[whereagles]

So I'm going to play a two-way forcing pass system this week-end and need to provide opps a defense to the following opening:

pass (pass) 1♣

where pass and 1♣ are symmetrical, showing 0-8 or 15+

I'm thinking of the agricultural scheme:

pass (pass) 1♣ (dbl) = stolen bid dbl, i.e. "I was about to open 1♣"
pass (pass) 1♣ (any) = opponents regular system

This enough?

[straube]

Works for me. I think part of your rationale for your system was that opponents wouldn't have to invent a special defense.

[sfi]

My immediate thought is that playing a weak NT overcall is probably not a good idea, so any defence suggestion should include switching to a strong NT if necessary.

[awm]

Both pass and 1♣ are forcing right? I'd want to pass with a significant number of strong hands when defending against this method, figuring I can double back in later and possibly improve my result. This also allows me to act with a number of weaker "overcall" style hands where I really want to be in the auction opposite 15+ (in either hand). It seems like only bidding on hands where I would open is really giving the opposition a free ride.

[perko90]

In that situation, as the opponent, something like Precision (even if that's not the system being played), seems perfect for this situation. Double = big, but not too big (assume a strong NT). Any giant balanced hand or shapely strong hand can pass 1st; 1♦ = nebulous (1NT rebid is ~12-14), and 1M = roughly a 1-level overcall (8-15), 5+ length. I'd use the 1NT overcall for something (anything!) other than a balanced hand. I'll suggest a hand with 5-4 shape (clubs + 4-card M) w/ constructive pt count (10-14). It has built-in safety and yet eats up bidding space. Responses similar to Woolsey Defense to 1NT (2♣ = to play, 2♦ = what's your major?)

If opps both have 15+ hands, there shouldn't be much decision, it's either a preempt or an easy pass.
If 1 opp has a 15+ hand and the other a 0-8 hand (the most likely scenario), the above treatment should be well-placed for the likely partial battle.
And if they both have 0-8 hands, it's nice to have limited strength immediate actions and an immediate way to show extra strength.

[whereagles]

@Straube: yes, the point is precisely to keep the system natural, so that opponents can play their normal system.

@Sfi: thanks. I'll keep that in mind. Most people here play strong NT anyway, so not much of a hassle there.

@awm: yes, both pass and 1♣ are forcing. Your idea for passing some strong hands and have bids over 1♣ as classic overcalls makes sense, but I don't think people here will appreciate the subtleties. Thx anyway.

@perko: precision is not likely to be a popular choice here. But thx too

[Zelandakh]

Adam's idea of treating the initial pass as 0-8 and the 1♣ opening as 15+ seems simple enough providing you play a strong club defence that can also handle constructive hands. Since both of these are easy and short, is there any reason why you could not present both and invite the opps to choose A or B during the pre-alert, in much the same way as pairs choose their multi defence in the ACBL? Neither of these are going to be optimal though, so one could argue you are gaining an unfair advantage by not providing a more advanced and thought-out defence.

[whereagles]

I only have to present one defense. I won't be presenting two because people will overwhelmingly choose the simplest one (as in, 110% of the time )

In any case, it makes sense to treat pass-(pass)-1♣ as strong because its very likely one of the players is indeed 15+. As to the initial pass, there it isn't so clear. In fact, odds are 3/4 that the pass is weak.

[mycroft]

It strongly depends on your defence to the original pass - and without that, I can't suggest what would be reasonable. I certainly would want double to be a big hand - haven't run the numbers but I bet that (given I will pass a bunch of hands looking forward to pounding fert v fert, or even helping convince you people that 0-8 is 15) the cases of 0-8 v 0-8 will nicely match 0-8 v 15 and 15 v 0-8 (with 15 v 15 and me having the rest well down on the list).

"the Nuttin' System" sounds like a decent defence, but it has the downside of letting you play your system and not taking advantage of the holes you have. When it's given as a suggested defence to what is clearly not a "nuttin' system" I, and many others, I'm sure, suspect a lack of interest on the part of the system people.(*)

"Play the system you play after Precision 1♣-1♦, but remember that *either hand* could be the weak hand" sounds like a decent defence as well. It will play badly against the "fert v fert" case, though.

I'm sure the people Down Under will suggest FP-v-FP; were I knowledgable of FP, I'd probably do that myself. I can't imagine suggesting it as a defence to random 2/1 players, though! Interesting question - what do you play after pass!-pass (! any 13+)?

(*) Similar to T-Walsh and PC, where "oh it's much better to overload 1♣; we get to resolve all our hands so much more nicely. But defending? Oh, yes, you can play any non-destructive defence, but don't do that, it doesn't work." "for us" seems to be the unspoken end to that, even if they think they're correct (frankly, even if they are!)
Having said that, that's basically our suggested defence to EHAA 2 bids "play what you would normally, but be willing to pass for penalty more aggressively." But I have spent some time on it, and that really does look like the best option (unless you're going to play Fishbein, in which case more power to you).

[whereagles]

@mycroft:

1. I suggest opps play their normal system vs the initial pass. Given pass is 75% weak, this seems a pragmatic and simple approach.

2. I just churned out some simulation data on

pass (pass) 1♣

Took out the 18-20 balanced hand (opens 2NT in this system) and RHOs hands with 12+ (with which he would bid over the initial pass). Outcome on 100k hands is like this:

Fert vs fert: 19%
Fert vs strong (or vice-versa): 78%
Strong vs strong: 3%.


Playing "FP vs FP" (RHO passes with 12+) shifts numbers like this:

Fert vs fert: 38%
Fert vs strong (or vice-versa): 60%
Strong vs strong: 2%

What I make of this is that it seems to be a good strategy to defend "pass (pass) 1♣" as you would defend a strong club.

[mycroft]

But I see that there's still a one in five chance that we have "game or 800" - or slam, really, but seriously, most of the 0-8/0-12/0-8 hands will have 6-8 in both; "assume it's the 80% case" seems like a recipe for "when we do both have bad hands, we win, because they can't show that" - which, again, is minimizing the downsides of the system - possibly even turning them into upsides.

What calls after p-p-1♣-p show the bad hand? i.e. if I wait for you to tell me where we are, how much room have I lost? That would determine what kinds of good hands second and fourth hand should pass on.

I have a feeling pard and I would just agree to open K/S in first seat and EHAA against an opening "pass"; and defend as we normally would against the 9-14s. That, too, tends to drop out the chance for a fert-penalty; but the 2-bids would be, I believe, even more effective against this pass than standard.

Edit: I, personally, believe that the requirements for "suggested defences", where required, should not be as onerous as the ACBL C&C committee seems to make it for MC conventions; but these kinds of questions - what are your other options; in particular, what second-round actions show the bad hand - seem obviously necessary to build a defence. It's not just one auction.

[PhilKing]

I like pass then double to show 15+ balanced, at least 3-3 in majors.

This charges them the occasional penalty for their methods at almost no cost, and it avoids the same when we were about to get crushed in a 1NT "overcall". 1NT is still natural, more minor oriented.

[whereagles]

@mycroft: if opps pass throughout, it goes like this

pass-1♣
1♦ = 0-8

pass-1♣
any = natural 15+

pass-1♣
1♦-pass = fert vs fert (not caring to go 3-4 down undoubled vs game).

pass-1♣
1♦-any = 15+

So yeah as opponent you can afford to let our side clarify before butting-in.

[whereagles]

Coming back from the week-end event, the system caused opponents little trouble defending.

Only a pair decided to steer away from the recommended "use your normal system" vs pass and pass-pass-1♣. They decided to use an overcall structure instead and ended up with couple of mix-ups in the process. I told them that could happen but they wouldn't listen

[Zelandakh]

As long as everyone had fun, that is the main thing.

I used to enjoy playing against the FP system of university friends. Indeed it was the first system I regularly played against and I had more experience in defending FP than against strong NT + 5 card majors until BBO started. My feeling is that the reason many players do not enjoy playing against systems like this is unfamiliarity and that that could be improved by greater exposure. That could be done by legalising systems like this one, where the non-openings effectively go through 1♣, but keeping ferts of 1♦ and above illegal. Some members might even find that such systems are actually fun, both to play and play against. Ok, time to wake up now...

[whereagles]

you know.. I'm actually thinking of submitting a request to the national authorities for this system to be legal in most tournaments.

I mean.. the forcing pass needs no defense (just play your normal system), the ferts are also simple to defend (if not trivial) and the rest of the system is natural (9-14, 3m 5M card openers). It's actually easier to defend than standard precision, and that's allowed everywhere.