapevo non controgiocavo cosi" (ora non lo fanno piu0' perche' sanno 1. che siamo in buona fede e nmon lo faccianmo per "fregare"; 2. in parte se lo aspettano). Per sopperire acio' abbiamo dovuto cominciare ad allertare tutto. "Potrebbe avere 4a nobile" , "otrebbe avere appoggio 3o", eccetera eccetera, solo che cosi' in ogni mano le spiegazioni degli alert sono una Divina Commedia. Non so come sia la questione dal punto di vista regolamentare ma mi sembra molto piu' di buon senso accettare che questo tipo di licite possano essere effettuate regolarmente e che quindi il difensore all'atto dell'attacco o del controgioco, metta sempre in preventivo l'aeventualità remota che la dichiarazione abbia leggermente distorto la distribuzione- senza per questo chiamare il TD. Tutto sommato, se il regolamento consente per ex di aprire 1SA con 1-2 punti in meno del minimo annunciatoi (e anche questo teoricamente puo' far sbagliare il controgioco), in linea doi principio mi sembra analogo il fatto di avere una 4a non annunciata. In poche parole credo che la decisione arbitrale in questione sia volta a permettere al licitatore di poter fare delle decisione basate sulla valutazione della mano e la condivido.

I thought raptor had the *advantage* of cleaning the t/o doubles hands from offshape doubles such a 5m+4M hands. as far as I can see the only awkwardnesss added by Raptor were: 1) a 15/bad 16 balanced hand may either double if it has tolerance for pard's rebid; otherwise it will pas waiting for pard's reopening; 2) giving up the natural notrump overcall means that balancer should be more enterprising since (if pard has the natural 1NT hand but had to pass) there is still a chance for game even if he holds only a good 8/9 hcp. 3) t/o double followed by 1NT rebid is lighter than standard , say 16-19 instead of 18-20 or so 4) t/o double followed by 2NT is about a standard 2NT opener = about 20-21/22 hcp Comments ?

An option is using Truscott vs strong club: since it says to pard which are your 2 suits, it is better suited fo auctions where there is still a constructive potential. - a non jump bid shows the lower of 2 non touching suits - non touching suits are shown by Double (which includes the last "suit" bid artificially by opps), or 1NT for the remaining 2 suits. - single suiters are jump bids - really good hands (5/5.5 losers or less if unbalanced, 17/18+ if bal) will pass 1 round then bid later

Just by curiosity (since I am planning to use the Raptor too....): using Raptor, what would u bid with the given hands ? pass or double planning to bid NT if pard bids our shortness ?

If west opens bidding becomes quite ugly in my system. I'd use a Preccision 2D or 2H opener (whatever you use for 3-suiter short in diamonds; I hate opening 1M with a totally empty 5 bager). But then east is likely to deevaluate his hand; what's more, it is cumbersome to find out where west's honors are located

Yes, that was my reasoning ;) The "In-quick/out-quick" principle: I prefer to stretch at the 1 level rather than at the 2 or 3 level. Whenver I pass such hands, I later feel an unresistable urge to balance later at high level, and either we're in trouble, or pard does not play me for such strength and does not bid game with 8 decent hcp.

Hi all, say RHO opens 1S (assume "SAYC" or similar) and u hold, at IMPS, ♠AQxx♥x♦QJTx♣AKxx This hand has to decide whether passing and bidding later but second round bidding often fails in describing quite strong hand. On the other hand, 4441 hands are often treated as balanced by some players. So, is bidding 1NT reasonable or better pass in the following cases ? -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 none vuln 1.1 1S opener opened 1st seat (both LHO and pard are unpassed hand) 1.2 1S opener is 2nd seat (pard passed hand) 1.3 1S opener is 3rd seat (pard and LHO passed hand) 2 All vuln 2.1 1S opener opened 1st seat (both LHO and pard are unpassed hand) 2.2 1S opener is 2nd seat (pard passed hand) 2.3 1S opener is 3rd seat (pard and LHO passed hand) 3 Unfavourable vuln (vuln vs not) 3.1 1S opener opened 1st seat (both LHO and pard are unpassed hand) 3.2 1S opener is 2nd seat (pard passed hand) 3.3 1S opener is 3rd seat (pard and LHO passed hand) 4 Favourable vuln (NV vs vuln) 4.1 1S opener opened 1st seat (both LHO and pard are unpassed hand) 4.2 1S opener is 2nd seat (pard passed hand) 4.3 1S opener is 3rd seat (pard and LHO passed hand) ----------------------------------------------------------- What would be your choice if the hand was stronger or weaker by one hcp ? E,g, ♠AQxx♥x♦KJTx♣AKxx ♠AJxx♥x♦QJTx♣AKxx

Well, I thought that bidding NT with only a singleton in pard's suit is usually delayed until you cannot do otherwise. At least that was in the books by SJ Simon (as one of the cardinal sins in "Why u lose at bridge" = "the man that bids NT with singleton in pard's suit") and in the books of Mike Lawrence, but perhaps this is obsolete now, I am not in a position to be able to judge.

I open 1D with x KQxx AKxxx xxx and partner responds 1S. Which lie should I tell? 2D right on strength but promises 6 diamonds OR 2H right in shape but about an ace light . Most experts would choose 2D and this is what Kaplan is aiming at, not advocating grossly distorting your shape rahter than being a jack light. Another case is reversing into a 3 card suit with honors concentration. x-AJx-AKQ-KJ98xx 1C:1S ? I assume most experts would prefer a 2D reverse (shape distortion) rather than a jump to 3C.

Fit showing jump= generally used for hand with good support (4+ trumps), a mixed raise (mixed = in between between invitational and preemptive raise, usually aboiut 9 losers), and showing a good side suit. Another way to think of it is a game try in the suit bid, if pard has something good in that suit, he will bid game. A good discussion of this is found in the book "Partnership bidding at bridge", by Robson/Segal, which is online (free! :blink: ) at Daniel Neill's site

I like Woolsey's general principle of the "no double flaw": your bid should promise an "ideal standard", in terms of shape/strength/honor concentration, according to the vulnerability and the seat. However, if you always stick rigidly to the standard, often times your action will be restricted, and no one becomes a winner by simply applying conservatives rules without daring. So commonsense suggests to be flexible and make sometimes offshape bids, or steal a point, or get away with some daring bids in terms of honor concentration (for preempts). So the hand can contain some flaw compared to the "standard bid " expectations as reference. Anyways, taking into account strength, shape, vulnerability and seat, the hand should have only one flaw, not two. E.g.: preempting with a lousy suit can be a decent gamble in second seat although usually it is better to do it in 3rd seat and it is plausible to do it in first seat: but only if everything else is perfect, e.g. not vulnerable and no wasted honors (and without stealing 1 card in length). There are many other examples, but I think the point is clear.

1/. xx AKXX AKQXX XX Two unstopped suits are bad for 1NT opener. What's more, you have a perfect rebidding plan after 1D (reversing 2H) 2/. XXXX AJ KQJ KJXX The J of AJ hardly counts, and KQJ "stiff" hardly carry all their weight. All in all, the hand is not worh 15 hcp. If only the heart or diamonds J were in spades, , e.g. JXXX AJ KQx KJXX that would make it almost worth 1NT. 3/. AKXXX AXX QX QXX It's a matter of agreement. If you do not open 1NT you may have rebidding problems, if you do, your holdings in short suits are not great. With the given hand I'd open 1S and rebid spades because of the shaky short minors, even if I usually like to open 1NT with a 5 card major. 4/. XXX XX AKQ AKJXX (removed 1 spade) Open 1 C and reverse in diamonds. Reversing in a very good 3-bagger is a lesser lie than misdescribing your hand with 2 suits unstopped. Your hand is more suit oriented. Tell your pard where ur hcp are! Also note that this is much less dangerous than reversing in a very god 3 card MAJOR.: after reversing in minors, your pard will be less ken to raise minors but will look for a notrump game. 5/. AXX AXX AXXX AXX This hand is close to opening 1D and reversing in 2NT. 4 Aces are worth 18 hcp, not 16. The only reason i may devauate the hand wd be the 4333 shape. Give me a 4432 with 4 aces and I'd open 1m and jump rebid NT. 6/. QJX QJ109 KJ AJ10X KJ is poor holding but QJT9 is very good. Also clubs and spades are good holdings, so 1NT is fair 7/. QXX AX KJ AKXXXX Definitely open 1C If pard bids diamonds, then with KJ pulling their weight, jump bid to 2NT. If pard bids a major, rebid 2 clubs. These "half reverse" hands are hard to bid without specific gadgets (e.g. "Gazzilli" convention).

Thanks Ben, they sure help. A single specific hand is definitely better than a full page repeating well known general concepts :rolleyes:

I would like to add Tony Sowter's book "Opening leads in bridge" (Batsford ed.) It is especially illuminating (compared to Lawrences', Blackwood's and Ewen's books) in understanding when it ir right to lead aggressively or passively, especially at NT contracts. I have all the above mentioned books and in my opinion, Sowter's is by far the best for non-beginners.

Thanks a lot Ben ! NP if you cannot help with constraints, but at least I have something concrete to view and to use as "food for thought". Just saying "be aggressive if it is MP and you are short in their suit" or "if you are a passed hand, your pard will not overrate your hand" does not help me much because it does not say where the threshold stands. The more I study bridge the more I have come to think that "general considerations" are good for beginners to help organizing their thoughts, but nothing is like concrete examples or specific (not vague) statements. Therefore, thanks for this example hand ! :lol: By the way, with the hand you gave, I would balance even vs a 3 level preempt. I have a sure fit somewhere (as I am short in their suit) so it is relatively safe to evaluate the hand in terms of losers: a 7.5 losers hand is worth near-opening hand playing strength, e.g. a hand that opposite a pard decent opening hand should have good play for ten tricks.

Ben, I am aware of this "general consideration", and the concepts you repeated were already mentioned in the "blue" part of my post. But of course, the Latins used to say "Repetita juvant" (= repeating things help). what I was trying to define was some quantitative constraints, some ranges, in terms of hcp or losers (even Zar points! :lol: ). These constraints will of course be different if I am short or not in the preempt suit. Of course, defining a range does not mean killing pard if he uses judgment, but selecting a standard to help the responder to the balancer. As I already wrote, too wide a range may put too much pressure on the balancer's pard, regardless on the form of scoring and on whether balancer is a passed hand. If constraints cannot be given, at least a number of concrete examples will help :P Please note that the problem should be tackled from both sides: the balancer and his partner.

Hi all ! :lol: There has been lately quite a few threads on balancing after a preemptive weak 2 or weak 3. Check out: Balancing enemy's preempt Balancing over preempt-simulations 2S-p-p-2NT Here is a brief summary of common knowledge, followed by the real question of this post. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary 1- Balancing issues The usual concept in the balancing seat is: as the bid is being passed out, pard is not broke, so I "borrow a K", that is, I will bid as if I were in direct seat assuming I am a K stronger. The responder to the balancer will know that, and will treat his own hand as if it was a K lighter. This concept works fairly well at the 1 level. At the 2 or 3 level it is much more dangerous. Why ? The reason is that after an opening at the one level, passed out, responder MUST be pretty weak. On the contrary, over a weak 2 (and even more a 3-level preempt), responder can be quite strong, and will pass a 15-16 hcp hand if it is in misfit. Obviously, the balancer can use as an additional info to evaluate the safety of his action, the length in opps suit: - if he is short in the preempt suit, chances are that responder to the preemptoor is NOT in misfit, there fore his pass is not the pass of a strong misfiting hand waiting to kill you if you step in. - if balancer has 3+ cards in the suit, balancing can be quite dangerous: this time, the chances that RHO (preeptor's pard) is strong are more concrete; if he is not, our pard is short, and the fact he did not make a move despite shortness in the preempt suit, suggest he does not have a great holding. 2- Bidding over preempts issues Mike Lawrence suggests the "rule of 7" to bid in DIRECT seat over a preemptive opening. Basically it means "Bid what you can make, assuming pard has 7-8 normal hcp" (usually = about 9 losers hand). So at the 3 level it means more or less having a 6 loser hand if unbalanced, or if balanced with stoppers, bid 3NT with 17/18+ hcp. You can find a detailed article on this theory at the following link: Mike Lawrence: Bidding over preempts End of summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now assume the given premises: 1- rule of 7: over a preempt bid in direct seat assuming pard has 7 hcp 2- bid in balancing seat assuming your hand has a K more and the inevitable result is: 3- RULE OF TEN: BID IN BALANCING SEAT ASSUMING PARD HAS TEN HCP (the usual 7 + the 3 hcp "borrowed" for balancing).This is quite dangerous, since, for example, one of the consequences is: - over a 3 level preempt, bid 3NT with a 14/15 balanced hand (the usual 17/18 of direct seat + 3 hcp "borrowed" from balancer). This reflects on other bids too. I think I have read somewhere (probably in a Marshall Miles' book) that over a preempt, the balancer should bid almost the same as in direct seat, borrowing 1hcp, not 3 hcp. I would like to hear comments from the posters. Thanks !!