bluecalm

So I digged in vugraph arcvhives a bit deeper and I found Versace - Gubilo hand where in fact they bid: 1S 1N 2C 2D 3C 3D 4C with 5-5 majors So it looks like only hands with could handle 5-5's and 6-4 should bid 3D. That leaves us with 3 ways to break the relay: 3H, 3S, 3N 3N is obvious, just stoppers in minors and leave me here please. 3H and 3S... I think there are two reasonable ways. One is to show a minor which we don't want to play opposite shortness (3H = clubs 3S = diamonds) or 2nd is to to bid 3S if we want to be in spade game opposite 6th spade and 3H as 4 hearts and strong. I think 2nd way must be better as 3H bid, especially opposite 19+ could be very helpful. Fortunately no matter what we choose here we are miles ahead of standard in every case but with those 5-5/6-4 hands we are behind Han's structure.

Ok guys, if this is too obvious, what about: 1♥ pass 3♥ pass pass dbl = ? Btw, I doubled with KJT8x of trumps on previous one and I still stand for penalty but I can see argument for playing this as t/o and I don't consider it ridiculous at all.

I have opinion of two world champions, granted in some toy categories (juniors and univ) but still who think it's for takeout so don't be so fast to judge... Well... what about: KQxx - KJTxx JT9x, aren't you tempted to fight ? :)

Damn I am sorry :) Edited OP to add the bidding :)

1♥ - pass - 4♥ - pass pass dbl Please no "in pick-up partnership this is...", this is serious question about the best agreement, not about practical choices when you don't know and have to guess. So... ? :)

Jacoby 2NT doesn't make much sense as it's high bid so it should be used for very specific hands. Bidding it with most GF hands with 4 card support without 5carder on the side is obviously bad design. That being said if you have free 2NT bid in your system you could probably make good use of it if you pack specific hands there and develop good structure after it. I think invites with 4 card support should be in 2NT as it's difficult to pack them anywhere else. Now if you add some GF's there or not is your choice. Btw, in my recent favourite system (LV) 2NT is either 10-11 3 card support invite or 7-9hcp with 4 card support (below invite).

I would expect most people wanting to play it as minors but I am not sure if just natural to play isn't better option, especially at matchpoints. The more I think about such situations the more I want to get rid of lebensohls, good/bad's 2NT or t/o for minors and just play 2NT natural in as many auctions as possible.

Heh, I am happy this is what my reversed engineered structure above shows :) One more thing I've noticed that while they play: 1M - 1S/1N 3C as strong, they raise with weak hands for example: 1S - 1N 3D - 4D with 95 A7532 985 T87 in recent Spingold semifinal which make me wonder if it's possible to play jumps as 16+ having weak respondes 3S/4D and show GF by 3rd suit or 3NT. I think that might be unplayable though because of skipping 3nt with weakish hand opposite monster.

Why would he tackle diamonds before spades ? Spades are his suit, natural play is to play them, playing diamonds could be -1/-2 in no time if A♦ is off.

Damn I really hope this thread won't die and someone chimes in with: "We played against LV and they told us what they do with 5-5" :) I have some more questions regarding their system (which is truly awesome). C'mon guys :) I kinda like Han's structure but I think I like LV's more (even if I improvise some relay breaking to deal with 5-5majors hands) because showing those stiffs is really useful in solving 4M/3N/5m dillema. Funny that every link has different version of that, here is one more: http://www.pescarabridge.it/sistema_di_fulvio_fantoni.htm but I want to know what "the pros" play ! It really looks like precision is gaining momentum. 2 out of 3 pairs in BB winning Netherlands squad, more and more US pairs. Soon it will be only Italian pairs defending 11-22 openings at the highest level and just when I started to like them...

I think 4♠ is winning bid opposite reasonably sound 2S (which means always 6 cards and no KJTxxx and out or stuff like that). Even if it doesn't make 50% of the time which it might they might compete or we might steal their 130 in 4♦. I am glad you posted it because I would never consider 4S but once forced to think about it (ie. deal hands and looks at many of them) I can now see the light :)

As Glen posted. Then relay is used to show 6S-4C/D and range 16-18 or 19+ They always open 1M with that shape (which is kinda interesting as it forces them to game with 15 opposite 8 every time but I guess they declarer well...) Bocchi - Duboin played that 2♥ is 5S-3+H, 16+; 2S is 5S-4+C 11-15; 2NT is transfer to 5S-4+C and they relay for rest, 3C is 5S-4D or 5S-5D and relay for rest, 3H is 6S-3H, 3S is 6+S without 3H. The problem here is that it's useful to have 2♥ as the weak bid (you need one 2H or 2S). First it makes the structure almost completely symmetrical with 1H - 1N where 2H has to be used as weak, second it allows you pass 2H with say: x-JT8xxx-AKx-Jxx or even 1-5-4-3. Ok here is what I have from my reverse engineering effort: (I will call ranges: 16-18 and 19+ but in practice they often bid as 15-17 and 18+) 1S - 1N 2C - 2D (any 8+) 2H - all weak hands (so 5S-4+C, 11-15hcp) 2S - 19+, 2N R: 3C - 5-4+ majors 3D - 5-3-(1-4) 3H - 5+S-3H (next 3S asks for 6th spade) 3S - 5-2-4-2 3N - 5-2-2-4 2N - max 2 hearts, 3C®: 3D - 5-1-(3-4) 19+ 3H - 5+s, one-suited (then 3S asks for 6th spade and I guess opener could cuebid with stronger hand) 3S - 5-1-4-3 16-18 3N - 5-1-3-4 16-18 3C - 5-4majors, 16-18 and 3D relay for shortness 3D = 5-3-(4-1) 16-18 3H = 16-18 5+S-3H 3S = 5-2-4-2 16-18 3N = 5-2-2-4 16-18 As you can see it's tightly packed. I think all of those bids came up but sometimes there was no alert on vugraph so I might have guessed wrongly what relay really is but from general logic of the system it looks to me that's the structure. 5-4-2-2 bids all came up explained as such as did one suited with/without 3H. Unfortunately the only 5-5 hands in 16-17 range which came up on vugraph had stiff honor somewhere and they treated it as 5-4-2-2. So problematic hands are: 5-5 majors 16-18, 19+ 6-4 majors 16-18 and 19+ 5-5 spades+minor exactly 16-17 I guess first two are in 3C (direct or after 2S) and then maybe somehow responder doesn't relay for shortness if he doesn't want to hear 4 level response ? I have no idea, not enough hands on vugraph :) Btw: 1S - 1N 3S - is 14-16 distributional invite (mosto of the time 7+spades) and: 1S - 1N 3H is again 14-16 distributional invite but this time with 3H. That leaves us with the last free sequence: 1S - 1N 3N which I guess is 19-21 exacactly 5-2-3-3 which somehow didn't open 2NT as that's the only non 5-5/6-4 shape not represented in structure above.

So there are two ideas in the sequence: 1S - 1NT 2C* - 2D** * - 11-15nat or 16+any ** - 8+, relay One is that 2S is now weak and strong hands has 2H and higher bid at their disposal. 2nd idea is that 2H is weak and strong hands start with 2S. With the 1st one it's easy to pack all the shapes including 5-5's and I am familiar with such scheme from Bocchi-Duboin system. 2nd scheme has advantage of being able to pass 2H with hearts but packing up shapes is difficult. I pulled all vugraph hands bid by Lauria-Versace in the sequence but I still can't see how they handle 5-5 hands in 16-17 range (or 5-5 majors in 16-21 range). They have ways to bid every 5-4-3-1 and every 5-4-2-2 in either 16-18 or 19-21 ranges but there just isn't enough space for 5-5's. For example: 1S - 1N 2C - 2D 3C = 5-4 majors, 16-18 3D = relay and now they show 5-4-3-1/5-4-1-3/5-4-2-2 but going above 3nt with 5-5 might not be the best idea. Maybe responder doesn't bid his relay if he doesn't want to hear 4level response ? Maybe there is other solution ? Could anyone help with it ? I can provide rest of the structure I arrived to if anybody is interested.

There is some debate about BAM matches vs IMP matches. Main argument for BAM is that it supposedly reward better players and reduce variance which may be important these days with level of play increasing and evening out. Main argument against BAM is that you often play for nothing. For example if you in partscore and other table is in game your play doesn't matter at all which may cause frustration when comparing scores. Now, match points afterall are just specific very flat IMP scale with just two positions: 0 and 1. Why not think about some middle ground between the two ? For example 3 point scale like this: 0: 0-10 1: 20-120 2: 130-450 3: 460+ Or maybe some 4 points scale. I am sure the details could be worked out to make as many situations interesting and worth playing for something. This way we could fix the biggest flaw of imps (a lot of hands with basically nothing to play for) and still have some "real bridge" when making games is important. Thoughts ?

Ok now I know how I look when I try to argue hopeless position with players who actually have a clue :) At least I try to have back-up in actually knowing what good players play before I try this :) As to the problem. 6♣ is imo the choice. We need to flop too much to try a grand. KQx K♥ to begin with and 4th club or K♠ for 13th trick.

Yeah, LHO. Both what Mikeh said and lead inference (I think with AQ KJTxx xx xxx he is at least somewhat likely to lead a club).

Yeah, I don't get it. Why wouldn't it be 5/7 ? It's only relevant against an opponent who play up the line with a queen but differently without it :)

I mean that: "what is best for them is not the best for us mortals" is flawed argument. You need to give some reasons why other solutions might be better for amateur players to make it valid. I think I wasn't clear. I mean if I have a choice of copying structure from the best players and from standard system (which has hundred of holes) I should pick the former. I didn't want to suggest that Walsh has hundred of holes (although I do think it's inferior to both up-the-line bidding and to T-Walsh). I did want to suggest that "standard" with stuff like jumps with 3-4 card suits or "strong reverses" is as bad as bidding system could get and every pair would be better off switching to something decent (which might be precision, LV system or Polish club or w/e). Bocchi-Duboin played a lot of anti-field stuff. They surely wasn't afraid of it. It sounded to me as you made an argument that it is in fact not the most practical for you (or us mortals) and not just "not necessarily so". If I am wrong about my interpretation then it's just general statement which doesn't say nothing about anything. If you mean strong pass, it's almost surely not that good. In Poland you can freely play it in team leagues which is arguably the most important competition in the country which many pairs treat very seriously and only few pairs do it and they usually get smashed. I didn't express opinion about T-Walsh. I think it's good. It might be better than bidding up-the-line. I just wanted to see why people play Walsh besides its being fashion. From what I gather the anchor arguments are about losing major fit in competition and about not giving away information being more important than competing in diamonds/having less shapes in 1M responses.

The important thing here is not what Q♥ shows but what would small or big spot show. Partner surely have plenty of both, he has chosen to play a queen to show a jack would he do that with K♦ ? Wouldn't he be tempted to play a high spot then ? Anyway, diamond looks natural without any information. It seems like it loses rarely. Declarer needs stiff K and stiff club or Kx with partner ruffing with natural trick while it's all too easy to imagine spade costing us with xx/xx or x/xx in minors in declarer hand (or stiff A♣ and xx diamonds).

I don't like this attitude. Imo people use it all the time to justify what they are used to instead of following people who are the best. I can start developing both playing system copied from theirs instead of some brand of standardish one with hundred of holes and strange stuff like strong reverses or jumps with 3-4card suits. I spent significant time trying to understand systems of Meckwell, Greco-Hampson and top Italian pairs. My opinion for now is that not only are those systems more powerful but much more logical and easier to play than local "standards" (like standard in US or polish club in Poland). I would much prefer copying them than stuff popular among masses but inferior and less logical. That is very strange opinion considering that Fantunes developed something completely different than competition play, that Bocchi-Duboin experimented with a lot of strange stuff along their career and played T-Walsh and different opening structure than most people. Also, if you were such vugraph addict as me you would know that LV changed a lot of stuff during the years. Two-way checkback, drury (they didn't play that before), structure after 2/1 are just 3 examples. It's not like they are not working/changing stuff. They also refuse to play support double which really doesn't make much sense with wide range opening. If they wanted to play along the field they would play it as most people who parroted from precision player and adapted it to systems where it doesn't fit. My understanding from interviews with him and from what he actually plays is that he is working all the time on systems and try to play the best stuff not being afraid of changing things or playing very anti-field treatments (like various NT ranges etc.) Those players introduced a lot of innovations which were very antifield like transfers in competition for example. Anyway, are you suggesting they play inferior stuff, knowing it's inferior because competition in Italy play that ? I mean srsly ? What about more natural explanation: Meckwell's, Lauria's and Bocchi's of this world know better and what they play is probably both best and most practical. Now, LV bid suit's up the line and you will find T-Walsh in "Norberto" handbook so probably there is difference of opinion but if "bidding with teh field" was the argument they would surely switch to the one more popular, wouldn't they ?

Hmm, it seems you guys are all convinced Walsh > up the line (with T-Walsh being better than both). I spent some time reverse engineering Lauria - Versace system and I love it. They play the way I described in OP. As 2 pairs playing this way won two recent Reisingers (LV and Sementa-Duboin) among other things it seems that it's playable at matchpoints too. From hands I saw it seems to me that getting diamonds in the picture has more benefits than disadvantages and I can't recall one occurrence of them missing major fit in competitive auction. I think the point is being able to compete to 3 level which is often crucial. Well of course we don't bid 2 hearts. We bid 1NT like in any other system where balanced hands are in 1m opening. That's the bid no matter what we open imo. I really don't want to bid 2C, even if I opened 1D. Minor partial on 7 trumps is not my cup of tea. Also it's nice if bidding 2C after opening 1D shows 5-4, partner may want to compete. At least after 1NT partner will happily bid 2H with 5 of them while after 2C 5-3 heart fit might be lost forever in favor of 4-3 minor partial :)

Haha yeah... I was quite surprised recently after going through all bm2000 hands that those squeezes started to appear in real life too!

This ending is similar to standard criss-cross squeeze: -- J9 x A -- K J Qx But this time instead of A♣ we have a small trump in dummy which plays the same role as A♣ on this layout.

So assume I play standardish system with 5 card majors. From what I understand most people open 1D with 4-4 in minors and bypass diamonds with 4M after 1C opening. I just don't see the point. Why not open it 1C and bid suits up the line ? (so any hand with 4M and 4diamonds bids 1D first). This way we are not stuck with 1-3-4-5 distribution after 1S response with 4-3-5-1 or something, we don't lose diamonds. Bidding like: 1C - 1D 2D - pass is possible and we find the best partial. What's more: 1C - 1NT promises 4-5 clubs now so: 1C - pass - 1NT - 2something 3C might be bid with just 4 clubs and be competitive. So my question is, why Walsh, why not just bid suits up the line and profit ?

I like what Meckwell use. Kokish relay goes to: 1C - 1D 2H = KR for them. 1H/1S is natural 4+, f1 after that 2c is 6-7 without supp and 2D is 5-7 with 3card supp. Leak of that structure is that: 1C 1D 1M something (1N is 0-5any without 4+spades) 2minor is 5-4 either way, so you could end up in something very silly, especially at matchpoints.