OSH

Is a CC/full disclosure mandatory/allowed or it should be considered a memory aid? Is it possible, as an alternative, to send to the moderator a pdf copy of the CC from "real life"? Are the players supposed to explain each single bid? I think this takes more time but is less boring for the moderator.

Ok, I think now the matter is clear, thank you. BTW, no one considered an alternative to North final pass, so we understand that, in this situation, the X is mandatory (sort of).

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sj9854hkqjd9643ca&w=s63h109862dakj5c106&e=sakh75dq87ckj9832&s=sq1072ha43d102cq754]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Inexperienced opps. P - P - 1♣ - P 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ P - P - 3♣ - X P - P - P A diamond lead could defeat the contract (+100 is still bad but better than 3♣X made), but I'm asking your opinion only for the bidding. Except North's initial pass (we do not open that hand in that position), all the other biddings seems debatable. For sure, the final result isn't good at all. What do you think? (BTW, it was not a mixed competition, the lady can sit indifferently in S or N :) )

Lauria bid 3♦, then repeated the suit two other times: 1♠-2NT-P-3♦ 3♥-3♠-P-4♦ P-4♥-P-5♦ In the other room West bid 4NT and it worked better: 1♠-4NT-P-5♦ 5♥-P-5♠-X END

The point in taking the ♥ finesse didn't occour to me at the table, but I think it's right. [hv=n=sk432ha962d5ckq86&w=sj1096hk5dqj10762c2&e=s5h1074dak9843c1095&s=saq87hqj83dcaj743]399|300|[/hv] The 2♥ opening stopped them to bid ♦s, but stopped them also to lead a ♦. After the ♥ finesse, you have to decide what to do if: 1) the ♥Q takes the trick; 2) LHO covers the ♥Q with the K; but, as the cards lie, we are only talking about a possible overtrick.

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sk432ha962d5ckq86&s=saq87hqj83dcaj743]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] From Italian Trials for Mixed Teams. Pairs contest, IMPs scoring. East passes, South bids 2♥ (11-15 short ♦), North asks with 2NT, South bids 3NT (maximum with 4405). After RKC, you are playing in 6♥. Lead: J♠ Thank you, good luck!

I don't know if it is right to be concerned, but I think it's an important matter. 15+9 sits if 9 are balanced, I found more problems when I have a 5332 or 5431 9 point count with a major. Now, if you have the chance to invite at the 2 level all is good, but my partnership is not ready for a nice stuff like KERI yet, and I can only transfer in my major, that is not a good position: it could be 24 with a 5-3 fit or 21 with a 5-2 fit. This problem is not due only to the NT range, I admit it. My concern about the field depends on where I play: in local club / regional tournament, where we are significantly / slightly above average, I would like to be with the field, we don't need this kind of bidding swings. When we qualify for National Championships, where we can finish above average but I think our level is under the average, it can be good to go against the field: we can't score well if we play the same contracts. I noticed it particularly true in the mixed competitions because, due to the system, we can go against the field also for the playing side. I have no intention to offend anyone but, at National level, we can score better if I play the "women" hands and my lady plays the "men" hands: at least in the 50% of the hands we have a chance!

Yes, I included both 5431 and 5422. The frequence is 0,47%, 1/12 of 5431 and 5422 hands (within 11-15).

The frequence in the first case is still more unbalanced, because the 5% for the 1♦ was for the 11-15 range, and it should be 11-14 upgrading the 15HCP unbalanced ♦ in the strong ♣. Is not inherent this discussion, but the frequence of 1M is more than 1♦, because I open 1M with 5332 and 5-5 M/♦, that were excluded from 1♦. In this contest, 1M is 13% more frequent than 1♦. I understand your point, and I admit that the unbalanced 1♦ is heavy underloaded, but the other one seems to me a bit overloaded. I know you don't have to open all 11 counts (as well as sometimes I can open 1♦ with 4135 or 1435), but I would not be happy with my pard opening 1♦ one time every three and me knowing that 1 time every 2 he doesn't have ♦s. Of course, I know I'm in a minority. The distribution with 1♣ 16+ and 15 bal, would be: 1♣: 11,5% 1♦: 5,1% 1M: 5,8% 12-14 1NT: 8% (9,8% considering to upgrade half of 11 counts) This is not perfect, but at least reasonable. I didn't find a site to run these numbers, I started from this and spent all the day in doing the calculation! :(

My concern is not (only) for 4th hand interference, sometimes useful in this situation, but for the second negative. Playing 1♣-1♦-1♥ as strong, now we play that 1♠ is not forced, but is the only (second negative) reply non GF. In this contest, if 1♥ is 18+, I need 1♠ to be 0-5. Or, if one need 25 to be GF (probably still not enough for my card play...), 0-6. There is the space for a third negative? B)

From an aesthetic point of view I don't like it, but I think I can try this one with no impact, and is possible that the practice will convince me. B) I'm not sure if I can play 1♣ 15+ and 12-14NT NV and keep the old 1♣ 16+ and 13-15NT Vul only. We have two opening bids for the 2-suited hands with 4,5 losers (that is approx 13-18 HCP), so for the second requirement I'm already in line.

I checked on the CC, and both Lauria-Versace and Sementa-Duboin played a 2 ♦ to show a 18-19 (20) balanced hand. But this is not a multi, because this opening shows only the strong NT. In this way it could be less pre-emptive for your partner (and for the opps, of course), because he can start the exploration at the 2 level. It would be different with a multi, because the 2 level now is reserved for pass / correct considering the weak opening. I found a link to a program to calculate the probability of each opening in system, but it doesn’t work, maybe someone can do better and help me, but here are some considerations: - a 11-15 unbalanced 1♦ hand with 4+ cards (45 in the minors, 4441, ecc), excluding 5332 with 5 ♦ cards, is about 5% (34% for 11-15 and 15% for the am distribution). - if you open ANY hand with 11+ HCP, it is 44%, in this case you open 1♦ 11 times every 100. - if you open 1♣ any hand with 16+ HCP (there are exceptions, I know), this is 9,76% in total. - if you open 1♣ any hand with 15+ HCP, this is 14,18% in total. This means that, including every 15 count in 1♣, you increase the frequency of this opening by 45%. In this case, when you have an opening bid (11+), 33% of the time you have to open 1♣ (if it is 15+ HCP). - awm suggestion, 1♣ with 16+ and exactly 15 balanced (5332 only minor) is 11,5%, increasing the frequency by 18%. - a 11-13 balanced (straube question) hand is 9,7%, considering only regular NT distribution and 5332 with a minor. Adding this to the natural 1♦, which is considerably less frequent, it means that now you open 1♦ one time every three. Imo this a bit too often, considering my fear of the "foggy" diamond B) - a 14-16 balanced hand is 5,3%, 12-14 is 8,2%, 12-15 is 10% Considering only the hands worth an opening bid (11+ in this contest), they become: 12%, 18,5% and 23%. 5M332 and less regular pattern are not considered. Playing 12-15 NT, one time every 5 the opener will have exactly 15.

You are right (about the country). Here, I've always seen strong club openings played with 15+ without problems. The last Appendix System Law, valid from the start of 2010, states clearly that: - the average hand has 10 HCP; - the strong hand must have at least one K more than the average hand: 13 HCP; - a system where the 1♣ (or 1♦) opening is always strong is not HUM. (Maybe I'm wrong somewhere, but) It seems that I can't play a "strong heart" system nor a 1♣ opening that can be natural with clubs or strong. And I can't open 1♣ a hand like AKQJ1098765 2 2 2.

- Free / gwnn Ty. I was worried about 1♣ being 15+ balanced or 16+ unbalanced, and 1♦ = 0-8, I would need to define with accuracy how to handle 7-8 HCP when opener is unbalanced (we are almost always in game zone). I don’t see, in the system, the need to lower also the unbalanced hands in 1♣ to 15+, but I can try, because I’m not sure I can afford the unbalanced hands in 1♣ being stronger than the balanced… I play 1♣-1♦-1♥ as strong relay, my problem was not to define the hand after the negative response, but after the positive ones. Just for information, after the strong club (16+ by now) I’m still playing an old idea of my former partner Chamacho (colourfirst, what is that?): 1♦ = 0-7 1♥ = 8+, 0-2 controls, unbalanced (or semibalanced with a major) 1♠ - 1NT = 3 – 4 controls, unbalanced 2♣ = 5 controls, unbalanced, at least a 4 card majors 2♦ = MULTI: 5 controls, unbalanced, without a 4-5 card majors OR 6 card weak Major 2♥ = 11-13 balanced (or semibalanced with a minor) 2♠ = 8-10 balanced (or semibalanced with a minor) It can have a lot of flaws, but I’m content with it, especially considering that my pard want to keep it (very) simple! The idea behind the questions was to add the 8-10 balanced hands to the 1♥ response, and to play 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT (15-17) forcing only to 2NT. But in this case I need to find a way for the 18-20 balanced. Increasing 1♦ to 0-8 is simpler for sure, and doesn’t need any other major change in the system. My first thought was that, in this way, this reply would be a bit too busy. The idea to add the (18)19-20 balanced in the multi 2♦ is not mine, of course: I remember (hope I’m not wrong!) a couple of hands from L-V and some Italian Juniors starting in this way. Montgomery also, in the Revision System, plays a “weak 2NT opening” with a (18)19-20 count, and gives an interesting explanation of the reasons. From his pages, it seems that also the R-M Precision opens 2NT on 19 point hands. Well, if you have to play that, I agree that a direct 2NT is better than a multi 2♦, but it doesn’t fit my system. - Siegmund / mgoetze / billwang I see the point in your suggestions. Yesterday, I started to explain my problem to my pard, and the answer was: “Well, I hope you don’t want to change all the system for that %$£”% balanced 15 count!!!”. So, thank you, but I’m not, well… we are not ready for this! PS: A strong balanced hand in the multi 2♦ is quite common in Italy, so this is not considered a big change.

In my regular partnership, I'm playing: 1NT = (12) 13-15 HCP balanced 1♣ = 16+ (bal and non bal, of course) I've been playing this for 3/4 years, I'm quite happy and big changes are not needed, but: - 1NT opening tends to become 12-15, sometimes 11+/15, a too wide range; - 90% of the field plays 1NT = 15-17 HCP, and when the opener has exactly 15 HCP I tend to score badly and, in any case, to play against the field. Due to this, I would like to play 1NT = 12-14. I strongly prefer 1♦ to be natural and unbalanced, and all opening beyond 2♥ are not available for balanced hands, so the questions are: 1) How do you handle the 15 HCP balanced hand in the strong club opening? What is the range of 1♦ reply? Do you have other non-GF responses? 2) Do you have any experience (or, well, any idea) in playing a 18/20 balanced hand in the Multi 2♦? I know someone plays it, despite it seems a bit risky. Thank you, Marco