[akhare]

As I recall, there was a Polish family of FP systems that passed intermediate hands in the 14-17 range.

Has anyone experimented in coming up with something that was quasi-FP?

A somewhat prosaic GCC legal strawman is the following:

P: Usually 0-9 bal OR 14-16 bal
1♣: 15+ unbal or 17+ bal
1♦: 10-14 unbal
1M: (8)9-14 unbal OR 9-13 bal
1N: 10-13 bal
2C: (8)9-14 unbal, 6+
2D: (8)9-14 unbal, 6+, no 4CM

[rbforster]

I've played around extensively with this idea in theory and played one or two of the methods live for some time.

Passing with precision 2♣♦ hands (my current system of choice)
Passing with 10-12 or 13-15 balanced (played live for a while, seemed reasonable)
Passing all 13-15 hands (a bit silly)
Big Balanced Pass, 0-16 always balanced all unbalanced hands open! (see especially Adam's suggestions)

[rbforster]

You might also check out "Lorenzo Two's", which IIRC were semi-natural weak two bids with 4+ suits and 0-7 pts. Throw in a strong opening of Pass/1♣ and you can have your limited openers all natural at the 1 level.

[Cascade]

I have suggested in the past that a medium pass system could be GCC legal but was more or less told I was being ridiculous.

[nige1]

You can pass on most 0-13s and call it Roth-Stone

[Cascade]

I found my previous suggestion which was:

Pass 0-4 or 15-20 (but non-forcing)

1-level suit 8-14

1NT Somewhere in that range

2-level suit 5-7

Your ranges and the strong club might be more sensible especially given that I didn't cater to 21+ openings - I did leave 2NT opening but I am not sure on what is allowed there. I am not sure what you want to do in third seat with this.

Fred among others suggested it was bending the intention of the GCC.

However as far as I can tell the only explicit regulation on the opening pass is that it must not be forcing.

[Free]

 Cascade, on 2011-December-08, 05:07, said:

However as far as I can tell the only explicit regulation on the opening pass is that it must not be forcing.

What's the definition of "not forcing"? I mean, if you'll pass with 1 particular hand and bid with all others, is it not forcing? In that case, you can just define your strong pass as "blablabla, responder has to pass with 432-5432-432-432" and you basically play a forcing pass system. If 1 hand isn't enough, then you make responder pass with any 4333 distribution with 5432 and 432 in the other suits.

[straube]

 Free, on 2011-December-08, 08:38, said:

What's the definition of "not forcing"? I mean, if you'll pass with 1 particular hand and bid with all others, is it not forcing? In that case, you can just define your strong pass as "blablabla, responder has to pass with 432-5432-432-432" and you basically play a forcing pass system. If 1 hand isn't enough, then you make responder pass with any 4333 distribution with 5432 and 432 in the other suits.

I don't understand this post. Were you being facetious about 5432 (14 cards)?

I think a bid is forcing or it isn't forcing. If one says "this bid is forcing as long as partner has this or doesn't have that" then the bid is not forcing.

[rbforster]

"Everyone knows" you can bid on any sort of crap you want in 3rd seat. "It's just bridge."

4th seat is a little weirder, but at least you can play nearly-FP in 1st seat .

[Cascade]

 straube, on 2011-December-08, 09:17, said:

I don't understand this post. Were you being facetious about 5432 (14 cards)?

I think a bid is forcing or it isn't forcing. If one says "this bid is forcing as long as partner has this or doesn't have that" then the bid is not forcing.

I think 5432 means 5-spot 4-spot 3-spot 2-spot referring to the particular cards.

[straube]

 Cascade, on 2011-December-08, 15:24, said:

I think 5432 means 5-spot 4-spot 3-spot 2-spot referring to the particular cards.

lol. Totally missed that.

[Cthulhu D]

 rbforster, on 2011-December-05, 17:33, said:

I've played around extensively with this idea in theory and played one or two of the methods live for some time.

Passing with precision 2♣♦ hands (my current system of choice)
Passing with 10-12 or 13-15 balanced (played live for a while, seemed reasonable)
Passing all 13-15 hands (a bit silly)
Big Balanced Pass, 0-16 always balanced all unbalanced hands open! (see especially Adam's suggestions)

Amusingly I don't think any of these could be played in Australia despite being legal in the US - our system regulations prevent a pass with a hand that has values typically associated with opening strength (defined elsewhere), even if there are other, weak options. Precision pass is clearly ruled out for example.

It's a shame, because I really like that precision pass system.

[Free]

 straube, on 2011-December-08, 15:27, said:

 Cascade, on 2011-December-08, 15:24, said:

I think 5432 means 5-spot 4-spot 3-spot 2-spot referring to the particular cards.

lol. Totally missed that.

I thought it was rather obvious, since my first example held ♥5432...

[helene_t]

 rbforster, on 2011-December-07, 10:38, said:

You might also check out "Lorenzo Two's", which IIRC were semi-natural weak two bids with 4+ suits and 0-7 pts. Throw in a strong opening of Pass/1♣ and you can have your limited openers all natural at the 1 level.

At least that's a way to get to a non-BSC non-HUM system with a funny first/second seat pass.

It doesn't strike me as very sensible, though. Someone who played that system for years told me that the pass is the weakness of the system (because it helps opp's place the honors while not helping partner much). But the undiciplined preempts must surely be a weakness of the system. If both the positive inference from opening 2x and the negative inference from not doing are more helpful to opps than to partner the system can't be good.

The English variant (which is EBU 4 complient though a BSC) with 2♣ showing 0-7 pts with 4+ cards in d/h/s must be better. You can then play 2♦ as balanced with 4-5 clubs and 3♣ as 6+ clubs, that frees up 2M for other things.

But I believe in shape-before-strength, so I thought about something like this:
Pass=0-15 points, 4+ hearts.
1♣=strong
1♦=natural or balanced 8-10 (but no four hearts)
1♥=clubs 8-15 or balanced 11-12(but no four hearts)
1♠=5+, 8-15
1nt: 13-15
2♣/♦: 4+ c/d, 0-7
2♥: 4-5 spades balanced, 0-7
2♠: 5+ spades unbalanced, 0-7

[straube]

 rbforster, on 2011-December-05, 17:33, said:

I've played around extensively with this idea in theory and played one or two of the methods live for some time.

Passing with precision 2♣♦ hands (my current system of choice)
Passing with 10-12 or 13-15 balanced (played live for a while, seemed reasonable)
Passing all 13-15 hands (a bit silly)
Big Balanced Pass, 0-16 always balanced all unbalanced hands open! (see especially Adam's suggestions)

I've played against your current system and found that your 2C and 2D openings were obnoxiously difficult to defend against. Do you find your 3rd and 4th seat opening light to protect partner in case he has an opening club or diamond hand? If so, that seems like a drawback. I prefer showing our opening hands right away, but I wouldn't be surprised if your sacrifice of 2C and 2D for weak hands turned out to have more wins than losses. One would have to tally.

One thing I've noticed is that most systems seem to have too much room after P P 1M P ? A Drury bid is nice, but do we really need two of them? Atul and I play that...

P P 1S P

2m-to play
2H-constructive raise, 3+ trump
2N-limit raise, 4+ trump and probably some distribution, Ought we really to worry about forcing the 3-level?

which seems very satisfactory. We almost never have a hand worth a natural 2H response anyway.

I imagine you use passed hand 2C and 2D responses to show opening hands with the minor?

In sum, I think if one is looking to place opening hands in an initial pass, find some hands that one could afford to lose, which I think is RobF's idea.

[rbforster]

 straube, on 2011-December-09, 18:40, said:

I've played against your current system and found that your 2C and 2D openings were obnoxiously difficult to defend against. Do you find your 3rd and 4th seat opening light to protect partner in case he has an opening club or diamond hand? If so, that seems like a drawback. I prefer showing our opening hands right away, but I wouldn't be surprised if your sacrifice of 2C and 2D for weak hands turned out to have more wins than losses.

For those not familiar, I play 2m as two-suited weak: 5+ in that minor and a 4+ major, weak two or slightly lower range (given our light openings). Note that passing the classic 2♦ precision bid is not a "diamonds" hand, but rather a 3-suiter short in diamonds. When we pass in 1st/2nd with an unbalanced 10-15 pt hand, we always 4+ clubs and almost always 5: 4414, 4405, (43)15, or 6+ clubs. Both minors hands open 1♦ (natural or balanced).

Quote

One thing I've noticed is that most systems seem to have too much room after P P 1M P ?

I imagine you use passed hand 2C and 2D responses to show opening hands with the minor?

In sum, I think if one is looking to place opening hands in an initial pass, find some hands that one could afford to lose, which I think is RobF's idea.

Yes, this was part of my observation for how to cater to certain passed opening hands - there is way too much space especially if you're opening light in 1st/2nd and partner can't even have a 10 count as a PH. Our response scheme is:

P-1M 4+ 8-15 points, one of two hand types
----> 8-9 balanced or unbal with 4+M, will pass any NF response or signoff in 2M after Drury (protecting partner's strong pass)
----> 10-15 5+M (normal precision 1M opener)

P-1M-?

1♠ natural NF, less than 10 points (over 1♥)
1N semiforcing, less than 10 points
2♣ 5+ natural NF, 10-15 points, fewer than 3 card M support
2♦ Drury, 10-15 points with clubs and 3+ support
2♥ 5+♥/6+♣ 10-15 points (over 1♠)
2♠ std raise

For reference, the NF or semiforcing bids above are played such that you would bid on if you have the 2nd hand type (a "real" opener), while you would pass or try to signoff with the weaker variety of the 3rd/4th 1M opener.

[akhare]

 rbforster, on 2011-December-09, 20:24, said:

For those not familiar, I play 2m as two-suited weak: 5+ in that minor and a 4+ major, weak two or slightly lower range (given our light openings). Note that passing the classic 2♦ precision bid is not a "diamonds" hand, but rather a 3-suiter short in diamonds. When we pass in 1st/2nd with an unbalanced 10-15 pt hand, we always 4+ clubs and almost always 5: 4414, 4405, (43)15, or 6+ clubs. Both minors hands open 1♦ (natural or balanced).

Come to think of it, wouldn't an alternative to playing silent ♣ be this variation? In this case, instead of passing the 2♣ / 2♦ hands, we simply club them into an unbalanced 1♦ (a la Marshall Miles).

1♣: 15+ any
1♦: 10+ unbalanced hands that don't fit elsewhere
1M: 5+, 8-15ish
1N: (11)12-14
2C / 2D: 5m, 4M, weak

In fact, you can tweak this even further by introducing:

P: 5+♣, maybe 4♠, unbalanced, 10-14ish
2N: 6♣, 4♥, 10-14ish

Now, your 1♦ opening almost always shows 3+ ♦ in an unbalanced hand (except for the 4=4=1=4).

Even better:

P: 0-9 (NV) / 14-16 bal
1♣: 16ish any, 17+ bal
1♦: 10+ unbalanced hands that don't fit elsewhere
1M: 5+, 8-15ish
1N: 10-13 (NV), 12-14 (vul)
2C / 2D: 5m, 4M, weak
2N: 6♣, 4♥, 10-14ish

This post has been edited by akhare: 2011-December-09, 21:36

[straube]

Thanks for clarifying. It seems like this meshes particularly well for first seat. Third hand often opens light with a major anyway. In fourth seat, I like to be able to pass; if partner can't open light in second seat and I am subpar, I know it isn't our hand.