akhare

3N -- can't second guess Hamman B-)...

IMPs, all vul. pard is dealer and limited to 15 points. 1♥ - (2♠) - P - (P) - X What's your call? Bonus: What's your guess on pard's holding (shape / HCP)?

Several months ago, someone on BBO was playing the modified SP responses and they surprised me too. Unfortunately, I never got a copy of the notes as promised...

Does anyone know the latest incarnation of the Moscito SP responses? In the original version, they used 1♥ to show Bal or no 5CM and used 1N / 2x to show various major oriented two suiters, but as I understand this has undergone several changes in the interim...

To be fair, the most common Moscito SP response is likely 1♥ (bal or no 5CM), after which opener typically bid 1N. Also, Marston played around quite a bit with the SP responses and in the later versions, the ones with 5+ major used something like an 2-under scheme with multiple meanings so that it was easier for opener to show a different suit or relay...

I think this approach makes a lot of sense. As mentioned above, the 1♣ - 1♠ auctions are cramped and opener frequently has to guess over the 1♠ response. Note that it's possible to unwind most positive hands over 1♣ (using the new 1♠ step), leaving say only balanced or spades / minor GF two suiters in the 1♦ response. Thus one such possible scheme might be: 1♦: DN / Bal / S+m two suiter 1♥: SP 1♠: Heart / H+m 1N: Majors 2C: Minors 2D: Clubs, etc Note that that this unwinds the positive response faster as well. In addition, over 1♣ - 1♦, opener can frequenly bid 1N with the common min balanced hand, thereby leading to shorter and and less revealing auctions when game is the limit. Over 1♣ - 1♦ the 1♥ can now serve as natural or ask, after which the 1♠ confirms the DN and 1N+ continue the positive unwinds.

The 1♥ response as DN / GF is intriguing. What does responder do over 1♦ - 1♥ - (2Y) - X (where Y < 2♠)? I suppose after 2♠ interference you likely use Lebensohl to distinguish GF from super negative. Also, after 1♦ - 1♥ - (3Y)- X, responder's 3<blah> likely shows the negative hand, right? Is the idea that opener often P with min hands and responder reopens with a X or bids with the GF hand?

Come to think of it, wouldn't an alternative to playing silent ♣ be this variation? In this case, instead of passing the 2♣ / 2♦ hands, we simply club them into an unbalanced 1♦ (a la Marshall Miles). 1♣: 15+ any 1♦: 10+ unbalanced hands that don't fit elsewhere 1M: 5+, 8-15ish 1N: (11)12-14 2C / 2D: 5m, 4M, weak In fact, you can tweak this even further by introducing: P: 5+♣, maybe 4♠, unbalanced, 10-14ish 2N: 6♣, 4♥, 10-14ish Now, your 1♦ opening almost always shows 3+ ♦ in an unbalanced hand (except for the 4=4=1=4). Even better: P: 0-9 (NV) / 14-16 bal 1♣: 16ish any, 17+ bal 1♦: 10+ unbalanced hands that don't fit elsewhere 1M: 5+, 8-15ish 1N: 10-13 (NV), 12-14 (vul) 2C / 2D: 5m, 4M, weak 2N: 6♣, 4♥, 10-14ish

I always wanted to try this out -- does this require time to process in third seat based on dummy's holding and the bidding or is there a shortcut?

I always wanted to try this out -- does this require time to process in third seat based on dummy's holding and the bidding or is there a shortcut?

<Removed duplicated post>

I think so -- pre-alerting "we lead low from doubletons against suits" alone is worth price of admission B-)...

Does that mean 4 card majors for you, Justin? Thought you didn't know how to play them :D?

Yes -- pard and I really like them. However, for spot cards we use the approach recommended in original book: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~forster/bridge/development/slawinski/ From what I recall F-N combine the parity count in case of spot leads as well (something that was a foot note in the book). IMO, it works very well in conjunction with obvious shift...

FWIW, in our system it would have gone: 1♣ (16+) - 2S (6+ diamonds, no short) 2N (ask) - 3S (3=2=6=2, 6 QPs, A=3, K=2, Q=1) 4C (DCB) - 4N (odd AKQ parity in ♦, ♠, ♥, even in ♣) 6♦ -> must be K♦, Q♠, A♥ because no other combination of 6 QPs with that parity is possible) Note that slam would be hopless after a 4♦ response after 4♣ (which would mean either a junk ♦ suit or KQ of ♦, both of which aren't very interesting). Also, in this case, opener decided to go on holding only 18 QPs, but the known 10 card diamond fit makes it possible to scramble to 5D.

3♣ -- let them sort it out. I would have some qualms about bidding if pard wasn't PH...

Did 1♦ shows 5+♠ in your structure? Many such systems I have seen promise only 4+. If so, what was the rest of the opening structure?

Actually have played FP myself, I am really ambivalent about ferts > 1♣ myself...see this thread for more discussion on FP. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/3035-forcing-pass-systems/ It's true that the low fert sounds ridiculous, but: 1) You are likely to get more opps willing to play against it in a random online game without a high churn rate. Also, there's no fun against winning against opps ill prepared to deal with such bids. 2) You still get the extra space to relay after the P 3) The higher ferts (1♥) etc. hurt our side as much as they help mess up the opps.

Having played FP myself, I agree with several of the issues that awm raised. 1) The 15+ P leaves the responder in more or less the same situation as interference over 1♣. If they don't interfere, we can split responder's hands into GF, semi-positive and double negative and play the same relay scheme over the first two. 2) The point about the 1♣ / 1♦ opening bids containing "low" information still stands. In theory, since these openings typically show a 4 card major, responder can blast to the 2-level with say a 3-card fit, but the main problem that opener can hold 5 cards in the suit as well and we may very well have a better fit in a side suit. Of course, one can argue that the whole point is to show the 4 card major immediately and then let the opps to guess at the 2-level. The catch is that responder will often hold an invitational hand and the 1-level relay gives them a chance to introduce their suits cheaply. 3) The 1♥ fert is really a double edged sword that hurts our part scores equally. Quite often responder isn't well placed to judge competitive auctions and often has to pass when we could have otherwise competed because we can't tell 0-5 from 6-8. In fact, given that the fert conveys little besides 13 cards with 0-8 points, I would argue that it should be relegated to 1♦ / 1♣. 4) It's difficult to find opps willing to play vs. FP, even online. In a way, I can't really blame them because the fert auctions create all sorts of undiscussed situations, which gives us an undue advantage for the wrong reasons. Of course, this would be moot playing a 1♣ fert, but how many FP players are willing to accomodate that?

True FP practitioners "pass" the eating part -- they have ferts for dessert instead :D...

As I recall, there was a Polish family of FP systems that passed intermediate hands in the 14-17 range. Has anyone experimented in coming up with something that was quasi-FP? A somewhat prosaic GCC legal strawman is the following: P: Usually 0-9 bal OR 14-16 bal 1♣: 15+ unbal or 17+ bal 1♦: 10-14 unbal 1M: (8)9-14 unbal OR 9-13 bal 1N: 10-13 bal 2C: (8)9-14 unbal, 6+ 2D: (8)9-14 unbal, 6+, no 4CM

Some of it may depend on whether the overcall is at 1N+ or below. Pard and I had a scheme for interference through 1H, where we used P or X to show either a GF or poor hand, depending on the exact situation. Over 1S interference (natural): 1N: 4+ ♠, GF 2C: 4+ ♥, denies 4♠, GF 2D: Bal GF 2H: GF, minors 2S: GF, clubs 3C: Diamonds, GF For 2-level interference, bids were forcing one round, but not GF with X as TOX and 3-level bids GF (potentially with transfers to optimize space, 2N was natural GF). For 3-level interference, suit bids were forcing and X was takeout. Over artificial 1N+ interference with known suits, we try to use unusual vs. unusual If their suits are unknown, our bids are natural and forcing. Therefore after 1♣ - (1♠) (some random meaning) - 2♠ would show ♠ Bidding their anchor suit in Suction type transfer bids shows GF balanced hand, typically without stopper The key here is to have meta agreements instead of worrying about every possible situation. Also, an useful rule is that after setting up a GF showing a stopper in the suit, a rebid of the suit by responder shows at least 5+ in the suit. For example, after 1♣ - (1♠) (natural*) - 1N (4+ spades, GF) - <blah> - 2♠ shows extra length, thereby exposing a potential 1♠ psyche.

X 7♠ -- if they run to 7N and make it, rationalize that pard would have led the text book ♠ and 7♠ would have been cold anyway :D. Assuming it's IMPs, the score difference shouldn't matter assuming a similar auction at the other table; if it's MPs, c'est-la-vie...

+2 -- play this range only if you want to live in the constant dread of "what if..." when holding 10/11 point hands...

+1 -- also, the < 16 range on the 2-level bids seems way too high. As I recall, FN limits the 2-level bids to the 8-12 range, which is more more playable. FWIW, we once experimented with splitting our limited openings into 7-11 (2-level, unbalanced) and 12-15 (1-level). Naturally, only the 1♣ opening was forcing...