Jump to content

Milkwood (WBF Compliant): A Strong Club System


Recommended Posts

Has anyone read

Milkwood (WBF Compliant): A Strong Club System of Bidding for Tournament Play at Contract Bridge

by Tomas Dullen

2016

Has anyone read this and know what it covers?. I was looking for a summary of system online but couldn't find. As says is WBF compliant I am assuming this might be a European system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone read

Milkwood (WBF Compliant): A Strong Club System of Bidding for Tournament Play at Contract Bridge

by Tomas Dullen[

2016

Has anyone read this and know what it covers?. I was looking for a summary of system online but couldn't find. As says is WBF compliant I am assuming this might be a European system

 

america is part of the world too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have the book, published 2017, 2nd edition.

MILKWOOD, A Strong Club System of Bidding for Tournament Play at Contract Bridge.

 

Complies with England's BLUE BOOK: Handbook of EBU Permitted Understandings.

 

1 = 16+ hcp, unless one of the below applies:

2
= 21-22 Balanced

2
= 21+ and 4441, No singleton Ace

2NT = 21+ and 1=4=4=4

Responses to 1:

1
= 0-7 hcp

1
= 8 hcp

1
= 9-10

1NT = 11-12

2
= 13-14

2
= 15-16

2
, 2
= 0-4 and 6-cd suit

2NT = ?

3
, 3
= 0-5 and 7-cd suit

3
, 3
= ?

3NT = 17-18

6NT = 19-20

7NT = 21+

 

Enough already, can't find the missing bids easily in the book. Benito Garozzo said "Distribution is King." Thus, showing hcp or controls to a 1 opening is NOT the modern approach used by many in their Strong Club Systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a dream for one of my partners who believes knowing points is more important than distribution.

And a nightmare for the rest of us...

 

Is this seriously from something published only two years ago? Or indeed, this millennium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system looks excellent overall, but I would suggest one tweak. Once responder's exact point count is known (e.g. after 1-1), opener will usually be able to place the contract immediately, but they may require further information about their partner's strength. I propose that opener's lowest step should be an artificial enquiry for Middle Card Point (MCP) strength, where

 

T = 4 MCP

9 = 3 MCP

8 = 2 MCP

7 = 1 MCP

 

with responder showing MCP in a similar scheme to the one for HCP described above. It's true that this gives up a natural bid, but in most cases (e.g. 1-1-1) this bid is of limited utility and would rarely be made - the ability to determine partner's MCP count is more useful than showing length in spades, which could always be accomplished with a 2 bid anyway.

 

To illustrate the methods further, suppose that opener holds the following hand

 

AKQJ9

AKQJ

AKQ9

-

 

and hears a 1 response to their 1 opening, which shows 9 or 10 HCP. Opener has an automatic 1NT bid, as a strength enquiry. Once responder shows 10 HCP alongside opener's 29, they know that the missing point is one of the minor suit jacks. 7NT will be a comfortable contract if partner possesses the jack of diamonds, but it would be foolhardy to bid a grand slam prematurely with no certain entry to partner's clubs. For example, if partner holds - 32 32 AKQJT5432, even 6NT is a poor contract, requiring a 4-4 spade split or the T to be short, approximately 55% overall. Most systems would flounder when confronted with this bidding problem, but opener's ability to find out about their partner's MCP would come to the rescue:

 

1* - 1**

1NT*** - 2****

2*** - 5*****

 

 

*Strong

**9-10 HCP

***Enquiry

****10 HCP

*****26-27 MCP

 

At this point, opener knows that the partnership possesses 32 or 33 combined MCP. If responder holds the 10 of spades or the jack of diamonds, 7NT is cold, and if they hold neither of these cards, their only possible 26-MCP hand is

 

8

T98

T8

AKQJT98

 

Opener can therefore bid 7, pass or correct. Responder actually held

 

T8

T98

T87

AKQJT

 

and naturally corrected to 7NT. The system was necessary to bid the slam with certainty.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a nightmare for the rest of us...

 

Is this seriously from something published only two years ago? Or indeed, this millennium?

 

Isn't this pretty close to CC Wei's original design for precision which he rapidly rejected and went back to the drawing board ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...