nullve

In all the examples considered so far, T' has been some ok-looking structure like * strong 1C * 16-18 1NT + 19-20 2NT * Multi 2D + Roman 2M. But what prevents T -> T' from being a sacrifice more of the aztec kind*, where we'd expect T', but not T, to lead to significant loss or even disaster when used? * by thinking of the hands involved as people

@Kungsgeten: Assuming S' is better than S in both your examples, the first looks like a perfect example a utilitarian sacrifice; but the second like a non-example, because although S is clearly better than S' on hands suitable for T, it is also worse on hands suitable for T'.

Or playing standard preempts because noone should be forced to face unfamiliar methods.

If you start with 2/1, then you might get something close to Precision by replacing 2/1's 1C opening with Precision's and then making the obvious updates (whatever that means). So if it's true that Precision is the better system, although worse on hands suitable for a 1C opening in either system, then, yes, Precision's 1C opening (or, more pedantically, the replacement 1C(2/1) -> 1C(Precision)) might be viewed as a utilitarian sacrifice wrt 2/1. This is exactly the kind of reasoning I'm interested in.

Agree. The problem is that you will open 1N a lot, so if the weak NT V is bad when you open it, you may not be able to weigh up for that elsewhere. In other words, it's not clear that replacing the strong NT V with a weak one is what I (tentatively) call a "utilitarian sacrifice" in this thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/73631-utiltitarian-sacrifices-in-bidding/

I have a name for this: Rubegoldbergcontraptionsohl

No, it's essential that S is better than S' on those hands. But you just made me realise I should have written 'S is better than S' on hands suitable for T or T'' instead of the clumsy and ultimately ambiguous 'S is better than S' when restricted to deals suitable for T or T'', now edited. When I wrote 'S' is the structure whe get by replacing the substructure T of S with the structure T' and making the obvious updates (pretending that makes sense)', the main idea was that after replacing T with T', we would at least have to make the necessary changes to the non-T' parts of S to fill the holes created. E.g. if S = 2/1 T = 15-17 NT T' = 12-14 NT, then we would have to fill a few holes after the replacement T -> T' just to have a way of bidding hands suitable for T. But even when S = 2/1 T = Weak 2♦ T' = Flannery 2♦, in which case the replacement T -> T' doesn't create any holes at all, the non-T' parts of S will still be automatically be affected, because e.g. * by not having Weak 2♦ available, more hands will have to be passed or opened 3♦ * 1♥-1N, 2♣ will now promise 3+ C. In addition to this, there are of course many changes it would make sense to make, e.g. 1♥-1♠ = 5+ S, but I wasn't really thinking of those. I'm interested in whether/how bad-looking conventions/substructures can be justified.

Consider this quote from http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/in-the-well-brad-moss-3/: With S = normal system like 2/1 T = Weak 2D (say) T' = Flannery 2D, Moss seems to think that * S is better than S' on hands suitable for T (I can't imagine he thinks Pass is better) * S is better than S' on hands suitable for T' (because the Flannery 2D opening itself is just "ok") * S' is better than S (otherwise he wouldn't "bite the bullet" and play Flannery?), so for him, at least, the replacement Weak 2D -> Flannery 2D may be a utilitarian sacrifice in my sense. Typical Flannery proponents, on the other hand, would say that S is actually worse than S' on hands suitable for T' (because Flannery makes otherwise unbiddable hands biddable), so, for them, Weak 2D -> Flannery 2D would not be a utilitarian sacrifice in my sense, but maybe still an incremental improvement in your sense.

Suppose * S is a bidding structure (system, convention, treatment...) * S' is the structure whe get by replacing the substructure T of S with the structure T' and making the obvious updates (pretending that makes sense) Then say that the replacement of T by T', which I'll denote by 'T -> T'', is a 'utilitarian sacrifice' with respect to S if * S is better than S' on hands suitable for T or T' (i.e. T -> T' is a "sacrifice") * S' is at least as good as S (i.e. T -> T' is "for the commmon good") Are there good examples of utilitarian sacrifices in this sense? To give you a better idea what I'm talking about, suppose S = 2/1 T = WJS T'= RFR Then, just arguably, * S is better than S' on hands suitable for T (true, IMO) * S is better than S' on hands suitable for T'(debatable, although 1m-2♠ as inv RFR is horrible when used, IMO), * S' is at least as good as S (that's what RFR proponents believe, anyway) in which case WJS -> RFR would be a utilitarian sacrifice with respect to standard 2/1.

There could easily be as a few as 19 total trumps, but I expect the void alone to contribute one total trick. So I'd assume at least 20 total tricks and bid 5♠ accordingly.

1. Yes. But by putting all balanced ranges outside the 1N or strong openings in the 1♣ opening, the ripple effects from switching 1N ranges will be greatly reduced.(Obviously, only the 1♣ and 1N openings will be affected, and we already know that the 1N system doesn't have to change much, if at all.) 2. I'm actually assuming that the 11-13 (14-16) NT "system" is inferior V (NV), because that's equivalent to the 11-13 (14-16) NT "system" being superior NV (V). I suppose that's true at IMPs, and I'd really want that to be true at MPs (my favourite form of scoring) as well, but my experience (also purely anecdotal, alas) suggests there will be too frequent -200s (kisses of death) for 11-13 NT to be the best choice V. My impression is that Bocchi-Madala have a fairly conservative, rule of 20-ish, opening style, into which the 12-14 and 15-17 NT ranges fit very well. And I know from my own system (where Rule of 19 + 11-13/14-16 NT replaces Rule of 20 + 12-14/15-17 NT) that it's possible to switch rather seemlessly between NT ranges like that in uncontested auctions, and that range issues are more likely to crop up in contested auctions like 1♣-(P)-1♥-(2♦), where it's not obviously right to play e.g. X or 2♠ the same way when 1♣ is nat. or 12-14 bal as when it is nat. or 15-17 bal. Switching to a 10-13 (or 10-12) NT range is bound to cause serious range issues, though. E.g. 1♣-1y; 1N as 14-17 (if that's what they play) is inherently bad because of the 4-point range, so the question more naturally arises whether they gain more than they lose by making the switch. And, yes, that must be hard to measure.

It's easy for someone already playing bridge to say that vulnerability makes the game (even) more interesting. But vulnerability is also one of the peculiarities of bridge scoring that might be off-putting to someone considering to take up the game. And why just 4 different vulnerabilities, anyway? To keep the game simple, but not too simple? It seems like a good idea to teach vulnerability-free bridge first, but maybe that's what bridge teachers already do?

Suggestion with with your 11-19 range interpreted as rules of 20-28: 1♦-1♠ = 4+ S, excluding RFR hands 1♦-1♠; ?: (Using MIN := rules of 20-22 MED := rules of 23-25 MAX := rules of 26-28) 1N = MIN, 2- S / MED, 04(54), 13(54), 1444 or 1453 [one idea: MED hands are not too unbal. if Responder chooses to pass] ...P = 5-S3-D, < inv ...2♣ = pref. opposite MIN, 4+D4+C, GF opposite MED ......P = MIN, 4+ C ......2♦ = MIN, 6+D3-C ......2♥ = MIN, 1453 ......2♠+ = MED, nat. ...2♦ = pref. opposite MIN, 4+D4+C, GF opposite MED ......P = MIN ......2♥/2N+ = MED, nat. ......2♠ = MED, 4+ C ...2♥ = inv, 6+ S / any GF ......2♠ = MIN ......2N+ = MED, nat. ...2♠ = 6+ S, weak ...(...) 2♣ = Gazzilli: 3 S / MAX, any ...2♦ = 7+, relay (GF opposite MAX) ......2♥ = MED, 3 S ......2♠ = MIN, 3 S ......2N+ = MAX (nat.? relay structure?) ...2♥ = 4-6, 5- S [Alternatively, if 4-6, 6+ S is not possible: 4-6, 5-S3H (allows Opener to pass w/ MAX, 2-S4H)] ......2♠ = 3 S [27 Feb 2017: How to reach game with MAX, 3 S opposite 4-6, 5 S?] ......2N = MAX, 2-S5D4-C ......3♣ = MAX, 2-S4-H5+ C ......3♦ = MAX, 2-S4-H6+D3-C ......3♥ = MAX, 5H6+D ......3♠ = MAX, 4 S ......(...) ...2♠ = 4-6, 6+ S [Alternatively, if 4-6, 6+ S is not possible: 4-6, 5-S2-H] ...(...) 2♦ = MED, 2-S6+D4-C 2♥ = MED, 4+ S [Alternatively: MED, either 4+ S or 5+D5+C] 2♠ = MIN, 4+ S 2N = MED, 5+D5+C [Alternatively: freed up] 3♣+ = freed up There's probably a hole somewhere [27 Feb 2017: I've found one - see above.], as I came up with this today.

Variable NT ranges are not a new idea. I played 1N as 10-12/12-14/15-17 depending on vulnerability almost 30 years ago, and I remember the idea had already been around for a while. I now play 1N as 11-13 in 1st/2nd NV and 14-16 otherwise. According to this CC, http://info.ecatsbridge.com/Systems/2013worldteamchampionships-bali/bermudabowl/italy/madala-bocchi.pdf, 1♥-1♠/N; 2♣ = 11-15, 5H4C [meaning 5+H4+C?] or 16+, any 1♠-1N; 2♣ = 11-15, 6 S [meaning 6+ S?] or 16+, any 1♠-1N; 2♠ = 11-15, 5S4C [meaning 5+S4+C?] But maybe they treat 5M(332) outside the 10-13/12-14 1N range as either 5M4C (with 5M3C(32))) or 5M4D (with 5M2C33) . No, opening 1♣ (nat. or bal.) with 5M(332) works just fine.

While I can see the point of using RFR over a Precision 1♦ opening, I don't think it's necessary over a natural, unbalanced 1♦ opening, where one can play 1♦-?: 1♥ = 4+ H, including all RFR-type hands / ? 1♠ = 4+ S, excluding all RFR-type hands, and make use of the fact that in the standard scheme of rebids over 1♦-1♥, the 1♠ and 1N rebids are much underused while the 2♣ and 2♦ rebids are rather overused. There are of course myriad ways of doing that, but one "natural" way (not involving e.g. transfers or Gazzilli) is to use a "prepared" 1♠ rebid (a la Nightmare), showing 4+ S or 11-15 with 31(54), to make the 2♣ rebid more manageable*. Of course, RFR-type hands may still be tricky to bid after 1♦-1♥; 2♦. But because your 1♦ opening is always unbalanced, the 1N rebid is now virtually freed up and can therefore be used to offload, or even replace, the 2♦ rebid on minimum hands with 6+ D. * E.g. have a look at http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/70070-a-nebulous-diamond-structure/, where straube does something similar in a nebulous diamond context.

There's more to bidding than right-siding 3N, and a 1N overcall works well in practice, in my experience.

Maybe (1♣)-(1M-1)-?: X = takeout of M 1M = shape for 2♣+, but too strong ...1N = F1 relay ......2♣+ = same as 2♣+ directly in terms of shape ...new suit = P/C 1♠(M=♥) = standard overcall 1N = 15-17 bal. 2♣+ = "standard", but like a WJO in terms of strength. Maybe also (1♣)-(1♠)-?: X = shape for 2♣+, but too strong ...1N = F1 relay ......2♣+ = same as 2♣+ directly in terms of shape ...new suit = P/C 1N = 15-17 bal. 2♣+ = "standard", but like a WJO in terms of strength, sacrificing the immediate takeout double.

I've built my entire system around avoiding invitational 2N bids, so naturally I'm not a fan of this. But maybe you can incorporate balanced invitational hands without a major into the 1N response instead?

True. That 2N opening was not part of Belladonna's 1986 update. The forcing 1-openings were also part of Roman Club. A Gazzilli-like relay (2♣) over 1♥-1♠ was was also part of Belladonna's 1986 update.

The Pattern System looks extremely similar to Roman Club.

I'm sure you've noticed, but the seemingly growing number of pairs who play something like 2♣ = 20-21 bal. or GF (=> 2M = to play opposite 20-21 bal. (= bright idea #1)) 2N = 22-24 bal., the idea (= bright idea #2, enabled by bright idea #1) being that 2♣-2♦; 2N-[3M-1]; ?: / 2N-[3M-1]; ?: 3M = M fit (=> 4m = cue) 3N = no M fit (=> 4m = nat.), have already renounced the ability to stop in 3M (on a dime). So the next logical step for these pairs might be to consider why they play Jacoby transfers over 2N at all instead of something else (e.g. your scheme, if successful) that could save them some precious space overall.

Agree.

Are you sure? Here are 4 bids that could be used: * 5♥ preceded by 4N (Unusual) * 5♠ preceded by 4N (Unusual) * 5♥ directly * 5♠ directly But I think it's sufficient to play 1♠-(4♥)-?: (...) 4N = Unusual ...5m = pref. opposite a minor 2-suiter ......(...) ......5♠ = slam invitation in S, no H control (=> P = min or no H control; 5N+ = number of KC w/ extras and H control?) ......(...) ...(...) 5♥ = slam try w/ S support and H control (=> 5♠ = min; 5N+ = number of KC with extras?) 5♠ = Lackwood-like, with responses similar to those I mentioned in this thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72991-diamond-control/ (...) As for the consensus: I've learned the hard way that there isn't any.

15 years ago I played the following transfer rebid structure in a "nat. or 11-13/17-18 bal." 1♣ context: 1♣-1[M-1]; ?: 1♥ = "4+ S" 1♠ = "5+ C" (catchall) 1N = 11-13 bal., 2-3 M 2♣ = D reverse 2♦(M=♠) = H reverse 2M-1 = min, unbal. 3c raise / 11-13, 4M333 / "16-18", 3 M, 1-suited / 17-18 bal., 3+ M 2M = min, 4c raise, not 4M333 2♠(M=♥)/3♣+ inv+ unbal. raise structure 2N = 17-18 bal., 2 M which in a "nat. or 15-19 bal." 1♣ context it makes sense to change to 1♣-1[M-1]; ?: 1♥ = "4+ S" 1♠ = "5+ C" (catchall) 1N = 15-17 bal., 2-3 M 2♣ = D reverse 2♦(M=♠) = H reverse 2M-1 = min, unbal. raise / "16-18", 3 M, 1-suited / 18-19 bal., 4 M 2M = 15-17 bal., 4 M [right-siding 2M as often as possible] 2♠(M=♥)/3♣+ = inv+ unbal. raise structure 2N = 18-19 bal., 2 M After a [2M-2]/2N "switch" much like the obvious 2♦/2N switch I mentioned earlier: 1♣-1[M-1]; ?: 1♥ = "4+ S" 1♠ = "5+ C" (catchall) 1N = 15-17 bal., 2-3 M 2♣(M=♠) = D reverse 2M-2 = "18-19 bal.", 2-3 M (but possibly including 4[M-1]5C22 or 3M4[M-1]5C) 2M-1 = min, unbal. raise / "16-18", 3 M, 1-suited / 18-19 bal., 4 M 2M = 15-17 bal., 4 M 2♠(M=♥)/3♣+ = inv+ unbal. raise structure 2N = M-1 reverse, 2- M (but possibly excluding 4 or 3M4[M-1]5C) Finally, by deciding that it's more economical overall to rebid 2♣ over 1♣-1♥ also with a H reverse, we get: 1♣-1♥; ?: 1♠ = "5+ C" (catchall) 1N = 15-17 bal., 2-3 M 2♣ = D or H reverse 2♦ = "18-19 bal.", 2-3 M 2♥ = min, unbal. raise / "16-18, 3 S, 1-suited (/ 18-19 bal., 4 S?) 2♠ = 15-17 bal., 4 S 2N = ? (18-19 bal., 4 S?) (...), which seems very close to what straube suggested, although it has (even) less to do with Gazzilli.