[shevek]

We like to play strong PASS in long events but there are reasonable restrictions in Australia. Not allowed in early rounds/stages, not in the bottom 3/4 of the field. So we are forced to switch systems mid event. Not a big imposte.

If we have to carry 2 systems around, why not switch within each match? We would need to provide separate (colour-coded!) system cards.

Our strong PASS relay system features a 13+ pass, 1S fert (0-7) other openings 7-12 artificial.
Strong CLUB version is 16+, other openings natural-ish.

Currently we (intend to) play
Strong PASS as dealer, unless vul vs not
Strong CLUB in 2nd & 4th seats

Maybe strong PASS at favourable in 2nd seat??

We have no desire to shift the fert up and down according to vul.

There are two obvious reasons to avoid strong PASS at unfavourable. Safety, avoiding -1100 vs 460 etc.
Secondly, important to descibe on our good hands. A 13+ pass at unvafourable is a welcome mat.

Strong PASS works best when outgunned.
In 2nd seat, dealer's pass makes that much less likely, swinging the balance in favour of describing with 11-15.

Suggestions please.

[whereagles]

I also thought of designing a strong pass system that can be reasonably mimicked by a strong club one, so that you can switch the two with minimal memory effort. However, I didn't think of alternating with seat/vuln. Rather, I thought of using the strong club when the strong pass were forbiden.

Toy example: (a two-way pass actually, not really "strong" pass)

Strong pass:
pass = 0-11 or 15
1x = natural, 5 carder 12-14 (eventually 4 cards if 4441)
1NT = 12-14
2x = weak 2

Strong club:
pass = 0-11
1♣ = 15+
1x = natural, 5 carder 12-14
1NT = 12-14
2♣ = 5 carder 12-14
2x = weak 2

Very simple to switch the two, and most of the structure remains intact.

The funny thing is that if you extend the 12-14 range to say 11-15, you'll need to turn the 1♦ opening of the strong club into a nebulous diamond, making the strong pass system actually EASIER to defend against than the strong club one, as 1m remain natural for that case Yet regulations probably forbid you to play the strong pass but allow the strong club LOL.

Alternating with seat/vuln feels dangerous for amateur players

[straube]

I've never played strong pass so I don't know what I'm talking about, but do you really get good results playing with a 1S fert when vulnerable? Big penalties possible plus you've destroyed the occasional constructive auction you might have.

Otherwise, I follow the logic of what you're doing.

[trevahound]

I really wish I lived somewhere where this was legal. Sigh.

I'm currently playing 3 different NT ranges with different methods over each (based on seat/vuln) on the same card (and trying to talk partner into adding a 4th, with different methods over that), so you can tell I'd love your idea.

Seems to me 2nd & 3rd hot, and 4th hot or not are the positions where the gains from hyperlight or fert openings are less, so big club seats, and the rest (1st hot or not, 2nd and 3rd just not) for the big pass.

Cheers!

Brian Zaugg,
People's Republic of Seattle

[Free]

Similar to whereagles, when I played MOSCITO, we also had a strong pass version ready for when it was allowed. It used a 1♥ fert and the lower bids got an extra step:
pass = ~0-10 (SP: 13+ any)
1♣ = 15+ any (SP: ~8-12 4+♥)
1♦ = ~10-14 4+♥ (SP: ~8-12 4+♠)
1♥ = ~10-14 4+♠ (SP: ~0-7(8) any)
1♠+ = identical with modified HCP ranges

Playing both systems at the same time but in different seats seems a bit useless imo. The only real advantage you have is that you don't have to gamble with your fert. The fert may still be a winner though with the occasional big loss included (similar to playing a weak NT).

Imo there's more to say about reverting to natural when opps are NV while playing strong ♣/pass when opps are V (less destructive interference).

[newroad]

Hi All,

The simple answer to Shevek is that I would have thought you needed to cater, in effect, for both systems on the same card (though I can see the simplicity of having two, with the Strong Club version stipulating its use when Strong Pass is disallowed or in various vulnerability/position combinations). The rest comes down to judgement/opinion.

To the substantive question, if there was genuine merit, in effect, of not playing the Fert in certain vulnerability/position combinations, then one should do it anyway. Max Rebattu in 1982 for example, only played his 1♠ Fert non-vul, when coming second in the world pairs. Most experience is going to be anecdotal in this regard. My personal view is that it is difficult enough to optimise one set of artificiality, so that any theoretic advantage in switching methods according to vulnerability/position is outweighed by effort required to do so.

However, if required by regulation to play Strong Club (or something other than Strong Pass) in certain situations, this may tip the balance of the above - you need to expend some effort anyway. The question becomes then, what are the trade-offs, or even deeper, why are you playing a strong pass in the first place? If you are doing so to get the intermediate range (8-12 or 7-12 or similar) to be the prime opening range, the right reason in my opinion, then you wouldn't want to change unless the Fert's net danger is quite compelling. I doubt this is the case (it's probably fairly neutral against good & organised opposition). Further, even if you kept the ranges the same (and in essence just shuffled the openings around) not playing a Fert means you'll be losing a relay step on most openings, which is quite undesirable.

In the side question raised by Straube, once again its very anecdotal. Some people have had marked success playing a 1♠ Fert. There is no doubt it is difficult to defend against, but equally, it is difficult to bid constructively over oneself. This is less of a problem with a 0-7 Antipodean/Polish style Fert than the 0-10 Dutch style one, but nevertheless, causes problems (some have had to resort, for example, to a light Multi 2♦ or light WK2♥ to remove the risk of languishing in 1♠ when 4♥ is cold). In effect, I think it exacerbates the positive and negative outcomes, so probably good against a perceived stronger team and bad against a perceived weaker team.

On a personal note, I think 1♥ is the superior of the three standard Ferts (1♦, 1♥ & 1♠). It stops a simple defence where 1M can be played as natural with the DBL reserved for other purposes, but allows 1♠ as a constructive relay, as needed.

Regards, Newroad

PS Disclosure of interest: When I lived in the Antipodes, I never played a Fert, though played against it many times, mostly with decent success. Living now in a more draconian environment, I've chosen to play a method which is in essence, Dutch Heart (1♥ Fert, 11-13 1NT, otherwise 2/1=FG with the 1♣/♦/♥ opening bids shuffled down a step - mainly as a protest action and because I'm bored. It works quite well, however, and we have had significant success in recent seasons with it against decent to strong competition.

[the hog]

Firstly, Nick and his Mrs Nic, are not ordinary C players, but are a very strong pair. Secondly, the concept of playing 2 separate systems depending on vulnerability is already proven. Thirdly if you. Maiintain the relay structure, the memory problems are not an issue. Having said this, Nick, I would stick to sp throughout if allowed. I prefer a 1h feet, by the way.

[newroad]

Hi Hog,

I'm not sure if you're replying to me, or more broadly, but let's assume the former. I'll treat your points in turn.

• I am fairly sure who Nick and Mrs Nic to whom you refer are, but my answers were independent of the people concerned. Ideas should, in my opinion (1) stand on their own merit, and (2) assume strong opposition.
  
• How does one "prove" the concept of playing two (distinct) systems according to vulnerability? If it were a generally good idea, one would assume lots of serious partnerships would do it, but few do. If you mean prove it's possible to do so, yes, I would agree. If you mean it's desirable to do so, the jury would seem very much still out.
  
• In general, you cannot maintain the (presumably) symmetric relay structure. Yes, you can maintain the same order of steps, but the optimisations any serious pair will have made, for positional reasons primarily (i.e. to have the known hand exposed and the unknown hand hidden) will almost certainly need to change. The only way this could be partially avoided is if one plays a structure which allows a reverse relay in response to a Strong Pass is to drop that step, but if you think the ability to reverse relay is desirable, that would be at an even greater cost.
  
• I'm glad you agree a 1♥ Fert is better than a 1♠ one, but Mr Nic, to use your terminology, is a long time 1♠'er. Whilst I regard it as slightly inferior all up (unless you are playing a better team and desire the increased randomisation) it is not without merit - one advantage it permits is to move the BAL openings from 1NT to 1♥, permitting more safety and eliminating the range problems inherent in 1NT. I believe Mr Nic used to play this as 7-12, but I would play it 8-13 and make the Strong Pass 13+ but 14+ if BAL, were I to play such a structure.

Regards, Newroad

PS Back in the mid 90's, Mr and Mrs Nic had an auction something like the following against my partner and I

(Pass=13+hcp) 1♠ (2♠=FG with both minors or similar) 3♥ (5♦) X (XX) AllPass

Mrs Nic was the strong passer and I was the 3♥ bidder. We took it two off after my hand produced two tricks. I was annoyed with my partner for the double (I was less calm then) and Mrs Nic with Mr Nic for the redouble. After we both chastised our partners, we walked out. Apparently Mr Nic turned to my partner and asked: "What would Newroad have done had we made it?"

[awm]

I'd go with strong pass when you are NV, and strong club when you are V. Several reasons for this:

1. The Fert seems very dangerous when you are vulnerable. It also seems like you are playing a pretty weak opening notrump, which is dangerous when vulnerable. You are likely to take a lot of -200s on part score deals (small imp loss, MP zero) and will also go for some numbers that are worse than opponent game (especially red v. white). All this stuff is not a problem or even potential wins at NV.
2. One of the big wins of opening light is getting in early on partials and winning the auction when opponents can make something. Again though, this is much more likely when you are NV because going down a trick or two becomes a win. This suggests forcing pass has more to gain when you are NV.
3. Your forcing pass structure seems likely to cause some bad results on the 13-15 point hands where everyone else gets to open in a descriptive way and you have to make a nebulous pass. While these hands are less frequent than the 8-10 hands (where you presumably win) they are potentially expensive because they are more likely to produce game. This issue is more serious at Vulnerable (because the game bonus is a bigger deal).

[the hog]

Hi Newroad, I was actually addressing my post to the poster Whereagles, but to answer your points anyway. It is Mr Nick and Mrs Nic - no "k", by the way.

One of the top US pairs,can't remember exactly who, Hamman maybe?, played 2 separate systems depending on vul - one was called Attack based on a SC and the other was 2/1. Also look at the ideas emanating from Italy in regard to "Big Bang", played by Bocchi and Madala. Their structure varies greatly depending on vulnerability, for example 3 ranges on NT opening.
Symmetric is so easy that it is no memory problem to make slight alterations, the bids even remain the same eg
Pass 1D rev relay, now 1H = S, 1S = H etc etc
Over 1C 1H =S as above.
Sure there are some difference over 1C and 1D openings in SP, but its not that bad. I haven't played MB SP in a long time, but I guarantee you that if Stark and I sat down together we could play this in serious competition immediately. Relay mistakes were very infrequent, even when Stark pulled a double reverse relay on me:

P 1D
H 3C - showing exactly a 3532 shape and a min positive.

I played 1H as a fert and we even adopted the crazy double fert at one stage, 1H = 5-7 and 1S = 0-4, mimicking Marston- Burgess' structure at the time. Just playing a 1H fert was the winner though.By the way, do you know how many times we got hit playing in the fert? Exactly twice and that is over a period of many years. Good players soon worked out that chasing pot of gold penalties was nowhere near as productive as attempting to bid with some accuracy over 1H. This is why SOAP was invented, to deal with the 1S fert.

[glen]

back to the glory days of rgb, here is this Bobby Goldman post:

https://groups.googl...dge/rNRZHbfN1Dk

[shevek]

Replying to most ....

Playing multiple systems has a good track record. In Sydney, a fair few play 2/1 strong notrump but switch to a 10-12 notrump at favourable. They cope with the cascading effect on other auctions.


The 1♠ fert has gone well over the years, a net gainer.
It's true that luck and unfamiliarity have been factors.
We've had score-ups like "+420" "+160" when LHO has doubled on a 1-6-3-3 16-count & RHO has gambled a pass, "cos they were vul".
Plus cases when opponents have taken their sure +660 instead of taking the same 11 tricks in defence.

We still like 1♠ (though perhaps not any more at vul vs not) for a number of reasons:
1) When we bid one major and preempt the other, it's much harder for them to cope.
Vs a 1♥ fert, a common & reasonable defence is to double 16+ with 1♠ negative. Other calls are 11-15.
This makes it harder to penalise but they do okay constructively.
Vs a 1♠ fert, that approach has big problems, since 1NT & 2♣ are awkward candidates for the negative.

2) We narrow the fert. It's 0-7 but we like to describe on many 7-counts so it's really 0-6½. This increases the chance that opponents have a compensating game, while taking the load off a strong responder. Sure, constructive bidding is problematic but responder's license to leap about or stay low with a big hand has proved useful. We play 1NT as 15-19, 2♣ 19+ any, others like overcalls, nominally 10-18. Has worked well.

3) We gain another descriptive bid. Last century we played 1NT as 9-12 no major, no fun. With a higher fert, we can push this back to 1♥ as 7-12 balanced, no major. The wide range is fine because responder has a 1♠ relay to split the range.
It's good to widen range of descriptive limit bids, which also makes it tougher for opponents to place the honour cards if we end up defending.

Nil vul & all vul are similar if their side has game. You can point to the -500 vul when they make 140 but that hasn't happened much. Also, -8 IMPs vs -4 IMPs if we weren't vul is small change in this big stakes game.

-200 in 1♠ passed out is painful at MPs but there are no Yellow systems in matchpoint events.

4) A subtle advantage of 1♠ vs 1♥ can be seen when both sides have major fits. If you play 1♠ for -300 when you have a big heart fit, presumably they would have done very well in spades. However if you make a 1♥ fert with spades and get passed out, there is no up side.
Having said that, we open 2♦ as a mini multi (3-7 pts) to further tone down the fert. (We open 1NT with long diamonds)


With system cards, we have each have two different ones - different colours - and would make sure the right one would be on display. Also, we need to provide a written defence when we play Yellow. More paper shuffling, will see how it goes.

With symmetric relays, switching methods is less of an issue.
In terms of strength, a 7-12 opening is like a positive to a 16+ 1♣ and an 11+ positive to PASS is like an 11-15 opening.
Our 1♦ opening is the same shape – 4+ ♠s, denies 4 ♥s, could be canapé.
Responding to PASS is like responding a strong 1♣, with the extra step used to split 0-10 into 0-6 & 6-10.
There has been a concious effort to make the two systems similar, with minor compromises to avoid memory strain.
We think we can cope. We'll see.
(Hate reverse relay, by the way)

While the aim in strong PASS is to describe early on the 45% hands with 8-12 pts (or 50% with 7-12 pts) there will be fewer of these plus less urgency in second seat. Strong PASS systems stand to gain on hands where the other side make game+. How many of these are there when dealer passes?
This is not a rhetorical question!

STILL undecided about 2nd seat at favourable ....

[newroad]

Hi Shevek,

Bob Sebesfi (I think playing with Curtis) not long after the glory days of FPR used to in effect have a matrix of openings with two inputs: vulnerability and seat - he could be worth asking as to his experience in this area.

I knew you did (and it seems, still do) play a mini-multi for the reasons you outline. I'm not a fan of the Multi 2♦ anyway, I find it much easier to defend against than straight WK 2's. Also, you're giving up quite a bit of competitive advantage with two hand types (long ♦'s and both m's) as you can't distinguish between the two quickly, i.e. there's a lot of difference between 4 diamonds and 6 diamonds competitively.

Were I to play your approximate structure and taking into account your predilections/fears about playing in 1♠ with a heart game on, I might play something like

Pass: 13+, 14+ if BAL
1♣: 8-12, 4+♥
1♦: 8-12, 4+♠, <4♥
1♥: 8-13, BAL no M
1♠: 0-7 any
1NT: 8-12, 5+/4+ m's, no M
2♣: 8-12, 6+♣, no M
2♦: 8-12, 6+♦, no M
2♥: 4-7, WK2♥

2♠ and up you could do what suits in context, but if showing 5+/5+'s are your thing, maybe

2♠: 8-12, 5+♠/5+any
2NT: 8-12, 5+♥/5+m
{keep the 5/5's with both m's in 1NT}

There are of course other ways to fit the 5/5's in and you might choose to make the intermediate range 7-12, but you get the idea.

Almost of the other stuff you allude to is two-edged, e.g. expanding the range to 7-12 makes the Fert tighter and is slightly better if you end up defending, but you lose granularity in competition: only extensive analysis/experience would determine which of those wins when adding up the P&L. I wouldn't feel competent to judge, though I have my suscpicions against organised & strong opponents (and to win a major knockout event, that's what one is going to have to deal with at some stage).

The only clear advantage I can see with the 1♠ Fert is the one we've both mentioned, bringing the BAL type from 1NT back to 1♥. That is definitely a plus!

[to The Hog] Yes, my experience (playing a 0-10 1♥ Fert for three seasons now, against decent to strong oppo where the system needs to be announced two weeks in advance) is that the 1♥ Fert rarely gets caught. The worst we have had, against two internationals (English and Norwegian, who were both "after" us, so to speak) was 2♦X VUL vs NOT for 800 (should have been 1400, but Ferts are often difficult to defend) against a cold 6NT the teammates didn't find. 0-10 is much tougher as one need to cater for constructive auctions, but we're pretty good on both those and running now. 0-10 is technically inferior to 0-7 (and I think 0-10 1S would be more or less unplayable).

However, we're getting off the original topic here, so back to it - playing two (or more) different methods at the same time. Let's look at the simple case of switching strong NT to mini as quoted, which is in essence an extreme case of switching STR to WK. My guess is that most pairs who do and have done this (including in the reverse, e.g. Martel/Stansby) are less sound in their constructive auctions in their less common case (the Goldman case cited above being a case in point). The reason for this relates to why I am a late convert to WK NT's (having played intermediate or strong for most of my life). When one plays a WK/Mini NT, it has a pronounced effect on constructive auctions:

• Inverted minor auctions can play 1m 2m 2NT as forcing
  
• 2/1 can more sensibly be played as FG (opener won't have a WK NT and will either be strong or shaped)
  
• etc

so, when switching from WK to STR, you have to recalibrate your constructive auctions (this is not just about point range adjustment, but whether certain bids are F vs NF) and when switching from STR to WK, you need to enhance your constructive auctions to fully realise the benefits. And here, we're talking about less change that Shevek might be.

Let's say you normally play in response to a Strong Pass

• 1♣ ART NEG
  
• 1♦ ART POS, FG
  
• 1♥ semi-POS, 4+♠
  
• 1♠ semi-POS, 4+♥, <4♠ etc

it's impossible to simply up that a step and retain a sensible structure. In reality, if you switched to a Strong ♣, you'd probably get rid of the semi-POS's and put them into the 1♦ NEG response. If one thought semi-POS's are a good idea, why would one voluntarily want to do that?

I'm not trying to be prescriptive here, far from it (I don't have enough evidence to go on) but I think if you have system design goals which your Strong Pass method has been optimised to hit as far as practical, voluntarily switching to a Strong Club system is likely to be a retrograde step.

Regards, Newroad

[shevek]

1NT both minors has merit.

Our 1NT opening shows 5+ ♦s. Open 2♣ with 4 ♦s & 5 ♣s. Works okay.
A plus for 1NT as ♦s is that 2♣ is a range relay so it can be 7-12 at no cost.

Over strong PASS, we simply play
1♣ 6-10, then 1♦ relays 17+ slipping straight into structure below.
1♦ 0-6, no more relays.
1♥ 4+ ♠s, not flat, 11+ pts, etc

So exactly same structure as over strong CLUB.
Never fancied the Marston idea of 1♦ positive over strong CLUB, others semi-pos.

[whereagles]

1♣-1♦ as GF leaves the floor open for opps to overcall in a position where they stand lots to gain (disrupting a near-certain game, suits yet to be mentioned) and little to lose (at the 1 level penalties are unlikely to hurt).

[newroad]

Hi WhereEagles,

That's true, but in an auction that is now unequivocally forcing. The reality is, when you start with Pass, you are already behind the curve. The most you can do is have some control over where you pay the price.

[Shevek] I note your response. As I'm sure you in effect know

• You're making your choice from which I describe above, e.g. you are particularly poorly placed after, say Pass (Pass) 1♣ (2any)
  
• That you're playing the same structure, as you say, but perhaps not in the same order (presumably your 1♥ bid shows spades in either method)?
  
• Your diamond competition issue is not as significant over 1NT as I thought, but you lose them completely when held in 2♣. Swings and roundabouts to a point.

However, I note that because you relay with the POS, the step problem is less of an issue (you only pay out significantly at the other end if you show a shape with 3♠ in Strong Club that you would have shown with 3♥ in Strong Pass). If you play a semi-POS style, it's more of an issue (as the BAL response would get pushed to 2♣).

As to whether the semi-POS is better to show before a POS, that's a longer and separate conversation. For me (and cards on the table, I've never played a Strong Pass, though I'm developing a system called "Delta Heart Pass" at present) I tend towards the semi-POS first school. So, I am planning in response to Pass

• 1♣ ART POS FG, after which 1♦ (reverse) R, else 1♥+ RR as per 1♥+ for the semi-POS's
  
• 1♦ ART NEG
  
• 1♥+ semi-POS's

As you may guess from the name, my method involves showing shortage first (but with another 40 years or so of Symmetric Relay experience to aid in strengthening the relay resolutions). I won't bore anyone further with that thinking unless asked.

Regards, Newroad

[whereagles]

newroad, on 2014-May-05, 09:06, said:

That's true, but in an auction that is now unequivocally forcing. The reality is, when you start with Pass, you are already behind the curve. The most you can do is have some control over where you pay the price. (...)

It's not quite the same (assuming I read your comment correctly). If you make a strong pass, opps don't yet know whether your side has a game or not, and might be butting-in vs nothing.

Of course, if you define

pass*-(pass)-1♦ = GF
*strong

then you're in the same situation as in the

1♣*-(pass)-1♦ = GF
*strong

which is why I recommend those 1♦ bids to be negatives. With a positive it's generally better to show a suit right away.

[newroad]

Hi WhereEagles,

I believe you read my reply more or less correctly. I think we have a difference of opinion on the merits of showing POS's directly after a Strong Pass or Strong Club. That's fine, there a some fine system minds on both sides of that one.

For me, I prefer to show the semi-POS's directly, due to (1) frequency, and (2) I'd prefer to handle 4th hand intervention knowing unequivocally whether I'm in a forcing auction or not. I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing you judge it important to show POS's directly, due to magnitude (as opposed to my earlier frequency) when it matters.

Any view on this is necessarily anecdotal - you know where I sit

Regards, Newroad

[whereagles]

Well, I got my "taste" for suit-showing positives from Robson/Segal, who claim that preempting GF auctions before suits are shown is usually profitable (although there are other situations where it is even more profitable). Having played strong club myself for a few years with both methods, I came to realize indeed I prefer suit-showing positives.

But ok, to each his own style

[newroad]

No problems, WhereEagles.

One subtle point I missed from your earlier post. After 1♣ (Pass) 1♦ ? where ? is one level interference as you mention, most relayers won't be too bothered - they'll relay up to an agreed level and play forcing pass auctions where that is breached (remember, in my proposal, its FG). The only issue they have to sort out sometimes is whether they have a stopper in any shown suit.

Once you breach that level, you do knock them out of relay, but the stakes become higher as well (by definition). I must admit, this is what I thought you were referring to when I first skimmed your post - it's the kind of thing you need to do to cause some potential trouble.

Regards, Newroad