benlessard

We are missing KQJ42 in H. Seeing the 4 and the J could only make sense if H are Q42---KJ but with that why would advancer bid 5H ? So i guess opener having --- KQJ2 bunch of D A is the only possibility.

agree ♦Q is not on my radar.

thx how can i change the size in my link ?

Julian Foster caught this one. hes got 6 pts.

25min27 he tip the pass twice to make the bid close to the 1H overcall. Its quite clear. Again the theory is that wide spacing between the bids is extras and no spacing is minimum and medium spacing is medium hand. So he changed his mind here and its somewhat understandable. I wasnt convinced by this theory and kept some doubt about B-Z since the initial videos that ive saw werent clear but Kit post on BW is nearly as convincing as the one on F-N and F-S cases.

this hand was noticed by Tim Schumacher. http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34209 B19 --http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34209-- The theory is that no spacing = minimum hand while big spacing = extra values. "B" first think his hand is pretty good for a 1 level NV overcall plus he got Ax and ruffing power that goes with partner D suit. But later we see him reevalute probably thinking my partner showed a "bad" 2D so my hand isnt that good anymore.

My experience and conclusion is exactly the same as Zelandakh. Open 1NT with a 5M is a serious drawback that can be compensated if your 1M is always unbalanced. To add another balanced in S is just beurk for me. We play 1NT 12-14 with 5M332 and its by far the weakest part of my system, but at least when we open 1M its never 5332 so we can relay easily. Personally I think Kantar style is best for 15-17 1NT. Rarely open 1NT with 5S. Open 1NT mostly with 5H when its 16 pts. IE you are too strong to rebid 1NT but too weak to rebid 2NT. 1H-1S-1NT as 11-15 is annoying but not terrible especially if you play XYZ.

Do yourself a favor and watch Narcos. I rate this as being on par with The Wire S03 and Breaking Bad S01.

On BW i was among the first to criticize Boye ways of doing things. Here are some of my posts. --"Personally i respect those who work hard to get data to protect us against cheaters, I know its really hard and tedious work, however i have a minor complaint, I dont really like this hype building approach. Accusing someone of cheating is a serious thing, its not a music show or a Michael Bay movie. IMO it would have been better to say nothing and than just post the whole thing." --"Its the method that I have a problem with, i dont doubt the courage of the convictions. Im pretty sure Nick think the same way. Comments like … “Very soon there will come out mind boggling stuff that would even make a Hollywood movie surreal.” & “The Scandal in Buenos Aires (Reese-Schapiro) is peanuts compared to what's coming out.” Is hype stuff that I would expect for the Transformers 5 movie or for the Iphone 7. If you want to look cool-headed and professionnal just do it directly, make a clear statement rather than insinuations and give examples and arguments right from the start. Later you can add stuff to further strenghten your case.Saying damaging insinuations without showing proof or providing arguments is a faux pas on forums and a bad idea under the law. I still think that many Boye ♠T and ♠J and Ishmael hands where jokes compared to hand brought by David Gold and those by Thomas Bessis additionnal kudos for Thomas for clearly explaining the hands rather than just say "see its obvious" Boye hypothesis that he tought they showed club lenght was also laughable. So overall I was strongly critical of Boye approach and views however im not totally braindead I know that if he was willing to give away his title he must be 110% sure of his thing, I also know that if your a top level player that see cheaters bid and play for a long time you will know it beyond any reasonable doubt that they are cheating. However knowing something and proving something isnt the same thing especially when you need to convinced others. When somebody is sure of his things and want to make the bridge world a better place we have to give him credit. In retrospect I think Boye was the well needed taser shot to make the machine start so ive absolve him of all of his sins. I think he did well to stay a bit on the sideline once the machine was working. He also did well to stay away from the poker table especially if D Gold,T Bessis and Kit are playing. The combination of Boye to start the fire and Kit to finish the cooking was a nice combo imo. So even if i didnt like the way it started in retrospect I thing the institution of bridge are too rigid and passive and need a serious kick in the ass from time to time. The WBF had 9 days to get a strike team working on the Poland video but deep down many of us know they probably did nothing. I feel the last BB could easily have been saved but is going to end up in the trash like many others tournaments.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-videos-speak-balicki-zmudzinski/?cj=252745#c252745 Previously there was an hypothesis that was made by Cornelia Yoder that an open hand on the table with 5 fingers show a 5 card suit. Kit W did test this hypothesis and as I write this its 17 hands with no false positive that satisfy this condition. Even if we remove 3-4 hands that were before the hypothesis (you cannot rely on hands that were use to make your hypothesis) its really not looking good for B-Z and Poland. Exactly a 5 card suit is a 44% occurence. So 0.44x0.44x0.44 ... is like picking head and win 13-15 times in a row. Since the hypothesis is choosen out of an ensemble of hypothesis (but only one hypothesis was tested seriously) and there is some case that were before the hypothesis was made we cannot count all the 17 cases. But even 0.44 exp 13 is 1/43000.

Yeah your probably right since it didnt match the discussion here. I dont think my poll was confusing just that many people didnt read it completly. Anyway Im sure im not going to change my style here since that since its a popular style with my partners and we got success with it and im sure i wont be able to convinced you. Note that with strong hands we do double with 2(353) and 2344. However i think Ben Kristensen approach got a lot of sense. X---?? 2S any minimum 5 or 6S 3m = extras and natural 2NT he says min but i would use extras this allow to use the X as a 2.5 raise. this look pretty good. If you use 2S as could be 5 or 6S and responder cant pass 2S with S shortness you might as well use it more often as a waiting bid or strengt showing bid. What nobody discuss here is what happen when its 1345 vs ---6412/5323 or similar hand how is responder dealing with the 5 or 6 2S discussing methods and not specifying what you do with the critical cases is a bit lol. that why its important to play 2NT as artificial imo. Anyway its something that deserved to be sim.

I did post a poll on BW http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/style-question-for-1s-2h-x/ Most players seems to play that a rebid of 2S tend to show 6 so with 5(332) they pick a minor or bid 2NT (most players prefer natural but i prefer artificial). the advantage of 2S show 6 is that with 13(45) you can pass 2S. You can also raise 2S to 3S. The downside is that 23(53) are not good shapes to make a neg double. Also for me it matters if opener 2NT is natural or not. The gadget i like is replying as a MSS. Opener rebids after the X 2S= 6 sometimes 5422 2NT = prefer diamonds 3C = prefer clubs 3D = 5S+5D this allow responder to X with 2(32)6 and end in 3C vs a 5242 in short in this style the X is more minors oriented (6m or at least 54) but if you have a flat shape 2344/2353/2335 doubling is less attractive since you will often play 3m instead of 2S.

The main reason I like (1.) over (2.) is I don't want partner competing with 3♠ over 3♥ with any 6 card spade suit. I disagree about this. If partner is 61 he will fight to 3S anyway (possible he bid 4D with a 6142 ?). if hes 63 they wont compete. So we have to assume hes 62. Yes its only 18 trumps but the hand is pure so i see 17 LOTT trumps. Is both 3H and 3S making more likely than both 3H and 3S going down ? I think so. Even if its a close case the small pickup from +140 vs +50 and -100 vs -140 make up the difference.

I guess its a style question. With my regular partnership X is semi penality (show cards not short in H and 10pts+). But the standard way that ive learned is that X is minors or long D not good enough for 3D or a strong hand with unclear direction (planning to take another bid). With a 5233 I expect opener to rebid 3C. With a 5332 and xxx in H i expect 3D not 2S. In short i expect very good !S to bid 2!S with 5. In retrospect i can understand those who play X ask for a 4m and 2S is a catch-all rebid but i dont see how they can continue if opener rebid of 2S can be anything. You seems to play that X is often 2 trumps and a 5m but i see this as inferior to X is often 54 & 55 in the M.

huh ?

I bid 2S with these hands for about 10 years and ive never regretted it. A week ago I had. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-9377/ wich is imo a far worse hand for 2S. ♥K9xx instead of xxx is a huge difference and we were in imps. I was a bit worried when it went 3H-3S-AP but we won 7 imps since both 3H and 3S were making. Anyway I think my 2S was probably a mistake at imps but I strongly believe its the right call for the OP problem. Note that after the reopening X its imo a scrambling situration. 3D direct would show values while 2NT-3C-3D would be weak. What im wondering is what is the value range here. if 1D-(2S)-P-(P) X--(P)--?? here 3H directly would be 5-8 pts while 2NT(scrambling) followed by 3H would be weaker. However i dont know if the same range should apply when the suit is D since there is more hands unsuitable for a neg X.

Ok since your 1D show 4D you should really put the 15-22 with D in there too. I wouldnt put 5C+4M but would certainly put 4D+5C and 5D+4C 11-21 in 1D. 1M limited but 1D not limited is great, when 1M is limited you get 1M-4M auction but 1D-5D or 1D-3NT is rare anyway so the gain of a limited 1D are narrow. In term of consuming bidding space 1NT to 2H represent less than approx 18%. Having a 6 card suit weak of GF is about that number too. My estimation for bidding space is something like 40+,25+,15-,10-,5-,3-,2 this mean that in a ideal world where my partner are smart computers and my opps dont bid you want the 1D responses to above 40% you want 1H to be above 25% you want 1S to be under 15% 1NT to be under 10% etc... These are very conservatives number and 1D response should probably be closer to 50%. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/67919-relay-system-and-fibonacci/ However this post assume that opener always relay by bidding the next cheapest bid. IRL after 1C--(P)--2H--?? 4th seat is likely to pass and here opener is a lot likely to bid 2S while after 1C-(P)-1D-?? there is more chances of an overcall and opener is also likely to bid something else than 1H. So in a bi-directionnal model where both players can give information & opener is not forced to bid the cheapest bid the bidding space is even more precious so 1C---1NT/2C/2D/2H should be less than 18% while 1C---1D/1H/1S should be more than 80%. Waht do we do with 3 pts. 1C-1D = 4H or any 6-8 or any GF bal 1C-1H = 4S weak or GF 1C-1S = no M weak or GF so we get a lot of 1C-1D-1H-pass 1C-1H-1S pass 1C-1S-1NT-pass. If opener is very strong we have 2D available for near gf and GF bal and we have 3C to 3NT for true GF. There is 10 near gf for every true GF. ex 1C-1H-?? 1S is 15-20 1NT is 15-20 2C = 15-20 2D = any 21-23 hands or GF bal 2H = nat 15-20 2S = 19-21 with 4S 2NT = 21-22 withouth 4S rest is GF over 1C-1H-2D (near GF) we always use the same structure 2H= im broke 0-2 pts 2S = ive got some values and no shortness in a majors the rest is short in a major.

Its easy with 0-5 you pass and with 10+ responder keep bidding. Even if responder is weak opener will have 90% of his hands in the 15-20 range. 1C--1H--?? 1S= at least 3S 15-20 (responder will pass with 0-5 and keep bidding in trasnfer with 9+) 1NT 15-20 without 3S 2C = 15-20 with 6 clubs 2D = can be artificial (for us its near GF so its 23-24 bal or 9 tricks hands) 2H = 15-20 with H (for us its 15-17) 2S = S raise around 21 pts. 2NT= 21-22 without 4S 90% of opener rebids are going to be 1S/1NT/2C/2H/2S none of those bid need to be forcing. If responder happen to have a GF hands than 99% of opener response are going to be the non forcing one.

If 1C start at 15 than I assume you play a weak NT so 1D always show 4diamonds right ? (or maybe 4135?) once 1D is natural-ish 15-22 with primary D are better under 1D than under a strong clubs. It also free up 1C-1Y-2D to be artificial strong hand rather than 15-20 with diamonds. Shape before strenght is the key to a good bidding system. Strong hands are very easy to bid its the weak hand and the 6-8 that are tough. If the strogn club can be agressive (like 15 bal)I would rather play 1C-1D as artifical GF and all my other bid not GF than the other way around. But both these methods are bad its much better to show shape as much as possible. GF hand can always keep bidding on anyway. Losign the forcing pass is annoying but showign shape is better anyway. 1C-?? 1NT to 2H are 6 cards xfer that are weak or GF. So 2H can be Kxxxxx xx xxx xx or AQxxxx AJx xxx x I can tell you that these are our biggest imps winners. I can tell you that if you have the 2nd hand opener will bid 2S like 99% of the times and then the strong response can continue to describe (showing singleton clubs) I strongly believe that 2C and higher responses should always show 6 or at least a good 5 card suit since they are the hand that lead to competitive auctions. Using 2C and higher for balanced hand or 3 suiters or for hands with 4 card suits is imo awful. If i have a balanced GF I welcome overcalls i dont want to prevent them. What are you 1NT opening what are your 1D opening ?

I also want to add that the semi-positive bids are better in x-fer and as 2 ways bids. 1C-1D-1H (1D is any 6-8 or 4 hearts) 1H show 3 15-20 1S = sp without 4M (can be 6C 6-8) 1NT = 4or5S 6-8 2C = 6D 6-8 or H+D GF 2D = H inv or H+C GF 2H = 6S inv or H+S GF rest is C+H GF In short its not enough that you transfer on the 2nd round its important that you x-fer on the second round too, if your responder second round bids are not forcing you lose a lot of bidding space and wrongside the contract. Using a 2nd round 1NT as not forcing is normal but 2m and higher should be x-fer. My system aslo allow got multiple NT ranges 1C-1D-1NT = 17-18 bal without 4H 1C-1D-1H-1S= 15-16 not always balanced however 1C-1D-2H = 18-20 with 4H (bal or 4H+clubs) (if responder got 6-8 we are GF if hes got 4H we have a fit) 1C-1D-1M-bid 2NT= 19-20 (denies a 5 card suit) 1C-1D-2D = 23-24 (bal or any hand that is near GF) 1C-1D-2NT = 21-22 (bal denies 4H but may have 5 card suit) For sure having multiple 2 pts range NT is memory intensive but there is a lot less guessing, if partner show 17-18 you rarely need invitationnal bids.

You can look at my system here. This is a vert old version but the basic structure is good. http://fulldisclosure.azurewebsites.net/FD/main.php?vul=9&dealer=9&system=s2ftdw1w63o With 15 to 22 with primary D I strongly suggest to open 1D not 1C. I also suggest that your transfers are weak or GF. Its the semi-positives hand that are isolated in 1C-1D. One the reasons is that after a X fer that is weak or GF opener is more likely to make a simple acceptance. 1C---1H (S weak or GF) here opener is more likely to bid 1S or 1NT. If 1H is 6+ than opener will often jump to 2nt or bid 2S. The other reason is that SP hand can often compete later ex 1C--(P)---1D---(2H) P----(P)--2S its much easier to bid 2S as a semi positive than a 0-5 with good spades.

I was always a bit puzzled by F-N extraordinary overall results. For sure their card play is top notch, but their bidding was not top notch WC level in my book. Ive simply assumed that they were the best defenders in the world and were a part of an overall stronger team.

Pass>X>3S I dont consider it a close decision for me.

"A bad idea for one main reason. No matter what city you pick to play, you are going to have the same outrageous costs you complain about so spreading events around will do nothing except help the pros" If you want to make a 512 teams KO in one place all those 512 teams got to travel and its too many round to be practical. if you make 64 groups of 8 teams with only 1/2 winners per groups (city level) you go from 512 to 128 with no travel cost any city is able to make a 8 teams group. than you match up 4 cities (wich is often only 2 hours drive for a weekend event) Big cities will have no problem making 4x8 by itself so if you live in one of these you still didnt travel. You are now down to 32 or 16 and those players are for sure going to be will willing to pay for travle to go at a national. I can assure you that winning an even like this is (1 out of 512 teams) will be as hard as winning the spingold. For me travel expenses for going to a national to play round 1 & 2 is kind of pointless (since there is still club level players at this point) so these rounds can be done locally at little cost. small city round 1 and 2 or round robin with 75% elimination (2 days) big city round 3,4 and 5. National round 6 to 9. If youve survived for 5 rounds that its likely your are going to be willing to spend some hard earned cash.

I think there should be more multi steps events. EX You can make games at the city level in big clubs (but players cannot play all of those specials events they have to register in advance only to a certain amount). In short you cannot run after all the qualifications until your qualified. You only take the winners and 2nd places. You get about 12 pairs per city of 2 millions than you make a unit final and than you send some players to a special section of a national or regional. To make stronger events that are not spread on a full week you want a selection process not open events.