MickyB

There aren't actually that many hands out there that should guess at two, I think. A weak ace or a weak jack should guess at one then lead the small card. First to act hadn't shown much sign of being competent at the game though B) I went for one, he had J6 or similar.

Aim of the game - guess correctly how many tricks you are going to take. The first player to guess will be on lead. The last player to guess can't make the tricks "add up". You are playing five-handed, and you are last to guess in the two card round. You pick up KQ trumps, and relax, expecting your "guess" to be forced. The first hand to act surprises you by stating he will make both tricks! As expected, the next three players all state they won't make any. Do you state that you'll make both tricks, or just one?

I'd be surprised. The key to the 1D opening I've suggested is that responder can bid as if opposite a 1NT opening, and if opener is unbalanced he will have extras with it, and a clear pull of the NFB, describing his hand quite precisely in the process. I can see what you are saying about 3145 and 3244 being similar, but that won't make the 5-1 heart fit play any better B) I may be biased here, I've played a fair bit of Polish+Swedish club over the last year or so and I really like the effect of separating the balanced and unbalanced minima. Maybe 'range' wasn't quite right word. I could choose to play 2m as 11-13 if we wanted a direct comparison, but I think opening tens (and some nines) is probably worth it. If you only have one way to show minor hands, it will show 11-15, and the 16-counts have to be opened 1C. This will have a negative impact on 17-19 balanced hands. [Of course, it isn't clear that this is a bad thing, because a 16+ club limits the 1M openings a little more as well].

Yes, thought it looked a bit like that - tried looking for your notes and could only find something similar with 1C and 1D inverted. As 4M5m - so 1M if min, 1D if intermediate. The 4M5m hands pass 1NT. Yup, I mentioned this in my last post - don't think 1M is an option really. 2N as 5+/5+ minors, 9-13, is probably worthwhile. Do you play NFBs? So, my assessment of your stuff vs TriBal - for simplicity, assume the strong club starts at the same level. 17+ any and 14-16 NT - the same You are ahead on 5M You are probably very slightly ahead on 6m hands - you do better at showing shape, we do better at showing range We are ahead on other hands - 4M5m, minors and 11-13 bal

I haven't, no, for a number of reasons - the least of which is that I decided to consider alternative structures that would satisfy the same objectives (see the TriBal thread). I've just attempted a comparison between the two structures and posted it in that thread.

So, which of these options is best? 4M5+m minima need to go somewhere. The options are 1D, 1M and 2m. I'm inclined to think 1M is best - If you put them into 1D, you could no longer assume that partner has 11-13 balanced and bid accordingly. Negative freebids become much more problematic, to the point where it might be better to play bids as forcing instead. It's much like the difference between competing opposite a Polish Club compared with opposite a Short Club, only it is even more significant. The disadvantages of opening 2m are obvious - you risk losing major-suit fits. 1M seems the least problematic, I don't think it indicates raising any less aggressively in competition - you'll often be happier opposite 4315 than 5323, whatever the LAW may say. On the other hand, the other two options both solve what to do with 4M6m minimum, whereas this still leaves you with a decision between 1M and 2m. Maybe you should either "upgrade" these hands to 1D, or pass and back in later implying the side-suit. Removing 4M5+m hands from the strong club opening would help these hands a bit in competition - no risk of losing the major suit when you bid the minor. However, we're already opening 1C fairly infrequently, so this doesn't feel quite right. Removing 5+m, no 4M from the 2m openings seems pretty useful. It makes them narrower in range and available on lighter hands, and doesn't seem to pose any significant issues to the 1D opening. Think I'll run with this idea. So, I now have two structures I have advocated. They have a fair bit in common - 1M is limited to 16, either 5+cards or 10-13 with 4M5m. 2m is 9-13, either 6 cards or 5-4 minors. 2M and higher are available for preempts "Revision" - 1C = 11-13 bal/14+clubs/various 17+unbal/20+bal 1D = 14+ bal or diamonds 1N = 17-19 "Tribal" 1C = 17+ 1D = 11-13 bal or 14-16 unbal without a five-card major 1N = 14-16 Which is superior? 11-13 balanced does slightly better in Tribal, in that 1D:1M, 1N or 1D:P are better tactically than opening 1C (giving the oppo more room when we don't benefit much from it) and disclosing more about our hands to the oppo (1C:1M, 1N shows we have reasonable values playing Polish Club style, and 1C:1D, 1M sequences give away more info too). 14-16 balanced gets to open 1NT in Tribal, the advantage of this is difficult to quantify without empirical data but I suspect most will consider it to be reasonable. 17-19 balanced opens 1NT in Revision and a strong club in Tribal, I'd expect this to be a small gain for Revision [thoughts?] So TriBal is a fair bit ahead on balanced hands - actually I'd expect TriBal to be a fair bit ahead of any other system on balanced hands, although some four-card majorites might argue otherwise. 14-16 with clubs is probably a wash. In TriBal, you are ahead on auction like - 1m (2m) 2H (P), because you can bid 2S to indicate 4S5+m. On the other hand, the Polish/Revision style will sometimes have better definition in uncontested auctions, e.g. 1m:1H, 1S shows an unbal hand in both cases, but in TriBal the minor suit has not yet been determined. 14-16 with diamonds probably does better in Revision. again because the minor has already been determined. Likewise 17+ with a primary minor suit. Feels to me like TriBal is ahead overall. ----------------------------------------------------- What about TriBal vs Swedish Club? For simplicity, I will compare it with the version of Swedish that opens 1M on 4M5C. 17+ hands are showing their strength immediately in TriBal but not in Swedish. This has obvious advantages, but disadvantages too - it encourages aggressive preemption. Still, I'd expect 17-19 balanced to fare a fair bit better, and the other hands to be slightly ahead too. 11-13 bal slightly ahead in Tribal for the reasons mentioned above. 14-16 bal equal 5+M and 4M5C slightly ahead in Tribal (because you're not opening 1M on 14-16 4M5C, which can be slightly problematic) 6+D min slightly ahead in Tribal, other diamond hands (including 5C4D) a fair bit ahead in Swedish because they can open a natural 1D 6+C ahead in Tribal (tighter range, although 5C4D is now a possibility) Seems like TriBal is probably further ahead here. So, have I missed something, or is this actually pretty good? Might have to give the system a proper run-out!

Pass. Imaginative opponents are rare, eight card suits even rarer. Plus double is takeout of hearts.

Agree. I would also sooner bid 3N than invite unless I could bid 1N p 2N, but I would rather pass than those lol. Well said.

Ahh, that's why I recognise the hand! Wasn't sure which way this would go at the time, looks like the AC got it right.

Yup, 3M+1 asking for shortage is good - balanced hands want to ask, unbalanced hands want to show and all that.

Only looked briefly, but if nothing appears on the second round of clubs, aren't you better testing diamonds before playing a third round of clubs?

Yup. Takes a lot of pressure off pard if he knows you will reopen with this.

John, one of England's finest players, died earlier today, aged 56. I didn't know him that well, but my experiences suggest he was a true gentleman, a feeling which I believe was universal. The first time I played against him, I was young, clueless, and playing transfer responses to a 1C opening. After 1C! (P) 1H!, his partner overcalled 1S without asking any questions. Obviously, he knew this was intended as natural, but bid as though it were takeout of spades; the only instance I had in which an opponent was totally ethical in this situation. He also ran an excellent coaching session for the U25 squad. I understand that he refused to play professionally, and was the only amateur to be consistently at the very top level in England in recent years, and, in partnership with John Holland, the only Acol weak NT pair in the England team. They played in the open team in Pau, where they finished second on the butler over the final stage of the competition. There will be a full obituary posted on the EBU website shortly. He will be greatly missed.

I don't see how it can be right to play 1S as four+ cards NF. Most hands that are happy to play 1S opposite four should be thinking about higher things opposite more spades.

"I like the Italian team, they need a 25 against us in their last match to win. I don't want to have to deliberately throw the match, easier to just not turn up". No solution will solve that kind of problem, I have a clear preference for #2 of your options. The current regulations don't adequetely compensate a good team that would be playing against a poor team. If a team is averaging 18 VPs against teams that are averaging (just under) 15, they deserve more than 18 against a team that is averaging 12.

I think you should take a look at what Bertheau and Nyström play, maybe without the variable no trump opening. Something like 1♣ 16+ 1♦ a: 11-13 bal b: 11-15 4M5+m, c: 12-16 4441 1NT 14-16 2m 11-15 5+, no 4M 2NT 12-15 55+m Yup, that is one of the options, have checked out their continuations - thanks.

This isn't really a solution, as such, but it is an alternative philosophy to have for a strong club system. I believe that there are conditions where it is superior to play a 15/16+ club, with descriptive, limited openings that will frequently allow responder to place the contract immediately at the expense of our constructive bidding. I have my own pet structure that satisfies these aims. I suspect this is only the right philosophy in first seat - after all, if we are aiming to have responder place the contract immediately, it will be best if he does so before one of the opponents gets the chance to speak at all. Even in first seat, I suspect that it's better to focus more on constructive bidding at unfavourable, when we have least to gain by preempting and the opponents have most to gain by preempting over our strong club.

Thanks Glen, didn't get the chance to respond to this before I went away for the weekend but it was useful for my thought processes. It made me realise that there are only two sensible ways of doing what I've set out to do without using artificial 1M openings - Play 1m as 17+ or so, in which case the other minor will have to include 14-16, 4M5+m. Use a 17-19 NT The former is probably preferable. So, playing strong club, the 1D opening will include 11-13 bal and 14-16 4M5+m. It's just a case of what else to stick in out of - 4M5+m 11-13 4M5+m 17+ 5+m, no 4M, 14-16

I seem to remember seeing some statistics suggesting this factor to be negligible. Precisely. Unbalanced hands with extras are usually happy to take two bids, they certainly won't describe themselves well without doing so. Balanced hands are one bid hands, you want to show your approximate shape+strength then get out of the auction. This is what I'm trying to achieve.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was looking at was avoiding problems *in competition* on balanced 17s. After 1♣ (3♠), you are just guessing with 17-19 balanced. I do think that rebidding 2NT on 17 is a problem - sometimes it's too high already, sometimes it preempts you out of room to investigate - but when I play 14-16 I arrange for a 17-19 1NT rebid, so that's not my main concern here.

Given that I haven't (yet) joined Glen and DavidC by starting a blog on bidding theory, I'm going to post some thoughts here. - I believe that, as far as possible, balanced hands should show their strength with their opening bid (see DavidC's bridge blog). It seems many top players agree with this, as a fair few are using 2m openings to show 18-19 balanced in the Europeans. - The ranges used in 3rd+4th should depend on those used in 1st+2nd. Basically, your lowest range should rule out bidding to game unless you have a fit, which IMO should mean that 24 points between the two hands is possible, but 25 is not. In practice, this means that, in either 1st+2nd or 3rd+4th, your lowest range will be 11-13, and your next range will be 14-16. These two points conflict greatly. While I don't too much mind opening a natural 1m on 18-19 balanced, doing so on a balanced 17-count is undesirable, to say the least - 17-counts are a fair bit more frequent than 19-counts, and more dangerous to take another call on. Likewise, opening 2m with 17-18 or 17-19 seems to be taking a reasonable idea too far. So, to solve this, we need a "tri-bal" system - one which allows us to show three balanced ranges immediately at the one-level. The most obvious solution is strong club - 1♣ shows 17+, 1♦ includes 11-13 balanced, with a 14-16 1NT opening. The problem with these systems is that they give you problems on the club hands - especially when holding 4M5♣ and 14-16 or so (the 11-13 4M5♣ hands can get away with opening 1M IMO, but the 14-16s cannot - see more from DavidC). Likewise, strong diamond gives you the same problem on diamond hands. I've posted one attempt at solving these problems already, and here is another one that I haven't really evaluated yet - 1C 17+, not 4M5+m 1D 11-13 bal/14+unbal 4M5+m 1M can be 4 if 10-13 1N 14-16 2m 11-16 no 4M It might be better to put the 14-16 minor single-suiters into 1D, and make the 2m openings 9-13 - preemptive and constructive like Fantunes, but without the worry of opener having a four-card major on the side. These structures bring me to a third point. It's advantageous to separate balanced minimums from unbalanced minimums, as in Polish Club, Swedish Club and the structures above. This is because you can then treat the opening as a weak no-trump; negative freebids become much easier to handle and useful when partner has a stronger hand too. And, just to eliminate one possibility, something like 1♣ any 14-16 and 1♦ any 17+, with an 11-13 NT isn't an option - firstly because I don't think a weak NT is playable in 3rd seat, and secondly because it wouldn't be legal in the EBU - an artificial 1m opening cannot include unbalanced hands with 5+M and fewer than 16 points (unless it is a transfer opening, of course). Hopefully I'll find something that satisfies all my aims :angry:

Given how LOLs tend to declare, I'd have thought 2NT = 12, pass = 11 would be rather superior. Aiming to play 2NT that frequently can't be a good thing.

I think I see where you're coming from, but how is that better than, say, 1♦ promises 4♥, 1♣ denies 4♥?

Separating purely by strength is beneficial, as is something like (3), enabling a 4M5+m hand to rebid its major in competition, promising a canapé. Can't see much to commend the other options. If you could manage to open 1M with 15-17 and a 5+card suit, you could combine these two - 1♦ showing 18+, balanced or 5+card major, with 1♣ showing 15+, either 15-17 balanced or unbalanced without a five-card major. As it is, though, I'd probably just go for a boring option 1b). You can have some nice auctions after opening 1♣ - any later action is clearly based on shape, not strength.

It's the same issue as Polish Club (12-14 balanced or 15+clubs) vs Millennium Club (15+, clubs or balanced). MC has the advantage of showing the strength of the 15-17 point club hands in one go, but it makes it much harder to bid sensibly opposite the balanced range. Take the auction 1D (1S) 2H, which is to play opposite 11-13 balanced - You pass with a weak no-trump Bid 2S with a GF hand with diamonds (17+ or so) Bid naturally with 14-16 and diamonds If you were playing 1D as 14+, balanced or diamonds, then on the same auction - With a misfitting minimum you would guess whether to pass in a possible 5-1 fit or to rescue With some extra values (say a 17-count) but not enough to GF, you would bid on, but partner might be unsure whether you have extras - you might just be rescuing, after all Bid 2S with a GF hand You could probably fix the range problems by making the cuebid F1 rather than GF, but hopefully it demonstrates my point. It may well be preferable to play a weak NT 1st NV, but at other conditions I'd expect the strong NT system to be superior.