firmit

2♦ 3-way multi, weak 6c major, 22-24hp balanced, and 16-20hp 4-5 LTC onesuiter 6+card 2♥/2♠ Muiderberg 2NT Minors

4441 3% of all hands - but of course, should not be left out. The weak hands are handled as a normal 1M opening - rebidding or supporting the cheapest way (10-15hp). As Inquiry - I like the Chris Ryall way of showing 16-20hp strong 4441; opening 2♣ in a strong 2♣ system, rebidding 2NT to show strong 16-20hp 4441 hands. So - I was thinking about a sequence which would allow me to rebid 2NT and getting the same structure. 1♣-1♦/♥/♠ - 2NT is free in my system - it is not in use to show any NT range and is therefor available to show 4441 (and maybe even 5440?). Given that partner is unlimited with his positiv response, I guess I should show him my hand as good as possible. For the stronger 20-23hp: 1♣-1♦-1♥*-1♠-2NT would show this. At least that's what I am currently considering, and which fits best in my system.

In a strong club context, 4+ card majors, with a possible canape. 2♦ is multi. (1) 1♥-1♠-2♣ states 9 cards in the suits bid. (2) 1♦-1x-2♣ as 5-4/4-5 i the minors normally 5431, 1NT allows 2254 with the minors. The question is, what should the 2♣ opening be? Should this be used to handle 5-4 in the minors to free up (2) or should it be 5m+4♥ or alike so that I can free up the canape in (1). Or should I keep it this way - and use 2♣ as 6c 9-14hp. Or am I putting the wrong leg on the floor getting up in the morning (don't know if this has the same meaning in english...).... meaning - my system is flawed from the get-go. edit: my quote has never been more relevant! :P

OR - to support my own work - write it in XML and parse it!! :blink: Edit; Like I said, presentation value is maybe what I have been working with the most. I'll give you an example. http://firmit.bridge.googlepages.com/ex2D.png

I am using the Symmetric Relay responses to 1♣ opening - and it seems to work like a charm. After 1♦, I am still having some doubts, though. So I would very much like to see your suggestion. 6-5 hands - I must admit - I have (for now) put these on hold... When discussing the NT ranges, someone said ( hrothgar I believe ) that I should build up the basic of the system and select the NT ranges to fit within. Maybe the pre-emptive bids should do the same. Thus - maybe I will have to find room for the "wild"-hands before I go further... I like to be constructive - thus I would like to be able to take a few tricks if stuck in my 2M bid in 3rd seat doubled. Partner has passed so I am probably on my own. Some argue that pre-empting in 3rd seat might be the best seat for pre-empting - makes it difficult for opps to make a penalty dbl..? I don't know..

As some of you might have gathered - I am trying to put together a system. I have posted several questions lately about some fundamental questions regarding the NT structure, and gotton many good answers! Still - a strong club context with 4-5 card major - that's right: min 4, max 5. This aspect is still open for debate but I like the idea. It does make an impact on my next question, though, regarding PRE-EMPTIVES. In the Zar-world, this is the range from (22)23-25zp (24zp if ♠). What pre-emptive bids are GOOD and which one is BAD - based upon numbers, experience and some subjective points of view? First a sceptic question: what is the purpose of giving TWO opponents vs ONE partner the advantage of knowing basically every aspect of the layout and strength of my hand? - asking for a more deeper answer; not just "it makes life hard for opps" - does it not make life hard for partner too? If they get the contract, it'd be easier for them to guess where the missing honours are, no? Anyhow - I have the entire 2-level at my disposal. Here is my current suggested layout. Please comment - why should I not use them and so forth. And yes - because of the 4-5 card major 1H/S opening, it does inflict some of my choices. 1./2. seat NV 1NT pre-emptive 10-12hp ( 11-13hp 4333 ) 2♣ 6c either major 10-14hp ( normal opening, as a normal 1M-1M/NT-2M ) 2♦ 6c major 7-9hp pre-emptive (Multi) 2M 5M+4+ minor 7-9hp pre-emptive ( like my current avatar hand: KQJT3 543 QJ32 T ) 2N 5-5 minor 7-9hp pre-emptive 3./4. seat 2♣ 6c suit 10-14hp natural 2♦ 6c either major 10-14hp 2M 6c M 15-18hp ( which would normally go: 1M-1M/NT-3M ) 2N 5-(4)5 both minor 10-14hp Or should one just keep the same pre-emptives as in 1st and 2nd seat... Should I make room for the "standard" 6c major pre-emptive also in 3rd and 4th seat? Please comment. PS: I know there are tons of systems out there - which are really, really good. I am doing this mostly for learning purposes. So any comments like "why bother" is not the ones I am going for.

4333 - 1hp. I agree, and this has been implemented. I like you reasoning reagarding the 19-21hp 1NT range too.

In a strong club context - where 1♣ is (16)17+ all hands. You are playing 2♦ as multi 1. pre-emptive 6c major ( upgraded to normal 6c opening 3./4. seat ) 2. 22-24hp balanced and 3. 6+ card suit 16-20hp 4-5 LTC Example of no.3: 2♦-2♠-3♠ edit: KQ98xx AQ Kx AQx (correct no cards now :) ) 1st and 2nd are rather normal I think - but number 3.... Maybe in a 2/1 style it might be useful, but in a strong club? Maybe to "pre-empt" the opponents? The opponents might not be able to overcall this way, as they might have done when opening 1♣.... Comments on the 3rd option please.

LOL! I rest my case!

I have developed a parser which reads a XML-file and parses it to FD-format. The xml-syntax and structure I have been using, is my own creation. The motivation for this was to present my bidding structure on a website, and make it easy to export to various output - such as FD. Ex: <system id="2D"> <info> stuff blabla </info> <sequence opps="silent" seat="1 2" description="2D opening"> <node id="2D" seat="1 2" vulnerable="0"> <bidtype value="5"/> <alert>Multi</alert> <node id="2H"> <bidtype value="C"/> <description>Pass or correct</description> <node id="2S"> <bidtype value="2"/> <hp from="7" to="9"/> <handtype value="6!S"/> </node> </node> <node id="2S"> <bidtype value="C"/> <description>Pass or correct</description> <node id="Pa"> <bidtype value="1"/> <hp from="7" to="9"/> <handtype value="6!S"/> </node> <node id="3H"> <bidtype value="2"/> <hp from="7" to="9"/> <handtype value="6!H"/> </node> </node> </node> </sequence> Running this through my parser, generates: *00{Sense 0.2a}=NYYYYYY firmit 2D multi 502D=NNNNNNN500Multi 502DP2H=NNNNNNNC00Pass or correct 502DP2HP2S=NNNNYNN266[7-9] 502DP2S=NNNNNNNC00Pass or correct 502DP2SP3H=NNNYNNN266[7-9] 502DP2N=NNNNNNNDAsks for information 502DP2NP3C=NNNNNNN000Good !H suit 502DP2NP3D=NNNNNNN000Good !S suit 502DP2NP3H=NNNNNNN000Bad !H suit 502DP2NP3S=NNNNNNN000Bad !S suit .... I don't know if anyone is interested, but I am thinking about making it available. Of course, if you are only interested in making a FD file, it's overkill. But if you'd like to present it in some other form, maybe to for printing purposes - the XML format is excellent. Not to be negative or attack your work in anyway - but inquiry2over1 system would be better presented this way rather than by using "-----" as "depth-showing"... :) I don't know what the "big-guys" says - but if you are interested, and we maybe agree on a standard, it might be possible to make available through bridgebase.com. If people upload a XML-file (which they themself have to write), and then they get to choose to output it as FD, print, html etc... This way complete systems may be available and presented on your site. ( the FD->xml is no problem creating - it's already practically done ). If no interest - fine. I did this on my own time because I love programming :)

lol ;) I am not trying to show off or anything - just wanted to start a discussion based on numbers. Someone might find it interesting. I myself find a lot of interesting stuff in the post that have few and solid claims - which someone normally backs up - which then again means: "end of discussion". But then again - what do I know...

Why - do you want it? Tell me what intervalls you'd like to see, and I will generate the tables. edit:table http://firmit.bridge.googlepages.com/1214nt.PNG

(Hope this is the correct forum) I recently posted a thread regarding a weak NT structure. I got some good solid answers. But I am still in doubt of which ranges are the best. I have put together some data. I am converting to zar-points, and the range-colors are coded as: Green=pre-emptive (22-25zp), Red=Normal (26-30zp), Blue=MediumStrong (31-35zp) Given these tables, the 10-12, 13-15, 16-18 range seems to catch a lot of the hands, and it has the best "fit" in the most expected hand (4432). Please comment on these tables - and give your reasons for why you play the given range. (A.Cp = average controll points A=2,K=1, R =relativ prob. , A = Prob., Cum Prob) http://firmit.bridge.googlepages.com/ntranges.PNG/ntranges-full.jpg I think I will stick with the 10-12, 13-15, 16-18 NV 1./2.seat: 1NT 10-12hp 1♦-1x-1NT 13-15hp 1♣-1x-1NT 16-18hp changing to Vul, 3./4. seat 1NT 16-18 1♦-1x-1NT 13-15hp This implies NOT opening hands with up to 12hp and no 4-5 card major in 4. seat.

In Norway, and in Denmark - playing xyz means that you also play xy-nt. Otherwise it just says xy-nt. As a side note, using full xy-nt means that 2NT is a transfer to 3♣. Not many people use this - they tend to pass 1NT.

Considering applying the following, in a strong club context: 1./2. seat NV 1NT 10-12hp, 1D-1x-1NT 13-15hp no 5 card major 3./4. seats NV and all VUL 1NT as 13-15hp, no 5 card major 1C-1x-1NT 16-19hp, 5 card major possible Is this a normal way of pre-empting with a weak 1NT? Any thoughts? Should it be with 5c major possible?

Support dbl usually only applies under 2♠ if I am not mistaken - so I am not sure what a dbl would be here if not for penalty or points-showing. Also, one should have an agreement of what passing actually means in this situation. Anyhow, a 3♠ seems right. E should not have any problem bidding 4♠. But then again - what do I know...

6c Major is opened at the 2-level with 26-30zp. But with 31-35zp, it is opened 1♦.

Zar Bidding backbone suggests 1C 36+zp, 31-35 bal (17+/15-19hp) 1D 31-35zp unbal or 6c minor 26-30zp ( 13-18hp) 1H/S 26-30zp 4 or 5 major ( 9-14hp ) Any thoughts about the 1D opening? I like the idea of 1H/S showing 4 or 5, and not being limited to 5, but I am having difficulties with the 1D opening.... Does anyone have a response scheme of this opening type?

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=19096

Could someone explain why leading low from Qxx in this hand, knowing partner got some clubs is better than leading the Q?

Bidding (1N)-P-(2♣)-(X) clubs, lead against NT (2♠)-P-(3N])-AP [hv=w=sjxxhxxxdjcaj98xx&s=saxxhqjxxdxxxxckx]266|200|2♣ lead from E[/hv] How to proceed? What does partner hold - or maybe more importantly - what does he NOT hold?

Previous post regarding Sandwich position http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=18436&hl=

Distribution, distribution, distribution! If I THINK I might get a rebid problem, I do consider opening 1NT myself. I also MIGHT open the 2236 with a 6 card minor and spread honnor-values and 5422 with 1NT. Another thing - a 5431 might prove better played in a suit contract given the distributional points. I don't know... As a side note. The 5431 happens about 13% of all hands - having 15-17 ~1.3% with that distribution (15hp~0.6, 16~0.4,17~0.3). Of the 4441, this only happens 3% of all hands, so ...

Well, of course it depends on the system you are using, but in most standard natural systems, it is GF. However, if 1♥ is limited (like in strong club systems), the jump promise 5-5, and may easily be passed or corrected by responder if no fit is found. 1♥ - 1♠ 3♣ - pass/3♥/3♠ all no-game-force. opener has 5♥+5♣ 9-15hp.

Walsh doesn't address this sequence; only 1♣ - 1♦ - 1 major. You can choose to play 1♠ as unbalanced if you want, but most play that it doesn't deny a balanced hand. I play a 4+ base system, as many in Norway (and Denmark where I live) do. With xy-nt, using 1x-1y-1z shows 5x+4z, and 1x-1y-1NT is a balanced hand and denies a 5x-4z/y distribution ( may be singelton in y ). However, it is also easily adapted into 5c major... Maybe it is wrong to label this as Walsh - but I don't know another name for it.