mikestar

I don't care to preempt with this one--too much chance that some random club holding in partner's hand can promote my ♣Q to a second defensive trick. Trading the ♣T for a small spade could tip my decision the other way--it's that close IMO, in which case I'd try 3♠. No way will I open a seven carder with a weak two at these colors.

The 6♥ auction is plain weird--hell of a way to end up in a contract that couldn't make on an answered prayer. A reasonably sensible North calls 3NT and then accepts a 4♥ signoff. The 1♠-float auction actually makes some sense if the partnership doesn't have a natural 1NT overcall available.

The Q♣ is waste paper, but a stiff in opener's suit is fine. So I pretend I have ♠xxx ♥AKxxx ♦Axxx ♣x. For me a two level overcall should be Rule of 20 with 2 quick tricks and a three level overcall should be a queen stronger. This hand is Rule of 20 with an extra quick trick and a proven stiff--these are at least equivalent to the needed queen. Passing 3♥ on partner's hand seems automatic given these minimums.

For openers, fast arrival by an unlimited hand opposite an unlimited hand really and truly sucks--the jump to game should only show a minimum in those sequences where the bidder having a minimum effectively precludes slam. The classic example in the days before transfers: 1NT-4♥ "I'll take a shot at game, drop dead!" while 1NT-3♥-3NT-4♥ showed slam interest. Here FA makes sense--not in the unlimited auction given here. But given you play it in this sequence: 1) South should open 1NT if system permits, then North finds the ♥ fit and drives to slam. 2) North on finding South with extra values can't accept a signoff and should move toward slam--I'd try 5♦ which will focus on the ♣ situation. 3) South shouldn't have signed off--while given that North may be weaker he shouldn't Blackwood, he should take another bid. I might try 5♣. But the best solution to this is not Serious/Frivolous NT--here 3NT may well be a contract correction. Italian style control showing works well for this type of hand. North's 4♦ would show a ♦ control, perhaps second round, and deny a ♣ control. So any bid other than 4♥ by South promises a ♣ control--here south bids 4♠ and North Blackwoods.

I pass here, too much danger of a misfit. I don't fancy the possibility of 3♦X. I play weak jump shifts over limited openings, so I would have chosen 3♦ initially rather than 1NT. I wouldn't have passed this hand back in the days when I required 8 HCP or the distributional equivalent to respond on a misfit.

4♦ seems best to me, and I can see some merit in jumping to 5♦. 3NT is not likely to be right on this auction--if partner has spades stopped and a hand that is good for NT why didn't he bid 3NT himself? So if 3NT is out of the picture, why bother with 3♠ when your diamond support is the best feature of your hand? If I had started with 3♠, I would definitely follow up with 5♦ if partner doesn't bid 3NT--but this doesn't emphasize the diamond support as well as a direct raise.

To me, 2♠ is a no brainer here--make the J♥ a small card and I have a rule of 20 opener with all honors in my suits. This would be be a clear 2♥ over a 1♠ opening if my majors were swapped.

I voted 3♥ originally, but I am coming to think X would have been better at IMP. A nasty close decision--this hand could be a textbook example of why preempting pays. I think 3♥ would still be the best of a bad lot vs. NV opps at MP, while X is a standout vs. V opps at MP.

I can think of several 1) The perceived good of the game. 2) The perceived good of the regulating authority. 3) Competitive advantage--let's say I personally prefer FP but think my nation's team in the Bermuda Bowl would have a better shot if HUM's were banned... (not saying this is rational, but certainly possible for someone to believe). ... As an aside, I've known quite a few people who will perpetrate atrocities for altruistic reasons that they wouldn't do for selfish reasons. Isn't it possible that this is descriptive of some few individuals involved in system regulations?

So your opponents never intervene? :rolleyes: No offense but this doesn't make sense at all. Why can't your preferred methods be defensive ones? I mean, in our club we used to encounter a lot of precision pairs. We loved them to open 1♣... Seems to me that it's just easier to bid without opposition (because it's also easier to cover every possible scenario), and that's the reason why you prefer opps to be silent. For the record, if you want to play FP against me, bring it. What you gain on the other openings, you may well lose back on the fert and the pass. Also for the record, 2/1 is not my preferred system--I am trying to emulate the mindset of a very fair number of club players I know. However, the purely emotional point about playing against FP is my own and is not the same as wanting to play with no intervention. Playing Precision, partner opens 1♣, I tend to be pleasantly surprised when 3♠ or the like doesn't hit the table before I speak. Coping with intervention is part of the game--an enjoyable one. My point was, I dislike having to play defense 85% of the time (or whatever the correct number is). By "defense" I mean "they open, we intervene", not "we open, they intervene". I have never once asserted that my personal preferences should be a basis for systems policy or any other bridge regulation. However, we all know players who would legislate their preferences if they could--and they can, as witness the ACBL, WBF, etc.

Is it possible that there is a real difference between FP and other highly unusual methods? I think Rozenkranz is on the right track when he calls these systems "dominant": the FP pair dominates the form the auction will take far more often than with non-FP systems. Let's say we are a 2/1 partnership up against (A) a precision pair or (;) a FP pair. We deal and dealer has an opening bid: against either, we are bidding 2/1, not defending Precision/FP. We deal and dealer passes: against Precision, we will be defending Precision if the Precision player opens--if he passes, dealer's partner has a chance to open and we are bidding 2/1 if he does. But if dealer passes against the PF pair, we will always be defending FP --second hand will always open a regular opening, a fert, or a strong pass. Similarly if they deal, we may get to bid 2/1 if the Precison dealer passes, but we are always defending FP. So in 2/1 vs. Precision, we are playing our system about half the time and defending their system half the time--but vs. FP we only get to play our system if we deal and dealer has an opening bid. Emotionally, I find the latter circumstance quite less satisfying than the former--I will enjoy the game less if I can use my preferred methods much less than half the time. I suspect this is true for many players. I am not arguing for or against any particular system regulations. I am putting forth a hypothesis as to why FP seems to generate more controversy than other unusual methods which may be actually harder to defend against. Thoughts?

I hadn't thought of that. However, "exotic" NT defenses have been General Convention Chart legal in the ACBL ever since there has been a GCC, provided that calls higher than 2♣ promise a known suit. In some areas (notably Southern California), it is routine for tournament organizers to amend the conditions of contest to "General Convention Chart plus any No Trump defense". So while not routine like Jacoby, a decent US pair should not be shocked by a transfer overcall. Of course if the US pair were beginners to duplicate, they might have been honestly surprised, though their accusation of unethical behavior was in itself unethical.

It would take a longer suit than this to be too strong for 3NT but not enough defense for 2♣. Personally, I would use 4NT in this sequence to show a hand similar to 3NT but too strong (say 10.5 tricks). Why jump into Blackwood when you have so much room to investigate. This requires partnership agreement and absent such agreement, a hand like 5 KQ4 AKQJ1062 AQ needs to open 2♣ in spite of only 4.5 quick tricks, not because you will miss game opening 1♦ (this hand has no prayer of game opposite a zero count or even the ♠K), but because there is no way to indicate the slam prospects without opening 2♣.

This US pair was running a scam. Six years ago (and for that matter at least 15-20 years ago) Jacoby transfers were standard practice among good club players all over North America and virtually everyone who didn't play them had encountered them frequently. Just prior to the change in the ACBL alert procedure which initiated announcements of transfers and other items, a revision was seriously considered that would require an alert of 2♦ and 2♥ if they weren't transfers. (Ultimately defeated as it seemed too weird to many players to alert 2♦/2♥ natural.) So don't be too hard on your director, America doesn't play differently than NZ on this point. Some Americans unfortunately validate the "ugly American" stereotype--I say this as natural born US citizen, lest any of my countrymen think they are being libeled by "some foreigner".

4♣ is a standout at these colors, and I like 5♣ better than a lower preempt. It makes no sense to worry about 3NT making our way--partner would need the equivalent of 3 aces including ♣A.

2NT seems the best of a bad lot. I have some sympathy for an initial pass on this crud--the 4 eight spots are nice but only the ♣8 is really likely to be useful. No aces, diamonds have no body, poor length in majors. You won't miss many games passing this. I think weak notrumpers will do best here--you open 1NT and partner has a good idea what you have and you may even avoid the 2♥ overcall as opponent likely doesn't have sufficient constructive value. If he stretches and overcalls 3♥, you can leave partner's negative double in.

3♣ is clear cut to me. It will be the best partial more often than not and will get us to 3NT when it is right more often than 2NT: partner will bid it with extras and a club fit, but will pass with a stiff club even when very strong.

1) I'd bid 4♥, then decline any invitation. With no waste in clubs, we could have a slam if partner is on the high end in HCP or has a void. 2) Here you need a void. A perfecto like Kxx AQxx Kxxxx x or similar might only make 11 tricks. The rare hand where I would sign off with no waste. Give me the Q♥ instead of a low one, and 4♦ seems obvious to me. 3) Pass. While slam is possible if partner has no club waste, there is no five-level safety if he does. In addition, no call you can make pinpoints the club stiff. Also, since partner does not have a splinter, spades may be a problem. Slam is too unlikely to risk the five level. 4) 4♥. You have one useful card opposite a heart-club two-suiter (Q♣). If that was enough, partner should have bid 5♣. As to your second question, I don't think it shows extras per se, just a hand that wasn't suitable for 4♥. By the way, I like 4♥ direct over 3♣--you want hearts to be trump and slam is just about out of the question. The requirement for 4♥ should be similar to those for 2♣-2♦-2♥-4♥ when not playing Kokish: good trump support but no first or second round control in any side suit. (9xxx is a bit of a stretch, but the club values compensate in the actual sequence).

Definitely worth an immediate raise to 2♠. Most good players in North America would do this after receiving a 1♠ response to a 1♦ opening which is commonly only a four-card suit. It is a no-brainer after a 1♦ overcall receives a 1♠ advance, which normally shows a five-card or longer suit.

Could you expand on that explanation, please? Glad to. The #1 thing that can go wrong by making the limit raise is that partner bids 4♥ off one. The #2 thing is that partner passes and 3♥ is down one. Neither of these contingencies are affected by the system choice. However, two other possible sources of loss are #3 partner Blackwoods and bids slam finding out you have two aces and goes off one or two, and #4 partner makes a slam try and doesn't respect your 4♥ signoff, getting to 5♥ down one. Now neither of these are at all likely to occur in a big club system--there are no hands strong enough to go past game opposite a limit raise which don't have the 16/17 HCP or extreme distribution needed to open 1♣. This being the case, in 2/1 you have 4 ways to lose, but in Precision or other big club systems you have only 2, as the slam related cases don't happen. The one way to win is the same in any system--getting to a making 4♥ that you won't reach after a single raise. The single raise is probably the better choice by a slight margin even in the big club case, but your odds are better than in the 2/1 case.

For me, this hand is worth its nominal 10 points including distribution. While the aces are a major plus, the isolated jack and the total lack of body in the long suits are sufficiently negative to cancel this. Whether or not this is a limit raise depends on how light your partnership opens and how aggressively you accept limit raises. Another point--conservatism has an edge playing 2/1 because partner might go slamming. The limit raise is safer in a big club system, where a hand strong enough to go slamming after a limit raise will start with 1♣.

This is a good system with some differences from what I'm trying out. As for reinventing the wheel, if there's anything wrong with that, why do we have a Non-Natural System Discussion?

The 1♥ Opening 1♥ is always unbalanced or semibalanced, so NT rebids can be used artificially. 1♠=Artificial 1 round force, less than 4 spades (Kaplan Interchange). ...1NT=4♠, either 5+♥ or 3 suited with short minor. ...2♣=5-4 or better either way or 1=4=4=4. ...2♦=5-4 or better either way. ...2♥=6+♥. ...2♠=4♠. 5+♥, strong. ...2NT=6+ good ♥, strong, good for NT. ...3♣=5-5 or better, strong. ...3♦=5-5 or better, strong. ...3♥=6+ good hearts. 1NT=4+♠, 1 round force. ...2♣=5-4 or better either way or 1=4=4=4. ...2♦=5-4 or better either way. ...2♥=6+♥. ...2♠=3+♠ support. ...2NT=exactly 3♠, strong. ...3♣=5-5 or better, strong, <3♠. ...3♦=5-5 or better, strong, <3♠. ...3♥=6+ good hearts, <3♠. ...3♠=4+♠, strong. ...3NT=4+♠, very strong, minor suit stiff. ...4♣=4+♠, very strong, ♣ void. ...4♦=4+♠, very strong, ♦ void. 2♣=5+♣, game force unless 3♣ rebid after 2 level rebid. ...2♦=5-4 or better either way, or 4=4=4=1. ...2♥=5+♥. ...2♠=4♠, 5+♥. ...2NT=only 4 ♥, minimum. ...3♣=3+♣, game force. ...3♦=5-5 or better, strong. ...3♥=Semisolid or solid ♥, game force. ...3♠=♣ support, ♠ splinter. ...3NT=to play, minimum. ...4♣=♣ support, slam interest. ...4♦=♣ support, ♦ splinter. ...4♥=very long ♥, minimum. To be continued...

X is reasonable if and only if it is your intent to bid 3♣ over 2♥. Remember the general definition of a takeout double: 3 card or better support for every unbid suit OR, substantial extra values (too good to bid a new suit immediately) intending to bid your own suit. You had the second type but bid as if you had the first type. I've been known to cheat on the distribution for type 1's to the extend of doubling with two cards in an unbid minor, but never in a major.

The 1♦ Opening continued 1NT=about 6-9, no game opposite 15-17 balanced. ...2♣=5-4 either way in minors or 4=1=4=4. ...2♦=6+♦. ...2♥=4-6 in ♥ and ♦, strong. ...2♠=4-5 or longer in ♠ and ♦, strong. ...2NT=6+♦, majors stopped, strong. ...3♣=5-5 or better minors, strong. ...3♦=6+♦, at least one major unstopped, strong. 2♣=10+, usually 5+♣, no 4CM. ...2♦=<15, unbalanced. ...2♥=15+, unbalanced, ♥ stop. ...2♠=15+, unbalanced, ♠ stop. ...2NT=15-17 balanced. ...3♣=15+, ♣ support. ...3♦=15+, 6+♦, at least one major unstopped. ...3♥=15+, ♣ support, ♥ stiff. ...3♠=15+, ♣ support, ♠ stiff. ...3NT=15+, 6+♦, both majors stopped. 2♦=10+, 4+♦ ...2♥=unbalanced, ♥ stop. ...2♠=unbalanced, ♠ stop. ...2NT=15-17 balanced. ...3♣=15+, minors. ...3♦=<15, unbalanced. ...3♥=15+, ♥ stiff. ...3♠=15+, ♠ stiff. ...3NT=15+, 6+♦, both majors stopped. 2♥=weak jump shift. 2♠=weak jump shift. 2NT=13-15 or 19+ balanced. Forcing to game. 3♣=weak jump shift. 3♦=weak raise, 5♦ with stiff or 6♦. 3♥=♦ support, ♥ stiff. 3♠=♦ support, ♠ stiff. 3NT=16-18 balanced. To be continued...