[awm]

Designing bidding systems is a complicated task. Simulations only get you so far, because of the myriad ways opponents can enter the auction. A relay system that seems to work great in (two-handed) bidding practice can be awful in real life when opponents preempt. So how can we figure out what works and what doesn't? The best way is, of course, to try each potential method over a large number of boards against good opponents (or a range of opponents, or whatever level opposition you hope to win against) and compare them. But that's not realistic. Perhaps the next best thing is to observe what people are playing in top-level competition.

Looking at the CCs of bermuda bowl pairs, you see a lot of wildly different stuff. That's one of the great things about bridge. But one thing that seems almost universal in bidding trends is that showing shape early is good.

Let me give some examples:

(1) Strong club systems. When these first came out, a lot of people responded first with strength (steps showing controls are part of the original form of ultimate club, and also blue club). But now almost everyone using a strong club shows shape first, defining strength only in broad terms. Garrozzo himself has commented that the blue club isn't good enough for top competition today, likely for this reason (the Italian blue team had an amazing number of unobstructed 1♣ auctions, which you'd never see today).

(2) Natural systems. Despite all the theoretical advantages of strong club and relays, natural systems seem to hang around. There are a fair number of good pairs using systems based vaguely on two-over-one (obviously with a lot of gadgets most 2/1ers don't play). This includes many of the top Italian pairs. The big advantage here? Showing shape first! Instead of opening many hands with an amorphous club or diamond, shape is shown early in the auction.

(3) Light openings. One of the big offenders in the "shape first" argument is pass. Look at all these hands we could be showing our five-card suits, and instead we pass! Most people who play "strong club" methods today aren't doing it so that they can open in a very narrow range of 11-15 points (like it says in the Wei book). They're doing it so they can open shapely 8 and 9 point hands and partner won't hang them.

(4) Fantoni and Nunes. Wildly successful, playing a somewhat strange system. What's the advantage? Again, shape first. They bid their suits right away, even on hands that other people are opening with a strong club (or strong two clubs). Huge win in competitive auctions, and if opponents are silent their openings are forcing and they can limit strength at opener's second turn.

(5) Preempts. More and more aggressive. Perhaps these have reached a limit now, but it's way beyond what Goren would've recommended back in the day. Sitting there silently with shape doesn't pay. So again, these bidders are trying to get in early with shapely hands.

This idea of "shape first" is frequently overlooked by people posing system designs in the forums. It's my main critique of ZAR's bidding backbone (which seems to open many hands with either pass, or an amorphous 1♣ or 1♦, as well as opening four-card majors). This is also the problem with a lot of other methods I've seen, especially those that rely on "two-way canape" (major suit openings that show 4+ cards and may/may not have a longer minor). Yes, I understand that a relay system can easily find the best contract, and that it's good to pack more frequent hands into lower bids where there is more space to relay them out... but once the opponents start bidding (as they almost always do in real bridge) we will regret the 1♥ opening that could show anything from four hearts in a balanced hand, to four hearts with six card clubs, to seven hearts. Even Moscito (one of the stalwart systems of relay-style bidding) has accepted this and stopped opening 4-6 hands (4 major + 6 minor) with bids that show only 4+ in the major.

Anyways, I wanted to get this out there for people to comment on. The more I think on it, the more the principle seems sound.

[whereagles]

Shape is the most important thing of a hand. The importance of the several items has a hierarchy (this is due to Goren, I think)

1. Shape
2. HCP strenght
3. Number of aces/kings
4. Location of high cards

This is actually how relay schemes work. They work awesomely because they convey information following the correct priorities.

[mike777]

If shape is important why do 99% of 2/1 players and teachers show strength before shape on their rebids? See BWS etc. 1s=2c=2s etc.

Thank goodness most just give lip service to shape and still bid strength first, gives me a chance to win.

btw in defense of 2 suited canape, it is nice to know partners shape with opening bid, and we just assume first suit is exactly 4 cards around 80% of the time in a pinch. Yes, WJO can attack and present problems.

[awm]

Please note that I'm not trying to attack relays in general, or strong club. In fact I play both of these in some of my own partnerships. The sort of thing I have a problem with is methods like:

1♦ = opening shows any 10-14 4+♥, including 4♥-6♠, 4♥-6♣, 6♥-4♠, 5♥(332) etc.

Suppose the auction goes 1♦! - 2♠ (natural preempt). Are you really as well placed to pick the best spot as you would be if partner opened a five-card major? I don't think so.

And the relay response doesn't help either... say it goes 1♦!-P-1♥ (inv+ relay). Basically nothing is known about responder's shape at all, and opener's shape is still much vaguer than it would be in a 5-card major system. If opponents bid now you are still stuck. Compare against an auction like 1♥ (5+ hearts) - P - 2♦ (inv+ values 5+♦).... if opponents were to bid now they are the ones in the soup.

Again, this is nothing against relays. Starting to relay at opener's second bid (or later) is often extremely effective, as you can uncover virtually all the shape information. At this point in the bidding, if the opponents were going to compete, they'd probably have done so already.

As for strong club, I think any reasonable player will accept that it is sometimes a loser in competitive auctions. There are compensating wins in that your openings and rebids on "regular" hands are better defined, and at least partner knows to compete/double aggressively after the strong 1♣ call. If you somehow manage an auction like 1♣-P-1♠-P with the opponents silent, you're probably safe to start the relays and you'll likely finish ahead of the field.

[david_c]

As usual I find myself agreeing with everything awm says. But I would modify the "shape first" principle slightly - for opening bids my philosophy is this:

Unbalanced hands should describe their shape first;
Balanced hands should describe their strength first.

So there are some systems which I dislike because they fail on the first point (e.g. Zar's system), and some which fail on the second point (e.g. dull club, AUC).

[tysen2k]

One of the things I've been thinking about on the back-burner for a while is polishing up my "Shape System" which prioritizes showing shape early.

One of the features was the Pass = 0-16 balanced that I discussed here in the forum several months ago. That's a great way to show shape with every bid, including your most common, Pass!

My current scheme has:

Pass = balanced, 0-16
1♣ = any 4441, any 5440, or any 6+ single suited hand
1♦/1♥/1♠ = natural but always a two-suiter
1NT = balanced, 17-21
2x = EHAA style preempts

The 1♣ bid seems a little weird but if you think about it, 1-suiters and 3-suiters should be very easy to separate out in later bidding, even if the opponents compete. In fact, the opponents bidding may clear things up for responder even earlier than without competition. Plus you can now use all NT rebids artificially.

The other 1 bids are always 2-suiters so that means you can use both NT rebids as well as same suit rebids artificially.

There is absolutely no opening bid that shows just strength but always have some shape component to it.

Tysen

[Wiste1]

Jlall, on Sep 1 2005, 09:55 PM, said:

Well, a few comments.

1) The new trend among top strong club players in USA seems to be 1C p 1H showing 8-11. Examples of pairs who play this... Greco/Hampson Hamman/Soloway Grue/Cheek Rodwell/Bramley (when they play together at regionals) etc.

3) Light openings. I'm not sure most top american players are opening that light these days. Certainly in the early 90s people were opening lighter. We seem to be regressing backwards in this area, and I honestly don't see many 9 counts opened. I even saw meckwell pass a 10 count recently, it was shocking

5) Again, the preempts seem to be tightening up compared to the early 90s or so (and the bergen days). Most top US pairs don't seem to be preempting that agressively anymore.

To just back up some of my claims in 3 and 5, lets look at the USA 1 and USA 2 teams.

Nickell-Freeman- They open soundly and preempt soundly.
Hamman-Soloway- Despite strong club system, they're fairly down the middle openers (shapely 11, a few 10s etc) and their preempting style is sounder than most.
Meckwell- They still open light (all 11s or so) but look at some of the hands they were opening in the 90s. I truly believe they aren't opening as many 8s and 9s as they used to, but I could be wrong. I'll ask Jeff next time I see him. They preempt agressively.
Gitelman-Moss: They seem very similar to HamWay in style of openings, and their preempting seems down the middle.
Rubin-Ekeblad: I've never played them. Can anyone comment
Greco-Hampson: Agressive openers and preempts.

There's quite a mix.

Anyways, as to your theory about shape first, I would tend to agree that getting in your shape early on is important. I still think strong club systems are superior to natural systems, but it certainly is a problem when they preempt at a high level. I like most auctions to emphasize shape and not high cards though, since shape is really whats important.

Hi
1) Have anyone system-notes for these pairs?, or others using 1♣-1♥showing 8-11?

[Chamaco]

awm, on Sep 1 2005, 09:44 PM, said:

(1) Strong club systems. When these first came out, a lot of people responded first with strength (steps showing controls are part of the original form of ultimate club, and also blue club). But now almost everyone using a strong club shows shape first, defining strength only in broad terms. Garrozzo himself has commented that the blue club isn't good enough for top competition today, likely for this reason (the Italian blue team had an amazing number of unobstructed 1♣ auctions, which you'd never see today).

In this discussion it's fundamental to discriminate 2nd seat intervention (e.g. wjo BEFORE responder bids) vs 4th seat interference (e.g. 1C-pass-ANY POSITIVE - interference).


After 2nd hand interference, most of players who use now control responses revert to showing shape, exactly as the shape-first players.
So this case should be discounted from the analysis, since the 2 methods converge.

This leaves the case of 4th hand interference:
1C-(p)-1/2y*-(2/3z)
?
(*=N number of controls)

In this case opener ignores responder's shape but knows:
a- we are in a GF
b- the number of controls of responder

Usually the no of controls is enough to tll whether slam can be on, so, if slam is not on, usually it is not difficult to reach a decent (sure, I know, perhaps not optimal) game, or severely penalize opps.

As someone else pointed out, the Hamway club has the 1H 8-11 generic response, which is not sooo different from the concept of control-showing responses.

as for me, I use a mixed scheme:
I have hcp range responses for balanced hands, accounting for Q and Js in notrump
- and controlshowing responses for unbalanced hands (so, when pard respond in controls, I am sure he is unbalanced.

I have the strong feeling that, if you give a controlshowing scheme in the hand of good players, they can handle intereference no worse than using shape-first responses.

[pbleighton]

Interesting thread. Some points, some not directly on topic:

1. "Unbalanced hands should describe their shape first;
Balanced hands should describe their strength first."

I agree completely.

2. Light openings. I would modify this to be "high frequency of opening bids" - including undisciplined 2 bids and preempts and weak/mini NT.

3. "Mean opening" - an evaluation of systems based on a combination of frequency of opening bids and their level - 0 for pass, 1 for 1C, 2 for 1D, etc. The higher you open, the less chance the opps have for showing their shape. Dan Neill's site has a very interesting document by Jan-Eric Larssen, which describes a LOT of systems and evaluates their mean opening. The link is:

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...-collection.txt

4. 4 card majors. 5 card majors hide shape (though they are what I play).

5. My nomination for the ultimate "Shape First" system - EHAA. 4 card majors, 10-12 NT, and 2 bids in all suits where you open any hand with a 5 card suit down to 6 hcp. EHAA is "Shape, first, last and always", and goes a bit too far (or maybe way too far, depending on your point of view).

IMO Fantoni-Nunes is EHAA, drastically altered to fit the needs of world-class teams play. Since I have no such needs, I play a mildy altered form - Chicken EHAA (5cM, 10-13 NT, 9(8)-12 2 bids, a little chicken with 2 bids on 9 and 10 counts when vulnerable). Such fun!

Peter

[inquiry]

I am firm believer of SHAPE first. This is the problem with Precision and other forcing club (and or pass) systems. This is why I say opening 1♣ is the weakness of those systems. This is only slightly better when playing normal 2/1 because, quite frankly, just at the 1♣ opening bid puts stregth before shape, 2♣ does the same, although in practice 2♣ is a little harder for the oppenents to "monkey" with than 1♣. My preference for shape first allows me to place emphasis on shape first, this even extends to a large part to my 2♣ opening bids. My preferences are...

1) I open balanced hands 1NT even with five card majors
2) I rebid 1NT instead of a four card major if I open a minor with "balanced hands"
3) I open my longest suit
4) I use MisIRY for two suited strong hands where at least one suit will always be known
5) My jumpshift rebids always show teh second suit
6) I remove two suited hands from 2♣, and most frequent balanced hands too
7) I have a special rebid after 2♣ to show three suited hands
8) I add ACOL 2 minor bids to multi 2D
9) I use 2H/2S to show minimum opening hand with Major and clubs, this allows 2♣ rebid to be riton to show "shape" and stregth on second rebid.

This scheme would make ZAR happy. I open some very strong BAL hands 1♣ or 1♦. Say 21 hcp and 4432 would be strongest ZARwise.

Let me say a word about how shape first has influenced my 2♣ structure.

When I open 2♣, I can only be balanced with 25+ hcp, and I can never be TWO SUITED (define here, two suits of at least five cards each). In addition, I have a special rebid to show strong three suiters. Further, if I open a 2♣ and rebid a minor, it is a very strong one suiter that is game force.

When I am strong and two suited, I open with MisIry transfer and then bid again. The essential shape is shown easily with the second bid in competition or not. This is also at a high level, making opponents interference less likely, and obviously on the whole, less effective as I have painted a very descriptive picture of my hand with second bid.

By removing the Strong one suiters (acol 2 or better) from all opening bids, I have removed teh need to "create" a fake jump shift on second round with a one suiter. So jumps on second round show shape.

By using Riton 2♣ I can show quality of major one suiter, or a major one suiter with a four card side suit that is strong through the use of 2♣ rebid by opener. Note this second suit will never be five cards (shape first) as I would have jumped in that case.

Shape First Rules....

[000002]

very good! IMO

what is EHAA?

thx

[awm]

000002, on Sep 8 2005, 09:32 AM, said:

very good! IMO

what is EHAA?

thx

EHAA stands for "Every Hand an Adventure." It's a bidding system where you (basically) bid your suits. The main features are having no artificial strong bid, and using very wide ranging preempts. While many people play various modified forms of EHAA, the original opening structure looked like:

1♣ = 4+♣ 13+ hcp
1♦ = 4+♦ 13+ hcp
1♥ = 4+♥ 13+ hcp
1♠ = 4+♠ 13+ hcp
1NT = 10-12, balanced
2♣-2♠ = all weak twos, from 5-7 cards in the suit, 6-12 hcp, suit quality not a concern

[Al_U_Card]

Rather, "Why do creatures (systems) evolve?" when they are created to provide a specific requirement. Because pressure to produce desirable results makes people fudge them and adjust the methods and include add-ons etc. etc. It matters little that you find a masterpiece beautiful because of the technique or the subject or the context......bridge bidding and play systems fill a requirement and will evolve over time to produce a maximum in desirable results or they will be supplanted.

[luke warm]

the system i'm contemplating (thanks for input from some here, you know who you are) is shape first, relays, strength next... *so* far the responses to 1c (16+ balanced, 17+ unbal w/ 4M, 18+ unbal w/out 4M) are

1d=0-7 or 8-11 3 suited
1h=8+ balanced (all 5332 here) or 12+ 3 suited
1s=clubs and diamonds or diamonds only
1nt=diamonds and hearts or hearts only
2c=majors or spades only
2d=spades and clubs or clubs only
2h=pointed
2s=rounded
2nt=puppet to 3c p/c, 0-4 with 7 pcs

still testing on hands mauro sent (thanks buddy)

[han]

I see I'm not the only one who was inspired to com up with a new system. How about this:

Shape First-Preempt with minors.

1C= balanced, 12-14 or 18-19 or 22-24 or 28+
1D= 5+ hearts, unbalanced, light opening or better.
1H= 5+ spades, unbalanced, light opening or better.
1S= balanced, 15-17 or 20-21 or 25-27.
1NT= 5+ clubs, unbalanced, light opening or better. May only have a 4-card major if strong enough to reverse.
2C= 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, light opening or better. Same thing.
2D= some preempt.
2H= 4 hearts, 5+ minor, minimal opening hand.
2S= 4 spades, 5+ minor, minimal opening hand.
2NT= both minors, some point range depending on vulnerability.
higher: natural preempts.

The system is based on the observation that if we have many cards in the minors, the opponents are more likely to have game (hence we take as much room as we can). However, if we have the majors then we are likely to have game so we should open light and leave anough room to investigate.

The balanced openings are influenced by "strength first with balanced". They should be easy to deal with and durable under preemption.

Thoughts?

[Echognome]

Always interesting to hear new ideas.

For Hannie, I have 3 comments.

1) All of your opening bids up to 2♥ are forcing. This isn't a problem per-se, but since none of these bids are actually natural, you are giving the opponents a cheap way to get into the auction if they hold the suit below your opening.

2) It's not clear where the dreaded 4441 shape hand fits in. This is a common problem in designing all bidding systems as other than 4441's, all hands are either balanced or have a 5 card suit.

3) I might reverse your 1♣ and 1♠ bids as over the 1♣ you are more prone to lose the part-score battle if you have the most common hand type (12-14). However if you are showing 15+ hcp balanced, it's at least a little more dangerous for opps to come in. If you need to drop something, you can get rid of the 28+ hand types.

[pbleighton]

Hannie, some random thoughts:

What about 4441 shapes?

Your 2M openings seem like they would perform poorly. Caroline Club uses 5M4m, and puts 4M5m into 1M, therefore 1M-1NT-2m and 1H-1S-2m is clear. Would that work for you?

You might want to shift your 1NT and 2C bids up a bid, making them NF, to put some pressure on the opps. 1NT could be both minors. If majors can be canape as above (including 4M6+m), then 2m could be 6+, no 4cM. The canape openers might be handled pretty well because of the transfer openings.

Your openings are unlimited. How light will you respond? This might be the toughest issue for you, especially if you respond light enough to mitigate the loss of preemtive 2 bids.

Peter

[han]

This was not a very serious attempt, but a quick write up of a system that always bids shape first and opens higher with the minors than with the majors. However, I do think that such a system would have merits.

I conveniently forgot about 4441-hands. As for having forcing openings, that doesn't seem to be such a problem, as responder can just complete the transfer with weak hand.

I'm not planning to do anything with this, but thanks for the comments.