bluecalm

Sry, I typed wrong hand in. The problem in the hand is: do we bid 3 or 4 spades.

[hv=pc=n&e=sj8653h43dkq86ct9&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2h(5H-5other%206-10pc)p2n(asking)d3c]133|200[/hv] 2NT is bid with all GF hands but sometimes also with bluffs which just want to play 3m. Partner's double is t/o to hearts. Your bid ? EDIT: I typed wrong hand ,sry

2NT is not forcing, 12-14hcp and doesn't promise heart stopper. There is no other bid available with say: Kxx xxx AQxx ATx and even with 2-3-4-4 it's imo better to bid 2NT. H stopper isn't much of a problem because you rarely get dealt 9xx or lower and if you have any honor , even Tx it's better to play 2NT from your hand (this is however kinda advanced reasoning/bidding and some traditionalists may not like it).

I wouldn't worry about incorporating kickback into bidding system unless I have all other of 1000's more important problems solved and I have 20 years in solitude to spend on system development. In Europe as far as I know nobody plays kickback. Even if (and that's big if) it's better in some situations than cuebids unless you are in 10+years partnership you will give it all up by misunderstandings.

But those alternative ways gives unnecessary information to defenders. When I have Txx Kxx Jxx Jxxx I just want to bid 3NT and not: a)give them information about 5M in opener hands for free which will eliminate the suit as their first lead option b)give them information about 4M or lack of it which will be useful for them during the defense c)give them a chance to double 3C or draw interferences from lack of this double d)same as c) for 3D call (2NT - 3C - 3D) As for quoted example 5M-5M SI hand comes up about one time in 332 opposite 20-21 balanced. To compare 4-3-3-3 (5-10hcp) comes up every 14hands opposite 2NT. So by playing 3NT as 5M-5M SI you hand them free information 24 times just to be able to use your gadget in 25th. Also 4-3-3-3 hands aren't the only ones which you just want to bid 3NT with so this ratio increases even more.

I would prefer playing no stayman, no transfer, all natural than this. Seriously, who comes up with those systems ?

Martens discusses this idea in his "watch dog" books. I hope one day to play with someone willing to go that far in defensive carding agreements. I feel that solution given by FrancesHinden is probably better than mine if a lot of situations are discussed. I am more comfortable with simple solutions though as risk of misunderstanding is minimized then and loses not that big (I think). Again I hope one day I will be happy to play such agreements and be comfortable with them (ie. positive about risk of misunderstanding being close to 0).

+1 I think it's not only the simplest but also by far the best solution which allows you a lot of freedom with bidding 5-4 hands as well as minor slam tries. I am happy one of my partners convinced me to this. Saved me a lot of hours of working out the best scheme after 2NT and a lot of points by less than optimal 1st leads of opponents.

It's either not there or very well hidden cause I am unable to see any results there :( Same goes for ACBL homepage. I mean, this is the information people are looking for, why it's not in blinking red at the top of the page ?

Where do you guys see the results ?

My agreements are: if you don't beat dummy card give count and then smith for possible honour. I have never analysed it too deeply but it seems to me that most of the time position of honours is more clear from play to first trick and count is more important. Here declarer played K from Kx so partner knows that declarer doesn't have AJx or Jxx or QTx and probably not ATx.

I don't believe there are many (if any) situations where the first lead should be different at IMP's and MP's. Those usually include leading from 6+carders hoping for not too likely layouts providing a set but which usually gives up a trick. Here we don't have such situation. Blowing up spade trick is likely to cost as much at IMPs as it is at MP's imo.

I think this is brilliant book. The whole series surpasses Adventures in Cardplay. The deals are beautiful, educational and actually possible to solve (admittedly though they are very very hard). Solving even one hand in a few is very satisfying but even visualizing the solution after reading it is worthwhile. This is exceptional book from exceptional author. Martens is one of the greatest the game ever had (and even today he is elite player representing Poland in BB 2011, and taking Vanderbilt in 2008 among other achievements) and the only one from the group who is writing books (and books about cardplay!) They are truly something completely different. I recommend Owl, Fox & Spider because I am reading it now but after browsing the whole series I am just amazed by every one of them. Those books are not for beginners, not for intermediate players, probably not for advanced and will be hard for most experts. They are also not for a faint heart ;)

I have no clue at all and no simulator available for a week to come :(

W/e sayc says, bidding 2S on this is pathetically bad.

Imps or MP's ? The problem with this hand is that Kxxxx and out makes a decent game. 2S is not an option. 4D/4H should promise very strong hand in my opinion playing 11-21 openings. What is left is 3S and 4S. At imps I would just go for 4S and MP's probably 3S.

I probably want to play even less forcing pass than the janitor and his cleaning lady but this one has to be forcing.

As S could see that N has 5 spades and hasn't led them it seems very natural to open spades from his side cause N could have KQxxx for all S knows. I ask them about leading agreements and hope to determine from this if 8 is from xx or xxx. I could play for either xx in N (then I take 2nd diamond, finesse clubs and play a heart toward KQ; I will often win even if K is offside or I could play for K onside (duck a diamond, finesse club, lead heart toward KQ. I will try to guess which way is the correct one once I see the diamond return.

Richard Pavlicek made this analysis on real life vugraph hands some time ago. http://www.rpbridge.net/rpme.htm http://www.rpbridge.net/9x12.htm Very interesting. I will try to replicate once I am home. Those results surprise me.

It is usually played as natural. For example: 1D - 2C 2D - 2S = KQx xxx Qx AQxxx This is very handy because usually those 3rd suit bids are either values or natural and it's difficult construct coherent system after those. The problem with MAFIA is that you may face awkwars situation when opener jumps. This is why this approach sucks for standard system where jumps are both frequent and made with no exceptional shape (like 5-4). In precision which I assume Straube plays the jumps are usually made only with 6-5 or 7+carders so MAFIA is much safer/better.

Yeah, I didn't think about trying for +200. I like the pass after reading your explanation. It seems that I don't know standard agreement well enough. It's forcing for people I play with. I definitely see the point in playing is as NF, I even think it's better agreement. In Poland simple: "new suit in comp at level 1 and 3 is forcing at level 2 not forcing" is standard though.

I agree with the hog here. Depending of the system you may just describe your shape exactly as it is or bid something which is 5+d, 4S and then partner will bid 3NT with H/C stopped or ask for stopper in on of those if he needs it. W/e you have in your system I think it's worthwhile to use it especially if the shortness is in the major suit.

Is it standard treatment ? I mean, can't he be 2-1-5-5 or 3-1-(5-4). I would expect my partner to double with both.

I remember last time you posted it. Very interesting hands and a lot of discussion :) 1. 3♠ This could be important if partner has S support because we want to be able to bid 5S over their 5H. 2. 3NT for me. I don't want to play in hearts because of spade ruffs and imo they are making/going down 1 too often to make pass better option. 3. DBL, I don't see alternatives for this bid. 4. Pass and again looks wtp. 5. I don't like problems which shows holes in the system we are supposed to use. Normally 2NT or 2C depending which one contains 5-4GF hands. In "standard" I bid 3D or 2S and I hate it. 2S could lose D fit, 3D could be problematic when reaching 3NT.

Yeah... Where I am from nobody plays weak 2d but people play lebensohl against multi. Not only that, it's quite fashionable to play: 2D - dbl - 2H(pass/correct) 2NT as lebensohl :-)