[pilun]

We continue to play Strong Pass in some events in Australia.
We figure the method will die out if/when most of us give up.

We play strong club vul, strong pass not. 13+ pass, openings are 7-12.
Thus the 1♠ fert is 0-6(7). It has scored well.
Good to preempt one major and bid the other.
(Also, if they double 16+ say, what is their negative?)


Anyway, our responses are simple after 1♠ - (nb) - ?

pass = up to 14-ish, a bit more with spade length
1NT = 15-18, maybe unbalanced, maybe a bit less with short spades
2♣ = 19+ unb
2♦/♥/♠ = overcall-style
2NT = 19-20

We can probably do better. The other day I picked up

♠KQTx ♥Axxxx ♦AKJx ♣---

2♥ and 1NT are ugly, though either would have worked well on the actual layout.

I'm thinking it's better to use 2m as Aspro (or Asptro), so
2♣ = hearts & another
2♦ = spades & a minor

Is that an improvement?
What elso might we try?

TIA

[DavidKok]

I've played strong pass with 1♦ ferts and with 1♥ ferts. I understand that you want to keep the system as is, but I think the question of this post is asked from a very uncomfortable starting position. Without shape information catering to many hand types is rough.

In general, I would consider the following approaches in a situation where you know you'll have to settle for something not-terrible, rather than something good:

• The 0-6(7) range is extremely top-heavy. Very weak hands are just uncommon, even conditional on responder being very strong. So treat the opening as, say, 4-6(7) and pay up if opener has 0-3.
  
• Give up on playing 2♣ or 2♦, and possibly also on 1NT. You are so far behind on exchanging shape information that I would prefer to have several artificial bids to set this exchange up over the ability to play in these contracts.
  
• Transfers, or artificial forcing bids, can give responder multiple bites at the apple. I would not use a strength split you describe, but instead focus on showing shape while retaining the ability to sign off in 2♥ or higher and also investigating degree of fit.
  
• Lastly, even with all this I think space will be tight. If necessary, I would give up on having invitational sequences or strength-clarifying bids by responder. Blast-or-pass is not terrible if your can find your right suit. I would therefore not clarify, say, 19 vs 21 hcp opposite (the former passes any playable strain, the latter blasts to game one way or another).

This isn't a system suggestion per se, but these are aspects of a system that I think might make the most of a bad situation.

[pilun]

Thanks David.

I'm pretty sure we'll keep 1NT as natural, it comes up a lot. We won't play 3NT on power after that start.

For the rest, we are not keen on too much artificiality, which gives the opponents extra options. Not what we want!
Transfers don't appeal due to wrong-siding.

Originally we played all 2x as natural, no strong bid! They could be simple lead-directors or psyches. We did well when the opponents had game but played some of our games in partscore. A net win but we want to do even better.

[pilun]

Remember we are ferting only when not vulnerable.
Here is what we are trialling over our 1♠ fert, hoping to cater for 2-suiters and big balanced. It's Aspro based. (Could be ASPTRO)

Pass = whatever. This is hard to judge double-dummy because 4th hand will often have a guess.
Hands with spade length could be quite strong.
Some weak, shapely hands will respond 2x, confident that opener won't jump to game.

1NT = 15-18 semi-balanced, major singleton possible, more likely spades than hearts.
We won't play 3NT on power after this start. Stayman, transfers.
Opener should be wary of transferring to spades opposite a possible singleton.
(In fact opener would have opened 2♦ mini-multi on many hands with five spades.)

---

2♣ = 4+ hearts & another, or big balanced, or rarely a big heart hand. So forcing.
Much of the time opener will bid 2♦ p/c, or 2♥ with 3+. (Need 5 to jump raise?)
Then

passing 2♦ = five, usually
2♥ = five, 2nd suit unknown. Then scramble.
2♠ = 5+4, usually 5 spades
2NT = 19-20 balanced
3♣ = 5+ (3♦ = 5 and max)
3♥ = 1-suited hearts, Acol 2 style

----

2♦ = 4+ spades & a minor, or bigger balanced, or a big spade hand.
2♥ by opener = "bid your 5-carder".
Then we get

2♠ = five, minor unknown. (2NT asks for that)
2NT = 21-23 (or make it GF)
3♣/♦ = 5+
(3♥ = undefined)
3♠ = Acol 2

---

2♥/♠ = 1-suiters, usually six. Psyching possibilities (Systemically, 2M = natural overcall or rarely shortish)

---

2NT = minors. Could be 4-5 but always 5 clubs.

---

3♣/♦ = wide-range (Yes, strong minor 1-suiters miss out)

3♥/♠ = preemptive

[DavidKok]

Thank you for writing this out. It is not a system design I would go for - it heavily emphasises responder's shape but does not seem to involve much dialogue bidding (e.g. opener has no way to cheaply suggest their own long suit, while we often want to play in the long suit of the weak hand for communication purposes).

[pilun]

DavidKok, on 2025-December-12, 01:37, said:

Thank you for writing this out. It is not a system design I would go for - it heavily emphasises responder's shape but does not seem to involve much dialogue bidding (e.g. opener has no way to cheaply suggest their own long suit, while we often want to play in the long suit of the weak hand for communication purposes).

All true, though the 1♠ bidder won't often be shapely.
Didn't open 3♣/♦, 2NT minors, 2M Muiderberg, 2♦ mini-Multi.
A shapely 7-count would usually have made a 7-12 opening.
We will see.