rbforster

...or a standard weak two bids either, like 2D or 2H. Unless you read their definitions of "natural" for openings and overcalls as permitting all natural bids (a reasonable interpretation, but not spelled out), there's no provision that allows these normal openings.

Do you part to educate the club players to HUMs - play your 2♥ overcall as non-forcing multi over any short clubs you find. 2+ clubs is artificial, so anything goes!

I'm bad at reading tone online, but did you intend "ridiculous" and "diabolical" like you think they ought to be illegal, or like you think they're bad methods for those who play them (or both)? Because they clearly are legal under the GCC, regardless of whether or not this might make some people unhappy. If you don't want to prepare for a 12-14 NT or a precision 1♣, don't get unhappy if it comes up and you don't have a special defenses. This is the exact same issue, only the bids I cited don't come up much since almost no one chooses to play those methods. How do you feel about this one - (1♣ 16+) - 2♥(multi) - (?) or maybe (1♣ 16+) - 1♠(0-8 any shape) - (?) (See bridge bulletin 12/08 pg 15, the Poles in Bejiing played this vs Meckwell) Any defense is allowed to a conventional club (including a "diabolical" 2♥ multi overcall or the 1♠ "fert"), but maybe you think precision players just get what they deserve when people interfere over their strong club on crap, especially crap with very poor disclosure about tendencies and alternatives? Perhaps we should ban conventional interference there because it's routinely abused and used by players with very bad (almost unethical) disclosure much of the time. I mean I don't want to impugn the Polish team (since their actual disclosure maybe have been better than related in the Bulletin), but do they really never overcall a strong club with any other call besides 1♠ when holding 0-8 points? As an often strong clubber myself, I'd selfishly benefit from having all such crazy defenses to my strong club banned - it'd be less for me to prepare for, but is it's still the wrong approach and I admit it. You tell me why a natural weak 2M is legal with a 6 card suit and I'll tell you why my 3+ 2m bid is legal. How do you know what was intended by the definitions of natural? If they were "clearly" meant to apply only to 1-level bids, you think maybe they might have actually said that? I'm not the expert on international bridge law and the ZAs, but I thought it was beyond the scope of the ACBL to regulate natural bidding if one read the laws carefully. Since the GCC specifically says 3+ minors are natural, with no reference to 1 level or 2 level etc, I think the only reasonable interpretation is that all natural bids are allowed. After all, otherwise there's no explicit rule allowing one to open a natural SAYC 1♥ or a standard weak 2♥ for example unless it's because they are natural under the given definitions. Perhaps next time I run into someone questioning my 2♣ bids on 3 cards, I'll ask them to prove why their SAYC 1M and 2M bids are legal and hassle them since "disallow unless specifically allowed" is the rule, right? This is a pretty telling response - basically it's legal but if you play it the "establishment" will ban it (just like those Midchart weak twos on 4/4 two-suiters, right?). Not that I'm disagreeing with you - we've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence about the way the C&C committee operates in practice and what their biases are. Someone on the committee must like opening 5 card weak twos in 3rd position, or frankly I'm surprised they haven't banned those yet either.

Nick - I particularly appreciated your well thought out post on the issues here, and for clarifying them in a way that is rarely done. It's been nice to see some largely logical discussion of the issues at hand, which is a pleasant contrast from the usual unfounded assertion by those with preconceived biases. I want to agree with Richard, Josh, etc, about how poor disclosure isn't an issue for selecting methods to legalize (or not), but rather for the pairs who play them. I think this is a red herring argument regarding the legal status of FP or other methods. Regarding your last point, I want to discuss the issue of defending against the unfamiliar. It seems like it's the opinion of many people unfamiliar with ferts or forcing passes or whatever weird thing that they are being robbed whenever anyone these conventions come up against them. Perhaps they are, but when the conventions are legal they really have no one to blame but themselves for not having a good defense (or meta defense). I want to emphasize that this widespread perception isn't because the methods are necessarily "hard" to defend (maybe, maybe not), but rather because they are unfamiliar. Some brief examples - 1♦(precision 0+ 11-15 no 5cM unless longer minor) - (?) "isn't precision illegal? help I need a defense!" (1♣) - 2♣(10-15 points, 1-suiter in either major) - (?) "but how do I know which major? help I need a defense!" (1♣) - 1NT(3-suited takeout of ♣, 0-10 HCP) - (?) "wait, that's not a strong NT? help I need a defense!" 1♣(strong 15+) - (P) - 1♠(0-4 any shape) - (?) "it's almost like a 1♠ fert?! help I need a defense!" 1NT(10-12) - (P) - 2♥(0-2 multi 6+ either major) - (?) "we have values for game, but I don't know what's going on - help I need a defense!" What do all of these situations have in common? Whining. Everyone one of the bids is legal under the GCC and so any defender has absolutely no grounds to complain when faced with these auctions. Sure they are strange auctions, unusual conventions, etc, but the Conditions of Contest clearly allowed these (and have for years if not decades) so if someone complains they don't have a good defense that's just laziness on their part. They gambled no one would play precision 1♦ (or the dumbed down GCC Xango Club or whatever) when they didn't bother having a defense, and they lost when it came up. So what's the point? My point is that situations with "hard" and unusual defensive bidding issues can arise legally at the lowest levels of play and everyone agrees that the defenders need to just "make do" with no advance warning and no written defenses. As such, it's hypocritical to say that some conventions (like ferts or 2♥ multi) must be banned because they are "too hard" when similarly hard things entitle the defenders to no defense at all - no prealert, no defense, nothing. I didn't include any "ferts" since those aren't GCC (except maybe in "anything goes" 3rd seat), but the arguments about how this puts the opposing side "on the defensive" whenever the fert comes up differ only by matters of degree from perfectly legal systems. For example, P - 0-7 1♣ 13-15 bal or any 16+ 1♦♥♠ 4+ natural, canape style, unbalanced 8-15 1N 8-12 balanced 2♣ 5+ natural unbalanced 8-15 Here's a perfectly legal Swedish club variant that opens all its very common 8-12 point hands. Effectively you are opening a "strongish" fert whenever you have 8-10 or a bad 11-12 (hands the field wouldn't open). Yet this is 100% legal and the defenders must learn to deal without any legal protection. If you don't think these openings are sufficiently "hard", consider this system - P - any 0 count, or 8-9 with a primary minor (non forcing) 1♣ any 16+ 1♦ 0+ 13-15 balanced, or 10-15 no 5cM 1♥♠ 5+ 8-15 1N 8-12 2♣♦ 3+ 1-7 (open your shortest 3+ minor, best of equals by suit quality) 2♥♠ 4+ 1-7 (open your shortest 4+ major if you have no 3 card minor, best of equals) Here with all 0-7 hands, we'll be opening "ferts" at the 2 level regularly on 3 card suits. These are natural, legal under GCC, and will come up often. These are much higher than a mere 1♥ fert, and while they give a small amount of suit information, having a 3 card minor isn't a whole lot more information than nothing when 2♣ will be bid on 3343 or 6043 or 5503 or 3316. Let me conclude with an all-too-common anecdote about how some of the average players respond to legal but unfamiliar conventions even before they come up. At a NAOP qualifier finals (so a reasonable field, one might hope), you should have heard the howls from the LOL's when they saw "suction" on our card and immediately called the director. They were afraid we'd play the deadly and confusing "suction" defense against their 1NT openings, but since I know the GCC better than basically anyone, we only (legally) played suction against strong 2♣ or 2N openings and played Meckwell against their 1NT. The director didn't believe me when I said it was legal against these higher bids, but to her credit, she actually had a copy of the General Chart where I could point out the specific place where it was allowed. All this hassle was before play even started, and of course they didn't open a strong 2♣ or 2N in the 2 board round so the whole issue was moot. Sheesh, I should have played Lorenzo Twos against them so they'd have had nothing to complain about (legality-wise), but I don't really think those are such a great convention and I was trying to win.

[hv=n=stxxxhaqxxdxcaxxx&s=sk98xhkjxxdaqxxcx]133|200|4♠ by South ♣ spot lead[/hv]

I would have stopped with 5♦ instead of 4♥. It's a marginal opener already, and with shortness opposite partner's spades, there's no reason to upgrade.

Specifically on the topic of C&C Committee members' secretarial inclinations and mildly off-topic challenges, Fred wrote: Let me offer my own challenge as well as offer a solution to the problem in question - I will personally show up to the next Nationals and take the full minutes of the C&C Committee meeting, and I'll do it for free. I'm 100% serious. Houston is my home town, and I won't need that much of an excuse to visit. I have a deep interest in the ACBL's conventions and their regulation, and I would be more than happy to hear the thoughts of players of such caliber discussing whatever topics might be before them at the time. If you're interested, feel free to contact me or refer me to the appropriate person in charge of such volunteers.

I wanted to voice my support of Adam and Nick's comments. Specifically on the C&C committee minutes and their recent lack - What?! ... If "they just don't get done" then it is because the committee is plain lazy or not interested in transparency. --Nick The lack of minutes and transparency is a clearly a problem. We can debate whether it's a problem because of the suspect motives of the C&C members to suppress the minutes and hide their biased deliberations from exposure, or whether it's a problem that the ACBL can't provide a volunteer (or paid) secretary for a few hours at one of its few national level committee meetings a few times a year, but someone is clearly falling down on the job here. Find out the root of the problem and get it fixed! No excuses! In addition, the lack of transparency has generated all sorts of ill-will not to mention widespread confusion as we've seen discussed here and widely elsewhere regarding the ACBL's conventions regulations. A number of the issues raised in this thread would be addressed in a sensible way if only the committee published their minutes. For example, - when not approving a convention, include the discussion of why it wasn't approved, so at least by the next Nationals when the C&C meets, you'll have a published response to why your convention wasn't accepted. This will a) prevent multiple people from submitting the same thing and wasting everyone's time, and B) lead to a better understanding of the convention approval process so further requests can be more appropriate. - when not approving a defense, include the discussion of why it wasn't approved. Was it too complex, or not "standard" enough in style, lacked sufficient continuations, or overlooked treating some reasonable hand type? If the C&C committee finds fault with a defense, they should certainly be able to point to such reasons or similar ones. By publishing their rationale for rejection, future defense submissions can be of higher quality and more tailored to committee's requirements. Perhaps I'm being presumptuous, but I view the job of the C&C members to consider and approve appropriate conventions and defenses, and to offer guidance as to what ought to be appropriate at given levels and durations of competition. By analogy with the "everyone knows those guys cheat" story, I'm afraid the C&C committee's reputation has gotten to the point where "everyone knows they won't approve anything". It no longer matters whether or not the charges are accurate - the state of their reputation is bad for morale and makes them less effective at doing their job. Through their actions or inactions they've created an atmosphere of and reputation for intimidation and stonewalling, and this causes players to give up in submitting perfectly reasonable conventions and defenses since they reasonably conclude it's just a waste of everyone's time.

Simple - you aren't, and stop bothering the Committee about it. :)

a heavy 1N overcall?

they won't find 3N over my 4♣ opening. Maybe they'll find their other game(s), or maybe they won't. One way to find out.

On the contrary, the problem is that 1♦ might have a 5cM but might not. You could play that 1♦ was 12-15 with a 5+ major and just pass the 12-15's without. If partner will open his 8-11's opposite a passed hand you won't miss much.

It's simpler if you play the bad hands are cheaper since you don't have to modify what you play over 2♦ and 2♥ openers. Besides, at the point you have an unobstructed auction 2X-(P)-2N-(P)-Ogust rebid, you might as well leave the opponents out of it and let 3♣ be bad/bad so you can re-ask with 3♦ as the strongly invitational responding hand and make one more try for a major game. None of these fast arrival methods will facilitate that. Game before slam, right?

Yeah, your stuff certainly does better on the spade fits if you play 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠ as weak 6+ (I had it coded as invitational in my post above). However, you will still miss some 9 card spade fits when opener is 36xx vs 62xx after 1♥-1♠-2♥-P since you'll stop in the known heart fit. I also wasn't sure what your sequences were with long weak diamonds, if any. I guess you can pass the 2♦ (flannery) rebid. After 1♥-1♠-2♣ I wasn't sure if you just had to preference with long diamonds, or if you could bid 2♦(relay)-?-3♦ as a signoff. Likewise, I wasn't sure if 1♥-1♠-2♥-3m would be weak or invitational. I was thinking about whether it'd be possible to pick up more of the major suit fits by doing something like rebidding 1N on most hands with 3-4♠, including those with 36xx or 35(41), but I'll have to think about whether you lose too many minor suit fits trying for that (or alternatively, have to devote too many sequences to NF scrambles to have cheap invitational options too).

I think the "standard" answer is to use judgment and have relayer be aware that extreme shapely hands may be lighter on points (and can't assume as many controls in response to asks, etc).

I did a fit analysis of the final contracts across all the more common shapes for both opener and responder (basically max 6 card 1 suiters and 9 card 2-suiters, no heart fit, for a total 504 shape pairings) under both my methods and Adam's (as I understand his). I didn't bother with the full conditional joint distributions to see which misfits were relatively more likely than others, but this should give you a feel for the methods. Here's a summary of the number of cases (out of 504) where we each missed the best fit, as a function of the best suit and the fit missed. Rob: 8 9 10 S 12 0 0 H 4 0 0 D 17 9 0 C 22 0 0 AWM: 8 9 10 S 8 9 0 H 0 0 0 D 25 12 0 C 21 12 0 and here are the relative gains for my methods, by suit: Net: 8 9 10 total S -4 9 0 5 H -4 0 0 -4 D 8 3 0 11 C -1 12 0 11 I think my methods are considerably better on weak auctions than Adam's, although perhaps I don't fully understand your followups (like if 1♥-1♠*-2♥-2♠ is weak with 5-6 or invitational with 5, but either way you miss something). In terms of missed spade fits, my methods will miss out on the "standard" 3 card raise auctions 1♥-1♠-2♠ with 35(41) opposite 5xxx (but gaining on some better minor fits in place of the 4-3 spade ones), and I will also miss some 5-3 fits when opener rebids 2♥ with 36xx opposite 5xxx. Adam's methods will miss some 8 and 9 card spade fits after 1♥-1♠-2♥ with 36xx opposite 5xxx or 6xxx if I'm correct in assuming 2♠ is invitational with 5 in those methods (it doesn't have another bid given except maybe 2N). You can see these in the above charts as the 12 cases where I miss an 8 card fit vs the 8 and 9 cases where Adam misses an 8 and 9 card fit respectively. There are some gains in my methods for getting out in responder's long minor - 2♦ after 1♥-1♠-2♣ (x5x4 vs xx6x, something he can't do since 2♦ is a relay for him), or stopping in a weak NF 2♣ lower than 3♣ in his methods. I didn't model continuations after the NF 2♣, but surely there's more room for opener to pull to 2♦ or 2♥ with a minimum distributional hand than over 3♣. I know there are some other gains in his methods, particularly for fit-oriented bids, but it does seem like missing your best fit in an extra 25 cases is kind of a lot (91 for him, 66 for me, out of 504 total). I like the cheap limit raise, but I'm not as sure what I think about the 1♥-2♣ ambiguous minor(s) bid. PS These were the shapes I considered, taking all pairs. Responder Opener 4234 2533 4243 3523 3244 3532 5233 2524 3235 2542 3253 4522 4144 1534 5242 1543 5224 3514 4252 3541 4225 4513 2245 4531 2254 2623 5134 2632 5143 3622 4153 1633 4135 3613 3145 3631 3154 6232 6223 3226 3262 2236 2263 6133 3136 3163

Regarding breaking ties, do you to this in any systematic way based on suits (majors first?), or is it just on suit quality? Is opener's first rebid their best suit, or their 2nd best suit? Inquiring minds want to know!

Under the GCC, you can play any conventional responses you want to a two level opening (like Precision 2♣), as long as the opening is not "weak". For "weak two bids" (which aren't defined, but I don't think anyone contends that the Precision 10-15 clubs opening is weak), you can still use any conventions as long as you 1) promise 5+ cards in the suit, and 2) your range is 7 pts or narrower.

I dont think I've ever heard of a meaning for given to that 4♥ bid. Maybe he's trying to show some weird hand with 54 majors, Smolen-style? Just a guess.

Adam - a few questions about your goals, and possible suggestions depending on the answers... 1. Are you thinking of playing a limited opening system, or more like a "standard" 1♥? If you're playing a limited system, it might work to open your 5♥332 hands 1NT (13-15) or pass with less. This constrains your opening choices a little, but preempting the spade overcall when you've got hearts isn't that bad either. Now you could reserve the 1♥-1♠*-1N rebid by opener for showing 4♠. Responder with a minimum balanced and both minors could pass, or bid naturally. 2. Are you thinking of playing some specific relays over your 1♥-1N GF ask? If you don't mind making the relays a little less efficient (and more natural), you could play 1N as a normal "forcing NT" with natural rebids and any new suit by responder would confirm the game force. This will get you to many good partials in the same way a regular 2/1 forcing NT does, and keeps the natural 1♠ response too. The downside here is that your GF hands might be a little vulnerable to preemption since opener won't know if he can safely bid (no special meaning to his pass), that your rebids by opener after 1♥-1N will be constrained to be mostly natural (to be passable), and higher bids will have to be restricted to fairly rare hand types with extra values and/or extra shape to avoid getting too high opposite a minimum forcing NT. More generally though, here's a set of methods that might be useful on the part score side of things. I'll leave the higher responses to your taste in raises or specialized game forces. I'll assume that 3 card limit raises are handled per 2/1 style in the "forcing NT" response, while 4+ limit raises have a higher bid available (3♥ or Bergen). 1♥-? 1♠ forcing NT style, including almost all spade hands not suitable for a weak jump shift 1N art GF 2♣ 5+ weakish (NF) 2♦ 5+ invitational (NF) 2♥ normal raise 2♠ 6+ weak jump (NF), could be 5/5+ ♠♣ too (and rarely 5/5+ ♠♦ with no hearts) 1♥-1♠*-? 1N min with 4♠, or 3♠ and balanced - 35(32) 45xx 2♣ 4+ natural 2♦ 3+ natural (includes 2533) 2♥ 6+ natural 2♠+ natural and extras Besides the special 1N rebid by opener (discussed later), responder's bids are natural and the same as over the standard forcing NT sequence. Note that 2♣ promises 4 while 2♦ promises only 3 to cater to the possible weak one-suiter in diamonds that's possible (but the corresponding weak club hand already bid 2♣ NF). 1♥-1♠*-2m or 2♥-? P preference 2♦ long weak diamonds 2♥ preference 2♠ 5+ invitational 2N invitational, fewer than 5♠ 3♣ invitational with long clubs 3m invitational raise 3♥ invitational raise 3♠ highly invitational with 6+ spades Note 2m/2♥ rebids by opener deny 4♠. Thus further spade bids by responder here are 5+ invites. With 5 spades and a weak hand responder will need to pass or preference between opener's suits (weak hands with 5♠ and no tolerance for one of opener's rebids should consider a 2♠ WJS initially. Typically these will have a heart void). 1♥-1♠*-1NT*-? (opener is min - 35xx bal or 45xx) P always an option 2♣ XYZ style relay to 2♦, and then P long weak diamonds 2♥ preference with 4♠2♥ 2♠ 4♠ invitational 2N invitational semibalanced with clubs 3♣,3♦ game tries with spades agreed (5+♠) 2♦ asks for opener's preference between diamonds and spades (typically 4144 or 4153); opener should bid 2♠ with 4. 2♥ preference, no interest in spades 2♠ preference with 5+♠ (rarely 4135) 2N invitational bal or semibal, at most 3=2 in the majors, typically with both minors 3♣ invitational, distributional with long clubs This should do pretty well in terms of finding all the major fits/preferences, although weakish 2-suiters with clubs may have some difficulty since they have to guess early whether to bid 2♣ NF or to try 1♠ forcing to try to find a better fit. In terms of major fits, the only ones that get lost are a few 5-3 spade fits where opener has 3 spades but rebids either a minor or hearts. But these get lost in standard too when responder is too weak to take another call (and wasn't long enough in spades to make a WJS earlier). The spade WJS hands are treated a little worse than in standard since these have to decide earlier whether to bid 2♠ directly or not, while in standard they can bid 1♠ and consider partner's response before bidding 2♠ NF or preferencing instead. Edit: minor improvements to the 1♥-1♠-1N follow-ups

Not sure if you want a double-dummy solution or single, but since W failed to lead the KQ of spades and since our Q♦ won the first trick, it's pretty easy to place W with the heart honor and one of the spades. With one diamond pitch eventually on the J♥, it's just a question of handling the 4-1 break if we have a trump loser. It's an easier problem if we assume we can peek at the 4-1 break and give up the known trump loser on the 2nd round of clubs to avoid having to make pitches from the dummy too early, but I'll try to solve it in the case we test for the 3-2 break first. Answer below since B/I

I think it's fine to bid 2NT with a very strong hand. You'll be able to start cue bidding lower than if you splinter, and besides, if you splinter and have a huge hand, what are the odds partner will find a cue for you instead of just (trying to) sign off.

I hope the field isnt good enough to bid slams off AK♥, KQ♦ and some club honors. I think this one is about overtricks. I'm going for 5 or 7. Cash 2 high clubs before drawing trump, ruff a club high. At this point if the clubs are 3-3 or the Q has fallen, we're getting 2 pitches for hearts. I'll play 2 trumps ending in dummy, hoping for 2-1 split, and run the clubs for 7. If clubs are 4-2, I'll play a trump to the K, ruff another high, and hope someone foolishly played high low from 82 of trumps giving me my last entry with the 6♠ when they're 2-1 so I still dump one heart loser for 6. Otherwise I fall back on making 5. It seems the only risk here is that someone has a stiff club, which doesn't seem that likely and might have been lead if LHO had it.

Yeah, I overlooked some of the hands where partner has lead a club from xxx. On these it depends whether partner has a high diamond honor (A or K), or a lower one. If we play back a club, declarer will take his K, ruff a spade, and then play trump. Since we're threatening to get a ruff, he might just play from the top, hoping for a good split or playing partner for the missing honor on account of his bidding. Given our trump length, this line will drop any honor partner has. Then the clubs run and they make a lot. Might be right to cash out in those cases.

Short version - K♠ and a trump. Some thoughts - - A♣ and spots at T1 suggest a stiff club in declarer's hand, and partner with Kxxxx. - No 4cM with declarer means partner has at least 6 spades, including the A since he didn't lead them. - declarer has a spade holding of Qxx or worse, since he likely would have tried 3N with Ax(x), maybe even with Qxx and running diamonds. - If partner had a stiff heart (besides the A) he would probably lead it in preference to the club. Likely holdings for partner are xx or A stiff. Declarer certainly doesn't have all 3 hearts for his non-raise, and might have raise to 4♥ on Ax. Putting this together we have partner on something like AHxxxx A x Kxxxx and declarer with Hxx xx AKQJxxx x I suppose we could swap the A♥ for one of the high diamonds from declarer (since with those partner might not have wanted to try for a heart ruff with stiff A/K♦. I'm discounting less likely hands for declarer with 8 diamonds 3181 and the stiff A♥ since on those he must have 8 solid diamonds and would have bid 3♠ (stopper ask) or 5♦ maybe instead of only 4♦. It doesn't look like declarer has a source of tricks outside of diamonds to set up. I'm rising with the K♠ playing a trump to prevent the second spade ruff. We'll take the A♥, K♠ and hopefully a slow spade to hold 4♦ to making. Hopefully declarer won't rise with the high diamond and find the low heart to endplay partner when he holds Qxx in spades, but just goes for his sure spade ruff (lest trumps be 2-2 and the person with the A♥ be able to return another trump.