lowerline

Playing Precision you open a strong club with: ♠ AJT53 ♥ AK ♦ AT4 ♣ AJ6 The following bidding unfolds (opps are quiet): 1♣ - 2♦ 2♠ - 3♣ 3♦(1) - 3NT(2) ? 1: Delayed TAB 2: KQxxx What is your plan?

How should the bidding proceed after a strong club and a positive response? Do you use all kinds of asking bids or symmetric relays or something else? What is most popular and what is best? Is there a book you can recommend to someone who wants to learn Precision? Thx, Steven

When both opponents have passed and you are looking at 12 points, you can expect partner to be in the range 7-11. That means it is relatively safe to open a weak NT in 4th, even when vul. In MPs this is a winnner IMHO. A system that uses a weak NT range in 1st/2nd when not vul and always in 4th appeals to me...

As alway, I'd like to make an argument in favor of more precision: MOSCITO is a bidding system. MOSCITO can be contrasted with Precision, Viking Club, Acol, yada, yada, yada.. Symmetric Relay is relay structure. Symmetric Relay can be contrasted with nummeric, Ice relay, Albarran, .... Denial cue bidding is an auction termination mechanism. Denial Cue Bidding can be contrasted with RKCB, CABS, etc... To some extent, these structures can be mixed and matched. In theory, there's nothing to prevent me from playing MOSCITO using Ice Relay. (It would confuse people, but it wouldn't impact the core of the system). For what its worth, I don't think that these hands demonstract that MOSCITO is "better" than a Symmetric Relay based precision style. Any bididng system has its cracks... Hands that fall into them won't necessarily be handled well. I don't find it surprising that hands which are intended to demonstrate problems for one scheme are handled easily by a different bidding systems which uses different demaractions between positives/semi-positives/neagatives. I disagree. Symmetric Relay is a strong club bidding system first published in 1980 by Walter Jones and Roy Kerr. It was the relay structure that people remembered, but it was presented as a complete system. The opening structure of "Symmetric" is something like: 1♣ = 16+ any shape 1♦ = 11-15 2suited (1♥ or 1NT as relay) 1♥/♠ = 11-15 5+ (1NT as relay) 1NT = 12-15 balanced (2♣ as relay) 2♣/♦ = 11-15 6+ When I refer to Moscito I mean the latest Paul Marston variant: 1♣ = 15+ any shape 1♦ = 9-14 4+♥ 1♥ = 9-14 4+♠ 1♠ = 9-14 4+♦ 1NT = 12-14 balanced 2♣ = 9-14 6+♣ There is a big difference when you don't open 1♣. There is also an important difference in the responses to 1♣. In Symmetric you respond 1♦ with 0 or 1 control. All the rest is positive with 2+ controls. In Moscito you respond 1♠ with 0-2 QPs, 1♦ with 6+ QPs and most of the other responses are semi-positives with 3-5 QPs. The Moscito approach is superior (IMHO) because of the use of queen points to differentiate the 3 ranges after the big club opening. In the given examples it is exactly the ability to differentiate a positive from a semi-positive that allows you to get to the right contract, not the relay structure and not the denial cuebidding. Ofcourse you can use this in your symmetric system as well, but this has a bigger impact on your system as you might think. First you must sacrifice some symmetry, second you must decide whether you stick with the AK-ask or switch to the AKQ-ask and change your denial cuebidding accordingly, third you must ask yourself if it still makes sense to ask for min/max when using AKQ. And there is also the possibility to have it all and relayer decides which to use... Steven

I have read about this. It makes sense to focus on aces and kings first, but if relayee does not have a lot of controls, it also makes sense to show the queens asap... I have a feeling that this approach is superior, but maybe it is my enthusiasm when learning something new... ;-)

In Symmetric Relay (the system) one asks for the number of controls after the shape is known. In Moscito one asks for the number of AKQ-points. This has consequences on what you deny during denial cuebidding. Anyone tried both approaches? Which do you prefer?

MPs: pass IMPs NV: invite IMPs Vul: bid 4S

Partner opened with one in a minor in first hand. After an uncontested auction you end up in 4S. dummy AJxx KJTx Kxx xx you KQxx Axx xx QJxx What is the best line after a trump lead?

dbl = diamonds OR majors 1d = hearts OR blacks 1h = spades OR minors 1s = clubs OR reds 1nt = pointed OR rounded

After a 1Major opening you can play 3minor as invitational. After a 1♠ opening you can reverse the meanings of 2♦ and 2♥. 2♦ shows 10+ and 5+ hearts and 2♥ is a GF with diamonds. Steven

Against strong NT (14+) dbl = clubs OR diamonds+hearts 2c = diamonds OR hearts+spades 2d = hearts OR spades+clubs 2h = spades OR clubs+diamonds 2s = spades+diamonds 2nt = hearts+clubs Against weak NT (max 15) dbl = natural 2c, 2d and 2h same as above 2s = clubs OR diamonds+hearts 2nt = spades+diamonds OR hearts+clubs The 2suiters can be 54 if the 4crd suit can be played in at the 2level not vulnerable, otherwise 55. Answers are P/C, 2nt and 3 of the overcalled suit can be used as gametry.

Has the revised Keri been published yet?

Is there no way to distinguish 5♠4♥ from 5♠5♥ then?

That seems the way to show 4♠ and 5♥...

Hi, Can anyone tell me how to bid a GF hand with 5♠ and 4♥ after a 1NT opening playing Keri (original or revised)? Thx, Steven

Playing 2/1 Italian style: 1♠ 2♥(1) 2♠(2) 2NT(3) 3♦ 3♥(4) 3♠(5) 3NT pass 1 = 4-7 3crd ♠ OR GF 5+crd ♦ 2 = 11-16 any 3 = GF 5♦4♣ 4 = cue 5 = good suit

A matter of agreement. I like the Italian way: 2♣ artificial, showing several hand types. A 3♦ bid later will show a 17+ or 4-5 loser hand with 6crd. Lacking any agreements on this, I bid the other major. Steven

Petkov does say you should deduct points for honors in short suits 'in the standard way'. Not specifying how exactly is a weakness of the method. The above hand should be evaluated as 24zp. Absolutely, this is an opening. You are right here. Petkov does say not to use his method on balanced hands. Just counting HCPs will do here. You can open 1NT on this, though I think there are other hand evaluation methods that will tell you that this hand is not worth a 15-17 1NT opening. Not taking in account the rebid, is indeed a weakness with these hands... Again, don't use it on balanced hands. Personally, I think the above hand is a borderline case. Though it is not my style, I can imagine people passing it. Again, discount for the honors in the short suits. This should evaluate to 23zp. As with all methods, you should try to use it the right way and apply the correction factors that the author recommends. On the other hand, I have to admit that after trying the zar points evaluation for a few months, I have decided to stop using it because I went overboard too often... Steven

You are right. It seems to be the same after 1♣-1♦, but after 1♣-1M Garozzo uses 2♦ to show the strong one suiter and after 1♦-1M he uses 2♣. Comparing your structure with the one from Ambra, it is easy to see that the bidding in Ambra stays lower, giving more room to explore a slam. This is a definite plus. If you are interested, you should take a look at Ambra. A complete write-up of the system is available on the net, both in English and Italian. Don't know the URL anymore, but Google should get you there. Steven

a. 2♥ b. 2♣ c. pass

The 'device' you claim to have invented, was posted by me earlier in this thread. I got it from the AMBRA system, a system developed by Benito Garozzo for the Italian juniors. So I guess Garozzo got it from you then? Steven

Another possibility to bid a strong onesuiter is to overload the lowest reverse bid. E.g.: 1♣ - 1♦ 2♥ = either natural reverse OR strong onesuiter clubs -> 2♠ asks -> 2nt = natural reverse, 3♣ = onesuiter clubs This also applies for: 1♣ - 1M - 2♦ -> 2oM asks After a 1♦ opening, you can use the 2♣ rebid: 1♦ - 1M - 2♣ Disadvantage here is that you can not pass 2♣. Once you decide to overload these rebids, you can take it even a step further and also put the strong hand with support for responder in there. If you want to know how bidding proceedes after these multi-meaning rebids, you should have a look at the AMBRA system. Steven

Here's a scheme I like (example after 1♥ opening) 2nt = 8+ 4crd supp 3♠ = 7-10 any void 3nt = 10-13 single ♠ 4♣/♦ = 10-13 single after 2nt: 3♣ = any other hand (see below) 3♦ = SI any splinter -> 3♥ asks -> 3♠ any void, 3nt/4m single 3♥ = min 5332 3♠ = SI 4crd 3nt = 18-19 5332 4♣/♦ = SI 4crd 4♥ = min 6crd after 2nt-3♣: 3♦ = any splinter -> 3♥ asks -> 3♠ 11+ any void, 3nt/4m 14+ single 3♥ = min limit 3♠ = 12+-15- cue 3nt = 15-17 balanced 4♣/♦ = 12+-15- cue 4♥ = max limit Pro: - you can throw out Bergen Raises - frequency of use - doesn't tell opps anything about splinters unless one hand shows SI Con: - opps can intervene with 3m (but you can restore the sequence) (3c) - p = meant to bid 3c (3d) - p = meant to bid 3c -> dbl by partner = meant to bid 3d (3d) - dbl = meant to bid 3d Steven

I have no problem rebidding 3NT with 18-19 balanced as long as you don't have a 4crd major (3343). But what do you do when you do have a 4crd major and are 18-19 balanced (4432)? Second problem: What does responder bid with a limit hand on a 12-14 2NT rebid? Steven