bluecalm

I didnt' mean to complain at all. I just wanted to describe my point of view. I like it no matter what scoring system you choose as being able to bid at least 32 hands and then share thoughts with some awesome players here is quite a deal for me.

Well, as I was unable to get access to oryginal Meckwell simplified notes nor GH notes I just went through all the hands played by Meckwell and GH in vugraph, made ton of notes and then put the system based on those. I added some stuff I found in cc's of pairs which plays those system (american juniors for example) and some stuff which I wasn't able to engineer from vugraph was filled by my/my pd's inventions. So yeah basically it's based on both Meckwell and GH system but bidding after 1♣ is based on 1♥ = 8-11 etc.

Why ? If we set our hand and deal 3 others 6card suits in partner hands will be less likely than by dealing random hands (whithout taking into account our hand) Can you elaborate why you think this problem exists ?

My simulation program doesn't have that problem. It just deals all the cards and accept hands which meet the requirements so 6cards suit will be naturally less likely if we have 4 of them. I agree that this simul doesn't mean much. I just wanted some quick numbers. My feeling is that the difference should be more than 0.5tricks as well. Yeah. I just don't like LTC and can't imagine making decisinos based on this (in my opinion) very superficial and about useless method. I understand that some people do and probably some of them are better at making decision than me :)

Precision based on Greco Hampson. I feel that the hands were more about judgement than system though. We had one misunderstanding but all other suboptimal results are due to judgment calls.

I think KO or double KO idea is not the best for this type of contests. Afterall we want to determine who is the best at bidding given problems and KO system just introduce some randomness (by giving bigger weigh to problems in first batch) and doesn't really help with anything. It seems to me that some kind of survivor is the best as it eliminates pairs which may not be very motivated to play with weak score and what is much more important cut the work for organizers. Make it for example 50% cut every round (or only 25% for first round so I could qualify :) ). Just an opinion. Participating in this is great regardless of what system you choose.

4♣ = puppet to 4♦ to signoff or bal invite 4♦/4♥ = transfers to ♥/♠ slam invites 4♠/4NT = tranfers to ♣/♦ at least mild slam invites transfer to opponent suit is shortness and 2suiter (at least 5-4). Idea take from Ambra. I have no idea if that's good or not but looks cool :(

Damn, this field is strong. Despite one huge disaster and few mistakes here and there I expected we've done much better :(

Yeah, many pairs here play either lebensohl or inv+ transfers (then 2NT is clubs, 3♣ is diamonds, 3♦ is stopper ask gf and 3♥ is inv+ in spades).

Assuming 2NT is 20-21 with 5M-3-3-2 possible as well as 2-2-(4-5) if hand is appropriate. As I see it's good to have: (SI is slam invite) -SI with a major suit -SI with 6+minor suit -some way to bid both minors -weak major 2suiter -SI major 2suiters -5M-4m+ SI -4M-5+ SI -Some way to play in 4M if opener has 5 of that major That's a lot of stuff and there isn't a lot of space. So far we usually played without puppet stayman (which gives you advantage of easy way to bid 5 4 majors hands and frees other major after the transfer which can be used for slaminvite in that suit thus leaving 4m as natural SI. This is system has some problems though. Anyway, what is your favorite system for handling those auctions ?

I double with 4♦ being close 2nd choice. Obviously both bids may work or backfire. My intuition tells me double works more often.

Splinter for me.

You have some hand with 4-4-2-3 shape and 4-7hcp. Say: A832 JT52 T2 872 Your partner opens 1NT. Your option are to pass or to stayman and bid 2♥ (choose a major, weak) after 2♦ and pass after 2M response. Your style of opening 1NT is that partner opens 2-2-(4-5) shapes if hand is suitable (Hx Hx in short suits). As to 5 card majors you open 1NT if hand is suitable (5-3 in majors, very weak 5 card suit etc.). You don't open every 5M-3-3-2 with 1NT. Do you prefer to pass or bid stayman with those hands ?

I think N should bid 2♦. I also think N should pull the double but I am not that convinced as I am to bidding 2♦ on previous round.

Well, I passed without much thought at MP's hence the title. I am not defending this decision though. In fact I think it might be serious error.

♠8752 ♥K3 ♦AJT2 ♣K92 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3♦ 3NT - ? Partner is very good player. Bidding is natural, 1♦ practically promised 5 ( 4 with 4-4-4-1 or 5-4 minors) 3♦ was invitational. Now what ? Does scoring matter ?

I don't much care about posts but idea is that people are recognized I guess if someone is willing to provide real name + adress/bridge ID in his/her country that's ok. I think the more hands the better. 16 sounds like sweet spot but for me it could well be 24.

It's from yesterday live tournament. None vul. : K72 962 QJ3 KQ72, matchpoints 1♠ pass - 2NT - pass 3♠ pass... 2NT was invitation with support (all hands which meet the requirement bid 2NT). Your lead ?

Yeah, definitely don't throw it out. There may be more errors and throwing it out for all bidders may results in cancelling too many boards overall.

Yeah it's fun. Discussion about hands will be fun for sure too :(

I can't be 100% certain as I don't recall specific hands but one point I observed seeing Lauria Versace hands is that I've never seens them open 1♦ with 4-4 in minors (and I saw few thousands of bid hands). Maybe some players which play similar way can offer more help here. I honestly have no idea whatsover. I am not arguing either. For what it's worth opening 1♦ is more natural to me too. I know that they answer 1♦ having 4M-4♦ hand and the auction: 1♣ - 1♦ 2♦ is natural and not forcing. It's one problem solved for example. Yeah that's true. My opinion is that if top pair plays some methods, especially if one of the players in this pair is theoretician and loves to play around with the system, those methods at least deserve some respect and are rarely bad meanwhile many "standard" things are just plain stupid. My point is that maybe Lauria made a mistake when designing their system but for sure he thought about it and had some sound reasons to choose one way over the other. In this specific problem I have no opinion. I am used to opening 1♦ playing standardish methods and I am used to rebidding 2♣ after 1♠ from partner having 1-4-4-4 shape. I think being able to do that (and thus having 1NT to show balanced hand with 2-3 spades) is quite advantageous. I just pointed out that there is another way to play at least worth thinking about.

I am pulling having slightest excuse. Almot all hands with 4♥ are good for me. I am so easy to bluff and push around :(

It's difficult to talk about soundness when considering standard system but for what it's worth top Italian pairs always open 1♣ having 4-4 in the minors. It can't be that bad then...

With all the respect I think any system which doesn't adjust for huge difference between having xxx and xxxx of trumps is not even worth mentioning. Sorry LTC ! EDIT: Just to contribute something I run quick simul with opener having 11-14hcp and 5+hearts and responder having either actual hand or same hand with small ♥ moved to ♠. Average difference is half of the trick. I am pretty sure it's higher if opener doesn't have balanced shape.

I am sure my thinking about 6NT (blunder) is influenced by standard of fields I usually play in. They are weakish and bidding good (makeable) slam will get you decent results even if 6NT is laydown and often it will be near top if slam is not 100% obvious as it well may not be.