bluecalm

Yeah this digging through hands as I call it is quite time-consuming. I did a lot of it in the past. That's why I have so strong opinion about puppet/transfers to 3N and quite strong opinion about this one too (undermined only slightly by Versace constantly staymaning on 4-3-3-3's).

Sometimes 4M is much better than 3N facing 15-17 balanced with your 4M with 4-3-3-3 it never is. I consider staymaning on such hands a mistake but somehow top Italians usually stayman and as I think they are by far the best bidders in the world who never open 1N with 5M-3-3-2 and very rarely with other off-shape hands some little doubts remain in my mind.

Yep, this is even worse than puppet stayman or 3S as transfer to 3N... Just joking... I think Mikeh nailed it :)

Well.. relays at some point, sure but initial bidding could be natural more or less. Here is outline of very good system (used by top Italian pairs): 1S - 2C -2D - 4+diamonds, any strength/shape -2H - 5+-4+majors -2S - either 12-14 any or 12-21 with 6 spades -2N - 15+ 5-(3-3-2) -3C - exactly 4clubs (then 3D is relay for shortness) -3D - 5S-5C extras -3H - 7+spades (and I am not sure but I think very strong hands don't go here) -3S - 5spades-5clubs - minimimum 1S - 2C 2S - 2N and now: -3C = exactly 4 clubs (then relay for shortness) -3D = exactly 3 clubs (then relay for 6th spade) -3H - 6+spades, extras -3S - 6spades, minimum -3N - 5-3-3-2 exactly 1S - 2C 2H - here there are two relays; 2S with spade support and 2N without it; I can dig up continuations if you are interested; similar scheme is used after 2D One type of hand which I was unable to reverse engineer is 6S-4C hand. I think it goes above 3N after 3D relay so there should be some restraints as to what hands could bid that. Maybe: 1S - 2C 2S - 2N 3C (or 3C directly) and here maybe 3H should just ask about 6th spade and 3D for shape ready to go to 4th level if opener is 6-4. 1S - 2D here the biddign is very similar to 1S - 2C.

Also 3N makes more often in real life than double dummy suggest while 4M doesn't (at least not that often). This is because 1st lead vs 3N very often let the contract make. I can't prove that but I did a lot of simulations and a lot of digging through the hands to be confident about it. EDIT: thinking about it I could pull vugraph hands for which I have dd resutls calculated and compare how often 3N make comparing to dd and how often 4M makes comparing to dd if opening was 1N. I will do that later, should be interesting.

Meh... maybe I was in bad mood when I was reading it but I really didn't like it. Zia's "Bridge my Way" was much more motivating entertaining imo when are with this kind of books. "Countdown to Better Bridge" by Kelsey and "How to read you opponent's cards" were 2 books which made me fell in love with the game. Granted i had some bridge experience when I read those (playing with high school friends) and wasn't total novice. Those can be difficult if you just know the rules but they will show you how beautiful this game is.

I am amazed how bad job ACBL is doing presenting Vanderbilt results. I mean, here in Poland, small country somewhere in Europe with no money in bridge what so over we have live scores, travellers, histories of every pair etc. from most regional tournaments let alone national available on the internet live. You can browse through protocols and see who played what etc. many months after tournaments. You can see an example from recent Polish Woman CHampionship: Results: http://www.pzbs.pl/wyniki/turnieje/2011/mpkobiet/mpk.html Overall: http://www.pzbs.pl/wyniki/turnieje/2011/mpkobiet/W-mpk.html (you can click pairs number to see that pair history and navigate to every board) This is standard here and about every TD is capable of running this system to make those available on the internet live during tournament or with some delay (depending on circumstances) And what we have in ACBL world ? I click ACBL website, finding anything about one of the biggest tournament in the world is hard, it's like the tournament is not played at all. What about travellers ? Nickell won in 3 sets... Normally I would be able to see the hands and scores to see how the big pick ups looked - not in America. This is to be honest pathetic in this day and age for the biggest bridge organization and the most prestigious tournament. Same with recent Lall-Hamman score. What about travellers, histories ? I and many bridge fans would be delighted to see on what hands they made good results that would be great material for discussion usually it's one click away if I want results from some regional one session tournament here. What about the biggest 3 day matchpoint game in America ? Nothing. Thanks for Bridge Winners crew for trying to make up for that at least presenting imp scores.

They key here is "people not understanding the terminology" and "as far I am concerned". It's possible that your understanding is wrong or opposite to what other people understands. Language is defined by usage and as very significant group of people use the term "semi-forcing" to describe what you mean by "non-forcing" you displays lack of understanding here imo. MickyB alread said that. Traditionally, at least in some areas, "non-forcing" meant 1NT which didn't contains inviting hands as those went to 2/1 as in sayc so "non forcing" was 5-9(10) and "semi-forcing" was 5-11. Meh.. as noted most elite players play "non-forcing" 1NT and don't seem to suffer from it so I wouldn't be too concerned with missing games but I kinda like forcing 1NT, especially at matchpoints but for diffrent reasons (better partials).

I would be careful with that. Many very good players call 1NT up to 11 "semi-forcing" even if 2m promises four. I have no idea which name is correct (I had my own thread about the topic some time ago) but here you are just pushing your understanding of it. I think playing that 2m could be 3cards is the worse possible agreement here. It's way better to bid 2C on all 5-3-3-2's and have 2D as 4+cards. This is one school. The other (and I think better) is to have your invites in 2N/3C/3D somewhere. Also most elite players play 1NT which you call "non-forcing". All Italian pairs, Meckwell and Balicki-Zmudzinski to start with and out of those only Meckwell bid 1N with 3card limit raise.

I've read it long time ago so I am not sure but I don't recall it having anything about robot leads. Very interesting book imo, even if I don't like every idea they talk about there it make you think about meanings of signals a lot and a lot of this stuff is applicable to more standard signalling methods.

Yeah, link two is cool. If it was more competitive (time, best scores etc) it would be real fun even for people who don't have much trouble keeping track of patterns. As to counting... Beside all the links there was this old bridge book: http://www.amazon.com/Countdown-Better-Bridge-Walter-Kelsey/dp/0910791228 which was 2nd book I ever read about bridge and which got me hooked on the game. I think it really open your eyes, highly reccomended (along with "reading opponents cards" by Lawrence which has many more tips about what and how to count).

I think partner would often double with some 3-1-6-3 (having already bid non forcing 2D he will not be afraid of us going crazy) so chances for him being 2-1-6-4 increased and opposite that hand being in 2S will be a disaster (and partner has no reason to remove our 2S). Double will land us in 3D most of the time and that's another thing we don't want. So it seems like clear pass to me.

I don't think it's true if combined strength is in 29+ range. I first read about it Woolsey's "matchpoints" and my (very limited) experience suggests it's true. I can try running some simulations later to give stronger argument for the case.

As someone who is basically forced to play 2♦ multi and 2H/2S as weak two suiters because 99% of people here play either that or Wilkosz + weak two bids I miss simple 2d = weak in diamonds. If I were playing standard I would prefer playing 2D as 18-19 bal and 2N as 20-21 bal as top Italians do because not having 18-19 balanced in 1m is huge bonus if bidding get competitive because then every double/other display of strength is unbalanced with 5+minor suit. Most people here play 2N as minors and imo this is not very good. You rarely cause much harm to opponents who have 2 operational bids available (3C/3D) as well as direct and delayed double but you make the play much easier for them. Not recommended imo.

My instinct is to try to collect small spades via heart and club ruffs. I see not much reason to reject club finesse either so I take K♥ and finesse clubs if that holds I will be able to take tricks with 2 small spades in round suit ruffs which should be enough even if diamonds are 4-1 somehow. Just in case clubs will be first suit to ruff in. I can postpone ruffin heart until I ge more information about distribution.

Those are or valid points but on the other hand: 1S - 2D 2H - 2N 3S - ? It's very difficult to have sensible auction here if opener could be anywhere in 11-21 range. You only have a cuebid and 4S available here if you want to play in 6-2 spades and this is too little to be able to judge slams reasonably and not to end up at 5 level too often.

In Poland the standard was 1M - x - 1NT = good raise but nowadays "everybody" plays transfers so: 1N = clubs 2C = diamonds 2D = hearts 2M-1 = good raise 2M= pre raise

As a related point: in my country most people play drury in competition too: 1D - 1S - p - 2C = drury which has advantage of being able to cope with very light style of bidding (you have 2D for more or less normal 10-13 1S and 2s for total junk) but has disadvantage of burrying clubs. I don't like it, but somehow it's standard here and I play it with everybody.

Yeah, I understand that. I mean, you probably missed the spot by fractions of %'s which were probably donated in simple cardplay mistakes somewhere along the way :) Those are interesting hands though I just think not getting them "right" is normal playing luck more or less and they are not the best place to look for errors/improvements. I think S would correct 4D to 4S, we haven't climbed to 4 level to play in a partscore after all, both contracts looks down 1 though.

I think you don't understand what robot leads are. They are not carding agreement. They are agreement about what suit you choose to lead from. Anyway, I think you are just a troll because of this: I've never asserted anything like that. Anyway I offered helpful advice which is to forget about silly idea of robot leads because no good player ever think like that. If I wasn't right on this one I would be ridiculous to state this as a fact but alas I am right which you can easy verify by asking good players you come across. Ok I am done with responding to your posts.

1) I bid 3N and prefer to be in 3N because they usually lead a ♥. 2) Imo you can't do anything here. I would probably go minus by bidding 4D with N's hand. 3) I have no idea. Are you sure there aren't easier hands to find missing fractions of %'s on ? :)

Btw, could someone please link to results/hands/travellers etc. ? I have problems navigating ACBL website.

I didn't quarrel tbh. I just stated facts. This is too obvious to discuss in expert forum. Anyway I am done with it, the concept is ridiculous so have it for yourself.

Even Lauria-Versace who didn't play drury for long time have given up. You will struggle to find one good player who don't play it in standardish 1M openings context.

Congratulations :) Now make it to vugraphed stages of main event please...