bluecalm

Looks like he is 4-1-4-4 often enough and even if he somehow has xx ♥ I still want to switch to that suit. I take K♠ and switch to ♥ now.

I agree. I will try 1NT.

2♥ for me. It makes more often and gains more points on average than 1NT so it's right at both imps and mp's (unless 1NT didn't promise 2♥). I might invite if playing polish club (because 1♦ is 5+cards there). Opposite better minor I don't think it's worth an invite but I think this hand is not that far away from it.

3NT. Other bids looks like masterminding a system just for this hand. So you give up any hopes of playing hearts if responder is 5-5 or 6-5 in majors ?

Well if you play this style (which I like) then 1♠ is much compelling. In "standard" though you will have to jump to 3♦ or something after hearing 1NT which is awful as there is no way you will explore any slam after this start. Playing 3NT will not be easy either. Opening 2♣ and rebidding say 2♠ (or 2NT if playing puppet) at least position you much better for choicing the best game/occasional slam. 2♣ may not be the best opening but opening standard 1M planning to jump with 4 (or sometimes 3) card suit after positive response is much worse imo. Gazilli solves this problem nicely but it's not yet standard.

We really need movement which will promote clear rules instead of what such and such committee fancy to ban at one time or another. Many such rules were proposed, most of them would be much simpler and easy to understand than today policies of ACBL or EBU. Bannig constructive opening which show anchor suit is just retarded. I think short sighted is too mild of an description. Big shame on that people :rolleyes:

I think 2♣ makes a lot of sense opposite passed partner, especially if we open aggressively. Game is a long shot and it's more likely we will be able to compete after 2♣ as well as we show good lead. That being said I usually double on those hands without second thought. I would never bid 2♣ opposite unpassed partner. I think passing is terrible. The only justification for it is not seeing K♥.

I am just saying I didn't see them passing that ever. It indeed looks like it's NF. It's very surprising to me.

Really ? I saw like few thousands hands of them and they never passed 1NT. I doubt they would play system that bad btw. They didn't play drury for a long time but switched recently from other interesting things.

Bridge files webpage has fd convention card for Lauria - Versace system but I found those notes not accurate in many areas. Their approach is basically natural with 2♦ opener showing 18-19 balanced (this way if you open 1 of a minor and then dbl you always has unbalanced hand, also in constructive auctions 2NT rebid is free for other things). They open 1♦ with 4+♦ (so 1♣ is 2+). They don't play Walsh, which means they never skip ♦ suit after 1♣ opener if they don't have longer major. This way they can bid: 1♣ - 1♦ 2♦ - pass Which solves the problem of 5♣-4♦ hands (they open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ after 1M not being afraid of losing 4-4 diamond fit). They play Gazilli in all the sequencies, ie.: 1m - 1M 2C = gazilli 1m - 1NT 2c = gazilli 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ = gazilli I didn't quite get their scheme after that. I am sure there is a clever way to show 15-17 balanced with 5M after that but don't know how exactly they bid those hands (they NEVER open 1NT with those). Thanks to that the jumps are intermediate so they don't have leaks of standard system. Overall I think their system is vastly superior to all other breads of 2/1 which doesn't use 2♦ opener and Gazilli. They solved major leaks of standard thanks to those bids and have many gains in comp as well as constructive bidding thanks to their system.

I would open this in whatever way I have to show 22-23balanced. I guess in standard it means 2♣ and then 2NT rebid.

I might have doubled 1NT last round but I don't consider it clear action. Now I pass. They bid my primary suit (diamonds) and it doesn't look like they have big spade fit.

This reasoning doesn't make sense. Just because on average you don't have a hand to leave them in 1♣xx doesn't mean those hands don't come up. It's like I would say: "on average you have 10hcp and 3.33♥" and 3.33♥ and 10hcp is not enough to open 1♥ therefore playing 5 card majors is pointless. This is simply bad logic. You can easily have xx xxx xxx KQTxx there and it's pretty average hand; 6 baggers will happen too. 1mxx making is 180 points. We can easily want to let them play there even if they make sometimes, especially if prospect of donating 800+ are looming over us (as with above mentioned hand).

Obviously I think pass with the intention of playing there is more useful, that's why I play it that way. I don't have much to add as to why after awm's excellent post.

It's all matter of agreement and what you are used to. I am just saying that the most natural understanding barring any agreements is that pass means "I don't mind to play there" just as any other pass in any other auction without specific conventional understanding. My favorite agreement which I have with all semiregular partners is that pass over minor is for penalty and pass over major is no clear choice. This is useful one to have because people play all kind of systems and their minor suit openers rarely promise real 5+card suit while their major suit openers tends to be much more honest and it's hard to imagine playing there. You can say that having xxx xxx xxx xxxx is a problem over 1♣ but you can easily have xx xxx xxx QJTxx there and not being able to pass with the intention of playing there may prove to be expensive. Over a major this is very rare occurrence. Also 1♣/1♦xx making doesn't bring a game bonus to the opponents :)

I think pass should be for penalty. If you don't know how your partner will understand it passing with this hand is very bad. It's not like you have some kind of xxx xxx xxx xxxx and are truly fixed. You have decent suit in the circumstances. Easy 1♦ which can be useful if partner is on lead later on. Isn't it the most natural meaning of the bid without any discussion ? I wouldn't ever pass any rdbl if I didn't want to play there without having firm agreements about meaning of such pass.

Once you get something like Axxx x xx KJTxxx there you will change your agreement to NF regardless of previous stance. Strong hands may be bid via double or opponents suit. Sure it's not as accurate as having 3♣ forcing available but giving up on hands like the above is just hopeless, especially at MP's.

NF. I wouldn't be sure at all in new partnership about it but I think playing it as forcing is very bad.

We don't know if they open with 5M either. I don't think a system which allows opening most 5M-3-3-2 with weak NT and without ability to show this 5M is to be taken seriuosly.

This is not relevant. I started work similar to Mikeh (reviewing hands where we can set a contract). ♥ looks the best but not that good as in simul (not twice as good as ♣) as it seems there are significant number of hands where partner is required to make very good switch or when he could have made lead directing double. On the other hand on many hands we just need to lead heart because we won't be in again and there is an honour in dummy which requires a play from our hand. I am not interested in spending any more time on this though so I just skimmed through like 30 hands and stopped.

This is standard checkback scheme in Poland. Actualy now a lot of pairs play 2way checkback of some kind but still majority plays the way you described. 5 years ago basically everybody played that way. In Poland it's called "magister" (from the nickname of player who popularized it). I feel it's superior to 2way checkback, especially in systems where you don't have to deal with 12+hcp hands with 4M-5m ditribution. In Poland we play that other major is max with 3card support and old major is min with 3card support so answers are different after 1♥/1♠ bid. NMF is kinda lame if you don't play 2way (so old minor is NF) because then you don't have a bid with 4m-5+m not forcing hands, for example: Axxx x KJxxxx xx 1♣ - 1♠ 1NT - ????? There is the same problem with clubs after ♦ opening. Most people solve it in the way tha bidding 2♣ asking and then 3♣ is weak signoff. With 5+diamonds you just bid 2♦. Other advantages are that you instantly know opener's range and you are well positioned for slam exploration which you don't have space for in 2way checkback or classical NMF. You can also easily stop in 2M partscore if opener is minimum as well as ask for future description of his hand via 2NT (2NT after 2♣ is forcing SI+).

Assuming we play "classical" 3♦ which is about 14+-17hcp what do you plan to bid with: AQTx AJTx x KQJx ? Or at MP's with : AJxx AQxx xx AJ9x ? How do you plan to stop in NT contract if slam is no good ? Why would you intentionally cripple yourself by not having natural 4NT available choosing RKC instead which gain nothing as you can use RKC anyway (by setting diamonds and then bidding 4NT) With solid/semisolid diamond suit which will be source of tricks opposite likely shortness/xx ?

Why do you think so ? I find them very accurate. I spent a lot of time comparing best dd leads to actual leads made by world class players (mainly Meckstroth and Versace) and what I found is this: a)in most situations they are the same leads b)in hands where they are not the same dd leads would be better on average. Of course those comparisons can be made only for hands with simple, well defined auctions and maybe I still suffer for too little sample size (only about 200 hands analyzed with simuls) but my experience with simuls taught me to trust dd results more than judgment of any player.

I tend to agree that aiming for 4-4 hearts is too narrow a target. Do you think double should promise 5♥ then ? I am not sure but I think probably yes.

This is not true at all. Maybe some systems becomes unplayable if you don't do that as well as some systems becomes unplayable if you don't open 15-17 NT with 5card M. Some players open every 15-17 5M-3-3-2 with 1NT and some others (like top Italian pairs) don't. This situation is the same with weak 1NT. That being said I am not sure how the constraints should look for 1NT with 5M as then responder is probably either 3-3-(4-3) or 2-2 in majors as he didn't use puppet stayman ? EDIT: Assuming 1NT is possible with 5M and the responder is either 3-3-(4-3) or 2-2 in majors, the results are: Winning lead: 3♠ - 105 9♥ - 197 5♦ - 105 J♣ - 94