Cthulhu D

Different system regs, but I've never had a good answer to this. If you raise with any hand with 3 card support, and have bids for 6+ suits and 10 counts, play a version of kaplan inversion, and play a 14-16 NT, the 'death hand' is only when partner has a 12 count without 3 spades or a 6 card suit, and opener has a 13 count with exactly 5 spades and no burning design to rebid, but that's a small window of hands. So we basically play 1S-1NT not forcing which will result in an amazingly stupid outcome one day I am sure when we play in 1NT on a 25 count but it hasn't happened yet. Do I explain it as 6-12 not forcing? Opener will leave it in with all sorts of 5431 and 5422 hands because the probability of something bad happening if opener has an 11 count is very low. Responder has at most 12, if we don't have a major fit nothing good is happening (probably)

I'm not even sure that's a psych. W/R third in when you know opponents are cold for game, lots of people would consider opening a weak 2D with JTxxx and nothing else. 3 off rates to be a good score - and if partner has a 6 count, 6 off will be good! (and if diamonds break 5-3-3-2 then 6 off is the worst possible outcome.

Problem six in here has a fairly interesting 'expert' panel suggesting a psyche is a totally normal action: http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/probs/ont04.ans.html Given partner is limited and you have a bust prime oppotunity. Seems clear that the prime situations are A) When there is a substantial gain B) When partner is limited C) The psych is controlled - partner cannot systematically exceed the safe limits to the hand D) You have somewhere to go if doubled.

Depending on the texture of the hand you'd probably bid 1NT with both of them, showing both minors is 3C which is a lot more dangerous particularly given what we both overcall on. I think you're right though we just need to take the hit here.

This is a good idea - if I change from playing the two ways to raise as strong/weak to 4/3 cards I'm probably sorted. I just hate bypassing 1NT with the 3=3=5=2 hand. Ugh. Playing in a 4-3 probably isn't to bad most of the time.

The relevant part of the ABF system regulations is I cannot open 3=3=5=2 1C as a green sticker under that arrangement. The preempts are really not an issue as they don't have knock on system issues. 1NT overcall however, does, and really hurts.

For various reasons I might have to play a regular club game that bans brown sticker systems and I think we're not supposed to play red systems, so I'm looking at convering what we play to a green sticker system. We currently play 2/1 GF with 5 card majors, a 14-16 no trump and a highly offensive array of brown sticker stuff. The stuff in scope for replacement is 1C: Clubs or balanced - I need to take 3=3=5=2 hands out and put them somewhere else. 2C: Opening 2C as Strong, Weak Diamonds or Weak Spades 2S: Preempt in any suit Overcalling 1NT: Three suited takeout as part of the overcall structure. I was thinking the simpliest replacement is 1D: Picks up the 3=3=5=2 stuff and we just play what we normally play over 1C and 1D. Pretend you have 6 diamonds, or use judgement if you have a really poor diamond suit and open something else. 2C: Just make this strong or weak with diamonds. Requires virtually no change. 2S: Weak two in spade lives here. Only bummer is we lose the 5/5 minors opening. I have no idea what to do about the 1NT overcall though. We play RJO overcalls, so we could play that over 1m it promises 4 cards in the other minor and 2H is 4/4 or better, but I'm slightly stumped about what to do over 1M. My current openings are set out below if you need them: 1C: Clubs or balanced (The cause of the read sticker as we open 3=3=5=2 1C) 1D: Unbalanced Diamonds 1H: Hearts 1S: Spades 1NT: 14-16 2C: Strong, Weak Diamonds or Weak Spades (Brown Sticker) 2D: 4+ Diamonds and 4+ in a major, weak and premeptive 2H: Majors, Weak and Preemptive 2S: A pre-empt in any suit (Brown Sticker) 2NT: 20-21 Balanced 3C: 5/5 minors, weak and pre-emptive 3D: 6D+4M weak and preemptive 3H: Ropey 3H bid 3S: Ropey 3S bid 3NT: Single suited major bit We also play the overcall structure, and overcalling 1NT as a takeout bid is brown sticker as it doesn't promise 4 in an unbid suit. (I'm Converting this to Green sticker would be a matter

The Pavelick analysis suggests if you are choosing between 1H and 4H you should bid 4. Lots of the hands in his sample are 6-5 freakshows that look like the one here, which strongly suggests the best action here is 4H. Way less clear with spades - looks like an IMPs winner and a matchpoint loser to go with 4S over 1S, so it's probably a line ball in actuality and anything is right. Reason for 4H working better: Opponents landed in a bad contract: 5 Mis-Defence: 5 Found a good save: 3 Various places you get into a good contract or block oppo from getting into a good contract: 5 Reasons for 1H working better Misdefence: 2 Found a slam: 1 Stopped in a part score when game didn't make: 1 Opponents had more confidence in bidding to a grand slam that doens't make where they only get to 6 clubs going off on the other table: 1 Opponents give you a clue in the bidding so you find a better line: 1 Opponents get to high: 1 You don't get doubled when opponents have no-where to go and play 4Hx going off: 1 This is pretty convicing for me, just bid 4H and see what happens. Opponents will be under massive pressure and partner cannot get you in trouble! win/win.

The check back staan approach has a lot to recommend it. Alternatively Depending on your jurisdiction you might be doing a lot of labour to avoid just playing 1C as clubs or balanced and 1D as natural and unbalanced. Then you can always tell: 1C-1D! Showing hearts. 1H is 3 card support 2H is four card support 1NT is generally 2 card support but may be 1 in an extreme pinch. Then after 1D-1M you can devote 1NT to clubs which gives you enough space to have two ways to raise which means you can differentiate 4 and 3 card raises.

You could reserve the 3 clubs opening for both minors. To avoid losing the single suited club hand, you then you could play: 2♦ shows both majors, ♠+m or single suited clubs. Then you can untangle with 2D-2H as pass or correct. Correcting to 2S is spades + minor and 3C is clubs. Full Opening Structure 2C: Weak Clubs hands 2D: 2♦ shows both majors, ♠+m or single suited clubs. 2H: Hearts 2S: Spades 2NT: Hearts plus minor 3C: Both clubs 2NT relay would be: 3C: Clubs 3D: Diamonds and spades 3H: Both majors 3S: Spades and Clubs Not sure this is good, you lose a bunch of pre-emptive action from your 3C openers. I don't love Wilkosz

I like fit jumps, just contemplating the cost. Ironically we'd play this after an overcall. The original minor suit Swiss was double jumps wasn't it? So 3H and 3S - you'd lose the splinters for major suit raises. What would you lose to fit them in?

You could swap the 2D and 2C bids but as 2D probably needs to be to play that doesn't help you... But you could put some of the strong options into with the diamond hands. But if you want 4 opening preempts you can just play standard with 2C: strong or diamonds weak which is green sticker.

I'm not sure I'm playing something smart enough over 1D openings, and I'm keen to get some input. 1♦ 11-19ish Natural, unbalanced w/ 4441 or 5+ diamonds, 5332 hands open 1NT or 1C. You can open 1D with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs if you absolutely have to, but please try and avoid it (Partner will never do, I'd do it with like AKJx in diamonds and Jxxxx in clubs and a stiff ace of spades or something). The objective here is to sort out problematic major suit hands immediately by clarifying the majors situation, and have a bunch of ways to raise diamonds (2C, 2S, 3D). Clubs goes the way of the dodo with only two/three ways to get your club suit in the picture. General design principles A) Raise your partners major if you have support, however be truthful about your shape here (playing standard partner hates, hates, hates being raised on 3 after 1C-1S for example, and he hates opening a 6 diamonds 5 hearts hand with 1H) B) Get your majors into the picture. C) Raise partners other suits with a fit D) Try and limit your hand ASAP unless you have a game force. E) Set up your game force. 1♦ - 1♥ Natural - 1♠ Natural - 1 NT 7-11 balanced or 7-9 with clubs, non-forcing. - 2♣ unbalanced diamond raise (4+) 6-9 (denies 4cM), or 5+C GF, or 3=3=3=4 exactly with 16+. Can have 4cM only with 5 clubs - 2♦ WJS in a major - 2♥ 5 Spades, 4 Hearts - 2♠ Invitational plus raise of diamonds or balanced GF with 4D - 2NT - Balanced invite to 3NT - 3♣ 6+ ♣ in a limit raise, no 4 card diamond support or 4 card major - 3♦ Preemptive Diamond Raise - 3♥/♠ splinter agreeing diamonds - 3NT 13-15 3334 balanced hand Anything with a 4 card card major starts by bidding 1H or 1S unless it can respond 2D or 2H, which invites massive competition from the bad guys I think the 2C is a bit overloaded and the 3NT is underloaded so I'm open to suggestions, but the PROBLEMS BEGIN after the 1M response. We play transfer responses and I'm very not sure about how to best play this: 1♦-1♥ 1S: Natural 1NT: 4+ Clubs, limited to a normal 2C rebid. 2C: 6+ Diamonds, either weak or strong. 2D: Bad raise of hearts or a GF with 3 card heart support and without 6 diamonds (very not sure about this) 2H: Good raise of hearts (we open light, otherwise I'd have 2D as a 3 card raise probs, but I think this is better if you open every 11 count. I think it makes more sense to reverse the order, but in most other places in our system we play 'bad hand is the cheapest response' and preserving that logical outweighs the gains). 2S: Reverse into spades 2NT: 4+ Hearts with a 17 count or 6 diamonds, 3 hearts and a 17 count 3C: Normal Jump bid into clubs 3D: Jump rebid of diamonds without 3 hearts (otherwise you'd do 2NT or 2H) 3H: 15-16 with 4 card heart support. 3S: Splinter agreeing hearts 3NT: No fit, but to good to try 3C or 3D 4C: Splinter agreeing hearts 4D: 6 Diamonds with 5 Hearts not a super strong hand 4H: ?? It's entirely possible I'm overthinking the the 2D bid. It's forcing, because in no world are you going to be better off playing 2D when you have an 8 card heart fit. General principles are to show support if you have it (to which is dedicated 7 bids) show your 4 spades if you have them, otherwise show if you have a single suiter or a two suiter in the minors. 1♦-1♠ 1NT: Clubs 2C: 4+ Hearts, any strength, forcing 2D: Diamonds 2H: Bad Raise of Spades or great hand with 3 spades and without 6 diamonds 2S: Good Raise of Spades 2NT: 4+ Spades with a 17 count or 6 diamonds, 3 Spades and a 17+ count 3C: Normal jump rebid of clubs 3D: Jump rebid of diamonds 3H: Mini or slam invitational splinter agreeing spades 3S: 15-16 spade raise 3NT: No fit, but to good to try 3C or 3D 4C: Splinter Agreeing Spades 4D: 6 Diamonds 5 Spades 4H: GF splinter agreeing hearts

Eh yeah sorry I mean do the green sticker openings let me open 1C clubs or balanced. Shame about the 5332 hands with diamonds but everything else is great.

Am I correct in my understanding that the new ABF system regulations permit me to open 1C clubs or balanced as long as a hand with 5D opens 1D http://www.abfevents.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFSystemRegs2017.pdf

That doesn't make any sense - does that mean if there is only one logical way to structure what your bids mean, we don't have an agreement because it's just bridge? Similarly if we've agreed that it's logical in situation X pass is forcing I don't have to disclose pass is forcing because it's just bridge?

You have to vary your agreements after an opponents infarction though. Consider this that happened to me last week, exact action is lost to memory but is something like this (1C)-1D-(1S)-P (2C)-P-(1H) Partner accepted the insufficient bid and bid 2D and we both immediately understood what he meant - which is different from our normal agreements for a raise, or a balancing action. Do I have to stop playing with him now that I have an implicit agreement about what that action means and it's varied from what our normal agreement is here?

You could be boring and do polish club with a 14-16 NT and a Mexican 2D and flannery. 2S is akward. Playing it as 10-12 with 6 spades probably makes life easier. Now all your constructive auctions are super clean as you've taken all the balanced options except 11-13 out of 1C and you have great definition on your 1H opener.

So question: Is the assumption you need more forcing major raises rather than more major raises correct? The other way of looking at it is to make one highly descriptive bid. This maximises pressure on the opponents and gives your partner sufficient information. Rhm's useful space information point is very good though imho. The other advantage of devoting the more expensive bids to a plethora of ways to raise (forcing and not forcing) is it maximises the useful space principle - once you've agreed a fit you have substantially less need for information exchange as you only need to agree level not strain. And if you can squeeze in more level information with the raise, you may need to exchange very little information indeed.

And this is precisely the bit I am saying is terrible. If I think it's tactically optimal to open very light third in I'm allowed to do it, but only if I don't share this view with my partner, not all the time and the threshold isn't defined (No more than once a month? Once a session? Once a year? Once every 10 hands?). Yeah, this is super bad. Either it should be allowed, or it should be banned. A reasonable criteria here is that a ban/rule should be: A) Enforcable - you can reliably detect the breach of the rules B) Discrete - you can clearly define the breach of the rules. C) Warranted - it's necessary for the health of the game to have the rule. These 'It's banned, but you can do it sometimes, as long as you don't do it to often' fail the 'Discrete' and 'Enforceable' tests. If you want to ban opening light in third seat by partnership agreement because it's bad for the game (fine), there needs to be an enforceable and discrete standard about light openings in third seat.

Yeah, the solution is to ban psyches or relax system restrictions - or realistically a mix of both.

Yeah, the rules that say you can A) Do something but only if; B) You have not discussed/agreed the thing are all terrible and should be scrapped. Either it should be banned or legalised. The ambiguity they create cannot be resolved.

Scoring is IMPS. We're playing 1C = clubs or balanced, so then you don't need openers 1NT rebid to show a balanced hand. Then we play 1D-1H 1S: Natural 1NT: Clubs 2C: 6+ Diamonds 2D: Bad heart raise 2H: Good heart raise (These are this way around to preserve symmetry with other parts of our system, though fast arrival would probably be technically better) 1D-1S: 1NT: Clubs 2C: Hearts 2D: Diamonds 2H: Bad Spade Raise 2D: Good spade raise

It promises 4+ hearts, doesn't partly limit values. 1D is always unbalanced. I didn't specify what the rest of the system promises because, as I said, we had a problem not catered for by the same lol. 2D and 2H are preference, otherwise not designed! Edit: Yeah rebidding hearts to show a 5-5 seems pretty good but a struggle to agree trumps. Needs must etc etc.

Had a hand that puzzled partner and I last night: S - H QJ743 D A97642 C A6 Partner picks this up sitting dealer all Vul. Question 1: Do you open this 1H or 1D? Partner elected to open his longest suit, and the auction proceeded: 1D-1S-2C! (for us this shows hearts). What happened next at the table was us randomly stumbling around, but it did expose a small issue with the system/life, what does responder do with: S AKJ6 H AT2 D K3 C QJ72 I think your options are panicking, 3C as FSF, really not sure.