foo

That's the only frequency claim I made. Glad to see that you agree. As for "wasting a bid". If frequency matters so much in your definition of that, then QED I have demonstrated by using your own criteria that Cliff IJS (the proper name for these) are superior to SJS, WJS, or FJS. "ML IJS" are more frequent than Cliff IJS, but they have easily demonstrated flaws. Bergen JS are in the same boat. Find me a use for Responder's JS that is more frequent then Cliff IJS and not flawed, and I'll probably be using it ASAP.

I just ran a quick monte carlo simulation. The sim assumed that North has a 1S opening and South holds Spades(south) == 2 and hcp(south) >= 9 and hcp(south) <= 12 and ( clubs(south) >=6 and clubs(south) <= 7 ) and hascard(south, AC) + hascard(south, KC) + hascard(south, QC) == 2 Care to hazard and guess how often this 3♣ bid crops up? You've got flaws in your definitions. "Spades(south) == 2" should be "Spades(south) < 3". The Suit Quality definition is also wrong. For a 6 carder, HHHHxx or AKQxxx or AKJ9xx or AKT98x is good enough. For a 7 carder, any suit better than AJT with a broken sequence or interior sequence is good enough. AQT9xxx and KQT9xxx are also good enough. ...and I've already stated that I have no problem with an IJS holding an appropriate hand w/ an 8 card suit. (This is minor compared to the two factors above.)

What you suggest is different form whats on Mike Lawrneces 2/1 CD. I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong, but I am not sure what you are suggesting is standard. On his CD the requirements are 9-11 points (I assume HCP), and a 6-7 card decent suit. He never mentions having 2 cards in openers suit. Obviously jumpong to the 3 level with a 6 card suit vulnerable may require a better suit than a 7 card non vulnerable. He gives an example of n invitational jump shift over pards 1♠ of ♠♥K73♦9873♣AQT863 My point is - no 2 cards in openers suit (void), and thr suit is good , but not opposite a stiff. Your method may be good, but it seems like it would rarely come up. Having precisiely 2 cards in pards suit and that good a side suit. A= That 6-7 card "decent suit" ML mentions is playable if you use 1M-1N;blah-3m as a weak sign-off. (Note that "blah" is any non-strong bid. So it's not a reverse, or 2N, or a jump rebid, or a jump shift). I've already mentioned the flaw in that approach. The chances of ending up at the 3level w/o a fit or w/ < 23 HCP or both are too high. Worse, the methods warn the opponent's to go looking for penalty X's when this auction occurs. If you properly !don't! use 1M-1N;blah-3m as weak sign off and use it to show an Invitational hand, then you can use the IJS to tell partner something very specific and very important about the likely play of the hand. And that's what Picture Jumps are for. After 1S-?? With ♠♥K73♦9873♣AQT863, I'd respond 1N and rebid 3C, Invitational. For a 3C IJS as I suggest playing them, the C suit in the above hand would have to be something like HHHHxx (always 85+% chance of 5 tricks). AKQxxx (5 is ~85%) works, but no other 6 card suit headed by the A or K but with only 3 honors is good enough unless the presence of the 9 or 98 helps enough. Make that C suit a 7 carder (say transform a D) and the suit can be as weak as AKJxxxx (only 5-0 off side can hurt you) or AQJxxxx (only 5-0 can hurt you) or AKTxxxx (ditto) or KQJxxxx (ditto) AQTxxxx is not good enough, but AQT9xxx is (again, only 5-0 is trouble). In fact, KQT9xxx is good enough (same reason). 7 card suits headed by AJT or worse are never good enough. ...and Yes, I've made IJS with 8 card suits in appropriate hands. B= That's "2- cards", as in "2 or less cards" in =Opener's= suit, not the opponent's. IOW, you can't have support for Opener and make an IJS. This is the =opposite= of a Fit Showing Jump. An IJS denies primary support for Opener. C= The frequency of the IJS as I'm defining it is less than that of the ML approach, but more frequent than a SJS, or a WJS, or a FJS.

Close, but No. Work it out. T87xxx + A9x The lead is in your hand and you can afford 2 losers but not 3. You have one quick entry to the board, and some slow entries. If KQJx+=, then They get 3 tricks no matter what you do. If any kind of 2+2, Then you can always get 5 tricks; giving them only 1 trick. If you bang down the A, you guarantee only 2 losers for all 2+2 and 3+1 holdings, but you will lose 3 tricks to =+KQJx, a holding you =can= handle. You also have to worry about blocking the suit given your entry situation...

Dave_c, "In my experience the invitational jump-shift is almost guaranteed to put opener in a difficult position. Let's try these very ordinary hands, after the bidding starts 1S-3D!;?? S AJ974 H J3 D Q5 C AKT4 Here perhaps partner can stop the hearts and you can run lots of tricks in NT. Or perhaps he can't. How are you going to find out, with no bid available below 3NT?" Playing IJS correctly, you know there is almost certainly a hole in H's. You also know a= that your 7 loser hand is now a 5 loser hand and that you can safely play 4D. b= that if responder has 1-S or 2-C, you have an excellent chance of making 5D. "1S-3D!;?? S KQJ52 H AQJ83 D 3 C 84 Here if partner has heart support you might belong in 4H, but alternatively the hand could be a complete misfit not making anything higher than 3D. Make the hand a little stronger and you know you should be in game, but will you find 4H if that's the best spot? How will partner know you have five hearts?" With this hand, a correctly descriptive 3D IJS by Responder throws freezing water on any and all hopes you have. Hopefully either 3D will make or the opponents will dive into this misfit auction and you can X them into oblivion. "1S-3D!;?? S AK965 H A53 D K842 C T A lovely hand in support of diamonds, but how do you distinguish this hand from all the other different shapes that might want to raise?" If this auction occurs when you are holding this hand, it's time to go look for a D slam. =iff= your 3D IJS is properly descriptive. ...and all these Good Things happen because the 3D IJS shows a very specific kind of hand.

No wonder you hate IJS's; you aren't using them correctly. 1= The point of the IJS is to use it as a Picture Jump, not simply a single suited Invitational Hand. An IJS a= has 2- cards in Opener's Major b= HAS A SUIT THAT WILL PLAY FOR ONE LOSER OPPOSITE A SMALL STIFF. c= has ~(9)10-11(12) HCP. IOW, it is Invitational. The point of an IJS is to show a source of tricks for 3N. The sequence 1M-1N;foo-3m should show an invitational hand that does not have the kind of suit the IJS does. Therefore, it will take more work to set up in 3N. The use of 1M-1N;foo-3m to show a weak sign off is theoretically flawed. Such a sequence can easily result in being in 3m w/o a fit and with less than 23 HCP. That's a recipe for nearly automatic minus scores and much easier to find penalty X's by the opponents. Chamaco, With the OP's given ♠A♥QT9x♦xx♣AT98xx, a. what can we bid to try to invite to a decent game (given that 3♣♦♥ would be a weak signoff with long suit?) rebid 2N b. did you agree on the first choice not to bid an immediate 3♣ ? 100% c. Do you think this bidding structure (1M:3x = natural invite, chosen to "cleanup" the 1NT forcing hand type) is flawed ? Very flawed. See responses to dave_c above.

Systems with "multi-way" passes are not FP systems since by definition pass is not forcing ;) These systems actually deserve the label "Weak Opening System". The use of "Forcing Pass System" to describe actual FP systems seems to be common; and is certainly not my idea. I'm simply "part of the herd" and using what seems to be standard nomenclature in that regard. How the transition in common usage from WOS to FPS came to be for FPS's is something I am not qualified to speak to. ...and I've never contradicted nor argued in opposition to the historical facts. In fact, I've complimented you on knowing them and presenting so well. The bottom line is that using pass as a strong bid has the same advantages and disadvantages as using 1C as a strong bid; only more so. ...and if FP systems are hard to defend against, systems with more nebulous shape or value definitions for the calls are even more difficult to defend against. Such WOS definitely deserve the label "Dominant".

pass-pass-pass-??? ♠KQ♥KJT9xxx♦Kxx♣x Justin, Intermediate 2's are Standard in 4th seat. We have a flawed 12 count (no A's, KQ tight). That leaves 28 Highs for the rest of the table and since no one opened or preeempted the odds are good that everyone has unexceptional 9 counts (1/3 CHO has an unexceptional 10 count.) We have 3 controls. 3N or 4M requires 7+ usually. If CHO had 4 controls, the odds go up that they would have an opening bid. Thus the percentages are that the remaining 4 A's + 1 K are more or less evenly split around the table. The odds of Us having a Game do not look good. This looks like a partscore hand. We only have 2 S's. CHO did not bid S's, so the odds that They have S's and not Us is reasonably high. Opening 1♥ looks like it rates to make things too easy for the opponents. Opening 2♥ is both practical and darn close to dead on as a description of our likely trick taking strength in this seat (the extra trump balances out the KQ tight.) Heck, @ IMPs I might open this 3♥. Especially if They are Red.

Frances and Justin are making good points. Unless you are desperate and must assume particular distributions, or Unless table feel told you that C's were QTx or QTxx onside (17.22%), you should definitely play the suit by the percentages. (FTR, the percentage line has an expectation of 4.53 tricks and begins by cashing the ♣A and ♣K) Same goes for deciding to try and drop "the Rabbi" (the stiff king) or not with Jxxx+AQxxx (Rabbi is present 12.43% of the time here.) Over the long haul, making anti-percentage plays or calls is losing Bridge. ...and if you "take a view" and take an anti-percentage action that doesn't work when you don't have to, you lose the postmortem automatically and apologize. No ifs, ands, or buts. Even at that it can be hard on partnership harmony and longevity.

For Richard, who seems not to realize what I've said. As for the 8-12 HCP openings being tough to defend against, no more so than 1M openings in Precision. The fact that they are effective has nothing to do with equity issues. ...and this thread is just about equity issues. The FP and Ferts cause equity issues. Descriptive 8-12 HCP openings do not.

The "book bid" with this hand is 2♥ I see no reason to mastermind.

You've got a =3352 16 count. Without a C stop. X here should promise at least one if not both 4cM or the ability to convert the double to a strain you want. You are 33 in the majors, and neither strong enough nor shapely enough to convert a T/O X to a preferred strain. Bid 1D. KISS. FTR, I would overcall 1D with this hand in either the direct or the balancing seat. For those worried about missing a game, do you really think partner is going to pass 1D with 9+ HCP?

This is totally wrong. The fert shows 0-7 hcp, pass shows 13(12)+, and all other bids at the one and two level show ~8-12. No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems actually are. Peter My bad for using an oversimplified example by not explicitly discussing the 8-12 hand types. I ignored them because they aren't the problem. They are both descriptive and limited. The problem is the FP and the fert. I should have been more precise. My apologies. My main point was and is that the best defense vs a FP is a fert and the best defense to a fert is a FP. Once you've gone that far, adopting the 8-12 bids yourself is a minor extension. ...and I !don't! think FP systems are easy to defend against. OTC, it's the fact that they are hard to defend against and that the best defenses require one to adopt The Enemy's methods to do so that make them something that requires the most stringent regulation.

Most players I know call the these Forcing Pass systems. Presumably for the same reasons that we call Forcing Club systems by that name. In the 1980's for a brief time I would occasionally hear the term "Strong Pass" when referring to these systems, but it died out as nomenclature. Of course, one can also call them by their WBF legal term: HUMs; but that is considerably less precise as well as possibly being a pejorative term in the eyes of FP system advocates. From my POV, the goal of FP systems was two fold. 1= Preserve as much space as possible for our good hands. Obviously pass preserves the most space. As you rightly note, the FP has the same weaknesses, only more so, as the Forcing 1C. While it is theoretically true that you've got lot's of room for game and slam exploration, competent opponents are going to do everything they can to destroy it. 2= Open the bidding as often and as high as possible with all other hands, particularly the important due to frequency 8-12 HCP range ones. Some good articles on 1S being used as a fert and other treatments often found in FP systems, one can read stuff by Jeff Rubens in the April, May, and June 1986 _Bridge World_.

At IMPs, you take the safest route to 9 tricks no matter what. At MPs, you are in the normal 3N contract, and worse, you have extra values. With 28 HCPs between the two hands in the normal spot, you =must= take as close to 11 tricks as possible for a decent score. Even if you have to risk going down to do so. You have 1S + 3H's + 3D's= 7 top tricks. On normal breaks you have 1.5S's + 3H's + 6D's= 10.5 tricks. Remember at MPs, you must to do everything you can to take 11 tricks. plan A: D's run and you take a S finesse. (discard 1S + 3C's under last 4 D's) plan B: D's !don't! run. I'll finish this later. The Opening bidder rates to have the SK + the CA.

ROTFL. You know this how, exactly? 1= I know expert level players who have actually played FP systems enough to "grok" them. 2= I know experts who compete at the Interzonal level or higher that have had to create successful defenses vs FP systems. ...and I listened respectfully and asked lot's of respectful questions. I've also tried playing the d@mn things a few times in clubs where the owner was free thinking enough to allow it. However, I do not consider myself experienced enough with FP systems on a personal level to claim any serious level of personal competence with them. Let alone "groking" them.

From a practical POV, a= any hand that wants to be in slam opposite a stiff will want to be in slam opposite a void. b= the vast majority of hands that do not want to be in slam opposite a stiff will not want to be in slam opposite a void either. Thus the "is it a stiff or void?" issue is a minor effect compared to the fact that it is a stiff or void. Far more important is to make sure that 1= Your splinter is not an A, K, or Q. 2= Your splinters should =guarantee= values in all the side suits. So ♠xxxx♥Axxx♦KQxx♣x is a fine splinter opposite a 1S opening; ...but not opposite a 1H opening. ...and something like ♠xxxx♥xxxx♦AKQx♣x is not a good splinter opposite any 1level opening. Remember that splinters are slam probes. You can't have any wide open suits in a slam.

Let me try to clarify things and reduce some confusion. A Forcing Pass shows any hand with 12-13+ HCP that other systems would Open. The necessary corollary of FPs is "fertilizer bids" or "ferts". Colorfully named to describe the fact that you are bidding on what most other systems would consider garbage AKA fertilizer. Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show anything else about the hand. Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings. Now here's why this system is called "Dominant". The whole point of the FP is to reserve the maximum amount of space for constructive bidding. The point of the ferts is to rob Us of the 1 level when They don't have the values to open. Guess what the best defense is to a FP? Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands. Guess what the best defense is to a fert? A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands. Gosh, our defense looks like Their system. We are forced to play Their system in order to restore equity. We can't play our system or some variation of our systems. Our system has been "pwned" by Theirs. Hence the term "Dominant".

I think that you misunderstand my point: I am not claiming that Drury is "dominant". I am, however, claiming that the very notion of a dominant system is meaningless and that the existing of Drury is evidence of that fact. "Dominant" when used in a Bridge context is a technical term with a precise meaning. It specifically refers to systems or methods where the only way to restore equity to the opposing side is to force the opposing side to use the same methods as a countermeasure. FP systems are Dominant. Drury is not even close.

T2 for me is ♥K, and look at GOP's suit preference signal to see if I can better visualize the hidden hands. Dummy is fairly anemic: ♠KJT9♥T♦872♣QJ974 Given my hand: ♠Q742♥AKJ74♦AKJ♣3 On some layouts the best defense is to pull trump. But not all. The 3D bidder was forced to bid, so their values are unclear. But they can't have much. GOP's 2H raise showed ~6-9 HCP and 3-4 H's. Unless they have a 4333, they are very likely at the lower half of that range. 25 HCP in the known hands + 6-7 in GOP's hand => 8-9 HCP in Declarer's. If we give Declarer the DQ, that leaves 6-7 HCP unaccounted for. EDIT: OOPS! Fixed.

I've always felt that the complaints about so-called dominant systems are particularly ill considered, especially when they come from folks who play Drury.... Nearly every bidding system out here changes the meaning of the opening bid structure based on seat. A first seat preempt looks nothing like a 4th seat preempt. The strength required to open 1M and first seat is dramatically different than than required in third seat. Many pairs make significant changes to their response structures to protect against light openings in third / fourth seat (Drury, semi-forcing NTs, etc) I'm not complaining that people make these changes. Indeed, I think that it is logical that they do so. However, I think that every system is equally dominant... At the end of the day, complaints about Light Opening Systems boil down to some people's assumption that they have a god given right to an uncontested auction and that they shouldn't need to work on their defensive methods. Drury is not even close to Dominant. Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the term. The comment about all systems being equally dominant seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the term. Perhaps some players "feel a god given right to an uncontested auction", but I'd be surprised if you could find one. Especially amongst experts. You are being dismissive to an inappropriate degree about an important problem. For instance, there is only =one= viable defense strategy vs. Forcing Pass systems. a= be in 1st chair b= else play a FP system yourself. If a pair playing a FP system comes to your table, the only reasonable defense on any board where We are not in 1st chair is to play their card and not your own. =That's= why they are called "Dominant." Now let's look at a less extreme example. The Kamikaze NT. This flat preempt is actually fairly bad bridge if the opponents have a proper defense and use it with proper discipline. That's why you don't see it much at the highest levels. Unfortunately, the proper defense requires a fairly complex structure and has reasonably high memory overhead. Low level players who are still having trouble with more basic aspects of the game are at a seriously unfair disadvantage when facing a pair playing the KNT. Most of the good results obtained by the KNT pair when playing against such opponents is due to the KNT pair "pulling a fast one" due to information they have that the opponents don't, not due to superior bridge skills. Clearly there is a need to restore equity here. Less so than in the FP example, but still seriously so. Compared to either of these or a number of other examples I could give (Multi-2D, Most 2suited 2bids, etc etc), Drury is a =minor= problem for the opponents to defend against since you can use effectively mostly standard defensive methods with a few tweaks against it.

So you're going to ban Standard American? Take a simple uncontested auction...1♣-1♠-1NT-P Have you ever actually described your Standard American 1 club opener? I mean, really, completely, and totally described it? Are there some hands you would open with some partners and pass with others? Are there some hands that you open 1 club with 4-4, or open 1 diamond with 3-3 or 4 diamonds and 5 clubs? How about with a 5 card major, when would you open 1 club with those? Then take the 1 spade response. When would you bypass a 4 card diamond suit? How about a 4 card heart suit? How weak can you be? Will you respond with a shapely 0 count like my example on the general forums? Now how about the 1NT. Can you have 6 clubs? Would you ever bid 2 clubs with 5? How much would you need exactly to bid 2 diamonds? How about 2 hearts? If I'm using SA in a field were SA is common or commonly expected, my opponents know all the inferences you are worrying about here that matter. Some inferences don't matter to a specific board. "The difference that makes no difference is no difference." Admittedly, there are inferences that may matter that may be missed. That's why Opening leader is allowed to ask questions before leading and their partner is allowed to ask questions before the opening lead is faced. This is also why pairs must have a CC available for inspection at any time by the opponents. ...and FTR, experts play in pick up partnerships all the time w/o much system discussion beyond "SA pard?" or "2/1 pard?" and they do =quite= well at figuring out what the hands are around the table. Your comment re: the top 100 pairs is simply wrong; and would likely be wrong for more than the top 1 =million= pairs in the world.

Some IMHO excellent words on what the spirit of Active Ethics should be: "When my opponent makes a bid, I feel entitled to full knowledge of exactly what the bid means and what developments may ensue, regardless of what I hold. Even in completely unobstructed auctions, I want to be in a position to assess what my opponents may be thinking about. I want to think ahead about what bids I might want to double for a lead or penalty., and I want to be thinking ahead to Our opening lead. These things are all possible against players who use known methods,and mostly impossible against players using unfamiliar methods." Roy Hughes, p108 of _Building a Bidding System_ I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible. I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills. I also strongly disagree with players being able to use methods that would result in opponents having to "re learn the game" or "play the opponent's system rather than their own". IOW, so called "dominant methods" are =definitely= a problem for most levels of the game, and other methods can be a problem depending on the field in which they are proposed to be used in. For instance, Novices should not have to put up with the Kamikaze NTs, Frelling 2's, etc, etc. ...and before I hear the "Mad Scientists" predictably protest, let me remind one and all that =Bridge is a game= and that tournament bridge is a =entertainment business=. People supposedly pay to play Bridge for enjoyment. If customers do not like what they are getting for their money, they will stop spending it on whatever disappoints them. There is far more than "intellectual purity" at stake when discussing these issues.

...and I go slamming. "Paging Ken Rexford. Mr Rexford to the bidding forums please." 3♣ Advance Cue followed by 4♦ if pard tries to sign off in 3♥

jtfanclub, Using SA or 2/1, a response promises ~6+ HCP and 2+ cover cards. There is no teacher anywhere who is going to support responding on 0 counts.