Antoine Fourrière

Gulp (?). Would have opened 5♠, I think.

Even against a 10-12 notrump in first position NV/V, I would try to show pattern first. I prefer DBL four spades and a longer minor 2♣ both majors 2♦ a long major 2♥ five hearts and a minor 2♠ five spades and a minor 2N don't really know, maybe a blockbuster 3♣ natural 3♦ natural I don't like the idea of doubling on power, it kind of wastes a bid only to lead to a random result whether it's your hand or their hand. Besides, RHO already knows more about the better/least bad denomination for his side (and may learn even more about it) than your side will ever do.

mikestar, No, I think it is better to open 2N with a good preempt in clubs and 3♣ with six bad clubs in a 6331 (can open 1♣ with a 6322) and minimum opening values, since it is with the latter type that I'm afraid of giving them a penalty double. Ron, I find it logical to open more often with 2♣ or even 2♦ than with 2♥ or 2♠. (As a rule of thumb, I would say that it is right to open 2♣ more often than 2♥ or 2♠ but less often than 2♦ or 2♥.) WJ meets that standard, contrary to Strefa's Acol 2♣ or Sontag-Weichsel's six-card 2♣. But since opening 2♣ with either six clubs or five clubs and a four-card major is nevertheless shaky, it seems better to exchange these hands with the weak two-bids in a major and the weak two-suiters with at least a major, to give these somewhat doubtful hands a better probability of having the opponents doing the wrong thing. (Even good opponents still have a lot of opportunities of getting it wrong when you open with a kind of multi rather than with a natural preempt, although it won't be on the same deals.) If it is right to open more often with 1♥ than with 1♠, then maybe it would be better to open 1♣ the minimum 5332s with spades, but not the minimum 5332s with hearts. I really don't like all these situations where opener might have rebid a three-card minor after 1♠ 1N.

How about the following system: 1♣ weak notrump or 18+ notrump or 15+ with clubs 1♦ unbalanced with at least four diamonds 1♥ five cards 1♠ five cards 1NT strong notrump 2♣ weak-two bid in a major or weak two-suiter with at least a major 2♦ either a Precision 2♦ or an unbalanced game force 2♥ 11-14 with five clubs, four hearts and less than three spades 2♠ 11-14 with five clubs, four spades and less than three hearts 2NT 9-11 with six good clubs 3♣ 12-14 with six clubs That 2♣ opening (which I described in a previous thread) allows the opener to open 2♦ to suggest a minimum 4441 or 5431 with short diamonds, and thus to better define the 1♣ opening, as in Strefa. (Packing together the minimum hands with short diamonds and the unbalanced game forces is unheard of, since Precision has no trouble opening the game forces with a strong club and natural bidding has no trouble opening the minimum hands with short diamonds with a natural club, but it still doesn't amount to a lot of hand types.) Oops! Sorry, wrong forum.

After, say, 1S 2D 2H/2S/2N, it looks easy to play 3C as a retransfer with both xx xx AQJxxx QTx and Ax xx AKJxxxxx Jx, and to report the 3C bid (more or less natural over 2S and 2N, fourth suit over 2H) at 3D. Hence, there is no real need of a jump shift in diamonds, at least if you play 1N forcing. But with clubs, it is not so easy, so I think one of the aforementioned types (preferably the latter, since you may want to invite with six clubs and four cards in the other major) should answer 3C, or 3D if 3C (Jacoby?, minisplinter? ) is not available. If the latter, that jump shift in clubs needn't show such a strong suit, only a hand which wants to bid and rebid clubs in a forcing situation.

After, 1H or 1S (DBL), if 2D or 2H shows a fit, shouldn't a raise to 2H or 2S show a bust, yes, but with maybe only two cards? (ok, unless at unfav.)

With a hand about an ace stronger than inquiry's example hand, say S: AKJXX H: KQXX D: X C: AJX I would still prefer 1S to double, because double followed by spades just shows strength and spades, cancelling the support for hearts and clubs, while spades followed by double shows strength (a bit less), spades and support for the other suits.

I know this thread is theoretically about German Moscito, but I feel that German Moscito is right about having an opening showing both majors, and that Aussie Moscito is right about right-siding the major-suit contacts and separating quickly the club one-suiters from the diamond hands (and very wrong in squandering the 2C opening into a six-card suit). How about that combination? 1D hearts without spades 1H spades without hearts 1S diamonds without a major 1NT balanced, usually no major, may have long clubs 2C both majors (could be shaded if 5-5) 2D weak (maybe hearts or spades and a minor) 2H weak (maybe spades or hearts and a minor) 2S 9-14 clubs with 3 spades 2NT 7-11 clubs (0-2 spades if 9-11) 3C 11-14 clubs (0-2 spades, but 6322 often opens 1NT) (Or simply 2S 9-14 with 6 clubs) Comments?

I agree that the opponents should be warned beforehand of personal potentially disruptive conventions, such as hrothgar's Frellings, the Aussie's 2C Ekren, or my 2C as a weak two in a major or a weak two-suiter with at least a major. But 2C strong or weak with diamonds, 2D minimulti, 2D/H Ekren, 2D Wilkosz, 2H and 2S as alternatives to Wilkosz, even 2D hearts or spades and a minor, 2H spades or hearts and a minor and 2S majors or minors, maybe 2H weak in hearts or spades, surely 2S as a weaker or stronger preempt and transfer preempts all have been played by several pairs at the highest level. In my view, it is reason enough not to prealert them if they are explained on your convention card. Nor should the strong club, the Precision nebulous diamond, the Polish Club or the weak notrump be prealerted. You should be prepared against them (and maybe Fred could label a BBS defense against each of them).

The 1992 Individual European Championship featured a mandatory system, five-card majors, strong notrump, weak twos... However, it didn't mention three or four-card raises. Robson reported that deal in Bridge Magazine: [tt]8 4 2 A T 9 7 9 5 Q J K Q T 6 A 9 8 5 A K 5 4 Q 9 8[/tt] Forrester - Perron 1 C 1 S 2 S 4 S pass The three-card raise is quite popular in the English-speaking world, but the French (or the Poles) need four cards, and don't mind rebidding 1N with a weak doubleton. (Yes, a 1NT rebid would have ended in 3NT going down.) Apparently, neither the IEC organizers nor the two players seemed to consider it an issue.(Some things are so self-evident that even the strange people which lives from the other side of the Channel cannot have a different religion.) Five-card openings vs four-card openings? But that's system! Four-card raises vs three-card raises? Of course, that's judgment! And BBS, which has no claim to hegemony, is also silent about it.

I bid 2D, 0-10, 4+ cards unless I'm 2=6=3=2. At least I have a five-card suit, which I intend to rebid over CHO's cue-bids. (RHO won't be nice enough to double them. He would have redoubled or bid 1N.)

I don't believe I will be able to show 6-6 with solid clubs and weakish hearts even if I open 1C, and I don't want opponents to bid 4S. So I'd open 4H and hope for the best (but bid 5C if they say 4S). For the record, two Polish pairs opened 2D, but that doesn't seem right either.

1. Pass. They may have a slam, or partner may double them at the five-level. 2. Heart five. 3. First I invite him to play 3N, then I invite him to play 1N as 5-8 or 7-10. 4. I invite him to 4H by bidding 3H, so that he may propose 3N with AKx in hearts. 5. I would have bid 5C, but maybe 4S was a smart move, and I still bid it now. They don't have a slam, and I may lose more in 4S than in 5C after the DA lead and the trump switch if LHO has two spade tricks. (Did RHO double with 2=4=5=2 and lead the CA for a ruff which he got immediately from partner?)

What's wrong with "12-15 bal, 15+ with 5+C or any 18+"??? Well, opener may also have a (minimum or not) three-suiter with short diamonds, but I wouldn't call for a score adjustment with your explanation. As for 2D Odwrotka, I would like a 2N rebid after 1C 1M to be alerted, 18+, forcing, may have a singleton in partner's major, just like I would like negative inferences of support doubles to be alerted. (Or one-level openings when playing the weak notrump.) If there is all that fuss about 2D Wilkosz, it is not because the opponents are robbed blind, as may happen with constructive sequences, but because they are slaughtered in pure light. They wouldn't cry out for a bad result if it didn't make also them look like suckers. But it is no reason to outlaw conventions which have been used by several pairs at the highest level, and for which there should be no surprise any more.

1) 4N. I don't think it is to play, although maybe it should. If opener shows two keys without the club queen, I'll bid 6N, but if he shows also the club queen, I'll bid 7N, because with only (six or) seven clubs to the KQ and an outside ace, he would have opened 3C. CORRECTION 6N. I'm silly. With eight clubs to the KQ and an outside ace, he would have opened 5C. 2) Pass. Strange bidding, indeed, but partner has taken control with a freak, and I have no preference for Double or 5S. 3) 4N. It looks like they are making it, with singletons in each hand. Partner must have seven hearts or a six-four. 4) Pass. 3S is forcing, so there is nothing to win by bidding 4C, and I have too much defense for 5C. 5) Pass. Either they have eight spades or partner has five and couldn't bid over 1C. It looks like RHO wants to be doubled.

It seems to me that a two-under pre-empt makes some sense at the two-level (say 2C for hearts, 2D for spades and 2H as a game force). True, LHO can double to show 13-15+ balanced and pass then double for penalties, but responder may want to explore alternative denominations, the preempt is really effective only when partner can boost it at least to the three level, and there are also more tricks to win by playing from partner's hand. But at the three-level, the opponents do suffer already, and you must not give LHO a second opportunity to enter the bidding. So I do not understand the persistence of Namyats. As for the Darwinian thing, it will not apply within the ACBL, but to the ACBL (thanks to the Internet rather than to the new generation). And I would bet that thirty years from now, the Polish Club will have overthrown both Precision and American/French Standard and will be the system favored by conservative players.

Regarding Deal 4 of the Match, which deserves at least one thread. As hrothgar writes, "Players of relay systems and artificial methods always use hands like this one to show the advantage of a scientific approach." Or of a partial relay system. AK84 QJ J4 72 AQ93 J62 J63 AK7542, If you use some Scanian-type convention where opener is supposed to show a worthless doubleton, you give too much information to the defense. A 16-18 NT does the job because that hand wouldn't open 1N, but so does any two-point notrump range, since now there is no need for invitational sequences based on strength. A Puppet structure then enables responder to show his pattern - or at least a 6322 with clubs - and opener to stay off 3N. For instance 1N 2C (puppet) 2D? 2H some shortness 2S balanced puppet with no slam interest 2N balanced slam relay asking for pattern and for controls 3C 5422 with 5c 3D 6322 with a six-card minor 3H,3S,3N 5422 with 5d The above structure works better with a common major doubleton if responder hasn't a six-card minor 1N 2C 2D? 2S (yes, responder has to play spades) 2N? 3C 4h (3D? 3H 4s, 3S 3s, 3N 2s) 3D 4s (3H? 3S 3h, 3N 2h) 3H 3h 2s 3S 3s 2h 3N 3s 3h and 5-2 in the minors, since you would have answered 3NT with 4333 (This also permits to play a 5-3 fit without disclosing opener's five-card major.) Back to Deal 4. 1N 2C 2D? 3D 3H? 3S (clubs) 4C (NF) 5C Not a great auction, but opener retreats from notrump since either opponents have nine hearts or he can ruff a heart. A full relay system could show a 2=2=3=6, or, as in the match, that opponents have hearts, but there are probably better candidates than those 6322s for your codified auctions when you have to untangle the invitational hands over 1N. Yes, you give opportunities for lead-directing doubles, but are they more profitable to the defense than to declarer? I don't know.

2S, purely based on distribution. I want partner to raise to three with three cards and to four with four cards. I'll bid 3D if possible. What is there about vulnerability that says that I should do something outlandish? It may still be our hand.

That hand would open 2C in Polish club or for some Precision players and 2C here runs less chance of ending the auction than would a 2C opening. 1N is slightly wrong on pattern and nearly wrong on strength. 1S might turn out very right or quite wrong. Hence the votes of my jury: 2C: 100 1N: 90 (not Raptor) 1S: 80 Pass: 30 2H: 20 double: 10 (argh!)

I completely agree that you cannot treat a five-carder without another five-card suit as a six-carder. One looks nearly like a psychic, while the other begs for a raise. I believe that most systems use 2C and 2D for hands which do not occur often enough (cases in point: the six-card 2C Moscito opening, the Precision 2D, the Flannery 2D, the awful French strong-but-not-a-game-force 2C, also the Majeure d'Abord 2C and 2D, which not only are strong but deny four spades - as they should since 1C shows four spades in that system and is forcing). But while I am always amazed when I read the World Championshio books by the number of five-and-five two-suiters which are not opened, particularly by the Open teams, I feel strongly that a five-and-five is kind of a bona fide preempt, and that opening it with a Muiderberg or an Ekren is insufficient. In other terms, if I were to play Paul Marston's two-bids, I would open these hands 2D and not 2H or 2S. Which is why I have touted in another thread - "two possibilities or seven possibilities" - a constructive weak 2C opening which may be either a six-card major or a five-card major with another five-card suit.

Hand 1 suggests that Frellings are neither winning or losing bids per se, and that you consume three valuable bids to no avail. (But they sure are fun!) Hand 2 would have been even better against me, because I like to jump to 3N with a source of tricks against multi-type bids. (And perhaps 2N should be a transfer to clubs.) On Hand 3, you forced a decision on your opponents, and you probably should stand for it. Still, surely double shows an envy to bid one more.

a) There are three bids I hate, loathe and despise. They are the amorphous Pass, the amorphous strong 1C, and the amorphous strong 2C. So, yes, I always open that hand, preferably with 3C. You may sometimes go for a number with the five-card two-bid or the six-card three-bid, but the six-card three-bid seldom puts you in the wrong partial. (Anyway, you are dealt more often six cards than seven, and more often 7-10 HCP than 0-3 HCP, so I believe 3C and 3D should show good weak-two-bids, with perhaps a seventh card.) :) For the same reason I open 2S, or 1S if my partner strongly prefers it. c) No, I open 1N which expresses my overall strength and gives more value to that king of hearts. But now I double because I do not see nine tricks at notrump, (Not vul, I might try 3N because it could be a good defense vs. 3H making.) d) I would try 4N. Partner rates to have some bits, and LHO might well have six lousy spades with a side four or five-card suit, so there is a fighting chance to score that queen of spades even if LHO does not lead the suit. (Mike Lawrence explains in Hand Evaluation that a bad suit is more reevaluated by a raise than a good suit.) On the other hand, they may just run five diamonds. e) 4C, since I would redouble with real clubs. But it's your system, so maybe I am mistaken. (Does 2N show a one-suiter?) f) Double. Penalty, but with transferable values. Opener may bid with six-five or a void in spades. Please keep posting your quizzes. Our mistakes are usually more interesting than our right answers, and we may always curse partner or system anyway :-).

With your latter hand, it is enough to know that opener has also a doubleton spade to stay out of slam. With a 3433 of 11 H, responder has no ruffing value, and shouldn't even try for slam. Slam is on with Ax AKQxx KQx Qxx, opposite xx(x) Txxx Axx AKx(x), and there might even be a grand with clubs 3-3, but it is a perfecto. True, slam is also good with Ax AKxxx KQx QJx, opposite xx Txxx Axx AKxx Here, responder's second four-card suit overcomes the lack of ruffing value. The wrong doubleton is better than no doubleton at all. And with xxx Txxx Ax AKxx opposite 2533? Ax AKQxx KQJ xxxx doesn't do the job. But if opener has Ax AKQxx Kxx Qxx, slam is on, with no need for the jack of clubs to discard a spade. Now knowing about size, distribution and controls is not enough. German Moscito would do better (I don't know whether it would unearth the right jack for a small slam). Still, half knowledge is better than no knowledge, and only half knowledge can be implemented when you do not play a full relay system.

On a very personal and possibly defamatory Polish Club in tonight's version: 1C (clubs or bal, not 16-17) 1D (no 5CM, not 4h without 4s if 5-10) 1N (bal, 18-21) 2C (bal, 7+) 2H (20-21) 2N (slam relay) 3D (4h without 4d) 3H (relay) 4H (2533) 4S (asks for controls) 4N (6 controls - or less...) 6H Some remarks: A four-point range 1N rebid is more constructive than a two-point range 1N opening. That hand seems worth a 2N opening in Standard. Maybe the first step over the control ask for the 20-21 range should show only five controls (and four for 18-19, and three for 16-17...). I know much more than in Standard, and much less than in a full relay system.

1. Love all: pass - ? A J98xxx QJ10x Jx playing undisciplined weak 2's would you open this hand in 2nd pos, non vuln? if pass then comes: pass-pass-pass-1Sp (from partner playing 2/1) pass - ? now? 1NT (semi forcing or forcing?) or 2 He ? Playing disciplined weak 2's I would open this hand with two hearts in 2nd pos at IMPS at adverse vulnerability, so I probably should open three, but I will open only two. (Which is why I don't like the five-card weak two bid, unless with a five-five when you don't play Wilkosz.) I do believe that shape far outweighs honor location, and that it is not a close decision at all. If I mistakenly pass, I answer two hearts now, but I've misdescribed my hand. 2. Love all 2Di* - pass - 2He* - ? Opps bids asf: 2Di was multi (weak 2 in Major only), 2He was pass or correct x AK109xx AQJxx x propose your simple or "scientific" bids :-) Pass followed by four diamonds should be OK. If opener passes two hearts with spades, I can't do much about it, but how is he to know that his partner hasn't a decent hand and that the deal doesn't belong to them in three or four spades? If responder now bids four spades, four notrump shows hearts and a minor, because there is one who has spades, and the other who seems to support spades but not hearts (yes, he could have muddled the waters with a weak hand and support for both majors). 3. game all 1Sp:2Cl 2Sp: ? (2Sp showing abt min strength 11-bad15, still 5+ cards) AQ10x KQx x QJ10xx Playing 2/1 with enough gadgets 1.a. do you agree with 2Cl and what now? 1.b. other bids different from 2cl? I would have preferred three diamonds, splinter or minisplinter if I played it. Failing that, even four diamonds seems better than two clubs (I want partner to reevaluate a singleton club because I have four trumps. I don't need club tricks.). Besides, how do I show diamond shortness if partner rebids two diamonds? (Well, maybe three spades now describes that type of hand.) Still, over a limited two spades, four spades is probably enough. Opener needs four of the five missing key cards, because he won't bid slam with three key cards and club shortness, and we are more at risk to go down than to bid and make six.