bluecalm

Standard way in Poland is to play dbl as t/o (so 3-3 majors guaranteed) and 2C as natural. This means this hand is a pass. This is regardless if you play: Which was once very popular way but felt out of fashion nowadays (people overcall 1NT with most hands which qualify) but I think it was very decent idea. Especially if you can come up with good use for 1NT and make the dbl more major oriented than standard one. This hand is very comfortable pass because it's almost always going to be: 1C p 1D p 1H and here you have perfect t/o double to hearts.

Meckwell treatment which I like: ~12-15hcp, any 4333, choice of games (so you are quickly in 3NT with 5332 opposite 4333). In Poland the most popular way is to play 3NT as 4M-1 splinter to have more space. I don't have much preference. It comes up rarely anyway.

I would assume forcing for everybody I play with. I don't have a view about what is better (forcing or constructive NF), intuitively forcing is more frequent and more useful though.

No, I forgot to mention 5+ clubs but put that in constraints as the very first thing.

I retract my comments about double from E as I blacked out temporarily and got the sequence mixed up (thinking East responded and not opened). E has easy pass. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Mixed feelings. Lauria-Versace and other Italians started doing it recently (presumably for the reason I mentioned) but I am not that convinced as 1D-2C is very cramped anyway. You may call the double aggressive, crazy or just silly... still it didn't contribute to bad score for EW and in fact opened the door for a good one.

5H but I think I am stretching already.

Interesting problem! Results of simulation with the following contraints: -W is 12-15hcp with 4-5 hearts, 3+clubs without 5-4/55majors -E is 11-15hcp, without 3 hearts, without 4spades, without 5diamonds and without 6-4 shape in minors Winning lead: spade: 329 (low is 329, A is 324) heart: 165 diamond: 323 (Ace, low is 204) club: 118 So I lead a spade.

100% E. I supsect MrAce looking for ammunition to convince his partner here as the hand is very easy and the blame obvious. You need a double to show strong hand (how else would you do that?). Having the information about strong hand without 6 decent spades 4S is obvious decision for E. Three more points: -how E passed 4H is beyond me. Double is again obvious with 3 good spades and significant extras -double from W is very aggressive and I wouldn't make it; W covered for his P's mistake but got shot twice so to speak -I think it's best to play that dbl from W shows 5 spades. With 4 spades and GF hand it's better to start with 2/1 not 1S but even without this agreement W is huge favorite to have 5 spades for this auction. I also think it's very interesting problem what to bid after dbl from E. I would probably go for 5D but I think 4S is real alternative and I am not confident at all which one is better. Seeing the result of the poll and the comments I am puzzled. I consider it abc beginner level problem tbh.

T/O is modern expert standard and I think much better treatment. Proceed with caution though as it used to be penalty for many people and you never know what local customs are. You can have 5323/5224/5314 or even 6322 with a weak suit and/or looking to find hearts. You are in big trouble with those hands (in 15+range) if t/o double is not available. Losing penalty isn't much of a problem, you can always pass and partner will be happy to re-open.

Here you go: vulnerable: o IMPs: 1.242 MPs: 0.639 vulnerable: NS IMPs: 1.732 MPs: 0.639 vulnerable: WE IMPs: 1.242 MPs: 0.639 vulnerable: WNES IMPs: 1.732 MPs: 0.639 The difference is huge and it's clear why: diamond partscore is much better than spade one as partner is max 4-3 in majors so he has 4+ diamonds quite often. If the choice was between playing 2S and 1N then 2S would be a winner (46.5% and -0.26imp for 1N) but additional option of signing off in 2D/3C tip the scale considerably. No, I am just comparing strategies of bidding 1N and 2S. While there are arguments for both in competitive auction I don't think it's clear which one have an edge. If they intervene after 1NT we can still bid 2S. If they bid something after 2S we have to be careful to not to go to 3S if partner often might have 3 on regular basis. Also to the point from previous post: If you only raise with perfect hands (ones with xx doubleton) like in the article from Weinstein linked above then still partner have 3 spades very often for 1NT and passing it with 5 spades is very bad (especially at matchpoints). It's difficult problem to solve. I think the best strategy is to bid 2C with 5 clubs and 1-(34)-5 after 1S especially in context of non-Walsh bidding but even when playing Walsh I think it's better to bid 2C and have 1N guarantee 2 cards. After 1D - 1S it's even tougher as now 1-4-4-4/1453 shapes have no other rebid. I did some simuls there too and concluded that bidding 2S is only better (marginally) with very strong suits but it's still close.

Of course not, as I provided example hand (perfect one for 3card raise) and 1S is bid regardless of suit quality. Again, I gave example hand: KQx Txxx AKxx xx. Raising with this hand is very bad if partner is in 6-10 range. Yeah, I just made two. I made many more in the past and I am confident about my conclusion. I am happy to do more if you have specific examples but in the end you will probably have to believe me or do research yourself. Yeah, you can do any strategy you like but there will always be concerns that it's not exactly what you have in mind. In the end you can believe me or any other person. I am sure I would win the argument (because I doubt there was anybody else in the world having that much time and as good tools for that as I have) if it came to it but that requires a lot of effort to cover all cases/make all points. The thing is I am not very motivated to debate it for two reasons: -I don't think it's close -I don't see any effort from 3card raisers to argue for their position -I see them losing in practice and top players moving away from 3 card raises That's why I offer my view with confidence level have in it. I think both are useful information. It's known that 1NT is one contract declarer does significantly better at in practice than in double dummy world so if anything there is bias in other direction.

When it comes to hand records/going through hands thing you will have to trust me as putting that argument in text form would require many hours of work. The thing about hurting slam bidding is obvious (you have more hand types to handle after 1m - 1M - 2M) When it comes to simulations, here are some to start: 1) S have KQ6 T943 AK65 43 N have 4spades, no 4hearts, balanced hand, 6-10hcp (below invite) Strategy of bidding 1N and then playing either there or 2D if N have 4+diamonds compared to playing 2S: vulnerable: o IMPs: 0.87 MPs: 0.587 vulnerable: NS IMPs: 1.202 MPs: 0.587 vulnerable: WE IMPs: 0.87 MPs: 0.587 vulnerable: WNES IMPs: 1.202 MPs: 0.587 bidding 1NT is on average 1imp/hand better 2) Same hand for S. N has any hand in 6-10hcp range with 4 spades without 4 hearts (might be unbalanced). The strategy of bidding 1NT and then signing off in 2D with 4+diamonds or in 3C with 6+clubs (4-x-y-6, assuming somewhat standard methods we can't sign off in 2C with that but we can in 3C) compared to just playing 2S: vulnerable: o IMPs: 0.88 MPs: 0.5775 vulnerable: NS IMPs: 1.211 MPs: 0.5775 vulnerable: WE IMPs: 0.88 MPs: 0.5775 vulnerable: WNES IMPs: 1.211 MPs: 0.5775 In general double dummy simulations are very close to practical play (http://www.rpbridge.net/9x29.htm) so I see it as strong argument. Going into invitational hands complicates matters but I think it's even worse for 3card raise there. Especially disastrous is playing in 3M compared to 2N/3m if responder has invitational hand. That shapely weak hands are worth a lot opposite 4card fit but much less opposite 3card one is another problem. I would be happy to have some discussion about it if you have some ideas for simulations serving as convincing argument for you. I did more of those in the past and I don't think it's close tbh.

Smolen is notoriously difficult to handle when it comes to slam bidding. There is a convention which helps with that a lot (and with 5-5 shape as welL): 1N 2C 2D 3D = asking for 3 card majors If you feel like doing something fancy you can also play that 4C is both majors very good hand (in the context) and 4D or 4H is a weak hand. This has advantage of finding about 3-2/3-3 shape in majors which is important for slams and disadvantage of losing some cuebids after high response. This way you have more room for investigating, you avoid 3N with 2245 opposite 5-5 in majors but you lose natural 3D which isn't really a problem as you can easily pack all that is needed in 3C and now free 3H/3S.

I did enough thinking about it to be confident in my conclusions: -bidding 2H with 4S is terrible bridge -3card raise with with 533-xx is imo bad but playable -supporting with 5431's (like 1345 after 1H) is probably a bit better than bidding 2m -3card raise with any other shape is terrible It's more common, maybe standard to support with 3 cards in America/Sayc world but there are a lot of very bad plays which are standard so don't worry about it. The best bidders in the world rarely support with 3 cards. Meckwell do it only with 5431's, Italians sometimes with perfect 533-xx's but my records show that this is at best break even for them and hurts slam investigation after a raise. Polish players do it very rarely, even 5431's are considered close here.

3C is automatic imo. People who don't bid that probably have little experience with artificial 2C here. Pass is almost always 6cards, 5 only with 0-1 spades or very strong suit and weak hand. In any case it's clear 3C. As to pass after 2C a lot depends on system played. If they open 1N with 15-17 5M332 so 2C is either 12-14 5(332) or natural then pass is a bit of a gamble (partner might have 5-5 or something) but usually he is balanced as opponents aren't going wild. I probably wouldn't pass but I don't think it's ridiculous.

I don't think it matters if it's Precision or 2/1. People always say that but their reasons are usually not convincing. The problem with opening is that you end up in game opposite 12pc. You end up in game opposite that in both systems as Precision players usually don't have any mechanism allowing them to cater for those 11-12 hands (Meckstroth Rodwell for example don't). I would open because most people I play with believe it's winning bridge and expect me to. I am not convinced I think it's close with spades as this is one suit difficult to preempt. I think it's style issue, very difficult to judge which style wins long term so maybe it's better to just do what you are more comfortable with. But if you play 15-17 NT you could end up in 26hcp 1NT if it goes 1S - 1N. It's easy to say "stop GF'ing with 12pc" but about all elite players do just that with some rare exceptions for 12hcp hands with singleton in partners suit. The reason is that there is no way to cater for those 11-12 hands unless you rebuild the whole system to allow it but then you can just as well open 10-15 or 9-15 even.

His simulations are done with assumption that 5M332 hands routinely opens 1N while mine are with the assumption they don't hence the difference.

If our plan is to bid 2C and pass every response it's -0.5imp/hand assuming they never bid and double dummy play. It would be better with 4-4 majors because then we can bid 2H after 2D and here we are in for disaster opposite 3325 and 2D on 4-3 diamonds won't be an improvement over 1N anyway.

I still think you guys are blundering by passing hands like the one I gave or even Kxx xx AJxx KTxx there. It's a pity we don't have a way o prove things in bridge and we can just exchange views/intuitions/experience. Imo it's really big one, like ~1.5imp mistake to pass there.

While it looks sensible I see one potential problem: Let's say we are playing cuebids: 1S - 2C 2S - 3S 1) 4C* - 4D 4H *-serious cue-bid 2) 4D - 4H* 4S *-clubs control Both those sequences mean: "I am serious but I need some extras from you as well". Now let's say we play negative cuebids and lack heart control: 3) 4H* - ??? *-lack of H control Here you don't have space to say: "I am serious but I don't have slam force: which you usually have playing cuebids so you need to go beyond game to find one or the other. Maybe I am not getting the convention though as it's first time I see it :)

The question is what they do when he play with Garozzo. Garozzo leads what all other Italians do: 3rd from bad suits, low from good ones. From some hand records I saw he does that on BBO as well. The question is what does he do while playing with JEC and if he plays the same way JEC does :)

I think he is wrong. He used C control argument: Which is solved by agreement I mentioned (that 4H is C cue after 4D) which is used by Italian/Bulgarian and now most young Polish pairs as well. While it's nice that you aren't too concerned about opponents beating you in game when you are serious it may well happen that you are both minimum and gave them information for free: 1S - 2C 2S - 3S 4D* - 4S *-non serious cuebid which you make when playing serious 3NT Both sides are minimum, the information was given for free to opponents. So yeah, I think he is just wrong here.

They have "attitude" in all their convention cards but they actually lead 3rd one from weak suits and the lowest one from good suits. I know that because I saw a lot of vugraph hands. I would never guess that from "attitude" description.

Right! One more reason for not doubling: sometimes they make while it wouldn't be so easy without a double.

The Italians lead attitude right ? Then 7 denies Ks unless it's exactly KT87 while without K it could be T87+/987+; T97+ I think leads T in their style. I am not sure how he is playing with JEC though. KdQd is about as likely as stiff Kd while spades are probably KQ on the right (way more combinations without Ks against one with Ks). That means playing an ace and is right more often than not imo. All this assuming he is playing with JEC the same way the Italians play among themselves.