[tommac18]

Recently reading notes on Ambra . Problem the old Flannery type hand
and the 1NT response . Ambra does not appear to cater for this notes
seem to ignore . Other than impacting on rest of system anyone any
solutions re this problem type hand for the system .
One possible solution to use Kaplan inversion over 1H but this
loses as much as it gains. Particularly would appreciate insight from
anyone who plays or has played ambra. Thanks tommac 18

[1eyedjack]

I can't remember getting bad results from rebidding a 2 card minor, for all the theoretical risks. Don't know Ambra, and don't know whether playing 1N as "semi" forcing affects that, as I would normally play it as forcing by a non-passed hand.

[MickyB]

Presumably you are supposed to pass with a minimum (where missing a good game isn't a significant risk) and find some bid to make (two of a minor-suit?) if you have a good 13 upwards.

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2008-March-06, 08:38

[Jboling]

1♥-1NT-?
pass with 11-14
2♣ with 15-16 (Gazzilli, forcing), 2NT if partner bids 2♦. This actually shows 16-17 and 5332-distribution according to the notes, which is close enough.
2♠ with 17+

I only have the Ambra 1.0 notes, where 1NT denies 3 card ♥. Is version 2.6 available somewhere, preferably in English?

Edit: I was above thinking about the 4522 distribution, with 4531 I think you have to choose between 2♦ and pass with less than 17 points. The 1.0 notes claims that 1♥-1NT-2♦ shows 4+♦, for me it can also be 4531.

[Robert]

Hi everyone:

Try the Kaplan inversion with 'transfers' by opener.

1H-1S*-1NT*=Cs, 2C*=Ds, 2D*=4=5=2=2 non reverse type values.

It was in a recent(2006-2008?) Bridge World article.

Regards,
Robert

[tommac18]

Ambra version 2.6 available zip file at "www.eclipse.co.uk/~sa5046/ambra.htm

[MickyB]

Ambra 2.6 - link made clickable

[MickyB]

It does appear that they forgot about that hand when writing the system! It's probably best to just rebid 2♣, and have 1♥:1N, 2♣:2♦, 2♥ no longer promise three clubs. At least you will still have the inference that opener will have either four clubs or be in the upper half of his 11-16 range.

Is that an "unofficial" version of Ambra? I thought Ambra was basically Garozzo's system, but the document has been written from a Dutch perspective.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,
Ambra (1, 1.5) was initially written by David Tavosci, based off of Garozzo's system for the Italian juniors, and modified to taste. It was then picked up by Gijs Haarlem and modified further to another taste. Either way, best to include the version number or a clickable link when referring to Ambra now.

Thanks,
Dan

[tommac18]

MickyB, on Mar 6 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

It does appear that they forgot about that hand when writing the system! It's probably best to just rebid 2♣, and have 1♥:1N, 2♣:2♦, 2♥ no longer promise three clubs. At least you will still have the inference that opener will have either four clubs or be in the upper half of his 11-16 range.

Is that an "unofficial" version of Ambra? I thought Ambra was basically Garozzo's system, but the document has been written from a Dutch perspective.

Hi ambra version 2.6 was written with orange glasses .
A possible solution to 4/5 in majors 11-16 types is to use
Kaplan inversion - method once used by Fantunes since
discarded by them.
1H-1S= forcing NT type may have 4 card spades.
Responses by opener
1NT = 4spade 5 heart 11-16 type
2C= 3+ clubs 5 hearts 11-16 or 17+ types any Gazilli ( no 4 spades)
2D = 3+diamonds 5 hearts 11-16
2H= 6+ H 11-16
2S= 4/5 M 17-21

With 1H-1NT= 5+ spades F1Rnd
Again opener responds 2 C 3+ clubs 5 H 11-16 or 17+ types

Downside after natural 1H-1S opener can rebid 1NT nat 5332 type or 5H 4m
with om stopped 12-14 types

Ambra copes with most as can raise H via 1H-2D = 3-7hcp and 3 card supp
Also as stands ambra 1H-1NT shows at least 8 cards in the minors denying
hands 9+ with a 6 card minor so hand types limited.

[Flame]

MickyB, on Mar 6 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

It does appear that they forgot about that hand when writing the system! It's probably best to just rebid 2♣, and have 1♥:1N, 2♣:2♦, 2♥ no longer promise three clubs. At least you will still have the inference that opener will have either four clubs or be in the upper half of his 11-16 range.

Is that an "unofficial" version of Ambra? I thought Ambra was basically Garozzo's system, but the document has been written from a Dutch perspective.

This version was writen by my partner and i.
Its based on the original version, and on a newer italian version writen by the original user of ambra (ambra was the name of his girl friend).
I translated lots of italian text, although i dont know any italian.
I didnt play the system for long time so i cant give a better answer then others, but i dont feel its a big problem.

[tommac18]

Flame, on Mar 6 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

MickyB, on Mar 6 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

It does appear that they forgot about that hand when writing the system! It's probably best to just rebid 2♣, and have 1♥:1N, 2♣:2♦, 2♥ no longer promise three clubs. At least you will still have the inference that opener will have either four clubs or be in the upper half of his 11-16 range.

Is that an "unofficial" version of Ambra? I thought Ambra was basically Garozzo's system, but the document has been written from a Dutch perspective.

This version was writen by my partner and i.
Its based on the original version, and on a newer italian version writen by the original user of ambra (ambra was the name of his girl friend).
I translated lots of italian text, although i dont know any italian.
I didnt play the system for long time so i cant give a better answer then others, but i dont feel its a big problem.

Hi typical of moi in that picking on a preceived system weakness
however ambra or this version of 2.6 is amazing it took a lot of
work is extremely practical and of interest. So may I say thanks
to those that put it out there for general useage . going back to
peculiar prob best to adjust 1H -1NT -2C as 2+clubs and 5H
11-16 as playing Gaz no major adjustment and 1H-1NT-2D as
11-16 5H and 4D exception 5H-4S-3D-1C and 11-16 and then
rest works .Best of all to share the knowledge thanks tommac18.

[Yogeshdg]

tommac18, on Mar 6 2008, 07:30 AM, said:

Recently reading notes on Ambra . Problem the old Flannery type hand
and the 1NT response . Ambra does not appear to cater for this notes
seem to ignore . Other than impacting on rest of system anyone any
solutions re this problem type hand for the system .
      One possible solution to use Kaplan inversion over 1H but this
loses as much as it gains. Particularly would appreciate insight from
anyone who plays or has played ambra. Thanks tommac 18

I have been playing ambra for 2 years and never had any problems with a 5♥ 4♠ hand.

Your agreements should be as follows: 2♣ rebid promsies 2+ cards and 2♦ promises 3+ cards. Just bear this in mind when signing off in a minor (prefer 6 cards or good 5 )

To clarify You rebid 2♣ with 4522 shape and 2♦ with 4531 shape.