cwiggins

The book can now be ordered through through at least these three sites: * Baron Barclay www.baronbarclay.com (item 5077 $17.95 plus shipping and handling) * Mike Lawerence's site: Mike Lawrence order page * From the site Lawrence and Wirgren have set up about the book: www.newbridgelaw.com (click "Order our book") As of January 12, Amazon did not have it for sale.

I can empathize: I also play with a partner who wants to use control responses rather than suit bids followed by asking bids. A few suggestions and questions. First, you might want to eliminate the semi-positive to further simplify things. That way you don't have to worry about which sequences are forcing and which are not. The Blue Club as currently documented by Franco and Pancotti eliminates the semi-positive. Second, if you keep the semi-positive, you might want to swap the 1D and 1H responses, i.e. 1D = 6+ HCP with 0-2 C and 1H = 0-5 HCP. Hamman and Wolfe did this for years, and it's nice to have the extra room when you have the semi-positive. Third, if you use control showing responses, do you use Keycard Blackwood? Do you use it only when the control responses are ambiguous (0-2 or 5+)? You might want to look at the Italians' Turbo cue bidding. Fourth, after suit agreement, do you want to use asking bids then? Fifth, more than controls are important: 3 or 4 controls bare are far different from 3 or 4 controls inside of 12 HCP. Moscito uses Ace=3, King=2, and Queen=1 to separate hand strength. This approach is related to the Ultimate Club whose responses shows both controls and AKQ points and to Romex which puts 3 or 4 controls with less than three cover cards (two queens) in with 0-2 controls. You need to figure out how to define what are extras and how to show those during the auction. For example, if you agree to use the principle of fast arrival, then what constitutes extras? One queen? Three jacks? Two queens? One queen and shortness? I'm sure there are other things to consider. I just can't remember them now.

Shape can be shown different ways. Precision uses longest suit first. What about those schemes that show 4+ long majors before longer minors in some or all cases? Moscito shows 4+ long suits in ascending order, regardless of which is longest, and uses relays to sort the length issue out. MAFIA bids any 4+ major before a longer minor but, unlike Moscito, with both majors bids the longest first regardless of rank with 5+ in the longest major. If you elect to show shape first and are not permitted to use relay systems (translation: subject to ACBL GCC), does it make sense to use either of those approaches that show a 4CM ahead of a 5-card minor? A third alternative might be a canape style. Here is a quick stab at that: Initial responses: 1M = 4+ long (if 4, unbalanced) 1NT = balanced 2m = 3+ minor (usually 4+ unless 5M332); may be canape major if strong 2M, 3m = 1-suited, 12+ 2NT = 2-suited in minors, 8-11 After 1C-2C, 2D = relay and then: 2M = 5+ in bid major, 12+ HCP 2NT = Good 5-card clubs suit, 12+ 3C = 1-suited, 8-11 3D = clubs + diamonds, 12+ 3M,3NT = SPL, 1-suited in clubs, 12+ After 1C-2D, the scheme would be similar except that 2NT = diamond-heart canape with 12+. This scheme of 2m responses is taken straight from Blue Club 2000.

I had the same question. Per an email from Larry Cohen, umjuno is where 1D-2H = 5 spades + 4 hearts less than invitational and 1D-2S = 5 spades + 4 hearts invitational.

Not really. The notes in their convention card for 2003 (see Hamway 2003 Monaco) have a few pages on how they handle competition after a 1♣ opening but nothing more on their sequences after the positive responses.

Does anyone have any experience using MAFIA responses to a nebulous (2+) 1♦ opening in Precision? I am trying to play Precision under ACBL GCC rules. See ACBL Convention Chart. Also, I would like to be as “natural” as possible and allow stopping at 2m. Wei’s 30+ year old “Bidding Precisely 2” advocated MAFIA responses to 1♦ but didn’t call them that: 1M = 4+ long 1NT = 7-10 HCP balanced, no 4CM 2m = 4+ long, 10+ HCP, no 4CM Jump shifts (2M, 3♣) = One suited, slammish 2NT = 16+ HCP, balanced, no 4CM 3NT = good 12 – 15 HCP, balanced, no 4CM Presumably, I would add 3♦ = inverted, weak 3M = shortness in the bid M, at least 5-4 in the minors Also, per suggestions from the Blue Club, 2M and 3♣ might be just a GF hand. Responder’s rebids are “natural”. The only surprise is that a “fourth suit” is forcing only if it is a reverse or at the three level. Responder’s rebid of 2m was strictly canapé; with a 5CM and a 4-5 card minor, responder would rebid 2M. Based on some simulations, I changed this so (1) opener will rebid 1NT with a singleton in responder’s major and 543 otherwise and (2) responder bids 2 of the 4+ minor. This is similar to what Blue Club does. For example: 1♦ 1M 1NT 2m = 5-4 either way in M and m, at most invitational. Over 2m, opener should take another bid with a fit and a maximum. The side effect of MAFIA responses is that opener’s distribution is not clear in sequences such as 1♦ 1M 1NT 3m = forcing and “natural” Responder could be 5M332, 5M4xx, or 4M and 5+ in bid minor. I do not know whether this ambiguity is a problem “in the real world,” which is why I am looking for any experience bidding this way. If the problem needs to be fixed, do canape responses into the longer major fix this problem? 1♦ 2♣ 2♦ 2M would show 4 clubs and 5+ in bid M (might be 3 clubs only if 5332). As a result, 1♦ 1M 1NT 3m shows a 4CM and a longer minor. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Per the snippet below from http://www.bridgematters.com/rodwell.htm , Rodwell has a lower limit on his overcalls than most U.S. experts. BridgeMatters: . . . [M]aking an overcall, one group believes that the overcall should be wide ranging—showing your shape first—while other people believe that at a certain upper range you should start by doubling, in a sense showing your points first, then show your shape later. Where do you sit on this? Eric Rodwell: I don’t think it is practical to be overcalling 1S on 20 high, for instance. There has to be some sort of upper limit at which you start by doubling and then bidding your suit. Now, traditionally, we have been more aggressive on doing this than a lot of other players but we backed off on . . . hands that can’t handle certain major suit responses. For instance, if I’m a 1-5-3-4, I will be overcalling 1H more often over 1D than I would with a 3-5-1-4. BridgeMatters: If you do double more, aren’t you worried about the opponents aggressively bouncing the bidding, leaving you pickled about unwinding the bidding later? Eric Rodwell: I have to feel that my hand is good enough. For example, if I have a 3-5-1-4 and they open 1D in front of me, with most 16 counts I will just be overcalling 1H. With 17, I would want to start with double generally though most other experts would have a slightly higher standard for that. With a 1-5-3-4, I want to overcall 1H with 17 and probably start doubling with 18. BridgeMatters: What is the advantage of having a lower upper range for overcalls than what experts play at the moment? Eric Rodwell: The thing is, when it comes to using points as a guide in any situation, unless both hands are balanced, it is going to lead to some very incorrect conclusions. I have doubled instead of bidding my suit on hands with less than 16 if they are good distributional hands, especially if they have long spades, for instance. BridgeMatters: What is the advantage of limiting the playing value of your overcall? Eric Rodwell: The thing is, most everybody overcalls with light hands that are well below opening bid strength at the one level. So there is substantial risk in responding 1NT with 6 or 7 points. And responder could have had a penalty double of the overcall. You need to be passing the overcall with nondescript hands that have up to a poor 8. If you think you are running a significant risk of missing a game opposite those hands, you need to be bidding more aggressively by starting with a double. But a lot of hands with 16 high can’t make game opposite hands that can’t answer the overcall. It’s like the decision to open 2C in standard—how likely are you miss a game opposite a nondescript hand with less than 6 points that wouldn’t respond? That depends on your playing strength, your distribution, and all that. To a lesser extent, it is how easy the hand is to bid. Let’s say I have a 1-4-3-5 20 count—I am more inclined to open that hand 1C than a 5-4-3-1 20 count, where I more inclined to open 2C.

This approach (separation by HCP) is a variant of what Hamman and Soloway do. Their 1♣ is 17+ HCP. If there is no interference, the responses are: 1♦ = 0-7 HCP 1♥ = 8-11 HCP any shape 1♠ = 12+ without 5+ hearts or 5+ in a minor 1NT = 12+ with 5+ hearts 2m = 12+ with 5+ in bid minor 2♥ = 8-11 HCP, 4441 any Higher responses show solid suits, broken suits, etc. Over interference, they attempt to separate 8-11 HCP hands from 12+ HCP. I.e. with game only hands (absent an exceptional fit), announce the strength not shape. With 12+ HCP (i.e. slam is in the air with a fit or only a little more HCP from opener or responder), start showing shape. Sort of.

Yes there is. For cards used at world championships and the European championships, try http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/docde...onvention+Cards Berkowitz-Cohen have posted their current convetion card on Larry Cohen's site (www.larryco.com) at http://www.larryco.com/files/2003convcard.pdf

If interference bids over a Swedish 1♣ and a Precision ♣ occurred with the same frequency and if the interference bids meant the same thing, I would agree. But are these two conditions true? Over a Precision 1♣, opponents should assume that the opener's side has the predominance of points and should strive for as much obstruction as quickly and as highly as possible. Flimsy overcalls or jump overcalls (e.g. 2♠ holding J10xxxx/x/xxxx/xx) are entirely reasonable. CRASH, WONDER, etc. bids that rob room may well be rational in this situation. But over a Swedish 1♣, some substantial percentage of the time (40-60% depending on ranges), 1♣ is the weak balanced hand. Opponents may hold the majority of the points or even game. Rationally, opponents must preserve their ability to bid constructively, which means it does not make good sense to make many of the nonsense bids that are apporpriate if your only concern is obstruction. If opponents use these strategies, then : (1) Interference occurs fewer times over a Swedish 1♣ than a Precision 1♣ (when an interference bid occurs over a Swedish 1♣, it will occur over a Precision 1♣. But not vice versa.) (2) When interference occurs over a Swedish 1♣, the interference bid has more meaning which offsets in part that you must factor in that the opener has 11-13 HCP. Example: Consider 1♣-2♠. After a Swedish 1♣, the 2♠ is probably s pretty standard weak jump overcall, maybe KQJxxx/x/xxx/xxx. But over a Precision 1♣, it could be not only that but xxxxxx/x/xx/xxxx as well as anything in between. OTOH, when you have 11-13 HCP, opponents are more likely to have a constructive overcall or double than when you hold 16+ HCP. It would be interesting to calculate the loss from interference by comparing hands from a tournament where both the Swedish and Precision apporaches have been used.

Are you asking: "what system of responses is best, regardless whether it is legal to play it?" Or are you asking: "what system of responses is best under the following convention regulations?" The reason for the question: I think that the method Luis describes would be allowed under the superchart only. The ACBL superchart permits a "non-destructive convention, treatment, or method". The method Luis describes meets that critirea. It might be permitted under the midchart as a "constructive ... response" but that rule can be used only if a defense has been approved. Has one? If not, the the method described by Luis is not permitted in the midchart. The method described by Luis does not seem permissible under the General Convention Chart.

So in strong club sequences, you always invert the meanings of pass and double? This matches what Berkowitz-Cohen seem to do: see Berkowitz-Cohen Convention Card 2003 which says "pass/double inversion" without qualification. On the other hand, Hamman-Soloway's system notes say that they play "Pass/double inversion in forcing high-level (3H+) situations." See Hamman-Soloway 2003 Bermuda Bowol Card

Question 1: In the following sequences, is a double for penalty or takeout? Question 2: If it is for takeout, at what level would it be for penalty? Auction 1: 1♣ (P) 1NT (2♠) where 1NT = 8-13 HCP balanced Auction 2: 1♣ (P) 1♠ (2♦) where 1S = 8+ HCP and 5+ long. I looked in several Precision books, ("Precision in the 90s," "Precision Today," the old Precision books, "Power Precision") and could not find anything for either of these sequences. In Auction 2, it feels that a double should be for penalty: presumably RHO has bid your secondary, or maybe even your primary, suit. The double might also be on a balanced hand with the right vulnerability conditions: perhaps white versus red and you hold something like: ♠xx ♥AQX ♦AQxx ♣KQxx But Auction 1 doesn't feel as clear. For example, you would really like to make a negative double holding: ♠x ♥AQxx ♦Kxx ♣AKxxx Also, many persons have switched to playing negative doubles after 1NT-(2♠). Does the same logic apply here?

Do you have any more details on Klinger's current system? Not exactly on point, but Hamman and Soloway play that 1♣-1♥ is 8-11 HCP any distribution except 4441, and 1♣-1♠ is 12+ HCP any shape other than with 5+ hearts, clubs, or diamonds (so 5+ spades, balanced, or 4441). Over these responses, they manage to guess the strain well enough to compete in world championships. This suggest that a limited undefined positive is playable at the highest levels.

I read this article, but i am guessing those guys are polish and knowing one polish guy , i cant tell you they arent objective, the guy i know think everything in poland is better , especially the women. This is what I would expect, that they would think Polish is better. Given that natural predisposition, I found it interesting that Kowalski thought that Polish and Precision are close. I also found interestig what Bitner said: "Every bidding system is effective provided it is based on logical premises and handles some 80% distributions (hands) to be faced with in the course of bidding." Wouldn't most modern bidding systems meet that criteria? I.e. persons you would expect to say Polish is a better system were not clear cut on that point. I included the other experts for completeness. I find little value in unsupported statements that "x is better" whether x is Polish, Precision, 2/1, Moscito, etc.

I found the following at http://www.ipipan.waw.pl/~amat/Polish_Club/ankieta.htm Kowalski echoes some of the comments in this thread that Polish and Precision are close. What is your opinion about the effectiveness of Polish Club comparing with other general bidding systems (Standard American, Precision, Canape, different Italian Clubs and Diamonds)? Apolinary Kowalski In my opinion Polish Club is superior in this respect to above mentioned foreign bidding systems except perhaps Precision. However Precision is more vulnerable to interventions, than Polish Club is. Krzysztof Martens The main criterion to evaluate the bidding system is how it fulfills certain postulates of the natural bidding. In the modern bridge high culture of the bidding (especially while fighting) is much more important that a bit better or bit worse construction of the basic system. Julian Klukowski I am quite certain that Polish Club is more effective than any other foreign system known to me. Stanislaw Bitner I think the question is ill defined. Every bidding system is effective provided it is based on logical premises and handles some 80% distributions (hands) to be faced with in the course of bidding. If two partners achieved perfect understanding they can successfully compete with the pair playing any other system but lacking such understanding.

I guess Fred's answer is an authoritative answer for what Gitelman does? :) Thanks for taking the time to reply!

In his "Improving 2 over 1" series of articles, Gitelman describes major suit raises at 3M and below which save 2NT as natural. What does he play or recommend above 3M? Some systems use 3M+1 for 10-12 HCP SPL undisclosed and higher bids for 13-15 HCP splinters. Other systems fold the 13-15 HCP splinters into the strong raise and use bids for balanced hands (or the "good" 1M-4M raise). Thanks for any help you can provide.

What Ron suggests would get my vote: it's what I played for several years even though my 2/1 was not GF. Note that playing this way means that 1NT must be 100% forcing, not semi-forcing. The good news is that this leads to gains two other ways. First, after 1M-1NT; 2x 2M, opponents frequently have a problem. If responder has a doubleton, he probably has at least 8 or 9 HCP (otherwise he would have passed originally). So when responder has this hand type and opponents balance, my partner and I sometimes find matchpoint doubles that other tables can't. But if responder has four card support (or three with distribution) for opener's major, the 1NT forcing could be almost any thirteen cards and not balancing may give away at least a part score and occasionally a game. The opponent in balancing seat may have a non-easy decision, which means they'll get it wrong sometimes. The second gain comes when opponents decide to jump in with marginal hands after 1M-1NT. If responder holds the balanced GF hand, a very cold bottom for the opponents may well be in the offing. I have a won a number of matchpoints and IMPs from this also. If you do not want to do follow Ron's suggestion but want to stick with the two apporaches you mention, I would vote for approach 1 (2m shows 4+). Both approaches are playable. Berkowitz-Cohen use approach 1 (at least according to their convention card for Salt Lake City Olympics). Meckwell play 2C like your approach 2. But while approach 1 is well documented by both Lawrence and Hardy, documentation of approach 2 is rare. For something about as good as you're going to get, you could look at http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...wtopic=1409&hl=. (Note that the posting from Inquiry on November 11, 2003 has a reference to a previous thread about the same topic.) This description is not as complete as I would want. Even if it were complete, nowhere does it discuss how to adjust the responses if you are bidding inside a big club system. Given the absence of good, complete documentation for approach 2 inside a big club system, I would lean towards approach 1. One more choice other than the two you offer: you might want to take a look at Hamman-Soloway's card for the 2003 Bermuda Bowl. Their methods are laid out fairly completely in their notes. http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...20+%20notes.pdf. Their 2♣ shows: "forcing to game (natural or 2/3 clubs), natural and invitational, or any three-card limit raise." Their responses cover the other situations you mention in your note. While Hamman-Soloway's 1H may be 4-cards, their responses seem playable as is with 5-card majors (or with trivial tweaks). Chris

My reaction was not because I wanted to see unusual systems (I agree with drawing lines in pairs events) but because I was expecting to see the most intense competition possible between the world’s best pairs. Clearly that is not happening. Many of the best pairs are not participating. Nor is the competition as sharp as could be. Some of the world class pairs are using unfamilar methods, a natural disadvantage, especially when other pairs are using their normal methods. Fred is in a much better position than I am to know why that the best pairs are not participating. I read his earlier note saying that the root cause why the best pairs do not participate is that players have to purchase 10% of their auction price. It makes sense. But even if the best pairs were participating, the competition would not be as instense as possible because of where the Cavendish draws the line on conventions. I suspect Fred is correct that Rodwell and Meckstorth would play SAYC in an event if the money were right. But is R-M playing Bocci-Duboin and both of them playing SAYC maximizing the competition between them? Wouldn’t an SAYC competition be susceptible to bidding accidents because they are not using their normal systems? And doesn’t the strain of using an unfamiliar bidding system detract from the energy they have to spend on play and defense? If I understand Fred correctly, this is irrelevant: I am (or was) expecting the wrong thing. The purpose of the Cavendish is not to be yet another competition between the best pairs under World Championship rules with the only difference being that money is at stake. Per Fred, the purpose is to market bridge to social players and attract sponsors as a result. In addition, the assumption is that social players are put off by exotic bidding systems. Other considerations (like letting pairs play their normal systems) are secondary to these goals and this assumption. Fair enough. Given this purpose and assumption, I will adjust my expectations. No longer will I expect the Cavendish to be a premier pair event without qualification. Instead, I will expect it to be a strong pair event participated in by the pairs that can (1) get past the money issue and (2) bid and play well with conventions much more restricted than they are in the World Championships. Will the Cavendish achieve its goal of attracting social players and sponsors? I hope so. Something needs to help, especially in the U.S. I suspect that the money aspect gives the Cavendish appeal. I would love to see data from the target audience that tells whether they prefer seeing players use their usual systems or seeing only “standard” conventions. One possibility is that the Cavendish will fail to achieve its goals regardless what is done about making pairs eligible on merit alone or using more restrictive, less restrictive or the same restrictions on conventions. I.e it is possible that bridge will never be widely popular no matter what is done. How will bridge survive if that turns out to be the case? What do we need to do now? Using the internet to aggregate bridge players into a large enough audience to survive is probably part of the answer. I.e. BBO (and similar organizations) may be more important to bridge long term than the Cavendish. Are there other things bridge players should do? As for being seriously out of touch with reality, I talked to my psychiatrist, and he said I should just ignore such comments, at least until they’re not true. :( No offense taken. Hopefully none given. Chris Wiggins P.S. Good luck to Fred in the event.

When making your bets, you might want to factor in the conditions of the contest, which prohibit such exotic things as a multi 2D, weak two bids showing two suits, one of which is unknown, and transfers to opening bids. See http://www.thecavendish.com/2003/COCpairs.html paragraph 11. I was very surprised to find this out last night when watching the teams competition on Vugraph. What this means is that many of the leading pairs in the world (Meckwell and Bocci-Duboin come to mind right away) would have to substantially or completely overhaul their systems to play in the event, which explains why they are not playing in it. Under these rules, Sontag and Weichesel could not play the system that they won the Cavendish with! Wouldn't you like to see at least a chance that Hamman-Soloway would play Versace-Lauria on the last round for all the money? For me, this means that the Cavendish has lost much of its bloom. From now on, I will think of it as a tournament whose rules prohibit the best pairs playing against each other at their peak capability, rules that prohibit the same level of competition that you would see in world championships. I.e. the Cavendish may have lots of money, but having prohibited so many of the best pairs, it's an event with second tier competition.

I agree that what version of 2/1 needs to be specified for a complete comparison. I was thinking that some characteristics are true of many/all 2/1 and could be used for a basis for comparison, similar to the comparison that you can make to Precision since every flavor of Precision has 1C as a big hand. The comments here persuade me otherwise. However, the comments here did make me think of one more possible argument of "why PC rather than 2/1" that takes into account the flavors of 2/1. It is this. 2/1 systems have had a difficult time of bidding 16, 17, and 18 HCP hands. Go all the way back to a comment Goldman made in "Aces Scientific." While conventions are available to help in 2/1 (e.g. Gazilli), completely addressing the problem can be very complex (see Ambra). PC makes it simpler to bid these ranges of hands accurately while opening up to some possibility of preemption.

In several threads, I've seen comments to the effect that the Polish Club is better than Precision and that it is better than 2/1. I am inclined to agree, but I would like to be able to provide compelling reasons clearly and succinctly. Precision seems easy. 1) No crazy competition after 1♣ strong 2) 1M hands with 16-17 HCP are better off in Polish than Precision, especially if a Precision 1♣ gets a 1♦ response. 3) A 1♦ that promises diamonds 4) 2♦ is available for preempts These add up to a pretty good case. Are there others? I am having a harder time coming up with an explanation for Polish compared to 2/1. It doesn't seem to be the 18-21 HCP hands. I used Borel to generate 30 hands with 18-21 HCP, and then bid them with both 2/1 and Polish. I found little diffference. I'm trying again on a different set of 30 hands. But maybe I'm missing something. It doesn't seem to be that 1♦ promises four in Polish. In 2/1, I have always treated 1♦ as promising four and have not, to my recollection, got burnt. For the most part, hands with 18-20 HCP and balanced are handled better in Polish. Offsetting that, competition over 1♣ can make some Polish auctions difficult. What am I missing or have wrong? Thanks for your help. Chris

Recently I finished going through Mike Lawrence's CD on 2/1 bidding. After 1M (Dbl) Lawrence recommends that 2NT be Jordan, a limit (or limit plus) with 4-card support. With 3-card support, he recommends that Responder start with a redouble and then support Opener at Responder's next bid. If the opening bid is in a minor, Lawrence recommends against 2NT being Jordan. Presumably Responder starts with a redouble. These agreements seem mostly okay. The only danger I can see is if the auction goes 1♥ (X) XX (2♠) P (3♠) Responder won't have had a chance to show support, which might make Opener feel very different about what to bid. If the auction starts with 1m, it would seem Responder is liklier to encounter awkwardness because of both the inability to show real raises directly (raises are preemptive) and the greater likeliehood that opponents have a fit in a suit higher ranking than the minor that Opener has. After 1M (simple overcall), Lawrence recommends that the cue bid show 4+ card support and limit+ values. With 3-card support, you might start with a negative double and then support, or you might relax the 4-card restriction. The methods after an overcall don't feel comfortable. After 1M, it seems right to have a way to raise with 3-card support directly. My questions are: (1) Are these methods standard in North America? (2) Are there better methods than this for separating 3- and 4-card support after the overcall? Hopefully ones that won't severely tax memory? Thanks for any help you can provide. Chris

What competitive methods did you use with your nebulous 1D? After overcalls, with a combination of negative free bids and negative doubles, I have rarely gotten bad results. The bad ones were caused by opponents preemptive raise when I had the high power negative double--which is why I am looking for a transfer scheme. I don't understand what you mean when you say you "averaged 35 Matchpoints and -1 imps." Presumably the -1 IMP means that you lost an average of 1 IMP per hand. But what does "averaged 35 matchpoints" mean? That you averaged 35% of the available matchpoints? Something else? Thanks. Chris