Giangibar

Coming from the other side of the pond, the main philosophy here (Italy) is to almost always give preference to the Major and show it whenever possible. There are certainly hands favorable to either approach, but in my experience the hands where I was stuck and struggling in 1NT while 2M (or even game!) was cold were many more than the hands where landing in 3NT rather than 4M resulted in a superior contract. With all my serious partners I play Gazzilli (a relay structure after 1M - 1NT) so I can easily describe all 15+ hands, even when balanced, after opening 1M without any rebid problems. Without Gazzilli I can understand the need to open 1NT instead, but I still do it just when I feel there's no better way. In order to solve your problem, you could consider the following possible solutions: 1) employ 2C Puppet Stayman; 2) employ 2C regular Stayman and answer 2H/S with 4 or 5 cards, not being able to distinguish; 3) employ 2C regular Stayman and answer 2H/S with 4 or 5 cards, then responder can relay with 3C ("re-Stayman") to ask about specific length; 4) employ 2C regular Stayman and answer 2H/S with just 4 cards, while jumping to 3H/S with 5 cards. In this case it would be useful to play 1NT – 2NT as natural and invitational, also because using Stayman for all invitational hands, with or without Majors, discloses too much information to the opponents without a real purpose; you would lose the 2NT as transfer to Diamonds, but you could replace it by playing 3C transfer to Diamonds weak or GF+ and 3D as exactly invitational in Diamonds; 5) employ 2C regular Stayman and 3C Puppet Stayman. The loss of 3C as purely invitational in Clubs is marginal, since you anyway have 2S as transfer to Clubs with the possibility to super-accept. This is, by the way, the approach chosen by the Lavazza team (several times world champion) in the Big Bang system, so it cannot be that bad. 6) Use Gazzilli! I hope I could be helpful ;)

I bid 3NT: pass is too risky, they might even make it and even if they go down we won't become rich at these colors. 4♥ on the other hand doesn't convince me: most of my points are in Spades, where partner rates to be very short; my distribution is quite flat; it's unlikely that playing in Hearts I will make more tricks than in NT; if partner has 4♥, then the remaining 5 are likely to break badly and, even worse, partner could even have only 3♥! In this last scenario, 4♥ is carnage.

I think bidding 3NT at this point might be a nice practical action, but likely to fail in real life because you're gonna have a hard time going to dummy and you're losing 3 Club tricks if you have to establish the suit from your hand. Double then bidding Clubs is a nice idea, but it would be interpreted by partner as a very strong hand with no better bid and probably not so many Clubs, which is evidently wrong. I play that the direct overcall of the opponents' 1♣ opening is natural, so I would bid 2♣ directly after RHO's bid.

It all depends on your partnership agreement and on some sort of "local tradition": for example, I am Italian and here not a single player would bypass a 4-card Spade suit. For us, 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ could be 4333 and 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT absolutely denies 4♠. This method is played by our great champions Bocchi-Madala and Lauria-Versace too, so it can't be that bad. Every method has its advantages as well as its disadvantages: - In the typical American agreement of routinely bypassing 4♠ when balanced you end up playing 1NT from the right side more often than not, and you can also show a real ♣ suit when rebidding 1♠. - In the typical Italian agreement of always bidding suits up the line, you never miss a 4-4 ♠ fit and you can improve your part-score bidding when responder has 5+♥ and 4♠, because after opener rebids 1NT you can be sure he doesn't have 4♠ so you can confidently bid 2♥. On the other hand, I have been living in Virginia for a few months and while playing there I noticed how, by skipping the 1♠ rebid, you end up playing 2♠ in the Moysian fit or 2NT or 3♥ instead of a more convenient 2♥ because responder with 5+♥ and 4♠ isn't sure about the possibility of a Spade fit and has to check back by bidding 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ (if you play XYZ), which is often too high when partner does not have 4♠. In my opinion, the right-siding of 1NT is not a sufficient compensation for the loss of a 4-4 Major fit, and the presence of a real ♣ suit can almost always be shown later in the auction, so I prefer bidding suits up the line.

I would bid 2♥ on the first round because it's very likely, from my perspective, that they will not end up playing in Spades and I might as well have a game in Hearts. Too difficult to convince partner that I have such a strong hand if I pass and later protect. On the other hand, I would definitely pass on the second round and lead ♥A. I'll try a forcing defense, making them ruff and lose control. I expect to collect at least 200.

1) 2♠ as a natural game trial. I might even pass at pairs, but not at teams. True, partner failed to cuebid and we might as well go down in 3♥, but the risk is worth it and I don't expect partner to cue with a balanced 8-count like KJx Axx xxx xxxx where we are cold for 4♥. 2) Close decision between DBL and 4♣. I would probably double trying to cater for partner holding 4 Hearts, then bid 5♦ if a Major fit isn't found. I don't think we can seriously make slam most of the time. 3) 3NT is tempting, but I'll go with the "normal" 3♠ bid. 4) Partnership style for preempts is fundamental; given the seat and vulnerability, together with my light preempting style, I would definitely pass. It looks like points are evenly distributed across the table and 2♥ could well be the last making spot. 5) Easy 3♠.

I've been experimenting with bidding a 3-card Major in the past to some success, but IMO this is clearly not the right time to do so. I would bid 1♠ over 1♦/♥ with a hand like ♠AJ10 ♥x ♦xxxx ♣xxxxx, where: 1) I have few HCPs (but enough to keep the bidding alive), and they're all concentrated in the Spade fragment; 2) I have an unbalanced hand which rates to produce more tricks in a Moysian fit than in a NT counterpart; 3) I don't want to misplace a NT contract. In this case, all three points are false: I have more than enough HCPs to keep the bidding alive (in fact, I'm a tad short of a 2/1 GF). Those points are fairly distributed among the suits, and I'm full of tenaces so I'd love to be declarer to conceal my cards. As a side note, I suggest that 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♠ - 3NT should be played as natural and non-forcing: too many times responder has 10-11 with a 42(34)/4144/41(35) shape and 3NT is the winning spot, especially at MPs. As far as the play is concerned, I would win the lead and immediately play a Club to the Jack. If the finesse wins, I'm playing a Heart to the King in an attempt to establish the suit by ruffing. If the finesse loses, I'm winning any return in hand (if West plays another Diamond, I discard a Heart from dummy) and proceed with Hearts as before.

Geographical origins lead to different interpretations as well as different standards. I am Italian and I was lucky enough to play many times in many different European countries for the Italian junior team in the past. I can say that here, in the European continent and especially in Italy, the so-called "standard" treatment is that bidding an opponent's suit is almost never natural. The common understanding that bidding an opp's suit is always artificial is so eradicated that I assisted to the previous bidding sequence just one week ago: 1♥ (promising 4+H) - pass - pass - 1♠ - 2♣ (could be canapé with 4H and 5+C) - pass - 2♦ - 2♥ and this last 2♥ bid by the player in 4th seat was interpreted both by his partner and by my partner as a strength-showing bid with a likely Heart shortage. Instead, he had 5-5 in the Majors and wanted to bid Hearts naturally. Conversely, I've been living in the US for 3 months and I noticed that most Americans tend to bid opps' suits much more naturally than us. For example, 1♣ - pass - 1♥ - 2♥ would be regarded as natural by the typical American player, but would be interpreted as artificial by most Europeans. With these assumptions, I'm not surprised by OP's clarifications: he was Swedish and intended 3♣ as artificial, his partner was from the US and interpreted 3♣ as natural. These meta-agreements can only arise and be discussed in medium-to-long term partnerships and heavily depend on the cultural background. As a final remark, 95% of Italian players and 100% of the top Italian pairs (Bocchi-Madala, Fantoni-Nunes, Lauria-Versace just to mention a few) play comprehensive 2-suited overcalls, that is they dedicate 3 bids for describing all possible combinations of 2-suiters excluding opener's suit. The most common set of comprehensive 2-suited overcalls is Ghestem: when the opponent opens 1m, then 2♦ is 5-5 in the Majors, 2NT is 5-5 in ♥ and the other minor, 3♣ is 5-5 in ♠ and the other minor. When the opponent opens 1M, on the other hand, 2M is the other Major + ♣, 2NT is minors and 3♣ is the other Major + ♦. In addition, since 1♦ - 3♣ is a non forcing black 2-suiter, 1♦ - 3♦ is used for showing a monster black 2-suiter. With this convention you completely lose the ability to bid 1m - 3m as preemptive and natural, but you gain a complete set of 2-suiter bids, which is much more useful an frequent in my opinion.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I wrote "checkback" but my Macbook automatically converted it into "checkbook"... I have now corrected my original post. Sometimes the autocorrect feature is cumbersome <_< :rolleyes:

As always, it's a matter of style. I see that most American players intend it as just balanced, with or without 4♠. I, as an Italian player, don't like this treatment at all: in my opinion, losing a 4-4 Major fit is too much of an issue. Besides, many of the top worldwide pairs in bridge (i.e. Bocchi-Madala, Lauria-Versace) play it "the Italian way", that is with 1NT denying 4♠. I don't think it's a coincidence. I know that opener's rebid should clarify his shape and point range, and the 1NT rebid just does that, but it has many drawbacks: 1) you lose the 4-4 Spade fit, which is much worse than wrong-siding 1NT; 2) it's not always true that responder can use checkback to solve the issue. Sometimes responder is just too weak (i.e. 5-9 points and 44[32] or 44[41] shape) to relay; 3) sometimes 1♠ in the 4-3 Moysian fit is the best spot: that is, for example, when responder is 3541 and very weak; 4) by playing that 1NT denies 4♠, you can avoid ending up in awkward contracts when opener is minimum and responder is invitational. I often see this happening when opener is 3244 and responder is 4522 or 45[31]: opener bids 1m, responder bids 1♥, opener rebids 1NT and responder, with say 10-11 points, employs the XYZ convention to show a 45xx invitational hand by bidding 2♣ (forcing 2♦) and then 2♠. In this case you end up playing 2NT with minimal strength or 2♠ in the Moysian fit when you could have just stopper in 2♥ in the safer 5-2 fit, if you had known that 1NT denied 4♠.

It really depends on style. I am an Italian player and I can tell almost nobody here plays support doubles at any level. I agree with what has just been said by whereagles: why should I sacrifice the most flexible bid for conveying almost no useful information? In my partnerships, opener's second round double is due to show a strong hand in the context of the bidding so far, typically short in the overcaller's suit. Sort of an inverted double. Conversely, every time I have a penalty double of the overcall, I pass and partner is expected to reopen with a double more than 90% of the time. It can hardly be imagined how many times I could collect 1100+ for passing with balanced-ish hands and converting partner's reopening double, which is almost forced as I stated before. Besides, if I dedicate opener's second round double to show 3-card support, two bad consequences happen. The first is that I'm left with no bid too many times: for example, when I have 18-19 bal and no stopper in overcaller's suit, or when I have a 17+ 5431, or when I have a 17+ one suiter. In my partnerships, all these hands are too strong for a jump rebid or a reverse after an overcall, since those bids would show shapely but not HCP-rich hands. The second is that, even when I use the support double, partner is likely to have 4 cards only and we are committed to play a bad partial in a Moysian fit while passing out and letting them play would have been so much better. In the OP's hand, as I stated before, I would consider it an inverted double: strong hand, likely Club shortness. I think support doubles after a 2/1 are off by default.

I'd open both hands, even though I feel like the system used by OP makes me lean towards passing. Playing 2/1 with a strong NT, I would definitely open in both cases and I don't think I would encounter many rebid problems: the second hand is an easy 1♦ opener and I can support partner's Hearts or simply rebid 1NT. The first one is trickier, but I think I would open 1♣ and be happy to raise a red suit by partner; if he bids 1♠, as expected, then I'd bid 1NT because it allows me to still find a fit at the 2 level if he rebids 2♦/♥ with a weakish hand... If he is 5-4 in the Majors and I open 1♦ intending to rebid 2♣, I'm probably burying the 4-4 Heart fit. 1♣ also has a lead directing value. However, things are quite different with the OP's system: I would feel uncomfortable opening the first hand, because after the expected 1♠ response I would be stuck. Rebidding a 12-16 NT just makes me sick, while opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ might well lead me into playing 2♦ in a 4-2 fit. I really think the system needs some adjustments in this area. I'd still open a weak NT the second one, though I wouldn't be happy about it because I might be losing a ♥ fit.

In my opinion, the purpose of an overcall is multifaceted and should be weighed from time to time. At IMPs, as stated before (and rightly so), the main address is to bid and make a game; competing on a partscore is still important, but not as much. With the aforementioned hand, however, I suppose game is a too ambitious goal: I have 7-8 losers, partner needs to have a monster to make it possible. On this basis, I pass. At pairs, however, competing and balancing is a key aspect of the game. If I pass now and the bidding goes 2S - Pass - Pass, am I supposed to bid 3H later? It could be a carnage. Better to take this hand off my chest now, if I want to, and give partner the possibility to judge whether to raise, to bid on or to pass. As Robson says in his ultra-famous book "Partnership bidding at bridge", you don't want to take the last guess. Still, in my opinion (as always), this is a very borderline hand even at MPs.

Hard choice between 2♥ and pass at match points (if I were green, I would bid 2♥ undoubtedly), a definite pass at teams.

The game was pairs, so match points. Declarer's double of 1♥ should have meant a takeout of a natural 1♠ opening, so 12+ HCP and 4♥, likely... When partner passed 1♥X, he showed tolerance for playing in Hearts (maybe 4+ cards). Instead, he could have bid 1♠ as a relay to know my shape, XX as natural and penalty-oriented with about 11+ points and a flat shape, or 1NT/2♣/2♦ as a transfer for the next suit up with a weakish hand and 5-6+ cards. He could also have supported Spades with 3-4 cards. Partner's expected distribution is 1444 or 2533 or 2542 or 1543.

First of all, I'm pointing out that the bidding is very far from natural (this board was played in the context of Moscito: an artificial system with weak and transfer opening bids) and it could have some consequences on the play. In first seat, all red, you pick up ♠KQxx ♥xx ♦AJ87x ♣xx and decide to follow your system by opening 1♥ = 4+♠, could be canape, 9-14 points. LHO doubles, partner passes (showing tolerance for playing in Hearts), RHO passes too. You could just pass and sit in 1♥X, but you decide to follow the system and bid 2♦ = 4♠ and 5♦, minimum. LHO passes, partner passes (showing preference for Diamonds over Spades) and RHO bids 3♣. You pass, LHO bids 3NT, partner quickly doubles and the bidding ends. Partner leads the 4 of Diamonds (attitude, showing 1+ honors in Diamonds but no indication about suit length) and dummy comes on the table with ♠xx ♥xxx ♦10x ♣KQ109xx. Declarer seems disappointed and calls for a small Diamond. What do you play? The Jack, hoping to maintain communication with your partner in your likely running suit but risking to give declarer a free trick, or the Ace, winning the trick and preventing declarer from getting a trick he could be not entitled to, but maybe severing communications with partner?

First of all, I'm pointing out that the bidding is very far from natural (this board was played in the context of an artificial system with weak and transfer opening bids) but I'm writing it nonetheless because it has some consequences on the play. In first seat, all red, you pick up ♠KQxx ♥xx ♦AJ87x ♣xx and decide to follow your system by opening 1♥ = 4+♠, could be canape, 9-14 points. LHO doubles, partner passes (showing tolerance for playing in Hearts), RHO passes too. You could just pass and sit in 1♥X, but you decide to follow the system and bid 2♦ = 4♠ and 5♦, minimum. LHO passes, partner passes (showing preference for Diamonds over Spades) and RHO bids 3♣. You pass, LHO bids 3NT, partner quickly doubles and the bidding ends. Partner leads the 4 of Diamonds (attitude, showing 1+ honors in Diamonds but no indication about suit length) and dummy comes on the table with ♠xx ♥xxx ♦10x ♣KQ109xx. Declarer seems disappointed and calls for a small Diamond. What do you play? The Jack, hoping to maintain communication with your partner in your likely running suit but risking to give declarer a free trick, or the Ace, winning the trick and preventing declarer from getting a trick he could be not entitled to, but maybe severing communications with partner?

My personal opinion is that the whole evaluation depends on many conditions: vulnerability, type of game (teams or pairs?), partnership style etc. If I were to apply my system to the hand in analysis, I would bid 2NT. My raises to Majors are as follows: - 2S standard weak 3-card support, about 5-8/9; - 2NT limit raise with 3+ card support, where opener can bid: 3C to establish a game force and relay to partner's shape (3D = 3-card raise, 4 Diamonds; 3H = 3-card raise, 4 Clubs; 3S = 4-card raise), bid 3D and invite to game (based on sharp values and top honors, mostly), bid 3H naturally to find the best fit. - 3C with 6+ Hearts and 0-1 Spades, game invitational; - 3D with 4-card support and 6-9 points; - 3H with 4-card support, 10+ points and one singleton (this one is GF and opener relays for learning the location of the singleton); - 3S as a preempt with 4-card support. These are the raised employed by Lauria-Versace, btw. Of course, in a casual partnership I can't afford to use these methods and have to stick with what I've got. If that were the case, I would stretch a horrible 2D game forcing at teams and bid 1NT (semi)forcing at pairs... It also depends on the presence of intermediates (with many 10's and 9's I would sure upgrade). I strongly miss the presence of an immediate supporting bid, though, because as a general rule I believe in supporting with support.

One initial consideration: I am commenting the auction while referring to the current Italian style of bidding, which may well not fit yours. My partnership style is very aggressive as well, so all the considerations I'll make have to be interpreted with these things in mind. My personal opinion is that the whole auction is quite awkward: 1) I wouldn't double 1♣ with East's hand, as my overall strength is much lower than expected and I have a clear overcall in Diamonds. The following bids will clarify the situation: if South passes, partner will either pass, bid 1M or raise Diamonds, all of which make me feel OK with my bid. If South bids a Major and partner has length in the other, he'll either bid it or double. The only problem may be if South raises Clubs preemptively, but again my partner will double with the Majors. I see no clear point in doubling. 2) I give merit to the initial 1NT bid by West, although I prefer a Double with those cards: with 4+♠ I would bid 1♠, so I am indicating general strength and right-siding 1NT while implicitly saying that I possess Diamonds. 3) I wouldn't raise to 2♥ with North's hand, unless partner has a known 5-card suit, because we might well be playing in a Moysian fit instead of a much better 4-4 Spade or 5-4 Club fit. 4) As West, I wouldn't bid 3♦ later, but double again: I can't have 4 Spades, I don't have a Heart stopper, I can play both 3♦ in a 4-4 fit and 2♠ in a 4-3 fit, and could even pick up partner with 4 Hearts to the AQJ10 if the opps have 7 Hearts, with which he'll be delighted to pass. 5) Again in West's seat, I would surely not double 3♥, as the opponents are likely to be one trick too high but I suppose collecting -100 will be a fine result anyway and they could come up with some unexpected distribution, thus making the contract for a cold bottom. 6) I would pull 3♥X to 4♦, as it's clear from East's point of view that the opps are playing with at least an 8-card fit and they possess more than half the points in the deck. Diamonds will provide 0-1 tricks, given the 3♦ bid by partner, so they are likely to have 1♦ loser and 20+ points in the other 3 suits. I would expect them to make 4.

You are absolutely right... Actually, when in third seat and green VS red, we do open some absolutely awful hands. It still seems to be working, even in fields which are not that weak, as I stated before. I'm now trying to collect as many Frelling deals as possible from my past experience, so to build a database. I'm also trying to involve my partner Stalemate in this conversation, but it seems like he's having some trouble connecting to the forums.

Thank you everybody for reading and commenting my posts. I'll now answer some of the questions which have arisen. In the meantime, I'll go back in time and collect many more deals where the Frelling twos have greatly modified the expected "normal" result. 1) We use the Frelling twos in all conditions of vulnerability. However, when at red, we expect them to be more constructive and less junky than the ones I posted before. For example, a 5-4 distribution is expected or strength will be near to the upper limit. 2) I lack the possibility to open a weak 2 in Hearts as well. However, thanks to the Moscito structure, I can cope quite easily by opening those hands 1♦ with the upper range or a wild 3♥ with the lower range. 3) I think good opposition will suffer from the Frelling twos much less, as many people pointed out. Still, the results we collected after one year of use are encouraging even against the best Italian couples. Of course, the effects against the good old ladies in the local club are devastating, but I've seen also many Italian masters guess the outcome of the hand without a clue. A small side point: categories in bridge here in Italy are assigned in a very different way, if we compare them with the US ones. The master class is very difficult to reach and is almost at the very top of the rankings, as less than 1% of all bridge players reach it. From what I know, the Life Master category in the US is much more inflated. This was said to underline how even the best Italian players may find the Frelling twos annoying. 4) I don't want you to believe that I am only posting deals where the Frelling bids have been helpful. Not all Frelling auctions end well for us: for example, I once had ♠xx ♥Qxxxx ♦KJ ♣10xxx. My partner, first seat at green, opened a Frelling 2♦, RHO passed after some thinking and I decided to pass because I was pretty sure that bidding 2♥ pass-correct would reasonably make us play a horrible 2♠, maybe even doubled. In the end, 2♦ became the final contract and went for -4, while we had a huge fit in Hearts (2♥ would make) and opponents, while holding game values, could not make 3NT because they lacked a Heart stopper nor 4♠ due to some defensive ruffs. That was a complete disaster for us, but still we are experiencing many more tops than bottoms, even in good fields. 5) I was also wondering why these bids haven't spread among the best couples in the world. Actually, after some analyses, I found they ARE slowly but constantly diffusing even there! Even if the bids might not be exactly the same, a more and more aggressive style is being adopted by many world champions. I still remember a board from the last Bermuda Bowl, from the USA1 - Italy round robin, where Kranyak opened 3♣ first seat with something like ♠xx ♥Qxx ♦Qx ♣987xxx, and he preempted the Italians to find a cold slam. Isn't this even more dangerous than the Frelling twos? The whole Lavazza team now play the "Big Bang" system, which advocates some very wild preempts at green (2♥ = weak with Majors, 2♠ = weak with minors) and 3-level preempts with 6 cards, sometimes even 5. Since people are realizing that bidding systems have become so precise to allow almost perfect game and slam investigations, they are now more and more prone to disrupt opponents' constructive auctions, even with wild preempts. 6) The "Bible" of competitive bidding, Partnership Bidding At Bridge by Robson and Segal, underlines a very important concept in the chapter of preempts: even if a bid is theoretically wrong, will the opponents be able to make use of that? Many times, they simply can't collect a penalty because they're both too long in the preempt suit, or too balanced, or too weak to reopen. The Bermuda Bowl hand I mentioned in point 5 is a perfect example.

Deal 1: Matchpoints, NS vul. I was West, first seat non vulnerable, and had: ♠10xxx ♥Jxx ♦10x ♣A98x I opened a Frelling 2♠, North overcalled 3♥ with 11 points and 1525 distribution, my partner jump-raised to 4♠ with 14 points and 4234 distribution, then South holding ♠Axxx ♥98x ♦AQ9xxx ♣- couldn't avoid bidding 5♥, going for -2 while we would not have been able to make 4♠, and a complete top for us. Deal 2: Matchpoints, NS vul. I was West, third seat non vulnerable, and had: ♠xxx ♥K9xx ♦K10xxx ♣K I opened a Frelling 2♦ after two Pass, North doubled, my partner bid 2♥ pass-correct and South bid 3♣, which became the final contract. They made 3♣+3... Deal 3: Matchpoint, all green I was West, as always, in first seat and had: ♠J109x ♥109xx ♦AKx ♣Jx I opened a Frelling 2♥, North passed, my partner bid 2♠ pass-correct and everybody passed. He made exactly 8 tricks, scoring -110 and a complete top as nobody opened with my cards and NS were able to play an easy 1NT.

Hello everybody! My name is Gianluca Bergami - Giangibar on BBO. I'm a 23-year old Civil Engineer and member of the Italian junior bridge team. My good friend and bridge partner Matteo Chiesa (Stalemate on BBO, 29-year old, PhD in Theoretical Physics) and I decided about one year ago to learn a scientific as well as fun system and went on to learn Moscito. In the process of learning, the advices we were given by Richard Willey and Matthew Thomson proved to be essential. Now, after one year of experimentation, we can refer the many experiences we gathered while playing a very aggressive version of Moscito (a system already aggressive in itself). More specifically, after some dialogues with Richard Willey, we decided to discuss here one of the most controversial parts of the whole system: the Frelling Two Bids. For those who do not know this set of preempting bids, the openings are explained here: 2♦ = weak 2-suiter with (4+♦) and (4+♥ or 4+♠); 2♥ = weak 2-suiter with (4+♥) and (4+♠ or 5+♣); 2♠ = weak with (6♠) or (4+♠ and 5+♣). At first we were suspicious about these openings, as we thought they were too disruptive and dangerous, but after one year at the table we found out that the top results we were getting far outweighed the bad ones. I'll post here some example deals...