judge this miss

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&w=skjt84hak97da95c6&e=sa96hj8653d8c9843&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1c3dppp]266|200|[/hv]

 

1♣ = 13+ any

 

If East doubles, is that GF in your style?

 

West has an interesting hand. 3♠ might find partner with 1-5-2-5 on a very bad day.

Double is very unlikely to fetch 5♣.

 

After X - 4♣, West would still like to reach the right major game.

How about 4♥ = 4-5 majors, 4♦ = this, 5-4 the other way.

This assumes a strong 1-suited hand would bid 4♥ directly.

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&w=skjt84hak97da95c6&e=sa96hj8653d8c9843&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1c3dppp]266|200|[/hv]

 

1♣ = 13+ any

 

If East doubles, is that GF in your style?

 

West has an interesting hand. 3♠ might find partner with 1-5-2-5 on a very bad day.

Double is very unlikely to fetch 5♣.

 

After X - 4♣, West would still like to reach the right major game.

How about 4♥ = 4-5 majors, 4♦ = this, 5-4 the other way.

This assumes a strong 1-suited hand would bid 4♥ directly.

 

 

you are joking...

 

no one plays this style:

1c=any any 13+

 

how can east bid??

[shevek]

Actual method is

pass = 13+ any,

1♣ = hearts, 7-12

1♦ = spades, 7-12

1♥ = 7-12 bal, no major

1♠ = 0-7 any

1NT = diamonds, 7-12

2♣ = clubs, 7-12

 

thought that info might be distracting

[the hog]

you are joking...

 

no one plays this style:

1c=any any 13+

 

how can east bid??

 

Really Mike? I played this, (13+C) for quite a while when strong pass was not allowed.

[Flameous]

This would be the same problem if 1♣ was 15+.

My solution is that there is no solution, neither has enough to move. You can't expect to find 20HCP games when you don't show suits and are pre-empted, just have to give up something.

You might actually win here if people playing natural bid 1S (3D) 3S - 4S to failing game.

 

East doubling isn't GF, but it fetches 3NT from partner a good part of the time, so it's out of question.

 

West doesn't have enough to double here, but assuming he had, say Q more, after 4♣ it's not really worthwhile to be able to show 54 either way. Partner almost certainly has no 4 card major, so you are essentially just giving partner choice between 5-2 and 4-3 fits. Just bid the 5 carder and hope for the best. 4♦ is then for the real monster hands with club support. (Could be a kickback if you play that)

[hrothgar]

you are joking...

 

no one plays this style:

1c=any any 13+

 

how can east bid??

 

I'll add Magic Diamond into the mix, in which 1♣ shows (most any) 13-17 HCP hand...

[mgoetze]

1♣ = 13+ any

 

If East doubles, is that GF in your style?

 

I don't have a style for 13+ any openings. ;) Anyway, this is the price you pay. Either the rest of your system makes up for it or you should look for a new system.

[awm]

Double is takeout and effectively game force in my style. Of course, I will stretch to double if I have the right shape on a lot of hands. However, opener might have to convert the double or bid 3NT on fairly minimum openings, so doubling on a 5-count opposite "13+" seems like too much of a stretch (ten points and this shape would be a fine double in my book).

 

To some degree this problem is created by the "13+" 1♣ opening style. A strong club opening often creates difficulties in competitive auctions when opener has better than a minimum. Of course you are okay if opener has "takeout double" shape or if opener has a true one-suiter, but hands like this one are trouble. The frequency of "trouble" goes up when you play a lighter 1♣, so I think the "13+ any" style is a big part of the problem here.

 

With that said, I would guess to double on opener's hand, hoping to find a fit somewhere. It's not that different from if I held the same hand after LHO opened 3♦ in first chair and two passes to me. Obviously I could go for a number if I balance, and I'm worse placed than if I had made a natural one-level opening in front of the preempt, but overall I think balancing is still percentage.

[Flameous]

I don't think it's at all the same as 3♦ and two passes to me. Here partner knows I have values and strains to bid with shortness. Because he passed, he either lacks the values (like here) or has diamonds.

I'm still not blaming anyone for missing 20HCP games in contested auction.

[dake50]

Alter your system to have a second tier of major openings.

Eg 1C:4+H, 8-12 and 1H: 4+H, 13-16.

Coagulate the bal and minor hands as they face similar decision:

3NT on tricks + stops or not.

[ArtK78]

Several posters have commented that there is no blame on not reaching a 20 HCP game.

 

How about the blame for not getting to a major suit partial scoring 10-12 tricks instead of going +50 or +100 defending 3♦? We were not told the form of scoring. If it is matchpoints, it is just as big a disaster as missing a cold game at IMPs.

 

As has been pointed out, this is the price that you pay for nebulous opening bids. The 1♣ opening is one of the shortcomings of most strong club systems, in that it is vulnerable to preemption. However, the additional high-card strength contained in a 1♣ opening in strong club systems reduces the risk somewhat. Here, the nebulous 1♣ opening is 13+ any shape. That should be like waiving a red flag in front of a bull, especially at matchpoints.

[Free]

Several posters have commented that there is no blame on not reaching a 20 HCP game.

 

How about the blame for not getting to a major suit partial scoring 10-12 tricks instead of going +50 or +100 defending 3♦? We were not told the form of scoring. If it is matchpoints, it is just as big a disaster as missing a cold game at IMPs.

 

As has been pointed out, this is the price that you pay for nebulous opening bids. The 1♣ opening is one of the shortcomings of most strong club systems, in that it is vulnerable to preemption. However, the additional high-card strength contained in a 1♣ opening in strong club systems reduces the risk somewhat. Here, the nebulous 1♣ opening is 13+ any shape. That should be like waiving a red flag in front of a bull, especially at matchpoints.

Not necessarily. Opps might have a game based on HCP, and if they bid too agressively they might miss their own game. So while it's true that the range is bigger and more vulnerable to preemption, it all depends on how opps react to it.

[DinDIP]

It's a pity too many posters focus on extraneous issues (is this a sensible system base?) rather than the generic problem. To put it in context, imagine you're playing a 17+ strong club when O holds AKJTx AKxx Axx x EXCEPT that the combined partnership assets can be an A lower, which increases the risk. (If you play a 16+ 1C take away the SJ, if a 15+ 1C make O's spades AQTxx. In each case you have the problem of whether to reopen -- and if so how -- after an amorphous strength-showing opening, a NV 3D preempt by LHO and a NF pass by responder.)

 

I think it's clear to pass after a 13+ opening: responder's average number of diamonds figures to be closer to two than one at the vul (because many opponents will bid 3D at favourable on a six-card suit). And the average count for responder's hand figures to be less than the 9 or so you'd otherwise expect ((40-(15+7))/2) because R would have acted with many 10 counts and virtually all 11+HCP hands -- as well as most 9s and some 8s with shortness. This means that most of the time you're bidding for the partscore with no clear way to find the best fit -- double is more attractive with 4-5-3-1.

 

But with stronger hands -- and a stronger 1C opening -- it becomes less clearcut. If my 1C were 17+ I'd reopen with AKJTx AKxx Axx x as the risks are smaller and the upsides greater (a decent chance of making game opposite a yarborough with five hearts). And I'd reopen with a X as that maximises the chance of finding game.

 

So, it does matter how strong your amorphous opening is, and stronger is better. But, as all system designers know, one needs to take account of the other effects: I think a 15+ 1C is best because it allows me to open most 10s and many 9s that are shapely without making O's range excessive.

 

David

[dake50]

You pays yo' money; you takes yo' chances.

If this is your chosen system didn't you anticipate this problem?

What's YOUR solution?

Us others using non-natural systems want to see your trade-offs.

[DinDIP]

You pays yo' money; you takes yo' chances.

If this is your chosen system didn't you anticipate this problem?

What's YOUR solution?

Us others using non-natural systems want to see your trade-offs.

 

I presume this is intended for Shevek, the original poster. Having played played forcing pass with him on and off since the early 80s, I'll volunteer my tuppence ha'penny's worth:

* A forcing pass provides very useful extra room for relaying, relay breaks and natural bidding. That's mostly a big plus, although there are occasionally range issues that wouldn't arise if playing a strong club (such as having the weaker hand relaying). But the big downside is that pass is more vulnerable to interference because the passer guarantees so little strength.

* The 8-12 openings are great for competitive auctions, including ones that we might not otherwise get to enter (or ones that don't become competitive because we preempt them). But they also give away information to the opponents which can help declarer form a better picture of the opposing hands. And the advantages of opening BAL 9-12s with no 4+M is less than for the openings that show a suit.

* The 1S fert works surprisingly well. A large part of that ATT is because the opps don't know how to defend, but even good players with well-thought-through methods find it hard to judge correctly, so many of the potential -1400s are avoided.

 

So, at a systemic level, we do anticipate problems like this: we expect to miss games and slams when the opps compete after we pass in the expectation that the gains elsewhere will compensate. But it's still a good idea to see if those outs can be avoided. And, because there is no body of knowledge to draw on that is comparable to that for NAT bidders, it's necessary to ask others whether what was done was normal or if some alternative were better. My view is that neither O nor R can act over 3D without risking too much so this is just one of those boards.

 

David

[dake50]

DinDIP,

I actually do play a weak opening system.

So I am interested, as you, in other bridge minds

seeing this problem and what they suggest for solution.

I use double as "misfit expected suit" -- here spades.

Cheapest of transfer/NT maybe for hearts if they are unclaimed

--may later also show spades.

Here I use 4D=pick major. In 4M on half the deck

-- but pure, nothing in their suit.

[nige1]

Actual method is

pass = 13+ any,

1♣ = hearts, 7-12

1♦ = spades, 7-12

1♥ = 7-12 bal, no major

1♠ = 0-7 any

1NT = diamonds, 7-12

2♣ = clubs, 7-12

thought that info might be distracting

IMO _X = 10, _P = 9.

On your original hand, after LHO's 3♦, opener should protect with a double and hope for the best.

Every Hand Armageddon, shevek? Do you really play this system vulnerable against not? 1♠ seems a hostage to fortune! The following might be a safer...

_P = 13+ any,

1♣ = 0-7 any.

1♦ = 8-12 4+ ♥.

1♥ = 8-12 4+ ♠.

1♠ = 8-12 Flat no biddable major.

1N = 8-12 both majors.

2♣ = shapely no major.

Edited December 7, 2010 by nige1

[Free]

IMO _X = 10, _P = 9.

On your original hand, after LHO's 3♦, opener should protect with a double and hope for the best.

Every Hand Armageddon, shevek? Do you really play this system vulnerable against not? The 1♠ seems to be a hostage to fortune! The following might be a safer...

_P = 13+ any,

1♣ = 0-7 any.

1♦ = 7-11 4+ ♥.

1♥ = 7-11 4+ ♠.

1♠ = 7-11 Flat no biddable major.

1NT = 7-11 both majors.

2♣ = shapely no major.

Please don't start another "1♣ fert" discussion!

[shevek]

IMO _X = 10, _P = 9.

On your original hand, after LHO's 3♦, opener should protect with a double and hope for the best.

Every Hand Armageddon, shevek? Do you really play this system vulnerable against not? The 1♠ seems to be a hostage to fortune! The following might be a safer...

_P = 13+ any,

1♣ = 0-7 any.

1♦ = 8-12 4+ ♥.

1♥ = 8-12 4+ ♠.

1♠ = 8-12 Flat no biddable major.

1NT = 8-12 both majors.

2♣ = shapely no major.

 

Yes, hands like this - plus the prospect of -1100 vs -430 - persuaded us that switching to strong club at vul vs not is correct. However, we don't do that. We are already treading a fine line with adminstrators & don't want to irritate opponents by poking a different system card under their noses every fourth board.

Pushing the fert high causes equal hassles for both sides and frees space for 7-12 hands.

1♣ with hearts allows 2 relays for accurate invites, hence the wider range is fine.

1♥ as bal no major allows 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT as minimum, etc.