DelfinoD

So what? Other pairs are penalized...

Nothing really difficult. This is the easiest I could find at the table. I don't think spending much time thinking on it would improve the situation much. For all these openings x=take-out to the single suit (for example in 3rd take-out to clubs). If you are concerned about strong hands they can be bid few different ways: x and then suit, artificial 2nt or just pass. You can prepare bidding after such 2nt overcall earlier, because it would be used against all artificial openings. And what happends if you have a take-out to the other combination? Nothing, you can pass and in a moment the bidding goes something like this (second example) 2♥ - pass - 2♠ - pass 2nt (minors) - ? Now x is take-out to 5♣5♦, so it shows majors. 3♣ should be undestood as better ♥ than ♠, and 3♦ as better ♠ etc, so typical defence against unusual 2nt. If the bidding goes: 2♥ - pass - 2♠ - pass pass - ? Now x should be still take-out to minors so it would mean: I have both majors and big strength. I want to play ♥ or 2♠x. You should notice that after such an opening, as a defender, you are in a way better situation than after weak-two. First of all responder doesn't usually know which combinations his partner has (he can guess, but so can you), so he won't use a preempt like 2♥ - 4♥, so you can pass without worries. Second of all after your overcall he will have to lead blind. Third of all you can kill him with a bluff. I've seen people playing 4♠ on 2 trumps because I bluffed after such an alternative opening. Finnaly forth - he is practically forced to bid, so you gain lots of space (you can pass and then overcall etc.). And as for this 1NT = 0-5 I would love opponets to play it against me. The defence is really easy: x = 13+pc bal, 2suit = 12-18 unbalanced hand You will usually double and now all doubles are penalty. Opponents are in real trouble. 1NT 0-5pc is the worst opening I have ever seen. If you don't believie you can play it against me. I'm not a good player, but I'm sure if you use it, you'll have no chance. Want to try on BBO? ;) I often play (also against it) 1♦ = 0-7pc, any distribution, and it's very effective, but 1NT is way to high. And the NT nature is such that it's easy to double it. It's not really true that the lack of cue-bid or no suit known makes any trouble. In natural bidding you bid your suits and there is really no problem that you don't know opponents suit. It's rather THEIR problem that they don't know. After natural 1nt opening (may be weak NT) you neither know the suit nor have a cue-bid, but you can defend quite well. I think the problem is that most people never played against those methods (and they often play against natural 1nt), that's why they are a bit puzzled. So what should they do is to play a bit against them, get fammiliar with them, learn just a bit about theory of those strange openings, and the defence. This way they would become better players and no bans would be needed. Anyway you can always make a universal defence against any artificial opening (not showing 3+ in the suit). It wouldn't be less efective than universal defence against natural opening, which all people use. The defence is: x = 13+ balanced suit = 13-19 natural, not balanced nt = 20+pc, artificial forcing That's all. I played this against different strong pass systems and it worked well. And as for my prefference I like to defend against all types of openings because it's more fun than just against one. I played many differend systems like strong pass, with very artificial openings like those alternative, or showing shortages etc. In my opinion they don't really give a big advantage. They are good because there's a big theory behind them (like frequency of hands etc.). They were never constructed for destruction, but for giving as much information to partner, as possible. Anyway many experts would agree that it's not the system who makes a good player. Expert can win playing any system and against any system. So there's really nothing unfair in them.

Sorry, because I can't imagine that. Can you give me an example of bid which is not possible or very hard to defend against? I can bet it's easier to defend than against natural 1♥or 1nt, but I'm ready to be convinced.

It depends on the agreement. If the double cancels then you sometimes can show every lead. Let's assume the bidding goes: 1♥ - 2♠ 4nt - 5♦ 6♥ - pass Now if you: double 6♥ partner will lead ♠ double 5♦ partner will lead ♦ double 5♦ and 6♥ partner will lead ♣ do nothing partner will lead whatever he want's

Don't you think that this is only a good strategy in short-term? What is the average age of bridge players in USA? Why is it so high? Isn't finding new young players the primary objective? What I have seen many times were young players who prefered computer games from bridge, because they were more fun. They were just bored because they had to play one system against the same one all the time. What I think is that youth needs experimets it needs some nuttines in the bidding. When you are facing something completily artificial like strong pass or singleton suit opening, you really have to think. It's not only a matter of finding a simmilar deal in your memory, because there can be no such. This way a player who has played for 40 years have simmilar conditions as the one who has played for two. They both have to use only their intelect. And bridge sould be more intelect game then a memory one, shouldn't it? And as for those approved defences I still can't understand why not approve one defence against all types of artificial openings? I find this plot very usefull: Against strong artificial openings (PASS, 1c etc.) pass = bad hand or very strong x, 1 suit = weak, for lead 1nt = two-suiter other = destructive preemvptive Against weak artificial openings: x = bal, 3+ in the suit, 13+pc suit = 5+, 12+pc 1nt = can be used for take-out or forcing hands jump suit = constructive preemprive (10-15pc or so) It this really so difficult to use? What I know is that it's very effective. Let the bidding go: 1 ♦ (0-7pc any) - 1♠ - pas - ? you bid as after normal 1♠ opening 1 ♥ (0-1♥) - x - pas - ? now it's very easy to pass with 8+pc and 3+♥, and ops are in trouble Because there are many situations in which you overcall an artificial bid, only a good knowledge of natural bidding can win. All those conventions get useless, so the bidding is getting more intelectual again. And all those commetties could spend their time and effort on other important issues like bridge law etc. And as for the total happines I still wonder if prohibiting squeezes wouldn't raise it. Have anyone made a poll? :)

1) 2♥ 2) 2♣, but if we can't show 9-11 with fit later I would bid 2♥ 3) pass, I have really nothing for my p. 4) for me its 40/60. Neg. double is bad, but 5♣ is also an overbid. 5) 100% E. He could have passed 1♦. 4♥ should be understood as a natural will to play. E should pass.

Huh? If his hand contains 0pc and I usually have 12 for my opening then this would be 4♥ on 12pc when vul. I'm not sure if it's a good buisness.

So your partner bids 4♥ on 12pc when he's vul?

Tha't not really sure if the pass is not forcing. I know many players who assume that if we are vul, and we first bid a game then all passes are forcing. In this case I think pass is clear in both possibilites. If pass is forcing I'm showing nothing in clubs (partner has a less balanced hand, so he must have short clubs to bid 5♥). If pass is not forcing, that's nice too. I have nothing more to show. 6 hearts is nice but I have a terrible two ♣.

It depends on the contract. Of course I assume that you mean a typical penalty double, not a lightner. That's what I would do, but I'm not a good player :P If the contract is low like 1 or 2, we have bigger strength, and ops don't have good trumps, we should lead a trump. Let's play as if we were declaring the contract, so trumps first. But if declared showed a good suit, for example he opened weak two, we shouldn't lead the trump. Rather lead normal. If the contract is higher 1) ops. are strong = partner doubled because of bad trump split I think we should lead agressivly in our suit to make declarer ruff from his hand. This way we can promote partner's trumps. This way also if it happens that partner has for example already 2 trump tricks, we get a chance to quickly take our 2 tricks in other suits which could dissapear later. So no passive leads. 2) ops are weak = they are in defence, lead trump because it's the only suit they are going to take tricks in (but we can always try to lead a singleton for example too to get a better result)

You can always try the strong pass Regres system. Sometimes it was played with 1♥ = 0-7pc and PAS - 13+pc, you can always invert these two bids, and raise the opening limit a bit :)

Every lead is riski but ♠ seems the least.

That's what I would do. But this is a problem with Luis suggessstion. You can forget that here 2nt is 12-14. Of course jumping to 3nt is a waste of space. And what will you do with 18-20 hands like 4♦333? :P

There is a typo in your contribution ... Reading all of it you should have startet with "I am God." :P Why's that? Was it so brilliant? I can give you another example. Defence against natural 1♥ opening. Let' take a look; pass - artificial because can be strong (just like HUM!!) x - artificial because not showing ♥ 2♥ - artificial because not showing ♥ This is too complicated for me. It's so artificial that natural 1♥ opening should be forbidden. Now defence agains 1♥ opening which means 0-1♥ pass - natural, always weak x - natural, showing hearts 2♥ - natural, showing hearts So now can you have any doubt that defending agains artificial 1♥ is much easier than against natural? So only artificial openings should be possible, because only these are easy to defend against. Take a look at it from a different point of view. You play with a total beginner, who only knows rules, but never heard about any system or convention. How will he understand pass, x and 2♥ overcall after 1♥ opening? What I think is that many people got used to the mechanism they use. And because they are lazy, they don't want others to use different mechanism. All these talking about naturality is really worth nothing. Why can we use transfers after 1nt openings and we can't use transfers as a opening? I guess the defence is simmilar. I wonder when they will prohibit natural bidding after 1nt opening, because there is no approved defence :P And if you think that it's not possible to make a system which is aimed at destructions of those, who are to lazy to think of a defence (which is green), you're wrong. This is a classical no pass system which is not a HUM: pas = doesn't exist 1 suit = better minor 12-37pc 1nt = 8-12pc any 2 suit = 4+, 0-7pc Try it at ACBL tournament. I wonder if they prohibit it, and if so, then why?

And what do you do if the bidding goes: 1♦ - 2♣ ? And you are bal. with 12-14 and 3-4♦? I couldn't ever find a solution for this sequence in SAYC.

My God. If someone can't think of a defence against transfer openings maybe he should't play bridge at all? Can I call a TD because I didn't know how to defend against a squeeze? I have a bad result because of opponents using advanced technology. Maybe let's forbid squeezes, the life will be much easier. Transfer openings are really bad. For example when you open 1d with hearts you give a lot of space. Opponents can double with diamonds for lead, can use 1h for take-out, and still have free 1nt which could be used for other hands (you double with strong bal hand, so it's easy for partner to double 1h then). It's terrible what's happening to this beatiful game, which is not only a game between people but also a game of bidding systems. Some are better at making squeezes, others at making systems. They both should have right to play. There's really nothing in the RULES of the game that forbids opening 1d with hearts. So called law doesn't concern bridge. It makes some kind of a different sport which shouldn't be called this way. You may call it primitive-bridge or natural-bridge or no-bidding-bridge. If you can't play agains any system you are a very bad bridge player. You can be good at primitive-bridge, ok, but not at bridge. That's my opinion. And the definition of HUM is one of the most stupid and ridiculous pieces of text, that has ever been written about bridge.

1) It depends on the system. I'm not sure how it is in SAYC, but in natural systems 3d would be weak (12-14). In Polish style for example it's forcing, and with 12-14 you bid 2s (2nt would also be forcing). 2) If you don't open 1nt with 2533 or 3523 etc. you are in big trouble after: 1h - 1s ? if 2nt is forcing (if it isn't you have a big problem with strong balanced or single-suited hands) you have to lie somehow. I don't think there's a need to open 1nt with 5 spades. But anyway 1nt is very rare opening so it would be nice to put hands with a 5 major there. This way you can distinguish hands between nt or suit oriented, which would allow you to find better contracts. Of course if you plan to open 1nt with 5 major you should use reversed Stayman. Anyway I'm not sure If I would open 1nt with this hand even if my system allowed to. It's not that nt oriented. I would preffer something like this: KW10xx KWx ADx Dx 1nt is much more important opening for the minors. For example if the bidding goes 1c - 1s 3s You can be almost sure that opener has 5+c and shortage in h or d is very probbable (he would open 1nt with balanced hand). That's why I like to use 2d Multi with 18-20 bal meaning. Along with 2nt (21-22) all your rebids showing 15+pc also show long opening suit, which is very nice feature.

Indeed this is easy. So almost any system is a HUM. I cannot understand the argument, that in all systems openings can be weaker than PASS so they are not HUM if the definition of HUM says that they are. And I cannot understand why they prohibit strong PASS and they don't prohibit strong club. I can't even understand why they don't prohibit 1c opening which show 3+ clubs and 12+pc. It isn't the longest suit and it doesn't guarantee 7 tricks, so it's not natural. I think they should prohibit it :blink:

It's not useless. All the information you give to ops. would be available to them anyway after first lead. In classical Stayman they play double dummy.

It's not NS who should ask what doeas unusual NT mean. If W gave only that little information it is his responsibility. Everyone would understand Unusual NT as ♣♥. The other question is - is this an agreement that they say 2nt always with both minors or was that just a mistake? I think E would bid 3♥ if he knew that 2nt is ♣♥, so this is probbably wrong explanation of an agreement, so there should be a penalty. The 4 hearts on the table don't mean much because N could have thought, that W had opened with 5♣4♥ so he was affraid to lead hearts. I would adjust to 2ntx-4, which is a normal score for this deal.

I would never adjust this one. I wouldn't even adjust it if N alerted and explained as take out. N was just lucky and director is not a person who should make everyone equally lucky ;)

You can make lot's of trouble using the strong pass Lambda defence: x = ♥ 1♦ = ♠ 1♥ = 5+4+ ♣♥ or ♠♦ 1♠ = 5+4+ ♣♠ or ♦♥ 1nt = 5+4+♣♦ or ♥♠ 2 suit = natural 6+ After 54 opening next bid is relay and responces are natural, show longer suit, 3 of a suit means 64 maximum, 4 of a suit means 74 and 2nt shows 5-5 any (3c asks for suit and strenght)

Maybe it would be possible to make a carry over of somekind for players included from a list. This could be helpful for making multi-session swiss tournaments and nice finals for weakly tournaments. I would also like to have a possiblity to use prepared deals for a match or partnership bidding.

For me double is 50% penaltly and I have a clear pass.

That's not true. Odds ar slightly against finesse. The time when you choose doesn't make any difference, because you didn't get any usefull information.