foobar

A possible auction starting with our strong ♣: 1♣....1♥ (16+; 4+♠,~5-10 HCPs) 1N....2♥ (Bal, not GF; transfer) 2♠...3♦ (Accepting transfer; Natural GF showing 5+) 3N....4♦ (Suggesting contract; Natural) 4♥....5♣ (Presumably cue; cue) 6♦

1♣ (1)....1♠ (2) 2♣ (3)....2♦ (4) 2♥ (3)...3♣ (5) 3♦ (3)...3♥ (6) 3♠ (7)....4♣ (8) 4♦ (9)...4♠ (10) 6♠ 1: 16+ any 2: Balanced without 4♠ OR 5+♦ 3: Relay 4: Balanced hand 5: 4-4 minors 6: 3=2=4=4 7: QP ask (A=3, K=2, Q=1) 8: 3 QPs; at this point we know holding must be KQ♥ / KQ♣ or A♦ 9: Parity Scan 10: Odd ♦ honour parity; A♦ and nothing else per force Note that we could have found out the J♦ before reaching 6♠ as well, but shooting for 7 seems rather excessive on this hand.

Suspect most people will need more data, including: N-S system (ostensibly natural), NT range Form of scoring Any other known inferences

Pass for me, too flat and only 14.

Actually, a better way to see it might be to see the first step as a compressed QP ask. As a corollary, there shouldn't be an option to stop on a dime, especially the compressed ask, i.e, a change that goes along with it is that the second step should a terminator in the more classic sense of the term. 3H-Compressed QP ask 3S-Terminator 3N-RKC H 4C-RKC S 4D-RKC C 4H-RKC D Note that another possibility is that use of the terminator when a compressed ask is available can be used to indicate that the relay captain is at the bottom end of the QP range and / or the hands don't mesh well. On marginal hands, the slave hand may use it as a hint on deciding whether to super accept.

+1...given responder can cue, X or blast to game, there's sufficient ammo to argue for NF.

Regarding forgets, the operational word here seems to be occasional. IMO, while system forgets might be a function of complexity in a casual partnership, it shouldn't be the sole reason for a serious one to avoid it. Note that this assumes that the system itself isn't downright mnemonically ludicrous.

+1, though there's something to said about the tradeoffs between memory load and the (subjectively) optimal complex system.

♥ for me, with ♠ a second choice. Depending on the opponents' tendencies, dummy's likely hands are: 1) Balanced with ~12-14 or so 2) A weaker distributional hand that would have bid 4♠ in a standard system

I would add an item for "needs more analysis" (though one can argue whether it's even worthwhile). 1) The sample size is way to small to draw any meaningful conclusions 2) On the hand in question, there's really no need for the relay captain to be so gung ho given the uninspiring shape and likely possibility of a total of 16-18 QPs combined 3) Adam (awm) evaluates stiff Ks as 2 (and possibly stiff Qs as well), so this is hardly a cut and dry matter 4) Counting stiff Aces as 2 has ramifications on the "super accept" hands with base+3 QPs. Should the evaluation be any different for those hands? 5) Honours are perforce more likely to be in longer suits

1♠ given the partnership parameters.

Sounds ominous...should I be quaking in my boots when opening a strong ♣ against you :P?

[hv=pc=n&s=saq2haqj32dcakj32&n=skj83h854d64ct974&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2c5dpp5hppp]266|200[/hv] Thanks for the responses. The auction shown here happened at the other table. At our table, South opened 1♣ (16+), West jumped to 5♦, North passed (ostensibly showing 0-5, but undiscussed at this level), South choose X (takeout, after considering 5N) and we defended 5♦-X for -300. Both 6♣ / 6♥ come home on the layout, but luckily we lost only 9 since they stopped in game.

Couple of follow-ups: 1) Justin, do you prefer some other agreement over such high level interference playing standard? What do you in in a similar situation in your strong ♣ partnerships (say over 1♣ - (5♦)? 2) WellSpyder, as a matter of fact, I do play strong ♣ most of the time and find your comment rather intriguing. Can you please elaborate? IME, we rarely encounter such situations (or such strong hands for the matter).

IMPs, red vs. white, you deal and choose to open with your strong opening (sorry am going to force this on you). [hv=pc=n&s=saq2haqj32dcakj32&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2c(Strong)5dp(weakish, but no specific agreement)p]133|200[/hv] You are up...

Hmpf...and my K♣ scores a 5 and the "lazy trump lead" scores a 6 :P?

K♣ for me.

P: 0%, 1♣: 0%, 3♣: 95%, 1N: 4.5%, Other: 0.5%

Folks, Sorry for the last minute change, but something came up and I need to drop. Sorry for the inconvenience...

My personal conjecture is that NFBs work better with limited openings, but then again, that's been my area of primary experience. Over 1D - (2C), you can potentially use transfers (say 2♦ = ♥ and 2♥ = ♠ and 2♠ = LR+ in ♦), but it the cost is inability to bid 2♦ TP (and memory load). Over 1♣ - (2♦), my recommendation would be 2♥ / 2♠ as NFBs, with X catering to some GF hands balanced with 5M and 3♥ / 3♠ for hands that don't want to risk an initial X.

My take on the above is that it simply isn't worth catering to all possibilities. For example, a purported natural bid could be a psyche; the opponents may not be sure of their own methods; the call could be natural or exclusionary (think psycho-suction), or some combination thereof. My strong preference would be to keep things simple, i.e., use only three meta-rules: 1) The cheapest NT bid is natural and GF. Subsequent rebid of their suit is natural and ostensibly exposes a psyche 2) X over a natural overcall is takeout oriented. Over any kind of junk bid, X sets up a GF with no clear direction (PDI applies) 3) 2-level bids are transfers, but there's never a transfer to a suit that we couldn't have bid naturally at the 2-level over their interference. If they claim to have more than one suit, simply ignore the over call In other words, show what you have and don't care about what they claim to have.

My inclination would be count. In the Vanderbilt, there were some pairs (including Meckwell IIRC), who give standard count at T1 in this specific situation. We can leave such sophistication to the pros, but IMO, it isn't worth spending too much cycles thinking about hands that can be set only by a 2 vs. 4 count that must be determined at T1.

My guess is to pass an lead a ♠ (but a ♥ could very well be right).

Requiring 6♥ for XYZ after 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ doesn't seem very playable. Basically, responder will be forced to bid 2N on several hands with 5♥ and we could very easily miss our ♥ fit when opener holds a typical balanced hand with 43(42). IMP uses fairly natural continuations after the forced 2♦ rebid and 3♥ shows 6.

Seems interesting -- note that the preference for reverse Flannery is out of familiarity and isn't backed up by any real analysis. If frequency of WJS is more (and it likely is), it's perfectly fine to use that instead. This scheme seems to try and hedge the bets and it might be interesting to see how 2♥ WJS compares with 2♥ as rev Flannery. Probably a simulation might yield some data...