[shevek]

I asked about this before. Anyway

We play forcing pass with relays in long teams matches.
In the method, pass is 13+, 1♠ is 0-7, other openings show 7-12, all artificial.
Not negotiable. When we switch we play strong club.

When should we switch?
It's clear to play the club system at red vs green.
1♠ fert vul vs not is on a hiding to nothing, the 7-12 openings might also come a cropper.
What's more, pass with 13+ vul vs not is a welcome mat to preemptive intervention and likely to suffer.

Conversely, the pass system rates to gain at green vs red. Relative safety plus the ability to steal and preempt.
Also a green vs red strong pass is likely to escape intervention.

The simple thing to do is to play the pass system not vul, the club system if vul. Is that right?

On the other hand, one aim of the method is to put pressure on the opponents over a series of boards, so we like to obstruct where possible.
At the moment we play the pass system at all vul.

Position at the table is also crucial.
In 2nd seat after a pass on our right, the chance is higher that the hand belongs to us, in which case the constructive club system seems the way to go.
at all accept favourable.

This is whet we currently do

Dealer
green vs red - FP
nil vul - FP
all vul - FP ?
red vs green - strong club

in 2nd seat
green vs red - FP
nil vul - strong club ?
all vul - strong club (seems right)
red vs green - strong club

Does this spread look right?

[mycroft]

I have no idea, having not played in a jurisdiction where forcing pass was legal since 2001. But one thing I'd think about for second seat is "remember, somebody is going to play FP v FP as a defence. Does that change at what vuls we'd want to play FP? If so, what's the "chance their defence is going to be FP v FP or something similarly dominant/disruptive in first seat" that's needed before one chooses to attack the metagame (remember, you have to make that decision before seeing their defences, as you can't change the HU parts of your system in response to their defence, including if they go to a HU system themselves) - and then, what's the chance you're going to get that metagame?

Also, what happens if they switch to FP v strong club (which I think they'd be allowed to, it's your entire system, not just the HU parts of it, that they get to play a HUM defence against, I believe) either on purpose or because they forget when you're playing FP second. Is that going to affect what you do/the probabilities of the different hand types?

Additional question that you might want to clear with the regulators; if you do play the metagame, and your system/choice of system based on seat and vul changes from event to event based on your reading of the metagame, is that going to be considered "changing the HU elements of your system in response to the defence <you expect>"?

[Trick13]

If your constructive auctions are less accurate after you open FP then I think you have the spread about right.

[Free]

Another parameter you might take into consideration is to look at opponents' vulnerability rather than yours alone. When they are Vul, they are less likely to preempt you heavily. When they are NV, whatever your system, they are more likely to intervene.

[newroad]

Hi Shevek.

I would want conclusive evidence that a 1♠ Fert was a clear loser before switching system at all - at risk of going all Lady Bracknell, needing to optimise one system might be regarded as unfortunate, needing to optimise two appears like carelessness.

If it's in any way borderline, you need to factor in the constructive bidding space lost to the other openings - which would suggest staying put with the Strong Pass variant.

The first person I know who played (admittedly, a 0-10 or 0-11) spade Fert was Rebattu in 1982. He played it Non-Vul only, which is roughly in keeping where you were heading, but if I recall correctly when I discussed it with him, he regarded it as a bit conservative in hindsight.

As an aside, I think a 1♠ Fert as 0-10 or 0-11 is virtually unplayable, notwithstanding Rebattu's runner up result (it was pairs and the idea was new). I think it can be done 0-7 or 0-8 (indeed have seen it so) as you do. Personally, I think a 1♥ Fert remains the optimal way to impede relatively safely without losing most sensible constructive routes, but you may

• Completely disagree with me, or
  
• Agree with me in principle, but need to do so to cater for your preferred use of the 7/8-12 openings

Regards, Newroad

[shevek]

 newroad, on 2015-June-11, 16:06, said:

Hi Shevek.

I would want conclusive evidence that a 1♠ Fert was a clear loser before switching system at all - at risk of going all Lady Bracknell, needing to optimise one system might be regarded as unfortunate, needing to optimise two appears like carelessness.

If it's in any way borderline, you need to factor in the constructive bidding space lost to the other openings - which would suggest staying put with the Strong Pass variant.

The first person I know who played (admittedly, a 0-10 or 0-11) spade Fert was Rebattu in 1982. He played it Non-Vul only, which is roughly in keeping where you were heading, but if I recall correctly when I discussed it with him, he regarded it as a bit conservative in hindsight.

As an aside, I think a 1♠ Fert as 0-10 or 0-11 is virtually unplayable, notwithstanding Rebattu's runner up result (it was pairs and the idea was new). I think it can be done 0-7 or 0-8 (indeed have seen it so) as you do. Personally, I think a 1♥ Fert remains the optimal way to impede relatively safely without losing most sensible constructive routes, but you may

• Completely disagree with me, or
  
• Agree with me in principle, but need to do so to cater for your preferred use of the 7/8-12 openings

Regards, Newroad

Thanks for that.
We used to play Strong Pass at all vuls for simplicity, out of a sense of "fairness". Opponents were always likely to have a few cock-ups with their hastily composed defences, so we felt it was only fair to give them a few free swings in return.
Note that we are required to provide a choice of good(!) simple defences, which we have done.
We were often forced to switch methods within a tournament, depending on stage, match length, our current place in the field. Given that, switching within a match is less of a chore.

Our 1♠ fert has been a consistent winner at all vulnerabilities. However there have been instances when we "should" have gone for -1100 vs 460 say, saved by inadequate defensive methods.
We believe that 1♠ is the right fert, much more obstructive than 1♥, + it frees 1♥. This is the structure:
1♣ = 4+♥s, (7)8-12
1♦ = 4+♠s, not 4♥s, 7-12
1♥ = 7-12 balanced-ish, no 4cM, 7-12
1♠ = 0-7 any
1NT = 5+♦s, no 4cM, 7-12
2♣ = 5+♣, no 4cM, 7-12

We are convinced this is the goods. There are 2 relays over 1♣ & 1♦ for accurate invites.
1♥ allows 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT = 7-9, so everything fits.

1♠ is very obstructive. Vs a 1♥ fert, a decent simple defence is X as 16+ with a 1♠ negative, others 11-15.
Not so easy over a 1♠ fert!

Having said that, we are now playing strong club when vulnerable.
Opening 1♠ vul rates to lose. Penalties, wrong partscore, 1♠ passed out for -300 etc.
Others 7-12 openings are also likely generate a few big negatives.
This change is simple for us and for opponents. Easy for them to see what they are up against.
This is important. With so few pairs playing HUM methods, our (ageing!) opponents get grumpy at the imposte, even more so when the match finishes late and they lose. To maintain the right to play strong pass, we have an obligation to make the experience tolerable for them, maybe even interesting.