Rattius

List of hands? I identified one very specific hand - 8-10/11 with diamonds. There's also one other equally specific hand in your personal version of the system (10-11 with clubs). I don't think it's really valid to call that "a list" of hands where the opening side has the balance. That's why I cannot understand why you "suspect" that the opening side "will have 20+ HCP more often than not" - I believe that I laid out exactly why that is clearly not the case. It's quite clear to me that on the vast preponderance of hands the "other side" will have the balance. And the other situations are in the range 11-20 not 17-20 (11 opposite zero is the worst case here). I would also dispute that "1NT has decent odds of making at only 19 HCP combined" - I've defended 1NT doubled more than enough times to know that it almost always goes off when the defending hands have the lead and the balance of strength, roughly equally divided. Note also that I wasn't suggesting that you simply double all of those auctions without further thought - I suggested a defence such as Lionel which looks to either penalise when we have the balance or to compete the part score otherwise. As I noted when I first mentioned it, there are probably (even) better ways to defend this scenario. The possibility of a run-out doesn't stop us doubling, we then hunt their run-outs (I found a forcing pass/take-out double approach best over their first bid). Getting into an auction once the opposition have told you that you almost certainly have the balance is simply good bridge - not doing so is the opposite. Having methods that allow you to tell that it's one of the rare occasions when you don't have the balance can only help avoid a bad time to double (whereupon you compete the partscore instead). And you don't do it for 1100s, although they will happen occasionally, the lesser scores are also very worthwhile - at the risk of letting them make 1NT doubled now and again. No big deal. I think we've put enough into this now - especially for me as someone who doesn't even play the game any more! So I'll thank you again for your help and wish you goodbye David. All the best.

David, I genuinely thank you for your responses and I really hope that your attempt to help doesn't end on a sour note. I do appreciate it and I hope we can say adieu in good spirits :) However I have to say that I still believe that my analysis is correct. I think some of the scenarios under discussion require that we bear in mind at all times two key points: (1) We are only talking about one specific sequence (1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ -1♠ - 1NT - Pass) AND (2) That the sequence in question means responder has less than an invitational hand (or he would not be passing 1NT). The final Pass is important here - it tells us that responder has less than invitational strength. I really don't mean to be confrontational when I say that I'm not sure that both of those key points have always been borne in mind in your analysis. Looking at your most recent post: 1. The hand you mention with diamonds I have already acknowledged to be the hand type that could lead to the opening side having the balance (some of the time) in the sequence of interest. But, when that hand passes 1NT it is limited by its failure to invite game (assuming competent opponents). Hence the 8-10 range mentioned in my previous post. I guess an 11 count might/would also pass opposite an 11-13 NT rebid. 2. The hand with 7 points that you give as an example brings the opening side's total hcp to a mere 18-20, since the 1NT rebid shows 11-13. Ergo, in that example they clearly do not have the balance of strength. It's not about choosing to relay over 1♥, it's about the fact that doing so and then passing 1NT tells a story. 3. Type 4 may have additional strength and other shapes possible (with clubs of course) but... once again, the hands that would follow the sequence of interest, including responder's final pass over 1NT, are those that are sub-invitational, hence 10-11. A 12 count would make a game try opposite an 11-13 NT so it is not within the scenario of interest (because it would not make the final pass in the sequence). This is the reason I believe the 1NT should be a target for a penalty double - because the final Pass tells us that they (almost certainly) don't have enough to make it. I think there was also some confusion at times as to which hand types were being discussed e.g. when you say "no way of getting to 2♦", that was said in a different context than being bid after 1NT. But hey, as you say, let's end it there - you've kindly summarised and then pointed me at a write-up of the system and that helps, so many thanks for that, much appreciated. :D P.S. Although I found that write-up before, I couldn't translate it until I read your post - then I became more persistent and tried it directly through the Google translate page on a different browser - it seems it only works on Chrome or MS Edge. Learn something every day :)

Hi David, covering the 3 points in your post in order: (1) So let's examine the sequences, probably simpler to assume that 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ has already happened, then we can look at which hands would bid go on to bid 1♠ then pass 1NT: (i) Natural diamonds hands - presumably they would only bid 1♠ to see what partner's hand type is, then assume captaincy. They would only pass 1NT with no game interest and 5332 so there's one hand type to consider here, 8-10ish with (probably) precisely 5 diamonds-3-3-2? I'm assuming that hands with longer diamonds would rebid 2♦ (and hands with 5 diamonds might consider doing so as well). (ii) 0-7 hands. I believe that, for the purposes of this exercise, we can ignore the hands that bid 2 minor etc at this stage of the auction since we're only interested in the hands that would bid 1♠ then pass 1NT. Since those are I believe only weak hands, there's nothing in this category to worry about for the defending side if they wish to double 1NT. (iii) 4-4 majors, 6-11 hands would bid 1NT now (directly over 1♥) so the auction would have started 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT*, therefore these hands are not possibilities in the scenario we were discussing (1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT - Pass). (iv) Minimum inverted minor hands. These hands are (almost) all invitational strength so the auction may start that way but it would not end there, responder would be doing something more, not passing. Ok, if you're playing 11-13 you might be passing with 10-11 - also worth noting that, if memory serves, you said that these are your own additions into the system, not part of the standard system itself? Conclusions. By my calculation that means the only hand type of concern is 8-10 with 5 diamonds - and even that doesn't always mean they have the balance. Additionally (in your personal version of the system)... 10-11 inverted raise types (if playing 11-13 NT rebid). So you're right that there is a hand type whereby the opening side could have the balance, but the question in my mind is: is it of sufficient concern/frequency that the defending side should be deterred from looking to penalise when they hear that auction 1♣* - 1♦* - 1♥ - 1♠* - 1NT - Pass? My personal view is that when I hear this auction I'd be looking to penalise as often as possible, when the alternative is to pass out 1NT undoubled. I'd probably want to run a simulation though, which I no longer have the tools to do. I should add that being doubled is not necessarily the end of the world - there are good run-out systems available and as I mentioned earlier, in the UK many players are quite practised in using them since the 12-14 opening NT is doubled for penalties relatively often (but still not very often in reality). But one angle my thinking was coming from on this is that you lose an advantage (possibly the only advantage) of the standard strong NT systems' 1X-1Y-1NT in that this is a way of bidding a weak NT that will not be doubled for penalties (responder can have many hand types and strengths, short of game interest) - and if it is doubled then you've made at least one natural suit bid, so escapes should be easier. It's actually that "hard to double" aspect that makes it attractive, since you can open most 11 point hands without the risks of opening a 1NT. I've often thought that this is an area of defensive bidding that should be looked at - why let them play their 1NT rebid any more safely than if it were a 1NT opening? (2) Re Lionel - I think you can call every bidding method "imperfect"! :) That's the nature of the beast. But Lionel is good because it has very high frequency and it results in so many good scores, which is why I played it at matchpoints or point-a-board but used another method at IMP scoring where objectives are different. (3) Indeed, the point of the example hand AQxx K AQ AQJxxxx (rapidly made-up, there's probably better examples) is that it would be opened 1♣ in any natural system, but playing DD opener would be more comfortable knowing that he gets another bid. I used to see some players opening 2♣ on hands like this and usually regretting it for various reasons (lack of bidding space, ill-defined 2♣ system, intervention). Basically, like you, I see this as a system advantage! :)

That's the impression I got as well, from the discussion on BBO which included people like David Burn who has acted as captain for various England teams (a role that largely involves advising on counter-measures to opps methods). Perhaps the top players do that but it's not common at lower levels of the game?

Yes I can see there are advantages to passing with clubs and a weak hand and also advantages to playing it as forcing to push some big hands through that route. I remember the BBO commentator making the point re big hands being able to pass over a forcing 1♣ and come in later, although they have to give up some competitive sequences to do so. What strikes me is that a strong NT hand will often have clubs, so any risk involved in a trap pass is limited. Re the "2-2 fit" scenario, I actually see it the other way round. Theoretically, the fewer clubs the opening side has (after opening 1♣) the more clubs the opposition has, therefore the less likely it is that they can make a t/o double - because if they both have 3+ clubs they are not shape-suitable for a double, so double would only be an option for the (rare) stronger hand types. They are also less likely to have length in other suits, with spaces being taken up by clubs, so the chance of an overcall is reduced too, but perhaps only a little. In practice, you don't see too many problems with 1♣ openers being passed out in standard strong NT 5cM systems, but I see opponents being too willing to bend their protective bids out of shape, which I don't think is necessarily wise when opponents are playing a system like that. However, a system weakness is always there no matter how often you "get away with it" and has a way of manifesting itself at a bad time. I noticed years ago that the higher the level you play, the more perceptive the opponents become and as I type I'm recalling a national final which we won by 10 IMPs, partly due to a 13 IMP swing in due to opponents having a problem hand type which we understood and exploited (not a hand type directly related to this discussion though - although it was a consequence of a nebulous opening bid). But... I'm aware that I'm probably getting too involved in the bidding theory for someone who doesn't play the game and was just looking for a system write-up! P.S. Thanks for the info re number of posts required to vote :)

Having had time to read your system post more carefully and think about it, the 4 options in the 1♦ response don't seem to offer as much protection as it might appear, because they would all "have done something else" by the time 1♣*-1♦*; 1♥*- 1♠*; 1NT - P happens. As you say, at that point it's known that he has 0-7 (or 0-6 as some top pairs seemed to be playing on VuGraph) and if the weak NT is 11-13 then our man in the pass-out seat knows they have only 11-20 hcp. So I'd deploy a defence such as Lionel (by Lionel Wright, former world pairs champion) in the pass-out seat - and possibly over the 1♠ relay as well. Using double to show 11+ with ♠ & another (at least 4-4) allows partner to either compete the part score, or to pass whenever we have the balance (and we have the advantage of the opening lead). There are probably other defences that would achieve the same thing, possibly even more penalty-oriented than Lionel. Knowing that we have at least as much as they do and that we get to strike first means, to my mind, that double is almost automatic here especially against vul opponents. This look like a system weakness - in a standard strong NT system, when we open with the weak NT hand we get to make at least 1 natural bid (the response) which can make it easier to find an escape route. With DD, there are no natural bids at all in the 1♣*-1♦*; 1♥*- 1♠*; 1NT sequence, so effectively you've simply opened an 11-13 1NT at any vulnerability and responder's hand is known to be very weak. However, at least responder gets a chance to run, which they don't get after an opening 1NT - (X*) - P - (P**) - ? where * = 11+ ♠ & another ** = pass to play 1NT doubled with 10+ hcp. In that scenario opener is in the pass-out seat, suddenly lumbered with the last decision and has no knowledge of his partner's hand - since partner may not have acted because he didn't know if they were about to contest the part score or wield the axe. What I understood from commentary is that there's 2 versions of the system, forcing and "semi-forcing", with the latter being as you described. It also struck me at the time that in the forcing variant, some big hands don't need to open 2C unless they are confident of handling the development of the auction. Hands that would rebid 3 minor are among the worst - bidding space is at a self-inflicted premium. Also 2♣ openers tend to attract interference from good opps so it can become uncomfortable on any hand type - my least favourite auctions are along the lines of: 2♣ - (2♠) - P - (4♠) - ? It also gives breathing room to a small number of really awkward strong hands with clubs, something like AQxx K AQ AQJxxxx - I'd open this 1♣ but I'd feel much happier knowing I'll get another go. Apologies, I seem to have got drawn into the theory - and written rather a lot here for someone who hasn't played the game in years!

I just noticed the up-/down-vote system and I went to upvote your post above David, but it won't let me do that (says I've already used my quota for the day). Is there something to know, such as new posters can't vote?

Ah - I hadn't spotted the stronger hands in the 1♦ response, apologies I assumed it was the same as described in the VuGraph commentary where they said it was simply 0-7 (they may have been wrong of course). It certainly makes sense to maintain the possibility that the partnership may have the balance when arriving in 1NT, we can't make life too easy for the enemy. ;) Re "Walsh" - or what US players call Walsh. It's interesting that (I think) good players over here have played that way for a long time without calling it anything - whether they are playing Acol, 2/1, DD or anything else, responding to 1♣ with 5+ diamonds and a 4-card major we would routinely bypass the diamonds unless GF strength. In bidding theory terms this allows responders's reverses to be GF - without that many auctions involving strong hands are simply too clunky to handle e.g. 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♥/2♠ really needs to be GF. There are far more big hands in total than the relatively tight invitational range -and big hands are more important than smaller ones, so bidding theory tells us to play that way. I used to see a lot of players responding 1♦ with less than GF values though, so perhaps it would be better if we did have a name for it over here! :) Thanks for the links as well David, much appreciated.

No offence taken, thanks for the thought in clarifying. Just quickly, because I didn't want it to become a bidding theory discussion... Re "straining" - doing so on 5 counts only covers 1/6th of the hands in the 0-5 range, so it's not solving the problems. The opponent "may still be there" but they may not be willing or able to act. The fewer clubs you have, the more thay have, making it difficult for them to make t/o doubles or even overcalls (which is the reason a 4-card pre-empt psychic bid works!). Or they may realise what's going on and simply choose to pass to watch vul opps go off in 100s. The reason I mentioned 19/20 rather than just 19 is that many experts feel that it makes sense to play the big NT as 18-20 rather than 19-20 *IF* you arrive at 1NT to show that hand (rather than 2NT as in standard methods) - that's because you now have room to invite, so you can play the wider range. I would certainly take that option since 2NT openers are all pretty much "theoretically unsound" (23hcp required to make 2NT and that doesn't envisage the strength being mostly in one hand) so avoiding a 20 hcp 2N opener sounds like a system advantage to me. And no, I've tended to avoid 5cM systems partly because of their abuse of the minors - I always loathed "better minor"! Here in the UK Acol is what we learn (4cM, 12-14 NT) which is a 100% natural system, if you bid a suit, you have it - although I did play 2/1 some years ago with one partner quite successfully. One of the major advantages to the strong NT is the ability to open 11 counts and rebid 1NT, which is far less prone to being doubled than an opening 1NT with the same cards (although runout methods when a weak NT is doubled are quite sophisticated here so we don't worry too much about being doubled). HTH EDIT: RE the problem with responding on sub-minimum hands opposite big NT hands... if the auction starts 1X-1Y-2NT (often played as a "virtual GF" meaning "pass only if you're sub-min, otherwise any action is GF and shows full values") then you're already too high and the weaker the 1Y was, the worse the problem. In some systems, opener bids 3NT with 19 or a good 18 which is even worse. So in that sense, natural bidding doesn't work, although to be fair the truly "natural" sequence would have been 1C - Pass. Not having to "lie" in this way is actually a big advantage of the DD system (which is why I'm so interested in it!).

Many thanks David. That certainly clarifies the structure of the 1C opening, the gist of which I'd deduced from watching VuGraph, but good to see it laid out. A frequent auction was 1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT where 1S was a relay asking "do you have the weak NT or the natural hand with hearts and longer clubs?". The commentators were not able to say what the continuations were or should be (presumably all weak options looking for the right spot, since there's clearly no game). I was also surprised that this was never doubled (1NT with a combined 12-20, or in some cases 11-19, is as good as saying "Here is my backside, please kick it"). The thing that really struck me though was that more than one top pair seemed to have bids available in contested auctions which showed very specific hand types - not that that's unusual in itself for top pairs, the striking aspect was that the pairs playing Dutch Doubleton seemed to be making the same bids, suggesting that it's standard in the system which is unusual and interesting (to me anyway). Unfortunately much of this was back when the Bermuda Bowl was being played, so the details have escaped my memory, but something along the lines of a simple sequence such as 1H-(2C)-2D showed 6-4 in... something, I forget. That example may be well wide of the mark, but the basic idea was that the contested auctions seemed to be well covered in the standard system. If you have any links to even partial write-ups you mentioned, that would certainly be of interest.

Er, yeah thanks for the "medicore player" tag. :( Mediocre players such as Benito Garozzo seem to have been concerned enough to devise a system that avoids the problem, which is good enough for me - I guess birds of a feather and all that ;) All in all, I think it's of concern to lots of people playing matchpoints. But also because of the information it gives to good declarers when an auction starts 1X-P-P-? To say that "one should strain not to pass" doesn't feel right to me - the frequency of a hand in the 0-5 range is sufficient for it to be of concern, especially since the frequency of opening 1C is maximised by including a weak NT, not to mention an 18-19(20) NT in it as well. A weak NT is probably the most frequent opening hand type on its own, never mind the stronger NT hand there's also all the natural 1C openers. This is offset only by the frequency with which LHO overcalls the 1C. And... what are you supposed to do with a 2 count? What is partner supposed to do with a 19/20 count when you choose to do something? I don't think it solves anything to bid that way, it just shifts the problem elsewhere - in that example you end up playing 3NT on a combined 21 with no entries, which is always so much fun. BTW a 2-1 fit was the extreme example - what do you do with 4 clubs - or even 3 clubs - and a weak hand? If partner has clubs, acting can be fatal (and unnecessary) - if he doesn't, you may play a 4-2 or 3-2 fit. Also un-fun. I guess you and I are in different places on this issue :)

I believe the auction of concern is 1C, passed out. Playing the 1C as forcing removes that issue (and can solve a few other problems too).

I was hoping for something quite detailed - enough to follow along on BBO (which could cover any or all of their possible auctions) - and I realise each pair will have somne differednces from standard, but being able to spot and analyse these may be part of the fun. As you touched on in your post, there are concerns over accuracy/provenance of anything that's not written either by the people playing the system or its inventor. Also, the more detail there is, the more easily I can compare it to other systems I know and understand how much coverage it has of hand types etc. Most systems concentrate heavily on uncontested auctions and say little about bids in competition but what struck me about this system (when I heard people like Al Hollander describe individual sequences on BBO) was that they have some really good interesting agreements in competition, such as when opps overcall, and these seem to be part of the standard system. I'm familiar with the various 2/1 styles and I understand that this system takes the concept whereby 1C can be 2 cards (including the 4432 shape that opened 1D in "better minor" styles) but then goes in a different direction by having 1C forcing, eliminating the possibility of playing in a ridiculous 2-1 fit etc. The detail dokoko posted in the second link is fine, just that much of it is in Dutch and I'm not familiar with that notation.

Many thanks dokoko, I'd seen the first thread but it wasn't that detailed on some of the stuff I saw on VuGraph such as some rebids showing 6-4 shapes. The second link was a little difficult to follow - maybe I've been out of the game too long! But thanks for responding :)

How did I come across as "devaluing his work"? I may have noted that it's quite expensive for a short pdf file but mainly it's just expensive for an ex-player who is simply curious to know a bit more, not necessarily professional system level. No offence to Dan or his work was intended. All in all, it seems odd that Garozzo (apparently) developed this for the Dutch junior team and it's not documented anywhere. I don't know of any other systems where it's impossible to get a basic write-up somewhere.