shevek

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.

*What is the object of playing a gambit opening?... To acquire a reputation of being a dashing player at the cost of losing a game. **The beauty of a move lies not in its' appearance but in the thought behind it. ***One doesn't have to play well, it's enough to play better than your opponent. MD. Siegbert Tarrasch (March 5, 1862 – February 17, 1934) was a leading chess player Days are passing quickly. I still have no idea why HUM professionals do not object WBF policy. OTOH is it really bad to arrange competitions between stickers assigned by WBF? A final somewhere and sometime hard ? So we can see if only to play a HUM sys enough to win or not. Aargh the Latvian. One guy in Perth loved it so much, he would open E3 as white, hoping for e3 - e5 - e4 -nf6 - f4! I like it! He would have made an imaginitve bridge player. Nick

That's not an accurate analogy. No legal call is banned, it's meanings for calls that are banned. You are suggesting a situation in which legal moves would be banned. As Art said, there is no chess equivalence. I guess that's true but trivial. There were King's Gambit tournaments in the 1890s, where the first 3 moves were pre-ordained. It was thought it would lead to more exciting games and that happened for a while. In the end, the restriction only served to shift analysis a few moves further into the game. Then - as per usual - the well-prepared would build a winning advantage away from the table and triumph over their more talented but lazier opponents. In bridge there are designated tinkering areas. There are 30 methods over their 1NT opening and 1½ ways to open 1♥. Those who feel the need to invent and have a bit of fun will find an outlet "Look they play strong club! Let's play Wokka Squared!" Transfers are all the rage. Rubensohl, transfer responses to 1♣, transfer rebids by opener, like 1♠ - 1NT - 2♦ = hearts. What fun! The possibilities are virtually endless. Just remember that opening 1♥ with spades is not one of them. That might frighten the horses. Nick

In another thread about HUM systems, Fred suggested that Australia's relatively poor international record - a couple of 3rds in world championships & winning the Far East just twice, last time 1972 - might in part be due to the perceived complexity of systems played here and in NZ. Australia has a population of 22m with 33k registered players so 1 in 700, quite high by world standards. Italy has won countless world events with the about same number of registered players out of 60m, so 1 in 2000. USA has 140k from 300m, again around 1 in 2000. Of course "number of registered players" may not be indicative of numbers, more the organisational ability of the national association. It's the only measure we have. Here are some factors in Australia's lack of success. NZ would be similar I think: - The home-grown Anglo-Celtic talent is thin. Many of our top players have been Hungarian, Jewish, Polish, Indian, New Zealanders, etc. We locals play a lot - in large numbers - but not well. Perhaps our brighter people do other things. Certainly Australia "punches above its weight" in science. - The overall level of play is poor. American tourists who drop into a local duplicate do well. Our teachers get bums on seats but short courses may not give adequate grounding. Serious overseas players are disappointed at the standard in our large Swiss national events. - The second tier is weak. The top players are okay but the level of their sometime opponents drags them down, takes away their toughness. The $1mil a year grant from Alan Woods - featuring coaching by Kokish - was directed at the top. Better to spread it further South. - Professional play. Around half our top 20 players gain a large slice of their income from playing, often in poor daytime duplicates. The methods that win there do not not translate to a quarter-final against Italy. - A cavalier attitude. This is a reflection of the larrikin (look it up) culture. As a nation, we have a casual approach to most endeavours, which has good and bad points. In bridge, it is reflected in presence at the bar, late nights, a reverence for the D7. And we wonder why the Indonesians beat us .... - Cardplay technique is lacking. The view from many of our good players who compete overseas is that our bidding methods are good, our bidding judgement is okay but our cardplay is second rate. I think a reason for this is the lack of national matchpoint events. We have about 10 national "championships" but only one serious matchpoint event. - Lack of partnerships. A few names --- DelMonte, Marston, Richman, Gill. They've all won national events and represented overseas with at 5 or 6 partners. That's true of most of our top players. Long term partnerships are rare. "Hey Dan, let's play the Butler. I'll send you my system." - Tyranny of distance. When the best events are in Europe & America, it takes a big commitment of time & money to find regular tough games. Yes there's BBO but there's no substitute for face to face playing and discussing. Also remember our 2 largest cities are 10 hours drive apart. - Variations in methods. Complexity does not seem to be the issue. Rather, players in different clubs, cities, ages and ethnic groups promulgate their own ideas. The drab homogeneity of US bridge is a big asset; when it comes to system discussion and judgment, everyone is one the same page. Nick (not Nicoleta this time)

I have never seen a statement from Fred which can be interpretated that way - but could be so anyway. I think Fred has noticed, like anybody else, each time the well known players, known for interesting features are on, masses jumps into Vugraph. If more are needed or wanted, I think Fred is the one who holds the key. It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx. Meckwell if Walter Johnston is not available. Meckwell Club is not really difficult but looks causing headache anyway. Quality of commentators is a topic which needs to dealt with but also something about software and about the general content, not limited to bid sequences. A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sak76hk7d94caj964]133|100|Scoring: IMP East opens 1♦[/hv] If your style is Equal Level Conversion, you might consider doubling 1♦ here. Then 1♠ over pd's expected 1♥ could show this. Any hand with 5 spades would have overcalled 1♠ or can jump to 2♠ now, say 18+. Of course, the problem with double is a sequence like (1♦) X (2♦) 2♥. Are you prepared to risk that?

If your ♦A were ♥A say, it would be close.

I guess partner didn't pin ♦J. 5♣ is an overbid but partner could tell you had primary diamond support, so signing off in 5♦ is plausible. However, she had a good hand. Now, if you had your bid - say ♦K as well ....

I can't say I disagree with myself here, but more generally I think it is a mistake to allow what you are calling "high variance methods" in *any* bridge tournament of consequence (including the World Championships of course). I do admit that it is hard to define where the line should be drawn. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com The degree of variance would depend on the homogeneity of the field. If I front up to an American Regional playing 1940s Acol with 4-card suits, 12-14 throughout, no neg doubles, Acol Twos etc, there will a decent number of results decided on system. This offends some -- those who want bidding outcomes to be decided by their knowledge & judgement in 2-over-1 vs mine, plus their tweaks vs mine. I dare say these are the people who politely excuse themselves from our BBO table when we say we play Acol, saying "We don't have a defence to weak notrump." Nick

Wayne you are normally known to be well informed - therefore I certainly trust you that Balicki-Zmudzinski played Suspensor in 1991. They reached 2nd position, it should be the year Icelandic Precision(symmetric relays) won 1st position. Maybe you have some information Wayne about Paul Marston. As far as I am informed 1991 was the year for converting Moscito from a pass-system into a club system. I wonder the reason if pass-systems were generally allowed by that time. When Paul Marston & Stephen Burgess entered the 1990 Cavendish, the sys regs said no yellow systems so they took the hint. They played Strong Pass in the 91 Bowl in Perth, featuring a 2C fert but that was it. The current WBF regs were drafted around then. They stopped playing tegether around 2000 but are playing together again now, 15+ clubs & transfer openings. They have to make changes when they play the US Nats.

Nobody can remember how effective they were. The merits of HUMs were debated 20 years ago but now they are virtually extinct. So, who (else) has played a Forcing Pass or similar in a major national event recently? Wrong - some of them, at least the simpler ones, are fairy well known in as well Australia and Poland. In Poland pass-systems were allowed at national level until I think January 2007. But this is not only about pass-systems. The latest move from the weak ones were tightening the rules for Bermuda Bowl 2005. By that time nearly all systems of the top-players were stripped according to that. What is left of the gloriousness, is the name and nothing else. Paul started this thread hoping to gather some sympathy for his weak players to be able to win something odd carrying a glorious name. In the annals you dont see the competion level is much lower today than 20-30-40 years ago. Curious to hear people mention Australia (& New Zealand). It seems that the rest of the world imagines a free-for-all over here. While tournament regs do allow strong pass (HUMs) in most national teams championships, there are many obstacles, such as losing seating rights, requirement to pre-lodge including a defence, can't play them in early rounds. This means a strong pass pair must have a back-up system, which is okay. I'm usually pleased to lose seating rights. Just sit and wait, no agonising over choice of opponents, no wistfully realising you chose the wrong pair. I like our opponents seeing the yellow dot, then devising a complex defence - they generally ignore our simple recommended one. The bring their photocopied hand-written defence and look pissed off, resenting the imposition. When they have system stuff ups, they blame our methods, rather than their ill thought out defence. Ours is the last table to finish. They complain to organisers who tighten the noose next year, etc. It's little wonder that - as far as I know - mine are the ONLY partnerships in Australia playing strong pass at the moment.

Someone may as well provide the "normal" answer of 2♥

Nobody can remember how affective they were. The merits of HUMs were debated 20 years ago but now they are virtually extinct. So, who (else) has played a Forcing Pass or similar in a major national event recently?

Prefer 4♣ as clubs and hearts. These bids need to be specific, in case the next hand bids 5♦. Choose hearts rather than spades because they are more pre-emptable, Nick

With clubs, more likely is the case where partner has shown values and you need 2KCs for slam but want to stay in 5♣ opposite one. Maybe ♠x ♥AKxx ♦Kx ♣KQxxxx 1♣ (3♠) ? 4NT RKC is crude here but probably effective, assuming you are playing 1430 and can stop in 5♣ opposite ♠KQx ♥Qx ♦Qxx ♣AJxxx.

1NT - 2♠ - ? 1NT is 15-17 and 2♠ is natural. You have some hand with six clubs. Say you want to compete with ♠xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣KQTxxx invite with ♠xxx ♥Ax ♦xx ♣QJxxxx force with ♠Axx ♥xxx ♦x ♣AQJxxx Of course you may not agree with these assessments but let's forget that. Playing your chosen methods, do you give up on one of these? For instance, if 2NT says "please bid 3♣" does opener always comply or is he allowed to bid 3♦+ on a max with a club fit. Or do you give up on competing with sub-minimums to give opener more leeway? Or something else?

ASPRO, though multi-Landy seems popular in Sydney. Multi: 2♣ = majors; 2♦ = like a multi 2♦ opening; 2♥/♠ = 5 cards & 4+ minor, usually 5-5. I like 2♥ & 2♠ natural. Those Cappelletti 2M bids don't seem to go well -- too rare if 5-5, unsound if 5-4. Aspro (2♣ = hearts & another, 2♦ = spades & a minor) is acceptable with those hands, not great with both major but better on the canapés. The big gain is on the 1-suited majors, particularly 2♠. Hate to have to bid 2♣/2♦/X with those. I like double = penalty vs all notrumps. Ranges vary a lot in Australia.

Apologies re delay. It seems not much interest anyway. [hv=d=w&v=b&n=sk85hkj52da984ck7&w=s72h97dkqjt732cq9&e=saq4h83d6cajt8632&s=sjt963haqt64d5c54]399|300|Scoring: IMP 3♦ - no - no - ?[/hv] 4♥ by North is the limit. 4♦ might have achieved this, though North has a likely slam try. I doubled but North bid 4♦ then continued with 4NT over my 4♥ for -300. At the other table, North doubled 3♦, which worked well - 4♦ by South, 4♥ by North. How do you like double?

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sjt963haqt64d5c54]133|100|Scoring: IMP 3♦ - no - no ? Layout in a few days ...[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=n&w=s82hakq752dj7ca92&e=s7hjt8dkt6cqj8654]266|100|Scoring: IMP They bid 1♠ - 4♠ for 10 tricks. Dummy had a stiff heart.[/hv]

Couldn't count but South could have 6 clubs.

I think East's ♥J was an error. How can he be sure his partner does not have ♦A? You could have ♠K ♥xx ♦JTxxx ♣AQTxx Here the ♥J gives 11 tricks on a squeeze. Nor should East have ♠Kx. Then you might pitch your spade loser on ♥J. Why not a diamond back? Maybe he has no diamonds? ♠xxx ♥AQJxxxx ♦--- ♣Jxx seems possible. Of course, no trump switch in case West has ♣Qx. Hang on, East would not overtake ♥K with that, rather ask for a diamond. Would West open a balanced 11-count like ♠Kxxx ♥Kx ♦Axxx ♣JTx? If yes, I'll play him for ♠Kxxxx ♥Kx ♦Axxx ♣Tx and hook against East. Actually, I'll do that anyway on crude restricted choice. Should I play East for 1-7-1-4 and run ♣9? Maybe. However, ♠x ♥AQJxxxx ♦x ♣Jxxx looks like an easy 4♥ overcall (not vul/MPs/passed partner). So I'll play ♣9 to the ace, cross to ♠A and finesse.

Guess you mean 9 tricks... East might have just 7 tricks to roll: ♠Ax ♥Qx ♦KJx ♣AKQxxx 3NT is not a great bid but dummy might have some spade help or ♦A. You rate to go 2 off on a spade lead, could make on a red suit lead, when dummy has ♦Q or ♥A

Nick actually. Declarer might pick it but probably won't. North comes to ♠AQ ♥JTx ♦Q South to ♠10 ♥Kxx ♦AT Now ♦K works but it's a guess. I should have given North ♦QJ, then no play.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=saqj95hjt3dq84ct6&w=s7432h9864dj952c8&e=sk6haqdk7cakq9743&s=st8hk752dat63cj52]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] "We were in separate rooms of course but I just happened to glance at her screen as I passed by the study on the way back from the loo. I was tempted to try a deep club anyway and the glimpse confirmed it. East said something like "Check same IP" to Roland and the table mysteriously closed. I was banned from BBO and none my clever new handles seemed to work. We split soon after, she got the dogs. Yes, I obviously should have led a spade." Seriously, why should East have 8 tricks? He''s hoping for a card or two in dummy. No need to panic.