MickyB

Clear 7♦ bid.

Indeed, that's what Adam is referring to, I think - a system where 1♣ is often a weak no-trump and includes all GF hands. Two problems: You've got to do something with the negatives without a four-card major. If 1♣:1♥ shows 4+♠, any strength, that makes it much harder to establish a GF when it is right to do so. In WJ, after 1♣:1♠, any bid other than 1N, 2♣ or 2♠ is GF, and the 2♣ rebid is one of the more problematic sequences in the system. I don't know how you would have a sensible sequence with an 18+ unbalanced hand opposite a 6+ hand.

Rather hasty post last night. *In some ways* it's easier to compare Swedish with a short club, but comparing it with Precision can't be that hard - after all, the 1H/1S/1N/2C openings are the same or similar. Precision has a slight edge on the hands that it opens 1H/1S/2C due to the narrower range. Precision performs much worse on any hand that it opens 1D. There will be some gains each way on the strong hands. Swedish will tend to face less aggressive preemption. Precision will do better on the situations you mentioned below - although I think you overstate the problems somewhat. If you have length in diamonds, it's a safe assumption that partner won't have a seven count - he didn't double for takeout and he didn't make a NFB. If you do have a hand on which you need to bid 3NT, it's unlikely the opponents will be able to double you. Not *any* GF - even if you use NFBs rather than xfers at the two-level, you still have 2S and above to show various GF hands. So, while I'm prepared to believe that strong clubbers tend to do better when they open 1♣, it's not close to the losses they experience when opening 1♦.

Wow...two votes apiece for Klinger, Bergen and Rosencranz. Surely not? In the absence of Rexford, Collier, Meyerson et al I voted for Kokish - He may not have been as revolutionary as someone like Roth, but his ability to make reasonable players into exceptional partnerships is impressive. Roth, on the other hand, appeared to have some bizarre ideas to go along with his good ones!

Yup, bidding feels right. As others have said, a bid at the five-level is quite different from one at the four-level.

Yeah, it's much easier to compare Swedish Club with a short club system - as you say, they are usually in the same boat. Sure, you can point out hands where strong clubs will do better, but there are also many where strong clubs fare badly - the closest comparison would be with Precision with a 14-16 no-trump, which is at a big disadvantage on any hand that it opens 1D. While 1NT-(3D)-3H may be forcing in standard, that is partly because 1NT is strong, so the frequency of a GF hand is greater than that of a competitive hand. The balance shifts when opener is 11-13. When you take into consideration that opener will sometimes have a 17+ hand, reducing responder's expected strength, it's better to play 1C-(3D)-3H as NF in Swedish Club on frequency grounds IMO.

You don't count a fit-jump as a psyche?

As far as I know, "Swedish Club" and "Carrot Club" are names referring to systems with a 1♣ opening that is either 11-13 bal or a strong hand, with natural openings from 1♦ to 2♣. It's possible that one or both names refer to a more specific system than this. As others have noted, Swedish Club and Polish Club are basically different takes on the same principle - the 1♣ opening "shows" a weak no-trump - with Swedish being the simpler. Most view this as a way to limit the 1M openings without being exposed to purely destructive interference over a strong club, but that's not the main reason to play it IMO. Basically, it's like having two 1NT openings, which has the side effect of allowing you to show your genuine minor suit immediately when you hold an unbalanced hand. Say you are playing Std American, or, for a closer comparison, a short club that is opened even with 4♦2♣. As in Swedish Club, partner is very likely to have a weak no-trump when he opens 1♣. Say you hold xx KJTxx Axxx xx, or one of many other hands of this sort of strength with a five- or six-card suit. IMO it is clear that you want to compete in hearts, not least to consult with partner whether to compete to 3♥ over 2♠, but if you play this sequence as forcing you may well get too high. It also makes further bidding difficult when partner has to cater to you holding this hand. So, many play NFBs or transfers, but, as Adam says, this has its own set of problems - in a natural system. What is partner to do with a minimum 3145? 3136? 4036? What about those same patterns, but medium strength? Or GF strength? If you play NFBs, how do you handle the strong hands? Jumping is very space consuming, but if you double first you may find a preemptive raise leaves you with a difficult decision. Playing Swedish Club, you have no such problems. You get to compete, safely assuming that partner holds a weak no-trump. If it turns out he doesn't, you'll have GF values and a natural auction. If you decide to jump in order to show your unbalanced GF, you won't miss the space nearly so much - partner's handtype will quickly become obvious, and if he doesn't hold the weak no-trump you expected you will have almost slam-forcing values. Above all, it's simple. I've played it (a cut-down version, obviously) with intermediates who knew nothing about the system until 15 minutes before we started playing, and we had a perfectly reasonable game. The main decision to make with regard to the opening bids is what to open on 4414, and similarly 4405 and (43)15. It's most common to play a 2♦ or 2♥ opening showing a three-suiter short in diamonds. Some prefer to open four-card majors on these hands, and it's not ridiculous to treat 4414 (and the odd (43)15) as balanced and open the others 2♣. The biggest disadvantage, IMO, is the wide range of the natural 2♣ opening. Polish Club attempts to solve this by putting the upper end of this range into the 1♣ opening, which is arguably superior; However, it is clearly more complicated, as now you need to cater to occasionally getting out in a part-score when opener has this intermediate hand with clubs and responder has a minimum hand for his NFB or takeout double. Unlike most Polish Club variants, 1♣:2♣ and 1♣:2♦ are usually played as natural and NF, so other two-level bids are used in some combination to show stronger hands with the minor suits. Most versions I've seen specify that the strong hands start at 17 points, not 16, although it seems right to "upgrade" a lot of 16 counts with clubs to a 1♣ opening.

50% of +620 and 50% of -100 is not the same as the score being 260 (not 520, as you said). You should IMP or MP both +620 and -100, and take 50% of each of the MP/IMP scores. I believe that there is no law that prohibits you from playing small to this trick. 72B1 comes into play. Could partner have known that his infraction would help his side? I don't think so...what if his partner instead held Qx in trumps, or Jxx? Now he's saved declarer a guess, one he was probably going to get wrong. So, I can't find any law that allows me to adjust...hence the title of the thread, perhaps?

Yup, I'd be much more aggressive in the second auction. Han covered the reasoning.

Someone I gave this hand to suggested 3♠. 1♥-P-2♥-3♠ would show this sort of hand, right? As noone has suggested it, I guess that it doesn't apply to this auction, although it seems pretty sensible - a 2♠ bid doesn't show a particularly good hand here, after all, so a lot of WJOs could just bid 2♠. Anyway, I doubled, which was the wrong thing to do on the actual hand - it lets the opponents bid to their cold 5D contract.

Fit-jumps and direct limit raises are often played as showing four-card support. It's the three-card limit raises that are the issue.

Do you consider double, or is it just a choice between 2♠ and 4♠?

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=saq98xxxhxdjxcakx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♥-P-1NT to you. What's your call, and is it close?[/hv]

I'd much sooner open *this particular hand* with 2♦ for the majors than 2♥ for the majors...2♥-AP scares me, I'd rather partner had to bid 2♥ over 2♦ so I could give it a raise. The disadvantage of opening this hand 2♦ is that it might occasionally preempt the opponents into preempting me - 2♦-(5♣) on a hand that would have opened 1♣, say. 2♦-(3♣)-P-(5♣), where partner has had the chance to support at the three-level, will occasionally prevent us from diagnosing a double fit, but usually will be correct in suggesting we don't compete further. I think it's fairly close whether to open 2♦ or pass.

The "right" way to play it depends on the rest of your structure, but IMO it should be (very) rare to bid a hand 1N:3N (or 1N:2♣, blah:3N) when you have a small singleton. x Kxx KQJTxx Kxx Axxx AQx xx AQxx 6♦ is a much better contract than 3NT. If you don't have a way to show the stiff spade, it's very hard to reach. Even if you remove one of responder's kings, it can still be very right to play in 5 or 6m.

2♠

Clearly natural. (3♦)-4♠-(P)-5♣ is more interesting IMO.

Partner is likely to have tolerance for your minor (indeed, he's promised it for 1♣:1NT), so you just have to rebid a five-card minor (or 1♦:1N, 2♣ on a (14)53) if you have 15 or 16 points. 44(41)s can be an issue, I admit. Responder has to initially cater to opener having a weak no-trump, otherwise he will land up too high on those hands.

If thats its hand, we'll at least compete to 3♣ after a xx as pard won't be doubling 2♥. The 2♠ bidders will play 2♠ which isn't that bad a spot but I'd rather be in clubs. Only if they find a way to bar partner before they bid 2♠.

You didn't bid 2♠ over 1NT - surely partner will correct to 3♣ on any hand with a stiff spade? Some with a doubleton, too (2=3=3=5). Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I don't think we are favourites to take 2♥ two off, and I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score. Don't agree. Its MPs so why would we subject ourselves to a 5-2 even on a decent suit? Hopefully this pard likes to raise directly on 3 pieces. If we get to a spade fit, I think its pard that should be bidding spades now, not us. It's playing MPs that you do often want to be in 2M on seven-card fits...frequently there will be a trick more than in 1NT. Admittedly that's not that relevant here, where +140 in a 5-2 spade fit seems unlikely. Given that pard is likely to have four hearts, I can't see him showing delayed three-card support for spades when they attempt to play there.

If we are setting it we should still double it if we're not going to compete. Of course...but I am going to compete. That statement is justifying competing :)

You didn't bid 2♠ over 1NT - surely partner will correct to 3♣ on any hand with a stiff spade? Some with a doubleton, too (2=3=3=5). Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I don't think we are favourites to take 2♥ two off, and I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

Yup, looks clear. I'm quite happy they protected, should mean we find the right strain.

I play that the lowest unbid suit is a general force, except after 1♣:1♠, 2♣, when 2♦ shows 5♠4♥ and 2♥ is the general force.