[straube]

 foobar, on 2024-January-25, 18:32, said:

Seems like we need to stick with the original OP scheme, which makes the 2155/0355 hands impossible.

Are you being obtuse? Opening 1D and using reverse Flannery does better or equal to finding the right contract in nearly every situation and you say that we'd better stick with 2N as 5m/5m?

OP has 0 invites against a 11-15 range. No way to play a part score in a major at the 2-level, or even the 3-level.

Your suggestion of opening 2D with these 5/5 hands is better but it really overloads the 2D opening. How does opener differentiate a max from a min 5/5 after (say) a 2D-2M start? Can opener show 6D/4C or not? Max 6D or not? You didn't give any continuations for this 2D opening, so hard to say what tradeoffs you are making, what you're willing to give up.

Along with virtually every natural system (e.g. Standard American), the method I proposed does just far better than either a 2D or 2N opening with these hands.


1D-1H, 2C (5m/4m either way, 2S as 4SF)
1D-1S, 2D (5m/5m, 2H as 4SF)

Yes, 1D-1S, 2D prevents you from playing 2C but the continuations are easy. If you correct to 3C then at least you have a fit and preference for clubs.

A design goal for a simple system by perhaps beginner or immediate players is not presenting them with tremendous guess situations or dilemmas in subsequent bidding.

What does responder do with GI 5S/4H after 1D-1S, 2D? Probably 2N invitational. How about GI 5S/5H after 1D-1S, 2D? Judge between 2N and 3H inv. Natural.

For each of my 1D-1M, 2m rebids I have an artificial GF at the 2-level. Not like OP's 1D-1S, 2D-3C* which is quite high.

Full credit to IMprecision as to the inspiration for this structure. The openings themselves are identical. Like IMprecision, it has two ways of raising partner's major after 1D-1M. OP's structure doesn't. No need to show 4S/5D with 1D-1H, 2D. Just rebid 1S. Sort it out with xyz. Don't cramp the bidding with another 4SF at the 3-level.

Adam or Sieong might successfully argue that their rebid structure is better. I think what I proposed is a bit simpler. Like IMprecision, it's set up for relays if the pair ever wants to add them. If they don't, they still have plenty of natural information and low artificial GFs to probe further.

 foobar, on 2024-January-25, 18:32, said:

Regarding wanting to play in 1N over 1S with a singleton, I am not sure that there is sufficient evidence of it being more optimal than a 2m rebid. Note that there are slightly more complex rebid options allowing showing 4H, 3S (don't remember if they are in OP's scheme).

If we're comparing my (or IMprecision's) structure to other systems in which 1D-1M, 2C shows minors, then you ought to really be asking whether you have 8 or 9 cards in the minors and whether responder will know which suit to preference. If I remember correctly, IMprecision goes as far as to rebid 1N with 3145 such that responder will always know to preference diamonds with 4522. That's how concerned they are about getting to the right minor. Dealt 14(53) or 1444 one really ought to think about allowing for a rebid of 1N. It's just too easy to wind up otherwise in the wrong minor with insufficient trumps. Adam never liked my 1D-1S, 2C to show maximums with these patterns, but at least I'm showing hands that are too strong to rebid 1N. It has a purpose.

If we're comparing instead to OP's structure in which 1D-1M, 2m shows 4OM/5m then at least he's showing 9 cards and a reverser, but as I've already pointed out, it moves the 4SF bid to the 3-level. It sometimes leaves responder stitched as well. Say 1D-1H, 2C (4S/5C) and responder has 2551.

I feel like many have forgotten the strong trend we've seen by experts to require a 6-cd minor for a 2-level opening. Opening 2C with something like Axx x KJxx Axxxx isn't good bridge and it isn't something we should be recommending beginners play.

[DavidKok]

 straube, on 2024-January-27, 23:57, said:

What does responder do with GI 5S/4H after 1D-1S, 2D? Probably 2N invitational. How about GI 5S/5H after 1D-1S, 2D? Judge between 2N and 3H inv. Natural.

As opener has shown hearts on both these sequences we can bid 3♥ natural invitational.
I'm happy you found a structure you like, but I will not be recommending it. The IMPrecision 1♦ seems too fragile to me in competition, and I expect it to lead to many more guesses on contested auctions.

 straube, on 2024-January-27, 23:57, said:

I feel like many have forgotten the strong trend we've seen by experts to require a 6-cd minor for a 2-level opening. Opening 2C with something like Axx x KJxx Axxxx isn't good bridge and it isn't something we should be recommending beginners play.

The AEC structure in particular compensates by having the 2m openings deny a 4cM. This way responder is not left guessing nearly as often - with a 5cM invitational we can bid it, if we don't have a 5cM we can make a game try with 2NT or show a GF hand by bidding again. The trend you are discussing is specifically a movement to take the 5m4M hands out of 2m openings as these often leave responder in no man's land with a so-so 10-count - look for a fit and get too high, pass it out and miss an easy major suit game. These hands are not included in the 2m openings for that exact reason.
More importantly, the structure I recommend is very similar to what people play over weak 2's, keeping it simple. The 2m openings, the 2♦ opening in particular, will sometimes create problems for responder. But it will also sometimes solve problems before they even have a chance to come up, and with a simple response structure I think it should be very playable. The main change I'm considering is making 2NT natural NF invitational, and possibly using the simple raise as a constructive bid rather than a competitive one.

I'm happy you like IMPrecision so much, but I personally think it is distracting from the thread. I'm not looking to rearrange the opening bids by as much as you suggest and I think your suggestion for 1♦ is too nebulous. We've had discussions on this exact topic before and did not end up agreeing, maybe a different thread would be more suitable if you wish to reopen the discussion.

[straube]

 DavidKok, on 2024-January-28, 02:12, said:

As opener has shown hearts on both these sequences we can bid 3♥ natural invitational.

I'm referring to "my" 1D-1S, 2D showing 5D/5C, not AEC showing 4H/5D

 DavidKok, on 2024-January-28, 02:12, said:

The AEC structure in particular compensates by having the 2m openings deny a 4cM....The trend you are discussing is specifically a movement to take the 5m4M hands out of 2m openings as these often leave responder in no man's land with a so-so 10-count - look for a fit and get too high, pass it out and miss an easy major suit game. These hands are not included in the 2m openings for that exact reason.

This is a fair point. But AEC's opening structure is too directional, too preemptive for the partnership. Your recruits will have all sorts of guess situations. Particularly after the 2N opening, are we going to game or are we playing 3m?

A long time ago I played a structure with 2m openings quite similar (we included 5m/5m in 2D) because I thought it a waste of time to have partner respond a 4-cd major when opener was dealt these hands. Eventually I realized that I could look at these responses as a sort of relay which allowed opener to better describe his hand. For example, rather than open 2C with 1345 a vanilla Precision partnership can judge whether to raise hearts (opposite 1H response) or rebid 2m offering a choice of minor at the 2-level, or opposite a 1S response, choose similarly between 1N and 2m.

 DavidKok, on 2024-January-28, 02:12, said:

The main change I'm considering is making 2NT natural NF invitational...

If you're talking about a natural 2N opening, definitely better imo.

 DavidKok, on 2024-January-28, 02:12, said:

I'm happy you like IMPrecision so much, but I personally think it is distracting from the thread. I'm not looking to rearrange the opening bids by as much as you suggest and I think your suggestion for 1♦ is too nebulous. We've had discussions on this exact topic before and did not end up agreeing, maybe a different thread would be more suitable if you wish to reopen the discussion.

If you post on these forums, you need to be open to criticism. I've given your structure a lot of specific criticism, some of which you haven't addressed. Even though you entirely disagree with the IMprecision structure, I've given you feedback that could be useful to you for AEC. Both Atul and I have criticized your 2N opening and you're reconsidering that. I've pointed out that you could have two ways of raising either of responder's major, and you could consider that as well.

[foobar]

 straube, on 2024-January-28, 09:20, said:

If you post on these forums, you need to be open to criticism. I've given your structure a lot of specific criticism, some of which you haven't addressed. Even though you entirely disagree with the IMprecision structure, I've given you feedback that could be useful to you for AEC. Both Atul and I have criticized your 2N opening and you're reconsidering that. I've pointed out that you could have two ways of raising either of responder's major, and you could consider that as well.

Couple of things:

1) How about resurrecting the AEC vs. IMPrecision discussion so that we don't clutter this thread? OP has indicated willingness to take up the debate on that thread, and we can update this structure if there are clear new insights that the latter is superior.

2) The 2N as balanced was an alternative suggestion that I too had been considering in the side (as opposed to an outright critique of the bid). I think neither of us have data that it's right one way or the other, but it seems worth consideration, especially since it breaks up the balanced ranges over 1♣).

[nullve]

How about an opening structure similar to that of this version of Ice-Relay:

1st/2nd seat:

P: now also with "13 BAL"
1♣ = "16+ unBAL" OR "17+ BAL"
1♦: as in the Ice-Relay document, i.e. like a Precision 1♦, 2♣ or 2♦ opening but never truly BAL
1N = "14-16 BAL"
2♣+: weak preempts

3rd/4th seat:

1♣ = as in 1st/2nd OR "8-10 BAL(ish)"*
1♦ = as in 1st/2nd OR "11-13 BAL"**
1N = "14-16 BAL"
2♣+: weak preempts

* who needs a strong-only club opening in 3rd/4th?
** so opening values as in 1st/2nd seat, unlike in Ice-Relay

I've long been convinced that passing BAL 11-13 hands in 1st/2nd seat is actually very aggressive(!) and leads to better/cleaner bidding overall.

[DavidKok]

Thank you for the suggestion, but I think this system has a number of downsides compared to what I'm looking for. In no particular order:

• The nebulous diamond will struggle a lot in competition, and also on a number of constructive auctions. I seriously doubt that using 2♣ weak, putting Precision 2♣ openers in 1♦ and 11-13 NT openers in pass is a net gain. I like preempts more than most but these systemic losses are too much to be compensated by an extra weak bid at the 2-level compared to more vanilla Precision.
  
• The system is much more complicated. Now you'll have to learn different continuations over a 1st/2nd seat 1♣ and a 3rd/4th one, learn how to untangle the 1♦ opening and cater to the possibility that partner has an opening hand every time we open in third, fourth, or end up defending.
  
• The initial pass with 11-13 balanced seems very risky in competition. I've mentioned elsewhere that I think of all hand types it is most important to clarify the balanced ones first, and I expect this system to struggle a lot when LHO opens the bidding after we failed to.

If you want to explore other systems I ask you to please start your own post. I enjoy the system discussion but want to reserve this particular discussion for thoughts on and minor modifications to the system I proposed in the first post, with a particular focus on simplifying it further and removing the rough edges as much as possible.

[nullve]

 DavidKok, on 2024-January-29, 05:10, said:

If you want to explore other systems I ask you to please start your own post. I enjoy the system discussion but want to reserve this particular discussion for thoughts on and minor modifications to the system I proposed in the first post, with a particular focus on simplifying it further and removing the rough edges as much as possible.

I thought this thread was about Precision-like systems suitable for beginners, not just your simplified AEC system.

Ok, never mind.

[awm]

I will just say that "simple" and "beginner" have a very different meaning to you than they do to me. I would've gone with an opening structure that is as natural as possible and lends itself to continuations which are natural too (as opposed to 1♦ showing 0+, which I think requires a lot of artificiality in competition to make it work regardless of exactly which hands it contains). For example:

1♣ = 15+ any
1♦/1♥/1♠ = 10-14 points with 4+ suit, may have longer clubs, 10-11 if balanced
1NT = 12-14 balanced
2♣ = 10-14 points, 6+♣, no four-card major

I'll also note that a simplified version of Wei precision is taught to absolute beginners in China, so it's certainly possible to use a strong club as a system for new players, although there's often the obstacle of finding partners if it's not the normal method where you live.

[mycroft]

The Wei style that was put forward by Reese Back In The Day didn't open 11s and 12s (at least didn't open flat minor 11s and 12s), so 1♦ almost always had 4 and 1NT was 13-15. I've seen this play in a more modern system with one pair down here ("more" being a iffy term; from my experience against them they've made it all the way to the 1980s) play a 11-15 1NT and a "natural" 1♦.

I don't like it, but for beginners I don't mind it. I'd probably suggest passing the flat 11s and 12s and play 13-16.

I don't actually think the artificiality behind a 0+ 1♦ is bad *for beginners* (but I do dislike it for "C players learning Precision"). From experience with the LOL "could be short" clubbers - who will do amazing things rather than raise a "but it could be 2 cards!" 1♣ opener, and will therefore rebid horrible club suits "just to show it wasn't 2, partner" - making 1♦ totally artificial and keeping 2♦ natural at least makes "you only get to raise diamonds with real stuff, or both minors. Let's build the system based on finding those 4-4 major fits." It also "forces" people into playing NT even with a potential minor fit, which for duplicate - or at least matchpoints - is good training anyway.(*) And the "4415 minus a card" 2♦ call is a crutch. I don't think it's too unreasonable (hint, many-time Canadian Champion pair play 1♦ 0+ and 2♦ "6 or 5♦-4M". Not what I'd play, but it obviously is playable at the highest level) to turn 1♦ into another "totally artificial" call and make 2♦ a solid, sensible, and frequent constructive call.

Until they have to find another partner who grew up with "traditional" Precision, at least.

(*) Apart from "you really want to play 3NT rather than 5♦, and 1NT rather than 3♦, unless you *know* it's wrong", it also gets players "less afraid" of notrump, another "newer player" issue I see. In fact, I joke to them about "play a weak NT for a few months. You'll lose your fear of bad NT contracts. Or you'll quit bridge, I guess."

[mycroft]

Side note: I tried to learn a Swedish system decades ago (I was in fact labelled the "translator" for it. Really, it was "best guess", and bridge is such a common language that it almost was easy to read the Swedish. Except for "Marmic" (= "Roman") - that one took history I didn't have.) It had a two-way (Swedish) Club, but 1♦ was totally artificial and showed at least one 4- (rarely 5-)card major. There really wasn't much difference between learning that and "learning" how to respond to 1♦ natural, or even "natural" - except of course that I'd had years of playing the latter.

Of course, I didn't play it because it wasn't legal GCC, and getting the Mid-Chart exceptions for a "passable, 4 hearts" 1♠ response (among others) was too much work for no help (and no games, for that matter). But with the "hey, as long as you don't psych artificial bids, you can do anything you want as responder" rules on the Open Chart, it should be legal. Maybe I'll get one of my scientists to try it out for a few weeks. Should put paid to the "you just play that to confuse us" people (no, *this* is what we play just to confuse you).

Just checked. I expect some fights, but what is disallowed is promising a *known* other suit. "One of two" seems to be fine.

[PrecisionL]

1♦ promising at least one 4-cd major.

I played this in a Precision context when partner insisted on playing 5-cd Majors. It works really well and is allowable in ACBL open games. There is a description on the web called The Diamond Major and has boomerang pre-empts 2 of a Major.

htpps://www.bridgeclublive.com/A/Information/Library/MembersArticles/Diamond.htm

[foobar]

 PrecisionL, on 2024-January-30, 15:46, said:

1♦ promising at least one 4-cd major.

I played this in a Precision context when partner insisted on playing 5-cd Majors. It works really well and is allowable in ACBL open games. There is a description on the web called The Diamond Major and has boomerang pre-empts 2 of a Major.

htpps://www.bridgeclublive.com/A/Information/Library/MembersArticles/Diamond.htm

I will take your word for its efficacy, but 11-19 for the 1m openings sounds like a recipe for inheriting the issues of standard 1m openings? It must be offset by the other inferences, but believe straube@ once experimented with a GCC 1D as 4CM in a 16+ 1C context (only as a joke per my recollection).

Anyway, we're way off topic for this thread, so let's drop it at here, and start a new thread if it merits further discussion.

[awm]

If you play 1♦ as 0+, you won't be able to raise opener's minor in competition. This creates a lot of potential system losses on simple competitive auctions, like 1♦-(1♠) and you have 2344 and an okay hand, or 1♦-(2♥) and you have 2353 and want to "raise" if partner has real diamonds but not if he doesn't.

This is not to say that opening 1♦ as 0+ is automatically terrible (I play this myself in one of my strongest partnerships). The issue is that you need a lot of competitive agreements -- if you just play "natural forcing bids" in competition you are way behind the field. Some treatments include:

1. A way to show both minors in many competitive sequences (for example a lot of 2NT bids might be this).
2. Taking advantage of the very high frequency of opener's weak notrump and playing a lot of transfers in competition.

Both of these require discussion on both the bids and the continuations; I wouldn't class them as simple.

[pescetom]

 nullve, on 2024-January-29, 06:14, said:

I thought this thread was about Precision-like systems suitable for beginners, not just your simplified AEC system.

Ok, never mind.

As a potential Precision player I think this suggested system is important and well worth a dedicated OT discussion.
Please start a thread of your own if you have a good alternative.

[nullve]

 awm, on 2024-February-01, 15:52, said:

If you play 1♦ as 0+, you won't be able to raise opener's minor in competition. This creates a lot of potential system losses on simple competitive auctions, like 1♦-(1♠) and you have 2344 and an okay hand, or 1♦-(2♥) and you have 2353 and want to "raise" if partner has real diamonds but not if he doesn't.

This is one of my reasons for removing BAL hands from 1♦, because then the otherwise nebulous opening would promise a minor and it would make sense to play e.g.

1♦-(1♠)-3♣ = P/C

.

[DavidKok]

Thank you all for the comments, I feel that these concerns were addressed in big part in my original post. The 1♦ opening relies on a core of balanced-or-Raptor, so that both opener and responder have easier bids in competition. Other approaches to this nebulous 1♦ exist and require significantly more work. Instead this system takes a hit with its 2♦ opening being slightly uncomfortable in exchange for having better auctions over 1♦. In particular:

 awm, on 2024-February-01, 15:52, said:

If you play 1♦ as 0+, you won't be able to raise opener's minor in competition. This creates a lot of potential system losses on simple competitive auctions, like 1♦-(1♠) and you have 2344 and an okay hand, or 1♦-(2♥) and you have 2353 and want to "raise" if partner has real diamonds but not if he doesn't.

This is not to say that opening 1♦ as 0+ is automatically terrible (I play this myself in one of my strongest partnerships). The issue is that you need a lot of competitive agreements -- if you just play "natural forcing bids" in competition you are way behind the field. Some treatments include:

1. A way to show both minors in many competitive sequences (for example a lot of 2NT bids might be this).
2. Taking advantage of the very high frequency of opener's weak notrump and playing a lot of transfers in competition.

Both of these require discussion on both the bids and the continuations; I wouldn't class them as simple.

The biggest losses from not being able to raise is when opener has a single-suited minor suit hand or both minors, neither of which are included in the 1♦ opening. This 1♦ is 0+ but not nearly as nebulous as some other 0+ 1♦ openings, or even a lot of 2+ 1♦ openings (which, incidentally, also can't be raised on four). Your example hand and auction are indeed problems, and I expect to take losses here compared to natural systems. For a beginner system I think it's the least of evils though, and I do not recommend your suggestions of artificial bids in competition in this system. My limited experience with this system suggests natural forcing bids don't place us far behind the field at all, as opener's rebid will clarify the hand type in great detail. Competitive auctions over 1♦ is definitely one of the weakest aspects of this system but the balanced-or-Raptor approach keeps the damage quite limited.
Also while 11-13 balanced is the most frequent in 1♦, it is debatable whether it is very high. The actual split is approximately 66.5% weak NT versus 33.5% Raptor or 4441, based on a simulation of 1,000,000 hands. I expect transfers to be a superior treatment to natural regardless, but the structure of this 1♦ is noticeably different compared to e.g. SCUM or IMPrecision-like systems. I also really want to stress dialogue bidding rather than captaincy, which I think is better for inexperienced players especially but might just be superior all around regardless.

 nullve, on 2024-February-01, 16:50, said:

This is one of my reasons for removing BAL hands from 1♦, because then the otherwise nebulous opening would promise a minor and it would make sense to play e.g.

I think having a good notrump ladder is really important, as is keeping the frequency of 1♣ low by not including 16 balanced (or even weaker). I think going to a 'single NT range below 1♣' system or a '15+ 1♣ system' comes with frequent and noticeable losses, in particular on balanced hands. To me the notrump ladder is the backbone of a bidding system and if you wish to modify it away from what I posted in this thread again I ask you to present that as a different system entirely.