[benlessard]

Quote

3. I know you are trying to stuff all of the 'catchall' openings into a 1N opening. A four point 1N opening is very unpalatable, and you might the need for a relay (or artificial 1♥) to sort out some of the higher NT ranges. Maybe this is a casualty of the system.

Quote

- I am certain, from experience, that a four point range for 1NT is too wide. I don't expect to convince anyone who believes otherwise, but to me it is simply true. I would expect to do pretty badly when 1NT is opened with 11 and partner has 11 or 12 and makes the wrong decision.
- I don't like being forced by system to open 1NT all the time with a five card major, but only when I think it's best.

This depend mainly on the type of stayman you are using. Im playing 10-14 and 12-15 range for quite a while now and for me its obvious that its the 3pts ranges that sucks. (Even if 99% of world champions play 3 pts ranges).

If one day i write a bridge book the first chapter will be why 3pts range for 1Nt should be avoided.

Quote

- I don't like being forced by system to open 1NT all the time with a five card major, but only when I think it's best.

Ive just had a discussion about it this evening with my old partner and for both of us its was clear that in a sharp system the advantage of unbalanced opening far outweight the drawbacks of offshapes 1nt (5M or 22(54))

In a 2/1 or sayc setup however being able to open 1M is too important.

[awm]

jdonn said:

I am certain, from experience, that a four point range for 1NT is too wide. I don't expect to convince anyone who believes otherwise, but to me it is simply true. I would expect to do pretty badly when 1NT is opened with 11 and partner has 11 or 12 and makes the wrong decision.

It really is intended to be more like 12-14. I don't feel compelled to open (most) balanced 11s. But I'm sure we all upgrade some 11-counts.

jdonn said:

I don't like being forced by system to open 1NT all the time with a five card major, but only when I think it's best.

I'll note that an awful lot of players will open 1NT when holding 5♥ and in range. This is due to having rebid problems after 1♥-1♠, and the desire to preempt a spade overcall. I see a lot more 1NT openings with 5♥ than with 5♠.

jdonn said:

I really dislike the rebids after 1♥ 1♠. Ditto with rebids after 1♥ 1NT. I think your auctions in general after 1♥ need a LOT more work.

Feel free to suggest better ones. In fact 1♠ as "natural or GF relay" would probably work nicely.

Quote

You utilize two 2 level openings to get all unbalanced 10-14 hands with 5+ hearts. I find this pretty wasteful.

There is obviously a tradeoff. The more 2-level openings are devoted to unbalanced hands with hearts, the more accurate bidding on these hands becomes. But you lose more potential preempts. I felt that using 2♣ and 2♥ for these hands was pretty reasonable, leaving us slightly better placed than precision (we lose 2♥ as a preempt but gain the more useful 2♦).

Quote

I don't see any place to open with 4414

My omission, 4414 opens 1♥.

Quote

I just see limited benefit. I haven't been saying to myself, gee I wish I could open this 3514 hand on the two level and risk partner not being able to bid spades or find out I have clubs. Or gee I have to open 2♣ with six clubs, maybe we belong in 1NT

But I bet you have said to yourself: "oh no, I missed a major suit fit" after opening 2♣ and getting passed out. And you've probably lost boards because you opened 1♦ "could be short" and partner couldn't raise you aggressively because you might not really have diamonds. I've also observed (bridge browser helps with this) that good players opening 1♥ against good opponents tend to lose IMPs to the field. Of course, this may say something about how bad the field is or whatever, but it seems to be quite frequent that I open 1♥ and end up defending a spade contract by the opposition (either making or a sacrifice). Opening heart hands at the two level actually seems quite desirable to prevent this (forces opponents to either enter a much riskier auction, or to let me play my heart contract unmolested).

This method seems to solve the things named as the two biggest problems with precision (the "could be short" 1♦ and having trouble bidding 5♣-4M hands). While there is some potential loss on the primary heart hands in exchange (for example harder to find spades when opener is 35(41)), it seems like there are also substantial potential benefits to opening the heart hands at the two-level (quicker to reach the normal contract on most hands, harder for opponents to bid spades over hearts).

[benlessard]

Quote

he two level actually seems quite desirable to prevent this (forces opponents to either enter a much riskier auction, or to let me play my heart contract unmolested).

This method seems to solve the things named as the two biggest problems with precision (the "could be short" 1♦ and having trouble bidding 5♣-4M hands)

Maybe you can explain me why you think your 2C 5H+4os will lead to less problems and better results than the 2C precision.

Lets check the preemptive/competive issues.

They are more likely to compete and find a fit over a hand with 5 clubs than over a hand with 5H so you might think that clubs have less preemptive values than H but its a an illusion since clubs is more likely to STEAL them a fit than H.

Lets say the bidding goes.

1S/2S------(P)-------3S-preempt--------?

IF you make a plus at 3S than its was probably your hand all along and the only time you make a real profit (steal something) is if they could make game or 4m or you are +140 instead of +50/100 for 1/3 imps gain. The time when you lose imps is mainly when 4S was making and biddable.

If you go down at 3S, you make a profit is if they could have made game or -50/-100 instead of -130 for 1/2 imps. You lose imps when they couldnt make 3m/3H/2Nt.


If they compete, go offboard & that without the preempt they would have landed on their feet.

1- being in the wrong game
2- being in game while slam was there.
3- being in bad slam.
4- they double you and it lead to a poor result.

Now if you do the same thing with diamonds

1D/2D-----(P)-------3D---------?

they will compete more often than over 3S and with seemingly greater ease. But they will loose imps the same amount.

1D/2D-----(P)-------3D---------All pass ---Is of course less likely to happen but ...

If you make a plus its more likely that youve stole them (they could have made 3M or 4C). Also as a small bonus its not likely you could have made game on your side while in ♠ 4S is sometimes possible.

IF 3D goes down you wont lose imps because they probably make 2M/3C


1D/2D-----(P)-------3D---------(bid) (and they go wrong)

They have more room to manoeuver but they will go wrong all the same.

1- being in the wrong game (seems easier but its the same since now both majors are possible)
2- being in game while slam was there. (easier for them)
3- being in bad slam. (easier for them)
4- they double you and it lead to a poor result.

5- They bid game but 3M was the limit
6- They stop in 3M but game was there.

Each time ive heard a good player say that 2D preempt is useless i get the nausea.

[jdonn]

[quote name='awm' date='Sep 30 2008, 12:38 AM'][quote name='jdonn']I am certain, from experience, that a four point range for 1NT is too wide.[/quote]

It really is intended to be more like 12-14. I don't feel compelled to open (most) balanced 11s. But I'm sure we all upgrade some 11-counts.[/quote]
Fair enough.

[quote][quote name='jdonn']I don't like being forced by system to open 1NT all the time with a five card major, but only when I think it's best.[/quote]

I'll note that an awful lot of players will open 1NT when holding 5[he] and in range.[/quote]
I agree that this was only a small disadvantage since usually 1NT is opened with five hearts. I still don't like giving up the option to open 1[he] when I want to.

[quote][quote name='jdonn']I really dislike the rebids after 1[he] 1[sp]. Ditto with rebids after 1[he] 1NT. I think your auctions in general after 1[he] need a LOT more work.[/quote]

Feel free to suggest better ones.[/quote]
My last post was far more work than I already ever expected to put into a ridiculous system like this

[quote][quote]You utilize two 2 level openings to get all unbalanced 10-14 hands with 5+ hearts. I find this pretty wasteful.[/quote]

There is obviously a tradeoff.[/quote]
Which seems to be admitting that it's a loss, necessary for other things to work.

[quote][quote]I don't see any place to open with 4414[/quote]

My omission, 4414 opens 1[he].[/quote]
These were already the worst auctions! The 1[he] opening is going to be a gigantic loser the way this is set up.

[quote][quote]I just see limited benefit. I haven't been saying to myself, gee I wish I could open this 3514 hand on the two level and risk partner not being able to bid spades or find out I have clubs. Or gee I have to open 2[cl] with six clubs, maybe we belong in 1NT[/quote]

But I bet you have said to yourself: "oh no, I missed a major suit fit" after opening 2[cl] and getting passed out. And you've probably lost boards because you opened 1[di] "could be short" and partner couldn't raise you aggressively because you might not really have diamonds.[/quote]
Sure this has happened. The first one is not that common, or important since it's usually a partscore when it passes out. As for the second one, all I can say is for several years I played '12-15 1NT and 4 + 1[di]' precision, then switched back for good, so I'm certainly happy to live with that loss. I would say your 1[he] opening and it's followups are going to be a far greater loss.

[benlessard]

Quote

The 1♥ opening is going to be a gigantic loser the way this is set up.

On all minors hands he will be much better placed. 1D will show 5 except 4441,4144,1444 and 1H will show 5 clubs except 4414 and with a limited range. What more do you want ??

In standard 5H + 4/5m are the easiest hands to bid but at the same time they are very vulnerable to spades preemption. So it make sense to use the 2 level for park them and keep the premium bidding space for something else however the hands with 6Hs just fit better with the 5H+4m then everywhere else so split the Hearts hands bring a loss.

The problem also is to fill these sequences

1H-----1S
???

2D
2H

One of them can be used for a 2nd type of spades raise but its a bit pointless since your opening is already limited and the other 1 is pretty wasted since it mean a reverse with 13-14 HCP


1H----1Nt
???

2D
2H
2S


One thing is sure for me is that if my 1H opening is forcing and show clubs it would contain some strong hands in it.

[rbforster]

benlessard, on Sep 30 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

One thing is sure for me is that if my 1H opening is forcing and show clubs it would contain some strong hands in it.

This could be a good thing, as long as partner isn't so enamored of passing too often with weak long hearts. If you include the minimum strong club hands with clubs (say 15-18) in 1♥ as well, you'll eventually have a "free" 2♣ rebid in your 1♣-1♦ auctions which could be put to good use.

[NickRW]

I thought for a while about trying to say something sensible for this thread. I think the original idea of swapping clubs and hearts must be at least fairly playable. But I am not sure I like mixing it with essentially natural spades and diamonds - it seems neither one thing or the other to me. Why not 'go the whole hog' and make a 2 under transfer system? Say, for example:

1♣ = 4+ hearts
1♦ = 4+ spades, not 4 hearts

and, then, maybe

1N = 12-14, bal but no 4cM

which in turn, would make

1♥ = 4+clubs, no 4cM, 6+ clubs or 4-5 minors if 12-14
1♠ = 4+diamonds, no 4cM, 6+ diamonds or 5-4 minors if 12-14

1) This could be coupled with any sort of 2 openers you fancy - say SA or Acol or whatever for a relatively normal looking system.

2) Or, probably better, since these transfer openings are semi forcing by their very nature anyway, why not make them very sound and always forcing - which means that you can play the two level like EHAA/fantunes sort of thing.

3) Or you can take the same idea and use light openers and a strong 1C. Though I am not so sure about this option. Without a strong 1C option, openers played as above follows the principle of majors first and leaving max bidding room available - majors first is not a bad MP strategy and maximising bidding room is good for constructive bidding and therefore IMPs.

I admit I haven't figured out all the responses and rebids, especially what problem 4441 shapes throw up - also the inherently canape nature of 1♣/1♦, but it seems more coherent to me. Whether you can play any of these transfer openings anywhere - er - well I shudder to think what some NBOs would make of them.

Nick

[Free]

NickRW, on Oct 1 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

I thought for a while about trying to say something sensible for this thread. I think the original idea of swapping clubs and hearts must be at least fairly playable. But I am not sure I like mixing it with essentially natural spades and diamonds - it seems neither one thing or the other to me. Why not 'go the whole hog' and make a 2 under transfer system? Say, for example:

1♣ = 4+ hearts
1♦ = 4+ spades, not 4 hearts

and, then, maybe

1N = 12-14, bal but no 4cM

which in turn, would make

1♥ = 4+clubs, no 4cM, 6+ clubs or 4-5 minors if 12-14
1♠ = 4+diamonds, no 4cM, 6+ diamonds or 5-4 minors if 12-14

1) This could be coupled with any sort of 2 openers you fancy - say SA or Acol or whatever for a relatively normal looking system.

2) Or, probably better, since these transfer openings are semi forcing by their very nature anyway, why not make them very sound and always forcing - which means that you can play the two level like EHAA/fantunes sort of thing.

3) Or you can take the same idea and use light openers and a strong 1C. Though I am not so sure about this option. Without a strong 1C option, openers played as above follows the principle of majors first and leaving max bidding room available - majors first is not a bad MP strategy and maximising bidding room is good for constructive bidding and therefore IMPs.

I admit I haven't figured out all the responses and rebids, especially what problem 4441 shapes throw up - also the inherently canape nature of 1♣/1♦, but it seems more coherent to me. Whether you can play any of these transfer openings anywhere - er - well I shudder to think what some NBOs would make of them.

Nick

This is not a new idea actually. I've even seen it with 5-card suit openings.

[NickRW]

Free, on Oct 1 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

NickRW, on Oct 1 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

...Whether you can play any of these transfer openings anywhere - er - well I shudder to think what some NBOs would make of them.

Nick

This is not a new idea actually. I've even seen it with 5-card suit openings.

Yeah, I dare say not. Since posting, I found a system called, ominously, "Bondage" which is quite similar.

In reference to my comment re NBOs, actually I could play something like this in England at some of the larger clubs that have a level 4 night:

Quote

Allowed at Level 4 only...

11 C 14 Artificial openings
Any opening bid of one of a suit is permitted that shows at least four cards in a
specified suit, forcing or not.

Food for thought

Nick

[Apollo81]

What does responder do with a 52(24) 9 count after a 2♣ opener?

[awm]

Apollo81, on Oct 10 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

What does responder do with a 52(24) 9 count after a 2♣ opener?

2♣ (5♥ and another suit) - 2♦ (4+ spades or 0-1♥ or various inv+ hands)
.....

2♥ = 5♥/4+m; responder passes. It is possible to miss a 5-3 spade fit in this way. However, it is not unlikely that the standard auction would've been 1♥-1♠-2m-2♥. And even if there is a spade fit, the standard auction will often involve a declined game try (do you have four spades? no only three? maybe we should play 3♠) and you could easily get too high if both major suit contracts produce eight tricks.

2♠ = 5♥/4♠: game try, or bid game, depending on honor structure I suppose

2NT/3♣ = 5♥/5m and max; a little ugly but your "standard precision" auction will probably have gone 1♥-1♠-3m also. Sign off somewhere.

.....

I should add that the claim here is not that this is some perfect method that fixes all problems. You will occasionally lose in constructive auctions due to having opened 2♣ showing hearts instead of a natural 1♥ bid. The idea is more that the probability of "we want to play in hearts given I have 5+♥" is substantially higher than the probability of "we want to play in clubs given I have 5+♣" and therefore that we are less likely to lose in constructive situations via this method than in the method where 1♥ is natural and 2♣ shows 6+♣ or 5+♣/4M.

[dburn]

The following may be of interest:

http://tinyurl.com/45rqta

This system is currently being played in the WMSG in Beijing. However, given the half-time score in the Italy-Poland quarter-final, this may not be the case for very much longer.

[effervesce]

Out of interest-how is Dwururka a BLUE system? I thought systems with transfer openings are categorized as RED.

[dburn]

Dwururka is certainly a RED system per the WBF Systems Policy - BLUE systems are those based on a strong 1♣ or 1♦ opening. Either the convention card refers to some other classification (perhaps one used in Poland), or Zawislak and Pazur are colour-blind, or they are hoping that the WBF Systems Administrators are colour-blind.

[mycroft]

I think I said everything necessary in this other thread, before the event; my points still stand. Until they get ejected from the tournament, or forced to play a real GREEN system until a correct, at least to a casual check, CC has been posted for sufficient time for people to digest it (say two days), it's not going to matter, and they're going to continue to do this.

[karlis_ooo]

Play Meckwell

[skjaeran]

karlis_ooo, on Oct 16 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

I will reveal only 2 bids, because i doun't want my system being known and copied.

Have you ever hear about dislosure?

Whatever the rest of the system is, as long as you don't disclose it, it's illegal to play it.

[karlis_ooo]

If you guys doun't have anything to write... doun't write anything! I think the topic was related to systems, but you doun't examine the idea, but disgrace my post and me...
I just wonder for what. For large letters? You doun't like the idea?

Remember this>
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." -- Eleanor Roosevelt

Making a post was mistake, because of above mentioned reasons. I made it much shorter, hope you are happy now and can stop making posts related to my post.

[jdonn]

karlis_ooo, on Oct 16 2008, 10:07 AM, said:

I KNOW THAT MY SYSTEM IS  BEST EVER MADE SYSTEMY FOR Non-Vulnerable...

I would include this in my signature, but it's so big it would really get annoying after a short while Your post certainly joins the shubi hall of fame though.

[han]

Feel free to remove JT's comment about me if that gives you extra room Josh.