shevek

Paul Martson and I are writing an intermediate Acol text, mainly for NZ. At the moment we are just adapting our Standard book and switching numbers but wonder if we should do more. ♠T6 ♥A765 ♦KQ93 ♣AQ3 I would open 1♦ but would open 1♥ if you swap the red suit. I like partner to raise on three and don't fancy ♥Axxx opposite Jxx. If you give me a 17-count say, then 1♥ is okay on a thin suit because I plan 2NT over a raise. What is your policy?

I agree - the conventional "short club" that might be a natural 4+ card suit or might be 44 in any suits not clubs (among the likely options) is clearly too difficult to defend and must be banned. Just like those other conventions that are just "too hard" to play against. Well, maybe if we can use BSC defenses to their evil either/or conventions, it'll be ok. Maybe at favorable I should start playing 2♥ multi overcalls of short club openers... Plus those dastardly Precision precision players with their either/or 1♦.

I witnessed these Acol auctions recently. It made me think that many recent Acolytes don't understand negative inferences from the weak notrump. 1) 1♥ 1♠ 3♠ West had ♠QT65 ♥AQJ6 ♦AQ4 ♣J9 I think this is a raise to 2♠. In my mind, that shows say 14-17 TP. Standard players are used to raising with weaker hands and think they need to jump with this. 2) 1♦ 1♠ 3♣* 3♣ was a mini-splinter. This is a reasonable treatment that makes some sense playing a strong notrump. The down-side is that 2♣ instead is forcing, which pressurises the auction, since responder must bid on weak hands that prefer clubs and opener has to play catch-up with strong jump shift hands. West had ♠JT65 ♥AJ4 ♦AQJ75 ♣9 Again, I submit that - while 3♣ is okay - this is a raise to 2♠ in a weak notrump system, when combined with a forcing 2NT from responder. On the actual, 3♠ was one off 3) [hv=d=w&v=b&w=saq8hjt654d7caqj3&e=sjt952hk7dkt43c95]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♥ 1♠ 2♠ No I like 2♠ though 2♣ would have worked. East might pass 2♠ if not vul but this hand is clearly worth an invite Vul at IMPs. Yet East passed quickly, coming from a Standard background.

ELC is quite a subtle method. 4-2-5-2 is certainly better than 4-3-5-1. Better auctions are after a 1♠ opening holding 2-4-5-2 or similar. To double then bid 2♦ over 2♣ is really just saying "Damn I hoped you'd bid hearts." There are other examples following a preempt. Say 3♣ is opened in front of you and you hold ... ♠AQJ6 ♥AJ965 ♦K3 ♣72 Now it seems clear to double and plan to convert 3♦ to 3♥. This seems a useful agreement. However, agree with 1♠ overcall on the posed problem.

Other Who knows, we might even reach 6♦ in this construct[hv=d=w&v=n&w=sakqj5hak3dkqt5c6&e=st64h742daj93cq53]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 4♦ is clear. At least Rubens would approve.

I could have made it clearer, 12-14 at all vuls. The EBU's "Standard English Acol" is a curious system. Apart from 12-14 throughout, it contains this "With two four card suits open the higher - except with H and S, open 1H." Are beginners really expected to open 1♠ with this: ♠J876 ♥A7 ♦KQ76 ♣AQ3 ??

Glad to help if indeed you are asking 1) X = tko of spades. Only adjustment is that all spade bids by us are natural. Also, since there is no cue, change of suit in response to an overcall is forcing. This may not be the best defence (Bal-Zmud used to advise X = spades) but it is EXACTLY the same as the defence we use vs a Precision 1♦, which is basically long or short diamonds. 2) X = takeout of clubs, the weak 1-suited option. We use this against all these random multis, like Rubin Twos (remember?). Again club bids are natural, change of suit forcing. Very trivial. 3) This is tougher. Simple is to switch to strong club methods, with X = 16+ and 2♣ negative, other responses are Precision-style. Other calls are 12-15 natural. Enjoy the challenge & please tell us how you go!

Playing Acol, how do you open this chestnut from today (All vul, IMPs) ♠43 ♥AK752 ♦QT3 ♣AT8 ? Would your answer be different if 1♥ would show five? I know this is old ground but thanks in advance anyway. The views of this panel are helpful Nick

Playing Checkback, I don't like opener to rebid at the 3-level, though some pairs use these to show shapely maximums. Are they right? For instance: 1♦ - 1♠ 1NT - 2♣ 3♥ ?? Assume 1NT rebid = 12-14. Responder may not want to hear 3♥ with ♠AQT5 ♥A73 ♦KJ762 ♣8 Assume this is a suitable hand for checkback followed by 3♦ forcing, in case 5♦ or 6♦ is better. Or ♠AJ65 ♥5 ♦T6 ♣QT9875 2♣ then 3♣ is the normal way to sign-off in 3♣. Many (most?) play 3♣ directly over 1NT as strongish, maybe 5-5. What is usual in your neck of the woods? Nick PS. Writers of textbooks need feedback on these sorts of questions. Most don't want to go to print then find themselves promulgating an unpopular method.

If you play in some part of the world where 1NT is 12-14 and you are allowed to open a major with four, what is your plan in first seat with this ♠KJ76 ♥AT43 ♦KQ72 ♣2 ? 1♦ - 2♣ - 2NT is 15-17 forcing. Perhaps you play 5-cd majors. Then what? Nick

This could become another political topic. If the community could reach a consensus on a simple, effective way to deal with a transfer responses at the 1-level, it will become easier to convince organisations to allow transfer 1-level openings. As it is, some rule-makers seem to believe that transfer openings are complicated and tough to defend. In my view, they should either (a) ban all transfer bids at the 1-level or (b) allow all 1-level transfers. I digress. We play one method versus any call that shows 4+ cards in a specific suit. Examples include Jacoby transfers and Namyats. For us and most top Australian players, (1) double is takeout of the shown suit. Over a 1♥ transfer responses to 1♣, double says you would have doubled after a natural sequence that began 1C - 1S. You are better placed for two reasons. Firstly, your opponents probably won't be able to collect penalties. In the standard 1C - 1S auction, there is real danger when you double with 4-4 reds and opening strength. We all might do it anyway but if partner has a weak hand with few red cards, it could be painful. This -800 is very unlikely to happen after (1♣) no (1♥*) X. One more advantage is that partner might get an extra option, either a cue of 1♠ or a responsive double if opener bids 1♠ (usually to show 3-card support) (2) 1NT & 2♣ should be natural These days the sandwich notrump is best played as natural. While realising there are dangers, the decline in bidding values makes it mandatory. Sometimes opener & responder will have 11 + 4 points, which would have been unlikely in the 1970s. 2♣ should be natural. Perhaps you do that anyway but a decent minority would play it as shapely 2-suiter. This becomes less attractive as people strain to open 1♣ to get these pretty transfer sequences rolling. (3a) Some play bidding their shown suit as natural This is our default method vs 4+ suits. Against a 1♥ transfer opening we bid 1♠ as a natural overcall. Good against their possible four small. You probably do the same against Flannery, bidding 2♠ naturally. We do the same vs transfer responses, though the case is not quite as strong. For instance ♠AQTxx ♥xxx ♦AQx ♣xx would bid 1♠ after (1♣) no (1♥*). However, the need is not so great. You might get to double notrumps later. If you had the same hand with six spades, you could try 2♠ at some stage. We use this method anyway because it is our default method vs 4+ suits. We are too lazy to design specific defences. (3b) A cue could be a 2-suiter If you are happy to either pass or bid 2♠ with spades, cueing via 1♠ could be the usual 5-5 reds or perhaps some Raptor hand. Again you take advantage of their method. Versus natural bidding you have to give up one out of natural 2♣, natural 1NT, 5-5 reds. It's all good.

We never look at opponents' system cards. We have a default defence to any call that shows suit A or suit B, such as Multi 2D, 2S as a minor pre-empt, etc. We double for tko of the higher-ranking, bid the suit step as tko of the other suit. All takeout shapes act immediately. So, after Multi 2D, X = tko of spades, 2H = tko of hearts. This has worked pretty well, is reasonably common in England. Against 2H, which is basically hearts or spades, it's misguided to double 2H as takeout of hearts. This allows them to sit in their best spot. Say responder is 3-3 Majors. Double for tko allows them to play 2H. If you pass, they will have to play 3H or a non-fit. (See that huge Forcing Pass thread for that) We would do as we usually do. Dbl = takeout of spades "I would have doubled a natural 2S opening for tko" 2S = takeout of hearts (therefore passable) You may think it's silly to lose the natural 2S overcall. Maybe but it's also silly to design a tailored defence to a rare bid. There are better things to do. A consequence of this style is that delayed doubles of a major are strong penalty suggestions. With ♠AJxx ♥KTxx ♦xx ♣AKx we pass 2H then double 2S or 3H for penalty.

You're making a BUNCH of conclusions based on an erroneous assumption... Playing MOSCITO with transfer openings, responder will routinely pass a transfer opening with 0-6 HCPs... If you respond to an opening bid, you are promising values. There are some exceptions to this rule: Responder might chose to bid 2M holding 3-5 HCP, 4 card trump support and a flat hand. Following a 1♥ opening, 2♠ would be reasonable with ♠ xxxx ♥ xx ♦ Kxx ♣ xxxx Responder is overstating his high card strength, but he does have an extra trump. I'd happily pass 1♥ holding ♠ Kxx ♥ xx ♦ xxxx ♣ xxxx The opps should have at least the equivalent of a 23 High Card Points between their two hands... Odds are they are making 3N. (In general, if a MOSCITO auction goes- float, I expect to go negative. However, I also expect that the opponents have a nice score their way) Responder might also consider pulling with a single suited hand with a 7+ card suit. In general, if you're willing to take a bid with an understrength hand, you need to be willing to pull partner's penalty double. There are gains and losses with 1-level transfers. Gains include + right-siding most 4M contracts + extra relay steps to save space, or throw in hands with both majors + one more natural response. 1♦ (hearts) - 1♠ is now possible. If 1♥ shows hearts, then 1♠ response is relay and responder has to do something else with long spades. Negatives are more nebulous - opponents get an extra step. I like (1♦) X as tko of hearts, 1♥ natural. X as tko is safer than usual, avoiding most penalties that can follow (1z) X (XX). Other good methods include cue as shapely tko, X as stronger, etc. - can't sit in 1M. Opposite 1♥ = spades, a simple hand like ♠Qxx ♥xx ♦Kxxx ♣xxxx is awkward. Pass is wrong, leaving your fate to the whim of 4th player, while 2♠ & 1NT are bad too. These bids need to show values, say 7-10, else constructive bidding is compromised. - Diluting the denied major. MO stands for major-oriented but this is being lost. In original Moscito, bids from 1♥ up denied at least 1 major. This helped responder diagnose fits for both sides. Current Moscito is poor here, with major hands spread about from 1♦ to 2♣, leaving you with SCITO. - Lawmakers tend to frown on systems where 1M openings are not natural

Don't quite understand the question. Does the Moscito umbrella lay claim to any method with strong club, 4-card majors & symmetric relay? That's like saying that Kaplan-Sheinwold is Acol with 5-card majors, or 2/1 is modern Goren. There are a few home-grown strong club relay systems in Australasia. For some, the ancestor is the late 70s Kiwi Club by Roy Kerr, Paul Marston & Malcolm Sims. That featured 5-card majors. I associate it with Kerr, since he devised the relay structure. There were independent strong pass systems that developed from it, by Burgess - Marston, Blackstock - Newell, Hughes - Morgan, etc. They were similar because they began with the same basic relay structure, even though they all changed it quite a bit. Paul Marston devised original Moscito around 1987, mainly because Strong Pass became illegal in many events. That featured natural 1H & 1S openings but he changed it regularly. First change was 1D = spades, then 1NT = majors was added by Peter Buchen. At the same time, people like Bruce Neill began using 1-level transfers. Bob Richman had his own ideas. Note that neither Neill nor Richman called their methods Moscito, which was just a catchy acronym. Marston switched to transfers early this century. We play a method based on 1D - spades, 1H = hearts, 1S = majors & get a bit touchy when people ask "Is that like Moscito?" Ours is 16+ 1C & way make big use of the denied major, which Marston has more or less abandoned.

Proposed new GCC 1) 1-level major openings, responses & overcalls must show 4+ cards in the bid suit. 2) 2-level openings must show opening strength or 5+ cards in a specific suit 3) Share & enjoy. Only a start but don't need much more. Maybe 1NT balanced-ish, pass not strong. Don't see a problem with open slather on minor openings. If the C&C comes across something they don't like, they should bear it for a few months, changing the rules via a quarterly update. Nick

Presumptuous to make it a poll. Various factors might be have something much better strength & range of notrump forgetful partners frequency of 5cM in your NT too much info to opponents etc Nick

All three charts contain: Not clear enough? Not clear at all. Just glancing, I didn't see "forcing pass systems" defined. If you play strong pass and pass up to 20 HCP & retain a strong 2C say, you have a strong pass system but not forcing. They may get you some other way via ferts but probably not. Pass could be 0-7 not shapely or 13-20 say. 1-level openings 8-12 all natural. The WBF can call this HUM because you have a "an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass" but not the ACBL. If I played in US, I'd have a go.

Strong pass. Either you bid or you have a good hand. Irresistible. I have a short attention span and get bored easily.

Poiana Brasov? Very nice. It's a resort area near Brasov in the mountains of Transilvania. They'll enjoy

In Australia, where strong pass is sometimes legal, pairs tried the idea of passing 1st in hand with 19+ balanced as a defence. Richman, playing natural, caught Burgess once at all vul, after No* (1S*) no (no) X Double showed this. 1S was 0-4 any and -1100 was the result. It was about 1985. Marston then switched back to 1H 0-7. These days you can still try that but you need to lodge this defence and have written copies etc, since you are effectively playing a Yellow (HUM) system. Note that we strong passers are not allowed to change our methods. When I've picked up a Yarborough 2nd in hand, vul vs not and heard pass (alerted) on my right, I still bravely open 1S (0-7) and away we go. Survived so far, though it's been tempting to distort. Of course we could change our method to "Pass = 13+ unless RHO has made a pass which could be strong, then pass = 13+ or 0-7say." We don't bother. Give them a few free hits. We do gamble a pass out in 4th seat occasionally so a strongish pass in 3rd seat as a defence is not a great idea. Can recall at least one "+620. Passed in." Incidentally, that's why Forcing Pass is a misnomer. Strong Pass is more accurate, though - as David Morgan pointed out - Weak Opening System is best and would include some Medium Pass systems.

Say you play a Standard Multi 2♦. So called Muiderberg twos (there are other names like Dutch 2s) fit well with that, where 2♥/♠ show 5-card suits & another suit, 5-5 when vulnerable, 5-4 okay not vul. There are variations on shape & suit shown. Which version is dominant now where you live? Which is better?

Here's a better candidate for "it's all too hard." The auction goes (1♥) - X - (1♠) - ? ♠QT65 ♥AT63 ♦76 ♣952 so you bid 1NT. Let's say opener alerts 1♠ "Natural. Very occasionally this is a baby psyche, short spades and probably heart support." The WBF Code of Practices discourages this, using "heightened awareness". If East has done this more than once, it verges on an agreement. "Spades or not spades" may not be legal in the jurisdiction. Anyway, say you accept this helpful offer. Your normal style is double for tko here since nobody psyches these days but the odds have changed. What should you do? Why weren't you pre-alerted? This is not a silly question. It may or may not help you but it could have helped partner, who held ♠AKJ743 ♥9♦A85 AJ7 Partner could say "Had I known that East was liable to pull this one, I would have bid 1♠ rather than double. Please give us our +620." A fair point?

Here is an example of why these sort of numbers are important... Suppose they open 2H and you overcall 3D (natural). If you knew that they had hearts 99% of the time, you would certainly play that a 3H advance was a cuebid and a 3S advance was natural. Probably you would do the same if you knew they had hearts 90% of the time. I have no idea where the cutoff would be before it became right to change the meaning of 3H to something else, but in principle you could at least estimate this via a simulation. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Oh I agree they are important (maybe I didn't at first, at least not 100%, but in any case I do now.) When I said I'm not seeing the problem, I mean I'm not seeing why a pair couldn't give a very straightforward and honest answer like that. The argument has been put out there that this method is too difficult to disclose, and I guess what it amounts to is (admitting that I have a lot less experience in this area than Jan) I just don't agree. Not sure what's allowed in America but say Suction over 1NT is okay. That is, 2♣ = diamonds or the majors. You play system off over this but have to wing it on the status of 2♦/♥/♠ by you. If they need 5-5 majors for 2♣ but any old 5-carder in diamonds, then surely it's about 90% a 1-suiter in diamonds so 2♦ by you is a clear cue. If they require a decent 6-carder but majors could be 4-4, I suggest 2♦ by you should be natural. Well you could call the director and say it's indefensible, or you could take your shot. Maybe use your usual meta-defence, in our case "no assumptions".

Jan I don't understand this part of your argument. I think I could make the same argument for any opening bid at all. I could play devil's advocate and agree that the exact agreements and style by which partner responds will impact the precise hands I open (even though I don't think you can ever prove that about a person?) But....so what? The way Todd described it seems fine to me, it's a specific agreement and they will follow it, so what's the big deal? Of course I would expect a pair to give an equally good explanation for later in the auction too (such as when to p/c after 2♥ p p X), but given that I just don't see the problem. What you are describing seems to me nothing more than completely normal slight stylistic variances. You are arguing something that to me, you don't know is true, and that wouldn't matter even if it were true. The difference is that what you call stylistic differences don't matter when the bid is basically natural, except in the play - obviously, when you're playing or defending, you're going to care whether the opponents would ever open a weak 2 bid with 4 cards in the other Major and if so what sorts of things would influence their decisions. But in the bidding, it really doesn't matter. You're not going to use a different defense depending on whether a 2M opening bid can have 4 cards in the other Major. On the other hand, when the opponents open 2♥ showing either a weak 2[H] bid or a weak 2♠ it makes a HUGE difference to your choice of defense if there is a 70% chance that they will have hearts or a 30% chance that they will have hearts. So advance disclosure of "style" is relevant to that sort of bid, whereas it isn't important to most natural opening bids. We face these problems all the time and deal with them. There is a limit to which legislaters should go to cosset players, steer them clear of uncharted territories. To me, this trivial 2♥ opening is very similar to having a Precision 1♦ opening passed round to me. That 2♥ opening is hearts or not, a Precision 1♦ is diamonds or not. Say 1♦ is passed round to me and I'm trying to decide whether to protect with 1NT on some 12 count with 4 diamonds. Say they are vul. I don't like to look silly but it happens. Say I bid 1NT to find they would go for -400 in the 2-2 fit. Oh well. Or I pass and dummy tracks with a 6-count including 5 diamonds and we score an ignominious -70. I might have quizzed opener about when responder passes, hoping the opponents will solve my bidding problem. It gets quite circular. I find out that responder often passes with random 6-counts to keep other responses honest. Then I maybe infer that opener is therefore less likely to have 3325 (distort pass, 1NT or 2C with that) therefore it's 62% likely he has 4+ diamonds, therefore I bid 1NT ..... "Move please." How petty.

Just posted this in the original thread. I'll inflict it unedited here, partly because I wrote about dominance. Nick Okay, here we go .... David (DinDip) and I have been playing strong pass in various partnerships in serious state and national teams events (14+ bds) for 20 years. Not all the time. We live in different cities - we often play strong club. System design Youngish system designers are attracted to strong club systems - there is more room to create, they seem more modern, more aggressive. Whatever. Let’s say we start with the simplest strong club system: 1♣ = 16+, then 1♦ = 0-7, others natural GF 1NT = 12-15 others 11-15 natural, 4-card majors We may or may not add canapé, tweaks imported from Standard, then perhaps even relays. It might then occur to start opening light, to get the jump on “natural” systems. A quick glance at the local Laws suggests Version 2: 1♣ = 13+ 1NT = 9-12 others, 8-12 natural, could be canapé pass = 0-7 (8) It’s important to realise that this is a strategically different system, with the intention to bid a fair bit on hands that belong to the other side. 45% of dealer’s hands have 8-12 pts. It has become “dominant”, in the sense that our initial actions will set the tone for most auctions. Opponents will have to react rather than act two-thirds of the time. The mini notrump is a weapon, some might even call it “obstructive”. Like all swords, it is two edged. The other 8-12 openings have their dangers for both sides. If I open 1♥ on four small, they might start to wonder about 4♥ their way. Perhaps (1♥) - 2♥ by the ovecaller should be natural. It’s a worry, some opponents feel anxious about such matters. 1♣ as 13+ is not so great when the rest of the room has started by bidding a suit. It’s not clear how to respond. 1♦ as 0-10 negative is too wide, so we think of splitting it in two, with 1♥ = 6-10 any and game forces starting at 1♠. Better but it stuffs up the new-fangled relays we’ve been trying. A better solution might be to lower the bridge. This is the early 80s and the local lawmakers are yet to consider the issue, despite some rumblings from Poland. We come up with Version 3 Pass = 13+, then 1♣ = 6-10, 1♦ = 0-5, 1♥+ GF shape-showing 1♣ = 0-7(8) 1♦+ as before We like this better, especially the pass. 1♣ with 0-7 seems a bit silly but we find we don’t get into trouble. In fact it becomes a constructive start to many auctions, like any other limit bid. Just like a negative to a strong club but 1 step lower, partner can relay with 1♦. The main gains come from having partner free to jump around on good hands, knowing we won’t miss game. Of course it should cause zero inconvenience since opponents can play their entire cherished system over it. Sometimes they don’t, they adjust. Strangely, the strong pass causes them problems too. They feel like ignoring it but keeping 1NT as 12-14 seems crazy and they don’t need their strong 2♣ opening. Then one of them suggests “Let’s do what we do against a strong club.” Suction gets a run but these “obstructive” defences make less sense against 13+. We are surprised - and faintly amused - at the difficulties. We score some undeserved swings and feel a bit guilty. In the 1983 Bowl, there were a few strong pass systems, some last minute inventions. I’m slack on research but I think a Brazillian pair simply tried swapping their 1♠ and pass when not vul. A poor method of course but if it led to opposing pairs spending hours on a beach designing a tailored defence, then it probably worked. Dominance and complexity are related to enjoyment. I recall Jeremy Flint (I think) writing about his first bridge soiree. At favourable vul, the auction went something like (1♥) - 2♦ - (2♥) - 3♦ (4♥) Flint bid 5♦ and was reluctantly doubled for -300. At the end of the rubber, the husband of the hostess took him aside and said “That 5♦ bid was uncalled for. You should let your opponents enjoy their good cards.” Modern players seem keener to dominate auctions. The requirements for an opening bid drop by about ½ a point a decade. Just flick through Sheinwold or Roth if you need reminding. A balanced 11-count is fair game these days. In the 1970s, a weak two meant a GOOD 6-card suit, 7-10 pts, no void, no 4 in the other major. Modern players may have no conscious desire to dominate with loose weak twos, they just like to bid. Some opponents wish they didn’t. The point is that all systems and all players like to dominate, to take the opponents from their comfort zone. Strong pass systems lead the way but the world is catching up. Cue Truman quote. The real issue is complexity. I had this idea once that players should be allocated 10 or so disposable Alert cards at the start of a session, one for each alertable bid. When you ran out, it was back to Goren. We’d be gone after a few boards. Americans in particular seem to feel uneasy about perceived complexity. I recall an ACBL pamphlet around Year 2000 with defences to Multi 2♦. It was an amusing document, running over several pages, with two defences spelled out to 6th position! What on earth were they thinking? Maybe they were hoping to engender enough complaints along the lines of “Why do we have to learn this *****?” to justify a ban. Sneaky and far-sighted but perhaps I give them too much credit. The way to defend against a multi is to sit down and play, do a bit of thinking. Yes you need a few agreements but they will come, maybe from an English magazine. Our “defence” - strange term that, very pessimistic - runs to a few lines. X = tko of spades, 2♥ = tko of hearts, both with Lebensohl. X of p/c bids for takeout Pass then X = penalty suggestion So all tko hands act immediately. Not much chop and we lose the 2♥ overcall but we do okay. The BIG plus for is that it’s part of our generic defence to anything. We never look at opponents’ convention cards since we have a few simple schemes that deal with whatever they throw at us. Admittedly, their ferts need preparation but anything else - Ekrens, Wilkosz, Namyats, 2♠ minor pre-empt - is trivial. We make stupid bids but at least we can work out what those stupid bids mean. There is some head-scratching, part of the game. I recall Wolff railing against the Multi 2♦ with an auction something lke (2♦) - 3♦ - (no) - ? Where 4th hand didn’t know whether 3♥/♠ should be stopper or suit. I forget. His point being that people shouldn’t be expected to solve this problem on the fly. Well I think they should! Part of the game, a good part. If the Multi perpetrators get some undeserved good results from this, then knuckle down. The V3 strong pass system is tame so we decide to shuffle the bids around for various reasons. For one thing, we play it at all vuls because we are lazy & forgetful plus we don’t mind giving the opponents a few free kicks. It occurs that a 9-12 vul NT is not too smart so we move it down the ladder. Likewise, opening 1♠ with spades is crude since we throwall spade hands in there, even 4-3-3-3. It’s hard to bid constructively over that so we decide to try submarine openings (one lower than transfer) so 1♣ = hearts, 1♦ = spades. We slot 8-12 balanced at 1♥ for similar reasons so look what we end up with: Pass 13+ 1♣ = hearts, 7-12 1♦ = spades, 7-12 1♥ = 7-12 balanced, no major 1♠ = 0-6 (7) 1NT = diamonds So the fert comes out at 1♠ with no real malice aforethought. We couldn’t find a lower slot. This is a back-breaking system, the straw that breaks the back of a few camels. People - foreigners at any rate - might throw their arms up. “Enough. Why do we have to play against this crap!” I kind of agree but it’s not crap. Many of the posters on this topic would suggest this method has little merit, that the good results we get are through confusion and unfamiliarity. With respect, people who hold that view are guessing, they have no basis for that assessment. This time a specific defence is needed. The submarine openings are okay, just double for takeout of the anchor suit, bid that major naturally, 1NT should be strong, overcalls sound, etc. 1♥ is a bit awkward. I reckon X as 16+ with the rest as 12-15. That’s easy for me because I’m comfortable being forced to play strong club an that board. Standard players might find it distressing, having no affinity or feel for strong club systems. I guess the real issue is the 1♠ fert. I’ll admit we could have slotted it at 1♥ and prepared for their Heart Attack with our neat Coronary Bypass. However, we meanly chose 1♠ because it is more awkward. (Plus 1♥ is better for the flat hands) Hope I’m not boring you. Not so great to double 1♠ with 16+ because you don’t want 1NT or 2♣ as a negative. The best defence is to admit the pain and aim to inflict some in return. Bids from 1NT up should be transfers, to get a second shot with good hands. Double should be 14+ balanced. Needs to be balanced to help partner pass 1♠x with a few spades. Then the poker begins. I thrive on these auctions and happily report the occasional -1100 vs their 460 but 1♠ has proved at nett IMP gainer. If partner can’t pass 1♠x, then 1NT to play, 2♣ like Extended Stayman, 2♦/♥ transfers etc. Yes we’ll agree that there is a deal of work to do. You should start by trusting us to give you the best advice. After all, we KNOW. World Championships are better organised these days with systems lodged well in advance. You can devise antiferts at your leisure and bring your defence to the table. Warning - people who bring pages of defence to our table and riffle through them tend to do badly. They come with a defeatest attitude. They should come looking forward to a challenge, an interesting 16 boards. Behaviour. This is a major sore point. Designers of relay or strong pass systems have tended to be - how shall I put it - geeky, surly, uncommunicative, unsocial. Their system cards have tended to be cryptic and their explanations brief and patronising. Matches drag on as opponents ask after every alert. Relay auctions can take ages - bad form that, when the bids mean nothing to most players. In short, players of complex systems need to do a lot to lift their game. Actually, I think their (our) behaviour is the main reason for complex methods being driven from the game. Okay, plus the conservatism of ageing players and administrators. I won’t go there ... Nick Hughes PS. When we get organised in the next few weeks, Nicoleta and I will arrange to open a regular FP table at BBO, probably at some private club, not sure. We’ll post links to system summary and recommended defence plus I’ve laboriously keyed the whole thing into Full Disclosure. I know, I need to get out more.