bluecalm

Depends how you open with 5M-3-3-2 15-17. I noticed most Americans open it 1NT. Most Europeans 1M. I am not going to call one style or another awful this time but I prefer Italian/Polish style of opening 1M unless hand is very NT oriented and suit is weak. To play this way you need something like gazilli in subsequent bidding though.

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=skha986dt65cakqj2&s=sjt76hkjt7da93ct7]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] It goes: Pass 1♣ (polish) - Pass - 1♥ dbl 4♥ passes.... Lead: 4♦ (2/4). What's the plan ? I chose the one which was intuitive after 5seconds of thought but I think it's not the best one. I will post it later. EDIT: First tricks goes: 5♦, Q♦, it's up to us

Yeah, but how do we know what system is that ?

Very interesting. One local very good polish player says the same thing. Is it possible to read that interview somewhere on the net btw ?

I don't like them. My favorite argument that no elite pairs play them is there as well ! I think there are too many things to take away from forcing 1NT or 2/1 to give away 3level bids for bergen raises. Some things you can use 3 level jumps for : 1)natural invites (then 2/1 is truly forcing and 1NT doesn't contain those which is very useful, because you can bid weak hands with 6-7carder using it) 2)some stronger hands with support (for example BZ structure which is : 1step (2NT/3♣) = invite with stiff somewhere 2step = game forcing balanced hand without shortness (12-15hcp) 3step = limit raise with 4card support without shortness 4step = limit raise with 3card support This allows you to have more natural and well defined 2/1 auctions and non forcing/semiforcing 1NT (as it doesn't contain hands with support) 3)some combination of the above. My personal preference is 1) with 1M - 3M being mixed raise but I am MR precision fan.

Seems obvious. I wonder if that's because you already posted it or it's just that obvious :-)

Yes, they play that all NF hands with 6+♠ are in 1♥ - 2♠. I assume this situation is the same as in standard though. As MR opens very light I wouldn't be surprised to see many 12's for 3♠ here.

I consider it very close. My first instinct was "4♠" but after reviewing some generated hands there aren't many good games opposite cards partner don't go to 4♠ himself. Very crude simulation attempt (exactly 6♠, 11-12hcp) gave 41% making for 4♠ but some of those hands are like 6-5 or 6♠ -4♦ or other freaks which are easy 4♠ from responder. Overall: very close but still 4♠. I am not convinced though. (I assume we open all 11's in this problem ?) Also my style is to be very tight when inviting and looser when bidding games. I am in general not very eager to play on 3 level so I am used to facing good hands if partner bid 3♠ here.

WTF ? Some styles are worse than others that's life. If I think something is awful I am expressing this opinion. If someone doesn't think so he/she will express his opinion too and maybe we will learn something. I think just saying it's "different style they are all equal" is counter productive.

I didn't mean to bother you at all. I expressed my opinion about this style. Exchanging opinions on internet forum = good thing. Well, I am vugraph junkie. I saw thousands of hands of Italians, MR, Greco - Hampson, Balicki Zmudzinski and some from other famous players. Unless my memory is deceiving me none of them would ever bid 2♦ on 4 diamonds and balanced hand. I wasn't claiming I had more medals (as I have 0 it would be pretty optimistic), was smarter, understood bidding better or had some magic powers to say which agreement is better. I am amateur player without much experience. I know quite a bit about bidding systems of best world pairs though unless they are playing differently for vugraph than they do on day to day basis... I was just expressing my opinion based on my little bridge experience and quite a lot of reading/watching/thinking that bidding 2♦ on 4 diamonds balanced violates basic bidding principles and is just bad. I don't think it shows shape well. Partner can't count tricks if he isn't sure you have 5 of them and there will be often one card more in side suits which he won't get rid of also finding 5-3 fit will be quite difficult as will be assessing value of holdings like ♦Kx.

Yeah right. It's easy to construct similar example for matchpoints though. For example it's enough if going from +100 to +200 will be worth 30% (from 70% to 100%) and going from - 620 to -790 will be worth 50% (from say 50% to 0%)

JLall's analogy was right. Your analysis assumes you know your opponents "cards" so if your hand is better you should raise (because maybe he will call with his weaker hand) and if your hand is worse you should fold (obviously). Back to bridge terms, you assume that you are either down 3 in 5♥dbl or you are not and that they are making or not. Obviously you don't know that when making your decision. Very simple example is this: -they are always making -you are down 3 in 40% of cases -you are down 2 in 60% of cases. Let's compute EV of passing versus going to 5♥ doubled. in 40% of cases 5♥ loses 5imps (800 - 620 = 180 = 5imps) in 60% of cases 5♥ wins 3imps (620 - 500 = 120 = 3imps) So EV of going to 5♥ is -40% * 5imps + 60% * 3imps = -0.2imps. So 5♥ is correct most of the time but passing is right action (and if they are sometimes losing 4♠ the EV difference will be much bigger) This example is very simplistic but good enough to discard your analysis I think.

I guess it depends where you live. Bidding 2♦ with 4 diamonds where I live is considered basically a semi psych. Also just because something is "amateur standard" doesn't mean it makes much sense (I am yet to see world class pair bidding 2/1 with 4carder and I saw quite a few hands). Here bidding 2♦ violates basic bidding principles imo (staying low, not having same hand in 2 different bids (gf balanced in both 2♣ and 2♦) and exchanging information which is not needed but benefit the opponents). Anyway, the problem with 3♣ is that we will often hear 3NT as partner will bid that with ♥ stopper. After that we will often miss good slam imo, unless you plan to bid 4♦ afte 3NT but that on the other hand will often get us too high.

2♣ for me (because it contains balanced gf hand by agreement). Actually I consider 2♦ just a bad bid/system design. You will have a chance to play in ♦ if partner have 4 of them anyway and there is no reason to design system in such a way that you tell opponents what you have without much benefits for your side. In hand in question I bid 3♦ which I hope promises extras. If it doesn't promise extras I guess I will go with 3♣.

I have 5 hearts and 5-4-3-1 shape with 8hcp = automatic overcall.

I think using such defense is just cheating. It's impossible for humans to assume "unkknown range" if they played with each other for some time and they will automatically make assumptions about partners hands. Opponents have right to know those assumptions too. This is why they should specify the range they play.

While I think playing dbl as unlimited showing 5+ or something is weak agreement I don't think it matters much in this hand. If partner has some shape and a lot of diamonds he will bid 5♦ with the same hands opposite 6-7dbl, gf dbl and 5+dbl. If you disagree, can you give sample hand which bid 5♦ opposite GF double but pass opposite 6+ double ?

I think it's not correct reasoning. Just because you didn't have GF opposite minimum opener with 5♥ doesn't mean you don't have GF opposite 6♥. You don't need "upgrade" or whatever. You have guaranteed 23hcp and 6-2 fit. It's automatic game in my book.

How signalling OS works after you already gave one such signal ? So let's say on opening leads you played low to show that you can tolerate obvious switch, which Axx suit in dummy. Declarer won 1st trick and played other suit in which you have another chance to signal. You play low. Does it mean you have KQ/KJ/QJ now or something else about your hand ?

Btw, for people who have some experience actually playing obvious switch (I don't have any, I've skimmed through Granovetter's book): can you please give more agreements you have/had ? Do you play obvious switch in every situation ? If not what are the situations which you play attitude in lead suit (or count) ? The method I prefer playing is simple attituide and if that's not relevant then count and if that's not relevant (AK sec in dummy, 3 stoppers etc) then suit preference but then we give suit preference in trumps and other suits played by declarer if they don't require count (partner holding up with an honour etc.). I would like to hear more about relative merits of those methods.

I think I would bid 2NT.

No. Someone noted that 2♠ should/might/does show the minors because other people suggested 2♠ with this hand hoping it will be understood as something else. Yeah, lol. This example wasn't good :) I hope the point is clear though.

Hmm ? If you have xx x AQxxx KTxxxx and partner has: Jxxx AKxxx xxx x It's quite useful to show minors cause if you show clubs you will in 3♣ ? Or I am missing something ?

I am familiar with this treatment. I saw it in some old polish bridge newspaper from back in 70' or something like that ;)

In casual partnership I bid 2♣. It simplify things and prevent disasters caused by difference in style (like 2NT on 25hcp or problems after jump auction from opener). I feel it's much more important than small EV I am giving away by playing some not very good 3NT's. I would also bid 2♣ if I play systems with standard openings (not every 11, some 10's like in prec). If it goes: 1♥ 1NT 2♥ I bid 4♥. I don't consider other options as serious contenders. I know simuls don't tell much in such situations but if partner has exactly 11hcp and shape no better than 6-4 the game will make 53% of cases. I hate playing with people who invite on such hands btw. I prefer to bid straightforwardly and be where most of the field is if it's close anyway (not that I think it's close here).