Bende

I couldn't publish the source code on the same wiki page. Instead I'm trying out Google Drive. If everything works, here is the link: LaTeX source code

Hmm... Sounds like we should maybe change it then :). In Fred Gitelman's article series 1♥-2♠; 2NT is described as "5 trumps, extra values, balanced". I think I figured this was 18-19 balanced but looking at it again, I'm not so sure. In my notes 1♥-2♠; 3♦ can be (5422) but it is described further down in Fred's article as "with shortness somewhere". That seems to indicate that (5422) hands bid 2NT and thus 2NT would not only be "18-19 balanced". That would mean 1♥-2♠; 3♦-3♥; 3NT doesn't exist (it shows (5422) in my notes). (Saw your edit. Constructive criticism is very much appreciated! Thanks!)

That would be fun :). If you do and some up with improvements, please let me know. I play a short club with transfer responses as well so I've been planning to add another document with those structures to be used with the rest of the system. It has become very popular among Swedish players and almost all of our juniors play it, it seems. There is a 5542 system published on the same wiki page as these system notes but they are in Swedish unfortunately. My plan is to reuse parts of that system but adapt it to some of the ideas in the 5533 system notes (like using reverse Flannery responses to 1m, which I really like). I've a six hour train ride tomorrow, perhaps I'll work on it then...

Yes, it is written in LaTeX. The source code is not available online but if you PM me your address, I'll email it to you.

From a comment in another thread. How does having Smith or Reverse Smith in your arsenal affect the leads you make?

An idea to address that issue is to play 1♠ - 1NT; 2♦ as 53(41). Of course that comes with some other issues instead.

I've written system notes for a 2/1 system based on the systems played by Gitelman-Moss and Levin-Weinstein, Fred Gitelman's article series "Improving 2/1 Game Force" and blog posts by Justin Lall. Where I've had to, I've patched ideas together as best as I've been able. The idea was to get a complete system playable by a group of people who might differ in how much complexity they wanted to add to the system. Therefore the suggested conventions are separated from the base system. The system contains few to none new or original ideas. Still, maybe someone finds it useful and I would appreciate comments on how to improve the system if anyone has the endurance to read it through :). Introduction Summary Base system Extensions

No, my mistake. I meant I've used parts of their system (from their CC and from what they have explained on on-line forums), not their system notes which I obviously have no access to, nor would reprint anything from if I did. Anyway, having gotten an OK from Fred and Justin, I'll post my notes again. Though, it will be in another thread which hopefully will be focused on bidding systems instead of copyright issues :).

Oh, I didn't realize that could be an issue, but of course you are right. Maybe I should remove this thread.

It's written in LaTeX (which you might have realized already). I don't have the source code uploaded anywhere but I can e-mail it to you if you wish.

I've put together some system notes for a 2/1 system based mainly on Fred Gitelman's articles, Levin's and Weinstein's system, and Justin Lall's articles. The idea was to get a complete system playable by a group of people who might differ in how much complexity they wanted to add to the system. Therefore the suggested conventions are separated from the base system. I fully realize that this system contains very little to nothing new or original ideas. Still, maybe someone finds it useful. In several instances, I have tried to patch ideas from several sources and I'm not at all sure I got it right. Any comments, suggestions for improvements or anything else, are greatly appreciated. <Links deleted until I get approval to post them.>

After a 1NT opening and a transfer to a minor with either 2♠ or 2NT, what should responder's second bid mean? We play that opener accepts with a good support and bids the cheapest bid with bad support. Looking at different sources, for example 1NT - 2♠; 3♣ - 3♥ would either be natural with 6-4 or a splinter. What is standard? What is best? Other opinions?

I use Latex for typesetting my system notes, which works very well. Also, I just found the baposter package, which is great for typesetting convention cards.

I play that 1♦ denies a major unless the hand is strong and 1NT shows a balanced hand and does not deny a major. After 1♣-1♦; 1NT, responder's 2♥ is either natural GF or artificial GF. Opener bids 2♠ with four card hearts. The rest of the bidding is natural.

Mixing in some ideas from Levin-Weinstein with the ones we already had from Gitelman-Moss, and shifting things around a bit, we came up with the following which feels OK. 1♥ - 1NT = semi-forcing 2♠ = 4+ support, GF raise 2NT = 13-15 or 18+ balanced 3♣ = 16-17 balanced 3♦ = 4 card support, limit raise or minimum GF 3♥ = 4 card support, mixed raise 3♠ = 4 card support, 10-12, any splinter 3NT = 4 card support, 13-15, spade splinter 4m = 4 card support, 13-15, minor splinter 1♠ - 1NT = forcing 2NT = 13-15 or 18+ balanced 3♣ = 4+ support, GF raise 3♦ = 16-17 balanced 3♥ = 4 card support, limit raise or minimum GF 3♠ = 4 card support, mixed raise 3NT = 4 card support, 10-12, any splinter 4x = 4 card support, 13-15, splinter

Thanks for all feedback! Things are improving. However, I've run into another issue. Following Fred Gitelman's suggestion from his article series "Improving 2/1 game force", I'm using 1M-2NT as natural forcing, (12)13-15 or 18+, and cheapest jump shift as a forcing raise. The point is that 2/1 becomes a good five card suit. Other raises are 3M mixed, 3M-1 preemptive and 3M-2 a limit raise (or minimum GF) with 4+ support. 2M is a normal raise and the semi-forcing 1NT can include a very weak raise or a limit raise with three card support. In the article series, Fred mentions that it is possible to use 3NT as 16-17 balanced with two or three card support. However, Fred has also suggested to use two-tier splinters (which is what he played with Brad Moss), when 3NT is used for that purpose. So my question is, what is done with the hands with 16-17 balanced? I suppose they can still bid 2/1 since they maybe have strength to compensate, but if the idea was that 2/1 should always be a good five card suit, this is somewhat ugly.

You have a point about the heart INV bid. I'd be most ready to sacrifice the preemptive raise. Let's assume 1♠-3♠ is mixed and 1♠-3♥ is natural INV. It loses some symmetry. Then again, it is possible to regain this by having 1♥-3♥ be mixed and 1♥-3♦ a preemptive raise. It feels strange to have the preemptive raise in somewhere else than in 3♥ but I think Fred uses this. Maybe since the mixed raise is more common (at least I think it is) it makes sense to have it in 3M.

In uncontested auctions, invitational hands with a minor has to go through the semi-forcing 1NT. Today I play 3m as natural INV which makes those hands easier. They don't seem very common though so the idea now was to use the 3m bids for something else. As Statto pointed out, we will not play negative free bids. Over double the idea is to play transfers starting at 1NT, with redouble showing about 8+ BAL-ish, usually without support. Transfers may be lead directing, intending to go back to 2M if the opponents go silent. Maybe 3M-1 should be mixed and other 3m should be fit-showing. 2NT will show INV+ with 4+ support.

I was looking for a new system for major suit raises and looked at some posts by Fred Gitelman and Justin Lall. I landed on the following by combining the ideas I found and changing a couple of things around. Does it make sense to play something like this? The base system is a 5533 2-over-1 with semi-forcing 1NT. In non-disturbed bidding, 3M is preemptive, 3M-1 is a mixed raise, 3M-2 is a limit raise with 4+ support. Cheapest jump shift (1♥-2♠ or 1♠-3♣) is a forcing raise with 4+ support. After interference, 3M is still preemptive and 3M-1 is still a mixed raise. 2NT is INV+ with support. Depending on the room available, the highest available free bid shows INV+ with three card support (then not needed in the 2NT response) and the next shows a game force with three card support (then not needed with the INV hands with three card support). That is: 1♥ - (1♠) - 2♠ = GF, 3 card support 2NT = INV+, 4+ support 3♣ = INV, 3 card support 3♦ = mixed 3♥ = preemptive 1♥ - (2♣) - 2NT = INV+, 4+ support 3♣ = INV+, 3 card support 3♦ = mixed 3♥ = preemptive 1♥ - (2♦) - 2NT = INV+, 3+ support 3♦ = mixed 3♥ = preemptive 1♠ - (2♣) - 2NT = INV+, 4+ support 3♣ = GF, 3 card support 3♦ = INV, 3 card support 3♥ = mixed 3♠ = preemptive 1♠ - (2♦) - 2NT = INV+, 4+ support 3♦ = INV+, 3 card support 3♥ = mixed 3♠ = preemptive 1♠ - (2♥) - 2NT = INV+, 3+ support 3♥ = mixed 3♠ = preemptive Another idea is to always separate 4 card support from 3 card support, which means giving up the mixed raise (or the preemptive raise). I.e. 1♥ - (2♦) - 2NT = INV+, 4+ support 3♦ = INV+, 3+ support 3♥ = preemptive (or mixed) 1♠ - (2♥) - 2NT = INV+, 4+ support 3♥ = INV+, 3+ support 3♠ = preemptive (or mixed) Comments are most appreciated.

A friend of mine had constructed a system with his partner based around a strong (17+) pass and a 1♦ fert (0-7). When they arrived at the tournament they were supposed to play in, the organizers changed the system restrictions so that forcing passes where not allowed. To remedy this, they just moved the 17+ hands into the 1♦ opening which now became weak/strong. They just didn't use the pass for any hands at all. Not the best but quite fun and very aggressive :).

I understand that the reason a pairs entire system notes are not made available are because they do not want to share their nifty agreements. I don't really have an objection to this either. What I don't understand is where the line is drawn between what must be shared and what does not have to be shared. For example, if I play some version of multi, I must inform my opponents before the tournament so they can prepare a defense. However, I don't have to inform them (I think) about which run-out schemes I use when they double my 1NT opening, even though that may very well be useful to know in advance. What about defenses to nebulous openings? If over a nebulous 1m, I play a lot of either-or bids like 1♥ = ♥ or ♠ for example, do my opponents have the right to prepare their responses to this defense? Or is that like the RKCB analogy in that I don't have to tell my opponents of my invention and they have to find out when I explain the bid at the table?

Your last paragraph is exactly my point :). I understand full well that pairs do not wish to share their system notes. There is no advantage whatsoever for them in doing so. Still, knowing the weakness in their system could be useful in a match, for example to decide when they are at most vulnerable to a preempt or a weakish overcall. The line is obviously drawn somewhere, as pairs are required to submit some but not all of their system notes. It is just not clear to me where that line is and why it is there in the first place. Why should my opponents have the right to know what my 4C opening means but not my methods of dealing with a two level overcall of a nebulous opening or whether I can make a penalty double when they interfere with my relays for example (I have no idea what is required in these cases; these were just examples to illustrate a point).

This is a question I haven't been able to get a satisfactory answer to in other bridge forums. If users on this forum have some insight I would be very interested to hear. In major tournaments, pairs have to send in their systems beforehand. However, what is required seems only to be a filled in convention card, not the entire system. Why is that? At the table, you are allowed to know all details that the opponents are aware of through their agreements but apparently it is not required that you document these agreement and allow your opponents to prepare before the tournament. Even stranger is that, as I understand it, some pairs send in their full system notes to the organizers before the tournament in case there will be some director call where it may be advantageous for them to have their agreements documented. Why are these notes not made available to other pairs (and for that matter to the public) and how does this fit with the idea of full disclosure?

I play it as a general invite to 4♠. Doesn't say anything about hearts.

After (1x) - pass - (1NT), several sources (for example Lawrence in The Complete Book on Overcalls) say you should overcall aggressively with a higher suit. With modern light openings and sometimes very light 1NT-responses, doesn't this put a lot of pressure on partner if these 2-level overcalls have a wide range? I have seen good players using an 1NT-defence in this situation, for example (1m) - pass - (1NT) - 2♣ = both majors 2♦ = one major, weaker overcall 2♥ = natural, sound overcall 2♠ = natural, sound overcall This seems to make a lot of sense since you probably don't want to overcall a minor very often here anyway. Is this common? Do you play any other conventions in this situation or do you simply not think the wide range is much of a problem?