MarceldB

In Ebelings revolutionary Forcing Pass System the Pass is not forcing, if responder holds a 0-3 count he should pass namely opposite the fix 13-17. If you describe it as as WOS (Weak Opening System), with a fert 0-7 (1NT bid) and a limited 13-17 Pass, he is indeed the first one. See this link for review of his openingsbids and furthermore Slawinski's articles about this subject. Regards, Marcel

I prefer to preempt too but in my system with a more descriptive bid regarding shape and HCP 3NT - 4♣ 5♠ - 7♠ Pass 3NT= 7-9 HCP, 5+/6+ ♠/♦ v.v. 4♣= positive relay 5♠= 8=0=5=0, and a pure good maximum 7♠= must be K♠ + AQ♦ or KQ♠+A♦ Relayer, if needed , can ask with 5NT= how are your high honours A+K+Q divided? 6♣= 2♦ hon. + 1♠ hon. 6♦= AKQ♦ 6♥=2♠ hon.+ 1♦ hon. 6♠= AKQ♠ For the sake of good order: posted this just to show you that within the framework of a Weak Opening System it is important that the openings describe more then: 1 have this suit and this pointrange, to help partner, who is automatically the relayer, with his decisions. Regards, Marcel

Will 7♥ not be safer , waiting if you get from opponent eventually a Lightner double, so you will be able to correct to 7♠ ? (I know... it will not work if your sneaky opponent with a void ♥ produces a fake Lightner double, knowing/gambling that you will correct to 7♠ ;) , but how often will this happen?)

No, not at all. The example I gave is of course a curiosity and will never happen. But if...then it can be handled, without any problem. As you will understand the seldom 9+c suiters handling is an extention of the 8-carders treatment. Freebids were namely available on a safe level. ALL the 8221, 8311 and 8320's, in spite of the 8c-suit and the singl./void, are always known with the 4♣ bid, that means: - the exact distribution is known - min or max within the pointrange (pointranges can be: 7-11, 5-10 or 12-15) 4♦ = End Signal (exception: 8c=♦ ànd a minimum) Rest = Slam investigation and defines the trumpsuit In the framework of this thread, this 4♣ bid answers to the description of a symmetrical bid, with the advantage not disturbing f.e. a 7330 and it's handling in the original symmetric relay system as I have seen.

I understand your understatement, but I hate it to preëmpt my partner, even with a 12-100 I still build it up. W/non [hv=n=sktxxhdktxxcjxxxx&w=shkqjtxxxxxxxxdcx&e=saqj9xhdaqjxckqtx&s=sxxxxhadxxxxxcaxx]399|300|1♣ - 1♦ 1NT - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ 2NT - 3♣ 4♠ - 5♥ Pass[/hv] 1♣ = 8-12 any s/void (with a 12 100 then HCP do not count) ▪ 1♦ = relay 1NT = s/v ♦ , L= Major or any 5/5 ▪2♣ = relay 2♥ = L= ♥ + 4 card else ▪2♠ = relay 2NT= 4c ♣ ▪3♣ = relay (or do a positive break with 3♦ = stopper asking ♠ + ♣) in both cases: 4♠ = 0=12=0=1 and a minimum = 11 tricks 5♥ = final bid If East is the dealer: Pass - 1NT= 6-11 s/v ♦ , L= Major or 5/5 etc. and the same result Turn the minor holding in East and you can claim 6♥ Happy with a 5♥ opening? Or can somebody ask for Ace ♥ and/or ♣ ? And how to handle this hand if East opens 1♠ ? === Such occasions for above mentioned are rare and specially in case of no interference, but in the framework of the system it was no problem at all to build-in those extreme 1-suiter shapes without disturbing the regular shapes AND without getting too high, so I have the opinion: why not. Regards, Marcel

I'm sorry to disappoint you ;) As an extension of the Delta singleton system/scheme I can treat the 8-12carder as well, including a min or a max within the pointrange. F.e. the hand Free gave: ▪ Pass=13+ 2♥= 6-11p. singl./void ♣ and a 4441 or 5?440, OR 5-10p. and a 822=1 or 922=0 with a max or 10 11=1 with a min., 10 21=0 with a min, or finally a 11 1-1=0 with a max ▪2NT= relay 3♣= 4441 min or a 5=4=4=0 min/max, or 5-10p. and a 8=2=2=1 or 9=2=2=0 with a max or 10=111 min., 10=21=0 with a min, or finally a 11=1=1=0 with a max ▪3♦= relay 4♦= 9=2=2=0 and 9-10p. ▪4♥= Slam asking bid♠ 5♠= AKQJ♠, no J♥ (loose Jacks do not count namely) ▪7♠ or if you prefer this spiral scan method I use: ▪4♥= control points (A,K only) 4NT= 3 CP ▪5♣= scan 5♦= non or AK♠ ▪5♥= Queen♠? 6♣= yes + J♠, no J♥ 7♠ In the framework of a freakhand the 4♦ bid gives the exact distribution + the HCP with a margin of 1 point only, so still well treatable in my opinion. Don't forget that Relayer did not break the relaysequence. If a relay break with f.e. 3♥ after 2♥, RR still can give his exact distribution with his 8+ carder ♦, ♥, or ♠, and on a safe level. Moreover with the same bids as in the relay sequence. For more info: Deltex scheme

6-card♦ seems to me impossible after the 3♣ bid, because the blacks are equal of length. Furthermore: what is the benefit of giving a relay after the 3♣ bid? 96,43% it is the 2=4=5=2 instead of 1=4=7=1 / 0=4=9=0 or will it not be possible by giving NOT a relay but f.e. a stopper/control or an invite bid, that RR can describe afterwards his extreme shape?

Cascade wrote: >There are also anomolies where the regulations are badly written and/or ambiguous >e.g. The definition of convention, definition of HUM etc, so that it is not always clear >which bids with which hands will in fact violate the regulations. I would like to make a compliment to the writer of the HUM-regulations. (I'm really serious, inspite of my avatar) Keep in mind that the HUM regulation was made only, and I repeat only, to ban WOS with a pass=13+ and a fert with 0-7 HCP. There is really no "gap" , even not for mixed systems, in rules 1-3 to practice such WOS. So the aim was reached herewith. If in the mid-sixties the zones were designed with a Fert = 0-8, I'm pretty sure that 9HCP in the regulations should be the minimum HCP for a 1-level call. Rule no 4 (no short OR long cq. suit a or suit b as a guess principle) looks like an additional rule. Why? There was a system called "no Name" (later Suspensor) with short or long, cq. Lambda with the guess principle, so banned too with one simple rule. As a matter of form in some events HUM's were allowed (read: Catch 22). So the final result is in practice a complete ban, exactly as the intention was. The rules are very clear. If you open a certain 8-pointer or not it's up to you. (please don't forget full disclosure in your CC). If you pass some flat or bad 12-pointers you are not suddenly a "Strong Passer"; judgement is not banned. That's exactly the reason why the regulator has stipulated the min/max HCP only. If you can live with those HUM-regulations and specially when and where allowed, that's a complete other matter. But the HUM regulation is in my opinion not ambiguous, far from that. If you say rigid, I agree (compare f.e. in a WOS Ace+any King = a 8-12 pointer zone, but alas 7 points only!). On the other hand if rules are based on f.e. judgement only it can be hard to handle it in practice (your judgement opposite an other one) as you mentioned too. So the "rigid" way of limiting the HCP in regulations, taking account of the intention/origin of the HUM-regulation, is the simple and probably the most workable way. Reason why I can understand the merit. Regards, Marcel

in REGRESsion the bidding will be: • Pass = 13+ any shape 1♣ = 6-11 part of bal. shapes OR 12+any shape • 1♦ = 13+ balanced, OR 17+ s/void 2♣= 6-11 bal.♥ :5332 with 2or 3 toph. in 5card, OR 6322 and toph.=? • 2♦= positive relay 2♠= 10-11 if 6322 then no 2 or 3 toph. in 6 card •2NT= relay 3♣ = 5332, and 1 side suit with a stopper •3♦ = relay 3♥= 2=5=3=3 •3♠= Slam asking Bid ♥= trump (can alter afterwards) 4♣= AK♥ •4♠= Suit asking Bid ♦ 5♣= Q (if no K or Q♦ = 4NT bid you pass in comfort, KQ♦ is not possible) because of 1 side-suit stopper this must be QJx (♠stop impossible with Q♦) •6♣= impossible bid, thus to play --- slightly better because the exact distribution is not a big issue here is to bid after 3♣ •3♥= Control Point asking 3NT= 3CP (A=2, K=1) •4♣= scan 4♦= AK ♥ (non not possible because of 2 toph.) •4♥= scan further (normally: but first Q of your longest suit, which can not be possible AKQ + side stopper = 12HCP) 4♠= no Q♠ (if Q♠ no J♥= 4NT bid, or 5♣ with J♥ you pass in comfort) •6♣ thus QJx♦

There are mixed systems too like Pass= 0-7 or 17+ any shape Forcing in your opinion Foo?, thus a FP system ? well it is not, with f.e. a flat 13 pointer you can pass as well, (2,3% chance for a 17+). opponent with their handling will help you too by the way. Reason why - based on the 8-12 openings - such systems are generally called WOS. And then a further precision of the Pass-bid. >From my POV, the goal of FP systems was two fold. >1= Preserve as much space as possible for our good hands. >2= Open the bidding as often and as high as possible with all other hands, particularly >the important due to frequency 8-12 HCP range ones. I have explained you how and why they came to the Pass=13+ (as a necessary evil with all the disadvantages, but in endeffect workable and it's own advantages regarding systemdesign - don't forget 13+= 25%). When Slawinski, the founder of WOS (for the sake of good order in historical view: Frederick E. Ebeling's system from 1958 is the first one using weak openings on the 1-level, with a Pass as 13-17, but he can't be compared with Slawinski's real theoretical views) writes: "The weak openings postulate calls for a change of the orthodox meaning of pass" you can have your POV, but please stick to the history and the real facts.

Foo wrote: >Let me try to clarify things and reduce some confusion. >A Forcing Pass shows any hand with 12-13+ HCP that other systems would Open. >The necessary corollary of FPs is "fertilizer bids" or "ferts". Colorfully named to >describe the fact that you are bidding on what most other systems would consider >garbage AKA fertilizer. >Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show >anything else about the hand. >Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 >HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings. Sorry to say but you do not have any (historical) background regarding a WOS (weak opening system; FP is a wrong name) with Pass=13+ The Pass with 13+ was not the purpose of such a system. The 8-12 (45% of the hands) is the cornerstone. With priority to describe/handle those hands in a very good way. Reason why all the bids from the 1-level and upwards are used for that purpose. The logical step was to use the cheapest bid(s) 1♣/1♦ for the 13+ and Pass for the 0-7 But by not creating a paradox between 8-12 with less chance for game+ (20/20 diviation) but good handling possibilities and the 13+ with more chance for game+, but less bidding space for and optimal handling, the Pass=13+ with the most amount of bidding space possible was born, put up the disadvantage that the Pass-bid is vulnerable for interference because no shape/suit/pointrange is known. The 0-7 then as a Fert and originally the 1♦ bid, which creates the best possible way to design a symmetrical treatment enabling you to handle the same sets of openings in both hands regardless the pointrange. Lateron higher level Ferts were used, but the zone's 0-7, 8-12, 13+ normally maintained or slightly altered.

Can be solved too with Italian responses of a Suit asking bid (non or KQ, Q or AK, K or AQ, Ace only, AKQ, AKQJ) as practiced underneath in combination with a previous control asking bid: • Pass= 13+ any shape 2♣ = singl/void ♦, L=♣ or 4441/5?440, 6-11p.(Ace only or King+any Q= 6-pointer too) • 2♦= relay 2NT= 4c♥, 5431 +/- , or 64 with a minimum • 3♠= Control Asking Bid 3NT= A and/or K ♠ • 4♣= distribution relay 4NT= 3=4=0=6, 0/5 Aces (♣ as trump) • 5♦= Suit asking Bid ♥ 5♠= Q♥ (or AK not possible now because of 0 Aces) • 5NT= Suit Asking Bid ♠ 6♣ = King ♠ only (0 Aces already mentioned, thus ♠ control was the King so no need now to specify again) • Pass Regards, Marcel

see here the english page

Because of no limitation regarding the used system: The sequence in REGRESsion will be: Pass = 13+ any shape - 2♣ = 6-11p. s/v♦, L=♣ (no 5+/5+ or 7+/4) 2♦= relay -2♠= 1-suiter 2NT= relay * -4♣= 2=2=1=8 and 5/6-8p. 4♥= Slam Asking Bid, ♣=trump -5♣= 1 Ace/5 + Queen♣ 6♣ - Pass *most common 1-suiter(s) is of course the 6331, + the 7321 and 7330, so relayer is investigating for ♥. Relayer knows after 4♣ , no loosers in the other suits and 6♣ is reasonable. Regards, Marcel

Claus wrote: >Seems like the estimate depends of the frequency of each opening used. Such must be >dependent of the system and I assume those percentages(20% of all hands that you get dealt >are opened 1C) cannot be looked up anywhere - or? >The percentage for 1C in SAYC and in Regres I assume will be very different. Are such >assumptions based on something? Empiri? Wishthinking? Tables? Underneath for the system DELTA you mentioned, the working-out of the figures Pass:13+p. = 26,79% 1D: 0-7p. = 28,58% 1C, 1H and further: 8-12 = 44,63% Pass , automatically : 0 1C, all balanced: 4333 up to 7222 = 64,3592% of the handshapes x 44,63= 28,7056 x step 1= 0,2870 1D= 28,58 x step 2 = 0,5716 1H= s/v S most common 4441 up to 7330 = 32,83% of the handshapes divided by 4 (s/v S only) = 8,2075% x 44,63 = 3,663 x step 3 = 0,1099 1S= s/v H , same--> 3,663 x step 4 = 0,1465 1NT= s/v D, 5c Major (so no 4441), = 0,094 etc. up to 2NT for the most common s/v shapes ----- total: Pas = 0 1C= 0,2870 1D= 0,5716 1H=0,1099 1S= 0,1465 1NT= 0,0940 2C= 0,1000 2D= 0,1237 2H=0,0500 2S= 0,0640 2NT= 0,010 3C and higher = 0,2694 Totally: 1,8261 Slawinski counted approx. 1,8 ===== I hope to have made it clear for you regards, Marcel

Add some seaweed, especially Kombu; it's reducing the cooking time, more easy to digest and has a good influence on the nutritional value

1eyedjack wrote: "Interested to know where you would have ended up if East held H stopper. 3NT perhaps, off 5 first Spade tricks? Prospects for 5m appear suspect also if East does have Heart Ace, because his limited values would then require him to be short an honour in a minor. Not familiar with the system, so just asking." If A♥ then 5♣ as contract. A 5332 is more as 81% chance. Thus AQ♣ is there according the system and no Q♦. With a 2=3=3=5 only less chance.. So prospects are fine. Specially if you compare the usual 1NT-3NT bidding at other table(s). >Also how can East be sure that S:Qx is inadequate stopper (ie opposite, say S:Jxx)? Qx is no stopper . Suppose relayer had Jxx♠. Then he would have bid 3♣ after the 2♥ bid. Hearing 3♦= ♦ stopper (thus QJx), 3♥= ♠ stop? 3♠= half stopper (I can not figure out 3- or 2-card unfortunately because of the spade-suit. Even if you play: 3♥ = ♦ stop, no ♠ stop, can have ♥ stop, the chance of Qx♠= 78%, so I bid 3NT too (AQxxxx is not possible namely because of the 2♥ bid) If ♥ half stopper was the issue I have instruments. A prior ♥ stopper sequence, Hearing no ♥ stop then relayer can bid 3♠= half stopper in 3 card? or he can bid 3NT= pass with half stopper in 2-card. I can't have it all ;-) By the way: Relayer, although a fit and a nice medium could have bid after 1♠, 2♣ too= n.f. (he still needs a max if a 5332 or 5422) But if a 6322 and 2 Aces he takes a risk Because of the 1♠ bid ("opening"), relayer has important information on forehand regarding the tophon. in the main suit in a 5332 shape (if 6322 then later too). So this helps him how to proceed furtheron. Those kind openings are used in 1st. or 2nd hand too for a 8-12p. range.

Dealer West P - 1♣ 1♦ - 1♠ 1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 2NT 3♦ - 3♥ 3♠ - 4♣ Pass P= 13+ any shape 1♣= 6-11 part bal. shapes òr 12+ any shape 1♦= 13+ bal. òr ++ else 1♠= 6-11p. bal. ♣ 5332 (then 2 top. in 5 card), 5422 òr 6322 1NT= relay and a positive (in points/shape) 2♥= a max. 10-11p. 5332, thus 2 toph. in ♣, òr 6322 no 2 toph. , or 5422 2♠= relay 2NT= 5332 or 5♣4♦22 3♦= stopper asking ♠+♥ 3♥= no ♠ stopper 3♠= ♥ stopper? 4♣= no ♥ stopper and a 5332 Pass: without A♥ -and then no Q♦ by the way if 5332- no game prospects If East is dealer: - - 1♠ = 8-12p. bal. ♣ 5332 (then 2 top. in 5 card), 5422 or 6322 1NT= relay - etc. (now a max= 11-12p.)

according the inventor Peter Edwards: 1NT-X-P: Opener must redouble 1NT-X-P-P XX- P-2any That suit and spades 1NT-X-XX Clubs and a red suit 1NT-X-2suit: Natural, unless oppo double and responder bids again 1NT-X-2suit-X P - P-XX The other 3 suits 1NT-X-2C-X P - P-2D The red suits 1NT-X-2C-X P - P-2H 4 spades, 5 hearts 1NT-X-2D-X P - P-2H 5 spades, 4 hearts "We played 10-12 in first and second positions, non-vulnerable only. The philosophy was that we did not mind going 2, 3 or even 4 down in 50's in a silly contract, because for every silly -200 we had half a dozen big scores when oppo couldn't cope. Incidentally, I have now grown older and wiser. Nobody will persuade me to play anything but 12-14 these days. Houdini is not sensible when you are vulnerable." ==== source: rec. games.bridge ==== regards, Marcel

>Marcel this is not right place for a discussion of details of Regres. This is the non-natural system forum section. People discuss f.e. Moscito details too, so I do not see any ground in such thrifty occasions that Regres is the subject in a bidding not to discuss the sequence and specially in case the reference to that system is completely wrong. So if you allow me: >You know quite well Regres book is open for interpretations here and not at all clear. I use >Delta but anti-delta is also a possible solution. Peter Koch Larsen uses another option which I >am unable to look through but it looks to be a possible correct interpretation too. >Your private interpretation in Regression may have something too. >. to Lukasz Slawinski natural methods will do too. I know the details are not worked out completely, specially the continuations of (forcing) relay breaks. But the basics are very clear and without any questionmarks. The 2♦= unlimited relay, asking for the Major, whilst 2♣= the g.f. forcing relay (can have sometimes an exit to play 3x in the 4-card) belong to those basics. When I see your sign offs, it is a complete waste of bidding space in case you want to investigate for slam. Therefore after 1NT those 2 original different relays, apart of the fact to be able to sign off/invite. >But 4♠ is NOT SLAB in ♣. There are no high-level SLAB in minors. So it is not only in >Regres but in all bridge systems. That's completely new for me. :o I see that you don't like minor-slams. But seriously Claus, this is not correct. I estimate that you have this treatment because of the "mistreatment" of how to sign-off properly. It's a cooperation between R and RR. In other sequences f.e.: give 1 positive relay, break and RR proceeds with a maximum. Normal treatment. I have posted this because people who are not familiar with Regres could get a completely wrong view. If you like your own method, that's up to you, but it has nothing to do with the original Regres cq. relay-methods, either privat-versions/interpretations of the original Regres. Best regards, Marcel

Hi CLaus, Are you mixing two approaches in Regres regarding the singleton treatment? 1NT= indeed s/v ♦, L= Major a] 2♣= relay --> 2♥= 5+ card ♠ if an 1-suiter then a minimum, no 64 in the Majors, either any 5/5 b] 2♣= relay --> 2♥= 5+ card ♥ + 4c else 5431 +/- or 64 with a minimum. this last one according the singleton scheme. So here: 2♦= 5+ card ♠ Furthermore regarding the progress after full distribution is known: Here with 3♦ --> all further bids are SLam Asking Bids and not up to 4♣ sign offs because you gave a positive 2♣ relay after the 1NT bid. Bid otherwise 2♦= partner call your longest Major. And finally 2nd SLab= ♣ because 2nd longest suit. Besides the 1NT bid is limited: 13-16p. (17 if you wish, but not 18)

with ♠KQx ♥Qxxxx ♦Qxxx ♣x = 5SP too, same 5♠ bid ?

Hello Flame, I suppose (and hope) that you do not possess some knowledge of these kind of WOS (here with a built-in singleton Delta treatment). Otherwise I can not place your remark at all. Sorry that I have to speak plainly here, but in my opinion you have asked for. Nevertheless I will explain the working of this WOS: A singleton/void shape gives partner immediately information about a playable contract, because a singleton is usually accompanied by at least 3 cards in any other suit. Whilst in a normal setting f.e. an 1♠ opening= 5+ card S, you do not know anything about the other suits (0-5 card). Furthermore a balanced hand can evaluate his hand much better opposite a s/v shape as v.v. A rather well known rule in relay-systems is that the balanced hand should be relayer. Reason why those singleton-openings have so much priority in this system. ===== After a Pass (13+) both partners start the sequence with telling their pointranges and in case of reaching a certain pointrange if one has a singleton/void shape (at the same time in which suit singleton/void or which Extreme one) or a balanced one. Balanced ones with the lowest bids possible so that the balanced hand still maintains R(relayer) in case partner has the lowest possible pointrange-level for a singleton/void shape. If not , the unlimited hand remains the R. Resulting that the weaker hand tells in an earlier stage his kind of shape in a sequence and there is a balance between the two point-ranges regarding the fact when to tell your partner I have a S/void shape which has a higher pointrange-level than yours. So the shape and maximum pointrange of the more stronger hand (=R) is unknown to the opponent. f.e. Pass (13+) - 1♥/2♥= s/v shapes 6-11p. Pass(13+) - 1♣= part 6-11p. bal. or 12+ any 1♥-2♥= s/v shapes 13-16p. 1♣= 8-12p. s/v shapes - 1♦= positive relay 1♥-2♥ and in + opposite ++ or v.v. , same s/v openings 1 level higher. === in a balanced situation same mechanism: Pass - 1♣ 1♦= 13+ bal or ++ else - 1♥=12+, rest= 6-11p. bal. or extreme shapes 11-14p. Pass - 1♣ 1♦ - 1♥= 12+ any 2♣ 13-15p. certains bal. hands thus the unlimited hand becomes relayer OR if the 1♥ bidder has a s/v shape 12-15p. with topcontrols, the balanced hand takes over the relayership again. ===== If above system design is not your cup of tea, that's each one's free choice. Trusting to have you informed about the "missing logic" and "upside down mistakes" and I'm sorry that I reach the right contract so "by accident". Marcel

Sure I know, that's the reason why I do not like distri-relay only. Of course it is all a matter of bidding space, but I suppose 2NT,3♣ are available for other matters, because you are already with the 1♠ relay in a g.f. situation. I do not know If you could break a relay sequence, do an asking in combination with a max/min cq. certain SP/CP, and pick up the final distribution relay if needed. SP will be then difficult, RKC will do. You know all the in-and-outs of Moscito much better than I do. Every system has it's pro and contra's within the framework of what you like or (have to) accept. So please see my above remarks in that light. Regards, Marcel

I'm missing your argument in your earlier post "Now North wants to try for slam and he might have 3♦ losers of top going down in 5♥!" In your given sequence with f.e. AKQxx KQxx xxx x a 4NT reply non or AKQ♠ I suppose, now pass or 5♥? reason why I can use in REGRESsion more as a distribution relay only Pass= 13+ ...1♣= 6-11 part balanced OR 12+ any 1♥= 13-16 s/v♥ OR s/v♣ ,L=M or any 5/5 ...1♠=relay 1NT= s/v♣ variant ...2♣= g.f. relay 2♦= L=♠, no 5/5 ...2♠= distri relay ànd at the same time stopper sequence (2♥=normal relay and stopperasking possiblity later too but not in case RR has a 4c♥) 3NT= 5=4=3=1, ♥+♦ stop and a minimum 13-14p. ...4♥= Slam asking Bid ♥ 5♠=3 Aces of 5 + Trump Queen, no Queen♣ ...6♥ If north should have AKQTx of ♣, he will proceed after 5♠ with: ...5NT= Jack♥? (the only way to ask for J♣ afterwards) 6♣= no ...6♦= Jack♣? if not 6♥ and pass