glen

Actually they say "Strong Club - BLUE", where BLUE is the WBF system color ("Blue Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong"). I believe the system name was actually the Orange Club at one point in the Hamman-Wolff years.

Don't forget our 10-12 NT guys!

Richard, thanks for the breakdown here - some questions: 1) Would you want to have Multi by Multi-just-weak, and Multi-with-strong-options? 2) Do all Ekrens have no strong options, so the "5/5 in majors or strong" is the only pair using the bid as two-way? 3) It may be interesting to do a breakdown of 2♥ openings - I can do this if you don't intend to. 4) Would you consider doing same thing for Venice Cup? Also did you already edit the 2♦ numbers to reflect the LV use?

Did I misread this cc: lauria-versace.pdf 2♦ = 18 to 20 balanced

If BBO ACBL is adding speedballs at noon and 1pm eastern, starting 12 August, perhaps the 11 am eastern tourney should move to 10:30.

With some databases out there has anybody done the pattern/strength average result query? - Result not being in IMPs or percentage (pairs), but just the plain result (+110, -620 etc.). For example, how do these 6 hands fair in average results: 5-4-3-1 12 points 1-3-4-5 12 points 4-3-3-3 12 points 3-3-3-4 12 points 6-4-2-1 12 points 1-2-4-6 12 points A breakdown by seat might be useful too. For example, a 4th seat analysis could have us look at Pearson Points. And for hands less than 13 points, one could do average result if hand was opened, average result if hand was passed. If one is willing to do this for all hand patterns/strengths against a large database, and post here, I'll pay (i.e. transfer) $20 BBO$ (tourney dollars) to the first one that connects with me on this.

This system has Fantunes 2M bids and structure: CANDY - featuring Fantunes style 2M bids Here's their 2♠-2NT structure when they previously allowed for 2♠ opening to have 4+♥s: 2♠ - 2NT -- 3♣ = naturale, minimo o massimo con 4 + fiori OPPURE 3+ cuori, FM ---- 3♦= relais ------ 3♥ = 3 cuori, possibili 4+ fiori ------ 3♠= 4+ fiori, esclude 3 cuori ------ 3NT = 6 picche e 3 cuori ---- 3♥ = colore naturale 6°+, FM ---- 3♠ = appoggio naturale FM ---- 3NT = signoff -- 3♦ = naturale, minimo o massimo con 4 + quadri, NO 3+cuori, FM -- 3♥ = naturale, minimo o massimo con 4 + cuori, FM -- 3♠= minimo (9-11), unica risposta non FM -- 3NT = max (12-13) SENZA 3° di cuori, 6+ picche -- 4♣/♦ = naturale in 65 -- 4♠= 7+ carte, no 3 cuori

I would pass in both cases. To answer the question posed by the title, my agreement is that double is "values with no good bid" - if the ♠s were a little weaker and a rounded suits a touch stronger, I would double bidding with my regular partner.

Me thinks the ACBL would deny this for 1 reason: it would drive their customer base crazy. For extra crazy, combine 3 card major openings with a forcing pass system.

This is nice in theory. In reality it is not legal in the ACBL since you can't offer any method of getting them to agree with your view.

Now if somebody has gotten a reply from the ACBL that overrules this, or has managed to get it overruled somehow, then let us know. Otherwise it is not legal in the ACBL. If it was legal, it would be a lot more fun than 10-12 notrumps.

Understand that when I say "I never heard of a more complex version of 2/1 than Mike's", that I wrote the small-font 259 page ETM Gold (has mini-multi structures etc.), and the shorter ETM Victory that has the "Dan-complexity level" warning label. Btw I have a new plug n play system up, CANDY, that combines two-way club, canape majors and Fantunes 2M openings - so a system that Soloway will never play.

"The Bobby Knows Bridge" site provides this on G-Canape: G-canape system and one can find lots of examples in the 1990 World Championship book (though as a Canuck I would have liked less examples in the finals) Regardless of what one includes in 1M, a 3 card or longer major suit opening is not ACBL legal, following their view of "natural". From a system design point-of-view, the 3+ major suit openings allow the 1M openings to completely span a particular balanced range. So in 4+ canape, one often has something like: 1M: 4+, if balanced 11-13 1♦: can be balanced 11-13 without a four card major In 3+ canape, one can have the 1M openings cover a complete balanced range: 1M: 3+, if balanced 9-11 (so covers all balanced 9-11s) 1♦: can be balanced 12-13

That's some mixture! Aside from 1♣ excellent defense.

Can you only "overcall" 1♣ over a big pass?

I never heard of a more complex version of 2/1 than Mike's - it had everything and a kitchen sink too

Very good posting Adam, and hard to disagree with. One reason for this poll was that after watching top events in recent years, I see the big 1♣ openings mostly getting a free ride. It seems to me if that is the case at the top levels then a big club is the better method to play there. However if playing at less-than-top levels, 2/1 is nice-and-easy.

Soloway has played several big club systems, my fav being the Goldman-Soloway Attack system, not vul only. This had 8+ point openings. You can assume for this scenario that Soloway can handle any non-relay big club system. He probably will not like switching to Polish Club, but he will pick it up pretty fast. Btw thanks to everybody who has posted and/or voted, and thanks to those that will be

If your defense to 1NT includes a strength showing double, one can play the same methods over the strong 1♣ and 2♣ openings. For example, Karen and I play Astro two-bids over 1NT. So over 1♣ we play: Double = ♥s and a minor 1♦ = ♠s and another suit 1NT=minors rest natural Say one plays CAPP. It they open 2♣ then: Double=one suited 2♦=majors 2♥/♠=major+minor 2NT=minors If they open a strong 1♣ the same thing but one level lower.

Here’s the scenario – you won the megabucks lottery, hired Paul Solway as partner, Eric Kokish as your partnership coach, and with 4 other pro teammates you enter the next US team trials. Soloway is a world class 2/1 player and a world class big club player, and asks you to select the system. Do you pick 2/1 or big club or something else?

For 2005 I prepared this for the Canuck teams: Countering Vexing Bids Since it was pages and pages, they mostly didn't use it. However it was used by one pair in the Canadian finals the next year, when faced with a whole bunch of unusual stuff. For 2007 we will see how things develop, as we now have some Ottawa-based pairs. This was the match-by-match document for 2005 Open: Defenses by round So, for, example, we have: Defence to 2♥ weak two in ♠s or ♥s & minor: - Doubles of major suit bids are Passable Takeout Doubles. - 3♣ is natural overcall in ♣s, or takeout double of ♥s with 0-1 ♥s (so has ♣s). - Natural bidding including bids of majors – in reply new suits forcing if below game --- ---- Note that Eric Kokish and Bev Kraft prepare documents about 10 times the size shown here, as part of their professional coaching efforts. These documents are unavailable to the Canadian teams, since the CBF cannot afford to pay for the months of work involved. However Eric does run coaching clinics for the Canadian teams, which have really helped our teams over the years.

Note that Adobe's Flash software for applications and "flash technology for harddrives" are not the same. The latter refers to solid state devices, where there are no moving parts in the hard drive.

The Martel interview is at: Chip Martel Interview (pdf) Also in the interview:

I would like to draw attention to these two excellent articles related to the discussion: Chris Ryall's Opening/defending 1NT Ken Allan's Right-siding

Nashville was tuff on spot cards