bluecalm

[hv=pc=n&n=sa43h97632da5cjt6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1np2dp2hp2np3hp]133|200[/hv] Imps. 1NT is disciplined 15-17, 14's are very rare. Invites are solid which means partner almost surely doesn't have 16hcp for his 3H. Your call ? Would it change if we are vul or at matchpoints ?

Haha you have it :) For my defense though I put that little question mark there. I don't pretend to know the best line on every deal I post :) Anyway... I still think it's cool and I regret missing it. Next time I play for that !

I am sorry for not clear description. It was pick-up partnership and I intended it as judgement call (ie. how many clubs to bid). We didn't agree to play BART (and it's not standard in Poland). Maybe 3D would be understood as 6D-4C but I wasn't sure about it. Pass and pass. It's standard way to play in PC. 15-17 hands bid 2NT now and 5-3-3-2 with 12-14hcp pass. It's possible to play that way because openings are limited to 17hcp, it also gives you intermediate jumps: 15-17hcp with 5-5 distribution, so partner doesn't hold that hand.

I dunno. The line looks good vs stiff 9 and vs K9 tight. If he played 9 from 9x I would say good for him, I usually don't expect people to make such plays too often so I think the chances for it being stiff or K9 are good. At the table I thought it's surely stiff or K9 but I couldn't see the line vs it anyway. Have I seen it I would play for that. I admit you're right though. I jumped to conclusion too fast. Still I think it's cool motive and one I didn't recognize at the table.

That's pretty optimistic. Partner may well have AKxxx Kxx x Qxxx or something like that...

- T9 AJT7432 K642, both vul, imps 1S - p - 1NT p 2C - p - ? 2C is 5S-4+C 12-17hcp btu not 15-17 and 5-5 (that would jump to 3C). What is my plan here ?

In constructive bidding it's profitable to bid 1NT on all kind of junk with 4hcp or something hoping for game or improved partial or preempting opponents. Here if you bid 1NT on junk (like 6pc or something) you are very likely to get doubled there or wherever you run as they already know something about their hcp distribution.

Haha, very nice. There is something like that in bm2000 hands. It must be nice if it comes up nice (and you don't miss it...)

Yeah I hate that too unless I am the one starting the debate :) Anyway, if I played natural 1NT here I guess the point is to bid it before they do at matchpoints while not being doubled so 8-10(11) range sounds about right to me.

Yeah, I know. I am just curious so I asked a bit off-topic question. I had an impression that people who think about stuff like what range should 1NT here promises don't play that in the first place but maybe it's not the case in other countries ?

In Poland old fashion was constructive raise with support and new fashion are transfers. I am yet to encounter natural.

I don't know anybody who plays 1NT as natural here, do people really play that ?

Full hand: [hv=pc=n&s=s5hkdaqt8642caqt3&w=st7hj874dk53ck765&n=saq832hat6d7cj842&e=skj964hq9532dj9c9]399|300[/hv] What works is playing A♣ then a diamond and NOT RUFFING IT. LHO wins and plays something, let's say a spade. You take, ruff a spade and keep playing diamonds. You have less trumps in hand then LHO but every time he ruffs you are even with him can come back with another ruff and so on. LHO could try to discards all hearts but by this time you will have enough tricks for crussruff. I analyzed it with DF a bit and there are some interesting lines but it looks like this play works on many various layouts including K9 on the right. Anyway, durign the play that seemed very unnatural to me to have less trumps than LHO and still play on diamonds. Pretty fascinating hand to me.

Don't worry about which is better, just pick what you would like to experiment with. There are elite players who use as penalty oriented (most Italian pairs), pairs where it's 4M-5m or other way around (Balicki-Zmudzinski, Bocchi-Madala) or some other things (Meckwell, Greco-Hampson). As the question which is better is still out for the best of the best I would stay away from giving definite opinions either way.

So you found two players who at one point in time played together and used that opening. Guess what, they are now in new partnerships (with Martens and Nowosadzki) and they both don't play that anymore. As Tuszynski is definitely the system maker in his new partnership I guess he reconsidered.

I guess I like humiliating Hog in this discussion: Yeah, but Izdebski is one guy, who has his own vision of bridge. While he writes a lot he is a bit of controversial figure and but no way authority on what is standard or good agreement in pc as he usually pushed his own hybrid standard/polish system. This is just not true. Here are links to the cc's of best Polish pairs from recent years playing this variant of pc: http://bridgefiles.net/pdf/Kwiecien-Pszczola.pdf http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/ConventionCards/2008Pau-european/OpenTeams/Poland/jagniewski_kwiecien.pdf http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/ConventionCards/2011Veldhoven/BermudaBowl/Poland/buras-narkiewicz.pdf As you can see all of them play 1D as 5+ or 4-4-4-1. Even in original Martens - Lesniewski system which began "strefa" system 1D was 5+ or 4-4-4-1. It never changed in mainstream and I think there never was top Polish pair playing 1D as 4+. So Hog... what about admitting you were wrong for once and move on ?

I am sorry I misunderstood your point apparently. As to substitute count I think it might be a position for it but if it is I think first heart card should be it (instead of smith).

It's not true that system should be designed in such a way that the lowest openings contain the most hands (on frequency basis). The case could be made for lowest opening containing the most hand types (even if their combined frequency isn't that great) but even that is not absolute truth. Imo putting balanced hand with 4 diamonds is design mistakes similar to: 1S - 2D not promising 5 or: 1S - 1NT 2D - not promising four You just need to pack balanced hands into one call (2C and 2C respectively) and have other bids to be more descriptive and useful.

I think heart signal should be smith showing J♠. I think partner can't have QJT as he should've played J from that holding. Maybe in that specific situation instead of smith substitute count is better but it requires good agreements. This will be quite likely 9th trick for declarer. 2hearts, 2 spades and quite possible 5 clubs.

I vote lebensohl because I didn't read the post carefully and didn't notice t/o doubler is passed hand. I don't think it should be lebensohl in that case. I am not sure about what it should be but both natural and minors makes sense.

I guess what I want is a place with cardplay problems. I would for example like to read some older posts but fishing for them in other forums is difficult and old posts with bidding problems aren't too interesting to me in general.

Hmm I think leading trumps with two of them would be very bad as declarer with his 2 suited hand will often discard dummy's clubs and take a ruff. With 3 spades this scenario is not too likely so trumps has more merits imo still I believe in K♣ but I am not that sure anymore.

This is 13hcp. Declarer showed 15-17.

No I miseed that (maybe it wasn't in OP ?). Anyway my play is the same. Playing A♠ only works with KQ tight in declarer's hand (playing low is obviously completely wrong) but could easily present him with 9th trick if he has what looks like his most likely holding. So I take 2nd heart, cash A♦ and barring discouraging signal I exit safely with a heart. I still have chances vs KQ tight if we don't have K♦.

Wow, I didn't know Hog is capable of arguing such hopeless case where he could be proven wrong by one google search. Pretty amazing stuff. Polish 1D is one of the strongest part of this system because: a)1D opening means we can often compete in diamonds because either opener has 5 of them or is unbalanced, suit oriented hand (Hx - Hx - 4 -5 or something opens 1C usually) b)you don't tell them which minor to lead on simple 3NT hands. Well, at leat your system has advantage b) so it's not that simple. Jassem's experiment to try to make pc more like sayc didn't work as people didn't like his idea. Apparently he doesn't like it either because he doesn't play it and he retreated from it in wj2010.