I leave the X in.

Presuming that X instead of 1S shows 3- spades, it's a perfectly fine agreement to have, and one that I actually prefer (it makes hands like KJx xxx Kxxx Qxx biddable in this auction, unless you really like bidding 1NT voluntarily with no stopper, raising to 2C on Qxx, or passing with decent 9 counts). Support doubles take care of many, though I concede not all, of the potential messes that are created.

All that said, our 3S bid shows four spades for certain, we have a heart honor that partner didn't know about, some defensive diamond cards, and an ace in the long suit. I can't think of any decent reason to pull this.

The 2D version is stayman in (sorta) name only, as it's really just the start of relays designed fully to reveal opener's distribution; the 2C version is for finding low level contracts and also handling some invitational hands.

Yes, of course you always lose something when you introduce a convention, but here I'm not sure the damage is significant. If the 2C stayman allows you to get to 2D most of the time (this is the issue I have with it — 2C is a puppet to 2D, not a marionette, meaning that it is sometimes bypassed [specifically when opener has a five-card major]; that means responder cannot get out in 2D a lot of the time, and more importantly cannot safely attempt to do so with, say, 2=2=5=4 and less than 10 HCP — but I need to examine it more losely to see how often this will come up and whether it can be fixed), then all you're losing is the garbage stayman play (stayman with something like 4=4=4=1 and few HCP, planning to pass any response including 2D).

The other possible use for the bid would be to show various big hands, as in some variation of four-way transfers, but if your relay method is good I know from experience with this system that asker rarely has a need to describe his hand.

It's not like over a strong notrump wherein it's considered very important to have opener as declarer, either; he mini notrumper is usually best off as declarer but it's close enough that you don't care a lot.

Looking at that system now I see a couple adjustments I'd make, but I haven't worked out all the details. But given that all game forcing hands are handled just fine via the relay 2D sequences, that preempts are available at the three level, that responder can force to game in either major while choosing who declares, that he can invite game in notrump easily, and that he can bid 2H and 2S to play, you're just left having to pick between asking for a five card major with less than GF strength, inviting in a major while keeping things at the two level, and getting out in a 4–4 major fit at the two level. Given that no system I know lets you do more than one of those things anyway, I don't think it's all that bad.

Basically, the reason this works fine compared to our strong notrump systems is that the "missing" bid, the one that's taken up by the extra artificial bid, is 2S and that's just not that useful a bid in practice — it can be used to set up a sophisticated minor-suit transfer system or to get out in a minor when opener is 5–5ish, but the former use isn't as important in a weak notrump context and the latter is overrated (and we get to them anyway when doubled or interfered with, which we usually will be.

Anyway, not being dismissive, it's just that at this point I think the loss, which you're correct exists, may not be worth worrying much about.

That's an agreement that some players have that works fine — double with five, bid with four is one example; another not totally uncommon use is that X shows minors and denies spades. So you may disagree with that being a good convention but it doesn't make much sense to disagree that they were playing it.

Do you have a whole different 3rd/4th seat system, after such light 1st/2nd openers?
Interesting, from the standpoint of being a seriously different-from-standard GCC legal system. If nobody else had volunteered to play it I'd have given it a shot out of curiosity - but freely admit that both the 1C and 1D bids in most big club systems are very much not to my taste, so best to leave it to somebody else who'll enjoy it more. (I did enjoy my taste of Transfer-oriented symmetric relay but obviously not GCC...)

It does make my own efforts at "exotic GCC-legal systems" look rather tame. I've explored quite a few Polish Club variations - my current toy is 1C = 11+ with exactly 4 spades, or 15+ balanced or minor one-suiter, or 19+; 1D = 11-18 with exactly 4 hearts; 1M 11-18, 5+; 1NT 11-14 no 4CM, with relay-like continuations available after the 1S response to 1C and the 1H response to 1D - that was the hardest part of the system for me, with relatively little experience with relay methods. (If any of y'all are interested in that type of a system, or in plain olde Polish, drop me a line...)

On another note, bigpooch asked in #7356:

Not in the garden variety variation of it - but there is an excellent gadget invented by Krzysztof Martens, "Stayman-plus-transfer" that deserves to be in wide use but so far hasn't caught on at least in my corner of the world. (I had a homegrown gadget to handle some of the 4-5 hands, but his is much better.)

(Also, nice to know somebody actually reads those articles on simulations. Maybe that will inspire me to finally update the site again...)

You have to consider what you have that partner doesn't know about: There's extra offense with the fifth and sixth club. (Or arguably only the fifth one — on the auction, he has to reason that 4=2=3=4 is unlikely and with 4=1=4=4 I presume you open one diamond, so if those things are true he already knows, if he's thinking, that you have five.) Also, your hand clearly has extra offensive values for your 3S bid (which I wouldn't have made, but whatever.)

The fourth spade isn't extra because your bidding promises it.

On the other hand, you have negatives for offensive purposes: the heart queen is wasted and the king-queen tight are not pulling their full weight (partner is not very long in diamonds). But each holding is helpful on defense, as is the ace of clubs — club to ace, club ruff will often start the defense.

In other words, on balance your hand is actually better for defense and worse for offense than partner is likely to have guessed, so his X, which was a suggestion (not a command) to defend, should be accepted. Pass.

I think I mentioned earlier that for a while we did do things fairly differently in third seat and completely differently in fourth, but pard had trouble keeping it all straight so we went to a flatter system.

There aren't many changes you really need to do in third seat — the canapé character still has value (though it's different), and the relay auctions that start with the forcing notrump aren't valuable for getting to game any more but you still use them for a round or so moderately often. I admit I don't know where the right balance lies.

In fourth chair the whole system is basically silly, and just using straight precision, or standard with drury, or romex (my suggestion to pard; he vetoed), or whatever, is probably better. Considering the work that necessarily goes into developing and remembering the 1C auctions, it's probably best in practice to retain them and just go to a standard 5 card major openings on top of them. Oh, and of course the notrump ranges flip, to 14–16, and you lose the forcing notrump.


Yes, it's very carefully crafted to be just barely legal. Most relay systems in midchart and superchart events start with a 2C relay; the twist I added is using the forcing notrump loophole to sneak what is basically a relay system into the general chart, by making opener's first rebid natural.

Symmetric relays are scary — I've never played any such system. And unfortunately there's so little incentive to learn anything that can basically never be played in the US.


I'm ashamed to say that while I have a book on Polish club I never learned that either, except like the first round or so. Maybe if nobody picks up Troll with me we can go for some Polish.

For now I'll keep posting the system and see anyone who does want to try it can just start with me on BBO and we'll go from there.

100% pass. You have told your story. You have defensive red values that may come in mighty handy.

Gabe has 6666 posts... Just noticed it.

The X is even better considering the colors. Only have to set them 2 for a great result of -500.

Actually –200 may be fine — game is far from certain considering that you have a working 14 count with six losers, partner has promised no better than 6 HCP and nine losers, and you have been warned that the fit is poor.

A possible hand for partner: AJ9x J87x T9xx T. You'll have a hell of a time making 4 spades after the spade lead or shift and have no chance if spades are 4–1 (as they will often be), whereas you will take the first four tricks against hearts with another one yet to come, more if spades break.

Does anyone here have any experience playing or playing against Fout's overcall structure outlined here:

http://www.fernside.com/bridge/TheOv...Structure.html

lol at 3 level overcalls being intermediate.

That´s great. I did not know that existed.

I digged up the hand I made 3 NT on a squeeze

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/hand...172-1319346108

Yep.

It's fun. It's powerful. It also absolutely requires that both partners know the system, because if you aren't both drawing the proper inferences, particularly from calls that partner didn't make, it is not pretty.

In the fall nationals last year I had a bit of I played several days of the structure, discovering both how goo dit can be and how unpretty it is when one of you is still thinking in terms of standard interference.

dc-o, one of the links on that page is broken. For more on the structure check this page, and in particular this link. That's what I used when I played it (in the LM pairs, Reisinger, and some pair games). Unfortunately, partner never read them, instead trusting me to convey the system in a nutshell to him. That didn't work so well.

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear: I like the OS a lot, and would happily add it to whatever I play with anyone who wants to play with me. I think it's excellent against intermediate opposition, very good against advanced opposition, and close enough to optimal against world class players that the increase in variance against them is worth it. (A couple of the few boards we won in the Reisinger were due to using this, for example, and afaict it didn't cost us any directly [though failure to be on the same page about it did]; it also performed very well in the LM pairs.)

Gentilhommes,

I have a group of hopefully 4 beginner-intermediate players from my school who might be interested in a game against non-randoms tonight around 10PM EST.

I'll check this thread again or PM me with interest and I'll send you their handles so that someone can arrange a team game hopefully or play at the tables or something. Unfortunately I likely won't be around.

I'll be watching whatever collegiate finals are being played tonight (7pm on BBO, Go Blue!), and then I might be doing some bidding practice with a new p (if anything), so I probably won't be available.

This looks like a ton of fun actually.

I'd play tonight jjbrr.

I am working tonight. Why didn't they want to play last night?

I should be able to play tonight.

I can prob play tonight

... which tbh was a lot of the reason I wanted to do it. Almost every hand with either a long suit or 6+ HCP, plus a few others, gets to overcall (or double, albeit rarely) in direct seat. Fourth hand gets to pop the bidding up pretty high pretty often, even with garbage, provided only that he is good at drawing inferences. It's really cool.

In case what I said earlier about really knowing the system sounds scary: it's not that bad. Those pages are long but really all you need to keep in mind is that, roughly speaking, every hand with at least one decent suit and every hand with 3+ cards in each unbid suit and 6+ HCP will act in direct seat. Keep that in mind (and actually do it — if you have KJxx of hearts and out and RHO opens in a minor, you have to overcall¹, even red/white, lest partner get it wrong later) and it's fine. Most of the rarer bids are rare enough you don't even really need to focus on them — get the simple overcall (one and two level), 1NT for takeout, and power double down and you're on your way.

Thinking about this brings up another thought I've mentioned here before but, well, here it is again: There are so many things in bridge for which when you get them wrong, it's your partner who makes the "mistake", not you. When you make a carding mistake, it's your partner who errs. When you miss a bid, it's your partner who places the contract wrong. When you psych it's often your partner who gets to go down 7 (not doubled, partner!) or whose redouble costs a game swing. And so on. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another game in which this is so clearly the case.

Maybe I'm thinking about this because just a couple days ago I was playing with my family, partnering my stepbrother, who's just learning, and doing a lot of instruction of everyone. (Stepbrother has been to ~half a dozen club games and one tournament.) With me having opened and rebid hearts and my LHO having bought the contract in 4C, partner led the heart 4 to my AKTxx32, with the board showing Jx. I won the king and then went into a long explanation of why I could now safely underlead my ace, because partner was ruffing 100% of the time as he would have led the honor from Hx (and the queen from QJx), and why on this hand this play was right to avoid declarer ever setting up his queen. When partner's jack fell under my father's queen, though, giving the latter his tenth trick... Anyway, the point isn't that hand (which don't bother me at all, of course, and will help pard remember what to lead from honor and one), it's that there's effectively an extra obligation, when playing any convention in bidding or play, to play it as well as possible just because of this screwing-your-partner effect.


¹ This isn't strictly true, as it depends somewhat on your length in opener's suit, but close enough for my point to hold.