MickyB

What about passing followed by being on lead? :)

Yes, it seems that ACBL defence 2 just uses a "Dixon Double" rather than the full method. I too prefer this, forcing yourself to pass initially on the routine 2M overcalls seems fairly undesirable to me. I've heard it said that in Dixon, passing then doubling is for penalties because you would act initially with a takeout double - I don't know if this is "standard" or even better, I'd be inclined to play it as a light takeout. Phil - over a weak two, there isn't a safe way to show 13-14(15) bal. To cope with this many protect light, but you will still miss some games, especially when you both have three cards in the suit opened. That you can show this hand easily over a multi is a disadvantage of the method. I've not tried any other methods, but just using a double as takeout of spades sounds reasonable. Double as either major sounds problematic - I'd be tempted to play 2♦-X-2M as "pass unless doubled, in which case correct to your suit if you need to".

Opening all balanced hands with 1♣ is certainly not uncommon, but I wasn't aware that any top pairs were opening 1♦ with all minor 2-suiters in a short club system - it has always been to remove those hands from the natural 2♣ opening (Polish Club, Swedish Club, Strong Club etc). IMO it is clearly superior to open these hands 1♦ in this structure. Does anyone know where I can find Weinstein-Garner's CC online?

My line - Give MI during the auction to avoid the diamond lead, make 10 tricks on a heart lead, then have it ruled back to 3NT making two-thirds of the time and going off the other one-third.

I subscribe to the second view, but I think you are better off using double to show spades and another and bidding with the major single-suiters (Lionel), it makes it much easier to judge when to leave the double in and easier to know what to lead when you do.

Interesting indeed. I was going to try to work out the rationale myself, but Ron's idea of asking was much quicker and almost certainly more successful! Keeping your major suit openings sound is quite a contrast with the majority of strong club systems. You touched on the biggest issue that I had/have, the inclusion of 10-15 balanced in the 1♦ opening. My "solution" was to focus on responder's strength immediately (when a suit suitable for transferring into is not held) but I'm sure this will sometimes cost in competition.

1. Oh, I naively assumed that the Blue Club played by a couple of the English Juniors was the only variant around :lol: I can see that this is an interesting decision in Blue Club, but I think it is clear to show the spades first in my suggested system. 2. Yes, good point, unfortunately anything that gets opened 2NT is easy to defend against :lol: Hmm, maybe 2NT as ♣+a red suit. [Edit: Of course, that would still rather open 3♣...]

A while back, I started a couple of threads based upon the idea of a 1♥/♠ opening showing either 4 cards or 6+cards in the suit opened, with (most of) the 5 card majors being opened elsewhere. The idea was to put responder in control of the auction - he can choose whether to raise to the 2 level on a 4-3 card fit and he can choose how high to preempt without worrying that his partner, with a 5th trump, will have a difficult decision when the opponents compete. This is a sharp contrast with many modern strong club/4 card major systems, which play a single raise as precisely 3 trumps and promising some values, the aim being to put *opener* in control of the auction. Along these lines, here is the system I am working on - 1♣ = 16+ or rule of 25 (EBU regulations :lol: ) 1♦ = 10-15, any hand with precisely 4 spades 1♥ = 10-15 unbalanced (4♥5+minor or 6+♥) or 10-12 balanced 1♠ = 10-15, 5+♠ 1NT = 12-15, denies 4♠. 13-15 if 4♥. 2♣ = 11-15, unbal, no 4cM (so either 6♣ or 5♣4♦) 2♦ = as 2♣ 2♥ = 11-15, 5♥4+minor 2♠ = weak 2NT = 10-15, at least 5-5 minors, offensive I think I am correct in saying that Blue Club opens 1♠ with 4-5 and 5-4 in the majors. This seems sensible, to allow both suits to be shown, but means that the 1♠ opening is much more frequent than 1♥, which feels wrong. It also leads to some ambiguity over which suit is the longer. This structure solves this - you always show spades at the first opportunity, but there is no later ambiguity. Intuitively the 1♦ opening here feels like it shouldn't be frequent enough, but I think it is the most frequent of the limited openings (24% of hands have precisely 4 spades). Also, the extra room is needed both to look for 4-4 heart fits and to sort out the wide balanced range. My idea for responses: 1♥ = enquiry, either weak or a full invite. Now 1♠ = would have raised a natural 1♥ response (either 4♥ bal or 3♥ unbal), others natural. Opener only starts jumping around with an exceptional hand. 1♠ = enquiry, either mildly invitational or GF. Now 2♠ and above are used for showing run-of-the-mill maxima. 1N->2♥ = transfers (2♥=inv+ with ♠) The 1♥ opening can occasionally be 5 cards - 10-12 5♥332 will be treated as a 4 card suit, while max 5-5s and decent 5-6 shapes can open 1♥ intending to jump-shift over a 1NT response or bid on if raised. I need to think more about continuations here, but a couple of structures seem reasonable - 1♠ = 5+♠ 1N = nat NF 2m = GF (possibly 2♣ as some kind of relay) 1♠ = general enquiry, any strength 1NT = 5+♠ NF - or it could be F1 if opener is to raise on 2533 and 24(34) 2m = nat NF I like removing the hands with 4 spades from the weak NT, these are the ones that rate to lose out when you bury your fit, whereas when you bury your heart fit you may bury the opponents spade fit at the same time. It will help responder judge some competitive auctions, and eliminates the need for garbage stayman - 1N:2♣, 2♦:2M is now obviously invitational with a 5 card suit. [This paragraph added later] With the possible exception of hands with 5+♥, this structure should have a positive expectation after making a limited opening. The biggest loss, in comparison to similar systems, is the need for 2♦ and 2♥ to show intermediate hands instead of weak hands. In case anyone is interested in the older ramblings - Strong Diamond Strong Club I'm still fond of the strong diamond idea - it would have allowed very light opening bids - but I couldn't find anywhere to put the major two-suiters comfortably. I briefly considered using 1♦ as any 14-16 and 1♣ as 17+ any or 10-13 both majors, but it seems that the 1♣ opening would be much more vulnerable than a Swedish Club, because the weak hand is of lesser frequency and having both majors decreases the chance that your opponents have game.

David_c pointed out the duplication to me, so we played that bidding the suit below the opponent's suit was natural and non-forcing, with the transfer to that suit being invitational plus. If you aren't prepared to hear a penalty pass of a takeout double then you can transfer to your 5+card suit and follow up by bidding your 4 card suit. When I played Rubensohl with penalty doubles, I played that 1N (2♦) 3♣ (P); 3♦ denied a stop but didn't deny a 4cM, you can continue bidding majors up-the-line. It's probably better to rotate the bids so that when you land up in 4M you haven't shown whether opener has a diamond stop or not. Against that, I guess responder may sometimes decide to avoid looking for a 4-4 fit when both partners have diamonds stopped, for fear of ruffs in 4M.

Red vs white with 4 spades as well, I'll make do with a 2♥ opening. Otherwise I agree with Owen.

In a Polish Club structure, I don't think it is terribly useful - you already have three ways of showing a balanced hand with a 1NT bid, so stretching the lower two is throwing away one of the advantages of your system. Stretching the highest one can be useful, it is the least frequent after all. In a natural system, there are definite advantages to stretching the ranges slightly. Regarding invitational 2NTs opposite a 1NT opening - I am quite happy without one available opposite a 3 point range at IMPs, and I can cope with it at matchpoints, but I think having no invite available opposite a 4 point range is pushing it a bit. The reason I prefer it at IMPs to MPs is that 2NT+1 (field is 1NT+1) and 2NT-1 (field is 3NT-2) can still be good scores at MPs, whereas at IMPs you'd rather have been in 3N or 1N on both.

The main change is introducing announcements - the range of 1NT openings, Stayman and Xfers after 1NT (P) and weak/intermediate/strong to describe natural 2 level openings. There have also been some changes to alerts - there will be few alerts above 3NT and all(?) doubles are for takeout, unless alerted.

I agree with David, except I don't really have the energy to defend them right now.

Hmm, actually that's what Mark has been doing for a while. Try not doing it :)

I see a Dutch 2 (5M4+minor) as a 5 card weak two with an escape suit. A 5-5 shape is a rather different beast. Yes, it can be useful to know the second suit immediately, but a fair proportion of the time responder won't care, and on the majority of the rest it will be the one that responder has fewer cards in. Not disclosing the second suit doubles (or triples) frequency and makes life harder for the opponents too, as they will sometimes need to guess which it is and have no cheap cuebid available.

For me, this depends on the vulnerability and the Multi regulations. At EBU level 3, a multi must include a strong option. I then prefer to play three weak twos. At EBU level 4, a weak-only multi is fine, and I usually play this with 2♥ and 2♠ showing precisely 5 cards with a 4+card minor suit, although ideally I would prefer to play one of the 5-5 options when vul in 2nd seat. I haven't tried this yet, so I don't know whether it is better to pass or open 2♥ with both majors. If you can have a 2♦ opening showing a 5 card major and a 4+card minor, 3-7 or so, then I would give it a go when NV. The EBU regulations prevent me from playing this because it may or may not be specifying 4+cards in the suit bid, but maybe I should try playing a multi that shows 3-7 points, precisely 5 cards in a major, and denies either 5332 shape or 4 cards in the other major :) Obviously third seat is a bit different, I definitely prefer three weak twos when NV and possibly when vul. I'd much rather play strong twos than transfer preempts.

5. Pass looks right at the conditions, small spade lead. 6. I tend to double on these hands hoping the opps leave it in based on HCP, obviously it makes things a bit harder later on. 7. I think pass probably rates to work well unless pard has 4 spades and short clubs. 2NT is a bit icky, probably wrong-sided if you finish there. 8. Did 1S show an unbal hand? 2D if so, 1NT if not.

71 actually, but near enough :(

Which birthday are you belatedly wishing that he enjoys? What the heck, happy birthday <_<

Ok, time for me to stick my oar in... There was a previous incident that was, in the opinion of the Selection Committee, unacceptable. How should they deal with this? Just ban the person in question from commentating on other junior squad members while he remains a member of the squad? That would create a lot of ill-feeling and, sooner or later, they would have to deal with a similar issue involving another member of the squad. I think it is totally understandable that they do not wish to give themselves the responsibility of making subjective evaluations of unpleasant incidents when they can just prevent them from occuring in the first place. This is not to say that I support the ban; I am, as usual, undecided. Obviously, it will be a loss for vugraph, but there is nothing to stop us from providing other commentators with information on the participants' system or style.

Yup

$5 per gallon? That sounds pretty cheap :rolleyes: Oh well, saves us being taxed in some other way. Not that I pay any other form of tax right now...

You never smiled sweetly at me :P

Just had my partner open the bidding while there were only three at the table. He requested an undo, then a kibitzer sat in the fourth seat, changing the hand. We were able to bid, but the "undo bubble" remained, and then none of us could play a card without leaving the table completely first. We were then unable to claim either!

Iron Maiden at the Reading Festival Queen+Paul Rodgers, supported by Razorlight, in Hyde Park