[straube]

 nullve, on 2017-November-07, 07:11, said:

These problems exist if you open 1♥ with 10-13, 5H(332) and insist on NAT rebids over 1♥-1N(6-13).

 nullve, on 2016-November-15, 15:08, said:

Is that because you play rule of 18 1M openings in conjunction with a 14-16 NT? The reason I ask is that I almost¹ play

* rule of 19 1M openings (also when 1-suited)
* 14-16 NT¹
* 1M-1N NF, denying support unless very weak (Opener will pass with 11-13, 5M(332)¹ and also with 10-12 and either 5M3-OM4m or 4S5H)
* artificial schemes over 1M-1♠/N (the one over 1♠-1N having a lot in common with your "modified Gazzilli" scheme)

precisely in an attempt (successful IMO) to solve the problems you describe, and one can obviously play something similar in a context with rule of 18 1M openings and 13-15 NT.

¹ In reality, my 1M openings are always unbalanced so it's irrelevant which 1N range I use.

So your opener will pass with 5H332 and 11-13 hcps but your 1N response can have as many as 13? So you miss 13 opposite 13? This is one of the problems that awm has solved. But I'm not clear if you share this problem because you play 14-16 NT and your 1M openings are in reality always unbalanced. What do you open your 11-13 5H332s?

What are your rebids after 1M-1N? Apparently they are artificial?

[nullve]

 straube, on 2017-November-07, 08:22, said:

So your opener will pass with 5H332 and 11-13 hcps but your 1N response can have as many as 13? So you miss 13 opposite 13? This is one of the problems that awm has solved. But I'm not clear if you share this problem because you play 14-16 NT and your 1M openings are in reality always unbalanced. What do you open your 11-13 5H332s?

You mentioned the 6-13 range first, presumably in the context of awm's rule of 18 1M openings. My 1N response range is 5-12 (unless a bad 3c raise), but then my 1M openings are typicially 1 hcp sounder than awm's, so it makes more sense for Responder to force to game with 13.

I open 1♣ with 11-13, 5H(332), but not as part of an attempt to solve Opener's rebid problems over 1♥-1N. And if I were to open 1♥ instead with this hand type, as I've done with several regular partners, playing a 2/1-like system with rule of 19 openings and 14-16 NT, then I'd certainly always pass the 1N response and risk missing the occasional 13+12 hcp game.

I had a brief exchange with awm about this style in this thread, so I know he doesn't like it.

 straube, on 2017-November-07, 08:22, said:

What are your rebids after 1M-1N? Apparently they are artificial?

Translated to a limited 1M context they are:

1M-1N; ?:

P = MIN, 5 M and, if M=♠, 3- H
2♣(M=♠) = 4+ H
2M-2 = MAX, 5 M and, if M=♠, 3- H (so "Lucas"/"Muiderberg" if M=♥/♠, respectively)
2M-1 = MAX, 6+ M and, if M=♠, 3- H
2M = MIN, 6+ M and, if M=♠, 3- H
(...)

The idea is that if the 1M range is not bigger than 6 hcp for a given shape (e.g. 10-15 hcp with 4522 shape), then this scheme removes the need for invitational sequences sometimes ending in 2N or an unLawful 3M contract. If the range is bigger than that, then Opener's 2♣ rebid can easily be modified to include strong hands, a la Gazzilli.

The 2M-2 rebid could also include MIN, 5M5m hands if passing 1N feels too extreme.

[straube]

 nullve, on 2017-November-07, 17:46, said:

I open 1♣ with 11-13, 5H(332), but not as part of an attempt to solve Opener's rebid problems over 1♥-1N.

Why do you open 1C with 11-13 5H(332) then?

What's your 1C opening show?

[awm]

It seems like nullve's system will play 1NT on a lot of hands where 2m is better (i.e. 5314 11-count opposite 1345 6-count, to give an extreme example). This will bleed quite a few IMPs over time.

Further, you can't play in 2m really; after 1♠-1NT-2♦! you will have to go to the three-level in a minor, with the worst case being something like 5314 14-count opposite 1453 6-count (where you're at the three-level in a seven card fit). Another gradual bleed of IMPs.

Okay, what about the invitational hands? After 1♠-1NT-2♦, you need to be able to distinguish all of:

1. Lousy hand with a boatload of clubs
2. Lousy hand that just wants to play opener's minor.
3. Mildly forward-going hand with a boatload of clubs.
4. Mildly forward-going hand that wants to play opener's minor unless he's REALLY max (it seems like 2♦ is around 13-15, so this is like some 10-11 count).
5. Hands that are now game-forcing (i.e. 12-13 high) but cannot yet place the contract without knowing more about opener's shape.

That's a LOT of hand types and four of them need to be communicated by the time we reach 3♣. The only ways I can see to do it involve using 2♥ as an artificial force of some kind (and probably ALSO putting one of the "boatload of clubs" hands into an immediate jump shift). But this makes it a lot harder to find heart fits where responder has five and opener has three, which is easy in my methods (for example) because 1♠-1NT-2m-2♥ shows five hearts and constructive values.

There are also hands where you really want to know opener's shortness/shape when he has a six-card major. For example, say I have some 12-count and the auction starts 1♠-1NT-2♥!; great I know we have game values now. But presumably 2♠ is to play, 2NT is like 10-11 (opposite the presumed 13-15), 3m might be a long suit of my own? It doesn't seem like I have an easy asking bid here. In my system these auctions time out a bit different and we're more likely to be able to communicate this information.

[Zelandakh]

 straube, on 2017-November-08, 01:33, said:

Why do you open 1C with 11-13 5H(332) then?

Presumably for the same reason as I open 1♣ with 15+ 5M(332). The hand shape is treated as balanced, keeping the 1M auctions purer.

[nullve]

 straube, on 2017-November-08, 01:33, said:

Why do you open 1C with 11-13 5H(332) then?

What's your 1C opening show?

1♣ is NAT or BAL and part of a T-Walsh system with 14-16 NT. It's not necessary to open 1♣ with 11-13, 5H(332) in such a system, but it "works" (just watch Welland-Auken, although they suffered a double partscore swing in the last BB because of it) and it frees up precious space after 1♥-1♠ (so that I can get a better version of Gazzilli, using 1N instead of 2♣ as the "Gazzilli relay") and 1♥-2♣ (so that it becomes easier to play relays).

I'd play the same system over 1♥-1N if 11-13, 5H(332) were in 1♥, though.

[nullve]

 awm, on 2017-November-08, 02:37, said:

It seems like nullve's system will play 1NT on a lot of hands where 2m is better (i.e. 5314 11-count opposite 1345 6-count, to give an extreme example). This will bleed quite a few IMPs over time.

Are you sure about this? Assuming there's a two-trick difference between a notrump and a club contract, that LoTT holds and that opps will compete to 3♦ over 3♣ (to make things interesting), then e.g.

* if I get 5 tricks in 1N (-100 NV, -200 V), opps will get 10 tricks in 3♦ (-130), so a gain/loss of 1/2 IMPs, respectively
* if I get 6 tricks in 1N (-50 NV, -100 V), opps will get 9 tricks in 3♦ (-110), so a gain of 2/0 IMPs, respectively.
* If I get 7 tricks in 1N (+90), opps will get 8 tricks in 3♦ (+50 NV, +100 V), so a gain of 1/0 IMPs, respectively.
* If I get 8 tricks in 1N (+120), opps will get 7 tricks in 3♦ (+100 NV, +200 V), so a gain/loss of 1/2 IMP, respectively.

 awm, on 2017-November-08, 02:37, said:

Further, you can't play in 2m really; after 1♠-1NT-2♦! you will have to go to the three-level in a minor, with the worst case being something like 5314 14-count opposite 1453 6-count (where you're at the three-level in a seven card fit). Another gradual bleed of IMPs.

Responder may pass 2♦ with 6+ D.

You're right about 14 hcp, 5314 opposite 6 hcp, 1453 being a problem for me (and I know I'd pass with Responder's hand ). But problems would exist also if

* 1♠-1N; 2♣ = 4+ C or 5(32)3 and 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦ = NAT (how can Responder know it's right to pass/bid 2♦?)
* 1♠-1N; 2♣ = 4+ C or 5(32)3 and 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♦ = Bart or similar (Responder is forced to pass, possibly violating Burn's law)
* 1♠-1N; 2♣ = standard Gazzilli (Responder will rebid 2N).

 awm, on 2017-November-08, 02:37, said:

Okay, what about the invitational hands? After 1♠-1NT-2♦, you need to be able to distinguish all of:

1. Lousy hand with a boatload of clubs
2. Lousy hand that just wants to play opener's minor.
3. Mildly forward-going hand with a boatload of clubs.
4. Mildly forward-going hand that wants to play opener's minor unless he's REALLY max (it seems like 2♦ is around 13-15, so this is like some 10-11 count).
5. Hands that are now game-forcing (i.e. 12-13 high) but cannot yet place the contract without knowing more about opener's shape.

That's a LOT of hand types and four of them need to be communicated by the time we reach 3♣. The only ways I can see to do it involve using 2♥ as an artificial force of some kind (and probably ALSO putting one of the "boatload of clubs" hands into an immediate jump shift). But this makes it a lot harder to find heart fits where responder has five and opener has three, which is easy in my methods (for example) because 1♠-1NT-2m-2♥ shows five hearts and constructive values.

Responder has no way of showing a mildly forward-going hand. So with 3. or 4. Responder must make an immediate decision whether to play game opposite MAX. (If 2♦ doesn't include MIN, 5M5m, then 2♦ already shows MAX.)

"Boatloads of clubs" hands are usually not a problem unless they contain 1- S. Then passing(!!) 2♦ (instead of bidding 3♣, P/C) with something like 5-9, 1336, hoping that Opener has diamonds, might be Responder's best bet, although it could fail spectacularly.

The 12-13 hands are hardly a problem if 2♦ promises MAX, because there's enough space for almost everything after 1♠-1N; 2♦-2N(GF relay).

 awm, on 2017-November-08, 02:37, said:

There are also hands where you really want to know opener's shortness/shape when he has a six-card major. For example, say I have some 12-count and the auction starts 1♠-1NT-2♥!; great I know we have game values now. But presumably 2♠ is to play, 2NT is like 10-11 (opposite the presumed 13-15), 3m might be a long suit of my own? It doesn't seem like I have an easy asking bid here. In my system these auctions time out a bit different and we're more likely to be able to communicate this information.

The idea (with a view to practical bridge where 3M-1 instead of 2M= is bad and information leakage costs tricks) is that Responder never invites after Opener's 2M-1 or 2M rebid, although I can't see why inviting or asking for a singleton should be more difficult after the 2M-1 rebid than after a standard 2M rebid, which has a wider range. Am I missing something?

[straube]

 nullve, on 2017-November-07, 07:11, said:

These problems exist if you open 1♥ with 10-13, 5H(332) and insist on NAT rebids over 1♥-1N(6-13).

I've been trying to understand this statement because technically it means that both taken together give problems, but I think you mean that both individually present problems but they are compounded together. About right?

So I thought at first that you were at a similar starting point, playing limited 1M openings, but you're playing some form of Transfer Walsh and the specific reason you place 11-13 5H332 in with 1C is so that 1H-1S, 1N can be a Gazzilli bid and you save a step. 1H-1N would only cause an occasional problem for you (assuming you opened 11-13 5H332) missing 13 opposite 12 as you simply pass 1N....so that's not the reason you open 11-13 5H332 1C.

I understand why you choose to play some form of Gazzilli for your (11-21?) 1M openings and why you choose to open 1C with 11-13 5H332 but I don't see why you would recommend a similar structure for limited openings. Doesn't it seem unlikely that a similar rebid structure would serve both when your range is so much wider than a Precision range? Maybe you'd recommend Adam open 11-13 5H332 1D with his other weak NT hands, too?

A main idea of limited openings is to give them freedom to bid naturally. It seems very natural to me to open 1H with 11-13 5332 when partner is expecting 10-15, 5+H. Seems very natural to rebid 1H-1N, 2C with 1534 and very unnatural to pass 1N with 11 ct 4504.

Anyway, you may avoid some of the particular problems that Precision faces, but I think you have to contend with other problems.

[nullve]

 straube, on 2017-November-08, 09:37, said:

I've been trying to understand this statement because technically it means that both taken together give problems, but I think you mean that both individually present problems but they are compounded together. About right?

They are ok individually. Opener would be able to pass an old-fashioned less-than-INV 1N response with 10-13, 5H(332). And 6-13 would be my choice of 1N response range, too, if I were to open 1 hcp lighter than I do now.

 straube, on 2017-November-08, 09:37, said:

I understand why you choose to play some form of Gazzilli for your (11-21?) 1M openings and why you choose to open 1C with 11-13 5H332 but I don't see why you would recommend a similar structure for limited openings. Doesn't it seem unlikely that a similar rebid structure would serve both when your range is so much wider than a Precision range? Maybe you'd recommend Adam open 11-13 5H332 1D with his other weak NT hands, too?

I was responding to your 'but if we play 1H-1N as 6-13 this bid is absolutely terrible for letting opener do anything' statement more than suggesting changing awm's structure, which may in part be a solution to problems that arise when combining rule of 18 openings with 14-16 NT

The rebid structure I gave is an attempt to solve problems (that I, at least, identify and obsess about) associated with a certain 6-point range, which could be the whole standard Precision 1M range (e.g. "10-15") or just the bottom half of my own "10-21" 1M range, in which case Opener's 2♣ rebid is modified to also include stronger hands. It's not necessary IMO to open 11-13, 5M(332) with something else than 1M for this structure to work. (I open 1♣ with this hand type for unrelated reasons.)

[foobar]

straube and I were bidding a few 1♥ hands with awm's structure and really liked it.

Couple of questions for awm:

1) Are there some weak hands (say in 6-7 HCP range) with < 3♥ that will pass 1♥ rather than bid 1♠?
2) Over 1♥ - 1♠, when holding 3 (4)♠ with longer 6♥, is the preferred rebid 1N or some # of ♥?
3) If 4th hand bids over 1♥ - 1♠, are Xs by both hands generally for takeout?

[awm]

 foobar, on 2017-November-10, 01:23, said:

straube and I were bidding a few 1♥ hands with awm's structure and really liked it.

Couple of questions for awm:

1) Are there some weak hands (say in 6-7 HCP range) with < 3♥ that will pass 1♥ rather than bid 1♠?
2) Over 1♥ - 1♠, when holding 3 (4)♠ with longer 6♥, is the preferred rebid 1N or some # of ♥?
3) If 4th hand bids over 1♥ - 1♠, are Xs by both hands generally for takeout?

We usually pass with exactly 2h and less than 8 HCP. There are exceptions if holding a good/long suit or something, but 4432 with two hearts would always pass.

We would always rebid 1nt with 4-6 and usually with 3-6. Passing the 1nt rebid is rare and sort of a desperation move (just 3145 exactly and less than 10 HCP) and we tend not to worry about that possibility in choosing a rebid. Other than this it will generally work out best to rebid 1nt with 3+ spades as this finds all spade fits and still allows to play 2h when it’s better.

If fourth hand bids a natural suit doubles are takeout; it’s a lot like after 1S-p-1nt-(bid).

[straube]

I didn't realize you were rebidding 2S with say 4135 and a 7 ct. Seems you're at the same place then with your previous structure after 1H-1S, 2D.

But if you're 3S/7H it sounds like you're rebidding 2H. I had a 4S/7H in practice and opted for a 3H rebid. I wonder if 1H-1S, 2N has enough room to handle 5S/6H and also 4S/7H.

[awm]

In practice we open 4M/3NT a lot with seven cars major suits and not (7222). So I tend not to worry much about this hand type.