2/1 or Big Club

[glen]

Here’s the scenario – you won the megabucks lottery, hired Paul Solway as partner, Eric Kokish as your partnership coach, and with 4 other pro teammates you enter the next US team trials. Soloway is a world class 2/1 player and a world class big club player, and asks you to select the system. Do you pick 2/1 or big club or something else?

[ArcLight]

If I won the megabux lottery, and hired those guys I would say to them:

 

I want to become a good bridge player, as opposed to winning events because you played great and carried me. I want you to help me improve all aspects of my card play and bidding judgment. Currently I only know 2/1. I will use whatever system you want. I think my card play needs huge improvement and any gains from system or conventions would be miniscule compared to that.

 

I'd like to do something the Dallas Aces did, namely play some hands then have you critique my bidding and play.

 

 

I would also pay Fred to add some features to BBO. :o

[keylime]

I voted for the 4 card majors and big club, since that's what I'm playing currently. The transition wouldn't be as hard as it would be for something else.

[mikeh]

If this had happened 20 years ago, I'd vote for the big club method. I think that big club contains more capacity for weird science than does 2/1. See the Meckwell approach... I know of no 2/1 method with anything like the level of detail that Meckwell uses in their agreements, and while that is (I assume) partly Rodwell's capacity for invention and Meckstroth's capacity to learn, it is also, in my view, a reflection of the underlying differences between the two methods: and I write that as someone who has played a very, very complex 2/1 method.

 

But now, in my mid-fifties, I'd opt for 2/1 because I am not sure that I can or want to learn a sufficiently complex big club method. And I am firmly of the view that a relatively simple 2/1 approach will beat a relatively simple big club method.... whereas a complex big club will beat a complex 2/1.

 

More importantly, I believe that difference in player skill is more important than difference in methods used. Both count:poor players using great methods will never beat good players playing reasonable methods, but if the quality of play is comparable, then methods will have an impact.

 

So I'd settle for a reasonable method, easy for me to remember, and focus on learning judgement from Soloway.

[TylerE]

Mike, I'd be curious in your evidence re: effectiveness of "simple" big club systems. It's been my expirience that even a fairly simple big club (say, plain jane precision, 2+ 1D, 13-15 NT, trump and control asks), will consistently outpreform or at worst equal a typical "club expert" 2/1 system. Also, the auctions you normally win big on are NOT the 1C auctions, but auctions like 2C (intermediate) - 3C - AP, 1M - 4M, etc. Tend to do pretty well on the 1C auctions too though.

[keylime]

Mike,

 

A question for you.

 

Age may have some degree of factor with regards to preference, but does locale help to dictate in essence, what isn't comfortable or playable with regards to general approach? And does this in turn help to reserve valuable brain cells for judgment and play?

[mikeh]

Mike, I'd be curious in your evidence re: effectiveness of "simple" big club systems. It's been my expirience that even a fairly simple big club (say, plain jane precision, 2+ 1D, 13-15 NT, trump and control asks), will consistently outpreform or at worst equal a typical "club expert" 2/1 system. Also, the auctions you normally win big on are NOT the 1C auctions, but auctions like 2C (intermediate) - 3C - AP, 1M - 4M, etc. Tend to do pretty well on the 1C auctions too though.

I am not discussing 'club expert' methods. The OP suggested playing with Soloway B)

 

Club experts are not, with all respect, very good players on the whole.

 

Club experts rarely know how to bid very well at all, regardless of method: they appear to be strong because they are more effective than the run-of-the-mill club player, and their mistakes don't cost because the opps don't know how to make them pay. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

 

But the big club suffers from several theoretical and practical problems.

 

1. 1♣ is easy to preempt, because opener hasn't begun to show shape. Obviously, on many occasions the opps cannot preempt, because they lack the shape or because of vulnerability. But suction, psycho suction and other gadgets can be extremely effective. So we need compensatory benefits for when the opps stay out: our competitive auctions will be impaired compared to 2/1 so our constructive auctions need to be better. This requires much science.

 

2. 2♣ preempts our side. While the definition of the opening helps, the reality is that we are starting our bidding a full level higher than our 2/1 competition. That loss of bidding space outweighs the gain in definition on most hands.

 

3. Playing 5 card majors usually results in playing a catch-all 1♦ opening. This is a clear theoretical loss compared to the definition for a 1♦ opening in 2/1, especially if, as is common these days, the 2/1 bidders show 4+ diamonds (open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2). Playing 4 card majors solves this issue, to some degree, but 4 card major methods (which I have played in a big club context) have problems of their own: it is no surprise that most top players prefer 5 card major methods.

 

These problems cannot be 'overcome': they are integral to the method. So a big club must be sufficiently better than 2/1 on other aspects of bidding to offset this weakness. My experience suggests that a good 2/1 method is pretty good. So a good big club must be better than 'pretty good'. And to be better, it is necessary, in my view, for it to be very complex.

 

Making things far worse is the reality that most top level big club methods are home-grown. Whether they started life as Precision (as did Meckwell) or Schenken or Ultimate Club or Blue Team, etc, they are usually very idiosyncratic, while most 2/1 gadgets are relatively common knowledge.

 

For example, a few years ago I had the privilege of partnering Grant Baze, filling in for the client in the second half of knockouts. I learned a couple of gadgets he'd learned from the Poles on his then-regular big team. Other than that, as we filled out the card, I already knew all the gadgets he wanted to play. I doubt that I could have as easy a time with, say, a Rodwell or a Berkowitz, if I had suggested playing their preferred methods :P

[jtfanclub]

I am not discussing 'club expert' methods. The OP suggested playing with Soloway :P

 

Club experts are not, with all respect, very good players on the whole.

I think the biggest disadvantage of SAYC and 2/1 is that they're terrible at bidding slams. Both 2 clubs and 2NT pre-empt their own side, and the systems used even by strong players (edit: playing a slight variant of 2/1 or SA) after 1 of a suit don't impress me much for finding slam.

 

But the thing is, finding slam isn't a big deal if you're a 'club expert'. I can usually hold my own against the club experts, and every time I do something more fancy than a simple squeeze or a strip-and-throw I feel darned proud of myself, whereas a real expert is doing stuff routinely that I'd never consider. But if you don't know that stuff, then there isn't much point in bidding non-obvious slams, IMHO. If you don't have the tools to make it, why bid it?

 

Basic Precision isn't real good at bidding slams either- it does its best at finding low level part scores that SAYC and 2/1 blow past. But add a few relays and other baubles and it'll find all sorts of good slams that are hopeless for more standard systems.

 

In answer to the question, my first choice would be to learn a brand new system of theirs, second choice would be for them to learn a brand new system of mine. If I take existing SAYC or 2/1 as played with random BBO 'advanced' players and try to learn how to play it with their flavoring, I'll constantly be making "I thought everybody played it that way" mistakes, and I doubt they can reach down far enough to catch everything that they do slightly differently than the basic books do. On a brand new system, starting from scratch, I don't have to worry about that. They have to explain every bid, every auction, and I won't get confused about conflicting advice.

[helene_t]

I voted 2/1 because I have no idea what kinf of big club system Soloway plays, and I don't think Berkowitz/Manleys book is complete enough. If we agreed on BWS or BB-Advanced or such we would be able to manage. Or at least me forgetting the trump count would lose more IMPs than system oopses.

 

Given some time to make agreements I would probably prefer som sort of Precision so maybe I should change my vote.

 

That said I would (as in any partnership) like to keep system discussions to a minimum and focus on style issues, especially preempt style and overcall style.

[glen]

Soloway has played several big club systems, my fav being the Goldman-Soloway Attack system, not vul only. This had 8+ point openings.

 

You can assume for this scenario that Soloway can handle any non-relay big club system. He probably will not like switching to Polish Club, but he will pick it up pretty fast.

 

Btw thanks to everybody who has posted and/or voted, and thanks to those that will be

[Apollo81]

I'd play 2/1 when opps NV and strong club when opps Vul to improve my game on both fronts, and I think there's a reasonable amount of theoretical advantage for that anyway.

[pclayton]

I'll play Hamway club.

 

Its always a good policy to let the weaker player choose the system he's more comfortable with.

 

Just kidding.

[awm]

I'd choose a strong club, for some reasons that Mikeh may have missed. In particular:

 

There are substantial advantages to opening light, distributional hands. This is to such a degree that many top pairs have adopted multi 2♦ in order to open these hands with 2M, despite the fact that this is a high-variance tactic and occasionally a disaster when the hand is a misfit. The Poles were winning ridiculous numbers of imps using Wilcosz 2♦, an alternate (perhaps better) approach to multi for opening the same hands. Without these gadgets, I often see 2/1 players opening these sorts of hands at the one level, despite the fact that when no good fit materializes they often end in a very poor 3NT contract down multiple tricks. While we can debate the tradeoffs (gains vs. losses) from opening these hands, it seems clear that there are substantial gains to getting into the auction early with hands in the 8-11 point range holding 5-5 in two suits or 5-4 with concentrated values.

 

Playing a strong club allows us to open these sorts of hands at the one level, allowing us to find light fitting games, preempt the auction aggressively when a fit materializes, direct a lead from partner, reduce the comfort-level of opponents constructive auction, and maintain safety that the two-level opening lacks when no fit exists. Because the strong club limits opener's hand, we are much less likely to "hang ourselves" than 2/1 players opening these same cards at the one-level, and can play follow up methods that cater to the actual opening range we are using (something like 8-15 where the 8-10 counts are unbalanced with concentrated values in suits) rather than having to cope with a huge opening range (virtually 8-22 if we are opening concentrated 5-5 8s in a 2/1 base system). We essentially get all the advantages of the light opening style (and there are so many advantages that people are adopting this style even without the safeguard of a limited range) with almost none of the disadvantages. Also note that this sort of "win" requires very little complexity in terms of system; you simply discuss what opening range to expect and adjust your response structure by a few points to compensate.

 

As to the disadvantages Mike mentions, I think the weakness of the strong club opening when opponents intervene exists, but is somewhat overrated. The majority of strong club opening hands are balanced (no surprise, the majority of all hands are balanced). When opener holds a balanced 18 for example, we are much better placed after 1♣(strong) - interference than we are after 1♣(natural wide-ranging) - interference, because responder is prepared to take action on various intermediate range hands. For some more concrete examples, say the auction goes 1♣-2♠-P-P and opener has a flat 18. In standard bidding what do you even bid? 2NT could be a disaster but there are many hands in the 7-9 point range where partner has no bid over 2♠ opposite what is usually a weak notrump and game is excellent. In a strong club you are content to pass because you have the expected hand and partner's pass denies game interest. Even when partner bids, if the auction goes 1♣-2♠-3♥-P and you have a balanced 18 without a good heart fit (say 3-2-4-4) how happy are you? In a strong club you are content to bid 3NT (assuming a stopper) knowing that partner will bid on with suitable values for slam. With a natural system, you need to show the "extra values" in a sensible way but for many folks 4NT is keycard.... In any case, I agree that you often lose by playing a strong club when opener has a distributional hand and the opponents intervene, and it becomes harder to find your fit and compete the hand to the right level, and there is some disadvantage because opponents are allowed to use more disruptive methods (most events don't allow psycho-suction over a natural 1♣ opening), but you do win on the very frequent strong balanced hands.

 

The 2♣ opening, if it shows six clubs, seems to win more than it loses. The opponents are under a lot of pressure after this opening bid, and will often end up too high or in the wrong fit. If partner has a good hand you usually shut opponents out (takes more to overcall at the two-level than the one-level) and there is plenty of space to explore for game or slam efficiently because the 2♣ opening is so much more informative than a natural 1♣. There are occasional "mid-range" hands where you have trouble finding a major suit fit that the standard bidders are finding, but I think the competitive advantages of this bid are a net win. Consider how hard it is for partner to raise clubs in a standard auction after 1♣ (3+ or even 2+), and how easy it is for opponents to overcall 1M after this opening. You also get your hand off your chest in one call, and avoid issues like 1♣-1♠-P-2♠ and deciding whether to bid 3♣ on a minimum (partner could have three or even four clubs, but could also be broke, and the 3♣ bid carries such a wide range of values that partner may have difficult decisions after that call as well).

[glen]

Very good posting Adam, and hard to disagree with.

 

One reason for this poll was that after watching top events in recent years, I see the big 1♣ openings mostly getting a free ride. It seems to me if that is the case at the top levels then a big club is the better method to play there. However if playing at less-than-top levels, 2/1 is nice-and-easy.

[pbleighton]

One reason for this poll was that after watching top events in recent years, I see the big 1♣ openings mostly getting a free ride. It seems to me if that is the case at the top levels then a big club is the better method to play there. However if playing at less-than-top levels, 2/1 is nice-and-easy.

 

Of course, at less than top levels, the big club gets even more of a free ride.

 

Peter

[helene_t]

Of course, at less than top levels, the big club gets even more of a free ride.

It's not only a question of level. It's a question of temper as well. The LOLs (well we are LOLs ourselves but don't consider ourselves as such) at the local club are so impressed by our 16 points that they don't look at their own cards but just pass. Letting us play our low-level partscores with 16+2 HCPs while they have a fit themselves.

 

The weirdoes on BBO, OTOH, always interfere. I'm not sure if an uncontested 1♣ auction has ever happened. +1100 on a partscore board is the record so far.

[kenrexford]

I know of no 2/1 method with anything like the level of detail that Meckwell uses in their agreements, and while that is (I assume) partly Rodwell's capacity for invention and Meckstroth's capacity to learn, it is also, in my view, a reflection of the underlying differences between the two methods: and I write that as someone who has played a very, very complex 2/1 method.

Oh, you might be surprised...

[glen]

I never heard of a more complex version of 2/1 than Mike's - it had everything and a kitchen sink too

[pbleighton]

Oh, you might be surprised...

 

So Ken, are you the Eric Rodwell of 2/1?

 

Peter

[Guest Jlall]

Strong club because I think its better.

[cherdano]

If this had happened 20 years ago, I'd vote for the big club method. I think that big club contains more capacity for weird science than does 2/1. See the Meckwell approach... I know of no 2/1 method with anything like the level of detail that Meckwell uses in their agreements, and while that is (I assume) partly Rodwell's capacity for invention and Meckstroth's capacity to learn, it is also, in my view, a reflection of the underlying differences between the two methods: and I write that as someone who has played a very, very complex 2/1 method.

I am no Meckwell expert, but do they really have more complex agreements in their 1♣ auctions than in their 2/1 auctions after a 1M opening? Do their methods contain more weird science than the various Italian 2/1 methods?

[pbleighton]

I am no Meckwell expert, but do they really have more complex agreements in their 1♣ auctions than in their 2/1 auctions after a 1M opening? Do their methods contain more weird science than the various Italian 2/1 methods?

 

I am no Meckwell expert either, but I believe that a lot of their however many pages of agreements pertain to competitive auctions, especially the strong club auctions. I read somewhere that they are the only strong club pair to actually win IMPs on their strong club hands.

 

Peter

[helene_t]

I am no Meckwell expert either, but I believe that a lot of their however many pages of agreements pertain to competitive auctions, especially the strong club auctions. I read somewhere that they are the only strong club pair to actually win IMPs on their strong club hands.

Makes sense. I'm sure they have specific defense against the 20 or so most common interference systems used against 1♣, plus generic defense against the rest, and psyche unmasking.

[Gerben42]

Usually the stronger player adapts to the weaker player in a partnership, systemwise. So I guess it will be Polish Club or 2/1 for me.

[kenrexford]

I never heard of a more complex version of 2/1 than Mike's - it had everything and a kitchen sink too

If you want a teaser, read the following analysis of an aspect of my 2/1 bidding style that may shed light on the comparison of complexity between approaches:

 

Let’s talk surrealism. I’ll warn you that perhaps no one will ever have agreements laid out to the degree as you will now read, if you do keep reading. However, I found the process of thinking through what follows to be fascinating intellectually and hilarious from the standpoint of creating the most esoteric and complicated theory I have ever imagined, for a very rare occurrence. However, it might be interesting to some as a thought experience. Plus, who knows? Someone might actually use this. Plus, I believe that you will agree that, esoteric though it might be, it is actually sound, even if admittedly frightening.

 

I have thought about the existence of the Empathetic Splinter in great detail recently and have realized a frightening reality. It is possible to expand Empathetic Splinter theory into one of the most complicated, and yet inherently logical, set of rules I have ever seen.

 

The Empathetic Splinter usually arises in the context of a specific double-fit matrix. The partnership, to make slam on HCP’s in 22-26 range, needs to have the following matrix:

 

1. One 4-4 fit, although a 5-4 fit would be better yet. (“The 4-4 Fit”)

2. One 5-3 fit, although a 5-4 fit might likewise be a suitable substitute. (“The 5-3 fit”)

3. One suit controlled by an Ace, although a King in that suit might offer the 12th trick. (“The Ace-only Suit”)

4. One suit controlled by shortness, preferably a void of course. (“The Shortness Suit”)

 

With this matrix, the partnership playing in the 4-4 fit can expect to take five tricks in the side suit, four obvious tricks in the trump fit, one additional trick in the trump fit by way of a ruff, and the side Ace, losing only one trick for the stiff. This is the case if all critical cards are held, meaning the A-K-Q of the two fits and the side Ace. That amounts to 22 HCP’s. Add in a jack or two for safety, and you get to 23-24 HCP’s, depending upon your risk preference and/or whether the fit is 4-4 or 5-4.

 

That gets the partnership to 11 tricks. The 12th trick comes from a void (two ruffs), the side King (now 25-27 HCP’s needed), and Ace in the stiff suit (26-28 HCP’s needed), a 5-4 fit for the 4-4 option and trumps 2-2, or a sixth card in the side suit.

 

Note that all of these slams make when traditional HCP analysis, even adding in distributional values, does not suggest that the slam will make. However, the play is usually simple.

 

Now, the Empathetic Splinter is an unusual call made by a 1NT opener, one that is clearly a slam try but made when slam cannot be possible (or is very highly unlikely) contextually (such as opposite a Responder who has limited himself to invitational values, for example) unless this matrix is present. (There is another matrix, the 5-3 fit coupled with a side 3-5 fit, but that is not yet discussed and often cannot be present. Further, this 44/53/A/stiff matrix pops up in other contexts, like the 1M-P-2M-P-new-P-3NT auction.)

 

The Empathetic Splinter can be made by Opener when any two suits of the matrix are known (for example, the 4-4 fit is known and the stiff is known), with the call made by Opener identifying the location of one of the two remaining unknowns. Thus, for example, if the 4-4 are known and the stiff is known, then Opener might identify the location of the 5-3 fit and perforce locate the location where only the Ace is relevant.

 

Now, when Opener “identifies” the 5-3 fit, he is not saying that a 5-3 fit exists. Rather, he is precisely stating that his hand caters to the 5-3 fit if Responder has five cards in this suit.

 

An example might clarify this. Somehow, after a 1NT opening, Responder uses a strange technique wherein his bid of the other major after Stayman is a short-suit game try, agreeing the major that Opener bid. Just accept that, for the purposes of a simple example. So, maybe 1NT-P-2♣-P-2♠-P-3♥ agrees spades, with 3♥ being a short-suit game try. Assume, also, that 3♥ for some reason cannot be a strong bid, limited to invitational only. Again, this is necessary to explain, even if this auction is bizarre. Real auctions occur, but rarely so obvious.

 

Anyway, hearing this, Opener might bid 4♣ to show a hand that would “fit” the Empathetic Splinter matrix where spades is the 4-4 fit, hearts is the known shortness, clubs is now identified as the suitable 5-3 “fit” if Responder happens to have five clubs, and, by force of elimination, diamonds becomes the Ace-only suit.

 

Identification of the matrix is necessary because the Empathetic Splinter, by definition logically derived, is a call that shows five of the seven cover cards that would be relevant for that possible matrix. The seven cover cards potentially described are the Ace, King, and Queen of the 4-4 fit and the 5-3 fit, plus the Ace in the Ace-only suit.

 

Thus, if Opener held, for instance, ♠ K Q x x ♥ x x x ♦ A x x ♣ A Q x, he would have five of seven cover cards in the proper matrix if Responder has 4135 pattern, but not if Responder holds 4135 pattern. Although the club Queen is a cover-card in the traditional sense, it is not a “matrix” cover card. The simple reality is that the Queen is a duplicated value opposite 4153 pattern, because Opener’s two losing diamonds could have been covered by the fourth and fifth club. Thus, the diamond Queen does not help the matrix.

 

So, again, Opener identifies to what matrix he can cater by his call. If two suits of the matrix are known, a requirement for the Empathetic Splinter, then the bid by Opener identifies the third and infers the fourth, completing the picture.

 

So far, bridge logic dictates this result. If Opener’s call must be a slam move to make sense, and if the slam move can only make sense if this matrix exists, then the call must clarify the matrix to which Opener can cater. Two of the four must be known for the call to be readable.

 

At this point in the discussion, partnership agreement must now kick in. There is no “bridge logic” that dictates which of the remaining two “unknowns” Opener should identify. Why? In the example of a known 4-4 fit and a known shortness, an effective partnership could identify the catered 5-3, thereby inferring the ace-only. Or, equally effectively, the partnership could instead elect to identify the Ace-only and infer thereby the catered 5-3. So, defaults must be agreed.

 

There are six possible scenarios needing agreement. My personal suggestions follow:

 

1. If the 4-4 fit is known and the 5-3 fit is known, then the Empathetic Splinter identifies the shortness suit (Opener shows no wasted values in a specific suit and infers five of the seven matrix covers, the other unknown being the Ace-only suit).

2. If the 4-4 fit is known and the shortness is known, then the Empathetic Splinter identifies the 5-3 suit, inferring by elimination the Ace-only suit.

3. If the 4-4 fit is known and the Ace-only suit is known, then the Empathetic Splinter identifies the shortness suit and infers the location of the 5-3 suit.

4. If the 5-3 fit is known and the Ace-only suit is known, then the Empathetic Splinter identifies the 4-4 fit and infers the location of the shortness suit.

5. If the 5-3 fit is known and the shortness suit is known, then the Empathetic Splinter identifies the location of the 4-4 fit and infers the location of the shortness suit.

6. If the shortness suit is known and the Ace-only suit is known, then the Empathetic Splinter identifies the location of the 4-4 fit and infers the location of the 5-3 suit.

 

These rules could be memorized. However, note the order of preferences. If the 4-4 fit is one of the unknowns, we always show the 4-4 fit. This is great, as it sounds like normal, natural bidding.

 

If the 4-4 fit is known, that issue is not present. However, because the term we use is “Empathetic Splinter,” it seems consistent for Opener to identify what empathized shortness would be most interesting. Thus, the default is to identify the shortness suit if the 4-4 fit is known.

 

When the 4-4 fit (first priority) is known and the shortness suit (second priority) is known, this sole circumstance is handled by identifying the 5-3 fit. Again, natural-sounding is best as the default when possible.

 

Now that we have an understanding of the reason for the Empathetic Splinter, the matrix necessary, the mechanisms for using this call, and the suggested defaults, let us assess the key practicality issue. What if only one of the “knowns” is clearly known. Can a second suit of the matrix become “known” by default rules? Actually, yes.

 

A second suit of the matrix is “known” if it may be necessarily inferred. What do I mean? As one simple default rule, the shortness suit is defined as “known” if it is the opponents’ known suit and therefore the most likely shortness. In other words, barring some exception, the opponents’ suit is the default “known” suit of the matrix, as it is “necessary” in the sense of practical realities. The exception to this is that if Responder (or Opener) has shown a no trump stopper in their suit, then their suit becomes the Ace-only suit.

 

Another default is that the shortness suit is “known” in a potentially ambiguous auction if Responder has heard Opener show a suit and has rejected that suit. This default makes sense because that suit is the most likely location for Responder to falsely perceive a duplication of values (shortness opposite values) and therefore downgrade a hand with potential. The most common example is an auction where Stayman is used, Opener shows hearts, Responder declines hearts and thereby shows or infers spades, and Opener can support spades.

 

You can also infer the 4-4 fit or the 5-3 fit, and establish it as known, if Opener makes the Empathetic Splinter under circumstances where the call clearly is fit-showing for the last shown suit.

 

So, the Empathetic Splinter can be used if two suits of the matrix are known, according to the defaults identified above. Further, the Empathetic Splinter may also be used if only one suit of the matrix is “known,” but if a second suit would inferentially or circumstantially be the default “known” according to pre-agreed rules or defaults. I have suggested a few, but more may be possible or might be agreed somewhat by fiat of choice.

 

Empathetic Splinter theory seems complicated so far? Let us take it to the next step. What if Opener has holding in the two unknown suits that cater to either of the remaining matrix options? How could this happen? Well, consider if the two unknowns are the Ace-only suit or the 5-3 fit. Axx in both suits means that Opener might cater in each of the two suits to each of the two possible matrix options, assuming three other covers in the known suits. Similarly, xxxx in two suits might cater to the 4-4 matrix, the shortness matrix, the Ace-only matrix, or the 5-3 matrix, assuming five matrix covers in the two knowns. These possibilities will occur when Opener has the right length in the two unknowns and Aces and/or spaces, or one-Ace-one-space, in the two unknowns.

 

When this occurs, all is not lost. Opener simply bids the lower of the two Empathetic Splinters. If Responder wants to know if Opener has the either-or holding, Responder bids the other suit, asking that question.

 

So, assume that Opener holds Axx in both minors after Responder’s calls establish that spades are 4-4 and hearts is the shortness suit. Opener would bid 4♣ (by our defaults showing the 5-3 suit and inferring diamonds as the Ace-only suit). If Responder could make slam if Opener has Axx in both suits, he can bid 4♦ to ask if Opener has equal holdings and simply elected the lower option. Opener would accept.

 

This same technique works for all times when an either-or situation arises.

 

What about space consumption issues? If interference gets in the way, or if our constructive auction gets in the way, such that Opener cannot fit both Empathetic Splinters in below game in the agreed suit, we also need agreements. My suggestions follow:

 

1. A bid of a known suit below game in the agreed suit operates as a substitute for an unavailable Empathetic Splinter, if one is unavailable and if a cuebid of the opponents suit, when a known suit, is not available.

2. A cuebid of the opponents’ suit, when that suit is a known suit, operates as a substitute for an unavailable Empathetic Splinter, if one of the Empathetic Splinters is not available and if a bid of one of our known suits below game is also not available.

3. If both a cuebid of the opponents’ suit (a known matrix suit) and a bid of a known suit below game in the agreed suit are available, the cheapest of the two is a substitute for the one unbiddable of the unknowns.

4. If neither of the unknowns is biddable, but both the cuebid of their suit (known matrix type) and a cuebid of our side known are available, then the cheaper option shows the cheaper unknown, higher for higher.

5. If all of this only allows for one Empathetic Splinter type to be shown, then the Empathetic Splinter identifies that which it would be expected to identify (clubs shows clubs), or, if artificially shown (cuebid or bid of non-focus known suit), it identifies the lower suit Empathetic Splinter.

6. If Opener has a two-way position, and can show each, then he uses the cheapest option (normal or artificial), with Responder bidding Opener’s higher option (normal or artificial) to ask for the double-possible layout.

 

One final concept. If any call is available but has no agreed definition, we use this as a Last Train to Clarksville. A frequent reason for this call is to discover whether the honor held in a suit expressed to be the 5-3 fit is the King. The Queen will almost never be useful. The Ace will often be described already, or through an either-or bid. But, a King will usually be described as a part of the 5-3 only and yet might be useful in, say, the Ace-only suit.

 

The election of a strong, forcing opening does not determine the level of complexity possible in a system. It is merely a reality that most scientific thinkiers spend their energy in the context of a strong club system. Having played Precision or Precision-like systems for years, and then canape systems (strong club or strong diamond) for more years, I am back to 2/1 GF myself. That does not mean that science is forfeited.