Jboling

I did a new dd-analysis, with in all cases north has 20-21 balanced including 5M332, and the constraints for south are given in the table below. south : 2NT m : 3S m : 4S m : 3S m, 2NT f: 3S f, 2NT m : 3S f, 2NT f : 2NT m, 3S m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5S, 0-1p : 137 : 401 : 141 : 303 : 39 : 560 : 98 6S, 0-1p : 182 : 759 : 375 : 587 : 10 : 231 : 172 5S, 2-3p : 449 : 683 : 319 : 327 : 93 : 224 : 356 6S, 2-3p : 457 : 913 : 634 : 474 : 18 : 69 : 439 Here m=makes and f=fails. Not that surprisingly 3S seems on average to be the safest spot in all cases, but more interesting 4S is not that bad contract at least from a imp-point of view, especially with 6 spades. With 6 card spades it seems to be better even from a match-point view to play 4S than 2NT, if 3S is impossible that is. But 3S can be possible if you can stop in 3S if opener has 2 spades. The most problematic case is the one with 5S and 2-3 points, but 2NT is not that bad in that case.

I did a quick one (fortunately slightly different than dellache), I generated 1000 deals with the following constraints: north: 20-21 balanced, and 3 card spades (5 card H possible) south: 5+spades And the DD-results were: tricks north south 6 0 1 7 16 17 8 48 52 9 129 140 10 210 209 11 283 279 12 229 221 13 85 81 So if you always superaccept with 3 cards you will end up in a failing 4M contract about 20% of the times. One could compare that with 4+card superaccepts: tricks north south 6 0 0 7 4 4 8 22 31 9 114 117 10 222 222 11 317 316 12 225 217 13 96 94 That is a failure rate of about 15%. Not that big difference. With 2 card support you have at most nine tricks 33% of the time with spades as trumps. 3NT is actually a slightly better contract, it fails only 32% of the times.

Similar to 2/1 by passed hand I would play pass-1♣-1♦-1z-2M as invitational, and thus bypass longer diamonds unless invitational strength. When I used to play Walsh I combined it with xyz-Checkback, and I thus allowed responding 1♦ with 5+♦-4M and inv strength also with an unpassed hand (1♣-1♦-1z-2♣-2♦-2M showed such a hand). Showing shape is relevant also for an invitational hand. For the moment I play transfer Walsh, and what I miss the most from the old Walsh structure is that it is more difficult to show these invitational 5+♦-4M-hands. And in response to Helenes post regarding t-Walsh, I need it by a passed hand to show 17-19 balanced with opener. Or maybe I'm just getting old, I want to play it as simple as possible, with no changes to the response structure for a passed hand.

It is in the beginning of the second part, under the name "both minors forcing"

I'm a bit surprised that few agreed with Fluffy on this one. Doesn't 3♥ tell that heart honors should be downgraded and other honors are probably valuable, while 4♣ tells that club honors are superb and red honors should be downgraded? In this case we have a club suit that works well with most club holdings, so why emphasize the club suit? Especially if 2NT implies a balanced hand. Of course, for a grand slam we would prefer if responder had the club queen, but shouldn't the focus initially be on the small slam? And we might get a chance to ask for the club queen later, even if we start with 3♥. After 3♥, responder sees that he has 11 points outside hearts (although ♠Q probably is wasted), and the heart ace which still is a trick, so he should be mildly slam interested. Without special agreements I would try to express that with a 3♠ bid. Opener could then cuebid clubs in hope of a diamond cue from responder, when he can bid 4♥ to show his void. In this case responder will bid 4♥ (showing the ace, the king is uninteresting against a shortness), which will not excite opener. Maybe he still has enough for 5♠ or 4NT (assuming it is RKCB)? Even if responder has Kxxx-AKxx-QJ-xxx you have some chances for 12 tricks, and with that hand responder should have bid 4♠ over 3♥, so he has something better than that. So 4NT RKCB it is, and over the 3 keycard response you have to choose between asking for the trump queen, or trying the more imaginative 6♣. Opener could have asked after the club king with the trump queen ask (or 5NT), so this has to be something else. After 2NT Jacoby you probably do not suggest another trump suit, so it must be a grand slam trial with the focus on the club suit. Responder will wonder why opener did not ask for his spade queen, but it can be due to a six card opening suit, or that he felt lucky with the nine card trump suit (the latter is true in this case). Now how should responder react with a doubleton? The queen would obviously have been better, so 7♠ (or 7♣) probably shows her majesty. Maybe a doubleton is enough for ... 6♦, showing that queen (we have already denied the king). 6♥ would have shown the heart king. The Queen of diamonds is (almost) worthless for a grand, so 6♠ is the conclusion of that story. The king of hearts and the doubleton club on the other hand is enough for a grand, well at least when we already have decided that spades is going to be divided 2-2.

I'm lost. Gazzilli is an artificial bid of 2♣ by opener after opening bids of 1♥/1♠ and responses of 1♠ or 1NT. It doesn't apply after 1mi. 1♣ - 1♠ 2♣ Natural, non-forcing in any natural system I know. Roland You can play Gazzilli after minor-openings as well, but it is slightly more complicated than after major-openings. 1♣-1M-2♦, 1♣-1♦-2♥, and 1 ♦-1M-2♣ are used as (possibly) artificial and forcing. Other bids are then more limited, for example 1♣-1♠-3♦=4441♦ and 17+hcp, and 1♣-1♠-4♦=6+♣, 4♠, short ♦, and 15-16hcp. After the forcing Gazzilli-bid, a rebid by responder in the fourth suit is the strongest bid (similar to 1M-1X-2♣-2♦), and the other rebids are again more limited. There are variations of this, but this is the version Garozzo used in his Ambra-system, version 1.0 of Ambra that is.

According to the first bulletin http://www.worldbridge.org/bulletin/08_2%2...WMSG/bul_01.pdf some of the matches (Italy-Finland especially on my mind) will be broadcasted on OurGames. Can anybody tell where this OurGames can be found? Google didn't find anything. Sorry about that this probably isn't related to BBO!

Roland is right about that in this case there is less need for an actual convention, while after a minor suit opening and rebid you have more open options, for example 1♣-1♠-2♣-? 1. You might have a 4-4 fit in a red suit, with an invitational or stronger hand. 2. You might want to explore for stoppers for 3NT, with or without interest in a slam in clubs. 3. You might have a long spade suit, and want to sign-off, make an invitation to game, or explore for a slam. You can sort out these options better if you use the lower or both third suits as forcing. One version on the follow-ups are found in the WJ2005-system (Polish Club), http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2001...2005webpage.htm, under the Third-suit Forcing section.

I have heard of the names "Bourke relay" and "third suit forcing". The main reason for the convention I think is that you do not have a natural forcing bid with a strong singlesuiter (2♠, 3♠, and 4♠ are all nonforcing). I think most play the higher third suit (3♦ in this case) as natural, while I prefer both third suits as seminatural, showing for example a NT-stopper or just the better third suit.

I don't think 3♣ is forcing. Nobody has mentioned the Good Bad 2NT convention http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...ad2NTCohen.html, is it that uncommon/unpopular? When using it 2NT would be a a weak puppet to 3♣, and a direct 3♣ would be stronger, probably GF in this case. Or does everybody play the reverse version (Bad Good 2NT), when 3♣ for sure is non-forcing and 2NT promises extras? Bad Good 2NT is my preference, the weaker hand is more common and the stronger hand can better afford to go slower, in case of further preemptive actions from the opponents. Using either Good Bad or Bad Good I would probably choose the stronger 3♣ bid in this case. Although Bad Good 2NT will in this case terribly wrongside 3NT, if it happens to be the right final contract.

1♥-1NT-? pass with 11-14 2♣ with 15-16 (Gazzilli, forcing), 2NT if partner bids 2♦. This actually shows 16-17 and 5332-distribution according to the notes, which is close enough. 2♠ with 17+ I only have the Ambra 1.0 notes, where 1NT denies 3 card ♥. Is version 2.6 available somewhere, preferably in English? Edit: I was above thinking about the 4522 distribution, with 4531 I think you have to choose between 2♦ and pass with less than 17 points. The 1.0 notes claims that 1♥-1NT-2♦ shows 4+♦, for me it can also be 4531.

http://www.acbl.org/nabc/SanFrancisco2007/bulletins/db4.pdf

I share this view especially, Goren mentions in one of his books that with a 8 card trump fit and a shortness you only need on average 26 points outside the shortness suit for 12 tricks (this could probably be more accurately analyzed with todays tools). And based on this I am prepared to relax the requirement for controls in the side suits for the splinter-bid, if you have 26 points in the other suits you have all suits controlled. So if opener upon hearing a splinter bid from partner sees that we have about 26 points in the other suits, he should consider slam, often just check for keycards. The more narrow limits for the strength of the splinter bid the better of course. I also prefer bidding good 5 card side suits before splintering, except if the suit is solid (AKQxx or better). A side suit bid tells opener that a honor in that suit should be upgraded, while a solid suit does not need any help, so a splinter is better in that case. And I would like to add one more requirement for a splinter bid, one should not have a singleton honor in the splinter suit. Partner will strongly devaluate his holdings in the splinter suit, for example KJTx works much better against Q-singelton than x-singleton. But what to do with hands with singleton honors? I think you have to lie about something, unless you want to invent something complicated for a rare situation; bid the hand as a balanced one, or ignore the singleton honor and splinter. When bidding the hand as a balanced one you can often get information about partners holding in the shortness suit, so that is typically my preference especially with higher honors; a jack might be better ignored, a queen is a borderline case.

The guys who designed Magic Diamond have after that designed a system called "Magic for teams", which could imply that they do think MD is better for matchpoints. They do have 1M openings in MD (that show 4 cards and are possibly canape, with hcp range 8-12), that might find 2M/3M/4M/3NT contracts faster than using some other system. On the other hand their 1♣ (13-16 hcp unbal or 15-17 bal) and 1♦ (17+) are of course slower than for instance natural openings. Magic for teams is a natural system, with 15-17 NT and 4 card major openings. It is my hunch as well that strong ♣ or strong ♦ systems with limited openings are slightly better at matchpoints than at IMPs. With wider openings you are forced to go slower, which also gives you more room for reevaluation along the way, so you can better find slams based on a good fit. On the other hand strong ♣ (and ♦) do have openings that are bad for matchpoints aswell, about all but 1M openings, so maybe it anyway evens out in the long run?

Fluffys right, in practice you can't rely on the opponents. I found 68719476735 (6.87*10^10) auctions with the opponents silent. The longest auction you can have is pass-1♣-1♦-...-7NT-pass, consisting of 37 bids. Then you can leave out one of the first 36 bids (you can't leave out the last pass), and get 36 auctions consisting of 36 steps. And then leave out two of the bids, and get 36!/34!/2!=630 auctions consisting of 35 steps. And so on, all the way to the 36 possible sequences where we only have two bids.

A guy from Poland taught me this convention, he said it is named 5431 in polish. I don't speak polish, and I can't remember how it was pronounced, but I do remember that it was quite difficult.

I play almost exactly like that, but I do not have invitational reverse Flannerys. Instead I have 1♣-2♦ and 1♦-3♣ as natural invitational, so that I can distinguish them from GF singelsuiters. Thus 1m-2♥ is always reverse Flannery and 1m-2♠ is always a mixed raise.

I also play 1m-2♠ as unbalanced with support, with about 7-9 points (balanced hands bid 1NT), which leaves 1m-3m as a more pure preempt. The other raises are 1m-2m = 10+, and 1m-2NT = balanced GF (with 2-4 cards support).

Do you mean that default would be that 2♣ is gameforcing, or just roundforcing? How would you bid a hand with a good club suit, but less than gameforcing strength? Probabaly not double followed by clubs, as you said double promises spades. 2♣ followed by a repeated bid in clubs or pass of a limited bid by partner? I prefer the agreement that 2♣ is nonforcing, I want the common competive handtypes off my chest as fast as possible, so I would have to double and bid clubs next with a gameforcing hand. So my double normally promises 4 card in other major, but can also be a strong singlesuited hand. So double followed by 3NT would still be cards for 3NT and four cards in the other major.

I designed a similar system a couple years back, I called it EHAA+, I have a description on my web-site http://www.abo.fi/~jboling/bridge/ehaap.pdf. Main problem seemed to sort out the strong hands after a 1♣ opening, but that is probably the main problem with Polish Club. I had an even wider ranging 1♣, as 2♣ was a weak two in clubs, and 1NT was 10-13. You probably lose when you have a 15-17 balanced hand and the others open 1NT, but you probably win when you have your own range. And 10-13 and 12-14 are more common than 15-17, so this is not that bad in a long run. But you get more variation in the results, which can be annoying.

Hoe about invitational hands with clubs or an invitational 5332? I can imagine that 1♠-1NT-2♠ would be quite wide ranging, about 11-16. And with a 15-17 5332 you have to open 1NT. But what about a 12-14 5332, you have to pass on 1♠-1NT, right? This seems ok, unless you plan on playing forcing 1NT. There are some disadvantages compared with how I have played Gazzilli, 1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-? 2♥ = 15-17 balanced or 15-16 with 4♣ 2♠ = 11-14, 4+♣ 2NT = 17+, a 4 card side suit This way 2♠ is better limited. And you can with 8 points make an invitation against the 15-17 hand, compared with standard Gazzilli that is. Otherwise it seems like your suggestion could work well. In my version, after the sequence 1♠-1NT-2♣-2NT I have played that all openers rebids are nonforcing, pass and 3♣ shows a weak hand, 3♦, 3♥ and 3♠ are strong but passable, stronger hands just bid a game. Made some simulations, didn't seem like a big problem. But of course, you can't stop before the 3-level.

In my version of Gazzilli the sequence 1♠-1NT-2♣-2NT shows 3+♣, 4+♦, 3-4♥ and 0-1♠. All the other hands have either 5♥, 2♠, 5♣ or 6♦, and can bid 2♥, 2♠, 3♣ or 3♦ respectively. Downside compared with regular minor showing 2NT is that one with 5-5 or better in the minors (and less than 3♥) have to bid 3♣. But majors go before minors, right? And I calculated that the regular 2NT have 3-4♥ 78% of the time, so it seemed like a winning strategy to actually show that. Read Adams post more carefully, my suggestion does not help the 2443/2434 hand. Maybe I should change my 2NT bid to 3+♣, 3+♦, 3-4♥ and 0-2♠? At first glance I do not see too much trouble playing it like that.

For me 2D does not show extras, and I would like to add a hand to the discussion, what is you rebid with xxx-AQ-xxxx-AQxx? If 2D show extras you have to open 1D with that hand. I might have rebid 3D given the current hand, 3C is my second choice. 2S gets you into trouble after the most likely bid 3H from partner, as awm pointed out. You have to rebid 4C, 3S sounds like a cue-bid with hearts set as trumps.

I would defend as follows, applying the generic defense I am used to: As after a normal pass dbl = 3+ cards in suit bid by opponents, usually balanced, or any strong hand (say 18+) next bid = takeout of suit bid by opponents, nonforcing other = natural nonforcing dbl = balanced 13+, or any strong other = natural nonforcing

I like Gazzilli, and one can play it rather simple: 1M-1x-? (x being either ♠ or NT, M is a Major) 2♣ = forcing, one of the following three a) natural 4+♣ b) balanced 12-17 (you can pass with the weaker ones if 1NT was semiforcing, or bid 1NT yourself if responders bid was 1♠) c) any 17+ other = natural nonforcing, limited to the 11-16 range, new suits on the 3-level shows a 5-5. Like playing with strong 1♣ opening. 2NT can be defined as balanced 18-19, especially if you play with 4-card major openings, as 2♣ should promise 5+M. After 1M-1x-2♣-? 2♦ = 8+ any others = natural weak, about 5-7 points, with 2NT showing both minors (3+♣ and 4+♦), or alternatively 5+♦. After 1M-1x-2♣-2♦-? 2M = 11-14, nonforcing 2OM = 15-17, responders 2NT only nonforcing (OM = Other Major) 2NT = 17+, 4 card side suit, 3♣ asks (M replacing ♣ in the responses). Can also include 5332 distributions, 3NT shows this. Most play 2M as 11-16, 2NT as 15-17 balanced, and 2OM as some 17+. I like the idea of being able to stop in 2M when opener has 11-14, and 2NT when opener has 15. You can add artificial bids if you like, especially 2NT can be defined as something more useful in many places. For example 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♦-2NT can be defined as 3-card ♠-support, so new suits on the three level would then only show a 4+ suit. You can miss a spade fit unless you use this agreement. A deal where Gazzilli with this agreement would have been useful: [hv=d=w&w=saqxhakjtxxxdcjxx&e=skjtxxxxhxxdatcax]266|100|Scoring: imps[/hv] Bidding could go like this: 1♥-1♠ 2♣-2♦ (Wests playing strength is enough for game after a 1♠ response) 2NT-3♥ (East wants to ask about the Queen of hearts) 3♠-4NT 5♣-5♦ 6♥-7♠ (Two extra cards is hopefully as good as the Queen)