[straube]

1S is 10-15 with 5+ spades, may have longer minor
1S is 12+ when single-suited but may be 10-11 when 6/4 but must rebid second suit
2S opening is 7-11

3S-weak
3H-GI 6H
.....3S-6S, f
3D-GI 6D, not 4H
.....3H-5H, f
.....3S-6S, f
3C-GI 6C, not 4H
.....3H-5H, f
....3S-6S, f
2N-LR, not 4H, 4 trump or 3-trump with preference to spades over 1N
.....HSGT
2S-weak or simple raise
2H-constructive raise, roughly 9+ if balanced 3-cd raise
2D-hearts
.....2H-no fit
..........P-6H
..........2S-inv, 2-fit
..........2N-inv
..........3m-inv
..........3H-light invite
..........3S-inv, 3-fit
.....2S-no fit, 6S
.....2N-game try in hearts
.....3C-6C
.....3D-6D
.....3H-min, fit
2C-4 hearts and GI or GF relay
.....2D-5332s and 5440s and clubs
.....2H-4+ diamonds
.....2S-single-suited with 6 spades
.....2N-4H, higher or even short
.....3C-4H, lower short
.....etc-5H
..........Any failure to relay is a natural bid promising 4 hearts and invitational strength. E.g. 1S-2C, 2H-3C shows 4H and 6C GI
1N-semiforcing, denies GI with 4+ hearts, can be GI balanced with 3 spades. If min the 8+ with 2 spades or 6+ when short spades
.....2C-clubs
..........2D-diamonds
..........2H-light invite (approx 10-11) of clubs
...............2S-6S, f
..........2S-2-fit and 8-11
..........2N-12-13
..........3C-heavy invite (approx 12-13)
..........3S-balanced LR
.....2D-diamonds
..........2H-light invite
...............2S-6S, f
..........2S-2-fit and 8-11
..........2N-12-13
..........3C-to play
..........3D-heavy invite
..........3S-balanced LR
.....2H-hearts, any 6/4 or 5/5
..........2S-2-fit, 8-11
..........2N-12-13
...............3C-puppets 3D
....................3D
.........................3H-min 5/5
.........................3S-min 6/4
.........................3N-max 5413 or 5404
...............3D-max 5431
...............3H-5/5, f
...............3S-6/4, f
..........3m-to play
..........3H-light invite (heavy invites aren't really possible)
..........3S-balanced LR
.....2S-6S, 12-15
.....2N-6S/side 5-cd minor, max
..........3C-asks
...............3D-5D
...............3S-5C
..........3D-to play
.....3C-5S/6C max
.....3D-5S/6D max
.....3H-6S/5H max
.....3S-just spades

Problem hands include responding hands of 1525 and 1255 (potential to play 4-2 fits). Opening hands of max 6S/5C are also a problem and will rebid 2C most of the time. 1S-jump shift is not mandatory with poor suits but you will lose the ability to invite and show a 6-cd suit if you respond 1N or 2D instead.

[rbforster]

What's your NT range and do you prefer to bid 1S vs 1N when balanced? I'm just wondering because it seems like you're going to a lot of trouble with all your detailed structure to compensate for a non-forcing NT and I don't know if really stopping in 1N is that big a win. Do you ever pass 1N by responder with semi balanced shapes like 5422, or do those tend to bid on regardless?

For example, the 2C response catering to the 4H invitational (removing them from 1N) or GFR seems like it will make your relays a bit worse since you've got various higher raises in order to stop in hearts (which could have described opener's shapes instead). Similarly, the single suited invites you show at the 3 level could be used for mixed raises, Bergen, or similar much more common preemptive measures. Maybe they aren't as important with spades explicitly (vs over 1H where preempting opponents who might have spades quickly is more valuable).

I understand you get some good inferences from removing the weak single suited openers into 2S, but what would you say the advantages or goals of this structure are compare to say a forcing NT + 2/1 GF response system, or maybe a similar one with 2C GFR, 2 level transfers, and a forcing NT to handle more weak and invitational distributional hands by responder?

[straube]

rbforster, on 2014-May-25, 07:24, said:

What's your NT range and do you prefer to bid 1S vs 1N when balanced? I'm just wondering because it seems like you're going to a lot of trouble with all your detailed structure to compensate for a non-forcing NT and I don't know if really stopping in 1N is that big a win. Do you ever pass 1N by responder with semi balanced shapes like 5422, or do those tend to bid on regardless?

For example, the 2C response catering to the 4H invitational (removing them from 1N) or GFR seems like it will make your relays a bit worse since you've got various higher raises in order to stop in hearts (which could have described opener's shapes instead). Similarly, the single suited invites you show at the 3 level could be used for mixed raises, Bergen, or similar much more common preemptive measures. Maybe they aren't as important with spades explicitly (vs over 1H where preempting opponents who might have spades quickly is more valuable).

I understand you get some good inferences from removing the weak single suited openers into 2S, but what would you say the advantages or goals of this structure are compare to say a forcing NT + 2/1 GF response system, or maybe a similar one with 2C GFR, 2 level transfers, and a forcing NT to handle more weak and invitational distributional hands by responder?

Our opening 1N is 14-16 but might shade downward to good 13 to bad 16 at least NV since we sometimes open balanced 10 cts NV. So with 5S332 pretty much 1S with 11-13 but 1N with 14-16.

Our semi-forcing NT then ranges from 8-13 with 2 spades and 5-13 when short spades. We pretty much GF with any 14 ct but naturally with fewer hcps that merit.

For design goals, yes we want to be able to play 1N more frequently and also give more meaning to opener's rebids...so opener passes 5332s and may also pass 5422s that look notrumpish and would decline an invitation, especially those with side diamonds.

The concern, of course, with semiforcing NT is that you might miss a game sometime by passing. For example, we could have two 5332 hands of 13 pts and play 1N. So part of my answer to that concern is that this is rare and that these 3N games don't always make anyway. Still, I'd rather be in 3N than 1N on these hands so it's a loss. The other part of the answer is that we remove a goodly number of hands that other folks are making a semiforcing NT with so the likelihood of this happening is less.

For example, we remove most of the limit raises with spades that would want to be in game opposite a 5332 max. Then we remove all of the invitational hands with 4+ hearts. That last is considerable considering that if you restrict a hand to two or fewer spades, you'll see an awful lot of 4+H hands. Then finally we remove invitational hands with respectable 6-cd suits.

We can't remove every invitational hand. I mean I've toyed with using 2N as GI other or GI minors, but the problem with doing so is that it prevents opener from rebidding naturally at the 2-level and then finding superior fits. I might use 2N for xx KQx xxx AQJxx and then partner passes with AKxxx xxx x Kxxx. Something like that. So 1N with the first hand is a calculated gamble and most of the time opener has a rebid coming. We're also going to win some back when we stop in 1N and others playing a forcing NT invite and stop in 2N.

Other goals are to separate 2-level raises into two. I do like the Bergen raise idea, but if I have to have one or the other, I prefer having 2 raises at the 2-level...along with the weak preemptive raise of 3. Bergen has to hide his weaker 3-cd raises in a forcing NT but I get to preempt them right away. Having two raises means I can roughly divide the 3-cd raises to maybe 6-8 and 9-11 when vul (that's a 6-cd range btw) or can raise pd with real trash when I'm NV. Partner ought not bid any more unless he holds a 6-cd suit after hearing such a bump.

Finally, I do want to remove more of the heart hands from 1N. I can't remove something like xx AQxxx Qxxx xx but I can remove hands with 6 hearts and those with 5 hearts that have a GI rebid with the 2D response. Of course I've already removed the 4H invites.

So some benefits I've found...I now have two ways for responder to raise opener's side suit. I could make it much more complicated than 1S-1N, 2m-2H as the light raise (the bid has too much potential really for just that), but it does pretty well for just this use. Opener can show a 6/4 en route to 3m. When instead responder has a heavy invite, he bids higher 1S-1N, 2m-3m. I do the same for my heart openings. A rebid by responder of 2S is the light invite and a raise is the heavy invite. Ordering thusly preserves room for finding a 6/2 major suit opposite a light invite. When it goes 1S-1N, 2H we don't have a "cue bid" and don't need one because the heavy invites (roughly 12-13) have been removed...as have hands with 6 hearts.

Finally a side benefit...I like how the GI heart hands are handled, particularly those with 4 hearts. Something I've always disliked about invitational jump shifts over 1S is what do I do with 4H/6m hands? I don't want to lose the 4H holding. So I essentially canape here by starting with 2C and bailing to 3m. I also get to the 4-4 vs the 5-3 major suit game (not very important but still...) and can probably do that for part scores, too. Let's see...

1S-2C, 2D-3H where opener shows bal, a 5440 or clubs and responder shows GI with 4H and....what else can he have but 3 spades?

Thanks for your interest. Any more questions or feedback?

[rbforster]

straube, on 2014-May-25, 08:23, said:

Our opening 1N is 14-16 but might shade downward to good 13 to bad 16 at least NV since we sometimes open balanced 10 cts NV. So with 5S332 pretty much 1S with 11-13 but 1N with 14-16.

Our semi-forcing NT then ranges from 8-13 with 2 spades and 5-13 when short spades. We pretty much GF with any 14 ct but naturally with fewer hcps that merit.

For design goals, yes we want to be able to play 1N more frequently and also give more meaning to opener's rebids...so opener passes 5332s and may also pass 5422s that look notrumpish and would decline an invitation, especially those with side diamonds.

Let me offer the offbeat suggestion of passing the 5♠(332) 11-13 hands in 1st/2nd seat. This will make your GF relays easier, and would remove the vast majority of hands that would normally pass a semi forcing NT. You wouldn't have to worry about missing games, and you could have more sequences with a forcing NT. Remember that with the boss suit you can back in more easily in competition (and being balanced makes this less likely), and if you've got a game, partner will open his 11+ in 3rd/4th anyway.

Thinking a little more, I like your 2♣ hearts invite or GFR. If you can stack the high level responses to show big heart fits where you definitely want to be in a game, it seems like the only downside is if you get 4th hand competition and now aren't sure if you're in a GF, use forcing passes, etc.

I do like your ways of getting 2 raises, both for spades and in opener's second suit. I think that's a really good idea and one that's worth trying to include.

Quote

Finally a side benefit...I like how the GI heart hands are handled, particularly those with 4 hearts. Something I've always disliked about invitational jump shifts over 1S is what do I do with 4H/6m hands? I don't want to lose the 4H holding. So I essentially canape here by starting with 2C and bailing to 3m. I also get to the 4-4 vs the 5-3 major suit game (not very important but still...) and can probably do that for part scores, too.

These 4♥6m invites are handled well by a forcing NT (partner will bid 2♥ if he can, then you invite in the minor if not), and less well in semi forcing NT systems with invitational jumps as you say.

[rbforster]

I guess to summarize one of my broader points, it seems like you've made 3 major changes from typical 2/1 systems:

1. Overlapping 2♠ and 1♠ strength ranges to remove weaker 6M hands from the one level
2. Semi forcing NT instead of forcing NT
3. 2♣ GFR or heart invite

I understand that some of these are designed to complement each other, but it might be worth seeing how you like #1+3 only or similar permutations.

[straube]

I kind of believe in overlapping the 1S and 2S bids anyway. Even before coming up with this, I thought 1S-1N, 2S takes up too much space for showing just one more card. I see people rebidding a 3-cd minor (e.g. 6-3-1-3) in hopes of getting a spade preference just so they can raise and I think this is evidence that 1S-1N, 2S should be something fairly narrow and probably better than is standard. But anyway it helps out here a lot because after 1S-2C, 2S showing single-suited, we don't have 2N available for a relay break with 4H GI. Also btw 1S-1N, 2S-3S can be light invite and 1S-1N, 2S-4S can be heavy invite because opener is known to have a plus hand.

I think it's fairly important for this structure to work that opener's rebids promise 4-cd side suits. Some (e.g. Meckwell) will rebid a 3-cd suit with a max 5332 because if partner raises, opener just converts to 3N. So this would work for the "heavy invite" but it wouldn't work for a "light invite". The light invites depend on opener having a side 4+ card holding. So this structure wouldn't work with a forcing NT unless (as you suggested) the 5332s were omitted and opener always had a rebid in mind. I don't like passing these hands, but I haven't had the experience you've hand passing opening (long club) hands.

If RHO interfered I'd play forcing passes and we'd be in a GF unless responder could make clear that he had only a GI with 4 hearts (balancing in 2S or 2N perhaps?).

I think the principle difference between this and 2/1 is use of the 2C relay for all GF auctions. I think if I had 2C, 2D, and 2H available for GF but 2C was relay or natural (the others natural) that I'd virtually always relay. I'd probably reserve the 2H and 2D bids for 6/5 hands or something....hands that want to show. After opener has taken up so much space and has described 5/13 of his hand so far, reversing course to have responder describe just doesn't make much sense. So for me, the loss of natural 2D and 2H GF bids is real but small. OTOH being able to show two raises of spades at the 2-level as well as heart hands (6 constructive or 5+ GI) is common. I think the 2-way spade raises is the best part of this. I also think the structure is pretty simple.

[rbforster]

Right, so basically it's the weak 5♠332 shapes that are causing the "problems" - either in terms of requiring a lot of convoluted and somewhat less precise structure to allow a semi forcing NT (which takes them out of the rest of the follow up sequences), or in terms of causing trouble for responder's secondary suit raises if they might have been a fake side suit when you play a forcing NT.

One way to mitigate the strangeness of passing these hands is to lower the min range for your strong club. It sounds like right now you play 16+ unbal, 17+ bal with and a 14-16 NT. I know it's probably better to require slightly stronger balanced hands for a strong club than unbalanced ones (since the idea should really be some minimum playing strength, not HCPs), but a fixed range is simple and I don't think it matters too much. so for example, you could play a straight 16+ club and a 13-15 NT (5M possible) and now you're only passing balanced 11-12 counts which isn't unreasonable. When Vul, I normally play a single NT range with a 12(+)-15 range and a 16+ club. You could even go down to a 15+ club and a single 12-14 NT range, which again makes the balanced hands you're passing a lot more in line with the field.

If you want to test out some full hands passing the balanced 5♠ ones to see how that goes, I'd be up for bidding them with you some time.

I guess I'd think about what extra gains you might get from a forcing NT over what you have now and see if you think that might help some of your problem hands, give you more raises, etc.

[rbforster]

straube, on 2014-May-24, 12:39, said:

3S-weak
2N-LR, not 4H, 4 trump or 3-trump with preference to spades over 1N
.....HSGT
2S-weak or simple raise
2H-constructive raise, roughly 9+ if balanced 3-cd raise

On the topic of pure spade raises, I think you could improve things somewhat.

For example, even in precision there are going to be some opening hands that will want to bid 1♠-2♠-4♠, at least when responder promised the normal 6-9 raise. Combining that normal 2♠ raise with the junk raise might make this more difficult, with 2♠ now being something like 0-7. In spades, I'm not sure how much benefit there is to blocking right away vs blocking either slowly (via say a forcing NT, preference sequence on 0-5 with 3 spades), or by passing and then balancing with 2♠. It's be a lot more useful in hearts, but here you can force them to the 3 level or buy the contract cheaply and giving them more chances to act doesn't seem like it'd help that much.

As for invites, I think you could combine the 2N raise with your present constructive raise pretty easily, since the 2H transfer raise is forcing already:

2H 3-4 card raise with constructive or invitational values, not 4H
....2S no interest opposite constructive raise
.........2N balanced 3 card invite
.........3X HSGT, invite values with unbalanced 3 card raise or 4 card raise
....2N something, maybe trump length ask?
....3X HSGT

Anyway, my point is there's plenty of space to ask and counter-ask after the 2H raise so you can compress more hand types in there with little loss (only a tiny bit more ambiguity in competition). This frees up the direct 2N to be something else, a GF hand that wants to show for example rather than relay (you can fit a lot in there with relays, slam try one suiters, raises with good side suits, etc).

Sure it might be nice to invite and stop at the 2 level, but your present structure doesn't allow that anyway using 2N to cover most invites. With a forcing NT and two direct raises, you'd have more options and could do some interesting stuff since you get lots of extra sequences. For example, maybe 1N(f) includes the bust raise (preference) and the 4 card invites, while 2H and 2S cover the 3 card invites and normal raises respectively. Stopping at 2S opposite a 3 card invite seems pretty good, and is something 2/1 doesn't get either putting there hands into a delayed 3S.

[straube]

Finally found this thread...

http://www.bridgebas...6-or-15-17-1nt/

fred, on 2011-March-02, 13:04, said:

An important point that I don't think anyone has mentioned: 14-16 works well with 2/1 GF and "semi-forcing" 1NT responses to 1M.

Assuming you open 1NT with 5332 hands containing 5-card majors, when a 1M opener has a 5332 hand he will have 13 HCP at the most (unless he is too strong to open 1NT of course). Passing a semi-forcing 1NT response with a 5332 13-count will usually work out OK, but if opener can have a 14 HCP 5332 hand (as is possible if 1NT is 15-17), passing the semi-forcing 1NT response is a lot more dangerous - you will miss too many good game contracts.

The alternative of rebidding 2m with a 5332 14-count (or any 5332 hand for that matter as is necessary if the 1NT response is truly forcing) is frowned upon by what seems to me to be a growing number of experts these days.

One of the big plusses of semi-forcing 1NT is that 2m rebids usually deliver 4 cards in the suit bid. If you use 1NT as 14-16 then "usually" effectively becomes "always".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

fred, on 2011-March-02, 14:34, said:

In the USA at least, I get the strong impression that the top pairs who have switched from forcing to semi-forcing in recent years don't even think it is close - most would be horrified by the notion of switching back to forcing.

They (including me) definitely think that semi-forcing is a big winner, but of course that doesn't mean that it really is.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

fred, on 2011-March-02, 15:33, said:

I think 13 is about right, but of course not all balanced 12s and 13s are created equal.

That, along with much of what I have said in this thread, assumes that your opening bids are not extremely light. If you routinely open balanced 10 counts or 5431ish 9 counts when you have a 5-card major, that complicates matters perhaps to the point that there are no great answers. I suppose that is part of the price you pay for opening very light, but maybe I am missing something as I have little experience playing a very light style.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over missing these 13 opposite 12 3NTs because:

- It is relatively rare that both opener and responder have complete maximums
- It is not as if 3NT is always going to make on these layouts
- All systems have their weaknesses
- Both opener and responder should be allowed to upgrade if they think their hand is worth more than its HCP total suggests
- The benefits of being able to play in 1NT and of 2m rebids delivering 4+ cards are easily enough to make up for the this (in my view)

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Omitting the 5332s will make 1S continuations easier, but I don't think many experts would be comfortable with passing them. Even with the boss suit, it's easy for the hand to get lost in competition. Passing 12 and 13 counts also means partner has to cater to this possibility before preempting third seat, passing my 1S response after he opens, or deciding in 4th seat whether to pass out marginal hands. In any case, I just don't want to go this direction. I also wouldn't consider changing my club opening for the sake of better handling of the 5332 spade hands. I think that would be a huge change for a minor consideration. I mean I could just borrow a point and open 13 pt 5332s 1N if I thought it enough of a problem, but I don't really.

Assuming that I open 5332s with 1S, Fred seemed to think that expert opinion favored semiforcing NT and the main reason seems to be knowing whether opener's minor rebid is a 4-cd suit or not. So if responder has something like xx KQxx xxx Kxxx the bidding goes 1S-1N, 2C for semiforcing but 1S-1N, 2C-2S for forcing. In a sense, the semiforcing creates more sequences than the forcing NT because of the ability to pass 1N.

I should be ahead (I think) of many experts who use a semiforcing NT because I've omitted
.....1) weak hands with 6+ hearts
.....2) just about all spade raises
.....3) invitational hands with 4+ hearts

As far as the spade raises, I think you're favoring...

2H-LR etc
2S-simple raise
2N-freed for other use, maybe a forcing raise that wants to describe a feature

Well, I've thought a lot about this, too. The 2H raise has more power than I've given it and I'd considered...

2H-constructive or better raise
2S-bad raise
2N-GI other

or

2H-constructive raise or GF raise
2S-bad raise
2N-limit raise


OK, the first thought I had was that if 2H was constructive or better that I might run into some ethical problems if opener thinks too long before correcting to 2S. So then I considered constructive or GF because that hesitation likely wouldn't matter as much. So this worked, but I'm not sure when bidding 2H with a GF hand would be better than relaying. So not really interested in 2H as either/or CR/GFR.

I could do...

2H-CR or LR
2S-bad raise
2N-GFR (a la Jacoby 2N)

which is probably similar to what you had in mind. There's still the hesitation concern but also if there's intervening competition, it might not always be clear whether pd had the CR or the LR. On the upside, the 2N forcing raise gives responder another choice instead of relaying and it empowers opener if the next hand jams with 5C or something.

Back to 2N as LR, it's true that 2N forces us to the 3-level. The thing is that 1) I'm expecting opener to accept most of the time and 2) usually these raises have 4 trump or shortness (and most often in the opponent's major) such that getting to the 3-level doesn't really concern me. If we go down, perhaps they were making something. I've put the balanced LR hands into 1N (willing to play 1N).

So looking at...

1N-forcing, possible weak raise
2H-LR
2S-simple raise

Now I'm back to forcing NT which I don't really want. If I do this with a semiforcing NT, then I've removed us from spades to a possible 1N contract. Plus if 1S-1N, 2m-2S shows the possible junk hand, then it can't show the 2-fit 8-11 hand that I want it to show. I've borrowed from Adam here who passes with 6-7 and a doubleton spade. These hands aren't really going anywhere most of the time.

So I'm willing to go the the three-level occasionally and willing to pass pd at the 1-level occasionally to be able to describe more hands. I do like the idea of giving partner a bump (especially NV) with trash and I'd expect him to have a 6-cd suit etc before inviting me to game after I did so. Vul my raise would look more like a simple raise...or just a lot of spades (we might bump to 2S while other folks only have a weak 3S bid available). Mostly I like that 2H=CR, 2S=weak raise, 2N=LR is simple although I wouldn't mind having a GFR but not entirely sure I need it.

I'd be happy to bid hands with you. I'm always testing things out and imagine you are as well. Thanks for your feedback, too.

[rbforster]

Ok, I guess you think playing the semi forcing NT is important enough that's fine. I've played forcing for most of the time and found the extra sequences (for example various ways to 3m, Bart or similar over 2C rebid, efc) to be nice to have. It's hard to say it's "better" because of all the murky competitive issues, but from a constructive standpoint it allows more responding hands to be shown.

I wouldn't worry about the ethics of the constructive or invite 2H raise as a reason to reject an improved method. I actually wasn't thinking of using 2N as a Jacoby alternative - Jacoby is basically an asking relay anyway, so that's be covered pretty well by your 2C GFR already. But it can be useful for finding light slams if you can show fits and good side suits, shortness, etc, and do so at a level that leaves room for exploration below game (unlike most splinters).

As an aside, how much of this approach is transferable to methods after a 1H opener vs 1S? Do you still do overlapping weak two ranges and semi forcing NT, or do you play Kaplan...?

[straube]

It's almost identical. Overlapping again.

1H-
.....1N-semiforcing
.....2C-artificial GF or GI with 4 spades
.....2D-CR
.....2H-WR
.....2S-WJS
.....2N-LR
.....3m-6m GI

1H-1N,
.....2m-4m
..........2S-light invite minor
...............2N-artificial, f, 6 hearts
.....2H-6H or max 4S/5H
..........2S-light invite hearts
..........3H-heavy invite hearts (2-fit)
.....2S-4+S/6H max

I think that's most of it. I'd looked into having 2C be GF any or 5+D GI but that required two sets of relays and I think I like this better. So I can show 4S/6m invites the same here as 4H/6m invites over spades.

[yunling]

Seems that you have problems with
1)Responder is max for a 1NT response, opener has 12-13 balanced and passes you out.
2)Opener has a max and responder has a misfit 10-11, e.g. 1534 over 1S-1NT-2D.

[straube]

yunling, on 2014-June-03, 07:33, said:

Seems that you have problems with
1)Responder is max for a 1NT response, opener has 12-13 balanced and passes you out.
2)Opener has a max and responder has a misfit 10-11, e.g. 1534 over 1S-1NT-2D.

[akhare]

Without going into the merits of the structure itself, it appears that the OP designed it with the following in mind:

• It's OK to forego preempts in the 4-6 HCP range at any vulnerability to accommodate the 7-11 range
  
• The 1M - 1N - 2M rebid in a limited bidding system is a big enough problem to warrant a fix
  
• It's important to distinguish between simple raises and constructive raises

IMO, losing the ability to open KJTxxx xxx xxx xx at the right vulnerability is a significant loss. #2 seems to be be focused on narrow range of hands that opener couldn't open with 1♣ or rebid 3M. Also, I am not completely sold on the need to differentiate a 5-7 HCP raise from a 8-10 HCP raise.

[straube]

Opening light is a form of preemption, too. I'm trying to make a light opening style more playable.

The lack of information delivered by a standard 1S-1N, 2S auction is an opportunity I'm hoping to exploit to make our light opening style playable. I'm not fixing it for its own sake. Using overlapping bids pays off not only in 1M-1N, 2M but in the relay auctions and after invites such as 1S-3m.

The natural consequence of increasing the top range of the weak two range is that the bottom range needs to be increased as well. We can still upgrade hands that deserve to be upgraded...such as those with good spade suits.

I'm picturing a much wider range of spade raises than 5-10.

This structure has drawbacks but it has gains, too. I think it's good to consider both.

[akhare]

straube, on 2014-June-03, 21:28, said:

Opening light is a form of preemption, too. I'm trying to make a light opening style more playable.

It would be interesting to get the perspective of Adam and others who play light openings. Based on my experience in several partnerships, I am not convinced that there's something inherently unwieldy about light openings that warrants serious fixes.

straube, on 2014-June-03, 21:28, said:

The lack of information delivered by a standard 1S-1N, 2S auction is an opportunity I'm hoping to exploit to make our light opening style playable. I'm not fixing it for its own sake. Using overlapping bids pays off not only in 1M-1N, 2M but in the relay auctions and after invites such as 1S-3m.

The natural consequence of increasing the top range of the weak two range is that the bottom range needs to be increased as well.

I'm picturing a much wider range of spade raises than 5-10.

As I see it, the structure is trying to conflate two orthogonal objectives. The first is the information conveyed by the 1M - 1N - 2M rebid and it does it at the cost of crippling preempts. The second is trying to shoehorn a range of constructive raises into 1♠ - 2♥.

IMO, the first design objective comes at too high a cost (sorry, I really dislike a constructive preempt style). The second might have more merit as long as it's decoupled from the other goal.

In this regard, it interesting to note that Adam and others still manage to retain classic preempts while playing light openings.

straube, on 2014-June-03, 21:28, said:

This structure has drawbacks but it has gains, too. I think it's good to consider both.

Sure, the question is whether the magnitude of the problem is big enough to warrant the added complexity and whether the gains are sufficient to offset the drawbacks. IMO, playing 2/1 non-GF responses of 2♦ / 2♥ responses that promise 12+ HCPs is much simpler than stuffing 12/13 HCPs responses into 1N and then dealing with heady concepts like "light invite" and "heavy invite". The 2♣ as GF relay is a "nice to have", but not if it ends up having a cascading effect on the remaining bids.

[rbforster]

I mean there's no reason to play "constructive" preempts (7-11 HCPs like OP), just play the same 5-11 weak two range that everyone playing standard uses. The fact that you normally open 10-15 instead of 12-22 means that you've taken off the bottom 2 HCPs off of your one level opening so you get some nice inferences when the suit is rebid. Going much below 5 HCPs for weak twos is diminishing returns, because these hands are increasingly rare on a frequency basis (never mind it gets harder to have a suit worth leading or bidding the fewer honors you can have).

I do think that having two invites is valuable, especially if you can stop at 2M or 3m sometimes and not have to guess to bid more with a slightly better than average invite. One thing I found quite useful when playing a similar light opening style was ways to cater to the weaker openers without getting too high.

[straube]

Atul, you kind of word things strongly when you write and sometimes I'm not sure how to set about disagreeing with something you've said. The other thing is that I've been hopeful that we would play something like this, but I've also put it out there for general interest and comment even if we don't.

One example of strong wordage is describing heavy invites and light invites as "heady" concepts. These ideas have been around for a very long time. Look at (for example) the commonly used 1H-1N, 2C-2S rebid indicating a strong raise of clubs. I've merely swapped the meanings of this "cue bid" with a direct raise because I've noticed that doing so preserves room for investigation for the weaker hands. So I know that you don't feel that having two strengths of invitations is worthwhile, but many do. Rob has said...

"I do think that having two invites is valuable, especially if you can stop at 2M or 3m sometimes and not have to guess to bid more with a slightly better than average invite. One thing I found quite useful when playing a similar light opening style was ways to cater to the weaker openers without getting too high."

and awm...

"I believe that having two invites opposite a 9-15 range is essential. Our "bad non-fitting invites" generally start 1NT, after which any non-pass rebid is a good 8 to 12 hcp (allowing opener to bid on with 13+ to 15). Our "good non-fitting invites" generally start with a 2/1 bid and then make some NF call at next turn (often 2M or 2NT). Our fitting invites start with jump shifts and we have counter-tries available."

So the difference between how awm and I are handling the "bad non-fitting invites" vs the "good non-fitting invites" is that he puts the bad ones in 1N and the good ones in his 2/1s.

I'm trying to accomplish much of this by putting most of my "good non-fitting invites" into 2/1s as well. I tallied 100 hands and 60% of them (lacking a 6-cd suit or 3 spades) made a 2/1 of 2C (GI 4 hearts) or 2D (GI 5 hearts). So if we compared this structure to folks at another table using semiforcing NT and GF 2/1s we would have a huge reduction in the number of "good non-fitting invites" contained within the 1N response.

awm and I are also using a similar "trick" of announcing a plus hand via a rebid of opener's major. Here's from his IMPrecision document...

"Opener’s rebid of 2NT always shows 6+ in the original major, twelve or more points (a good eleven is okay) and is game forcing. Weaker one-suited hands normally open with a weak two bid."

Btw, his 1S-1N, 2S shows the same thing. This is almost identical to what I'm proposing. At the low end, I suspect awm's suit requirements are a bit beefier than ours anyway, particularly vulnerable. At NV, perhaps he accepts a wider range of total point count. But we have this...

"Our openings of 2♥ and above are preemptive. The suit bids are basically standard preempts, though 3♣ and 3♦ are frequently good six-card suits. In first or second seat opener normally has little to nothing outside the suit."

We consider suit quality surely, but haven't had this "little to nothing outside the suit" requirement and probably have and would continue to preempt more often than awm and sieong. Whether that's good bridge or not is another question.

So I think to suggest that this structure is "crippling" preempts is really strong. When you consider suit quality adjustments at the low end, I would probably be preempting weak twos within half a point of what awm has written.

I don't really understand the remark about "shoehorning a range of constructive raises into 1S-2H". To shoehorn means to fit something in tightly, like a big foot into a small shoe. So wouldn't that apply more to fitting all 2-level raises into one raise of 2S? I'm increasing the number of hands that can show fits at the 2-level and dividing then by two. This is a goal of many other systems. Many players are playing 1M-2C, 2X-2M is a limit raise or "light limit raise". Zelandakh remarked that he's essentially able to show a limit raise at the 2-level. Stan's system does this and you know that Chris really liked this ability. A "light limit raise" is essentially what the 2H bid is. This does it faster and without restricting opener after a 2C response.

As far as complexity, I'm surprised that you think this is complex. HSGTs over 1S-2N. Kokish maybe over 1S-raises. Very natural bidding after 1S-2D. A relay over 2C with a failure to relay being natural with GI and 4 hearts. So is it 1S-1N? Opener rebids a side suit if he has one. Responder's correction to 2S shows 8+ doubleton. His rebid of 2N is standard. His raise is strongly GI and he bids the other major with a light raise. That's almost all of it.

I very much suspect that awm's structure is better, but mostly because when we've come to understand his other methods they've proved to be better. To be honest, I find the idea of responder trying to describe his hand after opener has started to be cross-purposed, but I also can see some obvious advantages in excluding all good 12 point hands from a 1N response.

Even if it's better it's more complicated than this structure, plus I'm sure there's a lot of continuations and details that we don't know or understand. That's a real problem.

[akhare]

straube, on 2014-June-06, 03:58, said:

Atul, you kind of word things strongly when you write and sometimes I'm not sure how to set about disagreeing with something you've said. The other thing is that I've been hopeful that we would play something like this, but I've also put it out there for general interest and comment even if we don't.

Sorry if I came across as too harsh, but I have been plastered to the wall @ work over the past few weeks and some of the frustration likely seeped through. That said, the critique does reflect what I see as a significant amount of artificiality and complexity (the follow ups after 1N being a case in point) in the proposed structure and my own inclination towards natural methods.

Specifically, virtually 2-level bids in the proposed structure expect for 1M - 2M are artificial. While this is a perfectly legitimate approach, my personal preference is towards a much more natural approach for 1M openings (a la awm).