bluecalm

In 3rd opps are bidding NFB not you. You overcalled and now you are in balanced seat. Do play limited openings or standard ?

What's your/best agreement here ?: 1) 2C* - 2H pass pass 2N = ? *= 11-14 6+c or 5c-4M 2) 1H 2C 2H pass pass 2N = ? 3) 1S 2C 2H* pass pass 2N = ? *=negative free bid Lessons on punctuation are appreciated too. How do I add question mark and a colon to initial statement to make sense of it ? :)

I like this vertigo idea. It seems Balicki-Zmudzinski play that from direct seat (and multi landy from balance position). I didn't know the idea nor continuations. Thanks.

1H - (1N) - ???? 2C = 5 clubs + 5 spades 2D = 5 diamonds + 5 spades 1S - 1N - ???? 2C = 5 clubs + 5 hearts 2D = 5 diamonds + 5 hearts They show 5-8hcp approximately (stronger hands double) Those could be modified to 4+m - 5M to be more aggressive. My first intuition is that those are cool but not very good as they are infrequent and bidding natural 6 card minor at 2 level is not total waste (the argument for the convention is that hands with 5 spades are much more important and with 6m you could either jump to 3 level or maybe be better off passing anyway). On the other hand one of the best pairs in history of bridge played that way. So... what do you think ? Any other thoughts about showing spades in: 1H - (1N) - ? sequence ?

Out of 12 pairs in 2011 Bermuda Bowl semi-finals 11 of them plays 2C as majors (and one use 2H as majors). It's safe assumption that all of them played more bridge and at higher level than you and still weren't convinced. Why should we be then ? 2C majors is the only thing I really want to have vs 1NT. If other bids are natural, multi, two suiters or w/e doesn't concern me that much.

Not really. We could well have 4 hearts and 4H bidder 7 of them. It's not that unlikely from partner's side, especially if he is looking at heart void. I think I bid 5♠. I think dbl will be passed or taken out to minor too often with hands like 3-0-5-5.

I think club lead is the best. In general leading short suits is better than leading long suits against suit contracts. One of the thing "experts" got wrong for a long time. I am not saying switch is bad but it could definitely lose. For one thing declarer could have AKx. Afterall he bid 4S, it seems partner doesn't have that many points. The chances are I mistyped the spots :)

Yeah 6♣ I remember JL made the whole thread some time ago praising his opponent's courage after bid like that !

I like to play: dbl = exactly 4 spades 1S = 5+spades 1N = nat 2C = NFB 2D = nat, weak 2H = inv+ with diamonds support 2S = weak, 6cards 2N = nat 3C = GF, nat 3D = pre 3H = please bid 3NT But that's probably too simple for all of you transfer addicts :)

Ok, I played a 3 as attitude and partner read it as such and continued clubs. Declarer had: AQxxx Ax x 87xxx and hearts needed to be opened to prevent -620. I had: x Qxxx AKxxx Q73 I think his play was good and there wasn't much we could do. I am guess I am just result oriented after letting this ridiculous game make :)

I don't think it is. It's argument for some solution to problems which are now solved in very inneficient way. Old Polish solution is to bid 2N which is multimeaning and game forcing (either 5-4 GF or one suited GF). This is not perfect but at least clear and let the jumps be what they should be: 5-5 hands. Other solution is to place many strong hands in multimeaning 2C rebid (Gazilli and similar) which might be very simple or very complicated depending on how you make it. Some other solution are transfers for example but those are a bit complicated. The problem with "standard" is that in effect there is very inefficient artificial gadget: jump to 3m which means: 1H - 1S 3D = either 5+-5+ or 5-4/6-4 or one suited and clubs better than diamonds 3D = either 5+-5+ or 5-4/6-4 or one suited and diamonds better than clubs This is obviously very bad design. Why is it promoted as "standard" and why it's called "natural bidding" instead of what it really is beyond me really. For some reason though this illogical system is taught to beginners and intermediate players just because some guys in the past who didn't have much clue about bidding thought it's good way to play and couldn't conceive of better solutions. If you really like standard structure you could at least agree that all one suited GF's go to 3C and 3D is normal and natural. Then introduce some kind of relay after 3C and maybe it's playable somehow.

Yeah 9 tricks, sorry. The point is that you have a hand which want to bid one suited GF an there is no such bid in sayc or 2/1. I didn't. BBO filter did for me :) How I feel about it: There is something very wrong with teaching bridge. People are taught inferior illogical, hard to apply stupid system in the name of "standard" or "natural". Then they are faced with impossible problems like the hand given. Then when they come up with logical simple solution: "let's open 2C at least we are in GF auction now so we can exchange some information instead of jump rebidding 3card suits" they are told the hand "doesn't meet standards" for 2C opener. People are taught "natural" but when: 1H- 1S 3D comes up they are told they shouldn't raise with support lightly because hey, that could be 3 cards (or 1 card...) because some 'experts' said so.

Didn't you notice it's "unplayable system discussion" forum ? :) On serious note, assuming 3D is normal, let's say 4+cards (or even 5+) I wonder if that hand isn't too strong for 4D. If I had like: Axxxx x Jxx xxxx I would bid 4D too presumably ? I think we need to make some distinction between weak and better hands at this point. I think 4D should be minimum hand with support and lack of good stopper in 4th suit and 4C should be club cuebid setting diamonds as trumps and decent hand. Now if this one qualifies is another matter (maybe it doesn't) but it would be interesting to arrive at some general guidelines. Also what kind of hand bids direct 5d here ? I mean we really need to get rid of that. This is awful terrible unplayable and confusing system which nobody very good at bridge play but "teachers" keep shoving down B/I's throats. This philosophy of "not opening 2C if you have other choices" and then manufacturing reverses with 2 cards or jumpshifts on 3 cards is total nonsense. It's inferior, it's confusing it's harmful to people who are learning this game and try to understand it. You have 10 tricks in hand, you open 2C how hard is that ? What kind of convulated thinking is that to open this 1H just to have a chance to jump rebid your Axx next round ? I mean what the *****.

I play "Woolsey" with mose people and multi-landy with the other part. I love it. I am undecided as to penalty double, I tend to like it and playing is as 15+ with at least 3-3 majors or some very strong one suited hand. You could also put strong two suiters 5M-5m to 2D if you don't want your 2M bid to be passed. I know several very good players want to have 2M natural after 1NT but I don't get why. It makes you play from the wrong hand 100% of the time (while 2D gives you a chance right side as well as pass 2D sometimes) and make it impossible to effectively compete with 5M-4+m two suiter. What I don't like about Meckwell and BZ defense is that you don't have one bid to show majors which imo is the most important tool in the box against 1nt. It's real shame if ACBL doesn't allow multi-landy/Woolsey defenses as they're the most popular defenses to 1NT in top-level bridge as well as standard among amateur players in some parts of the world (like Poland).

It's difficult to rank that many conventions without experience of playing them unless they are completely silly (like Capp). What is worthwhile to add is multi-landy with double showing 5m-4M which I believe is called Woolsey sometimes.

I saw this solution by Krzysztof Martens: 1NT - 2S - ??? 2N = lebensoshl, signoff in any suit or GF with 4OM 3C = diamonds, invite+ 3D = hearts, invite+ 3H = ask for stopper without 4OM 3S = clubs, GF Am I getting it right that this one allows you to distinguish between signoff/invite/GF while both lebensohl and rubensohl only allows you to choose 2 of those 3 ? I like this explanation. Transfers make much more sense than lebensohl to me.

I've read it but I saw many pairs playing different rules. For example Zia-Rosenberg play: "2-3-4 card suit with least amount of A's/K's/Q's otherwise back to suit preference". I just wonder what people play here. I gave simple attitude when playing that hand but it was without much agreements. My instinct is that count is "standard" but I prefer to ask just ask people :) ALso I suspect this is not obvious shift situation for everybody, even for pairs sometimes employing the signal. I mean, AKQ would be obvious OS situation but AK ?

I am sorry for unclear question. I mean: "what is the best agreement here?" I am interested in details. What is "good card" is it A or K ? or could be Q ? What would small club show ? Just lack of good heart card ? Why hearts and not diamonds ? etc.

[hv=pc=n&w=sk83hkjt5dqt85cjt&n=sjt94h763dj72cak9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] You lead J♣ (good/bad ?). Declarer plays the A, partner plays: a)7 of clubs b)3 of clubs Declarer plays a 2♣ in both cases. Now declarer plays J♠, partner plays the 5 declarer plays the Q and you win it (let's say, even if it's not the best). What should partner's club signal mean ? What do you play now ? (it's matchpoints and random opps, but please comment if it changes at imps and/or vs good opps)

It depends who you are playing with. With one of my partners I would pass and hope it's only down 3 :)

Splintering ? I mean.. we don't have established fit yet, partner could be 4-3 in majors, right ?

So what do you bid if it goes: 1D - p - 1S - p ? As to OP, I like 3C now. I think 3H should be more distributional and weaker, like 6-4 13-15hcp or something.

I stand corrected on terminology. What I really meant is non-forcing 1NT. Where I live bidding on 3card suit is not only not normal but would be considered a psyche. People either play non-forcing or forcing and then 2♣ contain all 5-3-3-2's. Nobody ever rebids 2D with 5-3-3-2, nobody ever rebids 2C on 5-3-2-3 unless it's conventional and it's always alerted. The only exception to this rule is 1H - 1N - 2D on 4-5-3-1 which is kinda standard but even then many people alert. This is 1NT top Polish and Italian pairs play and this is what I meant. I believe native English speakers/players here on bbo forum and I will call in "non-forcing" 1NT.

I remember we had this discussion back in the day. I was unconvinced back then and since then I learnt a lot about systems of the best pairs in the world and I remain on my position. 2S should be weak and to play. Playing it as wide ranging sucks. It's the most likely partial we have, I am eating my cards (KQTxx xx xxxx xx) if partner is forced to bid after 2S. As to the problem I think 4C set clubs as trumps and 4H is cuebid so not passable.

good bad 3nt will split 11-22 hands with all possible shapes into 2 ranges; helpful for sure but won't solve your problems; some definition must came earlier. One way is to play 2H/2S as reverses other is to always bid 2D with 5+diamonds but that one probably require heavy artificial scheme to untangle. Not really. 1D - 2C 2H - 3H 3S/4C/4D are cuebids here. 2NT already announced 12-14balanced hand so there is no other sense for those bids. This way you split 12-14 futher into hopeless slam hands (by omitting cuebids) and decent+ by bidding cuebid. This way responder will know not only precise point range but something more, you could never hope for such precision in you scheme.