Rado

Welcome back to forums Orla, I have not see an ACOL description of "biddable" suit, but remember one old book(1970') for italian "Blue Club" system. There was mentioned that biddable suit must be minimum Q98x. Note that in modern bridge fits and shape are first priorities and most players bid whatever 4 cards occured (even 5432) especially when Major. Again it's up to partnership agreement whether to bypass very weak 4 carders or to bid them always. In my opinion the aggressive style (with 5 card majors opening) must be: bid all 4 Majors, bypass weak 4 minors when other reasonble bid exists. Best regards, Rado

Hi all, I'm totally with Steve (2over1) for recommending the tournament participants to write in profile brief description of their methods for the tourney they are playing. In addition we may start the description with: "TOURNEY PROFILE" in order to differentiate from standart profile used by the player (in case he forgot to change it). Anyway self-alerting must be welcomed since the rules of bridge just require it. Regards, Rado

Welcome Junyi to BBO forums, I've just briefly read your post abt 2/1 and found it quite same with the principles we apply here when playing 2/1 FG unless suit rebid. I've made a copy for thorough study of your sequences when more free time (I'm at work now LOL). By the way I think that forums are as much intersting as playing at BBO, big fun ! Junyi, please invite Greg to join the forums Best regards, Rado

Hi Lenze, Thinking in this direction one has to invent new sistem for bidding after opps eventual insufficient bid LOL. Also in standart CC forms must be added colums for: "what are your partnership agreements in case Opponents overcall with unsufficient bid" - real fun. In my opinion it's upto player's personal view of life whether to try to get profit of opps insufficient bid or to act as in normal auction. Regards, Rado

Hello Mike (Yzerman) and all other friends involved in this discussion, First I want deeply to thank Mike for his well proved qualifications about my "non-reading the posts", "anti Flannery position", "setting my mind against Flannery", "narrowminded"............ Hey Mike BBO forum is supposed to be for discussions not for war or blaming people in all sins. If you do not like opinions that not correspond to your own point of view, just do not read them. I've already received a translation of your post made by professional bridge translator, but I still have the feeling that you want to compare airplane with submarine. One last word: I had several very good results when played Flannery and the right hands came: 2Di-P-4SP-passed going down 2 with 5Cl vulnerable for the opps. Hope somebody will tell us who said: "There are not good and bad conventions - it's the players who use them in good or bad way" Regards, Rado

Hi Mike, After your marvelous praise of Flannery I'm not going to argue (all conventions are good in one way or another). I would like to point some discrepancies in the discussuion about 2 level openings: 1. comparing Flannery with Multi is just funny - one is opening values, the other is preemptive - this sounds like comparing airplaine with submarine. I may say for example: "Why I prefer to open 1NT (16-18) over 3Cl preempt" and to point many argument 2. The need for playing Flannery arises from forcing NT only, so we must include forcing NT in the discussion (playing semi-forsing NT with 2/1 FG unless suit rebid also working enough fine at many top partnerships, even without Flannery). 3. Stating that 54 preempt goes frequently for number is just "statement" - My experience is opposite. And let us never forget that the only way to avoid numbers is to pass every hand. And one final example: we may invent some openings 2He/Sp to show opening values with definite distribution for example 12-15 pts 5M with 4DI so after 1M-1NT forcing opener will rebid 2Cl more often giving the possibility of responder to bid his sign-off with long suit. We will be happy and do well when such hands come (1M-1NT, or 2He/So opening) Playing 2 Di/He/Sp all opening values as suggested will meet all your arguments for how good is Flannery - does it mean that we must run away from old standart weak 2Di,He/Sp? If we continue in same way why not change 3 level openings too? Hope to hear your comments soon best regards, Rado

Hi all friends, When trying to evaluate Pros and Cons 2Di=Multi we have to examine all 2 level openings structure and not just to oppose 2Di=multi against 2He/Sp natural weak. Also playing 2Di multi with some strong hadns types is optional - you may play it only with weak option, and partner will be free to preempt. If we take 2Di/He/Sp = weak 2's as some standart classics and compare with 2Di=multi, 2M=5m4+m as some modern trend it's easy to see the advantages of one and the other: Classic: PROS - suit is known, Partner may preempt immediattely, Opps must act immediately CONS - missing 5-4 preemts, missing possibility to handle some strong hands types Modern: PROS-preempting both on 6 and 5 cards Major Option to handle strong hands which otherwise difficult to bid in standart CONS - no Di preempt on level 2, "slower" preempt with 6card Major, Opps may have 2 chances to bid. Viewing the above every partnership may decide for themselves which style suits more their temper. I have played enough times both way ( as well at now play different 2 level openings with different partners) and I prefer Multi + 54 which seems to be a little bit better on long run, because knowing the exact length of the Major is crucial for high level decisions to be more often correct. Regards, Rado

Hello Steve and Ben, The hand shown has too much offence just to pass and hope for the best. There are 4 possible solutions (written in order of my personall priority): 1. Michaels (especially if playing weak or strong) 2. WJ 2Sp (in case more strength required for Michaels 3. 1Sp ( if weak 1st level overcalls are accepted) 4. pass when Vulnerable against Not When overcalling at level 1st with weak (7-9 pt) hand must have either good suit (min KQ10) or good defense (A+K or similar). Weak Jump overcall might do the job when playing Michaels with continuous range (therefore the min strenthg fo Michaels is about 8-9 good). Michaels (weak or strong) gives best chances for reacing game here, provided opps are silent. Passing first and then balancing (when had possibility to overcall at level 1st) in general shows weak suit and hand just under opening values. Best Regards, Rado

Hi all, It's sad to say that with the tournaments appeared and some unfair actions from some players like deliberately slowing the play when in bad contract. Proposal for using chess clock and to assign ave+ for fater pair and ave- for slower is resonable, but it's not enough to stop some persons from deliberatly slowing the play in order to get some result. For example after reaching bad contract DOUBLED going down for 800 or 1100 when only partscore board, then one may slow the play and get his ave- (which is 40 % at MP)instead of pure "ZERO" 0% if he is fair to play without purpose delay and to complete on time. Also after deliberate slow play the non-offender pair will receive only ave+ (60%) instead of well-deserved "TOP" (100 %). One better solution (really only half of the problem) will be to asigng AVE+ to faster pair and "ZERO" to slower. Then the pair in bad contract will try anyway to finish on time, hoping that at other table somebody might be in even worse position and to take some % of the boart insted of 0 % when being late. The uslimate solution is to have enough TD's and appeals Comittee who to determine the reasons for delay and the appropriate results but it's very difficult to apply in practical means. The above was discussed live at our Varna Bridge CLub today among 6-7 people BBO members (Including our National team too). Expecting Your opinions on "AVe+"/"Zero" proposal. Best regards, Rado

Hi Sylvain, 1. Partner seems to have monster minors 2 -suiter, something like: x, A, AKxxxx AQJxx, or -, Ax in majors or A, x , even Ax, - Partner failed to bid 4Cl or 4Di which would show a weaker hand (x, Ax, AKxxx, AQJxx for example) so I will bid my better minor on level 6 6Di with Di Qx and singl K Cl 6Cl with Di singl Q and Kx in Cl 2. After Di lead take Sp from hand and low He to J keeping all chances open (including ruffing finesse in Di for the 10th trick) After Cl Lead (which is stronger than Di) - A of L and AK 3rd He ruff maybe Best regards, Rado

Hi all, Seems this simple lead problem leads to enormous discussion including areas that do not fit with the real question: What will be your lead and why? In my view people must always try to solve such bidding/play problems as closer as possible to their live table experience/actions. Learning to think quick, learning to think just about what is needed is one of the main goals to become better player. Of course long thorough studies are also helpful, especcially when they point the logic of this and that, but again must have the aim to do the right things in normal time for a bridge hand. My advice for the less experienced players: when reading some problem try to answer 2 times - 1st (just for you of course) in about 1-2 minutes, 2nd - after complete study of all other possible situation/alternatives. Handling this way you will improve your table decisions more quickly and in near future many of your 1st and 2nd answers will be same. Regards, Rado

Thanks Ben Inquiry for his detailed study, As I mentioned earlier double squeeze line I've suggested first was my first opinion and if playing the board I certainly would play that line. After some discussion I thought simple squeeze was more %. Of course when we have enough time and computer to calculate all the chances it's normal to be found better % play (I've mentioned it on my first post). On the other hand when playing live one board has 7.5 minutes for bidding and play - so we may distinguish best practical line and best theory/calculation line:-)))))))) regards, Rado

Well Roland, First: I'm nor famous, nor expert, but I'm bulgarian, so you had 1/3 correct statement (not too bad % LOL) Second: 5-1 break is 14.5% 5-2 break is 30.5% (will go a little bit less when playing 1 or 2 rounds of trumps) Obviously playing on Di ruff is more dangerous than drawing trumps and relying on Sp break. Meanwhile discussing with Ron (The_Hog) and he convinced me that my line for double squeeze was less effective than simple Sp/He squeeze against any of the opps, so Draw trumps, Cash A of He, AK DI and the last trumps pitching 2 he from dummy seems better % Regards, Rado

Hi Roland, ruffing Di also deserves some merits, but imagine you tryed the Di ruff and got overruffed while Sp were breking 3-3 or 4-2. How would you go after for checking the results with you teammates? :-))) Rado

The 1Cl bidder has sure 4 tricks in addition to the solid 8 cards of his partner. Leading Di or Cl to establish partners King as second trick seems not so probable since declarer will play the Ace, draw trumps and draw the winners in the other minor. For me the lead is definitely Sp. low Sp looks attractive, but I personally would lead the A in case opps are short of 2 Aces :-)))))) regards, Rado

Hi all, Would you please quote some world top 100 pairs using "Moscito" or similar? thanks, Rado

Hi all, Normal play should be: draw 5 rounds of Trumps pitching 2 He from dummy, A Di, then 3 rounds of Sp and A He, the position is: Jx - x - - Q Kx if Sp were 5-1 (otherwise easy 13) now we have: 1. position for double squeeze (W-Sp, E-He, both in Di) 2. various simple squeezez now J Sp and pitching Q He if K did not appeared from East. The above is the routine line, maybe upon more careful study a better one might be found. Regards, Rado

May propose how this board will be bid at Varna, Bulgaria: 2NT................-......3Sp (CL transfer, FG) 4Cl(fit+good)..-......4NT (RKCB) 5Di(0 or 3).....-.......5Sp (grandslam try) 6NT(too much good).......- .......7Cl When played from the strong hand the grand is more than 61% (Sp 3-3, or QJ, or H finesse with trumps 2-2) + some more for squeeze when trumps 3-1 and Sp 4-2. Of course after 4NT might be different continuations, depending on 0314 responses or different grand slam tries, which also must lead to 7Cl. Note that it's crucial the Cl contract to be played by strong hand. Just for matchpoints simple 2NT-6NT also works :-) regards, Rado

In my view playing trap-pass : 1st level - yes 2nd level - maybe 3rd level - no Other responses: after 1st/2nd level overcall: DBL = 5+ take-out, 8+ others new suit at 1st level = 5+cards 5+points F1 non jump at 2nd level = 5+cards 5-8 NF 1Nt = 6-8 balanced, stopper jump suit= good 6 cards FG que = singleton/void FG after 3rd+ level overcall: DBL= FG take-out or better suit=natural FG Of course regular partnerships may introduce many, many other improvements, but above seems simple and works enough well Regards, Rado

Hi Pbleighton and Ben, About first example: 1C(strong)-1S-p-p-? depends wether we hade agree to trap-pass after our strong C is overcalled - if so then strong hand must reopen always. If pass shows only weak hand then reopening only when needed. About 2nd ex: 1C-P-1S-3C-? Here we have declared game forcing values and one 5+cards major suit. While Ben proposal is good and playable there is much to be said about reverse meaning of the bids: DBL = almost penalty with misfit Sp pass = cooperative DBL proposal, again with Sp misfit new suit = natural offensive hand without desire for penalizing opps fit=..as usual This exapmple shows another good idea: when overcalling/preempting after strong C and positive response, one must have pure hand (good suit) since it's easy to be penalized when right to and to be overbid when needed. Regards, Rado

Hi all Thanks Claus for usefull info n time zones. One Small correction: CET (Central European Time) does not include Sofia ( if you got your info from Windows built-in clock - there is a mistake LOL) Geographical Bulgarian time is GMT+2 and we use DST (Daylight saving time) so in summer our time is GMT+3. At www.timeanddate.com all info seems correct. Regards Rado

Hi all, Interesting example given. I want to ask all 4S bidders what will they prefer with same hand but 1 minor Ace less? I think then 4S is the normal bid, while with this monster DBL is more flexible. They are correct that posibble direct 5H bid after DBL may cause problems, but in real life such jumps are not so frequent. On the other hand our P may have as little as KJxxx in D when we have cold 6D and 6S. My general advise is that leaping to game after opps preempt to show very good 6+cards and not so much outside (about A+K outside when AKQ in the suit or a little bit more when suit is weaker). Of course all above must be discussed with regular P and to accept a common principle. Best regards, Rado

Hi all, Just to add one more view in favour of Walsh: when 4th hand overcalls or preemts our Major suit is already known when we play Walsh and not known when bidding "up the line" 1C-pass-1D-2S-? now it's harder to locate 4-4 H when our combine strength is abt 18-23 points while: 1C-pass-1H-2S ? here we have simple 3H= fit and abt min, with other bids at level 3 for stronger hands. When opps continue bidding by 3S or 4S the things go even worse when "up the line" biding. Anyway playing Walsh requires some additional agreements in other bidding sequences so my advise is to use it only with regular partners. Best regards, Rado

Hi Pbleighton, The instructions for rebiding 6 cards spades when other 4 cards suit are corect when the other suit is minor and the strength is abt 11-14. For stronger hands it's better to bid the minor anf after to bid 3S to show the strength and distribution of the hand. When holding 6S4+H it's always better to bid 2H first, the exception might be 6 very strong spades with 4 small hearts. Good description may be found in Mike Lawrance book abt 2/1 Best regards, Rado

Hi John (BJ), with 2-3 in majors the correct opening is: in lambda: 1Cl in Beznazwy: 1 in shorter Major, since there 1M opening shows 0-2 or 6+ cards in the Major bid. in Rozkladowy : 1Cl I've found somewhere (unfortunately cannot remmeber the internet site) one pdf file with brief descriptions of 20 different forsing pass systems from all over the world. If somebody is interested I may send the PDF file (which fortunately saved on my PC LOL) by e-mail. best regards, Rado