[kenrexford]

A thought hit me that got me tickled. Suppose that you play Herbert Negatives, and the auction starts out 1♣-X-P-? Advancer bids 1♦ as a "Herbert Negative" if playing this way, showing nothing other than a weak hand. If that is passed back to Doubler, he also bids what is essentially a "Herbert Negative," being 1♥ to show nothing extra. Thus:

1♣-X-P-1♦(nothing to see here, just weak)

P-1♥(nothing to see here)

What got me tickled is that you could very well keep this up. After the 1♥ call, Responder could very well be required to bid 1♠ unless he has a five-card suit, and then doubler to bid 1NT unless he has a five-card suit. Why not?

1♣-X-P-1♦(nothing to see here, just weak)

P-1♥(nothing to see here)-P-1♠(no 5-card suit)

P-1NT(me either)-P-[place contract, or 2♣ as Stayman]

Why would you do this? Because it's stupid.

A similar concept could happen with short club:

1♣(could be short)-P-1♦(Montreal Relay -- no five-card majors)

Opener then bid 1NT if he has a minimum with four hearts and not four spades, to enable:

1♣(could be short)-P-1♦(Montreal Relay -- no five-card majors)-P

1♥(none or both 4-card major)-P-1♠(I have a four-card major)-P-

1NT(neither) [Opener could bid 2♣ with both majors, allowing transfers if he wants, or just 2♦ if you want to keep 2♣ as natural.]

Why would you do this? Because it's stupid.

I mean, both of these schemes would work OK, I think. Just stupid, which seems funny somehow.

Kokish is sort of like this.

2♣(I have something-P-2♦(I have something too)-P-

2♥(I have something)-P-2♠(I have something too)-P-

[barmar]

It's kind of like why you can't use information theory to come up with a highly artificial bidding system that passes the most information theoretically possible about your hands: because eventually someone has to make a natural bid at a level that you can afford to play. If the partnership only has a combined 15 HCP, you can't afford to bid up to the 3 level describing your shapes precisely. Similarly, this is why most relay systems only start relaying once they've discovered they have enough for game; they know they have enough room that they can afford to relay several times.

[WellSpyder]

Maybe someone who has read "Bridge at the Enigma Club" more recently than I have can summarise the bidding system described there? I seem to recall it includes the same principle of always having a neutral ("nothing positive to say at this stage") bid available.

[kenrexford]

WellSpyder, on 2014-June-19, 09:49, said:

Maybe someone who has read "Bridge at the Enigma Club" more recently than I have can summarise the bidding system described there? I seem to recall it includes the same principle of always having a neutral ("nothing positive to say at this stage") bid available.

No information on that, but the Xango System has a lot of these types of calls. I mean, every call has SOME definition, in that you are denying the hand types appropriate for other calls. But, a lot of Xango sequences are immediately very specific, which requires a lot of lumped in catch-all bids.

Last night, I was watching a vugraph event from the Dumont d'Urville Invitational Swiss, and the leading team was playing Xango. They had a very nuanced sequence to reach 2♣, strangely the only making contract, after a series of classic Xango calls. Opener passed, which is forcing, saying little except that he had no 3-card suit. Responder opened 1♣, a relay. Opener bid 1♦, which was also a relay, setting up Level Two sequences. Responder cooperated by bidding 1♥. Technically, Responder could break this relay if he had all four Queens. Opener then bid 1♠, denying odd parity. Responder bid 1NT, also denying odd parity.

Once Opener knows that both partner's have even parity, there are different theories. But, a non-forcing 2♣ asking for specific voids if Responder has one seems as good as anything. Responder lacked any voids and hence passed.

Opener had the weak 4-1-4-4, and Responder a Yarborough 1-2-2-8. Declarer did get seven clubs and the heart ruff, despite the trump Ace lead.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on 2014-June-19, 10:05, said:

Opener had the weak 4-1-4-4, and Responder a Yarborough 1-2-2-8. Declarer did get seven clubs and the heart ruff, despite the trump Ace lead.

Seriously? The opponents were silent despite a 10 card heart fit, an 8-card spade fit and a vast majority of the HCPs? Does the preface to the text on the Xango system state that it works great against vegetables?

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-19, 10:37, said:

Seriously? The opponents were silent despite a 10 card heart fit, an 8-card spade fit and a vast majority of the HCPs? Does the preface to the text on the Xango system state that it works great against vegetables?

The opponents did make a mistake, but it was much more subtle than you may think.

The East Coast defense to Xango involves a lot of multi-type forcing passes.

The first pass (of the forcing pass), showed either a strong hand or a very weak hand, as only intermediates are opened when a forcing pass is to the right. After the 1♣ opening, which was forced, a pass in the ECX defense shows specifically and intermediate, suggesting that the partnership either has less than the majority of points or slam territory. The pass of 1♦ was simply a pattern indicator. Most of the passes that followed were pattern indicators.

Where the passing sequence went off the rails was with the final pass. However, in all fairness, the person making the last pass knew either that the opponents had a 10-card fit somewhere and almost no points, which seemed rather anti-percentage, or that the opponents were in the 24-25 HCP range with no fits. Would you come in at these colors? I mean, sure. Once every 100 years or so, you end up looking like an idiot defending a club partial, MAKING, when you had a slam. But, 99 times out of 100 you end up hammered with no fit.

Sometimes, Art, you infuriate me with your pompous attitude toward other systems. Sure. People who do not play ECX defense might have no problem with THIS deal. But, you are looking at one hand in a vacuum. What about all the other hands where ECX wins, but your natural approach gets you in trouble? Until you run enough simulations or actual play to understand the pros and cons of ECX, casting stones is silliness.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on 2014-June-19, 10:57, said:

The opponents did make a mistake, but it was much more subtle than you may think.

The East Coast defense to Xango involves a lot of multi-type forcing passes.

The first pass (of the forcing pass), showed either a strong hand or a very weak hand, as only intermediates are opened when a forcing pass is to the right. After the 1♣ opening, which was forced, a pass in the ECX defense shows specifically and intermediate, suggesting that the partnership either has less than the majority of points or slam territory. The pass of 1♦ was simply a pattern indicator. Most of the passes that followed were pattern indicators.

Where the passing sequence went off the rails was with the final pass. However, in all fairness, the person making the last pass knew either that the opponents had a 10-card fit somewhere and almost no points, which seemed rather anti-percentage, or that the opponents were in the 24-25 HCP range with no fits. Would you come in at these colors? I mean, sure. Once every 100 years or so, you end up looking like an idiot defending a club partial, MAKING, when you had a slam. But, 99 times out of 100 you end up hammered with no fit.

Sometimes, Art, you infuriate me with your pompous attitude toward other systems. Sure. People who do not play ECX defense might have no problem with THIS deal. But, you are looking at one hand in a vacuum. What about all the other hands where ECX wins, but your natural approach gets you in trouble? Until you run enough simulations or actual play to understand the pros and cons of ECX, casting stones is silliness.

Ken, in your post about this bidding sequence you did not mention the defensive methods of the opposing pair. How am I to judge anything about their methods when their methods were not mentioned? Given that they passed throughout it seems reasonable to assume that there was nothing sophisticated going on in the background. So accusing me of having a pompous attitude towards other systems is a bit high handed on your part.

I can only judge by the result. The result was silly. If you want to explain why it made sense to arrive at this ludicrous result (or, as you propound, it was RIGHT for the opposing side to arrive at this ludicrous result), that's fine. But to the casual observer, it is just madness.

[Quite frankly, I think you are making up this entire story]

[kenrexford]

First of all, Art, you do have a valid point. I assume that you are more familiar with the South Coast Xango Defense, which would make the result in fact ridiculous. I should have clarified, I suppose. But, as there is no South Coast in that area, it never occurred to me.

Second, though, you're correct, to a degree, that I made some of this up. The true hand was a 12 fit in diamonds. I took some liberties.

[ArtK78]

Quite right, Ken. My familiarity with the South Coast Xango defense is what led me astray.

[Zelandakh]

kenrexford, on 2014-June-19, 08:54, said:

A thought hit me that got me tickled. Suppose that you play Herbert Negatives, and the auction starts out 1♣-X-P-? Advancer bids 1♦ as a "Herbert Negative" if playing this way, showing nothing other than a weak hand. If that is passed back to Doubler, he also bids what is essentially a "Herbert Negative," being 1♥ to show nothing extra. Thus:

1♣-X-P-1♦(nothing to see here, just weak)

P-1♥(nothing to see here)

Maybe I am crazy but up to this point makes perfect sense to me. But after 1♥ Advancer should simply choose a suit. The only thing lost against a traditional scheme here is the ability to stop in 1♦, which is anyway not particularly common. In return Doubler is often able to show their GOSH or BBH lower than usual and Advancer can show some values without jumping through a simple 1M call. Not stupid at all.

Over the Montreal Relay it seems to me that skip bids would work ok and be truer to your concept. That is, Opener's 1♥ rebid just says "I do not have 4 hearts". Then a 1♠ rebid instead would show 4 hearts and a 1NT rebid could show both majors and a minimum hand. Seems easy enough and ought to be playable. Sometimes the difference between stupidity and brilliance is wafer thin.

[Siegmund]

Bridge at the Enigma Club was my first thought too. (Heck, the Martens Camouflage book, even.) I do remember at least one of those recommending 1c-x-p-1d as negative; don't recall either one suggesting -p-1h also was.