pbleighton

What, in your opinion, is the best response structure for the 2m response of inverted minors. Parameters are: 1) Forcing for one round, not to game 2) No 4 card major 3) 2C guarantees 5+ cards, 2D is 5+ or 4D5C 4) 1C may be 2 cards, 1D is 5+ or 4-4-1-4 Peter

"This is also allowed on these low-level championships over here... " Lucky you ;)

Ron: I haven't been able to get the Matula book. I'm sure you're right, and I should have specified "what PC" as it seems to have as many variants as "5cM, standardish" Antoine writes "Why not open the bad six-card diamond preempts with 2♣, Dutch-like, just to keep your opponents from disrupting your opening?" Interesting idea, but not GCC legal ;) Peter

Mikestar writes "Aside from the question of the 19+ 2C, I'd like to hear more about your system, especially the 1C sequences. Are you using any Polish elements in you 1C structure?" Our responses to 1C are somewhat like Polish Club, though not identical, and the opener's rebids are of course much different, because our 1C doesn't have all 19+ hands in it. Responses are: 1D - 1) <6 - any shape, or 2) 6-9 - 5+ in a minor, unbalanced, no 4 card major, or 3) 17+ balanced, no 4 card major 1M - 6+ points, 4+ cards, may hide longer minor 1NT/2NT/3NT - 6-9/10-11/12-16, no 4 card major. 1NT may be unbal with weak 5 card diamond suit 2m - 10+, 5+ cards, unbalanced, no 4 card major 2M/3D - WJS 3C - 0-5, 6+ cards, maybe 5 unbalanced NV with singleton If 1C is doubled, systems on. If 1C is overcalled, bidding proceeds as after a Standard 1C opening. Bidding after 1C-1D: With 15-16 balanced, no 4 card major, rebid 3 card major, 1H if 3-3 in majors. 1C-1D-1NT shows 17-19, may have a 4 card major, as responder doesn't have one unless < 6 points. Responder's rebid after 1C-1D: We will not support partner's major (may be 3 cards) with 3 card support and 6-9 points. 1C-1D-1M-2M shows < 6 points with 5 card support, or 4 card support and shortness. After 1C-1D-1M, with 5-9 and a minor, bid 2m. After 1C-1D-1NT, with 6-7 and a minor, bid 2m (with a bad 6 pass). With 8-9 bid 3NT. With the big balanced hands, bid 2NT with 17-19, and 3NT with 20+. The hole in the system so far is pure MAFIA reponses, without a mechanism for finding diamond fits with GF hands by responder which have 4 card majors. In the Unassuming Club writeup, the author states that this seems to work fine. An alternative is the PC approach, where the 6-9/minor hands can be up to 11, and the 2C and 2D responses are GF and may have a 4 card major. I was uncomfortable with the rebid range, but I may change my mind if this approach becomes a problem. The system is a lot of fun to play, though we are still learning to play the 1C opening. It basically consists of throwing things at our opponents. It's gratifying to see how often they fail to catch what is thrown at them :) I'm leaning against the 19 point 2C opening at this point (for now anyway), having had no real positive feedback on it - but that's fine, this is why I post. Peter

Ron writes: "To Peter, why do you reach this conclusion? You have a 13 count, opener has a 13 count. That leaves 14 points to be divided. Is there any law that says partner is not allowed to hold AQxxx of S? Now if S break you make 6 on a H lead. Partner could be better too, of course." I have a 13 count, opener has 12+, unlimited. Pd has passed, opener's pd is unlimited. Chances are opps have the balance of power. Opener has 5+ hearts, I have a void. Chances are they have 9+ hearts and 22+ hcp, which would probably make even with the bad trump split. Yes pd, may have AQxxx of S - but he probably doesn't. 4S by us probably fails. Our best chance IMO is to try to knock them out of a probable game by bidding 5D immediately, but I don't do simulations, so it's just a guess. As a bonus chance, you may push the opps to 5H down one. Peter

Opps have pretty good chances of game, you have pretty bad chances. 5D. You might get killed, but go for it :D Peter

Ben - Thanks for your post, and for your service to BBO. Comments: 1) FTF bridge has some bad behavior by people who take bridge way too seriously, and/or who are just plain rude. Online bridge, IMO, has significantly worse problems, because the offenders don't have to look their victims in the eye. This is an inevitable consequence of the online environment. This is probably also true of cheating. 2) No one (certainly not Fred) should spend too much time trying to battle the inevitable. Egregious repeat offenders should be banned, and that's it. 3) I have heard that online tournaments have a lot more cheating and other bad behavior than pickup games. I believe this, and I believe it will be worse with the coming "masterpoint award" tournaments. I have thus far avoided online tournaments for this reason. I think if you play in (or organize) tournaments you should ready for some garbage. 4) I don't know anything about the Steve/Ecepal situation, and don't really care. It is of course too bad, and will miss Steve's Forum contributions, but I am POSITIVE that something similar will happen again in the not too distant future. This doesn't warrant Fred's time, unless he thinks it does. Peter Leighton

mikestar writes: "It seems to be a good fit for your system constructively, but you may be at a disadvantage in competitve auctions--good opponents observing that your 2C could be a fairly average 19 and will preempt to the sky. Were I playing against you, I would use my Precision defense a level higher. The Romex Dynamic NT works with an 18-19 minimum because it also has an upper limit from the failure to open a GF 2C or 2D--but this is incompatible with your desire to use a weak NT." 1) I was wondering what type of interference I would get on this 2C opening. You are suggesting that it would be significant, partially because of its lack of an upper limit. The point of our system is to put pressure on our opponents, and we are therefore at this point not willing to use 2D as 23+ to limit the 2C opening. A question to you regarding who you refer to as "good" opponents - we are relatively new to the game (18 months), somewhat above average club players who have had reasonable success at the club and sectional "B" events level. We want to do better at his level, but are essentially unconcerned with how well strong "A" players will do against any system we play, as they are a minority of our opponents and stomp us anyway. We hope that this will be relevant later on, but for now if a system works well against most players, that is fine with us. With that in mind, how often and how effectively do you think average to above-average club players would interfere against a 19 point 2C? 2) You are right about the Dynamic Notrump - we are defiitely not willing to give up the natural notrump. Richard writes "Peter, please don't take these comments the wrong way. Frustrating day at work..." Don't worry, I don't :D "(1) You are going about evaluating the 2C bid in a complete arse backwards manner. Don't start by describing this 2C opening... Start by explaining the core system that ypu are playing and provide a good cogent description regard why you are dis-satisfied with what you are currently using. Once you are able to do this, you can start considering the tradeoffs inherent with a variety of approaches to solve your pain point. (2) I am rather concerned by your third comments relating the Rule of 18 and the fact that the 2C opening has a boundary condition at 19 HCP. Your comment is almost nonsensical and suggests that you haven't really thought through this issue... " The core system: 1) 1C = 12-21, 4+ unbal or 15-19, 2+ bal, forcing. 2) 1D = 10-21, 5+ or 4-4-4-1 (short in clubs). Inverted minors. 3) 1M = 10-21, 5+ 2nt Resp = 11+ with trump support, 3M = preemptive 4) 1NT = 11-14, 2NT = 20-21, 2C = strong 5) Weaks 2s and preempts - a little light but disciplined when vul, aggressive when NV, though more careful in the second seat. We had been playing Rule Of 19 for 1x openings prior to playing The Science. We changed to the present system because: 1) Playing The Science convinced us that opening 1M very light was a winner. The gains in the part score auctions more than compensated for the sloppiness of the game and slam tries. Prior to The Science, we had been playing that a 2/1 response was forcing to 2NT, rather than guaranteeing a rebid, in order to avoid being pushed too high. We have further relaxed the 2/1 response to define a rebid of the major to absolutely guarantee 6 cards, to be a minimum which wouldn't accept an invitation, and is non forcing. 2NT is the rebid with 5 cards, a minimum, and no 2 level new suit bid available. The 11-14 NT includes 10 counts with decent 5 card suits, and takes some of the trash out of the 1M openings. 2) We wanted to compete in a third suit. Opening 11-21 in the minors seemed to us to be of somewhat marginal value, as it allowed 1 level overcalls by the opps and made game tries less accurate, without giving us much ability to compete, because they only guaranteed 3 cards. Making 1D virtually (95%) 5+ cards, and making 1C a sound opening (very sound when you consider the weak NT) is an experiment to rectify this by opeing very light when we have a suit to compete in, and sound when we don't. The 1M openings are GREAT for part score auctions, and OK for games (a little sloppy, but we do manage to stumble into the same games as the field). We hope that the 1D opening will have similar results for part scores. However, these openings and response structures inherently suck for slam bidding, as we have optimized our ability to bail out into a part score for minimum opening hands at the expense of more accurately bidding stronger hands.. We could use 2/1 GF after 1M to improve our slam bidding, as we did in The Science. We found that this overloaded the 1NT opening and made 2/1 responses infrequent. We also overbid a bit with a 13 point GF, but OTOH a 2/1 F1 approach gets us to underfunded 2NT games, so that's just a different poison. Our conclusion is that a relaxed 2/1 F1 approach is optimal for VLOBs. The 2M rebid being minimum and NF is an experiment, we may go back to "forcing to 2NT". Bottom line: we like our system, and accept the tradeoffs, but are willing to tinker with it, particularly to improve our slam bidding, which both in theory and in practice is mediocre at best -it is definitely our "pain point". The lack of a GF is one reason, the very wide range is another. It's difficult to communicate 19-21 points even on a sound opening, and more difficult on a 10+ opening. Jump shifts by opener aren't always a wonderful thing. The 19 point 2C opening was attractive to me in large part because it cuts the range on our 1x bids by 3 points, and identifies these hands immediately. The other reason is that it can find marginal games where standard bidding will pass out a hand, and identify very strong openers immediately for slam purposes. One thing I don't expect is much gain in accuracy in bidding the < 19 hands - the range still is very wide, and the knowledge that it is limited to 18 points will only be useful occasionally. If this opening can improve our game and slam bidding on strong hands without leading to too many bad results, it could be useful to us. I'm concerned about: 1) Interference 2) Getting too high (maybe the best contract is 1NT, or setting the opps) 3) A 6 point positive on 22+ hands, versus an 8 point positive in a normal 2C opener 4) Lack of room for exploration Peter

Richard- Thanks for the advice, but I will, with all due respect, continue on as I have been doing. I can understand your assumption that I change bidding systems weekly :D based on my questions to the Forum, but this is in fact not the case, at least not at the table :D . With one partner, I play 2/1, right down the middle of the road, with all of the usual conventions, have been doing so for over a year, and have no plans to change. I am not an "expert 2/1 bidder" by any means, but I have developed a reasonable grasp of the most typical U.S. bidding system. We get pretty good results. With my other partner, we experiment with more aggressive bidding approaches. Our initial foray (after SAYC) was SA with Rule Of 19 openings, 11-14 NT, and very aggressive preempting when NV. We found aggressive bidding to be a winner, as well as being more fun. We then played a version of The Science (thanks to Ron) for six months. We liked it, but found that we missed the weak NT too much. We decided to go back to a system which used weak NT, and considered strong club systems, both 4cM and 5cM. We almost went down that road, but wound up with a standardish forcing club system instead (1C = 12-21, 2+ clubs, 1D = 5+ cards or 4-4-1-4, 1D/1H/1S = Rule of 18). This brings us back to the comfort zone of 5cM and 11-14 NT. The system is relatively simple, very aggressive, and not particularly vulnerable to interference - all qualities appropriate to our partnership at this point, and the reason we chose (reluctantly) to go this route than than the strong club route. This doesn't mean, however, that we will stop tweaking and experimenting. The 19 point 2C opening (the subject of this thread) seems like a possible candidate for tweakdom, as it would allow us to limit our 1x openings (albeit not by much) without chaging our basic system. If you have an opinion on this 2C opening, I'd be glad to hear it. Peter

This was mentioned in an rgb htread. 2C is opened with 19+ hcp unbalanced (incl 5M332?) or 25+ bal. The link is http://www.hsv-life.com/fordsoft/19-Point_2C_Opening.htm I'm considering this for 3 reasons: 1) It's interesting in it's own right 2) I am playing a forcing (2+ cards) club, so the big but <25 bal hands could be easily accomodated. 3) I am playing Rule of 18 openings, so the upper limit of 18 is especially attractive. Has anyone played this? Any opinions from thoses who have/haven't? Peter

I would have bid 5S directly, and would bid 5S over 5D doubled (prepared of course to apologize). Peter

"Yes, but give South 6S 1H 4D 2C and you are off the top." Yes, and you have: 1) A game with 19 hcp 2) Only an 8 card fit 3) 3 level bidding by the opps before N bids I might bid 4S as South given Imps and Vul, but this is clearly a less than 50% game, on the bidding. Peter

"I still do play this system, and I still treat it very much as a "normal" 1♣ opening, except that my 1♦ can be 3+." So that I understand you, you don't play 1C as forcing? Peter

"Ah Peter, forever on the search for the Holy Grail. When will you find your Joseph of Arimithea?" Never - I am doomed to search forever... I envy those of you who play one sysem your entire lives :) "Hi Peter, do you read my NTC? May be you can find there what you seek, hehe" Please send me the notes - pbleighton@hotmail.com :)

As far as I know, this system puts all 4333s and 4332s outside of the NT range into 1C, which is forcing. GF hands are still opened 2C, and 1D/1H/1S go up to 21. Can anyone give me the responses to 1C, along with the opener's rebids? If you've played the system, what do you think of it? Peter

What are some good links on Polish Club variants?

hrothgar writes: "Blue Club is a canape system. Holding a 4 card major and an equal length or longer minor, opener will typically open in his major. As a result, a 1D opening tends to deny a 4 card major UNLESS opener has a canape reverse (4+ Diamonds and 5+ cards in the major with maximum values)" I believe Hamman-Soloway have reduced their use of canape openings, opening 4M5C and 4D5H only in a major, otherwise opening 1D or 2C. Peter

Has any one had experience with (or opinion of) a Precision 1D, where: 1) 2C = 6+ cards, 2) 1NT = 12(11)-15, opening decent 11 count minor suit 5332s and (24)25s 3) 2D has (34)15 types 4) Passing all flat 11s and bad 11 count minor suit 5332s and (24)25s. This means that 1D is 3+ cards and always unbalanced, having 3 only with (14)35 distribution, or about 5% of the time. Peter

Gerben writes "In this style I'd play 1NT as 10-12 / 13-15 and open the other range 1D to take the balanced 15 counts out of your 15+ 1C. Otherwise, go right ahead I'd say!" Would you open 1D with 2+ if playing 13-15, and pass 3334 and (233)5 counts under 13? How low would you open 4432/4333 hands outside of 1NT? Would you use 2/1 F1 with 12+ hcp, or something (GCC legal) different? Peter

MesSer writes: "You might be interested in having a look at Magic Diamond. A very fun system that is based around 8-11 4+ Major openings that might contain a longer minor. " Thanks! I'm aware of MD. It looks good, but isn't GCC legal because of transfer responses. The response structure issue which Richard raises is exactly what I am trying to finesse. Peter

My pd and I are in the process of finding the limits of light opening sytems permissable under the GCC (ACBL). We started out playing SA, then went to SA with Rule Of 19 openings and 11-14 NT, then added 5 card weak twos and 6 card 3 bids (NV), and are currently playing a (distorted) version of The Science (4 cM < 14 hcp, 5+cM 14+, majors first < 14, open decent 5332 10 counts 1M). At every step of the way we find more aggressive bidding to be fun, challenging, and quite effective, at least against the club level players we play (and are). We don't mid anti-field results at all, as long as the net is plus - or to tell you the truth, even if it were flat, given that it's more fun to bid more frequently :D We have determined that our next step will be a relatively simple, GCC legal strong club system (no relays or transfer responses), with a 15 point club, and opening 9(8)-14 points, at least in the majors. We are willing, at least in theory, to tolerate losses in the club opening, in order to open very light effectively. I will outline some thoughts I have had. 4 card majors and 5 card majors are both on the table, as are NT range and response structures. In all that follows, 9-14 means decent 9s (good 5332s, OK 54s, almost any 6 card suit), and 8s with decent 6 card suits, 5440s or 55s. Possible Opening Bid Structures Light Precision #1 1D - 9-14, 4+ cards, (4441) or 4D5C if only 4 1M - 9-14, 5+ cards 1NT - 11-14 (12-14 and pass some balanced 11 counts?) 2C - 9-14, 6 card or 5C4M, decent club suit when opening 5C4M below 12 2D - 10-14, Precision Light Precision #2 1D - 10-14 (GCC), 2+ cards 1M - 9-14, 5+ cards 1NT - 11-14 2C - 9-14, 6 card or 5C4M, decent club suit when opening 5C4M below 12 2D - 10-14, Precision, includes (43)15 shapes Light Precision #3 1D - 10-14 (GCC), 0+ cards 1M - 9-14, 5+ cards 1NT - 11-14 2C - 9-14, 6 card or 5C4M, decent club suit when opening 5C4M below 12 2D - weak 4cM #1 1D - 9-14, 4+ cards, (4441) or 4D5C if only 4 1M - 9-14, 4+ cards, (4441) or 4D5C if only 4 1NT - 11-14 (12-14 and pass a few 11 counts?) 2C - 9-14, 6+ cards 2D - weak 4cM #2 1D - 9-14, 4+ cards, (4441) or 4D5C if only 4 1M - 9-14, 4+ cards, may be 4432 or 4333 down to 10 if OK 1NT - 12-14 (alternate - 12-15 to take flat 15s out of 1C) 2C - 9-14, 6+ cards 2D - weak 4cM #3 1D - 10-14 (GCC), 2+ cards 1M - 9-14, 4+ cards, may be 4333 11, 4432 down to 10 if OK 1NT - 15-17, 14-17, 13-16, etc, to take more hands out of 1C 2C - 9-14, 6+ cards 2D - weak "5 card eveything" 1D - 9-14, 5+ cards 1M - 9-14, 5+ cards 1NT - 11-14 2C - 9-14, 5+ cards 2D - weak 4441s opened either 1NT (not sure if it's GCC legal) or the mini-Roman Preference of the above, or an alternative? I am currently leaning towards 4cM #1. Issues Opening 4432 or 4333 10 counts - I notice neither Magic Diamond nor Moscito opens these shapes below their NT range. Do you have experience doing this? Response structure for 4cM - either 2/1 F1 (12 hcp), or The Science style semi-forcing 1M-NT with 2/1 GF = 14 hcp. The Science style works fine now, but going down to decent 9 point openers (from decent 10) means 14 hcp for 2/1 vs 13, and fewer GF auctions in teh 10-14 range. The other issue is true 4 card majors vs what we play (5+ cards if > 13 hcp, so you can pass 1NT if you opened with 4 cards), make the semi-forcing NT a little problematical. Preference, or an alternative? I am currently leaning towards 2/1 F1. Response structure for 5cM - either 2/1 F1 (12 hcp), 2/1 GF (standard, except GF = 14 hcp), or the following: 2/1 10-14 NF, 5+ cards (6+ if bottom of the range). 1M-1NT is weak, invitational not suitable for 2/1, or GF where the final contract is not necessarily in the bid suit. Weak hands would pass or prefer, invitational hands would bid 2NT or raise a bid suit to 3, and GF would do anything else. Preference, or an alternative? I like the last option, but am not sure how well it wiould do without a relay system. In the little testing I've done it seems pretty good. Minimum strength for weak responses - thinking of 6 or 7 points, with the option to pass misfits up to 9 hcp. I could set it higher, and then the opener could invite with a max, but that seems counterproductive. Thoughts? Should a 9 point opener always have at least 5 cards in the bid suit? How good should a 5332 be to open with 9? I appreciate any input. I love screwing around with this stuff, it is as interesting as playing, maybe more so. Thanks to all for the education you've given me over the last year or so. I don't hold any of you responsible for the silliness of my system ideas :huh: Peter

Irdoz writes "I had to learn strategic underbidding and the paradox that a more defined opening range allows more low level penalty doubles in part-score auctions." I have read of this. Would you please give me some examples? Thanks, Peter

Does anyone have experience playing this (2D = 11-15 any 4441 shape)? I am considering this in conjunction with a very light opening 5cM, 5cD strong club system with 9-14 opening bids (I would have play this as 10-14 for the GCC). It would have to also include (440)5 shapes as well. I'm aware that some play that it guarantees 4 spades - this wouldn't work for me. I'm interested in how well it bids the hands overall versus the field (5cM in my case), rather than whether it would be a good use of the 2D bid in a standardish system. Peter

1) Is it worth a 2♣ opening bid? No. 2) Is it worth a 3♠ weak (bergen type) raise vul? Yes. 3) How to continue after 1♠-2♠ 4S. 4) How to continue after 1♠-3♠ weak 4S. Please provide how you would reach this slam using SAYC or 2/1 auction. I wouldn't reach slam. I will be interested to see a credible 2/1 or SAYC auction which reaches slam. Peter

Ben, what about the auction 1D-P-1NT-P-P-?, where they haven't found a fit, but where you can always play at the two level? Would you give me two examples of hands which just barely qualify for balancing when NV, one for overcalling 2S, and one for a takeout double of 1D? What more would you need vul? Peter