MickyB

I always feel good when I feel I've given the opponents a tough decision by preempting. Slightly aggressive raises to 4H seem good for this, especially after 1H-P - any weak hand with 1=4 in the majors qualifies for a 4H bid (assuming partner was dealer). Five-over-five stuff is good too, as are systemic gains. I almost had my perfect auction the other day - 2NT (P) 4H (4S) 5H (5S) AP 2NT showed 5-5 in hearts and a minor, weak. The 5H bid was based on a 0562 (maybe this should systemically double, but it was undiscussed). Unfortunately, the opponents had done the right thing :angry:

Mike: I am hard pressed to think of a hand with a decent 6 card suit where I'm not opening either 1 or 2 on. For many of us, there is no such thing as an in-between hand. I agree entirely. If you give me a reasonably offensive hand, say KTx AQTxxx xxx x, I'll probably open it 1♥. Swap the spades and the diamonds and I'll probably open it 2♥. It's borderline either way. I'm not passing the original hand because I consider it in-between 1 and 2, I'm passing it because I consider it to be too weak for 1♥ and grossly unsuitable for 2♥.

Okay, I'm clearly out of step here, but I haven't read anything that persuades me to change my mind. I think an initial pass is fairly clear. The Qx and QJ mean that this hand is worth far less than its 11 HCP, it seems comparable to a lot of nice but unexceptional nine counts. If you open those, then fine, but I don't. I certainly couldn't stomach a weak two at unfavourable. My ODR is awful - Qx and QJ suggest defending, and if one of the opponents has four hearts that's a lot of trump losers to take care of. I'm not the sort who lives in fear, but when 1100 against a part-score seems plausible, the chance of going for a number (possibly a few hundred undoubled) looks worthy of consideration. To me, Qx AJ7xxxx Qx xx is a weak two at these conditions, with the 7th heart counteracting the otherwise defensive nature of the hand. So...yeah. My hand isn't very good, and isn't keen on declaring. Why the need to bid?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqxhaq85xxdqjcxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP I think this is clear, but many disagree with me...what say you?[/hv]

It wouldn't occur to me to bid anything other than 3♦, the case for 2♦ is reasonable though. Wish I was playing WJS so I could bid 2♦ comfortably.

I'm a passer. I expect a passed partner to reopen aggressively with shortness, if he can't we won't usually be missing anything.

Since 'only one bid fits', 2 clubs cannot have- A 4 card major A 6 card diamond suit Balanced or semi balanced. In theory, the only 4 card club suit then you could have is 5431: 5 diamonds, 4 clubs, 3-1 in the majors. It's clearly better to stick the (31)54s into 2♦.

Don't you know 2♣ mini roman is much better than 2♦? And it's a lower splinter too... Sure, but I find that a 2♦ opening showing 12-16 with clubs doesn't work so well.

The intermediates are rather lacking. On a normal day, this is a decent suit. On a bad day, it's a very bad suit. If someone makes a penalty pass you'd much rather have QJT98xx than this.

I believe that the best structures in 3rd seat, and possibly 4th, open four-card majors on hands too weak to look for game without a fit. This allows P:1♠, 1NT to be on any balanced hand without support. So, if you open flat 12s but not usually flat 11s in first+second seats, you might open 1M on 13 counts (playing 1NT with 13 opposite 11 isn't the end of the world IMO) and thus play a 14-16 NT. I've just switched to Polish Club, so now I've less reason to open four-card majors in 3rd+4th. Instinctively, separating hands with interest in 3NT from those that haven't seems beneficial to me, even playing five-card majors, but I'm struggling to explain why. Maybe it is so I can choose to open flat rubbish in third seat without getting partner excited.

Agreed. Recently David_C and myself played six boards against a strong club pair who play internationally. We had three boards commence (1♣)-2♦, on Jx xx KJxxxx xxx (this was at love all) Q97x K ATxxx KJx (this one was at favourable opposite a passed hand) Q AQx QJT9x QJ9x (likewise) We seemed to score fairly well out of them. My aims over a strong club are to get the auction to the two-level immediately or to make it likely that advancer can raise a one-level call to the three level.

Mike, I've never seen you pass holding 4-4 in any 2 suits when I'm playing a strong club. That's just a vote of confidence in your constructive bidding, I'm sure :)

Over 1♣ - aggressive jump overcalls, especially when NV, when it is unlikely you have game. X, 1NT and possibly 1♦ show some kind of two-suiters. X = majors, 1NT = minors is fine; or you could try CRASH or similar (X = two suits of the same Colour, 1♦ = two suits of the same RAnk, 1NT = two suits of the same SHape). I like these to show 5-5 shape, as I think you should pass with 4-4 and I like to just bid my five-card suit at the two-level when I'm 5-4. 1M overcall shows a reasonable hand, interested in bidding constructively to 4M. Now 1NT = good raise Over 1♦, treat it as natural, including 2♦ = majors. In any event, (1♦)-X-(P)-2♦ should definitely be artificial, even if you play other diamond bids as natural (you can pass 1♦ X with diamonds). Treat 2♣ as you would a weak two. Over a 2♦ opening showing a three-suiter short in diamonds, I use the popular defence to a multi, the "Dixon double" - X = 13-15 bal or any strong hand. This only works because it's unlikely that they'll decide to play in 2♦, so you can double on hands that it would normally be too dangerous to bid on.

Likewise with hearts - with 2533 I'd usually open 1NT, but with 35(23) I'd usually open 1♥ and raise 1♠ to 2♠.

In Fantunes, off-shape weak no-trumps make sense. Can't see why people are so keen to open them off-shape otherwise (except 1st NV, when the gains from preempting are greater). It goes against all the advice I've seen printed here (England). In my experience, an off-shape weak no-trump will often leave you with a nasty guess - the opponents overcall in one of your doubletons, do you take another call now?

I agree that the differences aren't great between a limited 1♠ and a limited 2♣, but I think WJOs are clearly more useful over a 1♠ opening - you are removing two more steps than you would over 2♣.

I think thats what I said. No, you said that you are more competitive whenever you open 1m. I am saying that your argument is an advantage for when you have clubs, but a (more significant) disadvantage when you have a strong balanced hand.

That statement is nonsense. I have played relay methods with some success, and I can assure you that most relay methods work best when the relatively balanced hand describes. An important reason for this is that relays use some order of 'asking' (often but by no means always, with shape first), and a well-crafted method assigns the cheaper step responses to the more common hand-patterns. Balanced and semi-balanced hands arise with far more frequency than do 5-5 or wilder hands, so we can get a full shape description of a balanced or semi-balanced hand at a lower level than is possible with wild hands. This in turn means that the control/specific card relay steps operate at a lower level. Fair point, but I think the factors working the other way are much more significant. If a hand has a singleton, it is unlikely to have a (relevant) honour in the suit. If it has a void, it is even less likely :rolleyes: This means that there are far fewer combinations of honours to show partner. Most honours in the unbalanced hand will be "working". This isn't true of the balanced hand - any cards opposite shortage should be greatly devalued. Being unlimited in HCP isn't really an issue. The unbal hand shows shape, allowing the bal hand to reevaluate, then the bal hand either makes negative moves or positive ones.

I'm not sure this is true. It's quite hard to evaluate, because neither comes up very often. If opener has 10-15, the average for the other players is about 8-10 each. It shouldn't be hard to conclude that a preemptive hand is more likely than a strong hand for the next player, by a lot. Any strong hand with a 7-card suit, and many with a 6-card suit, would be suitable for a strong jump. This isn't the case for a three-level WJO, particularly over such a well-defined opening. My instinct is that a WJO would still be more frequent than a SJO, I just don't think it's as clear-cut as you make out.

Yes, I expect weak NTs to be more shape-specific than strong NTs. Say you've got a 4225 and 13 points. If you open 1♣ and the auction gets competitive, you can happily pass (unless pard has made a forcing bid). If you've got the same pattern but 16 points, there are many auctions in which it won't be clear whether to bid or pass, so it's worth opening suitable hands 1NT so you don't give yourself a guess later. Likewise, I open 90+% of 5M332s in range with 1NT when playing strong NT (there's no way to show a flat 16 having opened 1M, and after 1M:1N, 2m:2M it's not clear whether to bid 2N or pass) but maybe 30% of such hands when playing a weak NT. Also, strong hands are more likely to have honours in their doubletons, making the hand more suitable for declaring.

It's grossly inefficient to have a balanced hand describing itself to an unbalanced hand.

Is the second statement your justification for the first? If you play five-card majors, your no-trump range has little effect on your 1M openings. This isn't an argument for saying weak+4 is better than weak+5, it is an argument that weak+4 is better than strong+4. You are making the mistake of comparing by opening bid; instead, you should compare by hand-type. When you have 12-14 balanced, you can show your hand in one bid playing weak NT; however, playing strong NT, partner will assume you have this hand until you tell him otherwise. There's no danger of not getting your hand across. When you have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you will occasionally be better position playing weak no-trump, because partner knows you either have clubs or 15+points. However, strong no-trumpers gain when they open 1♣ and make a later takeout double - playing weak NT, opener's 2nd round double should usually be assigned to the strong balanced hand. When you have 15-17 balanced, strong NTers get their hand across in one bid, and there is no compulsion to bid again. Those opening one-of-a-suit usually need to take a second bid on this hand, and often it is uncomfortable to do so. Say the auction starts 1♣ (3♠). How are you finding your routine game with flat 16 opposite flat 9? Even 17 opposite 10 is far from comfortable. Likewise, a two-level WJO can still cause issues. Of course, that doesn't apply to strong club pairs, who are getting their values across in one bid. Likewise Nightmare or, to a lesser extent, Fantunes. Btw, look at how Polish+Swedish Club systems fare on the above three hand-types. They are separated, and the responder to a 1♣ opening is able to assume pard has the weak no-trump, allowing him to make competitive (negative) freebids without fear that pard will have a misfitting minimum.

I don't think there were any strong club pairs in the eight teams. Maybe there was one, I'll find out. There was one Polish Club pair. Other than the trials and the Spring Fours, xfer openings weren't legal until a couple of years back, and a strong club still has to show 16+points or rule of 25, so it's not that surprising that I've only seen a couple of pairs play MOSCITO in this country. Having said that, the majority of top players here seem to think strong clubs lose out too much after opening 1♣ to be worth playing.

Playing strong jumps lends itself to lighter simple overcalls, which allows you to get in on some hands that you'd have had to pass playing WJOs.

I'd assume a jump was strong. 2♣ describes the hand well and you expect it to be passed reasonably often, in that way it has more in common with a weak two than a one-level opening. As Frances says, you need to draw the line somewhere. I'd certainly expect the same method to be used over Precision and Fantunes 2♣ openings.