antonylee

I see the advantage of stretching the 1♦ opener to help with the ♦ based two-suiters though Matula proposes some other solutions (1♣-1M-3N=18-21ish 5+♦4♣, 1♣-1♠-3♥=strong 5+♦4♥); also odwyrtka may be a solution. On the other hand I really think using a strong 2N opener is throwing away a lot of good stuff the forcing (not necessarily Polish) club structure is giving you. Uncontested auctions are much easier after a 1♣ opener of course, but even if they intervene, playing NFBs (as mandated by WJ05) or Rubensohl (as we do) mostly solves the problem IMHO. 1♣-(noise)-NFB-P, now a weak or weak-intermediate opener can only pass or raise (only raise if 4th seat raises, only complete or jump-complete the transfer if playing Rubensohl; most other actions by opener is strong, 2N does not promise a stopper (though you're not obliged to use it on a bad 18 of course) -- responder must check for it).

Assuming one extra point (so that I'm playing Polish), I would X. With ♥KJx I may try 2N (ugh) instead.

Polish club has a similar problem (and Jassem doesn't discuss it in his WJ05 booklet, I believe). We decided to systemically open in 1♣ (with 1NT allowed with the correct texture). 1♣-1♦(neg, or 9-11 w/ minor(s), or 12+ bal no 4cM and interested in rightsiding NT)...: 12-14: treat as balanced; 15-17, treat as 4♥5♣ 1♣-1M...: raise to the appropriate level 1♣-1N...: treat as balanced, partner usually has some ♦ anyways

So advancer has a 22(54), bust, and overcaller a Flannery hand. Oops, you just ended up in 3♥ in a 5-2 fit.

I particularly like the way the alerts are printed in R.S.'s package. For the WBF CC, google gave me https://github.com/Pet3ris/latex-cc which seems simple and efficient.

Well, your package is definitely more impressive than mine :) I see that we both use the same xstring package for underlying work... Do you intend on releasing your work on CTAN? I mostly started my project because all that CTAN currently has is a couple of TeX macros which aren't very fancy.

I'm learning to use github at the same time :P bridge.pdf is now available in the downloads section, I will update the README to reflect that.

Here it is: https://github.com/anntzer/bridge-tex This is still in beta stage, and ideas are welcome :-)

Here is what I currently play in a Polish framework, with 1♦=4+crd unbalanced, 11-bad18, could be 4♦5♣ if 11-14: 1♦-1♥... 1♠ nat 1N 4♦5♣, if opener bids over responder's preference it's nat, 15-18 2♣ 5♦4♣ (not sure whether distinguishing the two is worth it) 2♦ 6+♦ 2♥ normal raise 2♠ reverse(?) 2N 6+♦, not 3♥ 3♣ 5♦5♣ max 3♦ 6+♦3♥ etc. and 1♦-1♠... 1N 54 minors either way (this way opener can always take a third bid over responder's preference) 2♣ 5♦4♥ 2♦ 6+♦ 2♥ 6+♦, 5 bad ♥ (again, not sure whether it's worth it, probably should be used as some sort of raise) etc. Over an artificial rebid by opener, responder's lower bids are usually signoffs, and bidding the suit that hasn't been shown is 4SF. So it's true that responder will have to go fairly high to force the auction (typical problem auction: 1♦-1♠-2♣!-3♣! (4SF)); OTOH opener has an easier time forcing the auction as his rebid will usually at least trigger a preference from responder.

4♦ then give up, I don't have that much more than promised (yes yes I know aces but well).

From a Polish club point of view I would expect 3♥ to show that hand (well probably 1-2 points weaker in PC as the weak variant is 12-14 for us so this would be a GF), yes. 2♠ would be something like a 24(34) invite+ and X show a fifth heart, competitive+. (though this depends on how often you choose not to support X, I guess.)

My partner agrees with bluecalm and I with mike :)

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1sp2cp3cp3hp3sp4c]133|100[/hv] Playing "vanilla" 2/1, what would 4♣ be? And what if 1♥ is, say, 10-15?

So I found it mentioned a couple of times that Matula had a better structure for the 1♣![Polish]-1M-2♦! auction... does anyone know the details? Thanks.

As a rule for my partnership undiscussed XXes (exceptions that had been discussed: e.g. after X of transfer over 1N, etc) of partscores are never to play if any escape is still possible. In 1) an escape is definitely possible, though it'd depend on how you play 2S. I'd assume XX=6340 or the like and too light for a normal 2S, but wanted to try and get out somewhere. 2) looks like to play to me...

I play 2M = 4 card exactly, 8-12, unbalanced (in a Polish club context), so similar to your definition but much more frequent I guess (and even then it's fairly rare). It seems to work decently well (i.e. the losses due to not opening a weak 2 are more or lesscounterbalanced with the gains of the bid).

A decent 4th seat won't X with any raise, that would give waaaay too many possibilities to opener (who can now use P, XX, 3H as different kinds of hands that do not have to commit to game). At imps playing some natural system it looks normal to go to game on the second round no matter what happens (except if 4th hand doubles and opener now has some way to show a sub-minimum opening :P) By the way, the hand I gave opener isn't even 13-15, you can replace the ♥J by the Q or the ♦K by the A for a decent 23-pt game. But more importantly: Oh, really? Now what do you do holding Kx-KQxxxx-Kxx-xx after 1♥-(2♦)? Bid 2♥ and hope that at some point, after enough ♥ rebids, partner understands that it was a minimum 6-card suit, not a 4-card suit? Or say, likewise, after 1♥-(2♦)-2♠-(P), what does opener do with a hand with ♥s and no ♦ stop? Oh, I'll cue-bid 3♦ and suddenly we're at the 3-level scrambling for a non-existent fit with barely game-invitational values... Sure, have fun designing your system (I'm all for experimentation) but make sure it can withstand at least non-preemptive competition (because I haven't even talked about 3m overcalls yet...).

Let's see how this fares opposite a tiny little bit of preemption. 1♥-(2♦)-... You hold xx-KJxx-Kxx-Kxxx. Now what? 1/ You pass. Too bad, it goes (3♦)-P-(P) and you miss game opposite Ax-Axxxx-xx-Axx 2/ You X for T/O (???), and again 4th hand bids 3♦. Now what if opener has 5♠? Can he bid them at the 3-level? Or, if he has to pass, what if he has 5♥? 3/ You bid 2N (NF I assume), and again 4th hand bids 3♦. Again, what does opener do with 5♠? With 5♥?

So I did return a spade hoping for a ruff, reading the diamond as suit preference (even though we had no firm agreements on that) as well as considering that if partner had five clubs he should see that cashing the king won't cost. So, yes, I'm playing declarer for 7411. As it happens, partner was xx-Qx-xxxx-AKxxx, which looks like an OK 2♣ overcall over 1♦ to me at these colors. The diamond was intended as count, I presume -- not that this would be helpful, and he said that trying to cash another club could cost if declarer was 6511. Our combined heart holdings were worth a trick so we could actually have defeated the contract. Beh. Still, I like the idea of winning the club ace with a spade void to make it clear a club continuation is not wanted.

[hv=pc=n&s=s7643hj42dat5cj75&w=sqjhk963dkqj7cqt3&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d2c2s3cpp3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] By agreement, 2♣ denies a 4cM. You lead the ♣5 to the 10, king and 2, then the ♦9 comes back. Now what?

The ACBL GCC prohibits conventional calls as a response to (among other things) a weak two that has a range of more than 7HCP AND does not show at least 5 cards. A side question first: Am I the only one to (be wicked enough to) read this as, I can play conventional responses to a weak two that is 0-10, but promises 5 cards? Or to an "intermediate two" with a small range, say 8-11, but could be as short as four? (I am not interested to discuss the quality of such choices, perhaps that can be the subject for another topic though...) At least that's how I understand the "AND". Now, the main question (assuming that the answer to the previous question is, "well, really they should have used OR instead of AND"): Say the auction goes [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2hppdpprp]133|100[/hv] where my 2♥ is, say, 0-10, so no artificial bid (by our side) is allowed over it. Simple bridge logic tells me that my partner cannot be interested in penalizing (e.g. say that we open light and agreed that he always raises directly with decent support). Can I therefore take the inference that the XX is SOS? Or am I obliged to play there, interpreting it as natural?

Actually, anyone has a good idea of a GCC-legal (erk) use of that bid in a PC framework? Of course a classic weak two works, but more originality is welcome :-) I assume this means the version of PC you learnt has a strong 2♣? At least it seems that now the usual treatment is Precision (WJ), 6♣ or 5♣4M -- or, as mentioned in some other thread, some artificial preempt. The pass with WNT is a problem, though you can make the agreement that a T/O X doesn't show extras (so far this has proved helpful and hasn't bitten us), mitigating the problem. As for responder not sure of whether opener has a WNT or not, say after 1♣-(some overcall), NFBs (or better, Rubensohl) at the 2-level (perhaps transfers at the 3-level as well -- see earlier in the thread) works fine: responder places the contract with his 5-card suit (assuming a WNT) with a limited hand, and if opener has extras he will be happy to 1/ show them and 2/ use that extra information (as mentioned before by previous posters).

I would be interested in knowing how you unwind the various hand types over 1♣!-1♦!-1M!, could you explain this? Thanks in advance.

I kind of dislike re-entering the auction on the next round with 4♦. I said earlier that I'd bid 2♥ but I can agree with 3♥. However, if you really want to show both suits I think you should do it immediately (e.g. 2NT); getting in the auction again after (2♣)-2♥-(2♠)-P-(3♠) with 4♦, for example, achieves very little except giving the opponent's the choice of penalizing you. Even over (2♣)-2♥-(P)-P-(2/3♠), the preemptive value of 4♦ is fairly limited if there are agreements about responder's initial pass (e.g. positive for me) and his second call (forcing passes are on for me, and there is also the possibility of raising ♠ with 4♥). Though I can understand that 4♦ may throw more confusion against B/Is.

I did a quick sim yesterday, keeping only hands that open something between 1♣ and 2♣ inclusive. The definitions are not very exact (e.g. where to draw the line between 1♣ (good 15) and 2♣ (bad 15)) but it was something like 1♣ 39%, 1 other suit 15% each, 1NT 11%, 2♣ 5% (assuming 1♣ also contains balanced 4♦ hands). If balanced 4♦ hands are put into 1♦ the percentages only shift by about 2-3%. Of course if switching to WNT the main flux in probablilities is between 1♣ and 1NT (more than 10% move from the former to the latter).