mishovnbg

I dont think that argument for majority of top players dont play 4 major openings is silly. Exceptions only establish rule. Remark that it was played many time and was rejected, not because was forbidden like strong pass. And was rejected by top italian pairs that play many years same systems. If somebody dont like truth, it is his oun business. Evolution dont ask us what do we like, it just make her job. I can give u a lot of arguments for both, but just will say why Moscito is attractive for players in my opinion. It replace some of advantages of forbidden strong pass systems. It is sometimes difficulte to handle by most of normal players, because it open in 4 major when it can have side longer minor suit and take out dbl over is not "clear", because shortage in such side suit. For me isnt difficulte, i just said that at tournamet many of players is just for "pleasure" and have only simple agreements. Reason to forbid strong pass is same. I mean distributional, major oriented bids, alternative bids as in my lovely Lambda(also 4 major, hehe). Relays are also difficulte to understand by normal players. Ofcourse u describe to opp what answers mean, but they dont know for example what other alternatives u have if u dont make relay. Also some restrictions (law, time for play) can prevent opp to have same information as u. It is simple against laws of duplicate bridge.

If opening with 4 card majors is so good why almost all top world players dont play it? Answer is simple - because is not good. Even italians and french players, they have great experience in "canape" systems, give up - no blue clubs, roman clubs...

Instead of writing about different type of strong 1Cl systems i will try to explain why is difficulte to learn it 8). When u first time looking opening like 1HE: 11-15 hcp, 5+HE and play Culbertston system several years like me :) u think "how easy and how perfect it is". Start to play it and in the begining all is OK. But in time, if u playing with regular p u accumulate lot of additional agreement, normally not wrote. This lead to terrible mistakes and u soon "divorce" :'( or change to other system. Even top players like Zontag&Veicel give up after 300 pages agreement :). Main reason is that Precision only looking easy to play. Unlike natural systems, it use many different ways of bidding and generally dont based on methods of bidding or may be better to say based on many of them. So: Natural system: 1CL/1DI/1HE/1SP - 1 method 1NT - 2 method 2CL - 3 method Total: 3 methods of bidding Precision: 1CL - 1 method 1DI - 2 method( if dont play it with 4+DI) 1HE/SP - 3 method 1NT - 4 method 2CL - 5 method 2DI - 6 method Total: 6 methods of bidding Simple conclusion is: Precision is two times more difficulte to learn & play then natural system!. My advice for beginners in precision is to "take it easy" :-X and make with regular partner only "general" agreement, keeping it to several pages ::).

Main advantage of limited openings like prec is freedom of responder to make "tactical" bids like u mention. To bid or not to bid havent clear answer as in life :-. But my favorite expert Mike Lawrence writed, that "bridge is not for hunters and waiting in ambush is not wining method of play ;D. So my advice for u is to bid, bid, overbid... Ofcourse is such case u must be best friend with dummy :). Else better to pass, pass, underbid...

Top bulgarian pair Kalin&Rumen play 2 way or may be better to say many way 1CL system. I many time talked with them about. 1) Worse position after preempt vs 1CL prec. 2) Depend of "web" of bids. Rumen&Kalin use transfers&relays with high accuracy. 3) 1CL "many way" allow "variable" from vul and position bids like "mini" NT with great advantage. 4) Rumen-Kalin 5) Sorry no Tangerine.

Playing transfers u described u have 2 main disadvantages: 1. 1NT transfer for 5+CL lead to often playing of 3NT from wrong hand. 2. 2DI transfer for 5+HE lose bidding space and is against main idea of prec. U are even in worse position then simple natural system.

If u like to know how polish many years ago solve problem of distributional responses look for "Delta" answers to strong pass opening. U answers are not so terrible as respond Hrothgar . Often bid 1HE/SP is good idea because save bidding space. Preempt over same bids are not so good for opp, because if u know that u p dont have wild distribution u can simple dbl them. In case u p show singleton/void opp just can help to discover it. I play 15 years ago same way with sucsess several years(after strong pass)

Common conventions like Stayman or RKCB are important ofcourse, but also no interesting to discuss 8) My favorite convention is take out NT without jump. It make possible to play with optional doubles and play sucsessfull against modern "free" overcalls and "variable" preempts R/S style. Occasional play NT from worse hand or 1 level above in SP are price that I accept, when play it. Try it at table, it works!

I use one simple rule for weak 2 (i was play weak 2CL/DI also) : if i will overcall it at 2 level after opp bids - i open it! NO interesting have i side 4 or even 5 major if i have good 5+ suit and side suit is not good. It is very sucsessfull strategy most of time, because: 1. U show good lead to p, later may be impossible. 2. U give p chance to make good sacrifice. 3. For opp are more difficult to penalize u against later overcall. 4. If u p haven't fit u stop at lowest good missfit. 5. Even if u p have fit in u second suit, but not have in first, u hand is defensive, because u have HCP in first suit. 6. If u p have enough hcp, he can learn about u second suit. Little disadvantage is ofcourse when u p have fit in u second suit and u can play 2 in opening and have better score or even game in side suit. Not a perfect world:)

Two way check back have great advantage dont give opp information that p may be no need. But somebody think about what disadvantage it have? If u reach game after 2CL may be dangerous, because opp know u limit of HCP and with bad break of suits u can receive "nice" dbl. My point of view is: less info to opp about HCP is better then less info about distribution. So 1 way check back for me is better. New minor forcing "eat" 1 level if it is 2DI, so simple 2CL check back stayman is best. It is better also when 1NT rebid was with singleton/void in responder suit.

I think that jump shifts depend what system u playing. 2/1 system need weak or inv nat jump shifts, else 1NT RF become swamp:). If u play limited opening like prec then u can play it as like, but over 1CL opening opp can play as they like :) I personally prefer Robson/Segal style of bidding, but dont sgree to forget about 3NT game! Several type of fit raises - YES, but several type of 3NT inv - also YES. Bridge is game of balance of reasons for me. So: unclear limit raise like 1HE-2SP/1SP-2NT, after that u can ask for suit or singleton, what do u prefer. Inv nat 3CL/3D, if u dont play transfers.

One of the most difficulte in competitive bidding is classification of situations. Best agreement can lead to mistakes, if it is not clear "when", and advantages of weapon like "forcing pass" will be negate. For example answer to question "1. does the fact that 1 of the partners is a passed hand affect these agreements?" will affect only this situation and not lot of same. May be better to ask "does the fact that 1 of the partners is a LIMITED hand affect these agreements?". I now working on classification and any help are welcome. Generally i think that on question "forcing pass or not" best answer is "not", when it can be nonforcing. Like any "heavy weapon" better to use it limited. This allow p to make tactical and psychic bids.

I have great experience playing polish 1NT. Actually i play it with any unbalanced hand with 4 major, even with both majors. Very usefull convention. Dbl then not include wild distribution hands and can be easy passed. Also other overcalls not include side 4 major and make possible transfer answers. Problem of rebid of DBL hand with strong NT overcal have solution. Marshall Miles in his book "D.B. in 21 century" describe this rebid as "scrambling". Cheapest suit after p negative response in suit show strong NT without support in response suit.

Transfers at same level of bidding really lose space. Solution is to play inverted at same level and transfers on upper levels. In case of precision responses this mean to invert 1HE and 1SP and play transfers at 2 and more level. Example - author uncle Bill : 1HE: 8+HCP, 5+SP or 12+HCP, 4+SP 1SP: 8+HCP, 5+HE or 12+HCP, 4+HE 1NT: 12+HCP, bal 2CL: 8-11HCP without 4 major 2DI: 8-11HCP, 4HE, transfer 2HE: 8-11HCP, 4SP, transfer 2SP: 12+HCP, 5+CL-4+DI or 6+CL 2NT: 12+HCP, 5+CL-5+DI 3CL: 12+HCP, 6+DI ... with DI Yours friend Misho :)

Hi, my name is Mihail Nedyalkov. I live in Bulgaria, Varna. My profession is electrical engineer, designer, computer specialist, teacher. Begin to play bridge 12 years old, my father teach me. I played duplicate bridge when it just began in Bulgaria and was 3 at first national team finals in 1976. I won many major national and international major tournaments, but only in Bulgaria - no money :'(. Last first place - 1987 year, Beloslav. I was away up to 2001 year: built house, raised children and planted trees :). Now i return to my lover Bridge :-*. Already win several tournaments again but only at club level. Members of my club are national players Rumen, Kalin, Boyan, Rado, Joro, Mitko... They also often play in BBO. I read lot of books. I played lot of systems. I wrote lot of my own systems of biding and defensive signals. Here several of them: Culbertstone, Precision (goren, super, power), Romex, Lambda (strong pass), Polish club, Fers ... Std, UDCA, Russinov, Journalist, Combain (3th/5ht)... Bridge is competition. All play it to win/enjoy, not to lose. To win is not enough to be skilled, need to be also cruel - law of nature, sorry :-[. But for me to be rude is sign of poor spirits or lack of intellect>:). Now my target in Bridge is new biding system NTC. I write now v. 2.50 ( 250 versions, lol ). The meaning of my work is use of relays and transfers with few stepping bids and no more then 50 pages system 8). If I can help to somebody, i will do it. Can help with teaching ( mentor ) tables , but can't do it regular. Mihail ( MishoVnBg )

General idea: to play contract from better hand Method: 1. If better partner to play use Rubensohl. 2. If better you play, use Lebensohl. Simple rule: Must lead opp that show suit for lead/strength. Examples: 1. 1NT - (2S) - 3C=D=Rubensohl - .... 2. 1C - p - 1H - (2S) 3C=Lebensohl=Good/bad 2NT

I am one of the players that use pscyh's like all normal bids. When hand "cry" for bluff u must do it! My favorite bluff is not first one, but SECOND! Good players will most of time recognize first but second... Example ( playing precision ): I have: xx,QJxxx,QJxx,xx Bids ( both vul): Partner Opp1 Me Opp2 1HE Dbl 1S! Pass 1NT Dbl 2DI! Pass Pass Pass 2D was down 2, but Opp - 4S game

Space for biding is never enough, how space of your HDD :o. Moscito is only next relay system based on polish invention of distributional bidding in systems with strong pass opening, with few news in it. Enough space for distribution isn't equivalent of enough information for chose best contract. So hrothgar i still need more effective version of "denial cue bids". Thanks for replay and adress of Moscito document.

Standart :NAB is for use after HCP and distribution are known by relays. First ask ( NAB1 ) is for quantity of H controls ( A =2, K =1 ) begining with average for shown HCP( 8-11HCP>=2C, 12-15HCP>=3C...). Cheapest bid is next ask, other bids - sign off. [glow=red,2,300]Next [/glow] ask ( NAB2 ) for controls location in suits from longest to shortest ( if equival from highest ). [glow=red,2,300]Answers [/glow] are by steps for above suits, showing control in every suit skiped and stop in suit where no contol or full control ( AK ). Repeat ask until finish controls. [glow=blue,2,300]Next [/glow] asks ( NAB3 ) for Q, J, 10 ... in same order of suits, stop where haven't it. Example: O: x,AQJxx,AKxxx,xx; R: Axxxx,Kx,QJxx,Ax 1HE:10-17HCP,5+HE - 2CL: 12+HCP,R 3CL:14-17HCP,5-5/6-4DI - 3DI: R 3NT:5-5, no void or 1-1 - 4CL: R 4HE:1-5-5-2 - 4SP:NAB1 5CL:5C - 5DI:NAB2 5SP:A/KHE+AK/0DI - 5NT:NAB3 6DI:QHE+no QDI - 7HE: HAPPY END I like this convention because it is similar to cue bids after natural biding. But answers for quantity of controls may lead biding too high. For example if we add K CL in R hand, then 7NT is better contract, if we know about J HE. It is possible by NAB, but not enough room for biding. Have somebody any idea of modification of this convention, that will make it more usefull?