[KWSchneider]

As a system designer, I've always felt that MP is not quite bridge - and hence should have system design characteristics associated with aggression and pre-emption, while focusing on no trump and the spade suit.

MP bridge is a WAR – at least at the A and OPEN levels. A bidding system should recognize this and consider overcalls and competitive balancing in its design. The key consideration that many, many system designers fail to recognize is the concept of “SPACE”. Consuming space is critical when you believe that your side has fewer combined points than the opponents. And it is that decision that is extremely important out of the blocks – who’s board is it?

For example, if "a priori" I have 8-12 points and 4+ spades, then my partner and I have a 55% likelihood of “profitably” playing 2S [2S off 1 or better]. So, from this viewpoint, I can support the contention that if I have 4+s and 8-12 pts, opening 1S is not only pre-emptive [consumes space] but VERY likely to be a SAFE position. Furthermore, it puts us into a very strong MP position of reaching the magical 2S contract.

I often get asked why open 4card majors at all costs – and I respond that IF finding a 4-4 major fit AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE is our objective, what better way to do so then opening a 4card major, irrespective of a longer minor. However, what most people don’t recognize is that opening 1S consumes ALL of the bidding space at the 1level [unless LHO can overcall 1N]. So it is extremely PREEMPTIVE to open 1M [particularly 1S] for that reason – and one very curious one as well. Find me a pair of opponents who can find their OWN 4-4 major fit [or 5-3 fit] when WE have already opened their major…

Trying to stay within the aegis of the GCC here in NA (must have 8pts to open 1suit, 10pts for no trump and still use conventions), I propose the following concept:

1♣ = 13+ guarantees 4+ in either major (1♦ response is waiting)
1♦ = 13+ denies 4+ in either major (1M response shows 5+)
1♥ = 8-12, 4+h [by process of elimination, must include at least 4s]
1♠ = 8-12, 4 or 6s [could have longer minor]
1N = 10-12, denies exactly 4s could have 5M332
2♣ = 8-12, 5+c/4h
2♦ = 8-12, 5+d/4h
2♥ = 8-12, 5+h (not 5h332 which is included in 1N)
2♠ = 8-12, exactly 5s (not 5s332 which is included in 1N)
2N = 8-12 55 or better minors

You will note that I do not open 10-12 pt unbalanced hands with no 4+m [except 55 or better in the minors], since they have no pre-emptive value. By limiting the 1H through 2N openings to 8-12pts, responder is placed to pass as necessary and support to as high a level as practical. Obviously, a responder with 13 or more points should initiate a 1round forcing auction.

This concept is based on a significant amount of simulation showing:

1) The importance of reaching 1N first
2) The importance of bidding spades when you have them
3) The importance of pre-empting the spade suit when you don't have them

I'm sure that I might have run afoul of the GCC, but I can support each opening as being natural. Mid Chart approval is certainly not a problem.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Kurt

[straube]

It looks too preemptive to me. I guess you think that preempting two opponents will win more than preempting your partner, but I'm not sure.

What does 1H P 1S show? Is it a correction? Seems like such a low-level sequence should be a forcing bid and if it isn't...

Perhaps you could switch your openings around so that 2C shows both majors and 1H is a (possibly) canape bid.

I think you will have difficult auctions with your strong hands.

For example, 1D (13+ and no major)-1H shows 5 hearts and like 6+ HCP? What are the rebids? How do you get into a GF here without jumping around?

Your 1C will have many more hand types than your 1D. Though you have an extra step, it seems like these auctions will be even more difficult. Is 1C-1D, 1H a bigger hand? You need to be able to get into a GF when you have the values for it.

Definitely a MP system and not IMPs. Perhaps the sheer frequency of 8-12 hands will give you more wins than losses.

[mikestar]

Kurt,

An interesting aggressive system for MP. As for GCC legality, everything should be fine except the 2♣/2♦ openings--these will need to have their minimums increased to 10 HCP.

[Apollo81]

I'm not so sure this is midchart legal -- I could see people having problems with the 1c, 1d, 1h, and 2s openers.

(let's please not start another 10 page thread, please)

[rbforster]

What do you think about swapping 1♥ and 2♥ as openings? I suppose you might argue that with 5+♥ and short spades you want to preempt more (hence 2♥) but I guess the more constructive bidder in me wants to use the space over 1♥ to find good minor fits opposite 5/4+ ♥+m openers.

mikestar, on Feb 11 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

As for GCC legality, everything should be fine except the 2♣/2♦ openings--these will need to have their minimums increased to 10 HCP.

Natural weak bids are allowed under GCC, there is no rule that opening 2m naturally must have 10 points. If you are "weak" (not specifically defined), you need to promise at least 5 cards in your suit and a range of 7 or fewer HCPs in order to use conventions. His 2m bids clearly meet this standard, so there should be no problem.

Edit: I didn't notice at first that the 2m bids promise hearts as well. This makes my above comments less clearly applicable.

[KWSchneider]

straube, on Feb 11 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

What does 1H P 1S show?  Is it a correction?  Seems like such a low-level sequence should be a forcing bid and if it isn't...

1♥-1♠ is forcing for 1rd for the reasons you posited, as well as allowing opener to further define his heart and spade lengths.

1♥-2♠ is to play.

[KWSchneider]

straube, on Feb 11 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Perhaps you could switch your openings around so that 2C shows both majors and 1H is a (possibly) canape bid.

This defeats the purpose of essentially having ALL 1level bids be either:

1) Unlimited
2) Contain at least 4 spdaes
3) Or be a mini-1N

A "natural" 1H bid does nothing to keep the opps from finding a their own spade fit at the 1level.

[mikestar]

Rob F, on Feb 11 2009, 06:21 PM, said:

mikestar, on Feb 11 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

As for GCC legality, everything should be fine except the 2♣/2♦ openings--these will need to have their minimums increased to 10 HCP.

Natural weak bids are allowed under GCC, there is no rule that opening 2m naturally must have 10 points. If you are "weak" (not specifically defined), you need to promise at least 5 cards in your suit and a range of 7 or fewer HCPs in order to use conventions. His 2m bids clearly meet this standard, so there should be no problem.

The 2♣/2♦ bids are not deemed natural under the GCC because they promise 4♥. A 2m opening which might but need not have a side major would be legal as a natural bid with <10 HCP.

[hrothgar]

mikestar, on Feb 11 2009, 09:36 PM, said:

Rob F, on Feb 11 2009, 06:21 PM, said:

mikestar, on Feb 11 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

As for GCC legality, everything should be fine except the 2♣/2♦ openings--these will need to have their minimums increased to 10 HCP.

Natural weak bids are allowed under GCC, there is no rule that opening 2m naturally must have 10 points. If you are "weak" (not specifically defined), you need to promise at least 5 cards in your suit and a range of 7 or fewer HCPs in order to use conventions. His 2m bids clearly meet this standard, so there should be no problem.

The 2♣/2♦ bids are not deemed natural under the GCC because they promise 4♥. A 2m opening which might but need not have a side major would be legal as a natural bid with <10 HCP.

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[awm]

Avoiding the GCC argument...

It seems like you are losing quite a lot on the 13+ hcp hands by playing these methods. You're starting them with bids that are easy to preempt and have a very wide range of values and distributions. You also lose on hands where the field is opening a weak two bid and you either have to pass (5-7 hcp) or open only 1♠ when the field is opening two.

I think it is a common fallacy to argue that:

(1) Hands in the 8-12 point range are more common than any other comparably narrow range.
(2) Matchpoints is a frequency game.
(3) Thus I should design a system where I do well on the 8-12 point hands and ignore the others.

In fact it is possible to have a system which is almost as effective as this one on the 8-12 point hands while doing substantially better on the shapely 5-7 point hands and also on the fairly common 13-17 point hands. In fact, I'd argue that a well-designed precision-style system accomplishes this feat...

[KWSchneider]

awm, on Feb 11 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

It seems like you are losing quite a lot on the 13+ hcp hands by playing these methods. You're starting them with bids that are easy to preempt and have a very wide range of values and distributions. You also lose on hands where the field is opening a weak two bid and you either have to pass (5-7 hcp) or open only 1♠ when the field is opening two.

I think it is a common fallacy to argue that:

(1) Hands in the 8-12 point range are more common than any other comparably narrow range.
(2) Matchpoints is a frequency game.
(3) Thus I should design a system where I do well on the 8-12 point hands and ignore the others.

In fact it is possible to have a system which is almost as effective as this one on the 8-12 point hands while doing substantially better on the shapely 5-7 point hands and also on the fairly common 13-17 point hands. In fact, I'd argue that a well-designed precision-style system accomplishes this feat...

All good points...

Let me address them individually

1) 13+ hands - no doubt they allow the opps to pre-empt, this is a weakness - that is why I've incorporated a number of conventional responses, especially to the likely "Card showing" X. However to say that it is a poor place to start is incorrect. After 1C 1D 1H, we are where everyone else is in the "Short club" world. I probably need to describe the planned rebids after a 1C 1D start. Later...
2) Weak 2bid - this is where I strongly disagree. 0-7pt 6 card hands should be pre-empted at the 3level - and 0-7pt 5 card hands will not be opened by the field.
3) I'd be interested in your "well designed" strong club system that effectively handles 8-12 pt hands [with 4spades especially].

[awm]

Well a lot of things are to taste. It can be hard to quantify wins in one place versus losses in another. But I'd make the following recommendations:

(1) If you give the 1♠ opening a wider range like 8-14, then you will win substantially on the hands at the top of that range by no longer opening a nebulous bid. It will be easier to find your spade fits opening 1♠ than by opening 1♣ and then watching the opponents preempt in a minor. It seems unlikely that the disadvantages due to a slightly wider range will cause this to be a net negative.

(2) The 1♥ opening as given is quite low frequency and rather silly. On the other hand, you are losing a lot when you have a "sound" 1♥ opening and are forced to open 1♣, then see the opponents bid spades or a minor after which it becomes difficult to clarify your heart length and overall strength. I would recommend letting the 1♥ opening bid show a sound opening with hearts. You will lose a little bit on the light opening hands with both majors (these will now open 1♠) in exchange for pretty substantial wins on a more common hand type.

(3) The two-of-a-minor openings are probably good when they come up, but also probably infrequent. If we switch these to showing a long minor without a four-card major, they would be a lot more frequent and you would win a lot on those hands (which currently are passing). This would probably more than compensate for the losses on the rare hearts-plus-long-minor hands. Given that spades are the "king of suits" and these fairly light opening bids are focused more on competitive situations, it's not clear to me that showing hearts is some huge win.

Combining these ideas might yield something like:

1♣ = 15+ with 4+♠ or 17+ with any hand
1♦ = 13-16 balanced or with a primary minor suit, or 1444
1♥ = 12-16 with 5+♥
1♠ = 8-14 with 4-5♠, may have a longer side suit
1NT = 10-12 balanced (can deny 4♠)
2m = 8-12 with 5+ in the bid minor, no four-card major
2♥ = 5+♥ less than a 1♥ opener, something like 6-11 high
2♠ = 6♠ and intermediate (8-14)
2NT = both minors 8-12

Comparing this to what was initially suggested:

(1) New structure wins on the new 2m openings and loses on the old 2m openings. But the new ones are a lot more common.

(2) New structure wins on the hands with 5+♥, particularly the sound ones that now open a natural 1♥ instead of nebulous 1♣ and the very weak ones that now can open 2♥ instead of pass.

(3) New structure wins on the hands with 6+♠ and 8-14 points, all of which now open the annoying 2♠ call. It also wins on 4♠ and 13-14 points which now get to show suit immediately. There are slight losses on the 4♠ and 8-12 hands because of wider range. Opening the 5♠/unbalanced hands at the one-level can win substantially when we have no spade fit but will lose when the 2♠ preempt on such a hand would've been effective.

(4) New structure wins on the new 1♦-opening hands because this structure is limited in strength and a bit better defined than what these hands would open before (1♣/1♦).

(5) New structure likely to win on the new 1♣ openings because the minimum strength is higher (which helps a lot on both competitive and non-competitive sequences, probably helping more than distinguishing "4cM or not" right away).

[straube]

There are two similar ways of looking at how openings are arranged so as to see whether they use space wisely. One of them is looking at their frequency. The second is looking at how much space would be required to relay all but the most extreme distributions before passing 3N. I don't have the data for frequency, but someone with a suitable computer program could try to ascertain that for you....or you could just look at a few hundred random hands and try to get a feel for this. As to whether or not they could be relayed...I'll list first the opening bid (excluding 1C, 1D, and 1N for the moment)

1H (showing 4+H and 4+S]...too much room...could be relayed out if opened 2C
1S (showing 4S/5m or 6+S]...too much room....could be relayed out if opened 1N
2C (showing 4H/5+C]...too much room...could be relayed out if opened 2S
2D (showing 4H/5+D]...too much room...could be relayed out if opened 2S
2H-(showing 6+H or 5H/4m)...too little room...could be relayed out if opened 1N
2S-(showing 5S/m)...too little room...could be relayed out if opened 2D
2N-(showing 5m/5m)...correct amount of room

As can be seen, 1S and 2N are about right. The rest are off significantly.

[KWSchneider]

My concept was to "cram" the bidding with a weak hand and 4+s knowing that 2S contract would be relatively safe.

How does a 1D opening that is easily overcalled showing a balanced hand throw any more fear into the opps than a 1D of 13+? Furthermore, using 1H to show ANY heart hand doesn't get the bidding to the 2level fast enough.

As I've indicated before, my intent is to:

1) populate the 1level with spade openers and strong bids
2) populate the 2level with weakish 5card suit bids
3) put together so all of the bids are "natural" in most respects.

Kurt

[awm]

KWSchneider, on Feb 11 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

My concept was to "cram" the bidding with a weak hand and 4+s knowing that 2S contract would be relatively safe.

How does a 1D opening that is easily overcalled showing a balanced hand throw any more fear into the opps than a 1D of 13+? Furthermore, using 1H to show ANY heart hand doesn't get the bidding to the 2level fast enough.

As I've indicated before, my intent is to:

1) populate the 1level with spade openers and strong bids
2) populate the 2level with weakish 5card suit bids
3) put together so all of the bids are "natural" in most respects.

Kurt

My 1♥ and 1♦ openings are (for the most part) replacing opening 1♣ or 1♦ in your methods. I think I am much better placed in competition after these calls. For example in my methods:

1♥ (12-16 5+♥) - 3♣ - ???

Knowing opener has hearts and limited strength, I can compete to 3♥ on three-card support or bid 4♥ "to play" on a wide range of hands. Your auction will be:

1♣ (13+ some 4+ major) - 3♣ (NAT) - ???

Now responder doesn't know which major opener has. He doesn't know if it's a five-card major or only four. And he doesn't want to blast game because opener could have a big hand and need to look for slam. Seems obvious to me we are much worse off.

1♥ (12-16 5+♥) - PASS - 3♥ (preemptive)

Here I've boosted the bidding preemptively to the three-level with full knowledge of a nine-card fit and a limited opener. Good luck opponents. In comparison your auction:

1♣ (13+ some major) - PASS - ???

Here I can only boost the auction if I have both majors, in which case preempting loses some of its benefits anyway. And if opener has extras, I might cramp our slam bidding. Chances are that I'm bidding 1♦ "waiting" and instead of me preempting the auction it's fourth-hand opponent who gets to jam our bidding before we describe our hands. We might not even find our heart fit!

1♦ (my style) - 2♠ - Pass - Pass - ???

Since opener is limited, a 3m bid now is purely competitive. I can bid 2NT as two places to play. I can double and partner will know pretty much exactly what I have. In comparison your style:

1♦ (13+ no major) - 2♠ - Pass - Pass - ???

Now opener could have extras and serious game aspirations. 2NT could be natural with something like a balanced 19. Basically, opener has a lot more hand types to sort out because of the wide range and you're going to have more issues.

1♣ (15+ with ♠ or 17+) - 2♦ - ???

Pretty safe to bid here with an eight-count and five spades right? Either we have 25+ hcp or we have 23+ hcp and 9+ spades. The opponents preempt hasn't inconvenienced me much. Even with an eight-count and five hearts, bidding 2♥ is not awful as opener can stick in a 2♠ bid with the spade hand and otherwise we have game values. Comparing to your auction:

1♣ (13+ some 4+M) - 2♦ - ???

Now we don't exactly want to bid with a five-card major and eight points, because if it's the "wrong" major we can get too high. So the opposing preempt has caused us a lot more trouble, which will only get worse if we pass and fourth hand raises to 3♦...

Basically, your point about openings at the one level being either sound opening bids or showing spades seems quite reasonable. The problem is that the manner in which you make your sound opening bids is not very good (i.e. you stuffed them all into two calls with very wide ranges of strength and shapes). My method has the same property, in that my one-level openings are all either sound openers or have spades... but I have distributed the sound openers amongst three bids in what I think is a much more effective way.

[straube]

awm said:

1♣ = 15+ with 4+♠ or 17+ with any hand
1♦ = 13-16 balanced or with a primary minor suit, or 1444
1♥ = 12-16 with 5+♥
1♠ = 8-14 with 4-5♠, may have a longer side suit
1NT = 10-12 balanced (can deny 4♠)
2m = 8-12 with 5+ in the bid minor, no four-card major
2♥ = 5+♥ less than a 1♥ opener, something like 6-11 high
2♠ = 6♠ and intermediate (8-14)
2NT = both minors 8-12

1D could be relayed out if opened 1H (could almost do so with 1S)
1H-could be relayed out if opened 1N
1S-could be relayed out if opened 1N
2m-appropriate for relaying out
2H-could be relayed out if opened 1S (possibly 1N)
2S-could be relayed out if opened 2H (pretty much can do so at 2S)
2N-appropriate for relaying out

No one as yet has agreed with me that this is a useful way of looking at opening bids. I think it gives a system designer a good way at figuring out if his opening has too many or too few hand types for subsequent constructive bidding (whether relayed or not).

I agree with awm that using 1H for both majors is too infrequent...and that's what the relay approach seems to confirm.

[glen]

straube, on Feb 11 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

...No one as yet has agreed with me that this is a useful way of looking at opening bids. ...

1) Has anybody disagreed with you yet?
2) I'm glad that Non-Natural System Discussion has returned to, well, non-natural system discussions, after 300+ legal postings

[akhare]

straube, on Feb 11 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

No one as yet has agreed with me that this is a useful way of looking at opening bids. I think it gives a system designer a good way at figuring out if his opening has too many or too few hand types for subsequent constructive bidding (whether relayed or not).

The one thing to keep in mind is that leaving sufficient room for constructive auctions is a tradeoff, i.e., in doing so, we don't want to leave them too much room either.

Also, in competitive auctions, the allocated amount of space might be rapidly gobbled up, thereby quickly negating the purported advantages that stem from the ability to completely relay out the hands completely.

In summary, it's an interesting way of looking at system design, but it really depends on your ultimate goal...