[awm]

With many different partners I play a strong ♣ with light, limited five-card major openings. Personally I am not a big fan of canape style (I know some feel differently). So the question is, which is the best response structure over major suit openings? I'm not too worried about what's legal with various sanctioning bodies at the moment. Mostly I'd just like to reach the best contracts in both unobstructed and competitive auctions, as often as possible. We can assume IMP scoring, but I'd be interested if people think something different would be superior at MPs.

[david_c]

I'd be surprised if the best structure was the same for 1♥ and 1♠. Here's what I like at the moment:

1♥:
... 1♠ = denies 5+ spades
... 1NT = 5+ spades
... 2♣ = GF relay
... 2♦ = various hands with heart support

1♠:
... 1NT = semi-forcing
... 2♣ = GF [semi-]balanced or inv+ with clubs or invitational 3-card raise
... 2♦ = inv+ with 5+ hearts
... 2♥ = 5+ diamonds, GF unless suit rebid

The reason for the differences is that after a 1♠ opening it's difficult to show invitational hands starting with 1NT, whereas after a 1♥ opening you can use a 2♠ rebid to help sort these out. Also, after 1♥ it's important to show support immediately, whereas after 1♠ you are slightly less worried about interference.

[fred]

Would it be better to phrase the question, "What structure do you prefer after 1M?"?

I would hope that nobody here would be arrogant to think they actually know what structure is "best"

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pbleighton]

"I would hope that nobody here would be arrogant to think they actually know what structure is "best"".

ROFL.

Peter

[inquiry]

fred, on Apr 28 2005, 08:58 PM, said:

I would hope that nobody here would be arrogant to think they actually know what structure is "best"

Fred is absolutely correct, anyone who thinks they know is the best structure would not only be arrogant, they would also be wrong... because i know what the best structure is... mine....

BTW, it is posted elsewhere within these forums, so i will not post it again, but what i don't understand is why my method is not listed among the options (2C as invite in major ala reverse drury, balanced good 10+, or real clubs with GF value, all other 2/1 100% gf).

Ben

[Rebound]

I would just like to say that, imo, so much depends on partnership style. There are some I play precision with, for whom a natural 2/1 style works "best" (and it is my preferred style), and others for whom a wholly artificial relay approach produces the best results. Preferences aside, I believe I actually get better results from that method.

I'd be interested in the proportions among international championship winners using either of the described methods.

Just my 2 cents.

[helene_t]

I voted for the fourth option but I'm not sure if that implies 2/1 GF and I'm not sure if would like that either, depends how light our openings can be.

Anyway, Fred is right of course. Even if somebody presented a mathematical proof that a particular structure was optimal (assuming that the opponents will develop optimal defense and all four players will play and bid optimally, including making optimal use of psyches), it would be a hybrid of 32 different structures optimzed for different combinations of position, scoring and vulnerability. There will obviously be a trade-off between complexity and (theoretical) efficiency. Besides, it's probably not "optimal" to play natural 5-card majors and strong 1♣ anyway.

[Chamaco]

I like to be able to use a structure that sets the Gameforce right away.
Whenever possible, I tend to avoid the "inv+" structures (except Scanian 2NT), because they need other space consuming bids (like 4sf) to make the auction forcing, very bad for slam bidding.

With one partner we use a (semi)natural 2/1 structure, with:
- 2/1 absolute GF and 5+ cards, except
- 2C as GF with clubs or balanced.
- Jacoby 2NT and Bergen Raises
- 1M-2M constructive support (usually 3 cards, 9 losers)
- Premptive jumpraises
- natural splinters
- 1NT forcing with Kaplan inversion (1H-1S denies 5S-may have 4 , 1H-1NT = 5+S)

With another pard we have agreed:
- 2C as GF start of a relay sequence
- 2D as 3 card (4 card - low ODR) support in major, either weak (0-7) or invitational
- 2NT and 4 card support inv+ (scanian development),
- 1M-2M constructive support (usually 3 cards, 9 losers)
- Fitshowing Jumps,
- Premptive jumpraises,
- 1H-3S/1S-3NT as concealed splinters
- 1NT forcing with Kaplan inversion (1H-1S denies 5S-may have 4 , 1H-1NT = 5+S)

In both cases, NV responder often responds very light , to steal the hand, often 1NT forcing with a bust (if not total misfit), so that opps have to start constructive bidding at the 2 level, and taking risk big-time due to the wideranging 1NT forcing.

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

I find some flaws in both structures, but they seem to make my pard happy, so be it

[MickyB]

helene_t, on Apr 29 2005, 09:15 AM, said:

I voted for the fourth option but I'm not sure if that implies 2/1 GF and I'm not sure if would like that either, depends how light our openings can be.

I assumed it meant 2/1s NF

[Free]

I prefer 1NT as inv+ relay (with full relay structure for great slam bidding), but the entire 2-level are transfers (except support) which can be weak or strong but don't want to relay...

[luke warm]

i like 1nt inv+, but it's due to the canape strong club system ... most other bids are weak (<11 hcp), but not necessarily natural and not forcing

[Double !]

I don't really have a preference in terms of response systems to 1M, but I strongly feel that whatever approach one chooses needs to pass a 6-fold test.

1) are you and partner in agreement about what all bids mean and the requirements for the bids? Does your structure allow for expansion or modification if the partnership so desires. Especially, do you have the same understandings of the meanings and follow-ups to the various conventions that you select. (for example, I know of at least 3 different variations of the convention "Unusual over Unusual", and at least three versions of Ogust responses to weak2 bids.)

2) without interference, does your structure get you where you want to be more accurately and efficiently than other options that your partnership has considered or attempted to use. Do you have the tools you need, and does the partnership use them well? (I remember a famous quote, so famous that I forget who the person was who said it, that said "It is better to play a poor system well than to play a good system poorly".)

3) does your structure still allow you to get to where you need to be when the opps stick their 2-cents in and compete? (recently upgraded to 2-dollars or 2 euros due to inflation) Does your structure permit you to make relatively well informed decisions in competitive situations regarding whether to pass, bid, double, and have you discussed the meanings of various actions in as many of these potential situations as you could. How pre-emption-proof is your structure. What are you giving up versus gaining by changing the meaning of certain bids? (see Fred's comments about the sequence of 1M-2NT in his superb work "Improving 2/1 GF" etc. Does your structure make any attempt to make it more difficult for the opps to compete or interfere, and/or reach their par. What decisions and agreements have you and partner made regarding how "aggressive" your overall approach will be (where on the pressure bidding--constructive/ accuracy/ risk-reduction bidding continuum does your approach fall? Are you happy with it?)

4) do you and your partner have the time, the attention, the ability to retain and recall all aspects of your agreements (i.e. memory), especially over the long haul of a multi-session event, and similar levels of motivation to work at the partnership. (The latter, IMHO, is a very important consideration for partnership success.) Many people do, and many do not. What is the potential capacity of your partnership combined in these areas.

5) Is your selected structure permitted where you play. (Yes, I know that this was not supposed to be a consideration when answering this poll.) For example, it is my understanding that 1M-1NT GF is not permitted in acbl play although some get around this restriction by adding that the 1NT response is not always GF because it could contain a weak raise in the major.

6) is whatever structure you select to play fun for you and your partner? Do you enjoy playing that way, is your approach successful both from a competitive-achievement perspective as well as from the need to feel a sense of accomplishment/ mastery and pleasure from the game? And, very importantly, do you and your partner like and respect each other? If not, well.....if one thinks that he/she is far superior to the other, welllllll.................destruction! Ego does not a successful partnership make.

Another issue IMO is how often will you need to pre-alert, to hit the blue plastic alert strip, or remember to make the appropriate announcement or risk receiving procedural penalties?

My opinion is, Don't be a hero worshipper and feel that you MUST play something just because current world champions are playing it. What works for some might not work as well for others. There are likely infinite other factors and variables that have contributes to their successes. I suggest trying various styles or response structures with your various partners and then selecting what works best for the partnership, not what some poll says is best or that the majority prefer. Where is it written that you have to go along with the majority. Most bridge players are pretty intelligent people. I say, "Feel free to use your ability to think and be creative. Chance are high that many bridge players have an idea or 100 about various bidding situations, defense, and (dare I say) issues related to rules and regulations".

I don't know you. Maybe you are a professional, a current or future international champion, offspring of a champion, inventor of systems, and have a star on the BBO lobby. Chances are that you are far more accomplished than I. I hardly ever play live bridge anymore due to multiple factors, and if it weren't for Fred and BBO, well, who knows if I'd be playing or even care about the game at this time?............

I am really speaking from the viewpoint of someone who knows he will never win an NABC event in his life although I have had a number of across-section tops in the course of the few LM Pairs events that I have played in (i have a superb/ superior partner). But, I think I know what is best for me and my partnerships. I believe that knowing oneself in terms of a realistic appraisal of skills, potential, knowledge of self and of partner both in terms of personality, motivation, reactivity, interpersonal behavior (I can't stand arrogant players who are so "full of themselves", and I have known many who fit that category) and both cognitive and emotional monitoring and self-control, especially when things go sour, are very important to partnership success, stability, and weathering the down times without breaking up. The issue of partnership compatiability and all of it's ramifications can not be over-emphasized IMO. Bridge is so much a relationship thing, too, if one stops and thinks about it. Even partnerships where individual skill levels are somewhat different can and have endured and succeeded when other partnership factors have been intact.

Having the knowledge base of what approaches are now out there and being played, however, is invaluable. I will never forget a hand I played against 2 Polish international stars during the semis of the LM pairs who were playing Polish Club. They had a normal bidding sequence to get to a normal contract. It worked out that I had found the potentially most successful opening lead but, because I was unfamiliar with their methods or so I thought, I suddenly lost trust in my initial judgment, didn't follow-up as i had planned, and screwed up royally as a result. (9 more matchpoints along the way and we were in the finals!) I don't believe that this would have happened had I been more familiar with the system and didn't permit myself to be intimidated or psyche myself out.

My personal approach is to try to play as well as I can, within my current abilities, consistent with my and my partner's beliefs and styles, and to try to minimize personal and partnership errors. For me, and for many other people I know, these issues often prove to be more important to success or lack of success than trying to play the best bidding structure. [I refer the reader to comments that Fred shared about why he prefers to play strong versus weak 1NT openings at this time. Is this the best structure or use of the bid? His answer was that, for him, he preferred it and he listed a variety of reasons why. And we all read what he had to say.] Yet, many others play differently including many nationally and world reknown and respected players.

Sorry for the unsolicited and, probably unwanted dissertation. I might not be a top-flight player or even close, I am definitely not an expert per BBO criteria, and i am certainly not someone who should be regarded as an authority on bridge per se. I do believe that I know a little something about people, how they interact, how many react, and how they do or do not communicate and behave including when it comes to playing bridge.
My credentials are having become a LM in my mid-20's, (I stopped playing a few years afterward for the most part because I couldn't stand the rat race and had a family and career- so to speak) and having performed on stage during the 1970 summer NABCs in Boston. I even sang the finale - heaven save us all). I will likely never have a star after my name, but I have been around this game to various degrees for a long time, have seen, met, spoken to, played against, and have known a lot of people including many players and other people who came out of the Boston area who now (and then) have stars next to their names. I am sure that many of you have more compelling credentials, experiences, and have seen and known just as many people of your time.

I just hope that some of my experiences (and failures) from long ago and some more recently, and information might be of benefit some someone who reads the forum. If not, Uday, Ben, other yellows, feel free to delete the post. Maybe a lot of what I have shared doesn't apply at the highest levels, and probably many of you couldn't care less about what I've shared. So be it. Then just ignore my posting. If what I wrote is of interest to some, then i am happy for that.

Whatever your decision, peace to all, be well, be safe and,....................wake up!, it's your bid!

Best regards, Don

[han]

I also prefer Ben's structure (with some minor modifications).

Absolutely the best, anyone who says differently has no idea what they are talking about.

[han]

btw, I suggest not deleting Double's post, I enjoyed reading it.

[Double !]

Thank you, Hannie. I appreciate it.

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Apr 29 2005, 04:57 PM, said:

btw, I suggest not deleting Double's post, I enjoyed reading it.

I thought about deleting it, because it was so long.... i thought i was the only person allowed to post so much in one message. But i read the rules, and guess what? Anyone can do so... no "venom" meant.

Ben

[fred]

Jlall, on Apr 29 2005, 02:18 AM, said:

I don't really agree, I think there is probably a "best" in terms of what will most likely get you to the best contract. There are ALOT of variables, and there is no absolute best since factors like memory, etc come into play. So does who the opponents are and how often they bid, etc. But I think theoretically there must be a "best" for your partnership even if you don't know who your opps will be you can figure out the average opponent. Anyways, this is all strictly theoretical of course. I prefer natural 2/1 structure over 1M.

I sort of agree with you, but I never said that there was no "best" structure - just that it would be arrogant for someone to claim that they knew what it was (because our knowledge of the game is not even close to being rich enough to be able to back up such a claim).

However, it may be even more complicated that you think. Consider this example:

For a while there was a clear trend toward lighter preempts among the leading players in the USA. Then people starting leaving in more takeout doubles of preempts. Then the light preempt started to result in too many penalties. Then people started to have a little more for their preempts...

I am not sure if some equilibrium will eventually be reached or if this rates to be a never-ending cycle.

What this proves (I think) is that, discovering the "best" set of parameters is for defining your preempts, is partly a function of the methods that your opponents use for defending against your preempts. Similarly, whatever the best methods are for defending against preempts is partly a function of what sort of hands your opponents will preempt on.

Problems that contain "feedback loops" like this one can be really hard to solve!

I suspect that the same is true of many aspects of bidding - whatever methods and style you agree on, the opponents can always invent some suitable monkeywrench to make your methods/style less effective. You can then change the way you play in order to adapt to their interference, but then they can change the way they interfere in order to adapt to your changes. Then...

Probably all this means is that, if a "best" system/style really does exist (and I agree with Justin that it probably does), the problem of trying to figure out what it is rates to be close to intractable (sorry if this is the wrong word).

Based on this principle, I made a very unsuccessful prediction a few years back:

4-card majors was going to make a comeback.

The reason I thought this was likely was because, at the time, much of the expert community was raving about the results they were getting by applying the Law of Total Tricks. 4-card majors messes with the Law so I thought more people would start to use 4-card majors in order to counter this.

Not sure if my prediction failed due to falty reasoning on my part or because the general love affair with the Law has cooled off.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[flytoox]

fred, on Apr 29 2005, 11:10 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 29 2005, 02:18 AM, said:

I don't really agree, I think there is probably a "best" in terms of what will most likely get you to the best contract. There are ALOT of variables, and there is no absolute best since factors like memory, etc come into play. So does who the opponents are and how often they bid, etc. But I think theoretically there must be a "best" for your partnership even if you don't know who your opps will be you can figure out the average opponent. Anyways, this is all strictly theoretical of course. I prefer natural 2/1 structure over 1M.

I sort of agree with you, but I never said that there was no "best" structure - just that it would be arrogant for someone to claim that they knew what it was (because our knowledge of the game is not even close to being rich enough to be able to back up such a claim).

However, it may be even more complicated that you think. Consider this example:

For a while there was a clear trend toward lighter preempts among the leading players in the USA. Then people starting leaving in more takeout doubles of preempts. Then the light preempt started to result in too many penalties. Then people started to have a little more for their preempts...

I am not sure if some equilibrium will eventually be reached or if this rates to be a never-ending cycle.

What this proves (I think) is that, discovering the "best" set of parameters is for defining your preempts, is partly a function of the methods that your opponents use for defending against your preempts. Similarly, whatever the best methods are for defending against preempts is partly a function of what sort of hands your opponents will preempt on.

Problems that contain "feedback loops" like this one can be really hard to solve!

I suspect that the same is true of many aspects of bidding - whatever methods and style you agree on, the opponents can always invent some suitable monkeywrench to make your methods/style less effective. You can then change the way you play in order to adapt to their interference, but then they can change the way they interfere in order to adapt to your changes. Then...

Probably all this means is that, if a "best" system/style really does exist (and I agree with Justin that it probably does), the problem of trying to figure out what it is rates to be close to intractable (sorry if this is the wrong word).

Based on this principle, I made a very unsuccessful prediction a few years back:

4-card majors was going to make a comeback.

The reason I thought this was likely was because, at the time, much of the expert community was raving about the results they were getting by applying the Law of Total Tricks. 4-card majors messes with the Law so I thought more people would start to use 4-card majors in order to counter this.

Not sure if my prediction failed due to falty reasoning on my part or because the general love affair with the Law has cooled off.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I think one reason 4-card major didnt gain the momentum is that it is harder to play than to play 5-card major system.

The cyclical change is itself an equilibrium. All players choose a mixed strategy.

[Double !]

Ben

No more venom, anyway, spoke to Rain, so no problem. lololol hey, you're the one who got me started with this posting stuff in the first place, to refresh your memory lolololol and I thank you for it. You do a masterful job/ glad you no longer so bored

good to hear from you
Don