JmBrPotter

In most bracketed KOs your team can "play up" a bracket or two by simply overstating your combined masterpoint holdings. As long as the overstatement is not so bold as to put you in a class where "everyone knows your name" (but the TDs don't), the bracket assignments will get made based on the reported (rather then actual) masterpoint holdings. Checking for underreported masterpoint holdings happens during the first round matches and teams who underreport get disqualified during the first round. A team I was on "won" a first round match this way because our opponents made an addition mistake underreporting their masterpoints by a hundred plus some players' forgotten recent winnings. The difference of a couple of hundred or so WOULD have moved them from the "strongest team" in our bracket to the "weakest team" one bracket up. We'd played about three boards at each table when a TD informed the opposing captain that they were disqualified. It was unpleasant for all concerned. The TD had to deliver the bad news, the other team had to leave, and we did not get to play cards. For apparently accidental underreports like this one, it might be better to handicap the team that underreported. Add, for example, the square root of the amount of the underreport to the opposing team's IMP total. Then, double the handicap for each successive round. Thus, a team that underreported by 25MP would have to win its first match by more than 5IMPs, second by more than 10, third by more than 20 and fourth by more than 40IMPs. A team that made a possibly deliberate underreport of 1600MP would face a more difficult challenge. They'd need to win the first match by more than 40IMPs, the second by more than 80, the third by more than 160, and the final by more than 320IMPs. In each case, the team that underreported its masterpoint holdings faces a steep uphill climb to even advance in the event, much less win it. Small (probably accidental) underreports yield a significant (but potentially surmountable) advantage to the opponents. Large (thus, potentially fraudulent) underreports yield a very large (probably insurmountable) advantage to the opponents. Perhaps, a handicap should be a smaller number but on an IMPs per board basis so as to be independent of match length. When I'm the team captain, I round all team member's masterpoints up by about a typical month's winnings and then bump the team total up to the nearest round hundred or so. This assures that we will not get disqualified for underreporting our masterpoints and sometimes we play up a bracket. Since we'd rather be the "weakest team" in a higher bracket than the "strongest team" in a lower bracket, his works fine for us. A team captain who grossly overstated the team's masterpoint holdings for a team that gets blitzed in its first match might earn a discussion with a TD about reasons for honestly reporting the team's masterpoints. However, if the team performs well enough to demonstrate that it "belongs" in the bracket, I cannot imagine why a TD would care about the misrepresentation.

Bill and I still seek play test opponents and teammates interested in joining us while we tilt at windmills. We have modified our notrump ranges, some initial responses to 1♣ and 1♦, and some rebids (changes inserted, above). We've also become more careful about opening 2NT on minor suit 5-4 hands. We still want strong BBO opponents and teammates. Our BBO IDs are "wgregg" and "JmBrPotter". We usually play on BBO weekends or early on Wednesday or Thursday evening (US Eastern time). Bill and I have improved both our game and our bidding. Our defense lets fewer unsound adverse contracts slip through our clutches. My opening leads, in particular, are less likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Bill (and I when I remember to count) will declare effective effectively more often than we would have a year or two ago. Now, the greatest weakness in our partnership is my laxness about counting. That has to stop if we're going to the next level. I chucked a minimum of two matches all by myself at Myrtle Beach last month just by failure to count. THAT is a past due wake up call.

Bill Gregg (in Michigan) and I have taken the system outlined below to BBO and five ACBL regional tournaments (4 times the New Years Regional alternating between Charleston, SC and Myrtle Beach, SC). It conforms to the ACBL GCC. Much of it needs alerting, but none of it is so off the wall that it will shock experienced opponents. Thus, I concede your points #1 and #2. You do not even need "top flight" opponents for you to be correct on these points. Most players in the class with ACBL Silver Lifemasters or better can handle nearly anything a system compliant with the ACBL GCC could throw at them. If the system design considers regulatory authority, point #6 is moot. #3: Opening hands (especially, preemptively) that were passed at the other table(s) will present your opponents with challenges others in their seat do not face. If you can do so without facing excess risks, this can work in your favor by forcing opponents to make decisions others with their cards did not face. Each unusual decision is an opportunity to make a mistake. Even very strong pairs will sometimes stumble. #4: Better defense—especially, partnership defense—always tells, no doubt. Better declarer play also tells, but usually less so. Bidding an unusual system designed to steal hands may sometimes dull those advantages. If I'm declaring 1NT undoubled on a hand where my opponents have a vulnerable game, I really do not care if they put me down four or five rather than only the two or three tricks by which my partner and I may have defeated them if we switched seats after the auction. Since our teammates got to open rather than deciding what to do over my 10-14 HCP 1NT opening (or weak 2♣ opening), we'll come out even or ahead more often than not. #5: This is surely true when bidding methods are similar and you are talking about ability to bid sound yet difficult to bid games and slams (while being better at avoiding unsound ones). With unusual systems, very light openings and increased preemption create obstructions that may have opponents defending when they SHOULD be declaring (or declaring the wrong contract when they SHOULD have swung the ax before defending). Every "in your face" auction forces unusual choices absent from the other table(s). Pairs CAN win hands in the auction. Systems that threaten to win hands in the auction by stealing (or just bidding to the limit, quickly) put intense pressure on the opponents. Pressured opponents facing unusual decisions on limited information are more likely to choose a sensible (but wrong) option than similarly capable players operating inside their comfort zones. Remember how effective Bergen-Cohen were just by opening lighter, preempting more, and applying fast arrival more extremely than most of their opponents? A system DESIGNED to create MORE "in you face" auctions exploits those same advantages to an even greater extent. Here's an example of an unusual GCC compliant bidding system that achieves the above competitive advantages while retaining effective constructive bidding. The natural 10-14 HCP 1NT opening is particularly frequent AND particularly difficult to defend. The weak 2♣ opening is similarly difficult—much more difficult to bid over than "Pass". Opponents should probably compete aggressively over both the 1♣ (especially) and 1♦ openings. Both are near their bottom limits MUCH more often that they are strong. Yet, entering a live auction over 1♣ (alerted as 11-37 HCP, Conventional, Forcing for one round, likely to be a minimum range minor suit one-suiter [suit unknown] or a major-minor two-suiter with greater length in the major [both suits unknown]) does not give most folks a warm, fuzzy feeling without good shape and useful tickets. On the other hand, passing may thrust your partner into the balancing seat at the two level unaware that YOU hold a 13 count with 4-card support for his 5-card suit. I'm glad that most (OK, all) of my opponents do not bid like Bill and I do. MoTown Minors System Sketch: - 1NT opening: 10-14 HCP balanced - 1♣ openings: Conv., 1RF, 11+ HCP, 19+ HCP if balanced - 1♦ openings: Conv., 1RF, 15+ HCP, 15+ HCP if balanced - 1♥ & 1♠ openings:11-20- HCP 4-card suit, one-suited or two-suited - 2-suit openings: 5-11 HCP 5-6 card suit, one-suited or two-suited - 2NT opening: 11-15 HCP, minor suit two-suited - 3NT opening: solid 7-card suit, no side suit entry - 3♣-5♦ natural suit openings preemptive - Other openings: special case slam tries - All 3-suited hands open either . . . . 1♣ (11-14, 18-20, or 24-26 HCP) or . . . . 1♦ (15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 HCP) . Sort them out from each other and the big balanced hands in the rebidding - Notrump ranges are . . . . 10-14 (open 1NT) . 15-18 (open 1♦ and rebid 1NT) . 19-22 (open 1♣ and rebid 1NT) .. Same systems on over all three 1NT bids . 23-24 (open 1♦ and rebid 2NT) . 25-26 (open 1♣ and rebid 2NT) . 27-28 (open 1♦, first rebid 2C [nominally 3-suited], and second rebid 2NT) . 29-37 (open 1♣, first rebid 1S [nominally 3-suited], and second rebid 2NT) .. Same systems on over all four 2NT rebids .. Opener may make "impossible" responses to Stayman or Jacoby with 31+HCP Problems encountered: - 1♣ opening vulnerable to preemption when responder has about 8-12 HCP - 1♦ opening vulnerable to preemption . . . about 4-8 HCP - 11-14 HCP 3-suiters often preempted before opener's 1S "3 suits" rebid - 1♦ openings on 15-18 HCP balanced sometimes get preempted before the 1NT rebid - We sometimes reach good contracts I do not make because I too often don't count - Doubling 3-level preemption over 1♣ or 1♦ can create big (+ or –) IMP swings Successes: - The 10-14 HCP 1NT opening is difficult to defend . Defenders need to be in the auction against frequent 10-11 HCP openings . Defenders should respect 13-14 HCP openings . 12 HCP openings may fall into either of the above camps .. By the time defenders know what's happening, we've found a spot or . . . . . defenders have entered the auction and they (one or more of) . . . . .. are unsure how high to go when they own the hand . .. have rescued a 10 HCP opener while concealing its weakness . .. have stepped into a trap when responder is almost invitational . . defenders have clobbered 1NT undoubled and missed their game . . we've slipped into two of a suit (down a trick or two) versus . . . . .. the defenders' missed game . . . or . . . . .. the defenders' partscore that would score better . .. defenders play game making slam . .. defenders bid past a sound game seeking slam and go down . .. defenders wrong side a contract and make one less . .. defenders find their spot and there's a par result - The weak 2♣ opening often creates favorable swings in team matches . Especially effective with 5 clubs and 4 cards in a major suit - Showing 18-22 HCP balanced hands with 1NT helps invitational range responders - Showing all 23+ balanced hands at the 2-level is an advantage in slam auctions - 1♥ or 1♠ openings with a primary suit elsewhere can yield big swings . Opener plans a canapé rebid into the primary suit . There is a misfit . A defender overcalls 1♥ or 1♠ with two (or more) of opener's primary suit . Opener converts responder's positive double to penalty . It gets worse for the opponents if they try to run - Three-suited hands do not clutter and complicate other bidding sequences We play test on BBO, but usually in ACBL Speedball tournaments to get reliable opponents. We want steady play test opponents. Our BBO IDs are JmBrPotter (me) and WGregg (Bill Gregg). We're on US Eastern Time (same as Atlanta, DC, New York and Totonto). Contact me via e-mail to "ClioBridgeGuy>at<att>dot<net" for a system book copy or to arrange BBO matches.

Using ordinary e-mail makes it difficult to send the hand, bidding, and play to recipients. If there were a way to send the result of saving a hand in an ordinary e-mail message (AND then viewing the saved hand, auction, and play) regular e-mail would indeed be fine. I'm guessing that allowing multiple addressees in BBO mail would be easier for BBO to implement. A limit on the number of addressees would be fine. Six team members, a captain, and 1-3 coaches would be a sane maximum so the suggestion of a limit of ten addressees would serve my intent and make spamming a pain.

I'm a recent ACBL Lifemaster seeking a (a) partner or teammate for playing on BBO or in ACBL District 7 tournaments and (b) play test opponents willing to play against the system described, below. Bill Gregg (in Michigan) and I have taken this system to BBO and five ACBL regional tournaments (4 times the New Years Regional alternating between Charleston, SC and Myrtle Beach, SC). During that time, we have modified the methods slightly: - 1NT opening: 10-14 HCP balanced - 1♣ openings: Conv., 1RF, 11+ HCP, 19+ HCP if balanced - 1♦ openings: Conv., 1RF, 15+ HCP, 15+ HCP if balanced - 1♥ & 1♠ openings:11-20- HCP 4-card suit, one-suited or two-suited - 2-suit openings: 5-11 HCP 5-6 card suit, one-suited or two-suited - 2NT opening: 11-15 HCP, minor suit two-suited - 3NT opening: solid 7-card suit, no side suit entry - 3♣-5♦ natural suit openings preemptive - Other openings: special case slam tries - All 3-suited hands open either . . . . 1♣ (11-14, 18-20, or 24-26 HCP) or . . . . 1♦ (15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 HCP) . Sort them out from each other and the big balanced hands in the rebidding - Notrump ranges are . . . . 10-14 (open 1NT) . 15-18 (open 1♦ and rebid 1NT) . 19-22 (open 1♣ and rebid 1NT) .. Same systems on over all three 1NT bids . 23-24 (open 1♦ and rebid 2NT) . 25-26 (open 1♣ and rebid 2NT) . 27-28 (open 1♦, first rebid 2C [nominally 3-suited], and second rebid 2NT) . 29-37 (open 1♣, first rebid 1S [nominally 3-suited], and second rebid 2NT) .. Same systems on over all four 2NT rebids .. Opener may make "impossible" responses to Stayman or Jacoby with 31+HCP Problems encountered: - 1♣ opening vulnerable to preemption when responder has about 8-12 HCP - 1♦ opening vulnerable to preemption . . . about 4-8 HCP - 11-14 HCP 3-suiters often preempted before opener's 1S "3 suits" rebid - 1♦ openings on 15-18 HCP balanced sometimes get preempted before the 1NT rebid - We sometimes reach good contracts I do not make because I too often don't count - Doubling 3-level preemption over 1♣ or 1♦ can create big (+ or –) IMP swings Successes: - The 10-14 HCP 1NT opening is difficult to defend . Defenders need to be in the auction against frequent 10-11 HCP openings . Defenders should respect 13-14 HCP openings . 12 HCP openings may fall into either of the above camps .. By the time defenders know what's happening, we've found a spot or . . . . . defenders have entered the auction and they (one or more of) . . . . .. are unsure how high to go when they own the hand . .. have rescued a 10 HCP opener while concealing its weakness . .. have stepped into a trap when responder is almost invitational . . defenders have clobbered 1NT undoubled and missed their game . . we've slipped into two of a suit (down a trick or two) versus . . . . .. the defenders' missed game . . . or . . . . .. the defenders' partscore that would score better . .. defenders play game making slam . .. defenders bid past a sound game seeking slam and go down . .. defenders wrong side a contract and make one less . .. defenders find their spot and there's a par result - The weak 2♣ opening often creates favorable swings in team matches . Especially effective with 5 clubs and 4 cards in a major suit - Showing 18-22 HCP balanced hands with 1NT helps invitational range responders - Showing all 23+ balanced hands at the 2-level is an advantage in slam auctions - 1♥ or 1♠ openings with a primary suit elsewhere can yield big swings . Opener plans a canapé rebid into the primary suit . There is a misfit . A defender overcalls 1♥ or 1♠ with two (or more) of opener's primary suit . Opener converts responder's positive double to penalty . It gets worse for the opponents if they try to run - Three-suited hands do not clutter and complicate other bidding sequences We still play test on BBO, but usually in ACBL Speedball tournaments to get reliable opponents. We still want steady play test opponents. Our BBO IDs are JmBrPotter (me) and WGregg (Bill Gregg). We're on US Eastern Time (same as Atlanta, DC, New York and Totonto). Contact me via e-mail to "ClioBridgeGuy>at<att>dot<net" for a system book copy or to arrange BBO matches.

All this tempest in a teapot about defense to 1NT! As a confirmed wide range weak (10-14) 1NTer, I can only say that I am very pleased when my opponents use ANY method other than DONT—especially, if I'm playing with a partner who has dragged me into a strong notrump agreement. Right siding contracts (or "wrong siding" the lead) is a good thing, but so is the ability to stop at the 2-level in any fit you might have. Just because the 1NT opener probably has a powder puff does not mean that responder cannot make a penalty double at the 3-level. It is easy to go -200, -300, or -500 at the 3-level even when the NT opening side has no game. Partner and I have collected telephone numbers defending 3-suit doubled after one of us opened 1NT (10-14). That is generous compensation for our missed game. So, please, keep using defenses to 1NT that might land you at the 3-level in a seven card fit when Partner and I have a balanced 19-23 (and no game) in our combined hands. We know where the red cards are.

Here is a new, longer, alphabetized list of K-S bidders. 01lanse babalu1997 bakerbob csifaqui daisy2 edmundb ehaa9488 frankferi groupstar hirsh33 hlawrence JmBrPotter prefers K-S with a pick up partner juliep kenfree leslie_s Lurpoa Madid maroon5001 oldokie richardrls romanklein rq4mulae spockster SteelWheel stuks76 WGregg will bid K-S with a pick up partner WGregg and I bid K-S as a second choice system behind a both minors forcing system. We use a 2/1 forcing version w/o Bergen raises (use fit raises for the jump shifts) and play the 1NT opening as 12-14, 11-14, or 10-14 by partners' preferences. We open 1NT with =5-3-3-2 or 3=5-3-2 shape as well as with a 5-card minor (1♥ and 1♠ openings promise an unbalanced hand.) We use a doubleton showing super-accept over Jacoby transfers and use 5-card major Stayman (not Puppet) as bot constructive and as a runout. We also use 4-suit transfers. WGregg also bids a Precision/Blue Club/Neapolitan Club system. We open better minor with balanced hands outside the 1NT range. Our 3NT opening shows a seven-card suit headed by the AKQ—the suit may be a major.

There may be bidding theory evidence that those are excellent methods, but I’m not smart enough to add that much complexity to defend against one bid that will not come up all that often. Partner and I play DONT against all natural 1NT and 2NT openings. Since a Big Club is often a balanced hand somewhere in the 14-20 range, using DONT against a Big Club often gets the defensive bid in before the 1NT bid. Our complete defense against artificial forcing 1♣, 1♦, and 1♥ openings (and conventional 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ initial responses to same) is as follows: Double: Sound (13-15 HCP or stronger) takeout for the doubled suit or a lower ranking suit. 1♦, 1♥, or 1♠ overcall: Sound opening bid with five or more cards in the overcalled suit. 1NT: Relay to 2♣ (same as a DONT double of 1NT) with an unspecified 6-card or longer suit. All bids above 1NT: The same meaning, responses and rebids as with the partnership’s DONT variant. If your partnership uses a different defense to 1NT where the double is takeout of some sort, you can play the same system using your preferred defense to 1NT rather than DONT. Obviously, you cannot use a 1NT overcall as a substitute for a penalty double of a 1NT bid the opening side has not yet made. This defense probably has significant theoretical flaws. It's principal virtues are (1) simplicity, (2) light memory load (adding only three calls to things already being remembered), and (3) it seems to actually work fairly well much of the time. The two-level two-suited overcalls are especially good at (a) competing for a partscore, (b) wrecking the 1♣ response and rebid structure, © stopping at a low level (where penalty doubles probably may not stick too much), (d) getting out of the auction before penalty doubles start flying around, and (e) offering a hint at an opening lead (the better to defend).

Ooops, got that continent wrong. Good timing might be weekend mornings for Bill and me and weekend afternoons for you and your partner, right?

Free, In "full disclosure terms", it is probably more important to mention reasonably likely holdings that are not possible. For example, a 1♣ opener cannot have a big hand with a 5+ spade suit (or a 5+ minor suit) as a primary feature (All of those open 1♦.) A 1♦ opener similarly cannot have a big hand with a 5+ heart suit (or minor suit two-suitedness) as its primary feature (Those open 1♣.) Except for (1) the way the hands are partitioned between 1♣ and 1♦ and (2) the inclusion of quite a few 11-15 point hands in the 1♣ opening, the 1♣ and 1♦ openings both operate similarly to common Big Club openings (but with less overloading because two openings share the load). Tactics that will work against most Big Club openings will also work against our 1♣ and 1♦ openings. Foreknowledge about stuff opener cannot have may help a defender compete, better. Bill and I are on US Eastern Standard Time. I guess that there's about a 10 hour time shift between you and us. Something like Saturday morning for us and Sunday evening for you might work do you think?

Ben, If you come to the Myrtle Beach New Year’s Regional, look for Bill and me in the KOs. If you slip me an e-mail address, I’ll do some truly full disclosure by e-mailing the complete system book. I have not done a heavy duty analysis of how well our methods work with some attempt to remove biases as you suggest. I can offer the following impressions (not objective observations): - The “established partnership” effect definitely applies. Bill and I have played together for over a decade. - Players weaker than Bill and I may often do worse against us than they do against other pairs of approximately our strength. The “surprise effect” is both real and more significant among weaker players. - Even against good players, the 10-11HCP 1NT openings and the weak 2♣ openings have beneficial effects purely from preemptive impact. It is tougher to find the cold game or slam over 1NT or 2♣ than over “Pass”. The lost bidding round sometimes helps opponents get to an inferior contract so that we pick up an IMP or some unearned match points. - It is nearly always right to preempt or otherwise compete when we open 1♣ and frequently wise to act defensively over 1♦. Stronger players who act over our forcing openings when they have suitable values/shape do much better against us than those who give us a free run. Part of that is because they are better, and part is because some of our sequences over 1♣ or 1♦ get difficult if we lose bidding steps. We have methods to deal with intervention, but we bid more accurately against quiet opponents. - Our partscore competitive bidding is a little weaker than it was when we bid K-S. With 1♥ and 1♠ (usually, four-card suits) as the only natural, suit openings for 11-20 point unbalanced hands, we're sometimes slow out of the blocks in the knife fight for a partscore when we open 1♣ (and sometimes, 1♦ when we are more likely to own the hand). In unobstructed auctions, our bidding feels about the same as it was with K-S. We’re getting better results overall than we did three years ago (when we switched systems), but the improvement is confounded with improvements to our defense, declarer play, and leads. Bill bids a Precision/Blue Club/Neapolitan Club based system with a different partner who lives 900 miles nearer to him than I do. They are also improving. I doubt that much of the total improvement in our game rests on system. - System design intent is to steal hands where both sides can make something by bidding 1NT a lot. That happens and it (usually) works. Throwing those hands out of an analysis would tip the bias the other way. Opponents see our 1NT opening and sometimes get too high in a successful effort to “stop us from stealing.” Improvements to our defense over the past year have made that defensive tactic less pleasant more often for more opponents. We have robust methods for both running out to a suit and competing when opponents act over 1NT. We are glad that so few people play DONT against a weak notrump. - Canapé happens only after a 1♥ or 1♠ opening. We pre-alert it with a welcome message on BBO and with a one-page handout in face-to-face play. The same handout has a one-page defense to our 1♣ and 1♦ openings (the defense we use against artificial 1♣, 1♦, 1♥, and 2♣ bids that do not name a suit) on the back. Since canapé is alertable during the auction, another alert comes along with each canapé bid during the auction. Auctions that begin “1m-(Pass)-Herbert-(Pass); 2M” promise a two-suited hand with the rebid major and an unspecified minor. The ”2M” bid gets an alert as promising an unspecified minor suit the same length as the major or one card shorter. - We play more contracts (about 60% to 65% of the hands we play) than our opponents, in part because we open so much that we do steal some hands where both sides can make something. We also go down in partials when the opponents own the hand and let us play it rather than seeking their spot. Sometimes this is good; sometimes not. 1NT-4 undoubled versus an adverse making game is a result we see in team matches. Is that good bidding by us? We do not think so. Fix for the opponents? Maybe. Weak bidding by the opponents? Sometimes. Poor judgment or methods by the opponents? Sometimes. We stress our opponents in novel ways. Stressed players sometimes make reasonable seeming choices that work out poorly. We exploit that. - Consider hands that will pass out at most tables. Often, one of us will open those hands 1NT. Allowed to play 1NT, we often go +90 or +120 (less often, -50, -100, or -200—all the same zero at match point scoring, but different at IMPs). The +90 or +120 is usually good at either game and it happens more often that a minus. When an opponent get frisky over 1NT on these hands, we can go +100, +200, or +300 surprisingly often—tending to make opponents less frisky for the rest of the match. - I think (especially on BBO) we are often matched against competition with a similar number of (perhaps, BBO) masterpoints who do not play as well as Bill and I. Often, when we come up against more advanced (especially, in the ACBL face-to-face tournament world) opponents, we get the short end of the stick. Stronger players are better at swinging the ax to good effect.

I posted how I alert. It appears at #7, below. You may certainly psyche a pass in first or second seat, but the first or second seat pass may not be a force on 3/4 seat. You may not have an agreement to open below 1NT with less than 10HCP. There are severe restrictions on response and rebid structures after a 1NT opening that might promise less than 10HCP. The methods Bill and I use already disrupt opponents enough. Even the simple things like 1NT 10-14 (frequent, very frequent) and 2♣ weak present our opponents with auctions/problems other folks holding their cards (e.g., our teammates) typically did not face. Sometimes, that works significantly to our advantage. Once, we went for 1400 when we got caught after a vulnerable third seat 1NT opening on 10HCP when the opponents had no slam. Bad result, that one.

I use the following BBO alert text: 1♣: 11+; Conv; 1RF 1♦: 15+; Conv; 1RF I expect opponents to read (using 1♣ as an example) that as “11 or more HCP; Conventional opening bid Forcing for one round.” That is terse and omits the (substantial) nuances regarding hands the opener cannot hold (e.g., a 1♣ opener cannot hold a powerful one-suited or two-suited hand with spades as a dominant suit—something an opponent contemplating a preemptive overcall in spades might like to know). It is not clear where we should strike the balance between terse and something that better resembles full disclosure. As the auction evolves, additional alerts paint a picture so that the defenders eventually learn everything that our rebids tell partner.

I like the structure Giorgio Belladonna & Walter Avarelli used in The Roman Club System of Distributional Bidding the English translation of Sistema Fiori Romano, their late fifties description of the Roman Club bidding system. Essentially, they organized the book by opener’s distribution. Within those sections, further subdivision was by responder’s hand distribution and rebidder’s hand distribution. The Roman Club is simple enough so that the structure works pretty well. I’ve applied the same structure to an embarrassingly more complex system that I meant to be quite simple—conceptually, it is simple, but the devil is in the details. The structure works OK there, to. It’s just that I spend more space on notrump bidding than Belladonna & Avarell spent on the whole Roman Club bidding system! This means that a system with artificial, forcing opening bids might have those openings appear in the balanced hands section, the one-suited hands section, the two-suited hands section, and the three-suited hands section. That might make the index entries for “1♣ Opening” or “2♣ Opening” a bit lengthy, but it seems worth it to carry common themes through hands of similar shape but different strength.

WGregg and I have stolen from the best to build an ACBL GCC compliant unusual system. We've played it in regional KOs and open pairs with good results, but we need more playing time against competent opponents. Now, we play BBO speedballs to avoid the hassle of opponents who flake out on us---sometimes in the middle of a hand. If you and your partner are interested in practicing against or learning (or both) a distinctly different bidding system, please, contact WGregg or JmBrPotter on BBO or use other contact information available in this post to contact me. MoTown Minors System opening bid properties: 1♣: 11-37, Conventional, 1RF 1M: - Minor suit one suited with 11-15 1M: - Two-suited 11-15 with an unspecified 4+ card minor and a 5+ card major 1M: - Minor suit two-suited with 16+ 1M: - Three-suited with 11-14, 18-20, or 24-26 1M: - Balanced with 20-23, 26-27, or 30+ 1M: - Strong (17+ HCP and 8+ offensive winners and 4+ defensive winners) with 5+ ♥s 1M: - Assorted 11+ winner hands that will launch an asking bid sequence over responder's likely 1♦ response 1♦: 15-37, Conventional, 1RF 1M: - Minor suit one-suited with 16-20 1M: - Two-suited 16-20 with an unspecified 4+ card minor and a 5+ card major 1M: - Minor suit oriented (one or both minors) and Strong (17+ HCP and 9+ offensive winners and 4+ defensive winners) 1M: - Three-suited with 15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 1M: - Balanced with 15-19, 24-25, or 28-29 1M: - Strong (17+ HCP and 8+ offensive winners and 4+ defensive winners) with 5+ ♠s 1M: - Assorted 11+ winner hands that will launch an asking bid sequence over responder's likely 1♥ response 1♥ / ♠: 11-20 and One-suited (6+ in bid suit) or Two-suited (4+ in bid suit and 5+ in another suit) 1M / M: - 1NT forcing response 1M / M: - 2/1 GF response & rebid style adjusted for 4-card major 1NT: 10-14 and balanced---may conceal a 5-card major---rarely, may have 5-4 shape (e.g., AQ AQ Qxxx xxxxx) 1NT: - 2♣ = 5-card major Stayman 1NT: - 2♦ / 2♥ = Jacoby with doubleton showing super accepts 1NT: - 2♠ / 2NT = transfer to ♣s / ♦s 1NT: - Redouble = relay to 2♣ (run out) 1NT: - 2-suit at "1NT-X-Pass-Pass; 2-Suit" and "1NT-Pass-Pass-X; 2-Suit" = run out to 5-card suit 2-Suit: Weak Two Opening Bid 2NT: 11-15 with 5-4 (requires extra HCP), 5-5, 6-5, 6-6, or 7-6 minor suit two-suited distribution 3-Suit: One-suited preempt (Denies suit AKQ5432 or better; Denies AKQ in 7-card suit) 3NT: One-suited; unspecified 7-card suit headed by AKQ; no side A; no side K; no other side entry 4-suit: One-suited preempt (usually, 8-9 cards) 5-suit: One-suited preempt (usually, 10 cards) 6-suit: 12 tricks in hand; A or K of opened suit is the only loser

WGregg and I use a standard DONT based defense against all conventional/oddball openings below 1NT. It may not always be ideal, but it has the advantage that we have a defense in place without needing to cobble something together from opponents' notes and opponents' stuff extracted from some "Defenses to Whatever DataBase". Here goes. Defending against 1-suit conventional we . . . Double: Sound opening bid (15+ HCP) with length and strength in the doubled suit or a lower ranking suit or a balanced hand with a stopper in any suit shown by the oddball opening. 1-suit: Sound opening bid (15+ HCP) with length and strength in the bid suit. 1NT: Relay to 2♣ with a one-suited hand. Pass or correct after Partner's forced 2♣ bid---strength (typically, about weak two opening values and distribution) varies with vulnerability and whether or not Partner has passed. 2♣: Clubs and another suit---strength and two-suited-ness vary with vulnerability and whether or not Partner has passed. 2♦: Diamonds and a major---strength and two-suited-ness vary with vulnerability and whether or not Partner has passed. 2♥: Both majors:---strength and two-suited-ness vary with vulnerability and whether or not Partner has passed. Higher Bids: However your partnership already uses them---WGregg and I use 2♠ (♥s) and 2NT (♠s) to show preemptive 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 with the anchor suit and a lower ranking suit. Suit bids above 2NT are one-suited preempts, and 3NT shows a preemptive minor suit 6-5 or more two-suited hand. Responses and rebids follow DONT practice or partnership styled "bridge logic" responses and rebids after a preempt.

WGregg and I will be playing face to face (mostly in KOs) with a pair from South Carolina. One of our teammates is pushing for Bonze LM, even though we are mostly about having a good time, WINNING is an objective. WGregg and I bid an unusual home brew system. Our teammates bid an atypical Precision variant. Three of us are LMs in the 300-500 range and one of us is a Bronze LM. A third pair (especially one whose bidding would put opponents off balance differently from the way we already do [e.g., K-S bidders]) who will hold up their end would be welcome.

Problem: Sometimes, when I login and open my Chat Manager, the order of the messages in my message list changes. Requested Solution Possibilities: 1- Make the chat message list stable. It gets created in SOME oder. Whatever that order is, preserve it. 2- Add a sort key (e.g., "message number") to each message and sort them on that key when the key is present. 3- Provide a means to upload messages from a text file with the messages loading in the same order as their appearance in the text file. Problem Explanation: This is an ISSUE for me (maybe no one else, though) because my partner and I bid a unusual home brew system that skates up to the ACBL HUM border while staying ACBL GCC compliant. We owe our opponents pre-alerts and assorted courtesies so they will not interpret our calls or carding in an SAYC (or any other known system) context (For example, our conventional 1♦ opening shows 15-37 HCP and is a one round force, our 1NT opening is 10-14HCP in all seats at all vulnerabilities and may conceal a 5-card major, and we lead LOW from xx.) Thus, I have quite a few canned chat messages. I prepared them in order as follows: - The first three are . . . . . . Welcome to the table and a confession that we are an established partnership playing an unusual system . . . General system properties . . . Pre-alerts - The next message is a row of hyphens to divide my messages into groups. - The next several messages are for "making nice to partner" ("Thank you, Partner", "Nice defense, Partner", and the like) in alphabetic order so I can find the one I want QUICKLY. - The next message is a row of hyphens -----------------. - The next several messages are for "making nice to the opponents" ("Well done, Opponents", "Thanks for the pleasant round, Opponents", and the like) also alphabetized. - Then ------------------------- - The next (alphabetized) group is messages that do not fit the above categories. Needless to say, shuffling my chat messages makes a mess for me AND it takes a while (usually, 5-15 minutes) to clean up the mess each time. The need to do this is frustrating and irritating. Some logins shuffle my messages and some do not. I have NOT been able to ferret out a pattern.

The topic says it all. Please, allow a BBO mail message to go to more than one person. For example, after/during a team practice session, it would be VERY nice to send the same hand and comments to all team members (rather than doing a copy followed by multiple pastes to send the same message). An implementation of this might restrict addressees to those in the "friends list" to discourage bulk mailed SPAM.

I suggest allowing as many pairs as feasible. Scoring could be similar to the methods described in the July ACBL Bulletin, on pages 26-27. There, Bobby Wolff explains how he scores "The Bidding Box" each month. If you can get enough expert pairs, to function as a panel, their results might provide a foundation for scoring submissions from contestants. My participation would be tempered by Partner's availability and interest. Potentially, an effort like this could highlight the potential (or lack thereof) of some avant garde bidding systems. Comments about the successes, failures, and frequencies of unusual methods relative to "standard" methods might be an interesting side show.

I'd second Adam's comments and offer the following additional alternatives if they fit your system and jurisdiction: - 2♦ as a weak two bid (old fashioned, easy, and reasonably effective) - 2♦ as Multi (edgier, restricted some places, and playable) I recommend against the Flannery 2♦. Just open 1♥, and if Partner cannot bid 1♠, suppress your spades and see if the opponents will be kind enough to bid them for you. Because Partner and I rebid in a canapé style, we open Flannery hands 1♠ and rebid 2♥.

Re: Response & rebid structure after a weak two opening bid Partner and I use all four two-level suit openings as natural & weak. This creates response and rebid issues others do not face (e.g., space waste of an asking 2NT response to 1♣ ;)). We have devised the following structure: Over 2-suit opening bids: - 1-step (2♦ over 2♣ to 2NT over 2♠) is either . . . . . . . :wub: feature ask . . . . :unsure: Ogust . . . . :blink: other by agreement (agree on one by partnership style) - All raises are bar bids - Simple new suits are natural, 1RF, & invitational - 3NT is natural to play - Jump shifts are game forcing fit raises - 1-step above four of the opened suit is Keycard Kickback - 1-step above five of the opened suit is Kickback Grand Slam Force - Doubles of adverse overcalls are negative with 0-2 card support - Redouble is STRONG with a splinter in the opened suit We use the feature ask approach, but there is nothing wrong with Ogust for folks who like that better. Both approaches are playable.

Adam, You are quite correct about competitive auctions over 1♣ and 1♦ being the principle problem. We're working on it. Now, at the one-level, we abandon artificial methods and switch to a "colors first" natural approach. At the two-level and three-level, we use Lebenshol. Above the three-level, we treat the situation as if bidding over an opening preempt. Since the 1♣ and 1♦ opening in our methods partition hands hands stronger that 10-13 balanced and unbalanced hands too strong (or too un-one-suited) for a weak two opening bid between the two openings (1♦ getting only 15+ hands and 1♣ getting a puddle of minimum range 1, 2, & 3-suited hands unsuitable for the 1-suited or 2-suited 1♥ and 1♠ openings). The partitioning and the natural bids allows inferences that help in competition. The weak 2♣ opening is not such a big deal except that our opponents were often the ONLY pair their way who did not begin their auction with an opening bid. Sometimes, they miss their top spot. Folks who chose to open 3♣ with a weak two type hand may present too fat a target for penalty doubles when frustrated opponents cannot find a better spot (because the preempting side has too few ♣s and too many losers in the adverse suits). Our frequent 1NT and 1♣ openings often create action absent from other tables. Opponents who believe that you are stealing sometimes take interesting risks. Sometimes, we have gone plus 100 to plus 800 on hands passed out at other tables courtesy of ill-advised intervention. Other times, we get a plus 90, plus 110, or a plus 120 on a passout. Sometimes, we go for a telephone number when we do not sell out soon enough. If you'd, like a copy of the system book, wing your e-mail to ClioBridgeGuy >at< att >dot< net, and I'll send it to you. I'd appreciate your feedback based on a more complete system review.

Bill, Yes, the general idea you mention is playable. The comments about switching your strong opening to 1♦ have merit, especially if you wil play in ACBL sanctioned events. If 1♦ is 15+, you may use a waiting bid, negative response, or positive response over both 1♣ and 1♦. That flexibility may help. If you keep 1♣ strong, an artifical 1♥ response to 1♦ must show game forcing values to comply with the ACBL General Convention Chart. I've applied similar ideas to a system with 1♥ and 1♠ openings less limited than normal Precision practice. It seems to work well so far.

YNRobinson, I believe that the 7NT deal SHOULD have been a push, but many pairs stopped in six or played the grand in a suit. There were two potential traps: (1) We had a suit fit or two. (2) The weaker hand (14-15HCP) was balanced. The player holding the strong, distributional hand needs to avoid fixation on long suits as trumps to focus on winners and losers. That focus on winners and losers makes it easy to bid Gerber over 2NT and count somewhere between 12 and 16 fast winners depending upon the number of missing queens in the long suits. With no more than one missing key queen, there are 13+ fast winners and there should be lively squeeze possibilities with two key queens missing. Playing in 7NT prevents any possible defensive ruff (a risk when you have two long suits you plan to run). Our bidding methods made responder the "opener." The auction over Bill's 2NT response to my 1♦ opening made me the captain "responding" to Bill's 2NT "opening" with 2NT response and rebid systems enabled. Most bidding systems would have had me opening strong and artificial (I did, but I had not yet promised a powerhouse.), Bill making a waiting bid (2NT natural rather than a waiting bid), and me rebidding a long suit (That was about to happen until Bill's 2NT response.) The 1♦ opening, though unlimited, usually shows a minor suit one-suiter with 16-20, a balanced 17-19, or a major-minor two suiter (major never shorter than the minor but equal length possible) with 16-20 (The weakest possible holding is a three-suited 15-17 count.) These are NICE hands but typically not good enough to drive to a grand opposite partner's balanced 14-15. I had extras.