wclass___

1♣-1♥ (=4-5♠ 0-3♥, ''GF'') => ...1♠ relay, really GF now. ...1N short ♠, minimum, NF. ...2♣ natural, misfitting, NF. ...2♦ natural, misfitting, NF. ...2♥ natural, misfitting, NF. ...2♠ 4333♠ minimum, NF ...2NT minimum balanced with 2♠, NF. ...etc. Normally one wouldn't want 2♠;2N rebids as NF, but as i lowered requirements for ''GF'' they become important for me.

Quite a lot of IMPs can be gained if you can stop below game in misfit hands. As for immediate relay breaks this has the highest priority for me. And as i know that i can stop low, i even slightly lowered requirements for some "GF" responses. (to me 1♣-1♦ is negative)

Don't you think that hands with playing strength potential should be allowed to bid more slowly to explore slams? e.g. 4333 comes up like 3 times more than 4441, they have same level required to bid the hand, but as 4441 has more playing strength potential for slams you won't have 3 times more slams with 4333 comparing with 4441. Although 4333 will probably need more place to be described as if one is using something like spiral scan, 4441 due to shortness will probably need less space to be described.

Well, yeah, obviously i meant 1♦/1♥/1♠ to be only bids available. That quote wasn't targeting other methods, but rather for straube's comment as i perceived it as something like ''it is no good to play 1X as Y, because it comes up too much.'' Btw, who is Richard?

I like this quote about interference over strong club. The biggest disadvantage for strong 1♦ is that you have less bidding room for strong hands. ;)

Disagree with what? :rolleyes: I will try to explain in very simple words what i tried to say in case you misunderstood me. Although 4333 will come up 9 times more than 6430, 6430 includes 6 times more exact shapes and it has way more game/slam potential.. so it needs more bidding room. Same thing for range 5-7 or 8+ they might come up in same frequencies, but you will probably need more space for 8+ to describe them (to limit, honor location etc). So i think it is not correct just to look on probabilities. Also i am afraid that you are ''-'' steps compared to standard methods. Opener has to bid 1♥ to start relays while, using 1♥+GF, it happens automatically.. as if opener had bid 1♦ to inquire. Your 1N+responses obviously helps here, but not enough to get till ''0''. I like these bridge basics: limit yourself, bid your longest suits first, don't under lead aces.. But then one should forget all rules and start thinking about each situation exclusively. I think there might be hands that you can add for DN/negative that don't fear competition and can be implemented without noticeable effects. I see that you prefer points by far, but i believe that it is better that you know suits rather than points. But of course it is even better f you know both. :rolleyes:

According to your bridge logic if there were only 3 shapes..e.g.: 4333; 6322;6430. With corresponding probabilities: 60%; 32%;8% and permutations: 4;12;24. It would be poor bridge to play anything but 1♣-1♦ as 4333; 1♥ as 6322 and 1♠ as 6430... As i understand none of your 1♦/1♥/1♠ responses tells anything about suits... In uncontested 1♣-1♦(negative) i expect way better results. Only mayor advantage should come from competitive bidding, but i can't imagine that knowing points (not knowing suits) would help there much. If we want to play something we need to get in suits anyway. Also if GF is set i strongly prefer for strong hand to be captain of bidding (at least initially), it saves spaces and hides information from opponents. But this looks like you are using SP/DN so that 1♣ opener would be captain of these auctions. That i find strange, especially as opener will probably be first to show his shape anyway.

1♦=4♥+ semipositive+ 1♥=4♠+semipositive+ 1♠=DN or bal GF 1N=other semipositives..bal.. minors 2♣+GF Seems fun. :rolleyes:. If you fear competition you must start to bid your suits.

I would never bid 2♣

TBH i don't really get this semipositive and double negative thing. They resemble 1♣-1♦ just responder has limited himself point wise, but opener has less place to describe his hand. Also in competition i don't see that much of upside. Then i would rather play 1♣-1♦ (0-5/6) and use semipositive+ bids. At least i would get suits in...

I think there is a merit for 1♦ opener to include GF hands. But hands that could go there should be either both majors or spades(probably 6+). Looking at my 1♣-1♦ structure i think i can handle these hands very well. Also competition bidding when you have both majors or spades shouldn't be that much of a problem. No. Yes. You shouldn't go low with clubs GF.

[hv=pc=n&s=s2haq872d432ckq32&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1s]133|200[/hv] What if you were 2524? Or with unpassed partner? I am more interested in reasoning rather than what exactly you do.

2d/2h 4+ 2S shows quite a lot of extra strength, catch all, F 2N is natural, extra strength, NF 3x good suit, extra strength, NF

-/-

I should have added that i play precision only 1st/2nd seat Non-Vulnerable... i think i wouldn't play 2♣ as ''weak any'' if vulnerable, although if one play strong NT it might be playable. I am a firm believer that you should immediately show length of ♥ or lack of it before RHO bids.

If 1♠ is natural i play.. Pass.. 4♥ ~6+ or trap X .. 6-8 no 4♥ 1N GF with stop 2♣.. weak any 2♦.. 5♥+ INV+ 2♥.. no or bad ♠ stop 2♠.. 5♣+ GF 2N ..minors 5-7 3♣ ..5♦+GF 3♦ ..6♥+ST 3♥ 6♦+ST 3♠ 1444 GF works well

2♥=minimum with 2♥+ 2♠=not maximum; wrong for ♥; 5+ 2N=artificial maximum; 3m=55 max 3♥=average hand Structures seem very similar. Still, I found it is best for 2♥ to promise 2 card fit, 2♠ including 5♠431♥ minimum and most maximums. No. Yes, but there are some great 6-7 counts.. I play it as (6+) 8-11.

I don't want to go in details explaining all aspects, because from my experience one needs a lot of knowledge and experience with nebulous type 1♦ on his own to be able to evaluate weight of pros and cons. From my experience my nebulous 1♦ (playing it only NV 1st/2nd seat) defined as = 12-15 balanced or 5m+4M yields very good results.

I find that relays really start to shine only if you can get get shape till 3♦. You want to ask for controls (if you are using shape-controls-spiral scan or its modification) below 3NT. Auto control answers help here..e.g 2N(relay) ---3♣ 1st shape ---3♦ 2nd shape ---3♥ 3rd shape and 3 controls ---3♠ 3rd shape and 4 controls ---3NT 3rd shape and 5 controls ---... What i did to use relays after 1M is split hands in relay-able/not relay-able, so 1♥-1N®-2♦=says to partner 'my shape is not very common, maybe you want to switch to natural bidding or w/e'... partner can now bid 2♥=i have heart fit and we are safe.. or i have very strong hand i want to relay.

Just those you can get from http://bridgewithdan.com/systems/index.html That system doesn't shine in uncontested auctions much. One more interesting idea i got from their system are their 2♥/2♠ openings. It gets the main message across while not telling opponents much. It comes up more frequent and 2M (just like natural limited 1NT) are generally opening bids you want to open more. Also Hamman-Mahmood and probalby some other pairs play 2M as 6+ or constructive 2-suiter, with different point range though.

Your 1♣ is unlimited both HCP and shape wise, while your 1♦ is limited both in HCP and shape. 1♦ is more frequent than 1♣ only because particular point range is way more frequent. Precision like 1♦ have always been one of my favorite bids, it comes up often, it is limited both in shape and HCP also it is low. It is the best opening bid for relay methods, also it doesn't give away unnecessary information to opponents and it is generally harder to defend than natural 1c/d. Here you are definitely on the right track.. (comparing to Fibonacci stuff). The idea is to find an opening bid where you can add hands without noticeable effect on score. 1N is surely 1st to come in mind. e.g. Look on F-N 1N opening... i think it might be as frequent as sum of all other 1 opening bids. Also there are hands like 5m4m 6m+; these hands you do not want to open in 1c/1d, because you will often be forced to compete, and opponents will eat up your extra space you had anyway. OTOH hands like 5m4M you are more willing to stay low, because it is more likely that you will be able to bid in an uncontested auction. tysen (don't remember accurate nickname), did some interesting stuff analyzing these kinds of problems, and as i remember one could really draw some useful and logical conclusions. e.g. you should go low with spades... opponents are unlikely to disturb you much and you may take full advantage of your bidding room. I find this very true for precision or polish club like systems where you open 1♣ with strong one suited hand. If opponents compete and you have spades you are generally safe, if you have hearts it is not that safe... I saw this idea also somewhere else where 1♠ 11-15; 1♥ 11-17; 1♦ 11-19 were suggested. Surely it all depends on how your 1♦ is defined, but i think it is not that important sequence. Some time ago i moved to 1♦=5♦+ 11+ unbal and forcing, it works great and i think it has a lot of merit. Also i think that forcing 1♦ is the most powerful F-N opening bid, although tbh it is too infrequent.

Some time ago i had come up with something similar: My idea 1♥/1♠ openings are simply too wide. 2♣/♦ are too wide. I strongly advise not to open these hands in 8-10 range. They don't put much pressure on opponents, no great game potential, no particular reason to open at all, really. My idea was particularly for VUL 1st/2nd seat as i think there are way better system for NV. So i think your NT range is too low at VUL and too infrequent at NV. I think that system is theoretically sound. I played that system for a while, and although hands that were opened in 1M did quite well, i always felt some lack of accomplishment. Like... something just don't fit together. Then i found what i think are better methods for VUL 1st/2nd seat and haven't looked back much.

Flannery <3

One needs a lot of knowledge to build a really good bidding system. I remember myself when i started to play bridge. System i had to start with was some really old fashioned precision that was hand written on a A4 paper. I was told that we need 24 HCP to bid game and i didn't feel like that system would satisfy this goal. So i started to build my own bidding system with main priority to finding EXACT HCP on line. It was like relay system, with step answers each showing exact HCP. Like 1♠-1N®-2♣=11 HCP; 2♦=12 HCP, hilarious. (Will try to find notes, haven't seen them for a really long time, lol). Basically i agree with other posts here, suggesting obtaining extra knowledge. Systems, cc, books etc. especially i suggest reading ZAR books and Revision club, it has a lot of bidding psychology with explanations.

Isn't it brown sticker?