kes

Thank You , Echoqnome , for Your interest ! Some supplements : With 4=M & 5+m open the M (canape) - with 44= Ms open 1D in version A (showing at first only 4=H , you rarely miss a 4:4 S-Fit) . With 6=4= Ms open 2M , you rarely miss a 4:4 Fit (there must be no support for the 6=M / a 4 :4 Fit in the oM must exist / pd must be weak) - I cannot remember a hand , when with 4=6 & 3=1 the 4:3 Fit was better , but it may happen of course . The 2D with 5=H is a successful preempt - you have at least 5:2 in about 85 % and a weak pd may pass with misfit in H and 5+D . 1N does not contain a 4card M , the distributions are (33)(43) / (32)(44) / (32)(53) / (32)(52) / (22)(54) / (32)(62) / (22)(63) . 2N with 54+ minors (misprint in the original) - with 5=C open 2N (pd will choose clubs with equal lengths) , with 5=D you may lie (pass with 11 P / 1C a little to weak / 1N with singleton / 3D with very good 5cards ; you are in pole-position with this distribution only in 1 : 700 boards) . You are right , with unbalanced minor-hands we are most a level above the room - this is the price for showing the exact length of the major (and is not bad in each case) . Everybody plays Weak Two Majors - I really have no good feeling standing against the crowd , but I don't like it - it is good only if you have no better idea and separating 5=M and 6+M is better - just my opinion . In another post I tried to discuss this problem , but there was no interest at all . With kind regards - kes .

Correction : Rule of 20 , too weak for 1C - no 4+ M : 1N semi-balanced - 2N :( with 54+ Minors (avoid 3154) - 3m with 6+L

MALEX - Major's Length Exact 1C : Up from 14 P (3rd / 4th Hand from 16 P) , any distribution Rule of 18 , too weak for 1C : 1D with 4=H (& 0-4 S) - 1H with 4=S (& 0-3 H) - 1S with 5=S (& 0-3 H) - 2C with 45+ Majors - 2D with 5=H (& 0-3 S) - 2M with 6+L (& 0-4 oM) If not allowed , turn to : 1D 44+ Majors - 1M with 4=L (& 0-3 oM) - 2C with 5=H (& 0-3 S) - 2D with 5=S (0-3 H) - 2M as above Rule of 20 , too weak for 1C - no 4+ M : 1N semi-balanced - 2S with 54+ Minors (avoid 3154) - 3m with 6+L Comments ? (I know , that a system does not consist only of openings - please take it , as it is)

You may be rigth - but would you please go a little bit more in details .

As i see it, those kind of systems have an advantage in competive bidding, but this must come from somewhere and this is from non competitve biddings when we wont find our best spot, usually in a minor. Flame's answer is as good as it can be - it is just a matter of task to like or not (as everybody is perfectly rigth to do :) ) the philosophy of the weak opening systems .

I need 7 opening bids to differentiate 4+& 4+ / 4= / 5= / 6+ majors . I don't see a way for more differentiation (without summarizing on the other hand) . Besides : If you open 1D with 4=4= majors (worst case) in Malex AND next opp has a 6+m (he needs for the bid 3m) , your pd has a 4+ M (may be both) about 75 % . If you open 1M with 5=cards (worst case) in a 5card major system AND next opp has a 6+m (he needs for the bid 3m) , your pd has 3+cards in that M about 65 %.

You are right , there is a problem (and I cannot solve it - open 1H with 4=H & 0-4S is worse ! ) . But I don't see why a normal 5 card major system is in a better situation after 1H (3D) .

And we know already , that each system scores better when opps stay quiet . :rolleyes:

" . . . when you open 1D . . . you are in trouble if opponents preempt " Example : 1D (2D) X (3D) - then opener PS with 44= / X with 55+ / 3M with 5= (& 4= oM) Not so good : 1D (3D) X (PS) - then opener 3H with 44= or 4=5= / 3S with 5=4= / 3N with 55+ Better : 1D (3C) X (PS) - then opener 3D with 44= / 3M with 5= (& 4= oM) / 3N with 55+

Thank you , awn , for your interest ! ------------------------------------------------------- To the second half of your post (1.12 PM): Your point 1 : My experience is opposite , see point 1 of my post above . Your point 2 : Opening without 4+ M , 11-13 P (11-15 P in 3rd / 4th seat) . 1N about 2,7 % - 2N / 3m are together about 1 % - you must not only count the hands of the correct distribution & strength , you must also consider when in pole-position . 3M after opening 2N / 3m is game-forcing , no chance to play 3M - those openings are (solid) barrages , of course you may block your pd . Besides , those hands may be passed with bad 11 P , opened 1C with good 13 / 15 P . Your point 3 : The followup after opening 2m are described in MALEX - part 1 . Pd may bid non-forcing , 2M with 2+ cards . After 2C with 4=1=4=4 and after 2D with 1=4=4=4 (and passing opponents) pd has a problem , indeed . We are still waiting for this accident . Your point 4 : Yes , your proposed system is better for the hands without 4+ M . No , it is not better for the hands with 4+ M - and it is not MALEX .

Thank you , whereagles , for your interest ! ------------------------------------------------------- Your point 1 : Yes , 1C with 14+ absorbs many hands - but too many ? You say yes , I say no . I think it is no use , to repeat my arguments of above (and I have no new ones) . But I have a prominent supporter : Paul Marston in reg.games.bridge in May, 25. 2005 "I would put forward 8-12 HCP openers and 13+ 1C as being my first guess at optimal design" . ------------------------------------------------------- Your point 2 : The opening 1N is not UN-balanced (with void / single) but SEMI-balanced (which may be 22.54 / 322.6 , 4+ m) , otherwise it would not be allowed (as you mentioned) . The un-balanced hands without 4+ M are in 2N / 3m (which are not the best pieces of the system , but have pleasantly low frequency) . ------------------------------------------------------- Your point 3 : The openings with 4+ M(s) are stated not as 10-13 P , but "Rule of 18 up to 13 P" (and up to 15 P in 3rd / 4th seat of course) . On level 1 the openings must fulfil this rule , otherwise it counts for a bluff . But 1D with 55= M & 1S with 4=S & 6=m may start as low as with 8 P. On level 2 our openings are stated "Rule of 18 (may be a little bit weaker)" . 2S with 6= S & 4= m starts at 8 P , or (a little bit weaker) at 7 P . Of course there are still weaker hands , one may want to open , but you can't keep the cake and eat it - and see other arguments in point 3 above . I never said , Weak Twos are worthless , but I think they are overrated (and they don't fit our system) . ------------------------------------------------------- Your point 4 : We do , see above . ------------------------------------------------------- Your Point 5 : Yes , in 3rd / 4th seat 1C is 16+ P , other openings up to 15 P . ------------------------------------------------------- Your point 6 : We play it for some years , of course changing around a lot .

Power Double (against each type of 1C) . After (1C) X pd will bid as if I had opened 1C .

When you open this hand with 2D , you will miss game if pd has (I just suppose) 15+P & 4=H . This happens in 1 of about 30 times (rough simulation) .

"PLAYING NATURAL" - do you include Dbl ? I suppose not. I would double and bid 4H later . The hand is too strong for a direkt 4H in our agreements .

MALEX - Major's Length Exact - Moscito based bidding system , strongly modified The basis of MALEX is described in part 1 & part 2 . But there are some points , I would like to get opinions about . ------------------------------------------------------- Point 1 : Moscito was (caused by regulations) derived from Forcing Pass , where the strong "opening" pass had 13+ P and I think , this was originally the strength of 1C . There are other Strong Club systems of course , up to 1C with 18+ P (?) . During several years (playing Precision) we tried 16+ P / 15+ P / 14+ P / 13+ P . We felt , that 14+ P (and 16+ P in 3. / 4. seat) works best . I think , we get fewer disturbing actions by the LHO , than in the other ranges . May be : The better players don't feel forced to enter the auction with garbage , as they do after stronger 1C . The not so-good-players respect 14+P as "nearly strong" , (like strong NT with 15+P , mostly played here) and prefer to pass with limited hands No proof - no exact data - just our feeling . Of course MALEX would not be dramatically different by choosing another strength . Besides , the opening of 1C has a frequency of about 11,5 % - rough summary for MALEX : 11,5 % + 16,0 % (13,5 % with 4+M + 2,5 % without M) about 27,5 % (for each partner) . ------------------------------------------------------- Point 2 : We open 1N (with good 11 P to bad 13 P) without 4+M (as in Match-Point Precision) . We don't want (playing 1N that weak) to miss a 4:4-fit , when pd is too weak to enter level 2 AND we want to stop in 1M with a 4:3-fit , when the hand belongs to the opponents (there may be no 5card suit in the 4 hands) . Of course MALEX would not be dramatically different by choosing 1N with 4=M . The obvious advantage would be , that the opening 1M is non-balanced - then pd can go to 2M with only 3card support , as in Moscito (rare in MALEX) . ------------------------------------------------------- Point 3 : One of the corner-stones of MALEX is the 2M opening with 6+M , strength as in Trent Two (but as normal opening for us) . I think the usual Weak Two (say up to 10 P) has the following flaws : 1. Weak Two is not very frequent . You have 6+M (with 0-3 oM) about 5 % . BUT the hand should have concentrated honors (suit-quality / red / white) AND you must be in pole-position (very rare with 0-10 P at 3. / 4. seat , somebody has opened earlier - may be your pd with Weak Two in the other major) . 2. Weak Two is unnecessary - if your pd is strong (you will get another try) - if the hand fits with normal opening (not so rare in a Weak Opening System) - if the hand can be opened 3M . 3. Weak Two is even harmful , if the opponents find their best contract despite of your opening (huge advantage in declarer-play) AND if they find their contract because of your opening (they may win 5m instead of losing 3N) . When developping our system some years ago , I asked some other players when they had the last good score because of a Weak Two opening . Not even one could remember . Of course Weak Two HAS its merits (and it would be silly , not to use the opening 2M for something , if you don't have a better idea) . But I prefer separating the normal opening with 6+card M from the other openings (even when playing Precision , I would open 1M with 5=cards and 2M with 6+cards , both 10-15 P) .

MALEX - Major's Length Exact - Moscito based bidding system , strongly modified ------------------------------------------------------- Part 1 was the description of the openings with 4+card major(s) . With the addition , that in 3. / 4. seat 1C is 16+ P and the other openings are up to 15 P - the openings 1D / 1M / 2m / 2M together have a frequency of about 13,5 % . ------------------------------------------------------- Hands without 4card M : 11-13 P (in 3. / 4. seat up to 15 P) - as a matter of principle pass with bad 11 P and open 1C with good 13 P / 15 P are allowed - then the openings 1N / 2N / 3m have a frequency of about 2,5 % . ------------------------------------------------------- 1N semi-balanced (with 22.54 / 32.62 / 22.63) - no problem (and you don't need 2C as Stayman ! ) ------------------------------------------------------- 2N with (3&1 in majors and) 54+ in minors - no problem with (55+ in minors and with) 4=D & 5= C (pd with equal length will choose club - there is a 8+ fit in about 77 %) . Problem-hand with 3&1 in majors and 5=D & 4=C : This Distribution AND good 11 P up to bad 13 P / 15 P AND pole-position happens about 1 : 950 hands , good luck . ------------------------------------------------------- 3m with 6+ cards - no problem (3M forcing , not each game-try is a success) . ------------------------------------------------------- Comments are welcome - kes

MALEX - Major's Length Exact - Moscito based bidding system , strongly modified ------------------------------------------------------- 1C strong (we prefer 14+ P , may be good 13 P) - no other strong opening , no weaker hand in 1C ------------------------------------------------------- Rule of 18 (because of the German rules) up to 13 P (depends on 1C , see above) : 1D with 44+ majors - pd non-forcing , exept : 1N asks for distribution - 2N asks for strength 1H with 4= H & 0-3 S (may be as balanced as 3433 , pd may pass with 3= H) - pd non-forcing , except : - 1N asks for distribution & strength , game-try - 3D with 5= S (convention Analogous Minor) , 3S with 6+ S (both game-forcing , pd with fit PFA) 1S with 4= S & 0-3 H - equal to 1H , see above ------------------------------------------------------- Rule of 18 (may be a little bid weaker) up to 13 P (depends on 1C , see above) : 2C with 5= H & 0-3 S - pd non-forcing , except : - 2N game-try - 3D with 5= S , 3S with 6+ S (both game-forcing , pd with fit PFA) 2D with 5= S & 0-3 H - equal to 2C , see above 2H with 6+ H & 0-3 S - pd non-forcing , except : - 2N game-try - 3D with 5= S , 3S with 6+ S (both game-forcing , pd with fit PFA) 2S with 6+ S & 0-3 H - equal to 2H , see above Problem after opening 2m / 2M : Pd has inviting strength (11/12-13 P) , but there is no fit in openers major - happens about 1 : 200 hands , good luck ------------------------------------------------------- Comments are welcome - kes