Crunch3nt

I agree with 5 and 6 completely. I agree with 3 and 7 as well, but we do continue to relay up to two steps higher because we play a hum and/or transfers and so generally are 1-2 steps lower than eg standard symmetric. For 1 and 2, we add a step to differentiate between good and bad trumps in their suit, and then the step order changes to make double the step that shows good trumps. Our normal order is Diamonds, Clubs, Other major, Single-suited. So, eg: 1D (4+ Hearts, can have longer minor) (Pass) 1H (Relay) (1S Natural): Pass = Hearts & Diamonds (1st Step) Dbl = Hearts & 4 Good Spades (usually 3rd step) 1NT = Hearts & Clubs (usually 2nd Step) 2C = Hearts & 4 Poor spades (usually 3 step) 2D = Single Suiter High Shortage - usually 4th step etc Michael

If you play a standard multi-two diamonds, this hand qualifies easily for 8 PT. If not, and you are playing standard, just rebid 2NT anyway. You get to to 3NT or 4H. WTP? The auction (not playing Gazilli or 2NT=3-6) 1m - 1M; 3m should deny 3M.

I get to play semi-forcing pass in big events (Australia, New Zealand) regularly. We play Crunch - a slightly different scheme as those stated so far. I totally agree that the chances of getting world championship play is low - my partner and I submitted it in time with full disclosure for the Bermuda Bowl in Sao Paulo. As per the regulations we knew we were not allowed to play it until the knockout stages - Didn't matter, the WBF banned it for the whole event regardless! Their official reason was inadequate disclosure on the system card, but this was nonsense and we were not told what the alleged shortcomings were. Unfortunately New Zealand did make the knockout stages anyway. We hadn't played it during the NZ trial either. Our scheme is pass is 0-6 or 15-20. This makes dealing with competition much easier as responder assumes it is 0-6 and doesn't bid on marginal hands, while opener with 15-20 has enough strength to reenter the auction safely. Our 1H "fert" is not a fert at all - it shows 7-10 any shape and is a huge winner, enabling good competition by us and extracting penalties when they overbid. In terms of relay, forcing pass is a huge gain over a strong 1C, that extra step is gold in responding.

What is the advantage of Keycard ask as the 1st step in scan, as opposed to symmetric style control ask (2,1 or 3,2,1 as you prefer)?

You have created here, exactly the Swedish Club and it meets most of your goals. There is a way around having 2C/2D as both 10-15, but of course there is always trade-offs. Not sure what an acol fan like yourself has against 4 card majors? If you play 4 card majors (can be canape in a minor only) the issue of a 2C opening with a 4 card major doesn't occur. Then if playing 4 card majors, you are able to use 2NT/3C/3D as showing Single Suited 6 card suits. trading off ineffectual minor preempts. You seem to have a 4th criteria that is to play a weak NT opening. I do not like your 2nd system suggestion at all as it combines too many balanced / unbalanced hands together, but if you insist on weak NT you could play: 1C = 16+ or weak with clubs, unbal, no major, can be 5/5 minors 1D = 10-15 4+ H, unbal, may have longer minor 1H = 10-15 4+ S, unbal, may have longer minor 1S = 14-16 Bal 1NT = 11-13 Bal 2C = Ekrens 2D = Multi 2H/S = Dutch 2NT = 13-15 6D 3C = Std pre 3D = 10-12 6D Most people would swap 1S and 1NT around esp vul. Personally I would give the Dutch 2M openings away ahead of Ekrens - don't achieve that much and very easy to defend against. Perhaps a better suggestion: 1C = 16+ or weak with DIAMONDS, unbal, no major, can be 5/5 minors 1D = 10-15 4+ H, unbal, may have longer minor 1H = 10-15 4+ S, unbal, may have longer minor 1S = 14-16 Bal 1NT = 11-13 Bal 2C = 10-15, 6+ C 2D = Multi 2H = Ekrens 2S = Dutch If insist on 5 card majors, then how about: 1C = 16+ or weak with Diamonds, unbal, no major, can be 5/5 minors 1D = 10-15, 4 card major, plus 5+ either minor, or any 4441 1H = 10-15 5+ H 1S = 10-15 5+ S 1NT = 12-15 Bal 2C = 10-15, 6+ C 2D = Multi 2H = Ekrens 2S = Dutch Not sure how 1D opening would work in practise, but looks good!

Thank you for the support Blue Calm! I have done no simulations, or detailed study by me, just intuition. Bluecalm: "I think the problem is that the sentence "it's better to play from stronger side" is so natural for every bridge player (because we are taught that way) that noticing it's wrong is very hard because our brains are not active in seeking evidence to the contrary. So even if it was wrong (ie. it wouldn't matter almost at all) I doubt people would notice." Exactly! I have noticed the exceptions occur more frequently than common opinion would have it, which is why I posted this poll. I totally agree, you should have a method over multi, that allows responder to chose who plays it. One of my points, is that if you have a strong hand, with no tenaces, don't just automatically hog it as there is an advantage to a weak, distributional hand playing it. awm posted a point about the standard of the opponents, which I think may be a good point, as it is rare I get to play consistently against "experts", I normally play against open players, but not experts. The fact remains though, it seems to me that they do misdefend more when the shapely hand is concealed. Tgoodwinsr made a point about over 1NT, having both 4H and 4C available as hearts to play - That is exactly how I play it for this exact reason. Oleberg posted another convention we play 1NT-3M is 4 card, forcing. (over a weak NT). We also play Stayman, so this way responder has a choice about who plays it. Another example of where we play positional bids is over Namyats - 4C-4D is purely a transfer back to 4H, saying I have no tenaces, you play it, not a slam try.

Nicely reasoned. :-)

One of the poster's to hanp's thread regarding responses to a Multi, notes that the response to multi scheme below is the standard universal approach by good players. (And I agree, it is): 3♣ = any minimum 3♦ = max with hearts 3♥ = max with spades or reversed structure (where 3♣ is any max). After 3♣ bidding 3♦ ask partner to show the suit he doesn't have (so strong hand declarer) I don't agree with this, and this post has motivated me to explore my own minority theory that overall, having a weak, but distributional hand be declarer ie concealing the shape, number of a side suit for defence to cash etc, is overall, actually greater than the positional advantage etc of the strong hand being declarer. Having, in the multi situation, the weak two as dummy, I find usually makes the defence very easy. Votes, explanations and thoughts please.

The good news is I think that passing 3NT is correct. The bad news is that I think you played it very poorly. The 3NT/4H decision is close at MP but Partner can be short (singleton or more likely doubleton) in 3 suits. If a black suit (2/3rds) then 3NT seems a better shot. If diamonds they can still misdefend 3NT as here. As to the play you should definitely cash your spades first, then cash the hearts, before deciding whether to finesse or not. In most cases their discards will allow you to finesse safely (pitch too many diamonds), or simply tell you who has club K (signalling). In fact you may be able to exit with dummy's diamond endplaying West out of his KC. If they defend better than I suggest, then finessing is still the percentage play as 1) West who was not vul has failed to overcall 1NT with diamond honours and possible KC. 2) Just generally East has more vacant spaces (assuming diamonds 5-3) or 3) playing for split points.

11 tricks in 5S now seems a low percentage. Partner needed to bid 5S, not me. I have an Ace so I double.

I strongly think you should play that pass shows values. Thinking you are off the hook with a weak hand is an illusion as if they run and then partner doubles for take-out and you have solved nothing and may now be at the three level! Pass clarifies whose hand it is immediately, can put you in penalty mode (if you want), or just enables easy subsequent bidding without guessing.

Not sure I'd have thought of 4NT at the table, but I like it!

Double is automatic. Partner can beat this on his own. We know this from RHO failure to act. Partner has 5 trumps and a good hand or 4 trumps and a great hand

I find that very hard to believe!

"The Q of trumps is a too important card to be considered like a regular queen. " - Agree but in this example (and indeed most hands), you don't know what trumps are. We tried adding a control (using A2, K1) for the Queen of the shower's 5+ suits, which sounded cool in theory, but we found didn't gain in practice. "Finish your shape lower and having unclear hcp is much much better than having exact hcp but being higher" - Totally Agree "Much easier to relay unbalanced hand than a balanced one." - Totally agree, but not relevant here as both hands are balanced.

Surprised by this Hombre. IH must be allowed to be 4 because most people overcall 1D with good 5/6 card suit and a 4 card major on the side. Also I thought the majority played a 1 level change of suit opposite an overcall as forcing for 1 round, but a 2 level change of suit as non-forcing? On your sample hand (Kx AJ10xx xx xxxx), you have too much to pass, so it is a straight forward 1H forcing bid.

We sort of play it in Crunch, but not the same. Our 1S opening shows 5+ either minor, or both, no 4 card major, unbalanced 10-14. This is probably not allowed in most countries. Crunch is a HUM system. The 1S opening works great. Over that we play 1NT invite+ relay, and minors as P/C. Very preemptive against them and accurate for us. We have had one bad board where we underestimated the size of our minor fit due to opposition bidding, but only one in about 40 1S openers. I'm not sure about what regulations exist in US for responding to my nebulous 1D suggestion. I would play 1H relay giving up partscore accuracy for game / slam accuracy, but relay is not eveyone's cup of tea. Is 1H allowed systemically on a 3 card suit? If so don't see why reasonably natural continuations wont work.

I agree entirely about the inherent crappiness of 1D/2C/2D openings in big club systems. My own very minority view is that you are better to put the 11-15 unbal with clubs into the 1D bid, leaving 1C as Swedish - 11-13 Bal or 16+. This overloads the 1D opening but so what - it is only a minor. The opponents have to guess too.

Agree no method perfect and this does seem pretty good. We try to solve this problem by having two types of relay asks. 1) Std symmetric DCB style, and 2) An encoded type where Kings and queens are shown as either 1 or other 2 similar to here. So if shape is out at say 3D, then 3H relays method 1, and 3S relays method 2. The key, of course, is that the hand asking knows whether they can decode the answers or not and can select method as appropriate. A couple of other points. 1) Here the strong hand is being asked by the weak hand - never ideal. My system (not a big club either) suffers from the same problem :-) 2) I totally agree with Shevek's point about getting exact shape etc out lower. It is a constant battle, but the lower the better - especially for balanced shapes because they are so common.

I think double is clear as well. That brings the vote to 6 for double, 2 for pass, 2 for 5D and 1 for 5H. Perhaps then, you are crazy, as you think the majority action is crazy? :D

Most players, including me, just don't have the discipline for a pass, at this vulnerability, so 3NT it is. kfay, I thought we all played 4D as 5/5 D&H these days?

Normally with invite in spades you go via 2NT (round here anyways), If 3D is not Pass or correct, then 2NT must be South's correct bid?

Partner is a good player and yet has made a very unusual call. Not going via 2H at least is very odd. What could compel a competent partner to avoid 3NT so promptly and take away all our room? Only a heart void and extreme shape something like 3082 with a 1 loser suit in diamonds eg KQx - AQJ10xxxx xx I raise to 6D. I think not raising is an insult to your partner.

Playing "standard" as opposed to 2 over 1, I can't think of another meaning for 4H other than as a splinter agreeing diamonds. 2S has 100% denied 3H.

Excellent analysis pinpointing the issue. Given these methods 3D was a much better call. Re methods, playing specific Michaels would have helped a lot here too.