BrianEDuran

Hi all I like to play scrambling after a balancing double. (2M)-p-(p)-X; (p)-2NT scrambling I have no proof that this actually better, but it seems to hold its own. The obvious difference is when partner is likely to have less values and a flatter hand scrambling will work out better then Leb. Since I like to play light openning with a mini or weak NT, 5 card and light preempts, a better agreement might be if responder has passed, scrambling is on, otherwise Leb/Rub. Brian

Hi all A few nights ago I held[hv=d=l&v=n&s=sxhakqxxxdkqtxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MPs[/hv] Playing against the best pair around LHO opens (1C)-p-(2S!) WJS 2-5, If anyone has an interesting treatment for this situation I would be interested in hearing it, but lets say you try 4H, LHO 4S and partner doubles. Complete auction (1C)-p-(2S)-4H (4S)-X-(p)-?? A) What do you do an why? B) The expert on my left said he "thinks" it is right to treats this double as values guarenteeing the ability to move on. Thus, just holding values in spades is not enough. One would give up on the small sets, but part would now feel safe to move own. It seemed to be the claim that the number of hands one wanted to show general values well outweighted the ones were you wanted to show spade specific values, thus making this treatment a winner in the long run. Thoughts?

Hi all In ACBL land I wouldn't bother with a pre-alert, which is the type of alert you should try if you feel you have to. I would just write ATV&S - attention to vul and seat, on your card. Most people will ask after I make a preempt and see it. My partner can tell them what type of crack I tend to be own. I feel that if you pre-alert you are guarentteed to get someone upset when you have a nomal preempt. I have heard several times that one can not have a weak two range of more then 6 HCP, so 3-9, 4-10 and such. I couldn't find this documented, nor do I know if this applies to 3lvl preempts. But maybe this is what your opponents were complaing about. Brian

Hi all I play an agreement we call TSNM - Third Suit New Minor Forcing. Which is similiar to TSAR, except it always the minor that is forcing. So 1D-1M; 2D-3C! is NMF like, and 1m-1M; 2m-3m is still quasse-forcing. The advantage of TSAR, assuming I have it right, is the auction 1D-1S, 2D-2H can be to play. While in TSAR its the artificial bid. In IMPS maybe this isn't a big deal, but in MP I think playing in your 7 card major fit often wins. As mentioned by others it hardly comes up, and is most likely not worth the brain space. Do people know of another name for this agreement? Anyone see a major problem with it? Thanks Brian

Hi all Nobody mentioned what I think to be the most important reason to play mini and weak NTs, they are just too darn fun!!! Not only do you end up in a different contracts then everyone else, your opponents do crazy things over them. They tend to make for better stories in the postmortem. On a more serious note, mini - weak NTs seem slightly more random in the results, as some other poster have pointed out. I wonder if people thing that different NT rangers play better depending on the field that you are playing in. For example; if one is in the middle 3rd of playing strength at the club, the mini NT (10-13) would give one the edge over the weak players, since they have less experience playing against it. Against the strong players, the odds are against you if you play strait up, so the mini might make some swings. If you are the best player in the room, stay away from mini, since swings will tend to hurt you. Maybe this is similiar to preempting style. Thoughts? Brian