MarceldB

I suppose that this team will loose their seating rights. You can stick to play against 1 pair only. I do not know the regulations of your bridge organisation, but, apart of submitting a full copy of the HUM-system(s), I can imagine that following extra regulations could help: -If 2 HUM's in a team, and if both systems are more or less the same; separate outline of the differences only to be submitted too -viable proposed defence obligatory + their defences (can/must be even an approved proposed one by your organisation) -proper separate outline of the system Above regulations could save you preparation time. Furthermore: -if 1 HUM pair: must be 15 minutes before the scheduled beginning available if 2 HUM pairs: 30 minutes, to answer your last questions apart of the fact that they are obliged to answer your (e-mail) questions in the previous period. Just a suggestion, Regards, Marcel

What do you think? :) When even in the Bermuda Bowl or Venice Cup in the Round Robin HUM's are prohibited.

Finding your own good contract should not be the only aim of your partnership. At least as much important should be preventing your opponent from doing the same and to be ahead of them in the exchange of information. The more often it is achieved, the better it is. Therefore one should open as frequently as possible to obstruct opponents bidding and to forestall them in the exchange of information. I suppose you will agree that this is a rather common bridge axiom. Reason why people f.e. preempt. And nowadays the values for a preempt are even downgraded. A WOS/HUM-system combines those two aspects: finding your good contract ànd preventing opponents information exchange. With the difference compared with natural systems that the 1-level is taken into account too. Your remark that they *might* feel that HUM is *only* played to destroy the normal performance , will be caused often by ignorance and as you said by a more psychological aspect. Because in a WOS the constructive part is as much important as the more preemptive one. And the preemptive one does not exclude at all a constructive treatment by the way. I admit that when you scale it that the preemptive aspects opposite a Pass=13+ will be about 65/35. (Pass=13+ is relatively the most "weak" spot in a WOS system). Regards, Marcel

To illustrate Free's remark: "In the communist, restrictive Poland of that day, bridge players were allowed freedom of expression (at least when it came to their choice of bidding systems). In the freedom-loving, democratic West, their choices are severely restricted.. Isn't that ironic? WOS (Weak Opening Systems) were played at all levels, in pair tournaments and team matches. There were no problems with that, it just seemed like a natural evolution of the game. That is until those systems were played at the international level and some players started to complain - well, you know the rest." Source: Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge, 2004-06-07 Thread: Which bidding systems are genarally considered the best? Author: Michael Rosa note from my part: In 1964 in Poland there where restrictions regarding an opening in 1st. or 2nd. position on the 1-level. Minimum 8 HCP namely. But in 1965 there where no restrictions any more.

Two comments about passing 2♦ First: Passing 2♦ leaves you in a 5-4 fit 13.6% of the time. However this also leaves you in a 4-2 fit 11.6% of the time. The decision to pass fails catastrophically nearly as often as it succeeds. Second: This is matchpoints. Nuff said Is your calculation correct? I come to: 5-4 fit in 23,35% and 4-2 in 7,8% taking into account the 4m333, 44m32, 5m332 distributions

But was it a joke? That 1♠ bid, was well placed when you see the board. E/NS -------------A -------------T832 -------------KJ2 -------------AKT84 8632------------------T974 A9---------------------QJ765 AQT764---------------3 9-----------------------753 --------------KQJ5 --------------K4 --------------985 --------------QJ62 P - 1D* - 1S - X* 3S- P - P - X* P - 3NT - all pass You can beat 3♠ in score only with, Ace♠ lead and underlead AK♣, so south's decision to bid 3NT is a good one in this case. There was 1700 in the air, but also a good score for EW if 3♠X an no optimal defence.

Hi Atul, You are Foobar I suppose? I can understand your posting. I kibitz sometimes twice a week at your 'dejeuner table', mainly too see how interference bidding from your side is handled ànd on the other side how opponents coop with your WOS. Jx opposite AKTxxx ♥, finesse or not taking into account the overcall and the played cards sofar as an example , and moreover and specially all those silly interferences which you mentioned. I have the impression that the main problem is that your opponents are pick-up partners. In many cases each one has completely different views about playing against a WOS. I can better say that they have no ideas at all most of the times. Perhaps to avoid such an unpleasant development, give opponent a well worked-out ànd good fix defence if they do not have such one by their own. First 2, perhaps 3 rounds, of a sequence will be enough. Even with the first round only will be already a great improvement. Just a thought..... An other aspect, as mentioned by other posters too, is your penalty handling. I can imagine that you will not like it to overturn your system completely just because of those silly interferences. There are evenings too that opponents loss only by those bids, but last times this is not always the case. Reason for your posting I suppose. Perhaps a (small) alteration in your system will be possible without causing much troubles in your further sequences? Although this is more or less an "open door". Coop with silly as well as with full disclosure overcalls will be nearly impossible and should not be my goal. Reason to demand of your opponent that they have to play your given defence òr their own full disclosure one. Creating in this way for bòth parties a possibility for a pleasant bridge game and you avoid that opponents will make silly bids with the aim to disturb only without interest in their own score. If own full disclosure defences including silly bids, that's yoùr problem to solve. Best regards, Marcel

After denying a ♣ honour, partner has either ♠A and ♦Q OR ♠Q and ♦KQ OR ♠AQ. When he has a ♦ honour, he'll bid 5♥ instead of 5♦ (because exactly 1 ♠ honour) so I can pass this out. Thanks Free for your reply. I had figured that out too before quoting you. You have good chances in 5♥ of course. In the option with 5♦ after the 4♥ relay; can you play 5♥? or Jack Scan? In case of 5♠ I won't speak about the possibility of an eventual ♥ ruff by the way. ==== I understand that in practice you will take your chances for your investigation. Opponent has to lead properly firstly and cards can be friendly. Perhaps I'm too focussed on a 100% safe investigation, starting from the fact that the outstanding honours will be on the wrong spot regarding the lead etc.. It is not a bidding contest. Although... ;) Cheers, Marcel

not even the non relayers (happy with Ace♣ + Q♠ ?), in the relayers camp it's a mess too. I have posted some months ago a remark that bidding such hands, specially in relay systems , needs - although with the actual hand it should fit wonderfull for your system and you reach the 100% contract - a fair approach. I mean: what if the honours are placed differently in the framework of the sequence sofar and the received information. mr1303: (although under admitted fudging circumstances) 4♥ level = auto 5-level with ♦ Queen too. 4 ♦ relay and f.e. 4NT= ♣ + ♦ thus Q♠, KorQ ♣ , K or Q♦ ---- Free: if Q♦? OR after the 4♥ relay: 5♦=K orQ♣ and K orQ♦ and thus Q♠ ------ Inquiry: question: Ace♣ will that be welcome if you know partner is short in ♣ ? ------ I may suppose the starting point is a safe contract, best defence/lead Best regards, Marcel P.S. For the sake of good order: the result of my given bidding sequence does not matter me, it's the principle that counts for me.

Because the non-natural system section, you allow me for: Pass - 1♦ 1♥ - 1NT 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 3♦ 3♠- 3NT 4♠ - 4NT 6♠ - pass Pass= 13+ any shape 1♦= 0-5p. (no Ace OR King+any Queen) OR 6-11 part balanced 1♥= relay (no 4333/4432 13-22p.) no 13-15p.: 5+c m+4cM, or ♣ only 1NT= 6-9p. 4333/4432 or 5m332 (no 2/3 toph.) 2♣= positive relay 2♦= 6-7p., or 8 bad points. no Ace + any King 2♥= relay 3♦= 4/4 Majors, 2/3 or 3/2 in the minors 3♠ - Control asking Bid (♠♣♦♥ order) ** 3NT= King or Ace ♠ 4♠= SLam Asking Bid, ♠= trump * 4NT= Queen♠, no Queen in doubleton *After 3NT I can ask with 4♣ for exact distribution or through 4♦ End Signal play a game or ask for further Control cq. do a Slam asking bid. 4♥ = normally: further control? but because of control ♠ Ace no further control can be there, thus a SLam Asking Bid and ♥=trump. Resulting that 4♠ = SLam asking Bid for♠. 1 Ace of 5 (♠) already mentioned, thus without Q♠ RR passes the 4♠ bid. ==== Suppose West has Ace ♠ and East has K♠ , I will have a problem because if no Q♠ I have to play -if decided to investigate furtheron- on the 5-level. No system is perfect <_< ----- ** note: no control is impossible because 3 Queens will be downgraded to a 0-5 pointrange ===== Finally, because starting with a Pass=13+ is easier than starting with a fert. If East has to open, the bidding will be symmetrical with the same information. For your info: 1♦ - 1♥ 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2♠ 3♦ - etc. 1♦= 0-7 (if 7 then no Ace+ any King) 1♥= 13+ (no 13-22 4333/4432 etc.) 2♣= 6-7 bal. 4333/4432 or M or any 7222 with specification (if 4p.=Ace if 5p.=K+anyQ) 2♦ = positive relay 2♥= any 4333/4432 2♠= relay 3♦= again the 4/4 Majors and 2/3 or 3/2 in the minors

I just have checked the example boards (did not knew that's possible), reason why slightly adjusted, but not influencing the merits at all. ===== If a pair plays a HUM, I should not wonder that BS bids are included. As mentioned a psyche protected or required by the system is a BS ànd legal if BS is permitted. Still starting from a psyche (you have to because you do not have experience with that HUM-pair) the fact remains that you can't prove it isn't, although you have your serious doubts. In real life you can inform as a notification the director and that's it. In a club environment more of such behaviour will be noticed very quickly. Tournament/drives are already more difficult. I don't have experience with playing on line but I suppose you can send an e-mail and again as notification only of course (treat your opponent as you would like to be treated). In the framework of an artificial relaysystem - even if you are covered by the regulations officially - I have my doubts regarding psyches. Not only because the control mechanism if it is partnership understanding or not is imperfect, but also the risk of your psyche is substantial compared with other systems. Seeing my Avatar and motto, you will understand that I hate restrictions, but even for me there are limits.... :D

Hi Todd, Regarding your last question: as opponent I should like to know the percentage of the weak possibility taking into account position of the bids/vulnerability and your cq. your partner's habits. I.m.o no pre-alert but part of your system. ==== Psychic bids protected by system or required by system= Brown Sticker. (rule D) If you play f.e. a (HUM/WOS) relay-system, as you do, which is quite dominating, I can imagine -although it has a tendency of "discrimination" - that there could be made a new regulation that you are not allowed to employ BS-rule D . Because within such a highly artificial system in which the Relayer keeps the control you have so many possibilities (even if it's the first or second time; so no partnership understanding=agreement) to use it. And frankly spoken: do you need it really ? ;-) I have seen yesterday on bbo a simple HUM system in action: Pass= normal 1D opening 1D= 0-11 rest= quite normal 1D - (P) - 1NT - (X) P - (P) - XX - (P) 2C - (2S) all pass (+3). Not clever of the opponent, but what can you expect of a pick-up partnership opposite such a HUM-pair. I will explain the bids: 1D= 0-11 1NT= 11-13 P= relay (take out no 5 card I suppose) XX= transfer to Clubs (i.m.o. no 5 card and any 4432/4443) 2C= C+ 4crd. else 1D had 6 points 1NT bidder had 5 points and a flat shape (3=3=3=4) and he took no risk (NV opposite V) because wat could happen? after opponents X his partner could bid: P= take out no 5+ card --> find your (moysian) fit XX= a max --> 1NT-bidder bids his 4+ card --> find your fit again 2x= 5+ card no maximum--> and pass with comfort Even if this was the first time (which I don't trust, seeing an other board (1C) - P - (1H) - 1S (1NT)-P 1S bidder (NV op. V) had xx, xxx, AKJxxx, xxx, and his partner ATxx, Qxx, 9xxx, Qx, 1C bidder reached 3NT and D lead. The fact that in the first 4 boards, 2 psyches appear is an idication. They are balancing between full disclosure, partnership understanding, psyches (BS or not) For the sake of good order, Todd, above examples nothing to do with your bidding practice, but to illustrate how difficult this matter can be. Hum-pair said that is was a psyche. I.m.o., giving the benefite of the doubt, it was a BS-bid. But it still stinks. Apart of the matter how to prove it wasn't a psyche. =======

It was easy for me. I have made in the past a little prog in Filemaker on occasion of designing a relay system in which ALL shapes were included. Enable me to see which shapes are more common in a certain set. Just for your info/fun: this 10=3=0=0 shape, known with the 4♥ bid and 5-7/8 points and HCP concentrated in the 10 card (no A+K). In a earlier stage s/v ♦ (1NT bid), and Main suit ♠ with the 2♦ bid.

1,5213%

The main problem is that the 1♥ responder could be weak too. Thus 4♦ to play must be in the fraimwork. So an End Signal is difficult to use. Underneath a suggestion. 3NT= to play 4♣= distribution asking 4♦= to play 4♥= not interested in void or 1/1 side suits and SLam Asking bid ♦ 4♠= to play 4NT= not interested in void or 1/1 side suits and SLam Asking bid ♠ 5♣= SLab♦ but only interested in AK ♦ 5♦= to play 5♥= AK♠? 5♠= AKQ♠? and not forcing-> 5NT= side Queen, 6x=Side K, 4♣ - ? 4♦=void lowest side suit -> 4♥= SLab♦, 4♠= to play, 4NT=SLab♠,5♦=to play 4♥= void highest side suit -> 4♠= to play, 4NT=SLab♦,5♣=SLab♠,5♦=to play 4♠ en higher= 1/1 (will not be a disappointment for partner) and at the same time SLAB answers with ♦ provisionally as trump (if partner bids ♠= to play) SLab answers: step1= 1 Ace of 5 (or 4 if a void) step2= 1 Ace + Trump Queen step3= 0 or 3 Aces step 4= 2 Aces step 5 = 2 Aces + trump Queen OR if you don't like Slab's then f.e. Spiral Scan (eventually with the restriction that Relayer still has set the trumpsuit with his bid). ==== I hope it answers your request for simplicity? :( To have a possibility to inform -if important- for the right void is in my opinion a main issue. Reason why such an example scheme is hardly inevitable. Marcel

No because an anchor suit is known. Either the other Major if a Major was the opening bid, or the other minor if a minor was the opening bid.

As a curiosity. So just for your information. For these kind of distributions I use following openings. (No Brown Sticker because an anchor suit is known) 2♠= anchor suit is ♣ 7/8/9 card♣ and 4card else with a minimum 4card♣ and a 7/8/9card else with a maximum 5+/6+ ♣/♦ v.v. min/max 2NT= anchor suit is ♦ 7/8/9 card ♦ and 4card else with a minimum 4card♦ and a 7/8/9card else with a maximum 5+/6+ ♦/♥ v.v. min/max 3♣ = anchor suit is ♥ 7/8/9 card ♥ and 4card else with a minimum 4card♥ and a 7/8/9card else with a maximum 5+/6+ ♥/♠ v.v. min/max 3♦ = anchor suit is ♠ 7/8/9 card ♠ and 4card ♥ with a minimum 4card♠ and a 7/8/9card ♣ or ♦ with a maximum 5+/6+ ♣/♠ v.v. min/max 3♥ = anchor suit is ♥ 7/8/9 card ♥ and 4card ♠ with a maximum 5+/6+ ♣/♥ v.v. min/max 3♠ = anchor suit is ♠ 7/8/9 card ♠ and 4card ♣ or ♦ with a minimum 3NT = anchor suits are ♠ and ♦ 5+/6+ ♦/♠ v.v. with a minimum 4♣ = anchor suits are ♠ and ♦ 5+/6+ ♦/♠ with a maximum ♦ equal or > ♠ 4♦ = anchor suits are ♠ and ♦ 5+/6+ ♦/♠ with a maximum ♦ < ♠ I use this scheme in a relay system so for any pointrange available. Because of the 2-under transfers for the 2♠-3♦ openings the opponent has more bidding space but on the other hand I also hate it to preempt my partner. So a matter of choice. Same for 6 or 7card 1-suiters: those are treated in a singleton opening system. Marcel

How do I get rid of the "open squares" in the description box, caused by ctrl-enter. In other words is there an other method to go to the next line if the line itself is not completed. I prefer this in case of f.e. multi-bids to keep a clear/better view of the different meanings. Marcel

Don't look to the total percentage of a pointrange only. F.e. the difference between 7-11 and 8-12 is 0,0012%... but a world of difference. Recalculate in each pointrange the percentages per Pointcount. Next step is to divide the points left equally and see then how this works in a total-pointrange. I will give you the results: 6-10 pointrange with 6,11 % below average 7-11 pointrange with 3,16 % below average 8-12 pointrange with 0,16 % below average 9-13 pointrange with 2,83 % above average 10-14 pointrange with 5,86 % above average 6-11 pointrange with 4,47 % below average 7-12 pointrange with 1,67 % below average 8-13 pointrange with 1,20 % above average 9-14 pointrange with 4,08 % above average 10-15 pointrange with 6,95 % above average Now you can choose according your style. Kamikaze? More safe? Afraid ;-) Above figures definite the 8-12 pointrange as the most average one. Completely fitting to the axiom of a 20/20 diviation. And the rest why to open I have already mentioned in my previous posting. Marcel

I am wondering... I've heard that the problem with this range is it is too easylly well defined when opponents dedclare in the end, helping them too much. This can happen but most of the times you will gain more than you will loose. N/All -----------xxx -----------x -----------Axxxx -----------Kxxx Qxx-----------------AKJxx KJxx----------------QT9 QJx------------------xx Jxx------------------AQx -----------xx -----------Axxxx -----------Kxx -----------xxx normally: 4S in East uncontested Do you start Ace of hearts? N----E-----S-----W 1C--1S----P----- and reaching again 4S 1C=8-12 ( Ace + any King is an 8 pointer, too strong namely) and any singleton/void. To conclude a most likely s/v hearts in north is not a hugh problem for south. Even if 3NT in East you will not start Hearts but a minor. All depends on the meanings of that 8-12 bid. If well defined it can help you more than the opponent regarding the lead and or continuation. And sometimes the declarer thanks you very much. Or thanking not to be landed in a poor contract by themselves because of your weak opening :o As long as the balance goes the right direction, I'm happy with it.

This seems believable, but can you prove this? It is clear that these hands are most common, but why does that make it the optimal opening range? Prove it? Well Hannie, from my experience of playing Weak opening systems, yes. I mean any sort of proof to a large extent is anecdotal or based on one's own experiences. What i can say is that it pays to get into the auction early; 8-10 openings allo0w you to get in very quickly, and also give you a measure of security in that at least you have some sort of hand. I can produce blanket comments like "bridge is a bidder's game", but of course that is just a throw away line. From my experience it is definitely true however. It is really hard to bid over 1D - 8-12 4+S, (P), 2S 4-10, at least 3+S. Whether it is worth paying the price of a strong C or a strong pass is something you have to decide. The Poles did a lot of work on this area about 20 years ago or so and developed a whole host of wos based on this point range. Have a look if you can find it, at the original regres book. There is also a pamphlet by Lukasz Slawinski on weak opening sstems that goes into this in detail. Marcel Broeder, who at times posts here also has good thoughts on this. I will try to give in the context of a historical point of view an answer why they came to the position that the 8-12 is the best range, supposing that most of you will not have that old literature. 1958 : spiral bound (privat)publication by Frederick J. Ebeling Reproduced in 1984 (Ron Klinger/George Havas) Openings (and even as overcalls!): Pass= 13-17 1x = 8-12 , best suit 1NT= 0-7 OR 18-21 2x = 22+, best suit Re: the 8-12 pointrange. I quote the original 1958 publication: "with this count it is evident that the hands are probably more or less evenly divided, However, experience indicates that the use of this bid to which the partner is not obliged to respond, results in: 1) a part score 2) a good sacrifice 3) at worst, a small negative score rather than a passed hand. Under any circumstances, the partner is given immediate and accurate knowledge as to the strength and character of the hand." From point of completeness I mention the answers over an 1x= 8-12 bid: a) with 0-10 count Pass b: with 11-15 count, your best suit should be bid. opener passes with an 8-10 count. c) with 16+ jump into your best suit opener indicates if he has a min. or max. For the sake of good order as Mr.Klinger mentioned in his editor's note: " .... you may wish to develop the bidding in more detail than is revealed in this manuscript, but this is no way diminishes the importance of this contribution to bridge theory...." (-trusting to have not violated coyrights- MarceldB) ========= In 1963 similar ideas crossed the mind of Lukasz Slawinski - not knowing at all Ebeling's private publication (see his article " the moons of mars") -, during 1963-65 elaborated the theory; met Ruminski; resulting in a first publication in 1967. Further theoretical development resulting end '60 beg. '70 in a couple of workable WOS. I will sum up some lines of him. Are there contradictions and paradoxes hidden in the foundations of systems regarding - 12-18 as the basic opening zone - passing with weaker hands (if no preempt) - the way of signalling the distribution ? •The paradox of the 12-18 opening zone - with 12 points as a minimum it is believed that such a strenght gives enough chance to make the contract - and you are secured normally from disastrous defeat. Why then overcalling with less and the opponents have already exchanged information? Whilst to open is less dangerous because the opponent is unconscious of their reciprocal strength •The paradox of an opening Pass - large range of strenght and distribution diversity - high frequency (every second deal and low agressiveness of bidding) •The paradox of signalling the distribiution based on long suits -it tells a lot about the opening suit, saying almost nothing about the side suits -the simplicity of such an opening does not create any difficulties for the opponents. Bridge is a two pairs game and preventing the opponents from finding their proper contract is almost as important as finding one's own. ------ Above contradictions lead to the following conclusion: The present bidding axioms should be radically revised. Left unchanged, they will prevent any real progress and lead to overcomplicated systems ------ Introduction of new axioms: - the Leadership principle - the bidding should be led by the stronger hand - one should open as frequently as possible to obstruct the opponent's bidding and to forestall them in the exchange of information - the most frequent hands should be treated with utmost care by the system and finally coming all together to the point: Why should the majority of opening bids be reserved for the 8-12 hands? Well, because -8-12 more frequent than the 12-16 ones -This postulates creates the best ground to realize above principles: - leadership - maximal activity - maximal frequency To say it simply : more or less a combination/collaboration of "most common" (45% of the hands) ànd your goal (read principles, axioms,purpose) ============= So far some historical background. In my opinion not be "dusted" but still valid. See also Paul Marston's remarks in the Moscito2005 document that preferably in "a free world" he would like to return to his "old" 8-12 HCP for the limited openings. The main problem is the fact that playing an 8-12 range, the Pass=13+ works finally the best (in spite of the disadvantages) in case that you are looking for consistence and symmetry and other postulates. And just that Pass/Fert bid is prohibited in most events. Besides the fact that all your efforts will be in a total unbalance with the times you really can play it. Mr. Slawinski wrote me: "I think it is not possible to make a good (and easy!) WOS under present WBF's restrictions ! especially a la Regres, Delta or Lambda. I cannot construct a good 8+ system against present restrictions ! I tried..." I must agree the same unfortunately taking into account the other axioms. ============= Hoping to have given you herewith a little history Best regards, Marcel den Broeder

If relay style then 7♦ , but under the condition that ♦ is called in West; 6NT same condition (NT in west).

with ♠ xxxxx ♥ AQxx ♦ xxxx ♣ - or simular, same sequence?

In some above bidding sequences East takes the initiative with Ace asking and you don't know the eventually needed J♣ with a ♠ lead, because hoping for a 2/2 break in the blacks can be too optimistic. in REGRESsion: 1♣= 8-12p. with any s/void (4441 up to 7330 òr an 1-suiter 8-12c 7-11p.) • 1♦ =relay 1♥= s/v♥ OR s/v♣ then L=Major or any 5/5 •1♠= relay 2♠ = s/v♥, L=♠ and an 1-suiter •2NT= relay 3♦= a max (11-12p.) and 7321 (Q♥ + J♠ do not count) •3♥= relay 3♠= 7=1=2=3 •4♥= SLam Asking Bid ♣ 5♣*= 0 or 3 of 5 (by the way: KQJxxxx, Q, KQ, xxx = not a max) •5NT= Suit Asking Bid ♥ (if non you are safe) 6♦= Queen♥ •7♣ *System allows you (more memory strain because exception to the exception) to handle in a better way the 0-3 answer=just the trump suit bid in case R can not read it and to be able to play 4M too), the answer will be then: 5NT= 3 Aces + Q♥ For your info: with an other diviation of the honours, no problem either. Regards, Marcel

Checkback (3♣) will solve that problem and you can bid now 3♠ directly as n.f. and such a hand