Impact

1. On the original hand, You have at least a likely 6-2 H fit and a probable 5-3+ fit in a minor. 2. You have no defence in terms of quick tricks - in fact zero controls. 3. If the opponents' bidding is an accurate reflection of their hands they have at least 9 trumps and if they also possess some distribution eg a singleton in each hand, there is every reason to suggest that 4S will be cold - and possibly more. 4. At the stipulated favourable vulnerability you are more likely than not to gain imps by bidding (it may make eg 2-6 (41) or provide a godd save or they may get to the 5 level going down. 5. if 4NT is t/o it is not a bad bid (by contrast a double "for takeout" at this level should stipulate some defensive values - not necessarily trumps). 6. THe strong hand given as the alternative to the weak 55: Axx Kxxx KQJxx x is an excellent example of a high-level fit-showing jump eg opposite the perfecto of x Axxxxx Axx Axx or similar a grand is possible and with additional length in D and say slightly better H, he may wish to take the push over 6S anyway...

To be honest your South hand with 3 first round controls and a 6-5 with concentrated strength in the 5 card suit is VERY strong for such an auction. I note that you specified that it was a bit light for your partnership to bid 3D, but frankly you have made it too difficult for a responder necessarily bereft of A to visualise slam. To be honest I like your bidding with this hand but would reverse teh meanings of the bids- I prefer to get the weaker distributional hand out of the way early, as it is precisely this sort of hand where I am willing to push past 3NT in search of slam. I suppose it is a question of evaluation and style - but I would always want to consider this in the stronger segment but say KQTxxx x AQJxx Kx or less would be the maximum for my minimum distributional bid. Further, once you determine that you would always push on with this hand beyond 3NT as you did correctly in my view - it must be right to class it in the stronger category.

Control responses work well - so long as you specify that 2NT is NEVER a control response : ROMEX handled it as any 0-control hand with at least a 6 card suit headed by Q and no outside real control. Alternatively it can be more wide ranging but limited to a 6+card Major... Relays may be used to show suit below length and then subsequent relays for shortage. Opener may opt for natural bidding over 2NT with an appropriate hand. Note that playing almost any strong natural structure the worst hand for standard is a strong hand based on D as it eats up the most room over the expected 2D response. Sensibly that hand should be dealt with esewhere eg 2D as weak in H (or Flannery if that suits your structure) OR strong D. That has added ramifications for rebids in D following a 2C opening in that they can be used to suggest the other nightmare hand for a 2C opener: long C with secondary D, thereby allowing the partnership to sensibly find NT when it is right or proceed to 5/6minor when that is right without forsaking investigation of 3NT. If requested I can provide details of methods (last tweaked about 10-12 years ago).

It may be possible to prepare generic defense against most weird bids, but if you want to win a World Championship you have to do better than that. The best "generic defense" will not be the "best defense" in many situations and if you include too many exceptions in your generic defense, it stops being generic. Furthermore, you have to discuss the many possible followup sequences leading from the many possible weird bids you might face. When you factor in the number of possible competitive sequences that might arise in an auction containing at least 1 (and possibly several) weird bids, the numbers really get scary. Ideally, in order to prepare properly, you would want to play a lot of practice hands against all of the weird bids you might face. Then you would want to discuss the hands with your partner/coach, make sure both players are on the same wavelength, possibly refine the defense, maybe play some more hands to see how that works... I have to admit that BBO Partnership Bidding has made this part of the process a lot easier than it used to be :) The other 2 pairs on your team have to go through this too of course and your coach will be spending 2/3 of his time working with them. You could hire another coach or 2, but remember that many teams can't afford even one really good coach. I actually have some real life experience in this area. Estoril will be my 3rd Bermuda Bowl as a player. I have also played in an Olympiad and I have been a coach/npc for both the Bermuda Bowl and Olympiad. I have been through this before. There are many players who are a lot more experienced than I am who would agree with me on this point (and no doubt there are some who would disagree). So either I am either intentionally misleading you as to how much work is involved or I should be hiring you as a coach :) Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com From fred to Fred:- Yes you should hire ME as coach :) .....system consideration is part of the game and an important part for its charm both as a theoretical and practical matter:- "There are a host of continuations against the varying types of "sub-minimum" openings. I have typically split methods between countering one level openings which routinely are based on 7/8 HCP and those which approximate as their general base light standard eg 10+HCP (without commenting on the accuracy of HCP evaluation but as a known base for comment). When you open lower than the suit shown you gain in many instances in auctions without competition (both by virtue of the levels gained and often by the trasfer effect particularly in the case of interrogatory type auctions initiated by relayer as opposed to dialogue). However like almost all matters there is a loss as well: it allows additional ease of competition by opponents (as the level of pre-emption is less) - and of course the lighter you open the more you disclose to opponents should you "lose" the auction and they become declarer. Notwithstanding a plethora of material on maximising the usage of different opening bids for "efficiency", which is appropriate for unwinding a relay system, there is little consideration of the reverse view which pertains to competition. I think the codification of the relevant parameters (and disagreements likely to pertain) has militated against such analysis. IMPACT operates as a forcing pass (but potentially 0-4HCP) 5-9 FERT or singlesuiter 10-15 6+C and 2C opening as frequently 0-4 any when n/v; but strong club vul. It is fairly easy to demonstrate that different systems are more likely to be effective at different vulnerabilities (to the extent that at unfavourable vul there is a fair argument for a ROmex or Roman or Power NT while at favourable a mini-NT of 9/10-12 is superior for dealing with pre-emption/pre-emption). We also used different ferts at nil vul (1H) and favourable (1S) as the one step is often crucial in disrupting relay auctions of opponents who might seek to relay over the fert at this level. Most good partners have enough trouble absorbing the intricacies of 1 system let alone many (even as the designer in the heat of battle the forces of alternative logic structures may be too strong). Further, the administrators in Oz, in their wisdom, have determined that "Two systems" is the maximum that may be played - putting paid to true optimisation of methods based on vulnerability - albeit there appears a general acceptance that methods which do not include forcing pass entail sensible variations for 4th hand opener (eg if multi twos it would be obvious foolishness in 4th seat to open to show a truly weak hand of say 5-8 HCP without a Major etc). Game theory has suggested for a long time that optimal theoretical solutions to multi openings of all sorts is multi defences; unfortunately the practical ramifications of sorting such out have proved harder than you might have thought and the effort has often been wasted by partner's non-computer like brain. Try to remember when designing systems that the ideal paper solution in each conceivable auction ends up imposing an all but intolerable memory load as the ramifications of application of each layer of logic to each bid is immense (and time-consuming). Hence the operation of another of S J Simon's rules about the the best possible result as opposed to best result possible... Accordingly, both for simplification and speed there is a tendency to create "rules" with general application, and only specifying the most crucial exceptions (of course the devil is in the details in determining where the dividing lines fall). To give just one example of my current natural responses over intereference to limited opening bids :- 1S (3D) ? 3H is initially a DAB based on USP - but need not be if one was content to reverse its meaning with the obvious sounding 3S raise. You may be familiar with this type of paradox in the more familiar position of responding to 1NT/2NT opening where Fibonacci analysis specifies the number of bids available for relays below 3NT and accordingly allocation of various bids including pivots. If not used for natural/semi-natural purposes (eg S or S shortage or minors), the 3S bid could easily be used asa pivot to 3NT allowing a range of clarifications by responder. If that is done, the efficient corollary is the absence of a need for a direct 3NT as natural - so you may use it as a pivot to 4C with all sorts of clarifications available. Unfortunately in an all to human world the latter such bids (3NT in all equivalent auctions as a puppet/pivot to 4C) which I favoured for system optimisation 25-30 years ago are just too prone to disaster in the real world - the theoretical merits being defeated by the human operators. Accordingly many of the "finer" system ideas (including a complete encrypted bidding system) have been relegated to the basement for occasional intellectual tinkering but no practical purpose. " The tendency to think within the square has been a limiting factor on ACBL and North American teams - alleviated somewhat by permitting foreign entries and all systems to NABCs. The best system analysts are not necessarily the best players but system construction and defence is fascinating to some of us. Certainly familiarity counts for something but it is part of the game to use the code to best advantage (so long as full disclosure including negative inferences is made) and limiting such severly detracts from the game. Good generic defences do not sacrifice much (albeit the same types of sacrifices as the constructive bidding sacrifices noted above) but still take thought about hand types to describe and use - and consideration as to the allocation of bids. A competent theoretician starts with a blank page - but few players are prepared to make that start, preferring to rely on the "natural sounding nature of bids" which not surprisingly produces problems. In the mid to late seventies when playing with a relay club I noted that by changing the meanings of all bids following interference I actually obtained more (and better) information following opponent's one level intervention over my strong Club. AFAIK that was the initial source of semi-positives being shown in great detail artifically - which was then extended in Moscito to uninterrupted sequences. One of the fascinating things in terms of system design - be it on basic system or defence- is allocation of priorities. It is truly amazing firstly the difference of opinion (and hence premises) that this occasions, so it is possible to formulate generic defences to systems starting from different bases. eg against a fert most will opt to allocate one bid (typically double) to strong hands 15/16+ and effectively move to a strong Club base in response; the corollary is to have all other bids limited 9/10- 14/15 with enormous amounts of room dedicated to these mainstream minimum "openers" so you can show your distributional hands immediately by natural or semi-natural (eg aspro) or completely artificial means depending upon your bent. My inclination is the artificial because it can be the most precise but that is foreign to many (who would perhaps become better bidders if they embraced it). Stylistically as a group those who adoptthis style of structure take a penalty blatantly offered when the suit opened happens to coincide with advancer's suit or similar situations, but otherwise attempts to bid to their own best contract with the advance knowledge of distribution/HCP distribution of the opponents. By contrast there is also a group which seeks to maximise the penalty (cf some Rubens articles) at the potential expense of their own constructive bidding- a group to which many "natural" bidder subscribe. Here the double starts as more omnibus- typically requiring a MINIMUM number of cards in the fert suit opened (and by contrast either the cue bid or 2C is allocated as an immediate force by overcaller). In 25+ years of playing ferts (the last 17 with the same partner who keeps a record of every auction and result we have!) I have had an opportunity to observe the practical effects of both methods: including being set 1100 in a 5-4 fit at the onelevel with 17HCP between us - and NOTHING we could do about it.....

Not Bob - rather his partner in crime and system designer.

As the developer of the anti-fert 20+ years ago, I consider that you have given it poor press by stipulating that it must be played with your accompanying material (and we tend to play it slightly weaker - 0-9 with certain handtypes suitable for other actions removed)....it does risk poker-like confrontations but that too is part of the charm of the game. There are a host of continuations against the varying types of "sub-minimum" openings. I have typically split methods between countering one level openings which routinely are based on 7/8 HCP and those which approximate as their general base light standard eg 10+HCP (without commenting on the accuracy of HCP evaluation but as a known base for comment). When you open lower than the suit shown you gain in many instances in auctions without competition (both by virtue of the levels gained and often by the trasfer effect particularly in the case of interrogatory type auctions initiated by relayer as opposed to dialogue). However like almost all matters there is a loss as well: it allows additional ease of competition by opponents (as the level of pre-emption is less) - and of course the lighter you open the more you disclose to opponents should you "lose" the auction and they become declarer. Notwithstanding a plethora of material on maximising the usage of different opening bids for "efficiency", which is appropriate for unwinding a relay system, there is little consideration of the reverse view which pertains to competition. I think the codification of the relevant parameters (and disagreements likely to pertain) has militated against such analysis. IMPACT operates as a forcing pass (but potentially 0-4HCP) 5-9 FERT or singlesuiter 10-15 6+C and 2C opening as frequently 0-4 any when n/v; but strong club vul. It is fairly easy to demonstrate that different systems are more likely to be effective at different vulnerabilities (to the extent that at unfavourable vul there is a fair argument for a ROmex or Roman or Power NT while at favourable a mini-NT of 9/10-12 is superior for dealing with pre-emption/pre-emption). We also used different ferts at nil vul (1H) and favourable (1S) as the one step is often crucial in disrupting relay auctions of opponents who might seek to relay over the fert at this level. Most good partners have enough trouble absorbing the intricacies of 1 system let alone many (even as the designer in the heat of battle the forces of alternative logic structures may be too strong). Further, the administrators in Oz, in their wisdom, have determined that "Two systems" is the maximum that may be played - putting paid to true optimisation of methods based on vulnerability - albeit there appears a general acceptance that methods which do not include forcing pass entail sensible variations for 4th hand opener (eg if multi twos it would be obvious foolishness in 4th seat to open to show a truly weak hand of say 5-8 HCP without a Major etc). Game theory has suggested for a long time that optimal theoretical solutions to multi openings of all sorts is multi defences; unfortunately the practical ramifications of sorting such out have proved harder than you might have thought and the effort has often been wasted by partner's non-computer like brain. Try to remember when designing systems that the ideal paper solution in each conceivable auction ends up imposing an all but intolerable memory load as the ramifications of application of each layer of logic to each bid is immense (and time-consuming). Hence the operation of another of S J Simon's rules about the the best possible result as opposed to best result possible... Accordingly, both for simplification and speed there is a tendency to create "rules" with general application, and only specifying the most crucial exceptions (of course the devil is in the details in determining where the dividing lines fall). To give just one example of my current natural responses over intereference to limited opening bids :- 1S (3D) ? 3H is initially a DAB based on USP - but need not be if one was content to reverse its meaning with the obvious sounding 3S raise. You may be familiar with this type of paradox in the more familiar position of responding to 1NT/2NT opening where Fibonacci analysis specifies the number of bids available for relays below 3NT and accordingly allocation of various bids including pivots. If not used for natural/semi-natural purposes (eg S or S shortage or minors), the 3S bid could easily be used asa pivot to 3NT allowing a range of clarifications by responder. If that is done, the efficient corollary is the absence of a need for a direct 3NT as natural - so you may use it as a pivot to 4C with all sorts of clarifications available. Unfortunately in an all to human world the latter such bids (3NT in all equivalent auctions as a puppet/pivot to 4C) which I favoured for system optimisation 25-30 years ago are just too prone to disaster in the real world - the theoretical merits being defeated by the human operators. Accordingly many of the "finer" system ideas (including a complete encrypted bidding system) have been relegated to the basement for occasional intellectual tinkering but no practical purpose. This ramble has already gone too long and I should post under a separate topic...