PrecisionL

I play a transfer Strong Club System with about 60 pages of notes just for the opening bid of 1♣ and follow-ons. I believe I have 2 system forgets in 5 years playing at ACBL NABCs or Regionals with no harm to the opponents. We practice active ethics and alert and offer to explain the bidding before the opening lead. Many opponents pass on the offer to explain before the opening lead. However, I have been harmed by the opponents system forgets and there has never been a penalty or equity restored. It appears to be the rub of the green. Now, along comes Bobby Wolf: http://bobbywolff.bridgeblogging.com/ 7/31/2009 Regarding Appeal #4 which happened during the 2d qualifying session of the Von Zedtwitz Life Master Pairs during the Washington DC, Summer Nationals: "It is past time for us, in the interest of fairness and equity, to make what happened, Convention Disruption (CD), an official offense, to be penalized accordingly, which hopefully, in the fullness of time, will force conventioneers to either learn their conventions or exercise their other option of not playing them and, if necessary, scratch them off the convention card." [Details of infraction and Appeal is discussed on Bobby's Blog.] And I have to admit that I partially agree with his statement and would welcome an attempt to address CD. P.S. Also a Reno Appeal and the USBF Teams Round Robin had another CD with no penalty that decided the KO.

I play after direct interference of a strong 1♣ opening: Pass = 0-5 hcp or would welcome a penalty X. Double = 6+ hcp and no long suit (except the suit called, maybe) Suit = 6+ hcp and 5+ cards, one round force Cue Bid = 6+ hcp and 2 or 3-suited 2NT and higher bids by responder are transfers. The probability of game after interference is less and it is important to show distribution.

If the question is how to find Major suit fits after 1♣ - 1♦? Then read Match Point Precision or One Club Complete which recommends: 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥/1♠ = 4-cd or better Major and One Round Force. 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♣/♦ denies a four card major.

Try: http://www.infobridge.it/Sistemi_CC_lauria-versace.pdf Also: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...ria-versace.pdf These appear to be the same card.

Interesting that no-one references the MILLENNIUM CLUB by Lyle Poe. I have been playing 1♣ = 15+ Balanced, or Clubs primary with or without a side 4-cd suit, or very strong for 3 years now. Responses are 1-under promising a 4-cd or better major and the 1♠ response is Moscito like, 0-8,9 hcp. Acceptance of the transfer is made with good 3-cd support if there is a weak doubleton in opener's hand. If opener is 19+ he super accepts. We play this with a weak NT: 11-14 and 5-cd Majors (10-20 HCP or so) and a natural 1♦ which promises 4+ cards and 15+ HCP also. We have played it in pairs and team events and love it for pairs.

This seems easy to me, pass of 2NT (showing minimum hand?) and then making up for the pass by raising to 5♥.

Well, the CC is a mess and I often get conflicting rulings from rulings@acbl.org, BUT 5♠ and 4♣ hands can be opened 2♠ if 10+ hcp.

Well, try 2♣ = artificial G.F. Then, use Compressed Bergen: 1M - 3♣ = 4-cd raise, either mixed or Limit (3♦ asks) and 1M - 3♦ is now the 3-cd Limit Raise. Now 1M - 2♦ is natural, but N.F. and < 10 hcp.

Maybe. In Reno there were NO consolations in the compact KOs. Local option apparently. Also, there were NO regular KOs Sat - Sunday. By-the-way, I think compacts are a waste of time and money.

I have also found problems with a 12-15 NT. In one Strong Club partnership the 15 hcp hand goes in the 1♦ opening (which use to promise a 4-cd major) and in another partnership we play 11-14 or 14-16 V NT. Thus, 1♣ is now 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced. We like this change!

Since 1D or X do NOT take up significant room, we play systems on and X / XX = 5-8 hcp semi-positives. Pass with 0-5. Systems on are transfers to the majors and various other bids. However, there is merit in playing semi-positives as game now is unlikely.

PASS: I have the distribution but not the strength to encourage partner to bid.

Really!? I think in ACBLand you have to have at least 2 clubs for it to be 'natural.' Montreal Relay promises 3 cubs, and Richmond Relay promises 2 clubs. So this usage for 4-4-5-0 distribution would be artificial.

1♣ (1♠) X: Is a Mild positive response, 7-8 AKQ points: AQQ, KKQ, AK which would be G.F. since 1♣ promises 17+ hcp unbalanced and 18+ hcp if balanced.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

Ollie, What exactly is your question? Ultimate uses control showing responses, however, that approach is now out of favor for strong Club Systems. Ultimate Club uses natural bidding if the interference is 1NT or higher. 1♣ (1NT): P = Negative X = At least semi-balanced 2X = Natural 2NT = Minors 3♣ + M 3X = Exclusion Bid (Neither ♣ or the bid suit) 3NT = Natural 4X = Natural, Slam interest

The book only shows single suited interference: 1♣ (1♠): P = Negative / no further relays X = Like 1♠, now 1NT Relays as usual / AK AQQ or KKQ 1NT = If balanced, 3 controls (min) or 4 controls (max), unbalanced = 4 controls 2♣ = 3 Controls (Unchanged) 2♦+ = Unchanged X then 2NT = extra controls, balanced

A couple of years ago I played with 2 different partners: 1♣ - 2♥ = all 4441 hands. 2♠ asks for 1-under the singleton and opener continues by biding a suit = RKC or bidding the singleton = Beta for Aces and Kings. Likewise, 1♣ - 2♠ = all 5440 hands without 5M and 2NT asks and replies are 3♣ = (440)-5. 3♦ = 4-0-5-4, 3♥ = 0-4-5-4, and 3♠ = 4-4-5-0 (1-under the singleton). Both of the above schemes worked well and were easy to remember. However, KeyLime and I changed it because he wanted a two or three tier (strength) response structure. Although Beta works well, with non-minimum hands one could use the old Relay Precision scheme of 3♣ = 4441 or 4414 and 3♦ = 4144 and 3♥ = 1444 (1-under). Minimum hands (8-11 hcp and 1-4 Controls) can use the bids of 3♠ and higher like Match Point Precision to show one under the singleton. It is better to use 1♣ - 1NT as both majors or transfer to hearts to minimize responder playing NT contracts.

I have been following Ekeblad - Sukoneck for some time now as their system evolves. They were in BW Challenge the Champs in Jan 91 and Feb - Mar 93 playing Neapolitan type responses to Strong Club and canape and various 2 openings to cover gaps in the system. A more recent BW appearance may have happened, I am behind in my indexing CTC. I have all their convention cards and notes, but nothing else has appeared on the web as far as I know. We (KeyLime and I) use Sabine Aukens' approach to a Strong Club (I Love This Game). We gave up control responses years ago and recently (2 years) we even gave up Beta asks to transfer positives. http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/CarolineClub...eckEkelblad.pdf Ekeblad - Rubin in CTC: July - Aug 2007: Big Club with transfer & other artificial responses, weak NT, natural suit openings from 1♦ to 2♣ with a canape tendency, and specialized responding techniques after each. Some 2-bids help to cover weak spots in the one-bid structure (analogously to Flannery): 2♦ shows a minimum-range opening bid with 5+♥ and 4+♦, 2♥ a similar hand with 5+♥ and 4+♣. Constructive bidding often uses relays: cheap, non-descriptive bids that ask partner to continue telling about his hand.

Tilt because of me! Mistakes because I didn't think long enough trying to keep tempo even, because I am afraid of a bad committee decision.

Yes, I have Borel's book also. Never finished it. However, MacKinnon's new book: BRIDGE, PROBABILITY & INFORMATION is a gem for serious players!

I would only open hands 4 & 5, even if playing 4-cd Majors.

I assume you mean an 8-board Swiss Round Robin (preferably with duplicated boards). Me thinks this is not the way to separate the field into the top 64 teams. I like the 3 or 4 way Round Robin KOs to reduce the field. However, in the 2002 Vanderbilt (Houston) our 72 seeded team played a 2-way (against the 32 seed) when I was expecting a 3-way. That scheme employed to reduce the field was a GREAT disappointment to our team.

It is not clear what your complaint is. Repost and maybe we can address it.

Five card majors and a Strong Club do not mix well, it leaves one with an ambiguous diamond opening. So the options are: (1) 1♦ = 2+ cards, artificial (2) Diamond Major = 1♦ promises one or both 4-card majors, artificial (3) Natural, all suits (except clubs) promise 4-cards One can improve on (3) by removing the 4-card majors from the 2♣ opening and playing canape. Thus 1M - 1X - 2♣ or 2♦ promises 4 of the major and 5 or more of the minor. Likewise, opening 1♦ and re-biding either major promises 4 diamonds and 5 or more of the major. The rebid in the longer suit can be passed by responder, thus the only requirement is that both suits be biddable.