newroad

Hi All, Interesting discussion. The problems is there are conflicting principles in play. There is no doubt, all other things being equal, that the Balanced Hand Principle [bHP], as espoused by David Morgan in The Bridge World, has considerable merit. My strong raise and Drury methods were underpinned by it for years. Also, there is "Game before Slam" [GBS]. This includes the sub consideration of not showing additional shape until invited to by partner - it can only help the oppo. Additionally, there is a consideration of the merits or otherwise of Garbage Stayman, as 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ is a lot of relay estate to give up to play it (and that's not taking into account the ability to run on above 2NT in one's Stayman response if you know partner is at least invitational and you are MAX). Personally, I've never rated Garbage Stayman as worth the effort. There may be more that I've missed. Combining these together anecdotally, I would continue to choose not to play Garbage Stayman. Free is right at game level about BHP, but IMO certainly less so and perhaps not at all at slam level - most relay systems will do perfectly adequately or better at investigating the right slam and keeping out of the wrong ones given a free run with the 1NT opener showing exact shape then controls. Very roughly, I want to be able to, opposite the 1NT opener Sign-off in any suit Invite in NT with a BAL hand Invite in NT with a long minor where a fitting honour in partner's hand will give play I could live without the 6+ major suit invites, but these are mildly desirable Show shape as close as possible with at least a game force and a possible tight slam if partner is fits well If we're safely in the slam zone (i.e. perhaps not guaranteed, but 4NT for example likely to be safe) to relay opener's shape exactly So, I think there is merit in the original question. Playing a relay style, you want your highest shape showing step (without running on) to be 3♥, so that 3♠ or lower can be the control range ask. It therefore distills to what you want to fit into your 1NT opener (being perhaps slightly a Luddite as compared with modern trends, I prefer to keep my 5M's out of it). There's plenty of possible methods to achieve reasonable outcomes in this endeavour. Further, if your 1NT is tight enough and you're prepared to make it INV+, you can play 2♦ as your Stayman-like ask, reserving even more space for other shape showing purposes As an aside, I have developed a symmetric-like relay method catering for 6m322s, 5M332's, 5422's and all the normal BAL types for a different system (in my case, 1♣ is the opening, and 1NT+ are the relay responses). If applied to 1NT 2♣, most shape types top out at 3NT with a few topping out at 3♠. If anyone is interested, please let me know. Regards, Newroad

Hi Shevek, Bob Sebesfi (I think playing with Curtis) not long after the glory days of FPR used to in effect have a matrix of openings with two inputs: vulnerability and seat - he could be worth asking as to his experience in this area. I knew you did (and it seems, still do) play a mini-multi for the reasons you outline. I'm not a fan of the Multi 2♦ anyway, I find it much easier to defend against than straight WK 2's. Also, you're giving up quite a bit of competitive advantage with two hand types (long ♦'s and both m's) as you can't distinguish between the two quickly, i.e. there's a lot of difference between 4 diamonds and 6 diamonds competitively. Were I to play your approximate structure and taking into account your predilections/fears about playing in 1♠ with a heart game on, I might play something like Pass: 13+, 14+ if BAL 1♣: 8-12, 4+♥ 1♦: 8-12, 4+♠, <4♥ 1♥: 8-13, BAL no M 1♠: 0-7 any 1NT: 8-12, 5+/4+ m's, no M 2♣: 8-12, 6+♣, no M 2♦: 8-12, 6+♦, no M 2♥: 4-7, WK2♥ 2♠ and up you could do what suits in context, but if showing 5+/5+'s are your thing, maybe 2♠: 8-12, 5+♠/5+any 2NT: 8-12, 5+♥/5+m {keep the 5/5's with both m's in 1NT} There are of course other ways to fit the 5/5's in and you might choose to make the intermediate range 7-12, but you get the idea. Almost of the other stuff you allude to is two-edged, e.g. expanding the range to 7-12 makes the Fert tighter and is slightly better if you end up defending, but you lose granularity in competition: only extensive analysis/experience would determine which of those wins when adding up the P&L. I wouldn't feel competent to judge, though I have my suscpicions against organised & strong opponents (and to win a major knockout event, that's what one is going to have to deal with at some stage). The only clear advantage I can see with the 1♠ Fert is the one we've both mentioned, bringing the BAL type from 1NT back to 1♥. That is definitely a plus! [to The Hog] Yes, my experience (playing a 0-10 1♥ Fert for three seasons now, against decent to strong oppo where the system needs to be announced two weeks in advance) is that the 1♥ Fert rarely gets caught. The worst we have had, against two internationals (English and Norwegian, who were both "after" us, so to speak) was 2♦X VUL vs NOT for 800 (should have been 1400, but Ferts are often difficult to defend) against a cold 6NT the teammates didn't find. 0-10 is much tougher as one need to cater for constructive auctions, but we're pretty good on both those and running now. 0-10 is technically inferior to 0-7 (and I think 0-10 1S would be more or less unplayable). However, we're getting off the original topic here, so back to it - playing two (or more) different methods at the same time. Let's look at the simple case of switching strong NT to mini as quoted, which is in essence an extreme case of switching STR to WK. My guess is that most pairs who do and have done this (including in the reverse, e.g. Martel/Stansby) are less sound in their constructive auctions in their less common case (the Goldman case cited above being a case in point). The reason for this relates to why I am a late convert to WK NT's (having played intermediate or strong for most of my life). When one plays a WK/Mini NT, it has a pronounced effect on constructive auctions: Inverted minor auctions can play 1m 2m 2NT as forcing 2/1 can more sensibly be played as FG (opener won't have a WK NT and will either be strong or shaped) etc so, when switching from WK to STR, you have to recalibrate your constructive auctions (this is not just about point range adjustment, but whether certain bids are F vs NF) and when switching from STR to WK, you need to enhance your constructive auctions to fully realise the benefits. And here, we're talking about less change that Shevek might be. Let's say you normally play in response to a Strong Pass 1♣ ART NEG 1♦ ART POS, FG 1♥ semi-POS, 4+♠ 1♠ semi-POS, 4+♥, <4♠ etc it's impossible to simply up that a step and retain a sensible structure. In reality, if you switched to a Strong ♣, you'd probably get rid of the semi-POS's and put them into the 1♦ NEG response. If one thought semi-POS's are a good idea, why would one voluntarily want to do that? I'm not trying to be prescriptive here, far from it (I don't have enough evidence to go on) but I think if you have system design goals which your Strong Pass method has been optimised to hit as far as practical, voluntarily switching to a Strong Club system is likely to be a retrograde step. Regards, Newroad

Hi Ben, This is a tangential answer to your question, so apologise if of no interest. For some years in a secondary partnership, I have played 2♥ as a minimum opening, circa 11-15 hcp, 4♥/5+m. The reasons for doing so are because we could, it has useful offensive versus defensive properties, and it avoids the rebid problems inherent in most natural methods after 1m 1♠. It had the consequence of allowing us to consider our 1♦ response structure. We switched to 1♦ 1NT showing 5+♠, F1 1♦ 1♠ showing 5+♥, F1 1♦ 1♥ denying the ability to do either of the above (or anything else sensible) in a somewhat Kaplan Inversion like style. The competitive advantages of knowing partner has a 5M in response are significant and being able to hide 4♥ in response doesn't hurt either. If of further interest, by all means, let me know and I would be happy to expand further. Regards, Newroad

Hi Hog, I'm not sure if you're replying to me, or more broadly, but let's assume the former. I'll treat your points in turn. I am fairly sure who Nick and Mrs Nic to whom you refer are, but my answers were independent of the people concerned. Ideas should, in my opinion (1) stand on their own merit, and (2) assume strong opposition. How does one "prove" the concept of playing two (distinct) systems according to vulnerability? If it were a generally good idea, one would assume lots of serious partnerships would do it, but few do. If you mean prove it's possible to do so, yes, I would agree. If you mean it's desirable to do so, the jury would seem very much still out. In general, you cannot maintain the (presumably) symmetric relay structure. Yes, you can maintain the same order of steps, but the optimisations any serious pair will have made, for positional reasons primarily (i.e. to have the known hand exposed and the unknown hand hidden) will almost certainly need to change. The only way this could be partially avoided is if one plays a structure which allows a reverse relay in response to a Strong Pass is to drop that step, but if you think the ability to reverse relay is desirable, that would be at an even greater cost. I'm glad you agree a 1♥ Fert is better than a 1♠ one, but Mr Nic, to use your terminology, is a long time 1♠'er. Whilst I regard it as slightly inferior all up (unless you are playing a better team and desire the increased randomisation) it is not without merit - one advantage it permits is to move the BAL openings from 1NT to 1♥, permitting more safety and eliminating the range problems inherent in 1NT. I believe Mr Nic used to play this as 7-12, but I would play it 8-13 and make the Strong Pass 13+ but 14+ if BAL, were I to play such a structure. Regards, Newroad PS Back in the mid 90's, Mr and Mrs Nic had an auction something like the following against my partner and I (Pass=13+hcp) 1♠ (2♠=FG with both minors or similar) 3♥ (5♦) X (XX) AllPass Mrs Nic was the strong passer and I was the 3♥ bidder. We took it two off after my hand produced two tricks. I was annoyed with my partner for the double (I was less calm then) and Mrs Nic with Mr Nic for the redouble. After we both chastised our partners, we walked out. Apparently Mr Nic turned to my partner and asked: "What would Newroad have done had we made it?" ;)

Hi All, The simple answer to Shevek is that I would have thought you needed to cater, in effect, for both systems on the same card (though I can see the simplicity of having two, with the Strong Club version stipulating its use when Strong Pass is disallowed or in various vulnerability/position combinations). The rest comes down to judgement/opinion. To the substantive question, if there was genuine merit, in effect, of not playing the Fert in certain vulnerability/position combinations, then one should do it anyway. Max Rebattu in 1982 for example, only played his 1♠ Fert non-vul, when coming second in the world pairs. Most experience is going to be anecdotal in this regard. My personal view is that it is difficult enough to optimise one set of artificiality, so that any theoretic advantage in switching methods according to vulnerability/position is outweighed by effort required to do so. However, if required by regulation to play Strong Club (or something other than Strong Pass) in certain situations, this may tip the balance of the above - you need to expend some effort anyway. The question becomes then, what are the trade-offs, or even deeper, why are you playing a strong pass in the first place? If you are doing so to get the intermediate range (8-12 or 7-12 or similar) to be the prime opening range, the right reason in my opinion, then you wouldn't want to change unless the Fert's net danger is quite compelling. I doubt this is the case (it's probably fairly neutral against good & organised opposition). Further, even if you kept the ranges the same (and in essence just shuffled the openings around) not playing a Fert means you'll be losing a relay step on most openings, which is quite undesirable. In the side question raised by Straube, once again its very anecdotal. Some people have had marked success playing a 1♠ Fert. There is no doubt it is difficult to defend against, but equally, it is difficult to bid constructively over oneself. This is less of a problem with a 0-7 Antipodean/Polish style Fert than the 0-10 Dutch style one, but nevertheless, causes problems (some have had to resort, for example, to a light Multi 2♦ or light WK2♥ to remove the risk of languishing in 1♠ when 4♥ is cold). In effect, I think it exacerbates the positive and negative outcomes, so probably good against a perceived stronger team and bad against a perceived weaker team. On a personal note, I think 1♥ is the superior of the three standard Ferts (1♦, 1♥ & 1♠). It stops a simple defence where 1M can be played as natural with the DBL reserved for other purposes, but allows 1♠ as a constructive relay, as needed. Regards, Newroad PS Disclosure of interest: When I lived in the Antipodes, I never played a Fert, though played against it many times, mostly with decent success. Living now in a more draconian environment, I've chosen to play a method which is in essence, Dutch Heart (1♥ Fert, 11-13 1NT, otherwise 2/1=FG with the 1♣/♦/♥ opening bids shuffled down a step - mainly as a protest action and because I'm bored. It works quite well, however, and we have had significant success in recent seasons with it against decent to strong competition.