relknes

Would you ever open 1m with 11-13 points and a balanced hand in 4th seat? Especially in a strong club context, that seems like asking for trouble. I would think it would be better to pass these hands out. If that's right, then the comparison is not between opening 1m with your strong hands and 1N with weak hands vs 1m with weak hands and 1N with strong hands, it would be between opening 1m with strong hands and 1N with weak hands vs passing the weak hands and opening 1N with strong hands, so that your 1m openings in 4th seat promise length.

OK. Then would it be better to have a simple structure like this? Pass = 0-4 Double = 5-9 any shape overcalls = 10+, GF, natural This would ditch the idea of showing opener's two indicated suits, but would be very easy to remember, and fits better with a constructive point of view frequency wise. Or would you recomend something like this? Pass = 0-4, or 5-9 without 4+ clubs or hearts Double = 10+ GF 1N = 5-9, 4+ in both clubs and hearts 2♣ = 5-9, 4+ clubs, denies 4+ hearts 2♦ = 5-9, 4+ hearts, denies 4+ clubs Then i would have to figure out what to do with 2♥ and the cuebid of 2♠. Perhaps I could use 2♥, 2♠, and 2N to show different shapes in slam-interested hands? Anyways, I currently lean toward the second option, conserving spade with the strong hands and getting information accross quickly with the competitive range hands, but I would appreciate any input/suggestions. Thanks for your advice. It is helpful to bounce ideas around. Hope it is not too frustrating for you.

One of the benefits of playing split strong bids is that the range of possible hands is limited enough that partner can give more relevant information over opponent interference. Particularly, since partner has either a balanced hand or a 5 card suit in one of two suits, information about the two possible long suits can be very valuable. For instance, after 1♣ (meaning either 15+ unbalanced with 5+ hearts, 15+ unbalanced with 4+ clubs [4 only if 4441], or balanced [15-16, 19-20, 23-24, or 27+]), when the opponent overcalls 1♠, responder has some gadgets that are not available with a precision 1♣, such as: Pass = 0-4 points Double = 5-9 points, 4+ hearts, denies 4+ clubs 1N = 5-9 points, denies 4+ clubs, denies 5+ diamonds, denies 4+ hearts 2♣ = 5-9 points, 4+ clubs, denies 4+ hearts 2♦ = 5-9 points, 5+ diamonds 2♥ = 10+ points, GF 2♠ = 5-9 points, 4+ in both clubs and hearts This should avoid wrong-siding a suit contract, and provide quick information about possible fits. You may end up playing 1N from the wrong side, but only when partner has 15-16 balanced. It also makes it hard to show real spades when you have 5-9 points, but since the opponent overcalled spades, that shouldn't be a frequent problem, and 1N is probably a prety good spot with your spades sitting over their spades. It might be a problem if they were making a psych bid and partner had something like a 4-5-2-2 shape, and you miss a spade fit, but that hardly seems worth worrying about... Is this sort of structure (x = 4+ in the indicated major, a bid in partner's opened minor = 4+, cuebid = both) a reasonable scheme for competitive auctions, or are there better ways to do this?

Here is what I am currently thinking for the 2m bids and their followups. I am open to suggestions on how to improve this. 2♣ = 9-14, 5+ clubs, unbalanced, no good quality 4+ card major .....2♦ = asking ..........2♥ = 9-11, 4 poor quality hearts ..........2♠ = 9-11, 4 poor quality spades ..........2N = 9-11, 4+ diamonds ..........3♣ = 9-11, 6+ clubs ..........3♦ = 12-14 points .....2♥ = 15+ points, 5+ hearts, GF .....2♠ = 15+ points, 5+ spades, GF .....2N = 15+ points, no 5 card major, GF 2♦ = 9-14, 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, no good quality 4+ card major .....2♥ = asking ..........2♠ = 9-11, 4 poor quality spades ..........2N = 9-11, 4 poor quality hearts ..........3♣ = 9-11, 4+ clubs ..........3♦ = 9-11, 6+ diamonds ..........3♥ = 12-14 points .....2♠ = 15+ points, 5+ spades, GF .....2N = 15+ points, no 5 card major, GF .....3♥ = 15+ points, 5+ hearts, GF

I was orrigingally taught, years ago, that with 2 balanced hands 26 points was needed for game, and that 25 could do in a pinch if the points were fairly evenly distributed. Later, I started hearing that, at imps, 24 points often belonged in game, even though it would often need a mistake by the defense or a favorable lead to pull through, because the gamble was worth it in the long run. So my question is, does 15 oposite 9 typically belong in game? How about when one of the hands is unbalanced?

Are your 1♦ and 1♥ bids really unlimited, or did you mean 11-16?

Responder has shown something. Specifically, the 1♣-1♦ and the 1♦-1♥ both show 5-9 points. The sequence to show 0-4 points is 1♣-1♠ or 1♦-2♣ with the idea of opener signing off in his best suit at the 2 level unless they can force game opposite a bust. Any bid by responder other than the neutral 1st step or the very negative 3rd step is taken as 10+ points game force. These responses were covered earlier, so I thought you were just asking about the continuations after the neutral response. My least favorite bid in bridge happens to be a nebulous 1♦ showing points in the 10-14 sort of range. When the opponents interfere, which they are very likely to do when both majors are still available at the 1 level and you have a barely above average hand, then partner is lost and all those fabulous relays are useless. My opinion is that the 1m bids should be saved for hands that don't fear competition, since you are letting the opponents in so cheap. It is fine that other people like the bid, but I just can't stomach it. It would be interesting to find out how many imps it costs, on average, when a Precision player opens 1♦ promising 0+ diamonds. Even more interesting to know how much it costs when the left hand opponent overcalls.

Would it work better to have the structure be like this? After 1♣-1♦: 1♥ = GF, unbalanced 20+ (still in clubs or hearts), or balanced (25-26 or 29+), Relay .....1♠ ..........1N = 25-26 balanced ..........2♣ = 20+, 5+ clubs ..........2♦ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts ..........2♥ = 20+, 5+ hearts ..........2N = 29+ balanced 1♠ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades 1N = 15-17 balanced 2♣ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ clubs 2♦ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts 2♥ = 15-19, unbalanced, 5+ hearts 2♠ = GF, 20+, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades 2N = 21-22 balanced with a simmilar structure over 1♦?

The schematic was going to be: After 1♣-1♦: 1♥ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ hearts 1♠ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades 1N = 15-17 balanced 2♣ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ clubs 2♦ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts 2♥ = 20+, unbalanced, 5+ hearts, GF (since partner's 1♦ response showed 5-9 points) 2♠ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades 2N = 21-22 balanced 3♣ = 20+, unbalanced, 5+ clubs, GF 3♦ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts, GF 3N = 25-26 balanced A simmilar structure is in place over 1♦-1♥ *Edit to earlier post: when 1♣ shows 4+ clubs, it could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape. Likewise 1♦ could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape.

Under that particular varriable structure, you would pass 12 point balanced hands that don't have a 4 card major when vulnerable. It would be easy to tweak the vulnerable structure to be: 10-11 pass, 12-14 1NT, 15-17 1♣ then rebid 1NT, 18-19 1♦ then rebid 1NT, if that would be better. The exact 1♣ and 1♦ openings will depend on how the NT issue gets settled, but if we assume for convenience that a 1NT opener ended up being non-varriable, 11-14 balanced with no good quality 4 card major, then they would be: 1♣ = 15+ points unbalanced with 5+ hearts, 15+ points unbalanced with 4+ clubs and no 5 card major, or balanced (15-17, 21-22, or 25-26) 1♦ = 15+ points unbalanced with 5+ spades, 15+ points unbalanced with 4+ diamonds and no 5 card major, or balanced (18-20, 23-24, or 27+) The 1NT opener would also affect the 1M bids slightly. They would, under the assumption of a 11-14 1NT, be: 1♥ = 9-14, 4+ hearts (unbalanced if 9-10, good quality suit if only 4) 1♠ = 9-14, 4+ spades (unbalanced if 9-10, good quality suit if only 4) The sole exception to the good quality suit rule would be that you still open 1H with 4-4 majors regardless of suit quality. *Edit: when 1♣ shows 4+ clubs, it could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape. Likewise 1♦ could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape.

A strong NT would open 1♣ or 1♦ to start with, denending on how strong the balanced hand is. Here would be the balanced hand structure with a varriable NT: Vulnerable: 10-12 pass, 13-15 open 1NT, 16-17 open 1♣ and rebid 1NT, 18-19 open 1♦ and rebid 1NT Non-Vulnerable: 10-13 open 1NT, 14-16 open 1♣ and rebid 1NT, 17-19 open 1♦ and rebid 1NT

OK. I was just currious how that worked. I always though of breaking a new suit as costing a fraction of a trick, not gaining a trick. I also find it easier to play declarer than defense, but that is probably a function of my limited experience level. I am convinced that, non-vulnerable, a very weak (10-12ish) NT is the best. Vulnerable, a stronger NT is preferable, from what I have read (and what you wrote in your post). The question, for me, is if it is worth it to play a "varriable NT" range, say 10-13 non-vunerable and 13-15 vulnerable, or if it is better to split the difference with a range like 11-14 that would lessen the memory work and risk of confusion. I am intrigued, also, by what hrothgar wrote about his version of the MOSCITO 1NT. Something like that may also be a solution, though I have to give the implications some more thought.

Very true. I am moving a bit away from the extreeme preemptive style because the responses that I am getting seem to say that it is unwise to be quite as preemptive as I was thinking. If it were merely a matter of style, I would go with the agressive option, but people seem to be telling me that it is not a matter of style, but that it will simply cost imps. Varriance I am ok with, but long term loss I am not. I go toward a 4 card major system to pair with a strong club sort of system. The basic reason that I want to open balanced 11-14 point hands with 1M when they have a 4 card major is that the ideal final contract is likely to be either 2M or 1N, and I want to give the oportunity to play in 2M if that is better.

So, after running the numbers on the preemptive bids, I found that although the probability of an 8 card fit is roughly 3/4, the probability of a 9 card fit is only about 1/3. In other words, the 2H bid is safe 75% of the time, and the 2S bid is safe roughly 50% of the time, but the other preempts are going to get you to a level higher than the Law of Total Tricks dictates 2/3 of the time... so they have to go. To relieve the pressure on the 1M bids, it seems wise to limit their point range to 9-14. Question for AWM concerning the 1NT bid. You mentioned to posability of going down 3 in 1NT when the opponents only have a partial. But if they take 9 tricks in NT defending, surely they can take 9 tricks in NT declaring, or am I missing something? Then again, pointwise it seems like 17 for us and 23 for them should leave us down 1-2 and them making a partial. Is it just in those situations where they would make game because of how the cards lay, but not have bid it? I am considering moving the 1NT opening to "11-14 balanced with no decent 4 card major" in response to AWM's concern. I think I would have to allow 1NT on a poor 4 card major to keep the frequency of 1NT reasonable. It would also help lessen some more of the pressure on the 1M bids. What do people think?

I appreciate the Fibonacci stuff, actually. In fact, my response structures will hopefully conform much better to that sort of patern than my opening structure. This is because, once one partner has opened and the other has shown the values necessary to respond, a competitive situation becomes a lot less likely. Likewise, once opener shows 15+ points, competition becomes a lot less likely. For my opening structure, I thought of it more in terms of blocks. There are 5 blocks of hands that I considered. 1. Strong hands that would benefit from more bidding space and had little to fear from competition. These were relegated to the 1m openings. 2. Hands that expect to be in competition at least through the 1 level, and have a major to compete in. These were given the 1M openings. 3. Hanads that expect competition through the 1 level, but can't compete in a major. These were given the 1N and 2m openings, in order to prevent the opponents from overcalling with 1M. 4. Hands that expect the opponents to be able to compete to the 2 level, and have a good shot at a fit. These were given the 2M, 2N, and 3m openings, so that the opponents can't overcall at the 2 level. 5. Hands that are such trash that they shouldn't even compete for the 1 level. These are passed. Each of these blocks was given a fairly flat distribution, since they were designed not with constructive bidding in mind, but with the expectation of competition. I am hoping that my response structures will follow a Fibonacci type structure. I have not yet run the numbers on that, but we will see how close i can manage to get the structure to the mathematical ideal. Before I do that, however, I am going to examine the 2 suited preempts in light of the Law of Total Tricks, as you suggested. If they fail that test, then I will have to find annother way to relieve the pressure on the 1M bids, perhaps making them 9-14 instead of 8-14.

The ideal way, mathematically, to structure a system depends on a number of factors. The most important of which is actually how often your oponents will bid or overcall with a cirtain bid. Thus it depends heavilly on what assumptions you are making about how your opponents will bid. For example, if you somehow knew that your left hand opponent was going to bid 1N, regardless of what you bid below that, and pass if you bid 1NT or higher (yes I realize that this would be a rediculous set of assumptions), then your ideal mathematical distribution of bids would be: Pass = 16.4% 1♣ = 16.4% 1♦ = 16.4% 1♥ = 16.4% 1♠ = 16.4% 1NT = 16.4% 2♣ = 0.8% 2♦ = 0.4% 2♥ = 0.2% etc. This assumes that your goal is the maximum transmition of information in the least space through symetric bidding (ie. both players "telling" what is in their hand rather than just 1 of the partners), without regard to whether or not you can actually make the contract. The bit about the LHO overcalling 1NT regardless of their hand is admittedly silly, but it hammers home the point that the "ideal" looks vastly different in competition. The Fibonnacci sequence that you mentioned is designed to be the ideal way that an uninterupted asymetric relay can transmit the most information in the least space. That is a fine way to structure a system when competition is unlikely, such as over a very strong opening bid, but I would suggest that it is a poor way to structure a set of openings when competitive bidding is likely (such as when the opener has less than 15 points). When competition is likely, the mathematical ideal is much more eavenly spread, as the above example illustrates, but more importantly the "ideal" takes a back seat to two other factors: 1. How likely are you to reach a reasonable contract? 2. How likely are you to prevent your opponents from reaching a reasonable contract? This is the essence of preemption. More important than the relative percentage of each bid is how well the bids function at accomplishing these two goals. This is why, as you mentioned, 1N is often "overloaded" when seen from a strictly constructive view. It is a bid that will usually yield a reasonable contract, while being high enough to make life a bit more difficult for the opponents if they want to compete, thus its being overloaded is not a problem. I personally think that opening 1♣ or 1♦ on less than about 13 points is ill advised. You are simply asking to compete in a minor while the opponents compete in a major. This is part of why I tend to favor a weak NT from a theoretical point of view. Incidentally, my least favorite bid from this perspective is a Precision style 1♦. It lets the opponents overcall in 1 of either major, in a point range where competitive auctions are very likely, while simultaneously telling your partner virtually nothing useful about your hand. I cringe at the thought!

Here are my notes on the system thus far. The document only covers the openings and the responses to the 1 level bids so far, but I have a lot more than that planned out obviously. Hopefully this will give some idea of the direction that the system is taking. MOSS Bidding System.pdf Straube: Here are the rough percentages for each opening bid (acurate to about 1/4 percent) Pass = 27% 1♣ = 7.5% (10.3% if you don't include Pass as a bid) 1♦ = 7% (9.6%) 1♥ = 13.5% (18.5%) 1♠ = 11.5% (15.6%) 1N = 5.7% (7.8%) 2♣ = 8% (11%) 2♦ = 8% (11%) 2♥ = 2.2% (3%) 2♠ = 2.2% (3%) 2N = 2.2% (3%) 3♣ = 2.2% (3%) 3♦ = 2.2% (3%) higher preempts = rare

The 14 point balanced hands are lumped into the 1♣ bid, as mentioned in the orriginal post. People seem hung up on the 2 artificial bids, so I mind as well list what I had in mind, though I was hoping for more imput on the weak and mid-range bids. The pair of artificial bids I had in mind are: 1♣ = 15+ unbalanced with either clubs or hearts, or varrious balanced ranges (14-16, 20-21, and 24-25) 1♦ = 15+ unbalanced with either diamonds or spades, or varrious balanced ranges (17-19, 22-23, and 26+) There were 3 advantages that I was hoping for: 1. Easy handling of strong 3 suited hands (opener indicates the top and bottom suit with their initial bid and then bids the middle suit with their re-bid, for instance 1♣-1♦-1♠ to indicate hearts clubs and spades, 1♣-1♦-2♦ to indicate clubs diamonds and hearts, etc) 2. Narrow ranges on strong balanced hands 3. Easy negative and double negative responses that don't risk wrong-siding (after 1♣, 1♦ would be 5-9, 1♠ would be 0-4, and anything else would be game forcing. Likewise, after 1♦, 1♥ would be 5-9, 2♣ would be 0-4, and anything else would be game forcing). This allows opener to sign off at a low level in the strong hand's best suit played from the right side.

Interesting. Is this an absolute issue or one relative to the other bids in the system? The three most common natural bidding structures will open 1♣ or 1♦ roughly 7-9 percent of the time each, depending on the exact structure used. 4 card major systems hover around 7% while 5 card major systems are around 9% (From Roy Hugh's "Building a Bidding System" page 117). Roughly 14.2% of hands are 15+ points, so when you add in the 14 point balanced hands with no 4 card major, this system will open 1♣ and 1♦ well over 7% of the time each. This is actually slightly more frequent than a natural 4 card major system, which open with these bids slightly less than 7% of the time each (again from Hugh's book). Now, these are less frequent in proportion to the other bids in this system, since it opens hands that a basic 4 card major system would pass. However, this is more a problem of overloading the other bids than it is of underutalizing the 1m bids (though that is a bit like saying that the fall dosn't kill you, just the sudden stop at the end...) This is the basic reason that I was concerned that my 8-14 range was too wide, even though it is a narrower range than a Standard American 1 level bid. Perhaps "too heavy" would be a better term than "too wide". The 1♥ opening, for instance, seems like it would be so frequent that it might cause problems. I tried to relieve some of this pressure on the 1M bids by incorperating the two suited preempts for every combination that includes a major, but I am worried that it might create more problems than it solves.

The vast majority of opening bids in a system are natural bids, even for most non-natural systems. In fact, the natural portion of the system is often considered the strength of a non-natural system, with the non-natural bids serving to limit the scope of the natural openings. In the system that I am considering, the strong hands (15+ points) are split between 1♣ and 1♦, while every other bid except 2N promises the suit opened (though sometimes a side suit as well). It is an agressive system, in that it opens all 10+ point hands and all unbalanced 8-9 point hands, and I am wondering if the openings are narrow enough to make that work or if they need to be changed. The general approach is majors first openings, with the goal of forcing the oponents to come in at the 2 level if they want to compete when opener has 8-14 points (with the exception of them overcalling 1♠ over a 1♥ opener, but there is not much that can be done there). 1♥ = 4+ hearts, 8-14 points, unbalanced if 8-9 points 1♠ = 4+ spades, 8-14 points, unbalanced if 8-9 points 1N = 10-13 points, balanced, no 4 card major 2♣ = 5+ clubs, unbalanced, 8-14 points, no 4 card major 2♦ = 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, 8-14 points, no 4 card major 2♥ = two suited in ♥ and ♠, 7-11 points 2♠ = two suited in ♣ and ♠, 7-11 points 2N = two suited in ♦ and ♠, 7-11 points 3♣ = two suited in ♣ and ♥, 7-11 points 3♦ = two suited in ♦ and ♥, 7-11 points As opener, starting with a major and then bidding a second suit (that isn't a raise of partner) shows 12-14 points and a 2 suited hand (or else you would have opened with one of the preempts). Another thing that I am nervous about, in addition to the width of the 8-14 point openers, with this layout is that it often forces partner to choose at the 3 level between 2 suits when opener might be as little as 5-4 in those suits, giving no indication as to which of the suits is 5 and which might be 4. The gains through preemption and the refinement that this brings to the 1M rebids might not be worth the risk of a down 4 board. The 2♥ preempt should be fine, I think, and even the 2♠ should have some value, but above that I am concerned... what are people's thoughts? By the way, if people are currious about the 14 point balanced hands, they are handled in the 1♣ opening when they don't contain a 4 card major. Thanks in advance for your imput.

Would it make it more playable to have it mean 10-14 balanced with no 4 card major, to avoid missing a 4-4 fit?

I am currious about a wide ranging weak NT when non-vulnerable. Specifically, I am considering opening 1NT with 10-14 balanced when non-vulnerable and a more typical 12-14 balanced when vulnerable. What are the implications of such a system. Obviously the frequency would be very high, as would the preemptive value, and the cost would be in accuracy, but are the followups workable? Most systems are tied to a 3 point range, which makes me think that a wider range must have severe drawbacks that I'm not seeing.

Is it a problem at all that this alerts the opponents to the fact that they have at least a 9 card fit in that major? after 1♦-1NT-2♥ for instance, partner has at most 3 hearts, and I have at most 1... seems like it suggests a sacrifice for the opponents.

Am I totally insane for considering 2♥ on the first hand? Partner will have to interpret it as a weak jump overcall, in fact so weak that it couldn't open 2♥, so he won't go crazy. I would rate it as way beter than 50% that we have an 8+ heart fit, making it a good sacrifice if the opponents double for penalty, and taking up the most room possible if they decide to bid on. It might push them into a 4-4 spade fit, if one of them is willing to bid a 4 card suit at the 2 level, but if I pass they will find that anyways with more room to explore the best level for the contract. If the opponents have a major fit, it is 4-4 in spades, so bidding 1♥ dosn't interfere with them all that much and probably helps them play it if/when they do find the fit. Otherwise they will end up in NT, and again 1♥ helps them play it, while 2♥ at least makes it more difficult for them to find the best contract.

I have, for the moment, given up on this opening system. It poses too many problems for me to handle at this stage, and seems more complicated than it's worth. I still am interested in the concept of using both 1♣ and 1♦ as different artificial openings, and I do think that it would pair best with 4 card majors and something like the 2m bids presented here, but how to best use that pair of artificial bids is beyond me for the time being. Thank you all for your input. It saved me a lot of time in coming to this conclusion. The time spent here has not been a waste for me, by the way. I usually play a prety simple version of 2/1, since that is what most everyone knows. I may try to incorperate some of what I learned here into that system. The Fanturnes 2 bids continue to fascinate me for their constructive value, and I find I am liking a weak NT more and more. It would be prety easy to tack these on to a 2/1 system, passing the 9-13 club preempts to make room for the strong 2♣, resulting in Roth-Stone sorts of 1 bids. This really dosn't belong in a "Non-natural systems" discussion board, however, so I will refrain from posting a detailed write up. Thanks again to all who contributed.