[MickyB]

Was just lying in bed, and a thought struck me

For those who don't know, Riton 2♣ is the use of 1M:1N, 2C (and, I believe, 1H:1S, 2C) as showing any 16+ hand. To free up the 2♣ bid, the 2M openings show 5 cards in that suit and 4+ clubs, 12-15 or so. Hows about...

Replacing the 2♥ opener with Flannery (ok don't condemn it just yet )
Bringing in Kaplan Inversion
Using 1♥:1♠, 1N to show the 16+ hand

Plus points:
You have an extra step when opener is strong
The follow-ups could probably be more similar to those after 1♠:1N, 2♣ - you have the same amount of space below two of opener's major, which should be a common place to escape to
1♥:1♠, 2♣ is nice - opener is limited so you can frequently stop in 2♣ instead of having the auction 2♥:3♣, P
Responder can show 5 spades immediately with 1♥:1N

Minus points:
5♥332s - you have to rebid a three card minor
Opener doesn't have a 16+ bid after 1♥:1N

It is only at an early stage of planning...but any thoughts?

[david_c]

Just comparing the two opening bids

(a ) 2♥ = 5 hearts and 4+ clubs
(b ) 2♥ = 5 hearts and 4 spades

In my opinion the second of these is superior, because partner immediately knows the extent of your major-suit fits. In (a), a lot of the bidding space available is taken up with trying to find spade fits.

Now for a general point on Riton 2♣ - while I enjoy playing around with rebid structures like this, I think it's possible to get carried away with how nice they are. What really matters is how well your opening bids work in competition. Personally I don't think that inferences like "will not have 4 clubs if minimum" are very useful after interference, even if you've discussed ways to take advantage of opener's club rebids. So I'm very sceptical about these 2♥ and 2♠ openings. There are 101 things I'd rather use those bids for ...

[MickyB]

I agree with your first point, but it would probably be necessary to open 2♥ with 6♥4♠ which gives back some of the advantage.

I guess you are right about competitive auctions being more significant. I think that denying 4 spades if minimum is quite a useful inference in competition, denying 4 clubs if minimum maybe less so.

When you mention the 101 things that you'd rather use these bids for - are these all destructive, or are some of them with the aim of cleaning up the 1 level openings?

[Al_U_Card]

What is the 2D opener in that structure? If Flannery is shown by 2H then the 2D is Mexican?

[MickyB]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 24 2005, 03:45 PM, said:

What is the 2D opener in that structure? If Flannery is shown by 2H then the 2D is Mexican?

Probably a multi, as you have no other way of showing a weak two.

[inquiry]

david_c, on Oct 24 2005, 05:27 AM, said:

Personally I don't think that inferences like "will not have 4 clubs if minimum" are very useful after interference, even if you've discussed ways to take advantage of opener's club rebids. So I'm very sceptical about these 2♥ and 2♠ openings. There are 101 things I'd rather use those bids for ...

Well, that inference is a very minor part. There are a couple of more important issues... the 2♣ rebid by opener as a generic "no clear direction" rebid. It takes away the jump shifts in three card suits to establish a force, for instance. And, indeed, it allows jump shifts to be on five card (rather than four or 3 card suits).

As for the structure in the first post. I do play Kaplan Inversion and Riton 2♣. I use 1♥=1♠ to show 4 or fewer spades. This gives rise to an oddity of sorts.

1H-1S

• 1 NT = less than 4 spades, poor hand unsuited for 2♥ rebid. Inference, shows 4♦ most of the time
  
• 2♣ Riton, of course
  
• 2♦ = four card spade support, less than riton 2♣ with four card "support"
  
• 2♥ = rebiddable suit, not worth of riton 2♣
  
• 2♠ true FIVE CARD reverse. Big old hand
  
• 2NT = play as you like, I happen to show a big balanced hand here around 20=21 pts (don't ask why I have this hand)
  
• 3♣/3♦ = both five cards suits (I use misiry, so these are limited in nature)
  
• 3♥ = great suit

The "tricky" bid here is 2♦ by opener showing spades, and 1NT rebid showing, essentially, diamonds or balance.

[david_c]

MickyB, on Oct 24 2005, 03:37 PM, said:

When you mention the 101 things that you'd rather use these bids for - are these all destructive, or are some of them with the aim of cleaning up the 1 level openings?

I don't think there's any need to clean up 5-card major opening bids. They are already very clean.

Hand from the BB earlier today: partner opens 2♥ showing a minimum with 5 hearts and 4 clubs, and you hold

♠ Q874
♥ K
♦ Q432
♣ KQ82

What do you do?

[cherdano]

Hi David,

the point of 2♣ riton, and its accompanying 2M openings. is really to improve constructive bidding. There are really a lot of auctions that are messy in standard:
1. Jump shifts
Sometimes people are afraid to raise a jump-shift with 4-5 card support! And they might be right, because partner may have manifactured a jump shift with 3=6=3=1 shape. But if opener really has a 5-5 shape, he can't take another bid to show his 5-card without bypassing 3NT, so you miss a 8-9 card fit.

2. Openers simple two level rebids.
These cover just A LOT of ground strength-wise, a minimum up to 18 points or so. If you can show me a pretty auction starting 1♠-1NT-2♥-3♥ in standard, I owe you a coke. Similar with the 2M rebid -- since 1M-1x-3M not only requires strength, but also a good suit, there is a wide range of hands that rebid 2M, or rebid 2m with the plan of rebidding your major suit.

With riton 2♣, the jump shift really shows a second suit, and the two-level bids besides 2♣ are nicely limited.

So even if the 2M openings don't come up very often, the indirect gains come up VERY frequent.

As for comparing Flannery with 2♥ riton: One point is that you don't need to preempt as much when you have the majors. When you have hearts and clubs, you might better get in your suits now or never.

Arend

[david_c]

cherdano, on Oct 24 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

the point of 2♣ riton, and its accompanying 2M openings. is really to improve constructive bidding.

Exactly. Specifically, you improve constructive bidding after 1M:1NT and 1♥:1♠. In all other sequences after 1M, you gain very little by taking out the minimums with clubs. So the constructive advantages have to be absolutely huge to make it worth giving up your 2M opening. And it's not fair to compare to "standard" anyway - you should be comparing to something of similar complexity such as Gazzilli.

Furthermore I think your 2M opening bid will be a loser on average: it's bad for constructive bidding because you can't have 2/1 auctions or nice invitational sequences. It's only the pre-emptive value of the bid which makes it playable - and I can think of much better ways of using 2M pre-emptively.

[inquiry]

david_c, on Oct 24 2005, 02:17 PM, said:

Furthermore I think your 2M opening bid will be a loser on average: it's bad for constructive bidding because you can't have 2/1 auctions or nice invitational sequences. It's only the pre-emptive value of the bid which makes it playable - and I can think of much better ways of using 2M pre-emptively.

Errr... speaking from experience, I can tell you that the part about the opening 2 bid being a loser on AVERAGE is clearly wrong. You don't need nice 2/1 auctions because opener's two suits are know and his hand is very limited. Responder can bid 2NT to discover three card side suit if he is so inclined. There is one key inventational sequence, 2M-P-3M....

The auction frequently goes

2M-4M or 2M - 5C which makes opening lead and defensive bidding very difficult indeed. Even 2M-3NT hides the nature of responders hand very nicely. Does 3NT bidder have club fit and one stopper in one of the off suits? Is he loaded in the offsuits?

My experience has shown this bid is not a loser on average. And checking Henri's (Ritong) results with it on Bridgebrowser will verify this as well.

Ben

[MickyB]

david_c, on Oct 24 2005, 04:58 PM, said:

MickyB, on Oct 24 2005, 03:37 PM, said:

When you mention the 101 things that you'd rather use these bids for - are these all destructive, or are some of them with the aim of cleaning up the 1 level openings?

I don't think there's any need to clean up 5-card major opening bids. They are already very clean.

Try telling Marc Lee that

Ok, I think you are right, maybe Gazilli (sp) is worth another look - after all, it isn't really the opening that needs "cleaning", it is the 1NT response! Certainly I think that the inferences from not rebidding 2♣ sound pretty useful.

[MickyB]

Oh yes, another thing - I suspect that Riton/Gazilli 2♣ are more useful after a 1♠ opener than a 1♥ opener, because in the former case you -

Gain on an extra sequence (1S:1N, 2H)
Don't have two ways of raising opener's minor (as you do with 1H:1N, 2C:2S)

[han]

david_c, on Oct 24 2005, 10:58 AM, said:

I don't think there's any need to clean up 5-card major opening bids. They are already very clean.

Hand from the BB earlier today: partner opens 2♥ showing a minimum with 5 hearts and 4 clubs, and you hold

♠ Q874
♥ K
♦ Q432
♣ KQ82

What do you do?

Hand from BB earlier today: x AQ10x 10xxx 10xxx, 1S-1NT-2H, what do you do?

The commentators argued whether you need to bid 3H, as you could easily miss game by passing. Luis made a very strong case for bidding 3H (but then, Luis could probably convince me to bid 4NT with this hand and I'd believe him). Some tables passed, some bid 3H. Playing Riton there is no issue at all: 2H shows at most 15 pts so pass is clear.

BTW, 2H was an easy make, 3H was not at all easy.

[han]

MickyB, on Oct 24 2005, 02:52 PM, said:

Oh yes, another thing - I suspect that Riton/Gazilli 2♣ are more useful after a 1♠ opener than a 1♥ opener, because in the former case you -

Gain on an extra sequence (1S:1N, 2H)
Don't have two ways of raising opener's minor (as you do with 1H:1N, 2C:2S)

I agree.

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Oct 24 2005, 03:56 PM, said:

MickyB, on Oct 24 2005, 02:52 PM, said:

Oh yes, another thing - I suspect that Riton/Gazilli 2♣ are more useful after a 1♠ opener than a 1♥ opener, because in the former case you -

Gain on an extra sequence (1S:1N, 2H)
Don't have two ways of raising opener's minor (as you do with 1H:1N, 2C:2S)

I agree.

I am not entirely sure this is right, or at least maybe I am not understanding the argument.

I know in Standard 1NT forcing,

1H - 1NT
2C - 2S

is the impossible 2S bid showing a good club raise, while 3C is a weaker raise

But playing Riton, if opener had hearts and clubs with a weak hand, he would open 2H, and no doubt 3C is the limit on the hands being discussed. One way, two way, makes little difference. And if opener has a better hand, then he bids 2C then rebids 3C over 2D and responder knows what to do with the bad club raise and the good club raise.

So, someone elighten me on what I am missing in this part of the discussion.

ben

[MickyB]

Certainly Ben, I wasn't saying that natural systems would do better than Riton in this situation; We were saying that Riton wouldn't gain in this situation, unlike if the auction had started 1S:1N, 2C or 1S:1N, 2D.

[han]

I read Micky's comment exactly as he explained it: that Riton is more useful over 1S than over 1H. This does not say that Riton is bad over 1H, nor does it say that Riton is good over 1S.

No need to defend a convention that is not under attack Ben.