DinDIP

Suggestions welcome. My partner has the idea that we should move to TFR responses to our (better minor) 1C opening but he's not got the time to do the work to play something complex. That being the case, and given that you play a weak NT and 5+M, what would you play 1C-1R-accept as? Options include : 1. Exactly 3-card support, so all raises promise 4 and other bids show 0-2M. This is obviously useful but also reveals a lot of information to the opps. (This is something that is an increasing concern of mine now.) Not sure which side gains more from the information; I suspect we do but I'm still worried about making the defence's life easier. 2. BAL 15-20 so that 1N shows min UNBAL hands short in the M and 2N is a strong raise (could be 63xy or GF BAL with 4-card support or . . . ) This requires some additional memory load to rightside NT contracts. 3. Denies 3-card support. (I don't think this is sensible as it grossly underutilises O's other calls if they promise exactly three-card support.) 4. Difficult to bid hands, so all other bids are pure (1N is always BAL, 2C is always 6, reverses are always 5+4+, raises are always 4-card support). 5. (Roy Hughes' suggestion in his book Building a Bidding System) a hand with 5+C, <3M, <4S (so that 2C can be used to show a hand worth a 2N rebid) I'm leaning towards option 4, mainly because it requires the least adjustment to what we do elsewhere, but do you think there's something better -- including options I've not listed? David

My once or twice a year partner or teammate (shevek) suggested many years ago, when others were learning our symmetric system, that the rule should be QP + shortages (in both hands, counting 3-2-1). I thought that was a bit much when we only had an eight-card fit so did a little bit of testing -- not much I hasten to add (because I don't use the guideline) -- and the results seemed to work. But I can't emphasise strongly enough that more practice is the best recommendation. David

SST could be helpful but you need to invert it. Simpler is to use something like this: Investigate slam (i.e. move into DCB) if QP + shortness is >=21 For shortness count if an 8-card fit: each void = 2 and each singleton = 1 if a 9-card fit: first void = 3, first singleton = 2, first doubleton = 1, second void = 2, second singleton = 1 if a 10+card fit: first and second void = 3, first and singleton = 2, first and second doubleton = 1 Note: shortages in both hands are counted but not when they are opposite one another (i.e. if you have a singleton opposite a doubleton and a 9+card fit you only count for the singleton). Obviously this is only a guide: if you have an 8-card fit but a solid side suit then you should count void = 3 and singleton = 2. And if you have hands that fit well -- partner's singleton is opposite your three small -- then count more (3 in that case as you know the partnership has no wasted K or Q opposite partner's singleton). Most importantly, this should only be used when you are starting to relay. With experience you'll find that rules/guides like this are of little (if any) value: I've been relaying for nearly 30 years -- on and off -- and never use this or any other guide. Instead, I just use a simple test: If I locate partner's QP in the most favourable places is slam solid? If it is, can I find out that partner has that hand by the five level or, more accurately, can I stop at a safe level if partner doesn't have that hand? This is where it gets a little tricky: if there is only one honour permutation that makes slam worth bidding, how likely is that permutation? That's difficult to judge -- it helps to look at the relative frequency of the different honour permutations when the hand opposite has 15/16+. (I.e. if partner has 6QP how often is that AA, KKK, AKQ, KKQQ, AQQQ and KQQQQ.) But that is onlya general guide: the exact frequencies are affected by the specific honours the relayer holds. In general, however, honour combinations with lots of one honour are less frequent than ones with some of all honours. So, if partner shows 9QP and slam is only good if he has three aces then be wary of DCBing unless it is clear that you can stop safely. (Note that in most DCB methods partner will bypass more steps with more honours so you need to be very wary if you're looking him to hold AAA rather than AKKQQ.) Try this in practice: using the earlier example of 8 QPs and 3-4-4-2 opposite AQxxx x KQx AQJx. (Much better to have described the UNBAL hand but . . . ) Here Kxx Qxxx Axxx Kx is a great slam even with a wasted HQ so you should be thinking of investigating. But whenever partner has the HK you know slam is poor (at best a finesse and a 3-2 break, unless partner turns up with the SJ, when it's still at best a finesse). And it's also the case that partner is more likely to have the HK than the SK or CK. So, unless your methods allow you to distinguish between partner's different honour holdings in H then I'd be conservative and sign off in game. Which is exactly why this hand shouldn't have relayed when it discovered partner was BAL; rather, it should have shown its shape or, at least, its shortness and S length. The best thing to do is practise a lot: you don't even need partner. Just get old hand records or bulletins from major tournaments and bid all the hands. (I try to bid at least 500 -- of all types, not just slam hands -- before playing in any serious tournament.) David

This treatment, which I borrowed from Bo-Yin Yang and then foisted on Nick and others, caters well for GI hands. Note that the Lebensohl-like treatment of hands with a longer minor means that the Asptronaut bids his suits when stronger -- so that when advancer then bids 3N with a GI the NT opener is on lead. The price for this is that: 1) you will sometimes get too high when advancer has a bust (though responder will frequently double or bid when this is the case); and 2) 2N is no longer available to show a three-suited hand with the anchored M and both minors. Both of these are minor in my view, and clearly outweighed by the ability to: 1) make sensible GI sequences (including right-siding 3N contracts when the Asptronaut is max); 2) bid 2N as a relay rather than 3m/3C with (rare) GF hands -- that extra step (or two) can be most helpful (depending on how much memory load one is prepared to carry, it's possible to show shortness as well as relative lengths); and 3) bid 3m/3C as a NAT GI hand. In particular, 1) is a big winner in my testing: if 2N is NAT GI over 2C but can be 4=1=4=4/4=2=(43)/4=2=(52)/4=1=(53) then the Asptronaut usually has to pass with 5M4m. If that's the case, what does advancer do with GI values and 3=3=4=3 or similar? Can't bid 2D as could easily miss a game when partner is max; can't bid 2N as you'll play 2N when you have a 5-3 H fit; and not strong enough for 3m if that's GF. (And, if it's just GI, do we have to play 4m or 3N when we have no 5-3 M fit?) It seems to me this treatment of advances is clearly best. David

It is obviously harder to determine teller's honour combination from just the response (showing some given number of relay points) because, unless that number is very small, there are many more permutations that are possible than for a comparable number of AK21 controls. But there are ways to reduce that number of permutations significantly: a cheap way of doing so is to have teller show his (non-singleton) king parity* before entering into DCB. One could do as the Swedes did (still do?): stop with even and zoom with odd. Better, however, is to stop with even when holding 2, 3, 6, 9, 12 or 15 RP and stop with odd with other holdings. This is easy to remember (stop with even when 2 or a multiple of 3) and much closer to the actual frequency. (Of course, the parity answer should also depend on how many RP asker has but I don't now of a system that can show that.) I've done a lot of testing that shows that this method is better than not asking for king parity or asking for ace (or queen) parity; it's still not clear to me whether this is the best method of honour-showing/DCB. (Matt Ginsberg tells me it is clearly not for a computer program but we're interested in what humans can remember at the table.) David *This assumes that you wisely count a kingleton as 1RP not 2; again, extensive testing shows this to be much better.

Playing in a serious event with a good partner who occasionally does unusual things you encounter this auction, one that has probably never been seen before in the history of bridge. What has partner got and what do you do? All vul 52 K8643 K83 632 2S* P 2N* P 3C* 3N P ? 2S = 5+S and 5+m, 5-11HCP 2N = asks for minor, better hand than a direct 3C (pass or correct) 3C = min with C David

Rob's point is a very strong one (and what most pairs are doing when they can play such an opening) which is why I think it is foolish to have a defence to 2D Ekrens that is significantly different from the one you would use versus 2H Ekrens. But, if the opponents do play the inferior (in your opinion) 2♦ = majors, don't you want to have the superior defense available? As a player, I would imagine having different generic defenses based upon whether the suit opened is one of the suits shown. In Australia, are you allowed to refer to written defenses at the table (for certain methods). I imagine the considerations would be different if defenses had to be memorized rather than being available for reference. Tim and Andy (Gnasher) both ask a fair question: why not take advantage when the opponents use an inferior method to enhance our defence? The answer is that we do but not by having a different approach. So, when they open 2D Ekrens we gain the option of a NAT 2H overcall that was not available when they opened 2H. Is that the best use of the extra space and the fact they haven't bid one of the suits they have? Probably not but our philosophy is to distinguish between openings (or other calls) that show one or more suits and those that don't. When they promise one or more suits, our X is takeout of that suit (those suits), irrespective of whether or not they have bid them. This applies when they open NAMYATS, make a TFR response to 1/2NT (or 1C or some other opening), make a Qraise, whatever. We know this isn't optimal: for example, when the auction goes 1S P 4D [swiss: BAL raise, 16-18HCP] we'd probably be better off playing X as a lead-directing call but our "meta-agreement" (as some might call it) is that X of their suit is always takeout if we are yet to enter the auction. Tim's suggestion of having different generic defences based on whether or not they bid a suit they have is one way to differentiate between such conventions but not the criterion we use. When they don't promise a suit then we use different methods, but they depend on whether the opening is like a multi 2D (essentially one of two long suits), Myxo (weak in the next suit [say H] or weak in the next two suits [s+C] or strong in the bid suit [D] or . . . ), RCO (two-suiter, rank, colour, odd) or amorphous (things like Wilkosz [2D = weak two-suiter with at least one M]). Only for the latter do we use X as showing values, so methods based on doubling 2D Ekrens (but not 2H Ekrens) to show values would be out of kilter with our overall approach. And, as Tim perceptively asked, one reason for this is that we are not allowed notes at the table (unless the opponents are playing a Yellow system [=HUM in WTO-speak]). Accordingly, our emphasis is on effective, easy to remember, familiar methods. And that's important: last week at Melbourne's leading club there were pairs playing 2H Ekrens, 2D Ekrens, 2C Ekrens or GF, 2C weak D or GF, 2D Multi, 2D Wilkosz, RCO two-suiters (2H = rank, 2S = colour, 2N = other), Muiderberg, Fantunes, Moscito with 1-level TFR openings, 2D = 4+D and 4+S, 2S = 4+S and 4+C, 2N = C+D (boring!), Polish Club, 3N as NAMYATS in either M, 3N as any solid suit, TFR responses to 1C, TFR responses to 1M and (in some ways hardest of all to defend against) 2D/2H/2S openings showing a singleton in the suit below and less than an opening hand. We didn't play against them all last week (and we won't ever play against Wilkosz as we're the only users) but we will play many of them over the coming three weeks (unless they're sitting in our direction) so we need to be able to cope with them all in an event with four-board rounds with only a pre-alert (if required). (I should add, especially for US readers, that many of the users are what would normally be described as LOLs, ordinary club players. They are happy to play these things; they are happy to defend when others play them. They don't always do so optimally but then they don't play the cards or bid them optimally either.) David

Rob's point is a very strong one (and what most pairs are doing when they can play such an opening) which is why I think it is foolish to have a defence to 2D Ekrens that is significantly different from the one you would use versus 2H Ekrens. And, if your purpose is to put together a defence to 2D that the ACBL might find acceptable then I think you'd be doing everyone a great service if the same defence -- with mnor adjustments -- could also be used against 2H. (I don't have any expectations that it will change their policy to ban anything that might frighten the horses but I think it makes it harder to justify their position intellectually.) What does that mean in practice? While it's possible to play X of 2H as a weak notrump or some strong hand, or as a BALish hand with strong notrump or better values (so that 2N is used for takeout), I think such approaches are fraught for two reasons: 1. They are unfamiliar and so the partnership needs to discuss and agree how many hearts Xer promises (might it be a doubleton? if so, does it promise an honour) and how many advancer needs to pass for penalties. Whatever combination you select, some possibly lucrative penalties will escape. And unfamiliar methods always impose some strain when they arise. 2. If advancer cannot pass, he needs a five-card to be able to bid safely, as Xer does not promise support for any other suit. What does he he do if he can't pass yet has no suit to bid safely? Partnerships need to discuss how they will scramble in such auctions. These problems are magnified if the X might be a weak notrump as now advancer needs something like 9/10+HCP as well to be able to pass the double safely. Takeout doubles, on the other hand, are both familiar and make advancer's actions easier (because Xer promises support for all unbid suits). Consequently, our approach is to use essentially the same defence, based on the following principles: A. We double for takeout of the suit(s) they have shown B. We can bid their suit NAT if it is a M && if they might have only four cards. (Once they promise 5+cards in a suit we can no longer bid that suit naturally.) Thus, over 2H Ekrens we play X takeout of H, might be strong BALish or offshape (Leb, with S bids NAT, 3H = Q) 2S NAT (2N F, NS NF) 2N 15-17/18 (as over 2N opening) 3m NAT (3M stopper) 3H NAT (3S = Q) 3S NAT, too good for 2S 3N NAT, running tricks type of hand (X first with big BAL) 4m leaping Michaels, promising H+m when their suit unknown or equally likely 4N C+D, usually 65/66 P then X of S is takeout with a good hand (like a direct X of 2S) and Lebensohl applies (as game is still possible) Over 2D Ekrens we play essentially the same, except that 2H is NAT (just like 2S over 2H). Is this optimal? Clearly not: it's hard for 2nd to show a min opening bid with 55 in the minors; and we can miss out when both 2nd and 4th have a weak notrump but neither can X for takeout. But it is consistent with what we do over all such openings. And our experience is that having general principles that we always use, together with familiar methods, is way, way more effective than trying to ascertain the optimal defence for the many different gadgets that the opponents play and then trying to remember them all. David (who plays in Australia where many things are permitted)

There were very different views expressed about the meaning of the second double when this auction arose at the table: 2H X 3C P P X where 2H is weak, the first double is takeout and 3C is natural, non-forcing. Would your answer be different if 1. the opening were at a different level (say a 1H opening followed by a non-forcing 3C)? 2. the response were at a different level as well (say a 1H opening followed by a non-forcing 2C response)? 3. your partnership agreement were that advancer's (i.e. the partner of the doubler's) X of a new suit were takeout? And, extra question for those who do play that the second double in auctions like 1H X 1S X is takeout: 4. Is advancer's X takeout only when the response is forcing? David

When I can, I get partners to defend as though they opened a weak NT but take advantage of the fact that we can act at the one level to include more hands, especially in our ASPTRO calls: P = weak or a hand that would have made a pen X of a weak NT X/1D = ASPTRO, 9-15 or so, could be 4432 1M = 5+, 9-15 or so (Now 1N is F1 and NS NF) 1N = C+D or GF 2-suiter 2m = 6+, 9-15 (NS and 2N F1) 2M+ = weak We make a few adjustments from our normal defence to notrumps: we are happy to X with 4=4=x=y so play that a 1S rebid over advancer's 1D initially shows just 4S (but could be a min 5=4=x=y). With 5=4=x=y or 5=5=x=y and extras we rebid 2S. And we play that a 1N rebid after X or 1D shows some 4432 or 4441 hand; now advancer's 2C is a scramble (as advancer would have bid 2C directly with a long suit). After passing, 2nd hand doubles O's 1M/1N rebid (if this shows a weak NT) to show a pen X of 1N without shortage in the bid suit. With a good hand short in the bid suit he bids another suit or 1N (takeout). David

In KS (Kaplan-Sheinwold) opener's jump rebid in his opening suit is GF except after a 1N response. With GI hands O reverses into strength (not always length). This is a long-established method, used successfully in major North American and world championships for many years. It's not so popular now but there remains a core of adherants. (If you're interested in KS as a system then join the KS discussion group on Google.) David

David Morgan did analysis that suggested ignoring stiff queens and counting kingletons as 1 SP, so we go with that. Of course you miss slams with stiff Q opp AKJxxx Some system designers (such as Bo-Yin Yang in Terrorist Moscito) argue that all stiff honours should be demoted one rank, i.e. counting a stiff A as 2 AKQP, kingleton as 1 AKQP and stiff Q as 0 AKQP. My testing of this showed that, while this was reasonable when measuring the trick-taking potential of the honours, it was inaccurate when measuring their utility as controls (which is what we are considering in DCB). Too many slams were missed when R assumed that RR had a non-singleton king rather than a stiff ace. DCB resolved some of those ambiguities but, too often, it was too dangerous to investigate. And, yes, one does miss slams with stiff Q opposite a good suit but something has to give. On shevek's original question of whether or not to scan singletons: I'm uncertain. My testing suggests it is necessary much less often if you use some parity scan before DCB (such as stopping with an even number of non-singleton kings and zooming with an odd number) that enables R to reduce, often significantly, the number of permutations of honours RR might have. Without such a scan, my testing suggests scanning is worthwhile but my data is limited here. David

In my partnerships 4N is for takeout over their 4M and, when bid over their 4S, specifically promises hearts. To understand why, consider what action responder should take if 4N could be either clubs with shorter diamonds or shorter hearts. With a shape like 3=6=2=2 responder clearly wants to bid 5H if O has H but 5C if O has C and D. As 5H would be a disaster if O has C and D, per force, responder must choose between the minors, thus never reaching 5H even when it is best. The only way to resolve this is to agree that 4N promises specific suits. For general application, it is best to agree that it promises the highest-ranking unbid suit (see below). There is a price for such an agreement: when you hold C and D and can't bid 4N because it promises H you are forced to guess. P? 5C? 5D? 5N? None are satisfactory. Note that the same argument applies to autions like (4S) 4N This is commonly played as any two-suiter but it is much better to agree that it promises the highest-ranking unbid suit (i.e. H). Again, consider advancer's 3=6=2=2. If O might have C and D then you must guess a minor. If he has H and the minor you choose then you play in your 5-2 fit instead of your 5-6 fit! Personally, I consider this argument overwhelmingly persuasive but not everyone agrees: I note that Meckwell, as well as many other top-line pairs, still play (4S) 4N as showing any two-suiter. Note that this agreement can be extended to other NT bids that are used as takeout: many good players wisely treat 2N in auctions like (1S) 2C (2S) P (P) 2N as takeout. Again, it makes sense for it to show one red suit. For consistency and because game in hearts is possible (albeit uncommon once partner has passed) whereas game in diamonds is very unlikely, it makes sense for it to show H. David

Even among those who favour an aces-first approach it is common to treat a K in partner's suit as an A: if partner has the other top honour partner will know what you have; if partner lacks both top honours, the K will provide the necessary control. This style usually works best by (1) continuing to treat 4N as RKC (or 4K as Kickback) -- some partnerships play that asking for KCs is no longer possible after (1)2 or more Qs -- and (2) agreeing that responses to the KC ask include KCs already shown by Qbidding (in contrast to those partnerships that deduct already shown aces from their KC response). Such a style would have helped enormously here as O would know if responder had the HK or not. It's not all beer and skittles: if O had a hand where he needed to know about the SA but was unable to use a KC ask then knowing that responder has the HK may not be so useful (although, in this auction, it's very difficult to construct such a hand). (One answer to that problem is to agree that a return to trumps -- in this case 5C -- asks for control of the bypassed suit. What to do, however, when O needs not just that control but other useful values as well? Qbidding can be difficult.) David (David Morgan)

How best to make use of the available bidding space when not relaying is an insufficiently explored area, IMO. However, it is clear that failing to provide alternatives to relaying is wrong. Over a response showing a BAL hand it is clearly right for O to break rather than relay with shapely hands lacking substantial extra strength (in my experience this means less than 21 or 22 HCP or the equivalent in playing strength). This is because it is the BAL hand that can tell how well the hands fit: whether the SPL is opposite KQx or xxx. Ideally O should be able to show two-suiters as well (i.e. by showing the long suits rather than just the SPL); however, space considerations often mean there are no sequences available for this purpose. When the response shows an UNB hand it is not clear, IMO, how best to make use of the space. I think the emphasis should be on hand types that are often ineffective when relaying. I think this set includes most hands with voids (relaying is OK if very strong) [TWF -- The Way Forward --, a Cambridge symmetric variant from the 90s, had an interesting idea for handling such shapes]; two-suiters; and minimum misfits. There is also something to be said for a special asking bid for freak hands which only need to know if partner has a couple (rarely more) of specific cards [while it has many other flaws, Viking Club is surprisingly good with a number of these]. It can also often be good to be able to show rather than ask with minimum hands with support and a singleton [though it can be hard to tell in advance which hands fall into this category; often it’s easier to see afterwards that, on a particular deal, O should have described instead of relaying]. Even if it were agreed that these were the right hand types to be breaking the chain with, there are still a number of issues to be resolved. These include: * memory load (the principal reason Nick, Nicoleta and I play chain breaks as analogous to similar bids after the comparable one-level opening is that there is no additional memory load); * maximum strengths (how strong should two-suiters and hands with voids be before they ask rather than tell?); and * the number of cards required for a support-showing bid. (With one partner I played that support-showing breaks promised a 9+card fit so the partnership had some certainty there was not a longer outside fit. However, that meant relaying with some hands that were not well suited to doing so.) There is also a linkage between initial and later breaks: for example, if you play that later breaks show support and shortage then there is less danger with an initial relay. However, there are other considerations: for example, if you play that a 1H response to 1C shows S then this will mean that the hand that will declare a S contract is now describing itself. David (David Morgan)

As, alas, happens virtually every time HUMs and weak opening systems are discussed, there is lots of heat and not nearly as much light. A few thoughts from someone who, as Fred would say, has spent too much of his time on such systems to become as good a player as he could have, but who still derives enormous pleasure from bidding theory: Destructive vs constructive methods Jan Martel (it’s good to have people in such positions as hers participating in discussions like this) argued that “Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them.” (Digression: In Australia there has been a heated debate this year about whether exhibited photos of a nude, pubescent, teenage girl are art or pornography.) I think that reflects a bias about how one should play “a good game of bridge”. A key reason for bidding on 8-12HCP hands – the core of weak opening systems [not the fert as some misguidedly suggest] – is that it helps to make it more difficult for the opponents to find their best contract. This has long been recognised (and set out in print at least since S.J. Simon’s masterful Design for Bidding of 1949) as another way to achieve the objective of all serious bridge players: beating absolute par. (Short explanation: absolute par is the least worst score that can be achieved by both sides on any board. If the NS par is 4S making four and the EW par is 4H making four then absolute par is EW playing 5HX, one down. NS cannot do better by bidding 5S and going down; EW cannot do better by letting NS play in 4S, making, or even in a S partscore, depending on vulnerability.) Absolute par can be beaten either by reaching our best contract or by preventing the opponents from reaching their best contract. That is why almost all systems include elements of both approaches in their design, for example preemptive three-level and higher openings. (But not all systems: S Garton Churchill, an American theorist whose praises are not sufficiently sung, abjured most preempts until late in his life, I understand.) Some go further, for example, opening light in third seat or making weak jump overcalls or jump raises when the opponents open or weak jump-shifts or raises after partner opens. Neither the bridge scoring table nor the rules of bridge place a premium on one method beating absolute par over the other. So, to claim that so-called constructive bidding (aiming to reach our best contract) is intrinsically better than so-called destructive bidding (aiming to disrupt the opponents from reaching their best contract) is a non-bridge judgement. However, it is a widely held view and has been a critical factor influencing regulators. Why are some things prohibited? Jan also wrote “Forcing pass is barred because to play a forcing pass, you have to play some fert and ferts just cannot be defined adequately and therefore aren't allowed.” Ferts can be clearly defined: when I play one we explain it to the opponents as “0-7HCP, excludes hands suitable for openings of 2M+, might be bad 8HCP BAL, excludes shapely 7 HCP hands with good suits or good controls”. What that does not do is provide the opponents with the familiar things they are used to having as a basis for defensive bidding (a known suit or, after a natural notrump opening, sufficient high cards in opener’s hand so as to make bidding game or slam by the non-notrumpers relatively unlikely). If that’s what regulators mean then let them be explicit as to the reason for the decision. Impossible to devise defences? Jan also wrote “The other major thing that is disallowed is a weak bid that might or might not contain length in the suit opened. That type of method is impossible to develop a defense to, so it is explicitly barred.” Here in Australia lots of LOLs use such methods (e.g. 2H/2S/2N as 55 two suiters rank-colour-odd) and defend against them regularly. I agree that there is no really good defence but the same is true of lots of bids that take away space. (Simple example: I’m happy to compete on shape alone over their strong NT but I do so knowing that it makes it very difficult for us to bid games with much confidence if my 2S bid can be Qxxxxx x Qxxx xx or two aces stronger.) What is harder to defend against is 2H showing a weak two in hearts or in spades (or analogous openings) but, again, a reasonable defence is available: assume they have the suit they bid. Is having a defence to unusual bidding an integral part of the game? If you accept that it is legitimate to take away the opponents’ bidding space as a way to do well then you need to be prepared when the opponents do that to you. Example: until Bergen raises were devised and used widely no-one needed to devise a defence to (1S) P (3C) because it was natural and strong. Now that it shows a weak hand with S support methods are needed: is X showing clubs or takeout of spades? Generic (or meta) defences help to make situations like this easy: our agreement is that X is takeout of the suit they have shown. Yes, generic defences are not always optimal – it might be sensible to play X as lead-directing if their auction is GF – but generic defences that are easy to remember and apply make it possible to play against virtually anything and be satisfactorily equipped. Note that generic defences to the cards the opponents play is considered an essential element of being a good declarer or defender. For example, if you want to encourage a continuation as declarer then you play high if they are using natural signals and low if reverse. Just as such plays become easier – natural even – the more often you make them, so unusual bidding situations become easier to handle when one has generic defences and feels comfortable using them. Restricting the opportunities for players to encounter such methods can only make people less familiar and reduce the need for them to prepare the generic defences that would enable them to compete. And allowing only some (such as Bergen or, until recently in North America, the Multi), leaves regulators open to criticism and accusations of favouritism, especially if these are methods they use. Strong Pass or Weak Opening? And why people play such systems *Strong pass* is somewhat misleading as a name for such systems (forcing pass is even worse). This is in part because not all systems in fact have a strong pass (for example, the Swedish Super Spade system uses Pass to show any hand with 8+points and 4+ spades). Even when showing a better than average hand, in some systems Pass is not unlimited but a limited call (because 1C is retained for stronger hands). *Weak opening* is a better description because the theoretical driver of almost all these systems is to find ways to open hands with 8-12 points. Why? Because these are the most frequently occurring hands. (Hands with 8-12 HCP comprise more than 44 percent of all hands. In contrast, hands with 13+HCP comprise only 27 percent of all hands.) Many players were (and are) willing to overcall with hands in the 8-12 HCP range after the opponents have opened the bidding, so why not bid with them *before* the opponents have had a chance to start describing their hands? For most system designers, a strong pass is a consequence of the desire to play limited openings on these 8-12 HCP hands. Despite the flaws in passing with strong hands (leaving the partnership open to competitive disruption, for example, when no suit has been identified), this has been judged better than alternatives such as lowering the requirements of standard opening bids, making them 8-22 HCP. David