[fazzzoola]

straube, on 2011-March-16, 16:18, said:

Would the 1C handle the weak NT hands, too?

I was wondering if Fantunes might appeal to him. I don't have a writeup, but they use their 2-level openings similarly and their 1-level openings (aside from 1N) are all forcing, so he'd be able to show the two-suited hands.

=============================================

Interesting idea! - allowing 1D, 1H, 1S to identify 5+/4+ shapes. I'll be thinking about that one! AFter all, 15.5% of all hands have 5-3-x-x distribution, and 24.7% of all hands have 5-4-x-x distribution. This would reserve the 1C bid for all 4-4-x-x distributions, which amount to 35.1% of all hands.

Thank you!

As to my primary focus, I still need to find someone, at the expert level, willing to help with development.

[Vampyr]

fazzzoola, on 2011-March-17, 00:07, said:

As to my primary focus, I still need to find someone, at the expert level, willing to help with development.

Since development would require a lot of discussion, it might be better to try to find a local expert.

[fazzzoola]

straube, on 2011-March-16, 22:50, said:

Right. I said this in reply to mike777 who thought your system resembled something he knows as the "Simple Club". I think mike777 thought you played a weak NT but you play a very strong NT.

Good luck with your system designing. Cool website btw. I wish I knew how to design one.

================================================================================================

Oops? Sorry about that.

In the introduction, on the web site, I do state that the system has some similiraties to other systems, particularly the short club and 2/1 game force. Of course, all bidding systems seem to share a few things. Yet, after the initial apparent similiraties, GaLwood does become rather unique.

Thank you for the compliment about the web site. BTW, I am using a package called Web Easy Professional - Dreamweaver is way more expensive than I wish to pay and also way more complicated.


Just the same, I still need a few, or even one, expert to help upgrade GaLwood... Know anyone?

Georges

[fazzzoola]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-17, 01:15, said:

Since development would require a lot of discussion, it might be better to try to find a local expert.

LOL... In this day and age, when telephonic communication is now dirt cheap, especially in the U.S., it's not a problem calling internationally. Our own telephone service provider lets us call most any land line number in Europe at no additional cost.

Funny thing, unrelated to bridge: in the early days of telegraphy, a traveling salesman went to another city for some convention. A couple of days later he sent his wife this telegram: "having a wonderful time STOP wish your were here STOP" - what she got was "having a wonderful time STOP wish you were her STOP"... LOLOL

Yes, this will require a lot of discussion, however, only the initial discussions would be lengthy. Once the thrust and the critical details are understood, then things will speed up dramatically, and then slow down again as updates are created and applied.

I'm flexible. I need a good sounding board willing to discuss, debate, even argue. I've been paying a lot of attention to vugraph presentations and learned a number of things, some of which are diametrically opposite of (alleged) common "knowledge", like many bids being more cues as to what a player does not have more than what he/she does have, that many partnership agreements apparently do not have to be alerted, that an 8 card fit is more acceptable than common "knowledge" would have one think is not, et al.

So, any ideas where to find a willing individual or two, who are willing to undertake the next challenge in the development of GaLwood?

[Flameous]

I'd suggest you to read David's blog about bidding theory:

http://dcrcbridge.bl...troduction.html

The main problem with that 1♣ opening is that it includes very much "one-bid hands" which are all very different from each other. (You may have any 5 card suit or any void)

And you try to turn natural two-bid hands (55 shapes) into one bid hands.

I think it gets much better if you move all the 54 shapes to 1D/H/S openings cause it takes lot's of strain from the 1C opening which is left showing balanced or clubs hand.

[fazzzoola]

Flameous, on 2011-March-17, 10:55, said:

I'd suggest you to read David's blog about bidding theory:

http://dcrcbridge.bl...troduction.html

The main problem with that 1♣ opening is that it includes very much "one-bid hands" which are all very different from each other. (You may have any 5 card suit or any void)

And you try to turn natural two-bid hands (55 shapes) into one bid hands.

I think it gets much better if you move all the 54 shapes to 1D/H/S openings cause it takes lot's of strain from the 1C opening which is left showing balanced or clubs hand.

=============================================

I think I got the "message". (lol)

I am going to rebuild the system w/ 1C for balanced hands, 4-x-x-x types and one exception, a 5-3-3-2 shape when the 5 card suit is clubs and only clubs. Then 1D, 1H, 1S can be used for single 5 card suits, the one being bid and at least one 4-card side suit. After that, 2 level bids can then be used for 2-suited hands, somewhat stronger than a usual 2 level opening, thus making interference a bit difficult. I plan on keeping the 1N and 2N openings the same, as they seem to provide a wealth of instant information to the responder. 3 level preempts can be kept as is, I should think.

I looked up David's bidding theory and I have to admit to a classic neophyte error: not thinking enough about interference BEFORE building the system. I won't make that mistake again!

Thanks again,

Georges

[fazzzoola]

1C:

Odds of randomly getting:

5-3-3-2 distribution = 15.2%,

4-4-4-1 distribution = 3.0%
4-4-3-2 distribution = 21.5%,
4-3-3-3 distribution = 10.5%.

That accounts for 50.2% of all hands.


1D/1H/1S

Odds of randomly getting:

5-4-2-2 distribution = 10.6%
5-4-3-1 distribution = 12.9%
5-4-4-0 distribution = 1.2%

That accounts for 24.7% of all hands.

2 level bids:

Odds of randomly getting:

5-5-x-x distribution = 4.1%,
6-5-x-x distribution = 1.4%
6-3-x-x distribution = 9.1%
6-4-x-x distribution = 6.0%
7-x-x-x distribution = 3.4%.

That accounts for 24% of all hands.

OK...I thought I had an idea here... Going to have to review the distribution stats.

Give me a day or two... thanks.

[Vampyr]

Flameous, on 2011-March-17, 10:55, said:

I think it gets much better if you move all the 54 shapes to 1D/H/S openings cause it takes lot's of strain from the 1C opening which is left showing balanced or clubs hand.

I don't think that moving the 5/4 shapes from the 1♣ opener is enough, really. There ought to be a way to show a hand with a single 5-card suit in the first round of the bidding.

[fazzzoola]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-17, 19:22, said:

I don't think that moving the 5/4 shapes from the 1♣ opener is enough, really. There ought to be a way to show a hand with a single 5-card suit in the first round of the bidding.

==================================================

With a single 5-card suit and no 4-card side suit, distribution must be 5-3-3-2. Couldn't the 1D, 1H, 1S bids be used to indicate some form of 5-4 shape, and, by rebidding the suit, D, H, or S, indicate a single 5 card suit with 5-3-3-2 shape? Of course, there would still be the problem of a single 5 card club suit, but, should'nt that be solvable by rebidding clubs after 1C opening?

[Vampyr]

fazzzoola, on 2011-March-18, 00:02, said:

==================================================

With a single 5-card suit and no 4-card side suit, distribution must be 5-3-3-2. Couldn't the 1D, 1H, 1S bids be used to indicate some form of 5-4 shape, and, by rebidding the suit, D, H, or S, indicate a single 5 card suit with 5-3-3-2 shape? Of course, there would still be the problem of a single 5 card club suit, but, should'nt that be solvable by rebidding clubs after 1C opening?

This would be a comfortable standard way of bidding. Of course, you wouldn't always want to rebid a 5-card suit; and sometimes you prefer to raise partner or bid NT or double, but people playing standard systems deal with this sort of thing every day with no particular problems. Using the 1♣ opener for balanced hands not in your NT range, club suits or strong is very Polish-club-like, so you may want to investigate that system rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Or you could put your club hands into the 1♦ opener, Precision-style. Using 1♣ and 1♦ for the hands that don't fit into your other 1- or 2-level openers will take some pressure off the 1♣ opener.

You could also combine your current 1- and 2-level opening bids by playing suction-type openers. Put your 1NT openers into 1♣ or 1♦ openers, and play 1NT=6-card club suit (or 5?), as per your opening 2-bids, or 5-5 reds. 2♣=diamonds or 5-5 majors, 2♥=spades or 5-5 minors, and 2♠=5-5 2 non-toucing suits. I don't know if this is theoretically any good, and it gets the bidding a bit high, but it is probably lots of fun, which I assume is one of your aims.

Or play a multi and open 2M as 5-5 as in Muiderberg/Lucas.

Anyway, whatever you do, it is important that you, as I said above, take some pressure off the 1♣ bid. An opening 1♣ described as "strong, or any minimum or intermediate hand without exceptional distribution" is going to encounter some pretty fierce opposition bidding approximately 100% of the time. Defining 1-level responses to this opener is pretty optimistic!

[han]

fazzzoola, on 2011-March-17, 07:22, said:

Just the same, I still need a few, or even one, expert to help upgrade GaLwood... Know anyone?

The truth is no expert in her right mind is going to help you with this system. For an expert it is a complete waste of time.

[Vampyr]

han, on 2011-March-18, 04:16, said:

The truth is no expert in her right mind is going to help you with this system. For an expert it is a complete waste of time.

Why? I don't think fazzzoola is suggesting that someone help develop the system free of charge. But it might be better if he saved his money and took up Polish Club.

[fazzzoola]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-18, 04:58, said:

Why? I don't think fazzzoola is suggesting that someone help develop the system free of charge. But it might be better if he saved his money and took up Polish Club.

===============

LOL... No faith? Not willing to take up a real challenge? Not willing to try and create something possibly better, or at least more interesting? Is it really all about money? As I previously said, or, at least clearly implied, I am not an expert bridge player. Back in my "youth" I was a decent chess player and I think I'm still a decent backgammon player.

This is my own challenge, the idea being to have a well documented system which novices and intermediates can follow (i.e. book sales, et al), as well as easy adaptability for experts. I've heeded the comments and the suggested reading material. It has been an education.

Anyway, these are my proposed opening bids:


1C (12-15 points)

Opener either has exactly 5 clubs with 5-3-3-2 distribution, or has no 5+ suit. This bid is forcing for one round.

Odds of randomly getting:
5-3-3-2 distribution = 15.5%,
4-4-4-1 distribution = 3.0%
4-4-3-2 distribution = 21.5%,
4-3-3-3 distribution = 10.5%. (51.0% of all hands.)

--------------------

1D, 1H, 1S (13-17 points)

These bids indicate that opener has one 5-card suit and at least one 4-card suit. This bid is forcing for one round. (Opener should bid the two suits as if they were of equal length, higher ranking one first, and, if possible the lower ranking one next. Rebidding the same suit indicates it is 5 cards in length.)

Odds of randomly getting:
5-5-x-x distribution = 4.1%
5-4-2-2 distribution = 10.6%
5-4-3-1 distribution = 12.9%
5-4-4-0 distribution = 1.2% (28.8% of all hands.)

-------------

1N (16+ HCP)

STRONG opening bid which GUARANTEES 5/8 top cards (5 aces and kings combined), and probably fairly even distribution.

This bid pretty much guarantees knowing what the partnership has, not only in HCP, but also in finding any fit. With a 5+ suit, or without 5/8 top cards, opener should use a 1 level bid and then jump shift on his/her 2nd round bid.

----------------

2C, 2D, 2H, 2S (12-15 points)

Opener shows either a two suited hand, with 6+/4+ distribution, or one 6+ suit. This bid is forcing for one round if responder has 8+ points.

Opener should bid the higher ranking suit first, followed by the lower ranking one, like bidding hearts first and then clubs. If opener bids the suits in reverse order, that is the lower ranking suit first and then the higher ranking one, usually called a reversal, then he/she is indicating a much stronger hand, 18+ points.

Odds of randomly getting:

6-5-x-x distribution = 1.4%
6-3-x-x distribution = 9.1%
6-4-x-x distribution = 6.0%
7-x-x-x distribution = 3.4%. (19.9% of all hands.)

---------------

2N (20+ HCP)

VERY STRONG opening hand which guarantees 6+ of the top 8 cards (aces and kings) - and even distribution (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2). With this guarantee, responder can only have, at most: AA, AK, A, KK, K, none. With a 5+ card suit, opener should use a 1 level bid and then bid 1 or 2 NT.

---------------

3C, 3D, 3H, 3S (11-14 points)

When opener has one 7+ card suit, no 4+ side suit, showing 11-14 total points. These bids are about the same or slightly stronger than the conventional preemptive 3 level opening bids.

-------------

4C, 4D, 4H, 4S (18+ points)

When opener has a 7+ suit, at least 7 HCP in honors, and a singleton or a void. These bids describe highly distributed hands.

-------------

This is certainly not final, but I do hope that I've overcome most of the objections raised thus far, balancing loads, solid shape and strength descriptions, and establishing some roadblocks to interference bidding.

Any thoughts on this?

[Vampyr]

Having random canape/non-canape openings seems pretty dangerous.

But hey. I like the idea of a "fun" system. It will probably not be too successful, but the occasional triumphs will be spectacular.

[fazzzoola]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-18, 07:22, said:

Having random canape/non-canape openings seems pretty dangerous.

But hey. I like the idea of a "fun" system. It will probably not be too successful, but the occasional triumphs will be spectacular.

==============

LOL... Well, I did not intend to build a canape type system.

First off, 1C simply indicates a balanced hand, and opening points. It also denies any 5/5 or 5/4 shapes, thereby limiting any big fit, unless responder has a good 5 card suit. I suppose that responder could use a simple call to indicate a minimum hand, and a 2 level transfer to indicate a game hand. Will have to work that out later. So, 1C becomes artificial and will have to be more defined by opener on the 2nd round bid. I have to admit that this violates David's rule about the opening bid needing to hinder the opposition, but, I just don't see that yet, unless the 1C point range is increased.

Secondly, I was apparently chastized for having "overloaded" 1C. This structure greatly reduces the load, by 1/3, and, by using 1D/1H/1S bids opener shows shape, strength AND one 5 card suit, thus maintaining general opening bidding theory ( a la David) - a triple win? While this may not prevent interference from opponents, it should provide at lease some pause.

Thirdly, the 2 level opening bids,which account for 20% of the hands, seem to provide shape, strength, and some defence against interference. Not only that, but 1/3 of the hands will have a second 4 card suit as a potential alternate fit.

Fourthly, the strong 1&2 NT bids definitely show strength and even distribution, meeting more of David's principles.

So, all in all, I feel cautiously good about the opening bids, and I'm waiting on crtiques. LOL...

Now, if you're actually serious about helping out, then send me an email (fazzzoola@satx.rr.com), or use the contact button on the web site. I'm willing to do the work. I just need a good sounding board.

[mike777]

fwiw "Simplified Club" is a system where 1d, 1h 1s is a canape system. A 4 card canape style.

1d,1h or 1s promises a two suited hand (54 or more) 100% of the time.

1d, 1h, 1s promises 4+ suit and promises a second suit that is very often but not always longer.

In other words the unspecified second suit will very often be 5 or 6 cards long and the first bid suit is very often exactly 4 cards. So that makes this a 4card major based system, not 5 card major.

There is a whole system set up to flesh out the suits so you would not need to reinvent the wheel.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2011-March-18, 12:21, said:

fwiw "Simple Club" is a system where 1d, 1h 1s is a canape system. A 4 card canape style.

1d,1h or 1s promises a two suited hand (54 or more) 100% of the time.

1d, 1h, 1s promises 4+ suit and promises a second suit that is very often but not always longer.

In other words the unspecified second suit will very often be 5 or 6 cards long and the first bid suit is very often exactly 4 cards. So that makes this a 4card major based system, not 5 card major.

There is a whole system set up to flesh out the suits so you would not need to reinvent the wheel.

So what is 1♣? I tried to find a writeup for this system online, but couldn't find one. It sounds interesting. It also sounds like a good fit for the OP, who wishes to play one-of-a-suit openings as 2-suited.

[mike777]

1C is strong, generally a bit stronger than a Precision club.

This makes your non one club openings a bit more frequent compared to most precision styles.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2011-March-18, 13:06, said:

1C is strong, generally a bit stronger than a Precision club.

This makes your non one club openings a bit more frequent compared to most precision styles.

And a weak NT? Opening 2's EHAA style?

[mike777]

I only bring this up since the OP talks about experimenting and system theory.


strong club

1d 1h 1s are 2 suited (54 or more); canape very often. 4 card major system.

1nt=12-15

2c=3 suited int. strength

2d,2h,2s,2nt,3c=one suited int. strength.

Note there are no weak two bids or 3c.
Many really dislike this part.

This is an older system based on even older ideas.


Alot of ideas are borrowed from the Italian systems; Roman and Neopolitan

Reviewed in BW by Jeff Rubens in 1989

"The Simplified Club" is one of the better systems we've seen. The description of the method is clear, and in most areas there are lists of technical requirements...........Experimenters and theorists will find good reading and thinking here."