bgm

Thanks all for the input. I just reading the suggestions. I have also been finding Auken/von Arnim. In their CC, they said "2nd-round minor bid ambiguous, may or may not be canape" so they do not care about the ambiguity when bidding 1M - 1X - 2m which could be 54 in either way? Is it quite a big loss? That is part of the reason I asked the question. In Jasmine it directly move the 4M5m hand to 2M opener. Any one try the Prooijen/Verhees system? And thanks all about the idea, I will discuss with my friends and see if there are any follow up questions.

Partner and I want to try the approach of strong club with 4 card major. The idea is originated from a very raw version of Blue club so we just want to make up a new system anyway. I have very limited experience in playing and making up a strong club system like this, so I need some suggestions. At the moment we need to fix the opening framework first: 1♣ = 17+ BAL or 16+ UNBAL 1♦ = ? (we accept the minimum number of ♦ can be zero) 1M = 4+M, we want to include 4M BAL and 4M5m hand here(*) 1NT = 14-16, 5M/6m possible 2x = ? (can be all used without preempt) I know that if I include 4M BAL and 4M5m hand into 1M opening, then it will be overloaded. So I understand that I must unload some hand types to a two-level bid and 1♦ perhaps. We are willing to sacrifice those 2-level preemptive bids. From the previous BBO post I see that some may suggest to use 2M as 10-15 6+M opener, so that some 4M5m and 5M4m hand can be distinguished. But that is not enough yet. So do you have any suggestions about how to allocate the hand types? Or do you have any source that can suggest us to read? Thanks again.

First time join. Please let me know what need to do.

The first hand is another great example for balanced principle. Before the first bid, south should picture that if they have a fit and partner has a red singleton, then there is a thin slam possibility. So rather than showing a 4-4 M to partner, you ask partner for his (approximate) shape instead, like what your quoted precision sequence do. The problem is not fully related to the system, but rather one need a artifical balanced FG bid. The second hand is a typical difficult hand to bid - any 2 running suits slam with the other two suits controlled is difficult. The key fact is whether south can introduce his ♣Qxxxx suit as a potential source of trick oppose to a strong partner. In many case this is difficult, and the club suit here make it more difficult to introduce - you need to bypass the 3NT to show it in your example.

I think now 1M - 2♣ is becoming more popular as ♣ (INV+?) or BAL FG. Ambra should be an example of introducing this over 10 years ago. Just my personal opinion: I think even 4♠ BAL FG hand can also put in 1♥ - 2♣, and 1♥ - 1♠ kept as 4+♠ non-FG or 5+♠ unBAL FG. I even think that 5m332, or even 5OM332 FG can also put in 1M - 2♣. Of course in those case finding back the 5-3 fit could be difficult. A even more radical thinking is that 4+M SUPP FG hand should also put inside, in order to listen to partner's (partial) shape (with some relay). The Jacoby 2NT can also be free up as other INV- raises.

When you want to reach these kind of thin slam, the balanced one must need to temporize the bidding, delay the support, and show a BAL FG hand first (e.g. 1♥ - 2♣), so that he has a chance to listen to partner shape, in case there is a perfect fit. This is the balanced hand principle. Of course you have a tougher time when you have unbalanced vs unbalanced. When the balanced hand refuse to probe for slam, say want to conceal the hand as much as possible, then his shapely partner is never safe to bid above the game level on his own, as mentioned by other posters.

Two things: 1) The GIB robot is not programmed with a precision system so it does not know how to bid with a precision partner/opponent. 2) The standard of robot bidding is really poor that even you are a novice, you may still consider to bid with real people instead.

Currently I am reading the IMPrecision notes from Daniel website marked with date from July 2009. I would like to know if there is a newer, publicized version by Adam. Thanks.

For a human pair, you may agree some frivolous/serious 3NT at this position which help to differentiate opener strength; but per GIB description it show 16-22 TP already. Some human pair will agree cue of own suit promise 2+ honors, and GIB seems not having this also. On the other hand it is not easy to construct a hand off 3 top tricks (barring 2 top tricks and a (♦) ruff), so it is relative safe to push one more, at least you will not miss the small slam (or directly 4NT/blast if you want). To try for grand seems you need to know the ♣ singleton and the value of ♥J combine with the 4th ♥ in the dummy. Not that easy given this sequence.

I guess it is similar to the WBF alerting policy, where players should not alert DBL and RDBL during the bidding process without the use of screen. If your side becomes the declarer side, you can explain that to your opponent during the clarification period. It would be better if you have CC along with you, and you may pre-alert when you meet your opponent before the start of that round.

In a very simple word it involve end-play(s). One feature of this hand is that declarer has 8 obvious tricks after trick 1, but it seems that there are no communication to reach his ♦ winners if one try to establish one more ♣ after ♥ hook. If ♦ winners are cashed prematurely then it will set up enough setting tricks for the defender. Trick 2 is very delicate - It require you to cash exactly 1 ♦ and discarding a low ♣ before exiting in ♠. The play line varies afterward, depends on the defensive line. Suppose declarer cash 1 top ♣, stripping E ♣ before exiting in ♠. Here are some variations in general afterward: - W cannot over take as this will promote S ♠8 as the 9th trick. E will be eventually end-played as a stepping stone to reach N ♦ winners. - Suppose E tries to attack ♦. Then declarer can hook in ♥, exit in ♠ again (keeping ♣). This will kill the communication in ♠. - If E tries to attack with a top ♥ now, declarer can win and play ♣ from top, to establish ♣ and end-play W. Most other variation have this similar ending. - If E continue attack ♦, declarer can try the same end-play, or stripping W ♥ and throw in W by ♠, which give ♣J as the 9th winner. - If E attack ♥, declarer can counter similarly by playing ♠ again. Then E has no entry to reach the ♥ winner, and lead to a similar ending. - If E cash ♠ first, the ending is similar. Cashing 2nd ♦ at trick 3 is fatal as it gives tempo for E to establish ♦. The interesting case is: if declarer not cashing ♦ at trick 2, just cash 1 top ♣ and exit in ♠. Then E can win and attack with a top ♥. Then if declarer tries the similar line above, W can play back the 4th ♣ to end-play dummy instead after winning ♣Q. So it is crucial for declarer to unblock the ♣ by playing the ♦ early.

After 2NT, E should expect to have 7-8 ♥ tricks and from the given HCP range, he should expect 6+ cover cards. So he should drive to small slam (at least) unless there are 2 Aces missing.

Nice ending with a vice squeeze mixed with guard strip squeeze

Just ordinary stripe squeeze ending.

I receive the same error after inputting the deal. The version is 2014.2

slightly modifying dvd suggested line can also cater this layout: play ♥A ♥ ruff before ruffing the first ♣. If you see W following with ♥Hx, you have to determine whether he has 0355 (with ♥KQx) or 0256. With the first one you can either ruff the second ♣ as said above, or plan to establish ♥ and use ♥ as secondary trump. With the later distribution, you can use ruffing finesse to establish ♥. So the difficulty is when you play the ♥10 in the third round and E follow small, and you need to determine which distribution to play for. Finally, if W following ♥ with xx, then it can only be established if ♥ is 3-3, and otherwise you will need to fall back on the ruffing scheme.

I guess for this particular hand the most obvious hint should be the lead of ♣Q indicate E holds ♣J as well. Under this assumption you need E to hold ♠10 also (if both black threats are sit in front then there is no squeeze) which is consistent with the carding so far. And thus you have a simple, automatic black squeeze against E.

You have 5♣, 3♠, 2♦ (wtih ♦K knocked out at last), and 1♥ ruff for 11 tricks. For 5♣ by N, if E lead his trump, declarer can concede a ♥, and at best W can win and draw another trump. But S can still win and ruff a ♥, cross back with ♠Q to draw the remaining trump, discard the last ♥ on ♠, and finally knocking out ♦K for 11 tricks with still a trump on hand.

No this deal 5♣ by S must down 1 under perfect defense. And 5♦ will also suffer from ♣ ruff. And the only cold game in this deal is 5♣ by N, which only possible if NS play some transfer scheme.

With the cuebidding style, 4♠ guarantee ♠A, so it is not a complete disaster to invoke RKC. The amazing thing is when N hearing 2 KC, he is missing 2 KC but still drive to slam.

It looks like partner fail to lead the interior sequence from Q109x

If 4♦ is an Italian CUE, then it denied 1st and 2nd round ♣ control already, and therefore any further CUE from partner will promise at least a 2nd round ♣ control.

[hv=pc=n&s=s9haqtdkqj853ck75&w=sqjhj853d97caqt96&n=st8653h94dt2cj842&e=sak742hk762da64c3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1s2ddp4hppp&p=dkd7d2dac3c5cqc2cac4d4c7c6c8d6ckdqd9dth2h6hqh3h4djc9s3h7hkhah5h9d8h8s5s2hj]399|300[/hv]

Forcing to small slam is alright but he should aim at a higher target - 7♣. North has plenty of room to hold both ♣AK

Why South need to bid NT after 2♠X? Can he XX so that they can either play 2♠XX or penalize opponent's 3♣?