Antoine Fourrière

"Denmark took the bronze medals (?). Poland, which won the event, was not using any forcing pass systems (?)." Yes, all the Polish pairs used the Polish Club that year. Poland also won in 1978 with a four-man squad which played only the Polish Club. "To the guys with the 2-way strong-weak openings: can't you play the fert 2-way? 0-7 OR nat (or whatever normal meaning you would give to that bid)? " In 1981, John Collings and Paul Hackett for Britain (along with Lodge-Sowter and Sheehan-Rose) finished second in the European Championships. At that time, they played 1♣ either 0-8 or clubs or 20-22 with any 4333 . At the ensuing Bermuda Bowl, they played 1♦ either 0-8 or diamonds or 20-22 with any 4333 and finished fifth in the eight-team round-robin, barely failing to qualify for the semi-finals. Pass simply showed 9-12.

1N, to show pattern and not stoppers. I would bid 1♠ with 3=2=4=4 or 3=2=5=3 (unless I have Kx or Qx to protect) and 2♠ with four cards.

No, it shouldn't work. Over pass showing 13+, your opponents still aren't favorites to have game without a major fit (even the weaker 12-14 notrump doesn't bury that often a game), although it may happen one time out of twenty, and they should use a rather distributionnal overcalling system such as 1♣ = 4 spades 1♦ = 4 hearts without 4 spades 1♥ = 5 hearts without 4 spades 1♠ = 5 spades 1N = 5 hearts and 4 spades to allow RHO to raise quickly the bidding. Indeed, pass showing either 0-5 or 13+ wouldn't be as bad, because your opponents are now bound to bid normally. And I wouldn't criticize either pass showing 0-6 or 16+, or pass showing 8+ and four spades, because both are constructive (for your side), disruptive (for their side), and anti-destructive (they cannot play 0-17 overcalls for fear it is their hand).

I think 3♠ is wrong. With 3=1=4=5 and less than 16HCP. opener should always rebid 2N. With 1=3=4=5 and less than 16HCP, he should raise hearts directly. With 2=2=4=5 and less than 16HCP, he should either rebid 1N before or rebid 2N or 3♣ now. Responder nearly has his bids opposite 3=1=5=4, if that is what opener has shown. (Maybe it shows 16+ with 2=2=5=4 with all the points in the minors, but it cannot show 16+ with four diamonds and five clubs with all the values in the minors, because with that hand type, opener would have opened 1♣ and reversed into diamonds.)

Yes, North had a clear-cut pass over 1N, which would have worked badly on that deal because of the position of the ♠A, but I nevertheless wish to point out (again) that it makes a lot more sense either to open 1N with 16-17 and to rebid 1N with 12-15, or to open 1N with 12-13 and to rebid 1N with 14-17. There is much more room to explore alternative denominations after a 1♣ or 1♦ opening and a 1N rebid (or no 1N rebid at all) than there is after a 1N opening. You can use both 2♣ and 2♦ as checkbacks, even if you won't always avoid 2N, keep 2N when you don't want opener to say anything more about his pattern, play three of the opened minor as a bar bid and still have three of the other minor as a raise of opener's minor.

To me, that diamond one-suiter looks more like a 3♦ opening (or an equivalent). As a rule of thumb with minor one-suiters, I count 4-3-2-1 in the long suit, 3-2-1-0.5 in the other three suits and 1 for a seventh card,. Then I open at the three level if I have between 7 and 9 of these "mixed" points. Granted, 3♦ would be more clear-cut without the ♥10 and the ♦10-9, but there are many spades outside. Pass or 3♦ in fourth seat.

If East opens, I proudly bash 5♦ and play there less proudly, but I'm sure it still is the right action. (Well, if I open 4N - does it show that type of hand? -, partner should try 6♦, but really, opening 5♦ usually hurts the opponents more than partner.) If West opens, I use transfer rebids (except in clubs) 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ 3♣ 3♦ 5♦ 6♦ 3♣ : showing long diamonds (3♦ would be fourth suit) 3♦ : nonforcing 5♦ : to play, 4♦ would be nonforcing with a good seven-card suit 6♦ : tricks Maybe 4♠ over 3♦ should be Exclusion Blackwood or simply void-showing, but it wouldn't work over 3N. Since that treatment is unavailable in clubs, a direct jump to 3♣ shows a game-forcing club one-suiter, with or without much slam interest, 2♣ followed by 3♣ is nonforcing and 2♣ followed by 3♦ is fourth suit, but not a one-suiter.

I don't think that wasting the 2N opening on the least useful two-suited preempt makes much sense. (Sure, more than showing 20-21 balanced, but that isn't a reference.) And I am more afraid of giving the opponents a delayed penalty double with a two-suiter than with a one-suiter, because the former is less sound than the latter. So I would suggest: 2N diamond preempt (3♣ by responder shows a problem somewhere and opener has to ask with 3♦), or perhaps some annoying strong hand with diamonds. It could also be played as a large-range diamond preempt, but in my opinion you need to open (4♣ or) 4♦ with less than a good 7 HCP if you really want to disrupt their bidding. Otherwise, they will end up into their normal contract just on power, and the preempt will now backfire. 3♣ club preempt (3♦ by responder asks for shortness, over which 3♥ is balanced or short in hearts, over which 3♠ shows heart weakness.) 3♦ both minors (unsound, but at least their double is for takeout now)

Why not lump together the minimum three-suiters short in diamonds and the game forces into the 2♦ opening? (I suggested that approach in a previous thread, excepted that the 1♣ opening was Polish-like, 12-15 balanced or 18+ balanced or 15+ with clubs and could still cater to balanced game forces.) Anyway, both hand types occur seldom, and opener need not speak freely with the former.

I think the four-card major is only a minor flaw, especially when the four-card major is hearts, hence I would open 3♦ with either ♠T92 ♥T987 ♦AKJ743 ♣ or ♠Q65 ♥7 ♦KT8652 ♣AJ8 but not ♠AT9 ♥K987 ♦Q97432 ♣. However, I wouldn't open 3♦ with a "textbook" preempt in first or second position such as ♠4 ♥842 ♦KJT975 ♣732 because partner must know my point range, and since I have more often 7-10 HCP than 0-4 HCP, I prefer to cater to the 7-10 HCP hands. Besides, a preempt is useful only when it sends the opponents into an abnormal contract, otherwise it backfires, and when I have a very weak hand, either the opponents will go for game and play it with too much information or partner will overreact.

I bid 5♦ immediately. Hope they'll lead spades. (I would also open 5♦, by the way.)

Balance 75%, with double. After all, I have nine red cards, the LAW says you need less to bid three over two than to bid three over three, the deal may belong to us simply on power, partner may have the ♠K reevaluating offensively my ♠Q, they may bid one more for perfectly acceptable reasons... I don't intend to pass 3♣. I hope that double followed by 3♦ is more heart-oriented than 2NT followed by 3♦, but I have never thought about it before.

I would double. Maybe double denies a void in direct position, when partner could have bid their suit and didn't, but not here.

Polish Club is much better than 2/1 simply because it doesn't make sense to open 1♦ as often as 1♣. It gains when you open 1♦ because you show real diamonds -- I think it is better to open 1♣ with 5332, because it allows you to rebid 1NT with diamonds longer than clubs or a three-suiter and 2♣ with four diamonds and five clubs --, it gains when you open 1♣ because it gives you more room, whether you chose to play 1♦ 0-6 or minor(s) or 17+ balanced, 1♥ 7+w/ 4+ hearts and 1♠ 7+ w/ 4+ spades, or 1♦ 0+w/ 4+ hearts, 1♥ 0+ w/ 4+ spades and 1♠ 0+ w/o a four-card major, or something else, and in my view the WJ version is superior to Strefa because it gains more often than not when you open a natural 2♣. 2/1 has simply decided to play without the sequence 1♣-1♦. Why? Of course, Polish Club is also superior in its treatment of the big balanced hands and has made a better choice of preempts. A problem with Strefa is that Strefa has no immediate club opening, but a problem with WJ is that WJ has no immediate 'If I have a long suit, my long suit is clubs' opening. In the 1994 final, Balicki was forced to rebid 5♣ to show real clubs rather than 4♠, which would have shown a strong hand with spades, on ♠ AJ874, ♥ -, ♦ A, ♣ KQ109643, after he had opened 1♣ and his opponents had bounced to 4♥. Since his partner had a 4=5=3=1 zero-count, he lost 1100 instead of 200. Maybe it is an extreme example, but reporting the unbalanced game forces out of the 1♣ opening wins on the intermediate club hands and loses only on the unbalanced game forces. Personally, I wouldn't mind opening 2 NT the unbalanced game forces if it gave me better definition for my club hands and my preempts.

I don't believe in the strong club or the 12-15 notrump, but if I had to use them in a GCC-legal environment, I would suggest: 1♣ 16+ 1♦ unbalanced, 4+ diamonds 1♥ unbalanced, 5+ hearts, not a 4=5=2=2 1♠ unbalanced, 5+ spades 1NT balanced without both four card-majors, but maybe with a five-card major 2♣ 5+ clubs and a four-card major 2♦ both four-card majors (not a 4=4=4=1), or a 4=5=2=2 2♥ weak (6 cards or 5 with a 5-card minor) 2♠ weak (6 cards or 5 with a 5-card suit) 2NT 6+ clubs, 9-12 3♣ 6+ clubs, 12-15 Some of these bids are perfectly comfortable, the others are quick. I love that 2♦ opening, which is inspired by Sontag-Weichsel's Power Precision 2♥ (either a Flannery or a classical Precision 2♦). It caters to three otherwise problematic handtypes. (If responder plays weak or two-way Stayman, a four-four major fit gets buried only when neither partner holds four cards in the other major, which I find acceptable.) I think an immediate 3♣ is better with six bad clubs than 2♣ followed by 3♣. And I remain adamant that the weak five-five two-suiters must be opened with a weak-two bid when there is nothing better.

I think the strong notrump (or a system including the strong notrump) is vastly superior. (Well, maybe it breaks even NV/V.) To begin with, even when you open a weak notrump, the opponents should forget about games on power and simply show their suits: there may be a game on power, but the odds are against it. Next, the weak notrump is kind of physically unsound: you have to answer 1NT to 1♦ with 5-10 HCP, which forces opener to rebid something with 16-17 HCP. You also cannot differentiate the value of your raises. Conversely, a jump raise when playing the strong notrump guarantees some shape. The weak notrump also loses a lot of major-suit partials. In some situations, you may have to open 1NT with a 5422 or a 6322 (or a bare king, perhaps even a bare queen). If you land in a debatable contract after your 1NT opening, it will be more difficult to defend if that notrump was strong. Finally, what do you do with a strong notrump when you have opened one of a suit and the opponents bid at the two-level? You still need support doubles. There is something else I wish to underline. You cannot treat equally a notrump opening and a notrump rebid. In the former case, partner may have any pattern, which calls for a two-point range and distribution-oriented bidding. In the latter case, partner has already begun to show his pattern, which allows a four-point range and a 2♣ checkback. Now, you can open 1NT with 16-17 HCP and rebid 1NT with 12-15 HCP or open 1NT with 12-13 HCP and rebid 1NT with 14-17 HCP. I think the above reasons point to the 16-17 NT.

I would double 1♠ (and bid 1NT with three small spades and a doubleton elsewhere). Failing that, I would double now.

I don't believe ♠QTx ♥xx ♦AKJxxx ♣KQ should start 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠, because you aren't really interested in your partner's diamonds (his worse possible holding is three small, and even then you're a favorite not to lose a single trick). With that hand, your primary concern is key cards, and your secondary concern is to avoid a heart lead if the opponents hold ♥K, ♥Q and a spade trick. I think 2NT Jacoby followed by Blackwood should give you all the information you really need. Sure, you won't be able to discover the lack of a heart control, but it isn't obvious to lead a heart when you've got only one of the top two honors and you do not know responder has a source of tricks, which makes a slam with twelve tricks without a control in a side suit neither a good nor a bad proposition. (True, you may end up in a slam missing both a heart control and the ♠J, or even the ♦Q, which now is bad.) With ♠xxx ♥Kx ♦AKJxx ♣Axx, you probably want feedback about diamonds, which means you'll have to disclose a possible source of tricks, so the bidding should indeed start 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠, but I still don't think opener should have to show his controls, because a 4♣ bid will increase the probability of a heart lead when you don't want it, and a 4♥ bid will increase the probability of a club lead when you don't want it either.

4♠. Not even close. I don't want partner to pass with three clubs and two spades. Clubs will serve at 4/5/6♠, spades won't serve at 5/6♣. And it is more useful to conceal my hand than to look for a sacrifice, especially at this vulnerability. It could turn -100 into +650, or -1400 into -500.

I don't understand the rationale for the strong 1♣ and the strong 2♣ when it is possible to muddy - or clear - the waters by packing some weak types into them. Why not open the bad six-card diamond preempts with 2♣, Dutch-like, just to keep your opponents from disrupting your opening? Their interventions are now bound to be legitimate, so you should get better definition from everybody's bidding. Since opener won't be able to double for penalty, I would suggest to open the balanced game forces with 1♣. Otherwise, you may have to rebid 3NT with either 19+ unbalanced or 25+ balanced, you won't be able to pass to suggest the latter.

Duck two clubs, ruff the third, cash ♥AKQ. If East has jack fourth, cash ♠Q and ♦A and give East his ♥J. If West switches spade at trick 3, play small spade from dummy hoping that East hasn't the ♥2 or will discard it on your ace. If West switches diamond at trick 3 and East ruffs, you need clubs 3-3 (and still don't know whether to finesse the ♥J or play for the drop).

Since BBO is available worldwide, it runs the risk to be convicted in ANY country. To ban you because of the color of your eyes would lead to an automatic conviction - civilly and criminally - in France. There is a bit more leeway when it comes to cheating, of course, but a conviction of BBO by a more or less creative court of law always remains possible. Maybe that conviction would be executed on paper only, although it wouldn't help Fred play overseas, but BBO has probably better things to do than to put itself at the receiving end of conflicting Internet-related legal standards. (How about a first suit in which one court forces BBO to expose the cheaters, and a suit in a second country which charges BBO of invasion of privacy?)

Double seems obvious to me (you have the pattern, the upper suits, and the points are evenly divised until proved otherwise), but I think I would pass if I hadn't passed first.

Open 1♥, rebid 3NT over 1♠ or 1NT.

Maybe opening 1NT is right, but it is the whole procedure which is flawed. When do both players state that they have a balanced hand? 3♦ is ambiguous and 3♥ is nebulous. These bids do not convey useful information, they are just showing off. I am not sure I would always avoid the slam after a Polish 1♣, a 1♦ relay and a 1NT rebid, but at least I would start on the right track, that is, points and not controls. Playing standard, opening 1♦ and rebidding 2NT would probably work. So would opening 1♠ and rebidding 2NT if it guarantees a 5332. But getting the decent 5332s out of the 1♠ opening allows something like 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ hearts, as usual 2♠ weakish, maybe non-forcing when not playing 2/1 2N clubs, not 5-1-3-4, allows responder to bid 3♣ with a balanced hand 3♣ 6+ spades, forces only to 3♦ or 3♠ when not playing 2/1 3♦ weakish, maybe non-forcing when not playing 2/1 3♥ heart (other major) shortness, maybe 5-1-3-4 3♠ club (other minor) shortness 3N 5-2-4-2