david_c

Ugh. I would interpret this as banning psyches. :)

More intuitive (in my opinion) would be this: Clicking on 1NT (for example) brings up the definition of this bid. Part of the definition would be what vulnerability and position it applies at. So to create a variable no-trump I could type in "15-17" as the description, then look for a box which says "applies to: any vul" and change this to "applies to: we vul". Then there would be some way of creating a new definition for the 1NT opening, and (ideally) this would automatically come up with "applies to: we not vul" at the top. The other thing that is a problem at the moment is that I would like to say something like this: any position: 1♠ = 5+ spades, 10-16 points 1st and 2nd position: 1♠:2♣ = artificial game force 3rd and 4th position: 1♠:2♣ = 3-card spade support, maximum pass but the program seems to be forcing me to do it like this: 1st and 2nd position: 1♠ = 5+ spades, 10-16 points 3rd and 4th position: 1♠ = 5+ spades, 10-16 points 1st and 2nd position: 1♠:2♣ = artificial game force 3rd and 4th position: 1♠:2♣ = 3-card spade support, maximum pass It would be much nicer if there was only one copy of the 1♠ opening, and the "branching" only happened when you looked at the responses. Last thing: please, can we have a "dealer: 1 or 2" (and "dealer: 3 or 4") rather than having to do 1 and 2 separately? :)

Free, can you give us the precise wording of this "rule of 18" you are referring to? It seems rather hard to answer the question otherwise. At first sight, I'd agree with Mark. But we're both living in EBU-land, where the regulation is explicit: "The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 18 ..." So for us, there's no problem. Maybe the situation is different elsewhere.

A really excellent idea - if this is integrated into BBO it will make life so much easier for those of us playing non-standard systems (and for our opponents too, of course). Anyway, here are a few things that are bothering me, playing around with this program. In the "disposition" section of the description: 1. "constructive" is mis-spelt as "contructive" 2. I feel that there are some bids which don't fit any of the categories very well. In particular I'd like a "negative" or "waiting" or "relay" - describing these things simply as "forcing" doesn't seem right. When the "max length" is set to "any", I'd much prefer this to be displayed as "5+ ♥s" (for example) rather than "5-Any ♥s". I also think the way the program deals with changes to the dealer and vulnerability is a bit counter-intuitive ... I can't seem to define a variable 1NT without going down a level first. And is there a way of deleting these branches once they have been created?

Are we playing WJ05? If so, a 5134 19-count is about what I would expect from opener's bidding. (1♣:1♦,2♠ would promise a good 6-carder - anything less than that in the 18-20HCP range has to bid 1♠). Apart from that, I haven't got a clue what's going on. The WJ document says that 2♠ is not game-forcing, but it's not clear about when you can stop below game (except in 3♠). And what are the inferences from responder having chosen to rebid 1NT rather than 2♦? :P Oh, never mind, I'll just punt 3NT. :) By the way, what is 1♣:1♦,1♠:1NT,2♦?

As usual I find myself agreeing with everything awm says. But I would modify the "shape first" principle slightly - for opening bids my philosophy is this: Unbalanced hands should describe their shape first; Balanced hands should describe their strength first. So there are some systems which I dislike because they fail on the first point (e.g. Zar's system), and some which fail on the second point (e.g. dull club, AUC).

Of the natural methods, I prefer Gerben's scheme. If you don't like using 2NT as a natural bid showing extras, then you're better off using it to show a 6-card major with extra strength. There's a good case for doing this even if you might open 1M with 5-3-3-2s. But in my opinion, switching to completely artificial methods is worth the effort. It takes a lot of work to begin with, and is only suitable for regular partnerships, but I've found that the improvements you get are much more significant than, say, tinkering with your responses to 1NT.

OK, let's compare Zar's strong club (which includes distributional strength) to a traditional strong club (which is based mostly on HCP without much allowance for distribution). My intuition is that Zar's version will be much more vulnerable to interference than the traditional version. Partly this is because partner cannot rely on much defensive strength when 1♣ is opened. But mainly the problem is that when you have a "distributional" 1♣ opener, this is precisely the sort of hand where you would prefer to start by showing a suit, as if you don't show a suit immediately you have no hope of showing your distribution in competition. That's not to say that a strong club should be based solely on high cards. But the weighting Zar gives to distribution seems too much.

But you're only worried about 4=3=5=1 hands with a singleton jack - isn't this much less likely than a 4=3=6=0 ?

okay, I'm convinced it must be right to duck at trick one. But now say West plays a second spade. I'll win and play a trump towards dummy. If West takes the ♥A then it all seems easy, but what if both opponents follow small? I think that marks West with at most a doubleton club. But is it right to finesse in clubs now, or do you draw trumps, try to drop the ♣J with West, and then try a diamond finesse? Er... OK, I'll take the club finesse through East at trick 4. Does that do it? Edited: Ignore that - it doesn't make any sense...

Ben makes the point that light opening bids work better with Polish Club than with 2/1. While this is certainly true, I don't think this is the main benefit of Polish Club. First of all, I don't think 2/1 is a terrible system at all. If Polish Club does have an edge over 2/1, then the difference is only very small - certainly much smaller than other factors which determine the outcome of a bridge match. Nevertheless, if there is a slight advantage for one system over then other, then you would expect the better system to gain in popularity, at least at expert level. The reason I like Polish Club is that I think "short club" methods have an edge over "better minor". The most obvious place where this gains is that the 1♦ opening bid can promise 4 cards. But personally I think the most important gain is when opener has a balanced hand too strong for a 1NT opening. Polish Club opens these 1♣, even if they contain 4 diamonds. This handles these strong balanced hands very well. For example, if partner responds in a major suit, we have the useful 1♣:1M,2♦ sequence. Also the bidding will often go 1♣:1♦,1NT in Polish Club, compared to 1x:1y,2NT in 2/1 which is dangerous if the response was a stretch. Finally, if opener has 20 HCP or more, then you would open 2NT or 2♣ in 2/1, but you can open 1♣ in Polish Club, which is vastly superior. [Another benefit of opening 1♣ with 18+ balanced is that you free up the sequence 1♦:1M,2NT, which helps to deal with various hand types that cause problems in 2/1.] Once you have added strong balanced hands to 1♣, it then makes a lot of sense to play 1♣ as forcing. Having done that, you can then consider whether you want to add other strong hands into 1♣. But even if you don't do this, the system is still an improvement on 2/1 in my opinion.

On the question of whether Polish Club might replace 2/1: 2/1 may be dominant at the moment, but it seems that it is not very widely taught to beginners - they usually start with something like SAYC. So, usually what happens is that a player makes a conscious decision to learn 2/1, after having learnt the basics of the game playing SAYC. That is, 2/1 is an "expert standard" rather than a "beginners' standard". That puts it in a more vulnerable position than SAYC, because if a few experts start switching to some other system, then people who would previously have learnt 2/1 might be tempted to try the new system instead. So I think SAYC is safe, but 2/1 might just go out of fashion. The other thing to realise is that 2/1 and Polish Club are not really very different. And there are a number of systems which "live" somewhere between the two - I think of it as being like this: Standard 2/1 | 5542 short club | systemic short club (e.g. Ambra, Welland-Fallenius) | phoney club (Dutch Doubleton) | Strefa | Polish club without a Precision 2♣ | Polish club WJ-style So it would be possible for a change towards Polish Club to take place gradually, with various pairs adopting "intermediate" methods that they like. Taking this into account, I think it's fair to say that there is a gradual movement in the direction of Polish Club at the moment, and if Polish Club really is an improvement over 2/1 it seems unlikely that this is going to be reversed. However, I really can't see 2/1 losing its grip for a very long time.

Search this forum for "WJ 2005". You will find links to system notes, and more. Well worth reading.

I'm surprised that people want so many different ways to raise partner starting with a 2/1. I grew up playing Acol, where if you wanted to set spades after 1♠,2♣:2♥ your choices were: (i) punt a game or slam; (ii) bid fourth suit and hope that your next bid will be unambiguous. Of course I realise this is a rubbish method (and not particularly relevant to a discussion about 2/1GF), but it must be possible to go too far in the other direction. Don't you think that having both 2♠ and 3♠ available to show 3-card support is a little excessive? You can't expect to be dealt spade support on every hand ... If forced to play 2/1, I'll go for 4♠ = something that never comes up. 3♠ = good support, and promising a little more than a minimum GF. 2♠ = Typically only 2 spades, but maybe 3 if not good enough for 3♠.

I also get 44.6% (try to drop the ♦Q then finesse in clubs) and 46.0% (try to drop the ♣Q then finesse in diamonds), doing the calculation by treating the minor-suit distributions as independent. If you take into account the fact that the minors aren't independent then you will find that the difference between the two lines is only about 0.8%, but it still favours playing to drop the ♣Q. But all this accuracy is a bit misleading because of the lead inferences, though you would still expect that playing for the ♣Q to drop is better. For example, if you do the calculation under the assumption that the opening leader has precisely 5 hearts, then starting with the top clubs is better by about 1.8%.

Indeed. And, isn't that a good thing? <_<

First thought: I don't think this system looks particularly "Polish" at all. It's a fairly standard strong diamond system. Nothing wrong with that though. Second thought: I believe that the usual reason to play a strong diamond rather than a strong club is so that you have more space for the limited minor-suit hands (opening 1♣, rather than 1♦ in Precision). In particular, it allows you to open at the 1-level with the "Precision 2♣" hand. So, I think combining a strong diamond with a Precision 2♣ opening is a strange decision. It would make more sense to restrict your 2♣ opening bid to hands with 6+ clubs and no 4-card major, or to use it as a pre-empt.

... to find myself accepted as a sub into a tourney at the end of round 2, with no cards left to be played, and then become a victim of the "survivor" cut at the beginning of round 3! Might I suggest that this is not a very effective use of substitute players? B)

I don't think so - the chance of the finesse picking up the suit is higher in clubs than in diamonds.

That's ridiculous. Perhaps they were damaged, but it certainly doesn't follow automatically from the fact that they ended up defending. There's nothing wrong with calling the director, because it's clear that something has gone wrong. I think the director would want to ask your partner a few more questions before making a ruling, but if it's just a misbid/mis-sort, then there shouldn't be any adjustment. The director will decide whether the result would have been different if the correct explanation had been given. If so, then he will adjust to that result. [Well, I've left a few things out there, but that's the basic idea.] In face-to-face bridge the director also needs to consider whether the incorrect explanation created a UI problem for the explainer's partner. No way! The director must not adjust the score "automatically". Furthermore he should not adjust the score to average plus in this sort of MI case.

Seems to be a very close decision whether to try to drop the ♣Q or the ♦Q (nothing else looks remotely attractive). I think it's slightly better to play for the drop in clubs, by about 1% if I have the calculations right. It doesn't look like the inferences from the lead make much difference here.

Here's what I would guess, as a "beginner" WJ player: dbl = typically a strong balanced hand not wanting to bid NT because of lack of cards in their suits. 2M = natural? 2NT = Strong balanced, I suppose, maybe about 22HCP? (But I imagine that "serious" Polish Club players might give a conventional meaning to 2NT in this sort of situation.) 3♣ = Will probably look like an "Acol Two". 3NT = To play, likely based on long running clubs.

Hopefully there is a third option. You pull out your Alert Chart, and look it up. If you are running an ACBL tournament, you then say "Not Alertable." That would be nice, but even if this situation is covered explicitly there will be plenty of others which aren't, and the TD will need to make a judgement decision. Also remember that (with the exception of ACBL tourneys, where players are expected to know the ACBL rules) detailed alerting charts are not practical for online play because the players won't take any notice of them.

But there's a third question, which is more important as far as this forum is concerned. Suppose you're a TD, and you get called to a table where the bidding has gone 1♠:3♠ etc., and their opponents complain that the 3♠ bidder's hand is too strong - they want an adjustment because they think 3♠ should be alerted if it is game forcing. Now you have to decide, how do you rule? You have precisely two choices (usually): 1. "I don't think you can expect your opponents to alert 3♠ here." [and to the 3♠ bidder: "I'm not going to adjust the score, but please alert 3♠ in future because most people play it as showing a weaker hand."] 2. "Your 3♠ bid is very unusual - you really need to alert it if you've agreed that it is forcing. I will look at the hand, and if it seems that the result might have been different if 3♠ had been explained properly then I will adjust the score." Both sides here are probably "innocent" in that they aren't trying to gain any unfair advantage. But you have to rule one way or the other. I doubt this one would actually come up; but still, it's important to discuss this sort of thing.

Oh, how else? By giving a complete and accurate description when the opponents ask for one. As far as "full disclosure" is concerned, that's all there is to it. Full disclosure is only indirectly connected with alerting. This was all discussed in the "information requests" topic a couple of weeks ago - if you don't understand, I suggest you reread some of Frances's posts there.