The Avocado Club.

[E. Blackadder]

This almost-big-club system, which I'm going to be misplaying tomorrow night, has been around for some decades, and whoever wrote up the description, did a better job than I did.

[E. Blackadder]

Some things not in the system notes:

1. After interference to an asking bid, D0P1 applies
2. We're playing Kickback 03-14 over all agreed strains.
3. Sequences 1 - 1 - 2 and 1 - 1 - 2 may be very close to a GF. Responder is advised to bid with less than one might think.

More will be posted if warranted.

[Len Myers]

Now updated slightly.

[Len Myers]

Addenda to system notes:

• After 1 - Positive Suit Response - Support Ask, if responder makes the first or second step response, denying useful support, and if there is room, opener may now revert to the Trump Asking Bid.
• 2 (flannery/mini-roman, short in diamonds) - 2NT forces opener to game, in addition to asking about distribution and strength.
• Since I never use "dummy points", I'm including this in the notes. with a fit, responder values a doubleton as 1; a stiff as 3; and a void as 5.

Other addenda. Bill has a copy of the Viking Precision Club system (it's not on Amazon), and he asserts that they have created an impressive asking bid set. I hope to hear about the additional asking bids.

I'm thinking of creating a system schism -- and by system schism I mean what Steve and I play, but based on the Avocado system:

• Dispensing with the variable notrump range, and playing 10 to 12 in all positions, all vulnerabilities as I don't see this complication as a benefit. Accepted! YMMV;
• Adding one or two points to all the opening point ranges Did not suggest;
• Upping the limit of Diamond openings to about 19 or so; There are valid reasons for this both on the 1 side, and on the 1 side with strong diamond holdings. Rejected
• Adding an additional meaning to the 2 bid, i.e. a weak 2 in hearts. Sontag's notes suggest this would dominate the other meanings about 8 to 1. This would require responder to have a way to handle the new meaning, and would add some memory strain. Not Ruled Out! UPDATE: Ruled out by the local club. Shrug.
• Dumping the reverse Bergen schema over 1Major in favor of mini-splinters, fit-bids, or strong holdings, or at least thinking about it Not Ruled Out!; and/or
• when the auction starts 1 - 1 -adjusting the scheme for handling opener 4-4-4-1 rebid to bidding the lowest (not cheapest) 4-card suit, ensuring that, if opener bids one of a major now, opener has five. It turns out that responder is already practically forced to bid over 1 - 1 -2minor, so I think little harm would ensue. failed to suggest
• Changing the accursed 3NT opening bid to a four-level minor preempt, and just opening solid-minor-suit opening bids with one diamond or two clubs, respectively. This will enable us to use Namyats. Accepted!... and on reconsideration rejected, but retaining Namyats... UPDATE: on re-reconsideration, accepted.

I couldn't sleep -- much -- last night as I pondered another way to handle the 4=4=1=4 10 to 14 HCP openings, ideally by usefully folding them into anything. I mean anything. the pattern is simply going to be a disappointment for anyone looking for something else.

• It won't fit in the 1 opening (too weak),
• 1, 1, or 1 openings (too short),
• 1NT opening (when partner transfers to diamonds, good grief!),
• 2, tempting, but... no. I suggested that 2 show six clubs or more, minus one club for each four-card major. Didn't work.
• 2 waaay too weak;
• 2 where the pattern is now, and a disappointment when found. In desperation, I suggested that we just pass the hand perhaps backing into the auction, (and add 4-6 and 5-6 major holdings to the flannery descriptions) but he didn't bite.

[Len Myers]

I was researching some stuff for my private system, and one thing led to another, and I'm proposing a change to the Avocado responses over 2H (flannery or mini-roman) There's a very small chance that some reader has an interest in relay bidding design, and this is basically all I know about it.

Here's the relevant part of the email I sent out:

As Bill and Steve know well, memory work isn't always my forte, yet some fragment of the past then showed up, unbidden, and so I must digress.

Anyone can create a system where you try to put relays and responses in an order for maximum efficiency, but a friend and former bridge partner once showed me a simple trick to setting up a much-easier-to-memorize relay scheme, and here it is:

Let's assume that we've opened 2H and that responder invoked 2NT, a relay bid. Opener's rebids from step 3 (3H) and on can be arrived in two ways: Either directly, or in a two-step. So 2H - 2NT (relay) - 3NT (possibly showing 4-5-2-2), is almost the same as 2H - 2NT (relay) - 3C - 3D (relay) - 3NT (also possibly showing 4-5-2-2). And so you might use 2H - 2NT - 3C to say that generally "my next bid is weak." with the implication that if you bypass 3C, your hand is strong.

So we've covered the cheapest response to the relay and the responses from three steps higher and up. What of the second relay step (in this case 2H - 2NT - 3D)? The answer, again, is simple and not obvious: use the second step to show something different from everything else. In the Avocado case, this could easily be the 4-4-1-4 hand. which then gets its own structure.

This idea doesn't always allow or even encourage natural bidding. To keep as many of opener's bids as natural as possible, I had to shoe-horn the 4-5-1-3 and 4-5-3-1 distributions into the corresponding three-of-a-major.

(omitted as confusing text, please see Excel attachment)

	
Distribution 	Strong hand bids 	Weak hand bids
4-5-0-4 	4C                     	3C - 3D - 4C
4-5-1-3 	3H 	                3C - 3D - 3H
4-5-2-2 	3N              	3C - 3D - 3N
4-5-3-1 	3S              	3C - 3D - 3S
4-5-4-0 	4D                     	3C - 3D - 4D

	
Odd response 	Any 	
4-4-1-4      	3D 	

	
	
and if opener cares, (it's always possible) 	
Distribution 	Strong hand bids 	Weak hand bids
4-4-1-4 	3D - 3H - 3N       	3D - 3H - 3S

since it is late at night, I'm about to arrive at a conclusion not originally considered.

With this structure in place, we could dispense with the invitational sequences 2H - 3H and 2H - 3S. instead, responder would relay, get a max / min response, and then violate the relay structure, placing the contract,
i.e. 2H - 2NT (relay) - 3C (minimum) - 3H/3S/3NT/4H/4S (signoffs, not relay bids). this would force an adjustment to 2H - 2NT (relay) - 3D (4-4-4-1) sequences.

and this means that we could use 2H - 3H and 2H - 3S as some kind of slam-tries. True, they'd be a bit dangerous, easy to forget, and even easier to be misinterpreted (it's late in a session, you open 2H, partner bids 3H, and since you have a minimum, you pass, and... OOPS!) , but it's not as if Avocado is a system designed for safety.

UPDATE:I've been denied. Sad, but his right. At least I can still incorporate this structure into MY system. All I need to do is add a couple slight adjustments. Yeah.

[Len Myers]

I now have 3 -- count 'em -- 3 avocado partners, and you never know, a fourth may be on the way.

system deviations with Greg:

1. 10-12
2. 3NT is a 4-level minor preempt, in conjunction with namyats. To open a gambling , bid one of the minor held, and keep bidding it until partner gives up, or bids 3NT, whichever comes first.
3. artificial game try. after, for instance, 1 - 2 opener bids 2 to ask, in which suit would you accept a help-suit game try (one accepts with an Ace, King, singleton, or void.) For no particularly good reason, I improvised this sequence: 1 - 1 - 2 - 2, and pard fielded it.
4. Negative Free Bids
5. Suction over artificial, forcing openings, and over artificial responses to artificial, forcing openings.
6. C/1MX & BROMAD.
7. Modified Michaels, i.e. the highest unbid suit is always one of the two suits; the other suit is unknown.
8. 3/5/attitude, udca.
9. kickback, with 3014.

I don't necessarily agree with everything here. In particular #3, #5, #7, and #9. But in practice it's about 99% of what I want, so not complaining.

[E. Blackadder]

Avacado continues to show that a 3rd-rate system can easily be a success if both players learn the accursed thing*. As a case in point, two of my partners -- they eliminated the middleman -- entered a national event and won a modest amount of platinum. I mean, really! Showing me up like that, and just because they're better than I am technically.

Life is unfair.

A third, occasional Avacado partner -- he's the guy who came in 3rd in the NAP, flight C twice -- this time won the 0-1500 LM Pairs with one of his NAP partners. Evidently nobody suggested to the ACBL that it should have been the 300-1500 LM pairs.

*Avacado has several fundamental strengths, to be sure, and some of my suggestions have become canon.