rbforster

Thanks for the comments everyone. I certainly agree that psychs are generally a bad idea against weak players for the reasons given above (but not that you have an ethical responsibility not to psych). The event was an National Pairs qualifier, so I doubt the field "deserved" any protection in the way say a 199'er game might. I tried 1♠. I psych very rarely, and the few times I have tried "short suit" psychs they always seem to work out badly (when partner raises more than I want), and this was no exception. After the expected double, partner with [hv=d=&v=&s=satxxxhxdjxxxcqtx]133|100|[/hv] jumped to 4♠ with support and a stiff heart (seems aggressive but reasonable), doubled again by 4th hand for -1100 and cold bottom. I think 4th hand had a 27 count, but due to partner's supporting club honor and the misfitting hands, I think 3N+2 was par for the opponents. In retrospect, I think 1NT or 2♣ might have been decent choices, especially since defending a weak NT or a natural 2♣ might be more likely to lead to a confused auction by the opponents (being these are relatively unusual methods). In our methods, those would lead to 2♣ or 2♦ (or maybe 3♣ if 2♣ was raised after a X) as our stopping point and then the opponents could bid on or double as they chose. Preempts in hearts like a weak 2 or weak 3 bid seem reasonable as well.

Club game against typical poor-to-average club players. 3rd Seat, Favorable. Two passes to you. [hv=d=p&v=f&s=sqht98xxdtxxckxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP P-P-?[/hv] Partner's pass denies as much as a balanced 10 count or a unbalanced 9 count. Do you have anything funny in mind? If you were to try something, what would you bid? Edit: Ugh, I suck at polls. Please reply if you'd bid a major which major it is! Systems agreements if relevant, but feel free to comment playing standard also: Light 3rd seat openings are agreed, 1M could be 4 cards, 1♦ could be 2+ (precision) 1NT is 10-13 (with 2♣ stayman and NF other replies, decent runouts if doubled) You play precision openings in the 9-15 point range for bids other than 1♣, include 2♣ natural 10-15 2♣ one-way reverse Drury over 3rd seat major openings (uncontested only) transfers and preemptive jumps after 1M-X (including a transfer-raise as more constructive than direct raise)

So far I've been playing 2/1 GF in my strong club system, where 1M is 5+ ~9-15 points. It works fine and it's easy to teach since almost everyone already knows the 2/1 system and just has to learn to have a few more points to game force. I've been wondering about what people think about 2/1 GF or other 2/1 methods specifically in the context of a limited opening bid system. I can imagine at least 4 types of agreements for natural new suit 2/1 bids: Game Forcing, more or less the same as you play in a strong 2♣ system "Standard" forcing one round, but maybe only to 2M or 2N Invitational but non-forcing (opener to bid on with a maximum) Non-forcing, and not particularly constructive either I surveyed a number of precision systems, and they had a wide range of treatments. Some used 2/1 GF, some used "Standard," and a few used NF 2/1 bids. I don't think I saw anyone playing the invitational-but-non-forcing version. I wonder if this is more out of familiarity with the methods, rather than a careful consideration of the issues. (There were also some non-natural treatments too, like 2♣ as an artificial GF and 2♦ as an artificial invitation.) What are people's thoughts on which style of 2/1 makes the most sense in opposite a limited opener?

I took Justin's comment on superior card play to apply to both his opponents and his partner. This is a pro-client problem, isn't the answer always to open 1NT? We're well placed with majors if partner transfers, and similarly the opponents may not have a way to compete naturally in diamonds. The main danger is that partner takes us for more values and puts us in 3NT without providing 3 tricks on his balanced 10-12 count. Still, I've got to think 1NT is better than 3NT...

2♣ first 3♣ second (parter did pass) 1NT third, and decide later if I'm passing 2♣ stayman

I'm aware of this - as you'll see in my above comments. In particular, one of the benefits I mention of an 8-9 range (instead of 8-10) would be the lack of need for invitational sequences and just either sign off or force to game. Just because you can't use conventions there are still plenty of useful agreements to determine if one were actually going to play this. 2N can be GF balanced and partially take the place of "stayman," albeit without the invitational distinction. Natural bids can be forcing or NF, natural minor bids can be made on 3 card suits, etc. Actually it seems to me that this is a worse situation to open 1NT than it is to have the auction 1♦-1M-1NT. Here are my thoughts and feel free to correct them if something seems wrong... - let's say you open 1♦. Over your 1♦ (~9-15, could be 2+ 10-12 bal), LHO will often double, overcall a suit, or bid 1NT with a decent hand. When he passes, he's typically limited to 14 points balanced (with more, he'd probably bid 1NT or act otherwise). - now that LHO has passed, partner responds 1M (~5+ points, 4+ suit, F1). Over 1♦-1M, the 4th hand will sometimes find a double, 1NT (sandwich? or natural strong), or a suit overcall with a good hand. When RHO passes, he's limited to again maybe 14 points (with length your suits), or maybe ~11 points with some shape (depending on overcalling standards). - now that you rebid 1NT showing 10-12 balanced (1♦-1M-1N), LHO's double is takeout of M and tends to deny a good suit (which would have been overcalled earlier). IF LHO can find a takeout double with a decent hand and the right shape, and IF partner is on a minimum, and IF RHO has balanced hand with sufficient values to sit for the X (instead of bidding a suit), and IF you have nowhere to run, then you might get a bad result when you get doubled and go down a few tricks. - lastly, supposing LHO passes your 1NT rebid, partner passes (showing no game interest or long suit, but could be up to 11 points or so), RHO will pretty much always pass (rather than double). He has no guarantee of any values in his partner's hand, and responder could well have most of the remaining strength. It seems very likely to pass out once the auction progresses to RHO in balancing seat, who might rarely balance with a suit bid but not a double. Thus it seems very unlikely to me (at least playing against normal defensive methods) that the opps could get a X of 1NT to stick. Of course it's quite possible it's their hand, but in many of those cases they would have already bid and the auction doesn't progress to the point of the 1NT (10-12) rebid by opener. In contrast, when you open a 10-12 NT, LHO will be making a penalty double starting at ~13+ balanced. Importantly this includes maybe 13-15 balanced hands that might not have had a bid over 1♦. And of course once they double, their partner will know to sit or double our runouts when he's got a 10 count as well. So it seems you are in fact more likely to be doubled starting with a weak 1NT than with a weak balanced 1♦. Remember I'm only proposing doing this NV. If we're going for more than 300 NV in 1NTX, it sounds like they were making 3NT. For the reasons above, I think getting doubled is quite unlikely at least against normal defensive methods. Don't get me wrong. The auction 1♦-1M-1NT-AP playing a weak 1NT rebid is one where you will go down with some frequency. I know because I played a system where we did this at Vul (1NT direct was 13-15), and we eventually gave up opening the balanced 10-12 hands altogether and changed that part of our system. We didn't do this because we got bad results when doubled - that was very rare actually. The problem was going down 2 Vul for -200 is pretty much a MP bottom against the opponent's partial. At NV, things are very different and a weak NT rebid should be a much better (if not good) idea than it is at Vul even if it's a sacrifice some of the time.

So a Precision 1♦ will in fact be treated the same as a Natural or Balanced 1♣. It appears that it is now legal to play a "natural" 1♣ showing four plus hearts and a "natural" 1♦ showing four plus spades so long as these bids are non-forcing. A range of 8-13 should ensure the non-forcing requirement. Good point about this ruling protecting limited transfer openings from any special defenses. I look forward to using this ruling to deny my opponents the right to use 1♣(4+♥)-(1♥) as any sort of special bid other than hearts! Heck, this ruling protects ferts(!), assuming you could slip the rest of your forcing pass system past the WBF somehow. Put me down as one more person who thinks this ruling makes no logical sense and just reflects some poor guy on the systems committee making up stuff he thinks will make the majority people happy (rather than actually following the rules, which is his job). My advice to potential defenders is to include a specific strong option in all their conventional overcalls to avoid being labeled BS. For example, 1♣(2+)-(2♥ multi) would include a weak 2 in hearts, a weak two in spades, or AKQ(x) AKQ(x) AKQ(x) AKQ(x) looking for the right jack for 7NT over the opening 1♣ psych. Partner will often be able to rule out this strong option by finding an honor in his hand and pass or bid according to the weak hand types. Similar very strong hands 12 trick hands with specific 11+ suits can be effectively bundled into weak bids showing length in other suits (making it likely partner holds length in the "strong" suit opposite the typical weak option). Advancer is also allowed to use his "table-feel" to judge the likelihood of the 1♣ psych in determining how to advance the auction. "The can is open, the worms are .... EVERYWHERE"

I guess the original idea started with the observation that lots of PH bidding didn't make sense in the context of light 1st/2nd seat openers. The original idea about passing precision 2♣♦ shapes had (and continues to have I think) a lot more merit than this variation. That modification puts some PH bids to better use, avoids some unpleasant constructive 2 level openings, and replaces them with more common preemptive ones. It seems like it has a lot of benefits. This idea was just a further observation on my part that an additional balanced hand could be included effectively in pass and still handled well in the subsequent PH followups given you were playing the semi-forcing pass framework anyway, especially if the 8-9 balanced range was getting opened somehow (either 1NT or 1♦...1NT). At Nashville we didn't have any complaints, prealerting our aggressive 5 card preempts, our light openers, and our "system failing" of not having an opening bid for clubs :), necessitating a pass with 15 or fewer points and a "standard" 1♣ opener. The worse opponents didn't seem to notice (or care), while the better ones didn't seem phased much but did pay more attention to our alerts. Some were amused that we didn't have a bid for clubs. Of course we did - it just happened to be pass!

With some encouragement from people more optimistic about very weak NTs than Adam, I was thinking that the 13-15 pass might work a little better than the 10-12 one due to better PH constructive auctions. On one hand, P-1M-1N semiforcing is "more forcing" when the PH is possibly 13-15 vs 10-12 balanced. That said, distributional openers will want to bid again over 1N anyway, so it's better to have some extra values (13-15) to continue to 2N when there's no fit (ie P-1M-1N-2Y-2N). Similarly, extra values would help in the auction P-2♣(precision)-(2♦/2N asking bid) where you will play 3♣ on a possible misfit. The auction P-1♦-1N seems fine showing either balanced range. The only downside of 13-15 vs 10-12 (aside from opening the 10-12 hands at all) is that you might pass out your 1N partial opposite a 7 count with a little more than half the deck. This certainly isn't a much of a risk with a 10-12 PH - then the opponents missed their partial in 1NT. I was also thinking of moving the NT ranges around a little, ie 8-10 NT, 11-13 1♦...1NT, and pass 14-16. This helps with the balanced ranges in my 16+ strong club - upgrading it to 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced, and making for a tighter 1NT rebid of 17-19 instead of 16-19 (ie 1♣-1♦(neg)-1NT). Then again, passing 14-16 makes it more likely to miss our part score in 1NT when partner can't open in 3rd. If I would be playing 8-10 NT under GCC without conventions, a tighter range (of 8-9 only) might make the lack of an invitational sequence more tolerable (ie play 1N-2X to play, 1N-2N bal GF inquiry, 1N-3X GF natural). Not sure about the relative merits of this.

I also play this way, i.e. cuebid is nominally stopper asking for 3NT with a solid minor but could be solid spades or various other very strong single suited hands. I believe this is not expert standard however, so make sure you agree with your partner before trying the cuebid with solid spades. Remember that over 2♥, 3♥ is basically your only forcing bid if you're unwilling to see partner sit for your double. (well, I guess higher NT and heart bids are forcing to, but those are 2-suiters)

I'd probably try an invitational sequence with both majors at MPs, but try a 4♥ signoff (via Texas or whatever) at IMPs. I've played both sequences 1N-2D-(X)-2H-(3D) and 1N-2H-(X)-2S-(3H) as maximal double situations in my regular partnerships. Seems reasonable.

ACBL has different strange rules than the WBF. Since I usually play ACBL events, my systems (including this one) are designed to be GCC legal. Under ACBL they only care that your pass isn't forcing (hence my methods where the strong passed hands are limited and willing to pass out if partner is broke). I wonder how strongly enforced the WBF rule really is. I mean if you pass some bad balanced 11 counts at Vul (say QJx QJx QJx Qxxx), but you open some nice distributional 10 counts (say AQTxxx KJTxx x x) are you really playing a HUM? I think you're just playing bridge, but I don't know the ways of the WBF particularly.

I've been (ab)using the term "semi-forcing pass" to refer to a system where you open 3rd and 4th seats quite light, most hands as low as 8+ points. The main idea is that if you can be sure partner will open with moderate values, it becomes less necessary to open all "good" hands in 1st/2nd position and you can pass with some of these. Certain limited hands (for example in a 16+ strong club system) could be passed without too much fear of partner passing out the hand when we had values for a part score. I mentioned an earlier example of this when I suggested passing with precision 2♣/2♦ shapes. I've been playing those methods and been fairly happy with them so far. Another idea I was toying with in a similar vein was that one might similarly imagine passing with a certain balanced hand range. In an aggressive strong club, you've got the balanced hand ladder that looks something like this: 0-9 pass 10-12 1NT (NV) 13-15 1♦...1NT 16+ 1♣ strong Instead, what about trying something unusual like this: 0-7 pass 8-9 1NT (NV) 10-12 also pass 13-15 1♦...1NT 16+ 1♣ strong For reference, in 3rd seat NV the openings opposite a semiforcing pass are 1♣ 16+ strong 1♦ 2+ 8-15, including 13-15 bal 1♥ 4+ 8-15, 5+ unless very weak or 3-suited short ♦ 1♠ 4+ 8-15, 5+ unless very weak 1NT 10-12 2♣ 5+ 8-15, usually 5♣/4M or 6+♣ (unless very weak with no 4M) 2♦♥♠ weak two's Leaving aside competitive situations for now, let's look at some 3rd seat PH auctions. P-1♦-1M 4+M, not quite forcing since responder can't have 13+ but effectively F1 P-1♦-1NT shows the 10-12 balanced PH with no 4M (~5-7 with no 4M pass instead) P-1♦-2♦ constructive raise, no 4M, ~5-8 P-1M-Drury covers the 10-12 balanced PH that includes a 3+ fit for M P-1M-1NT semiforcing NT, opener will can bid again with shape or game interest opposite possible 10-12 NT. P-1NT stayman, etc, as usual P-2♣-2♦ (inv ask) - can stop in 3♣ if opener shows a weak hand There are a few small losses here like passing 1♦ with 5-7 and no 4M, or pushing to 3♣ sometimes without good enough values/fit. These seem like somewhat minor issues, and of course only come up when your opponents don't bid (and the weaker your hands are, the more likely your opponents will intervene and let you off the hook). As for competitive situations, it seems that a 10-12 balanced passed hand will probably be happy to defend in most cases, or make an occasional takeout X with the right shape in a low level auction. What does all this get you besides some confused opponents? Well you get to open a NV micro-NT and still handle all your balanced hands in a reasonable fashion. I know Meckwell play a 9-11 or 9-12 NV NT in places that don't legislate against it, so perhaps there are preemptive advantages in jamming your opponents auctions at favorable. While my example, you pass initially with 10-12 bal and bid 1♦...1NT with 13-15. You could similarly swap these and pass with 13-15(!) and bid 1♦...1NT with 10-12. This could make for some interesting auctions if your initial pass was (usually) 0-7 but sometimes 13-15 balanced. I'd be interested to hear what other people thought about the merits of 1) a 1st/2nd NV micro NT opening 2) this particular scheme for trying to incorporate it into the balanced bidding ladder 3) whether you prefer 10-12 or 13-15 as the strong option in 1st/2nd pass Thanks!

Adam, am I correct in assuming you play a 6+♣ precision opening? If you play 5♣/4M hands are also allowed, you may have other issues like wanting 2♣-2M to be natural NF. Certainly it's easier to have a better 2♣ response system if you stick to 6 card suits, but presumably you pay the price elsewhere in your system with a more nebulous 1♦ opening on 4=4=0=5 shapes, etc. Edit: Matt - right, I guess I meant you have a more nebulous 1♦ since it could include shapes like (42)25. With those shapes, your 1♦-1M-2♣ rebid might not have extra diamonds (beyond the 2+ you promised playing 2♦ 3 suited). This is especially bad with 2=4=2=5 shape in your NT range since after 1♦-1♠-1NT would promise different values and you're pretty much stuck either opening that hand 1NT or having some unfortunate continuations after 1♦-1M-2♣ where partner doesn't know which minor to sign off in.

There is no provision that specifically allows arbitrary conventional bids in competition under GCC. However, in many cases these are allowed - such as after an intervening double, over partner's or overcaller's 1NT bid, or an intervening conventional bid. In addition, any double, any bid showing game forcing values, or any bid after a strong opening by partner can be conventional. But for auctions like 1X-(1Y) or 1X-(2Y) where X and Y are different suits, I think using transfers or similar methods are midchart ("any call showing a known 4+ suit") but not GCC.

FWIW 2♣ by North seems like an odd choice. Even if you don't play 1♥-2N as a balanced GF, 1♥-1♠ is descriptive and forcing.

After a careful reading of the ACBL rules, I am not sure about the answer to your question but I would guess yes. On one hand, a rule bans "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods." I have no idea how this rule is actually applied, since it would seem to apply to almost all weak preempting styles (which are allowed as a matter of practice). On the other hand, another rule specifically allows "[any] defense to a conventional call" (such as an artificial strong club). If I had to guess, I would say that the specifically allowed defense rule would take precedence and you could indeed play (a well disclosed) "spade for a laugh" defense to 1♣ where you always overcall 1♠ unless you have a better bid. Be sure to tell the annoyed opps what your pass shows (maybe promises any "good" hand, 13+ or something?).

Your suggestion is an interesting one Richard (with 2NT = either minor preempt). Still, there are some issues. - 2N for either minor, like for just clubs, pushes past 3m after any inquiry (maybe 3♦ asking for example), so constructive responses are going to be cramped generally in either case. I expect it will be worse with either minor since you will have additional ambiguity to resolve which minor partner has. - over 2N for just clubs, partner knows he can try 3N with a good hand and fitting club values. If 2N is either minor, he may not be sure which one. + certainly 2N for either minor will be harder to defend than just clubs as you say + the value of including diamonds in 2N also depends on whether you can put a direct 3♦ opening to good use. If we're thinking about ACBL midchart (where 2N either minor is ok), you still can't use 3♦ as multi to show a better/worse 3M opening than a direct 3M. Maybe 2N could include the "constructive" preempt in diamonds vs a worse one being direct? It's not a big difference, but it's something.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. I know 2N for the minors is a pretty rare opening anyway, but one in precision that doesn't have many good alternatives. I understand the issues about passing 2N making it less desirable to have strong options (how often do you really do this?), but including some sort of GF hands with both minors also seems reasonable. I agree. On the subject of where to put the club preempt and the both minors preempt (among 2N and 3♣), I think another point in favor of the "usual" version with 2N minors is that 3♣ natural makes it hard for the opponents to check on stoppers for 3N (typically one hand needs shortness for a takeout X and the opposite needs the full stopper, or else someone needs a huge hand to bid 3N directly). In contrast, over 2N for clubs, between a direct X, 3♣ cue, and a delayed X (and maybe a 3♣ cue in response to the X, or a X of a 3♣ if 3rd hand completes the transfer), I think the opps have plenty of options to sort out takeout, penalty, and whatever else they want. Furthermore, when we have just clubs, it's more likely the opps want to play in 3NT than if we have both minors (when they are more likely to have a major fit), again suggesting that a natural 3♣ is the way to go. Besides, since 3♣ is more common than 2N in terms of shapes, it makes sense to have this be the "better" (NF) preempt.

Playing a strong club I've often seen this suggestion for a 2NT opening: 2NT - 5/5+ minors preemptive (5-10 points or so) While I'm not sold on this opening, it does seem like a lot of precision systems use this as their opening 2NT bid. Since 2NT is (presumably) forcing, it seems reasonable to consider including strong options with both minors as well. Do any of you do this, and if so, how do you change your followups (if at all)? The hand that got me thinking about this was this one: --- x KQJTxx KQJxxx P-P-? (IMPs) which admittedly isn't as "strong" as I was thinking, but opposite a passed partner, I was thinking 2N followed by 5 of partner's minor preference might be a reasonable auction. 2N has the advantage of preempting the 4th seat hand much more than a normal 1♦...4-5♣ sequence.

I'll be dropping in for this coming weekend, Fri-Sun, to play in the big swiss teams event.

Wayne - if you can find out about the J♠, would you want to play 6♠ in case there's a bad club break? Then all you need is 4-2 spades or better, and even with a spade loser you might not have a club loser.

In my precision variant we'd figure out shape and the K's and Q's locations (but not J's) by 5♥, at which point opener would have the choice of declaring in clubs, diamonds, or spades, or having partner with known shape declarer NT. 1♣(1)-1♥(2) 1♠®-2♣(3) 2♦®-2♥(4) 2♠®-3♣(5) 3♦®-3♥(6) 3♠®-4♣(7) 4♦®-4N(8) 5♣®-5♥(9) 6N (10) We play the bidding system were responder bids hearts and clubs, and opener bids spades and diamonds :). But seriously... (1) - 16+ artificial (2) - 4+♠ unbalanced (transfer) ® - relay (3) - ♠ and ♦ (transfer) (4) - ♠=>♦ (5) - 5♠-5♦ (6) - 1♥-2♣ (7) - 7 slam points, where AKQ=321 (KKKQ=7) (opener knows we're off 4 points, AQ, KK, KQQ, etc) (8) - ♠ and ♦ honor, no ♣ honor. (missing K♣ and 2 more slam points) (9) - 2nd ♠ honor, no 2nd ♦ honor. (10) - you play it, glp! At this point, opener knows about the KQ♠ (3 points) and exactly 1♦ honor. Together with the lack of club honors and the singleton heart, the only way we can get slam points to add up to 7 is with the K♥ and K♦. From opener's perspective, he knows: KQxxx K Kxxxx xx It seems dangerous to try diamonds without the Q. In clubs, we can pitch our losing diamond on the 3rd spade and only go down if clubs play for 2 losers (possible, given we don't know about the T). But with everything double stopped, if we're betting on clubs playing for 1 loser, we might as well play 6NT :).

Playing 2/1, I play 3N as a strong natural bid promising a doubleton in M, extra high card strength in the 16-18 range (slam invitational), and slow values and tenaces in the side suits. Playing precision and all sorts of artificial raises, we play this as a strong balanced raise. Specifically 33(43) with 15-17 which is a choice of games and encourages slam opposite a maximum (of 15 for opener). Obviously this 3N with 3 card support gets pulled to 4M a lot more often than the other version, pretty much whenever partner has a 6 card suit or has opened a distributional minimum.

Huh? Is there some problem with double in your system Dwayne? If you play 1NT for 3 suited t/o, you play double as 15+ balanced (or very strong). Basically, switch X and 1NT overcalls, only 1NT t/o can be lighter and is limited, while X showing balanced can be stronger than the usual 15-18 or whatever.