glen

<>

From what I had looked at, the Italian style was to pass 1NT with 5-3-3-2s, hence their 2♣ rebid showed 4+♣s or 16/17+. This meant a system hole with 13-14 5-3-3-2s opposite 11-12 balanced, which often produce good games. Certainly one can play the bid as 3+♣s. Did you see the Gazzilli vs Bart (remember those Japanese monster movies?) board in the US trials. See board 54 here At one table, 2♣ was passed since 2♦ would be Bart, and responder did not want to push the bidding up to 3♦ on a possible misfit. At the other table 2♣ could not be passed since it was a version of Gazzilli.

You can use google translate on the site, such as: google translate of web page

For me, the key was for Moss not to get flustered on the next hands once Zia told him the contract could have been made (and Moss would have figured out the line in 3 seconds after that), and for it not to distract Gitelman as well. Board can be see at: USBF 2006 Finals Click on board 52. Certainly the Moss-Gitelman partnership played aggressive bridge after this board, but I believe their bidding was consistent with their partnership style (climb every mountain, bid every game).

Seems picking the right core is necessary.

2♦ is best - give opener space to unwind the hand. As free noted, 2NT is useful to help out in the less-than-positive sequences - those tough hands with a singleton/void in opener's major.

Not a "gross misstatement" of 1♥ response, and a common tactical bid. I thought I saw it bid in two of the open matches on BBO vugraph, both times effective in blocking the opponents heart contract.

In a multi-section tourney where the TDs will not add time, the software should automatically add more time to sections that started early. This would prevent the case where a board is lost due to time expiring, and then the irritated players having to watch other tables have another 5 to 10 minutes while waiting for results.

Playing 2NT as GF balanced is certainly an improvement over normal 2/1 GF methods. However there is not enough bidding space for opener to properly unwind unbalanced hands and big hands over the 2NT response. That said, most hands will have no problems in getting to the best spot. I believe it is better to play the 2♣ response to 1♥/1♠ as either GF balanced or GF ♣s. There are various structures possible after this, some involving complex relays. If one is aiming for simplicity combined with effectiveness, one could try: After 1♥/1♠- 2♣;-? (note M=opener’s major) 2♦: fewer than 4 in other major, not 6+ in M with extras. After 2♦: ---2♥: GF with ♣s. ---2♠: GF with 3+ in M and ♣s. ---2NT: GF balanced. --- 3X: GF with ♣s and very distributional. 2♥: 4 or longer in other major, not 6+ in M with extras. After 2♥: ---2♠: GF with ♣s. ---2NT: GF balanced. --- 3X: GF with ♣s and very distributional. 2♠: 6 or longer in M, extras. ---2NT: GF balanced. --- 3X: GF with ♣s. The concept is to use 2♣ as a steppingstone on the way to bidding 2NT with GF balanced, to give opener more bidding space to unwind hands.

In ETM Tops, with 8-16 1♥/♠ openings, we used 2/1 responses with about 12+, forcing. However opener could not rebid above 2M without a standard opening bid, and responder's rebids of 2M, 2NT and 3 of responder's suit were all non-forcing, albeit with values. Responder could also pass a 2M rebid by opener. 1NT went up to 11 or poor 12 on most hands, but, also with a singleton/void in M and no six card or longer suit then 1NT handled the misfits of 13-15. The idea was if opener passed 1NT (with 8-11, not very distributional) then even it turned out the partnership had the HCP for game, a fair bit of the time it would go down since the misfit in M would make the hand play poorly.

There were two hands, described in separate posts - both hands do not involve partner doubling, and only one hand involves a redouble.

One idea could be to use a Nightmare type framework, such as: 1♣: 15+ balanced or ♣s, or any GF (or if more Polish club style any 18/19+) 1♦: 13-14 balanced or ♦s 1♥/♠: 5 or longer suit 1NT: 10-12 balanced 2♣: 10-14, 6+♣s or 5♣s and a four card major

I'm not surprised by all this. Moving 5-3-3-2s with a 5cM into the bid handling that balanced range seems to have a small net gain, though many will remain unconvinced. The counterpoint is that responder (i.e. the hand opposite the balanced hand type) must be able to show all singleton/voids on game going hands in order that the right game is reached. This is also criticial on hands without a five card major, as the short suit is the suit most often attacked by the defense.

"Coaching" (or informing the players of) the rules is part of the job they are burdened with. The good news is the better they do it, the less problems they have later with the same players.

I told them in Chicago that I loved their system and wish they would publish it.

The most common trouble action by weaker players is the off-shape point-based “takeout” double. Recently on the auction of 1♦-Pass-1♥-?, a player doubled on: [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sk75hajt83dk65c93]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Winning the contract, and assuming a takeout double, I misplayed the hand and called the TD to sort out the meaning of the double. This TD handled it correctly (imo). First, since this was clearly a weaker player there was no point in imposing damages, which might just deter them from playing again. Instead the TD warned them to alert the double if they will be making this on points, and not on shape. This is a good thing: now the player knows that the double as played by most is usually based on shape, and not just points, and may decide to use this information. In this redouble case, I’d hoped the TD would address the situation in the same way. First find out what the redouble is (the TD was quite reluctant to do this, and it took several promptings from me for the TD to even ask the opponents what the meaning was). Once the TD determined the meaning, the TD would note that most play the redouble as showing points, and suggest they alert the redouble if they continue to play it as merely showing a fit. There would be no damages assigned. As noted above, if I wanted to protect myself I needed to ask before assuming the redouble was based on values (and sorry if I click on your doubles and redoubles in obvious situations!). This is reasonable and fair given the mixture of skill levels we see in tourneys. TDs need to know how bridge is played, and, using this knowledge, help educate the players as appropriate. I opened this thread since, imo, this TD did not handle this well.

In general with the frequent 11-14 range, the system describes a key nature of the hand so that responder is in good position to take the right steps forward. The primary focus is on possible major fits, both finding ours and trying to be an obstacle to the opponents finding theirs. The mini-spades 1♦ opening is to: 1) Get 10-12 with 4♠s into the bidding 2) With 5♠s and 2/3♥s allow for our ♥ fit to be found 3) Have a limited opening so responder can move to the best spot quickly. The 2♥/2♠ openings try to get to the right spot ASAP, and block out an overcall in the other major as much as possible. The 2♣ and 2♦ deny 4+♠s, so we open at the two level to block out a possible ♠ overcall as much as possible, while limiting the hand and showing opener’s longest suit. The 1♠ opening is a full-bodied opening, though limited – responder is well placed to judge prospects while the opponents are at risk if they enter the bidding. For example 1♠-2♥-Pass-Pass;-Double shows 13/14-17. so responder can make a penalty pass with less than in standard. Since 1♠ is not a flat minimum, responder can bounce to 4♠ on 10-13 counts and 3+♠s, forcing a tough decision on the opponents if they have a hand that might need to compete, while also not revealing much so that the lead and defense to 4♠ will not be easy (compare to the 1♠-1NT;-2x-3♠;-4♠ auction of 1NT forcing). The 1♥ opening can have 4♥s if 11-14 with 4+♦s – this means that the opponents cannot count on a true fit after 1♥-Pass-2♥ and must be careful coming in, while if opener is active in later bidding then it promises 5+♥s. Weak notrump is used since it fits the overall structure. 13-14 balanced with 4♠s needs to open 1NT since 1♦ cannot handle as wide a range as 10-14 balanced and still have okay rebids.

For something somewhat close see: ETM Storm System 1♣: Big 15+ without a five card or longer major, or 17/18+ any. 1♦: Mini Spades -- 1) 4♠s & 10-14, can have longer second suit (if 5+♥s maximum of 13), not balanced if 13-14 -- 2) 5♠s & 10-13, too balanced for 2♠ opening -- 3) 5♠s & 4♥s exactly, 10-11 1♥: Natural -- 1) 5+♥s, 11-17, if shape for a 2♥ opening then more than a 2♥ opening (13/14-17). -- 2) 4♥s and 11-14 with 4+♦s but without 4♠s. If balanced can decide to open 1NT instead 1♠: Natural 5+♠s, 12-17 or 10-11 with 5-5+/6-4+ in majors. If shape for a 2♠ opening then more than a 2♠ opening (13/14-17). 1NT: Weak 11/12-14 balanced, can be a 5-4-2-2 with a five card minor 2♣: Natural 5+♣s, 10/11-14, not 4+♠s, not 5+♥s, if just 5♣s a 5-4-3-1 shape 2♦: Natural 5+♦s, 10/11-14, no four card or longer major, if just 5♦s either 3-1-5-4/1-3-5-4 or 5-5 in minors 2♥, 2♠: Natural 5 or longer in M, 9/10-13, not 4+ in OM, if just 5 in M then 5-5+ or a 5-4-3-1/5-4-4-0 shape with shortness in OM.

In a tourney today, the bidding went Pass-Pass-1♦-Double-Redouble with this hand: [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sat754hdj643c8642]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After the hand was over, I called the TD to sort out the meaning of redouble. TD said "actually - counting dummy points (with a void) and 4 of the suit - it is standard" Is this a standard or close to standard redouble as stated by the TD? Later, the redoubler, an advanced player, noted the meaing of redouble was "we are making 1♦". This seems a fairly natural meaning, albeit not the traditional 10+ points.

The complete hand was: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sk6543hkt63dkj94c&w=sqt7h82d32caqt965&e=sajhj754d85cj8432&s=s982haq9daqt76ck7]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Of the twenty tables in play, only two played in ♣s, once 6♣ doubled down two, the other 5♣ doubled down three. Most hands did not have a 3♣ opening. Only two slams bid by NS, one table reached 6♠ (undoubled), and one table reached 6♦, both down 1. At my table I bid 3♠, normally natural but here was trying to get a ♠ lead. Advancer bid 4♦, opener bid 4♠ and the opponents ended up in 5♦. The TD was called at the end of the board, and 3♠ was recorded as a psyche. I stated I had valid bridge reasons for the bid (and also noted partner raised the "suit"). I felt that xx or xxx or x in ♠s would be a psyche, while here it was intended to get the right lead showing something in ♠s, although normally the suit would be a lot longer. I also felt that 3♠ would be a bid made very often at expert levels, and was not made for destructive purposes, so didn't seem to fit my view of psyches. However the TD, who has lots more expert experience than I do, didn't buy this view one bit, so I wondered what others felt about it. Thanks to those who replied to this thread and the last one.

Partner opens 3♣ in first seat, next hand doubles, and you have: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sajhj754d85cj8432]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Playing standard preempts (could be a very nice 6 card suit or often a seven card suit, no special responses), what do you bid? Would you bid 3♠ to get a ♠ lead against the final contract (if partner is on lead), or raise in ♣s to some level (which?). If you bid 3♠ is this a psyche, or a tactical bid, or both?

To answer a question above, I believe they were playing the default sayc convention card.

It is quite likely this was a pick-up or infrequent partnership, so no concealed agreement, or implicit agreement held. However 3 boards before, against different opponents, the doubler (on the hand above), opened 1♥ in third seat with: [hv=d=n&v=e&s=s9hqjt7djt92cj987]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] The bidding went P-P-1♥-2♣-2♥-All Pass, the 2♥ bidder having: [hv=d=n&v=e&s=s9hqjt7djt92cj987]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] On this hand, I wonder how light a third seat hand needs to be to be considered a pysche, if they have the suit opened, and lead directional values in that suit. It seems to me that it is hard to figure out when a bid is a psyche or not in situations where one would commonly be light. Given this, then: [hv=d=n&v=e&s=s9hqjt7djt92cj987]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] in third seat, white vs. red, this would not be a psyche under this guideline. However if this is opened, should the opponents call the TD to record, and should the TD record, and if so as what ("player is active" or "player may open extremely light in 3rd seat and partner xxx knows this - does calling a bid "extremely light" make it a pysche?). Again I would like to note that we were not damaged on the board given first above, as we were able to have a constructive auction to our best spot, and our bidding would have been the same had the doubler had more points and advancer correspondingly less. Also, given not a regular partnership, there would not be agreements to worry about. So in situations where light action is common, can anything with the right shape be a psyche? If not, should anything be recorded? Should the TD be called on the 1♥ opening board above, and then later on the light double board, and should the TD record anything, and if so, what? I keep asking these questions because I really don't know the answer at all.

"A psychic call is a deliberate and gross misstatement of high-card strength or suit length." Not vulnerable vs vulnerable, the bidding goes Pass-Pass-1♥-? Is Double with: [hv=d=n&v=n&s=st972hk9daj7c8762]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] a psyche? After this hand doubled, bidding continued Redouble-Pass-Pass-1♠-2♥-All Pass Did this following hand catch the psyche or not-psyche? [hv=d=n&v=n&s=st972hk9daj7c8762]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] I asked that the TD record this hand (i.e. was not asking for damages or saying anything illegal took place - just wanted to record the two actions in case there was a trend). The TD thought that the double was not a psyche - a light bid not vulnerable opposite a passed hand. This may be quite reasonable, so I wanted to know if these light doubles are psyches or not in the viewpoint of bbo forumers, and if the TD should record such actions or not. Also the 11 point only-pass could be considered a catch, or it could be smart bidding if the player believes the opponent's bidding, although opening light in 3rd seat is not a pysche (or is it if very light?), and/or the redouble could be based more on fit than high card points, so it might be the opponents who have few points.

Fixed - thanks for the correction!