MickyB

I'm quite convinced that it is right to run immediately, and once you have done there seems no reason to not bid 2♥ as 4-4 majors. It was pointed out that now when you have 5♥4♠ partner will have to correct to ♠ holding 2♥3♠, but this is rare in comparison, and 4-3 fits aren't anything to be afraid of. If you pass, then X is clearly penalties, and it is easier for them to punish you once they have got one double in. If they do not double back in, then you will be left to flounder in 1NT when 2M on a likely 4-4 fit would have been more successful. If, on the other hand, you bid Stayman, then it is harder to punish you, even if they have the agreement that X shows a hand that would have doubled 1NT. This is because if they have agreed that the double promises clubs, there are many hands with which they cannot double - and if they have not agreed that, then after 1NT-P-2C-X, P-? your RHO is often on a complete guess as to where the clubs are. This is assuming your opps have an agreement at all!

It is played a lot in the UK, but it is an *awful* bid. A strong 2♣ has used up enough room already, you would be amazed how useful that extra step is.I think most pairs around here just use 2♥ negative, others positive, similar to over a strong 2♣ opener. Just a thought - maybe some sort of reverse Kokish would work... 2♥: Bal or negative 2♠: ♥ +ve 2NT: ♠ +ve After 2♦:2♥, 2♠ asks more, then bids to show 5 card suits, bal +ve and bal -ve. Sorry if this is complete rubbish, it's too late to be writing stuff like this!

Hey Luis, The forum archives have distracted me from an all-night cramming session on Differential Equations! Your system caught my eye, it is very similar to what I'm hoping to play with my new partner (partly as a stepping stone for me from natural-ish systems to Moscito). Has this worked out ok for you? What did you settle on finally? My current plan is this... 1♣: 16+any, 1D negative, transfer positives with symmetric relays. We are planning on skipping the 1C:1D, 1H relays and the more complex semi-positives relay structure for now due to memory load. Also, while the 1C:1D art GF with transfer semi-positives scheme is vital for a 15+ club, I should imagine it is less of an improvement opposite a 16+ club? The problem of reaching bal 16 opp 8 games - firstly, I have no objection to a 24 point 3NT, but that may be partly being used to partnering an excellent declarer. Secondly, my main concern is not facing a bal 16, but facing a misfitting 16, which a higher NT range won't solve. 1♦: 11-15 4+cards. We really wanted a natural 1♦ opener, so that forced us into a 12-15 NT. 4441s and hands with 5C4D have to be opened 1♦, which would work out at about 25% of all 1D openers, I believe, if no other hands were included other than unbal primary diamonds. This is really too much to consider it as a 5 card opener, so I decided we may as well open 1♦ on 11-13 bal with 4-5♦s. 1♥/1♠: 2/1 GF, so needs to be fairly sound to make use of the structure - 11-15 points. 1NT: 12-15, with some pressure taken off by opening 1♦ 11-13 bal with 4♦s. Keri in response to allow us to invite and still play 2♥/2♠. I'm considering a slight modification to allow us to play 3♣ after a declined invite, without emphasising the clubs when inviting - If partner declines he won't have 4♦s, so he will have 3+♣s unless exactly 4-4-3-2. 2♣: 5♣4major or 6+♣. 2♦: Multi (either just a weak 2 in either major, or weak or strong in either major, haven't decided which). 2♥/♠: Dutch, 5major4minor. This way, any good 6-10 with a 5 card major can open if desired, releasing the pressure on the 1major openers. The exception is major 2 suiters, they will have to open a little lighter hoping for a fit, or pass and come in later. 2NT: Preempt, 6+ minor not suitable for 3♦. Again could be made wk or strong. 3♣: Preempt, 5-5 minors. 3♦: 7-10, 6+♦s, two top honours.

A few people have been saying they have a slight preference for Zar over TSP, I'd just like to register my strong support for TSP! What I have seen of Tysen's research has impressed me greatly, keep up the good work :rolleyes:

Yes, but the original poster was suggesting a 2♥ opener being any unbal hand with 5 hearts...could be 4-5-2-2 or 0-5-5-4. I assumed from your comment that you felt this style was sounder than assumed fit preempts, but looking back you were just talking about unbalanced hands in general!

Why do you think opening all unbal 8-12s at the 2 level is sounder than assumed fit styles? Seems you still get all the problems - with a singleton in partner's suit, you will usually be playing a 5-1 if you pass, but if you bid you could be playing a 6-1 at the 3 level. Often whether you should be in game or not depends on whether partner's 2nd suit fits your hand well - but to find that out, you may have to go past the par contract for the hand. Take the Precision 2♣ (5♣4major or 6♣) - even though you have more space over 2♣ than any other 2 bid, and opener denies 5♣4♦ or a 5-5, it is still considered the weak point of any system that it appears in.

Ooooh yes, I completely forgot about scoring...although I've probably suggested playing enough systems already ;) Thanks for the replies. I realise that actually playing that many systems isn't a good idea (well, not good for results anyway)! I was more interested in the theory, and possibly, as Ron suggested, picking 2 different systems to play. I was also interested to see if anyone would agree with my statement that multi-clubs are unsound except in first seat, but no-one has yet done so, guess I'll just experiment next time I get a few boards against some WJ opps :D Cheers everyone!

The big downside of this system is the 2 bids. You will frequently preempt yourself out of a partscore or game, and occasionally go for a number against nothing. Unless the response structure can cope with it, 1 bids shouldn't be 100% forcing, much more likely partner has some extras and will overbid than him holding game in hand. My suggestion would be: 1♣ 15+♣s, bal, or any GF 1♦ 12+ 4+suit (4441 or 4D5C) 2♣ Precision style (6♣ or 5♣4major, 11-14) 2♦ Multi 2♥/2♠ Lucas, 5M4other. The 1♣ opener is similar to Millennium Club, there is a summary on Daniel Neill's page: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/index.html You can mess around with different minimum opening strengths, moving the ranges for the multi/lucas 2s up and down.

Peter, IMO opening 5M422s 1NT is horrible, you will miss so many fits. How about playing 2D as a multi and 2H and 2S as Lucas, both fairly constructive, then your 1M openers will be sounder and you can make lighter 2/1 responses, which will improve your bidding accuracy greatly. Also you say the mini isn't great vul, why not bring it in half a point when vul then? Maybe bad 11-14 NV, good 11-14 vul.

Isn't Swine by responder after a direct seat double? Luke Warm is referring to running from your own 1NT on the auction 1N-P-P-X, ?, which I think is clearly wrong, my 'XX=5 card suit' method lets us still punish the opps if they shouldn't have stepped into the auction. If, however, opps play that pass over our runout is now forcing, it may be worth taking advantage of that by letting opener bid!

Indeed, rescuing yourself from a double isn't an option. However, using opener's XX to show a 5 card suit, either after a direct or protective double, works quite nicely - responder can now pass with a strong hand that was happy to play 1NT X, or bid 2♣ as pass or correct for opener's suit with a weak hand. Mike

http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/bridge/iDeal/bin/ddeval.cgi

I'm not sure if I'm putting this in the right place, but... According to the website, the ACBL 'Win a Star' tourney will let the top 5 finishers play with a star in the tourney at 1pm Monday. Is it intended that the prize be for an *individual* tourney? Do you only get 2 boards with the star? If so, why don't the top 6 from the 'Win a Star' get a round each with him or her?

Claus, all 12-14 bals open 1NT in Acol. A 1♥ or 1♠ opening shows either an unbalanced hand, or 15+bal. Otherwise you have no rebid after a 2/1 response. A lot of people will even open 1NT with 5♥332.

I think people are overdoing their re-evaluation of this hand. 4333 isn't as big a flaw as it is made out to be, Thomas Andrew's evaluator says Ax QTx QJ98 Q8xx is only 0.02 tricks better at NT than the original hand, although admittedly it is a fair bit better for suitplay (0.27 tricks). It also indicates that both these are a lot better in NT than Ron's suggestion of Ax xxx KJTxx Qxx. I believe K+R is suit orientated, which means it probably isn't the best guide for NT openings. To me, this hand is clearly somewhere between 10 and 11 points, hence is a marginal opener for a 11-14 NT, but a clear pass for 11+-14. Free - I strongly disagree that all bal 11s should be opened playing an 11-14 NT. A lot of 10s will be stronger than the weakest of 11s, and if you open these too you are not playing an 11-14 NT.

This is reposted from rgb. Since writing this I have gone off the idea of a strong club in 3rd or 4th seat because the benefits of limited openings are greatly reduced, and it impacts the ability to make a lead directing bid in either minor. At least I worked out not to suggest a forcing pass in 3rd seat before I posted it! :unsure: The Hog has replied on rgb saying: 'I would not worry too much about vulnerability, but there is something to be said for playing Moscito in 1st and 2nd seats and say Standard in 3rd and 4th.' Here's the original post: I have been considering which systems are most suitable in different seats and at different vuls. This is entirely theoretical, at least until I have practised all the systems thoroughly and have found a partner as insane as I am! Any additions, comments or criticisms? :D 1st seat Favourable vul - you have quite a lot of reason to be preemptive (two opps and only one partner to preempt). This favours Weak Opening Systems, Mini NTs, loose preempts. MOSCITO, or even better, a similar forcing pass system, would be ideal. Unfavourable - The opps can now interfere aggressively over a strong bid, destroying our constructive bidding, so a multi-club would seem to be best. A two-way pass is ruled out by the fert bid being more risky for less gain. Preempts are also riskier for less gain, so are now primarily used to show hands that are close to opening (6/7-10 or so). Multi+Lucas would help resist the temptation to open 1M light, particularly useful for playing 2/1 GF. What would you choose for both vul and neither vul? 2nd seat 3rd seat is often well placed to preempt now, as partner has limited his strength, so a lot of hands he now knows that his side will not have game. For this reason, it is important to be as descriptive as possible in one bid. A multi-club system is particularly vulnerable to this interference, the ambiguity of the multi-club backfiring, making it completely unsound here IMO. There is also less reason to be pre-emptive. Maybe MOSCITO/forcing pass at green vul with either strong NT+5 card majors or Nightmare (1C 15+bal or clubs, or any GF, weak NT, Precision 2C opener) at other vuls - I believe the latter should handle interference a lot better than a regular strong club? Constructive multi+lucas as in 1st unfavourable. 3rd+4th seat 4 card majors, strongish NT (something like 14-16 assuming you open bal 12s but not bal 11s in 1st+2nd), possibly with a strong club+relays at green vul would seem reasonable. 4 card suits let you make lead directing bids (particularly when 1C is also natural), and lets you open a suit and pass partner's response on weak NTs - should a 2/1 require a 5 card suit for this reason? I have Mike Lawrence's Passed Hand Bidding on order! :) Hope someone out there found this interesting!

The most important thing is playing strength in NT, so I start off by using the fifths count, and adjust from there. The fifths count is 4.0 - 2.8 - 1.8 - 1.0 - 0.4, so that is 10.8 on this hand. On the upside, there are some useful spots, on the downside honours are split, so I don't think this quite makes an average 11. If the hand was marginal then I would look at playing strength in the majors as well - with 4333 and three queens, that isn't great either. A clear pass.

comparing everything is something you cant do, its too compilcated, its better to see how you get from system A to system B, what you give up on the way and what you get back for it, since polish club has many versions you can choose that you like one thing about it and doesnt like something else, you dont have to take all the components of the system. comparing this way is much better imo. example system A : 1c= 2+c , 1d = 4+d (normal 2/1 system) system B : the same as system A but moving all the balance hands with 4 diamonds into the 1c bid, as 1c now may be short in club you make it a forcing bid. (this system is strefa which the_hog plays) system B has A better 1d then system A but worse 1C, you see what you get and what you lose and decide if you like it or not, in other words you compare this component. I agree it can be complex comparing a lot of aspects of a system, that is why I chose variants of Precision and Polish Club that were as close as possible. Having done that, I had to compare all the differences that still existed. One point - you shouldn't compare by bids, you should compare by hand types. In the case of Strefa, you do better on unbal hands with ♦, worse on unbal hands with ♣, and on the bal hands that you have moved you lose the knowledge of knowing that the hand probably hand 3♣s or definitely had 4♦s, but you gain an extra step in the bidding on the hands with 4♦.

An inferior version? :D Sorry, I disagree! I think a 12-15 NT is a worthwhile sacrifice to make the 1♦ opener actually show something. What would be nice would be if I could work out a decent response structure to 1♦ being any 5+minor unbal, then I can make my 2♣ opener show something funny and weak! Any suggestions? What are the continuations after PC 1♥ relay? Cheers

Reposted from RGB: Cheers Tysen, very interesting. Two points - firstly, after all that, your comparison shows little difference between TSP and BUMRAP+531. Any ideas why this is? Could it be that giving the ten a small value is significant enough to match all the other changes you suggest? Secondly, you seem to have gone down the Zar route of suggesting opening a lot of hands with a couple of top honours and a bit of distribution. I am convinced this approach is wrong. Say you are dealt Axxxx Axxxx xxx void. Sure, your hand is great if you find a fit, and there is more likely to be one than not. But if you pass on the first round, you can come in on the second round and still reach your major game. If you open the hand and there is a misfit, you are likely to get far too high and you won't be able to do anything, as the shape and the top honours are worth far less in no trump. Even so, Axxxx Axxxx xxx void is close to an opening bid for me. What I cannot understand is the suggestion that void xxx Axxxx Axxxx should also be opened. When you open a minor suit, you are primarily showing strength for playing in 3NT, so why show that when you don't have it?

Thanks everyone. Free - I think MesSer is right, we managed to create an inferior version of Moscito! Wayne - cheers, that was what I wanted to hear! Have your results when you opened it been reasonable? A couple of people had suggested to me that the ambiguity would hurt us much more seriously than it would hurt the opps. My latest line of thinking, incase anyone is interested - not likely, I know! - is this: 1♣ any 16+ 1♦ any unbal hand with a 5 card minor except club single suiters 1♥,1♠ 5 card majors 1NT 12-15 2♣ Club single suiter Responses to 1♦: 1♥,1♠ natural 4 card 1NT INV+, opener bids 2m with min or something else with max Minor bids - pass or correct. After 1♦:1♥, 1♠ = both minors, 1NT then asks for the longer 1NT = 5D4S or 6D, 2C then asks 2♣ = 5C4S 2♦ = good raise After 1♦:1♠, 1NT = 5D4H/4C 2♣ = 5C4D/4H 2♦ = 6D 2♥ = good raise

Is it playable to open all 11-15s with 4 card majors 1M? Most variants of MOSCITO seem to avoid this, either using transfer openings for the extra step or removing hands from the 1M openers to other bids (eg 2♣ with both majors). And yes, all club bids being pass or correct is quite nice!

That's quite interesting...like Matchpoint Precision, only backwards (and probably better on frequency and other stuff). Do you have any more info?

Correct except on your last point, 2♣ and 2♦ openers would promise a single suiter. With a long minor and 4 hearts 1♦ would still be opened.

Sorry, coming in a bit late on this one. Oh yes, a warning: my experience of actually playing these systems is very limited... I have recently come round to the idea that Polish Club isn't greatly superior to Precision, if at all. To compare the two systems, it is probably best to compare variations with a lot in common. So, for PC I will work on 12-14 bal with 4♦s being opened 1♦, and for Precision I shall use a 4 card diamond suit (1♦:1major, 1NT showing 11-13), a 12-15 NT, and no Precision 2D opener. [Firstly, a hobby horse...I don't think Precision 2♦ should ever be used. If you are that keen on having an opening bid for these hands then open them 2♥, this puts a lot more pressure on the opps and frees up the very useful 2♦ opening]. Precision gains on the hands that are opened 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ in both systems, because they are much more limited. Precision also gains when 1♣ is opened, assuming there is no interference (a big assumption I know). Relays should be used to maximise the gains. My suggested wide-ranging 1NT opener isn't great, but with the use of Keri, and a small modification allowing you to play 3C when responder has 5 opposite a minimum (which then must deny 4 diamonds) will minimise this loss. I'm not sure how well PC handles weak NTs and 4441s in an uncontested auction, and as I am in the middle of exam period :P I don't really have time to check at the moment! I'd be surprised if 4441s are dealt with well. Personally, I have no problem with opening 4-4-1-4s 1NT at IMPs, as long as they are towards the bottom of the range for 1NT. Right, now onto the big issue of interference over 1♣ openers. Yes, a Precision 1♣ does ask for preemption more than PC, as 2nd seat cannot be sure whose hand it is when a PC is opened. But if he does interfere, responder doesn't have the guarantee that partner is strong, which makes things a lot harder for the PC pair. Now change the above slightly. Let us have a pass on your right, followed by your opening a multi-club on your huge hand. RHO can cause you far more problems than he ever could over a strong club, because your partner cannot rely on your having strength. The ambiguous nature of the Polish Club has rebounded on its users. Surely this problem is so severe as to make multi-clubs totally unsound except in 1st seat?