[Chamaco]

cwiggins, on Oct 29 2004, 12:39 AM, said:

This approach (separation by HCP) is a variant of what Hamman and Soloway do.  Their 1♣ is 17+ HCP.

If there is no interference, the responses are:
1♦ = 0-7 HCP
1♥ = 8-11 HCP any shape
1♠ = 12+ without 5+ hearts or 5+ in a minor
1NT = 12+ with 5+ hearts
2m = 12+ with 5+ in bid minor
2♥ = 8-11 HCP, 4441 any
Higher responses show solid suits, broken suits, etc.

Over interference, they attempt to separate 8-11 HCP hands from 12+ HCP.

I.e. with game only hands (absent an exceptional fit), announce the strength not shape.

With 12+ HCP (i.e. slam is in the air with a fit or only a little more HCP from opener or responder), start showing shape.  Sort of.

Is this (hamman-Soloway) approach documented/commented in some detail somewhere else besides their CC (which tells something but does not seem inclusive of all sequences- or maybe it0's just me who cannot find them in the CC ) ?

Thanks !

[cwiggins]

Chamaco, on Oct 29 2004, 09:03 PM, said:

Is this (hamman-Soloway) approach documented/commented in some detail somewhere else besides their CC (which tells something but does not seem inclusive of all sequences- or maybe it0's just me who cannot find them in the CC  ) ?

Thanks !

Not really.

The notes in their convention card for 2003 (see Hamway 2003 Monaco) have a few pages on how they handle competition after a 1♣ opening but nothing more on their sequences after the positive responses.

[Free]

EarlPurple, on Oct 28 2004, 04:36 PM, said:

And to Free's point, which I think we have discussed before.

Let's consider 4 cases:

1. Their opening 1♣ is strong.
~snip~
1. In the first case, your methods may be primarily destructive, because you do not expect a game on for your side. But of course there will be occasions when your side does have game, and cases where your intervention will now prevent you finding a good sacrifice because you cannot show such a constructive (yet weak) overcall.
~snip~

I have both destructive and constructive methods over 1♣, but I've never needed my strong bids. That's why there are very few strong bids, some pure destructive ones, and some weak but constructive bids.
We did play some games as a sacrifice with success tnx to our overcalls We never needed to find a game to make, because there simply hasn't been any game available for our side after a strong ♣ opening as far as I remember. So don't stare blind at these extremely-low-frequency games, just make sure your defense finds playable contracts, the good sacs and keeps opps out of their optimal contract

[Little_major]

Hi, I'm new to this forum but not this topic. My preferred partner and I play something we call the Sandwich Club which is Blue Team Club with weak NT. We have done a lot of homework, simulations and experimentation with responses to 1C. Shape or control which is better? Answer, both. If partner open 1C=17+ and my RHO passes then getting in the control bid is wonderful. Obviously, RHO stretches to enter the bidding, now you can't afford to lose a round of bidding with control shows. We try to show a bit of both. Our scheme is dble= weak balanced hand with stopper(s) in known suits 4-7 hcps, pass= 0-7 or 3 controls with very good suit or any 4 + controls, cheapest NT= 1H or 1S control response with two 4+ card suits, new suit=1H or 1S control response with decent suit, 3Nt is to play based on a stopper and a single suit too shapely to double.

Opener over my LHO interference, doubles with strong NT hand, passes as a takeout bid, bids a new suit. In a suction interference auction double always means that is my suit.

He is the kicker, interference over our 1C gives us two bids we didn't have before, pass and double. Since we can fork the pass as weak or strong it does double duty. Most of the time interference actually helps us. I welcome it. It is a myth that 1C systems are too susceptible to interference. It just takes some work. We get a fair share of juicy penalties too that weren't available at the other table.

[1eyedjack]

Hi

Little_major, on Nov 19 2004, 11:48 PM, said:

interference over our 1C gives us two bids we didn't have before, pass and double.

That is true as far as it goes, but I would not be too optimistic about the benefit of that extra space. If someone doubles 1C in the knowledge that it provides extra bidding space then he will be doing so in the expectation that whatever extra bidding space he has given to you will be taken away again, and then some, by his partner, in light of the shape definitions included in the double.

[luke warm]

i think interference can help the overcalling side, but i also think too many strong club pairs eschew the penalty double, for no good reason

[keylime]

I don't mind the interference personally - tells me when to get the hand rightside more often than not. Furthermore, sound agreements in comp leads to a winner proposition. So what if they drop the proverbial hand grenade of four spades once in 20 hands - it's just like we started life with one of a minor BAM! 4♠ WJO.

What many strong club pairs can't handle well at all is the three level preempt. One and two bids they manage but three level bids.....ouch, watch the wheels come off. Yes we have a way to counter that via the thrump double, cuebids a la Michaels, and <gasp> natural bidding - we treat it as if we had opened naturally and they jumped in to preempt.

The Mrs. and I use a form of Rubensohl in comp, alongside with the usual multiplexed items out of comp. Many espouse the vulnerability of the 1♣ opening due to its cheapest nature in the bidding box; I however feel that the lack of competition over a strong TWO ♣ is sickening, alongside some player's definition of a "good" 2♣ opening.

I am a shape guy, by far - showing controls just muddles the auction at the wrong times. I rather be able to show my hand's shape within the bidding and then entering/exiting the various tools for pinpointing controls once the hand is truly known .

The penalty double is simply "taking the sure profit" - if you can't defend well then don't subscribe to it and use the double as pure takeout. We don't have that problem. Players frankly need to junk the "competitive" double and instead hammer their opps to the wall more often.

Then again, with the transfer positives implemented using the controls concept is almost impossible!

[Little_major]

Oh one other thing, Blue team Club 2000 introduced a new tool for slam bidding (or slam avoidance to be more accurate) called Turbo. Bidding beyond 4NT shows odd number of keycards and bidding 4NT shows an even number. We only use this when partner has opened 1C and the control response was not available (e.g. 1D/H response or interference). Helps when under a barrage.

No system does well in the midst of 3 level preempts. In standard system the overloaded one bids can be anything from crappy 11 to a powerful 19+, minors can be 3 to 6+ length and often opener has the dreaded balanced 12-14 (not playing weak NT). At least when my partner opens 1C and the next hand drop a 3 level bid, I know it is almost always right to bid or double. The standard player has a lot of guessing to do too.

I welcome interference because we are going to probably play the hand or defend doubled. The more the opps can tell me about their hands the happier I am. This is a similar reasoning as to why you shouldn't bid unusual NT unless you are so distributional that you are determined not to defend the hand. All it does is help the declarer anticipate the bad breaks and makes end plays easy.

[cwiggins]

Shape can be shown different ways. Precision uses longest suit first.

What about those schemes that show 4+ long majors before longer minors in some or all cases? Moscito shows 4+ long suits in ascending order, regardless of which is longest, and uses relays to sort the length issue out. MAFIA bids any 4+ major before a longer minor but, unlike Moscito, with both majors bids the longest first regardless of rank with 5+ in the longest major.

If you elect to show shape first and are not permitted to use relay systems (translation: subject to ACBL GCC), does it make sense to use either of those approaches that show a 4CM ahead of a 5-card minor?

A third alternative might be a canape style. Here is a quick stab at that:

Initial responses:
1M = 4+ long (if 4, unbalanced)
1NT = balanced
2m = 3+ minor (usually 4+ unless 5M332); may be canape major if strong
2M, 3m = 1-suited, 12+
2NT = 2-suited in minors, 8-11


After 1C-2C, 2D = relay and then:
2M = 5+ in bid major, 12+ HCP
2NT = Good 5-card clubs suit, 12+
3C = 1-suited, 8-11
3D = clubs + diamonds, 12+
3M,3NT = SPL, 1-suited in clubs, 12+

After 1C-2D, the scheme would be similar except that 2NT = diamond-heart canape with 12+.

This scheme of 2m responses is taken straight from Blue Club 2000.

[Chamaco]

Little_major, on Nov 20 2004, 10:35 PM, said:

Oh one other thing, Blue team Club 2000 introduced a new tool for slam bidding (or slam avoidance to be more accurate) called Turbo. Bidding beyond 4NT shows odd number of keycards and bidding 4NT shows an even number.

In Italy this is not new, actually it is frequent as much as using RKCB.
But it is used at the 3NT level (sort of serious/unserious 3NT):

When a major fit is found, 3NT shows even key cards, cuebid past 3NT shows od keyacrds; in the subsequent auction, bidding 4NT promises (or denies, up to you) the trump queen, whilst bypassing 4NT denies (/promises) the trump Q.

[Free]

cwiggins, on Nov 22 2004, 06:54 AM, said:

Shape can be shown different ways. Precision uses longest suit first.

What about those schemes that show 4+ long majors before longer minors in some or all cases? Moscito shows 4+ long suits in ascending order, regardless of which is longest, and uses relays to sort the length issue out. MAFIA bids any 4+ major before a longer minor but, unlike Moscito, with both majors bids the longest first regardless of rank with 5+ in the longest major.

If you elect to show shape first and are not permitted to use relay systems (translation: subject to ACBL GCC), does it make sense to use either of those approaches that show a 4CM ahead of a 5-card minor?

A third alternative might be a canape style. Here is a quick stab at that:

Initial responses:
1M = 4+ long (if 4, unbalanced)
1NT = balanced
2m = 3+ minor (usually 4+ unless 5M332); may be canape major if strong
2M, 3m = 1-suited, 12+
2NT = 2-suited in minors, 8-11


After 1C-2C, 2D = relay and then:
2M = 5+ in bid major, 12+ HCP
2NT = Good 5-card clubs suit, 12+
3C = 1-suited, 8-11
3D = clubs + diamonds, 12+
3M,3NT = SPL, 1-suited in clubs, 12+

After 1C-2D, the scheme would be similar except that 2NT = diamond-heart canape with 12+.

This scheme of 2m responses is taken straight from Blue Club 2000.

Am I confused, but if you aren't allowed relay-systems, why are you allowed a 2♦ relay after 1♣-2♣?

[pbleighton]

"Am I confused, but if you aren't allowed relay-systems, why are you allowed a 2♦ relay after 1♣-2♣? "

You can use a relay system after 1 of a suit if it starts with the opener's rebid, but not if it starts with the responder's first bid.

Don't ask why.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Free, on Nov 22 2004, 01:06 PM, said:

Am I confused, but if you aren't allowed relay-systems, why are you allowed a 2♦ relay after 1♣-2♣?

Here is my best guess. As always, this is a somewhat jaded/cynnical view.

The ACBL wants to ban relay responses to 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ openings.

The ACBL wants to allow players to use whatever response structures they like over strong Club openings and openings >= 1NT.

The actual regulations that the ACBL has created don't necessarily support this set of goals, however, that's why the ACBL like preserving so much discretionary authority.

Personally, I prefer clearly defined regulatory structures with little room for wriggling, but then again, I have a somewhat idiosyncratic view of the purpose of the "Laws".

I am a strong believer that purpose of the Laws is to protect the rights of players from the regulators.

There is an equally valid interpretation that the purpose of the Laws is to empower the regulators to take whatever actions that they feel fit.

This debate often centers on the Law 40D

40 D. Regulation of Conventions

The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility.

Case in point: Many senior member of the Laws Committees claim that Law 40D is an enabling tool and that it permits broad descretionary authority to local regulators. Endicott and David Stephenson both state that Law 40D permits local regulators to create rules such as "Anyone with a last name beginning with F may not use any conventions during the auction."

Players who primarily view the Laws as a mechanism to protect themselves against the powers that be are somewhat dismayed by this assumption... For what its worth there are some interesting political analogies here.

[keylime]

We've implemented a pseudo-form of canape when a GF minor hand is responder.

1♣*-1♥* (spades, clubs, or 15+ balanced)
1♠*-2♣* (my hand is clubs pard)

2♦* asks about the club hand whereas:

2♥ = one or both majors (to inquire, bid 2♠)
2♠ = non minimum with shortage (2Nt asks with one under shortages)
2NT = balanced, non minimum
3♣ = generic minimum, where 3♦* asks for stoppers towards 3NT
3♦ = 6 or more clubs with exactly 4 diamonds


And likewise,

1♣*-1♠* (hearts, diamonds or 12-14 balanced)
2♣* (asks):

2♦ = hearts (after accept of xfer, second bid shows four cards)
2♥/♠ = four in bid suit with five or more diamonds
2NT = 12-14 balanced
3♣ = 4 clubs with five or more diamonds