guido

IMHO, the three most important items for a developing player to work on are: 1) counting 2) counting 3) counting

I find the system complexity question impossible to answer. I tend to play my partner's system. This ranges from Bludgeon (no forcing openings or responses; completely natural) and Churchill style at one extreme to Regres at the other end of the spectrum. I might not be good, but I am flexible <grin>. I get better results when my partner is comfortable with the system AND style.

disadvantages: The 1♦ opening becomes rather vague. While this can work in its users favor, I think it is a serious negative over all. This is a particular problem playing a Precision type system (5-card majors). The 2♣ opening starts the auction off rather high. The more one tries to reduce the disadvantage of limited room by tightly limiting this bid, the more meaningless becomes the 1♦ opening. Again, this sometimes works in the users favor, but loses overall. The traditional Precision 2♦ opening allows the opponents to defend almost double dummy if the opener becomes the declarer. Advantages: I think you mentioned most of them. One major one is the 1M-4M sequence which can be bid on nothing to a very good hand not interested in exploring for slam. Minimum information given to the defense.

If 5-5 with most of the hono(u)rs in the long suit, 9-10 hcp seems reasonable for one of a suit .. particularly when playing a forcing club system. Not that this has anything to do with your question of course. <grin>

It means what your partnership decides it means. With that very helpful advice <grin>, you might consider that there is no obvious way to signal slam aspirations in a single suited hand after the transfer. You can define the cheapest bid in the other major (i.e., the sequences you show) as a slam try in the shown major.

Daniel told me he has no plans to translate WJ2010. One can hope this will change, but as of now .. study your Polish.

Super-Precision used an 8-13 1NT response. They used (basically): 2C: size asking transfer Stayman (2D=H 8-10, etc.) Suit: Support asking, 5 step: min no support; min support; max no support; max support; max 4-card support.

I think "standard" is penalty double. At least that would be my assumption unless discussed. In a partnership in which we had the discussed this specific auction, we had agreed that double showed 5H and diamond tolerance and, obviously, not enough to make a positive call over 2C. The theory was that you didn't want to bury the hearts by raising diamonds last round and without spades, a negative double was too risky.

The bidding shows 2♦ alerted. Anything interesting? Assuming not, I am bidding 5♣ Law comment: Double fits tend to increase the number of Total Tricks available, so I think the 5 level IS law abiding.

I would bid 3♦ but I have no problem with a double. The chance of going for a number is minimal. While it is true that the third seat weak two might contain a surprise, that works for you as well as against you ... opener's partner has to reckon with the possibility of non-standard distribution, non-standard strength, and/or non-standard hono(u)r dispersal also .. that makes it difficult for her/him/it to swing the ax when it is right. The strongest arguement against doing something here is giving opener a chance to rebid if holding an "Al Roth" two-suiter (e.g., KJTxxx-xx-void-AJTxx).

I hate to agree with the others (too boring <grin>), but a Pass seems obvious. I assume 5D is a good sacrifice (else, why the problem?) but that doesn't change my opinion that after preempting, there is no reason to give the opponents a second bite at the apple.

I agree with those who point to the 2H bid. If one is going to use this convention, holding a King (and no possible total misfit in whatever suits partner happens to hold as a bonus), this hand does not -- or at least should not -- qualify as a negative. If, for some reason 2H is the proper call in the system, then certainly 5D is wrong.

People as old as me will remember that 1D-1N;2C is forcing in Kaplan-Shwinwold (Background: with a minimum 5-5 you jump to 3C; with a minimum 5-4 you rebid 2D; a 3D rebid would how a real monster.) While not completely artificial, the 2C rebid was often a 3 card suit (occasionally 2). The rational was simply that if you belonged in 2C, the opponents would never let you play there, so you might as well make use of the extra bidding room by defining 2C as forcing.

The approach I have used in several partnerships: X: bal/semi-bal. dual range. (something like 12-15 hcp or 19+ hcp) pass then double: bal/semi-bal (something like 16-18) 3C: majors with better/longer Hearts 3D: majors with better/longer Spades 3H/3S: natural 3N: to play (e.g., Kx-AKQJxxx--Kx-Ax) 4m: void with majors 4M: natural After (2N) - P - (3C): 3D: majors 3M/3N/4M: natural X: strong NTish 4m: void with majors After (2N) - P - (3D) as above except double is majors After (2N) - P - (3M/3N/4M) X: penalty (anti-psyche) others as expected After (2N) - P - 4m X: t/o Note: The above is, I think, reasonable, if not ideal. However, it is part of our meta-agreements on handling the opponents' two-suiter calls. We prefer to know how we handle all such calls rather than design methods for each specific curcumstance.

If you are looking for something "fun" try what used to be known around here as "Call Bridge." It is normal bridge except the bidder can add one word to his call. Examples: One Roman Spade Two Polish Diamonds For system nerds, it can be great fun.

Mostly along the lines of the other comments ... I suggest using something a bit "better" than the Work 4321 count. the simplest improvement would be to redefine your ranges in terms of a 321 count (A=3, K=2, Q=1). Perhaps not the best, but an easy improvement -- and definitely an improvement. Paul

Well, one problem is that you were not playing Blue Team ... which does not open 3-card Diamond suits to invent a canape into a major. Roman does that, of course, but 1D is forcing in Roman. As to defense ... Almost everyone devises their defenses to play against their own methods. For extreme canape (e.g., 3-card majors), you might want to look at Roman's approach: a) Cue bid is natural ;) double is often balanced or off-shape. Against a more moderate type of canape (Blue Team, for example), I would suggest just using whatever you use against 4-card major standard systems. Paul

Hugh hated MP Precision. His system of choice was a very simple major oriented Strong Club/Weak NT system. His 1D denied a 4-card major unless the hand was strong enough to reverse. The Hog (Ron Anderson) won't play this and C.C. Wei wouldn't have paid them to play it anyway.:lol: If one is going to try 1N denies a 4-card major, I suggest extending the range of 1NT. I've played this with some success (I don't like it, but it has some good points this way). 1D would now promise either an unblanced hand or a major (for example, 1D-1S;1N woudl promise 4H). As someone else has already said, the sans major approach works much better in a 4-card major system, but is a different thread. :) Paul (guido)

My favorite is opening 1M in 3rd chair with something like AQx-xxx-Kxx-Jxxx (open the major with honors). Stolen from T. Reese, by the way. Other psychic silliness I use: Pass partner's Multi 2D opening with a flat weak hand (say: Qxx-Kx-xxx-xxxxx) Passing partner's Crash overcall of a strong club (or 2C) with just about any hand that can not seriously preempt. Partner sends a message to the opponents telling them about our tendencies here. Somehow, this feels "better" than alerting the call when you really are bidding honestly. Paul (guido online)

1. Must have: take-out doubles. That's it (short list, eh?) 2. Can live without: most of them. 3. Unnecessary: Gerber 4) No longer needed: most of them <grin> 5) Contributions: 4th suit forcing, fit-jumps, lebensohl Note: I limited my list to conventions, not treatments. paul (guido onliine)

>The meaning of 2NT bids can be tricky. Good-Bad, >Lebehnshol, Unusual, scrambling, natural. So I thought >I would post a few auctions for a poll. Here are the >auctions... vote on what you think the 2NT bid should >mean in a perfect world...... I will post my choices in a >reply to my own post. >1. P-(2S)-X-(P) > 2N Lebensohl >2. P-(2S)-P-(P) > 2N Distributional 2-suiter (any). Would expect minors if not discussed. >3. P-(2S)-P-(P) > X-(P)-2N scrambling for soemthing that smells like a fit >4. 1N-(P)-2C-(2H) > P-(P)-2N Depends upo meaning of opner's pass and hands that are supposed to start with 2C >5. 1N-(P)-P-(2S) > P-(P)-2N minors >6. 1N-(P)-2C-(P) > 2H-(2S)-2N Assuming 2C promises a 4-card major: Spade stopper and 4 bad hearts. >7. P-(1H)-P-(2H) > P-(P)-2N minors >8. P-(1S)-P-(2S) > 2N minors >9. (1S)-P-(2C)-2N 2C = game force minors (so, quite long clubs) >10. (1C)-P-(1S)- X (2S)-2N scambling >11. (1S)-P-(2S)-X > (P)-2N natural, decent values >12. P-(1S)-P-(2S) > X-(P)-2N scrambling Paul (guido online)

>1) how many book do u have in your collection? Approx. 900 book plus various magazines >2) tell me your 3 best books (in order if possible :) )? a) Design for Bidding by Norman Squire :) Killing Defense by Hugh Kelsey c) Il Nuovo Fiori Napoletano by Chiaradia >3) what is the last book you have bougth? Il Nuovo Fiori Napoletano (I finally found a copy after years of searching) >4) what is ur best author? Kelsey >5) have u been told by writter outside ur coutry ? if >yes have u read some and what is your favourite? Well, my top 3 list are all non-US, so.... <grin> >6) any special comment about one book ? let me know Le Dictionnaire des Maniements de Couleurs by Roudinesco deserves mention as the greatest technical work Paul Friedman (guido online)

Freqently I am in the midst of typing a "chat" message when the focus goes to some other window (friend signs in, my turn to bid, etc.) This causes considerable need for asking for undos and other minor hassles. This seems to be a design decision. If anyone is counting <grin>, I'd like to see the user decide where the focus lies, not the software. thanks guido