glen1

You provide 5+ good reasons how system can have a positive impact on results, and these are all valid. However system can also hinder the development of a bridge player, as the very same reasons become a crutch, and the players don't learn to run. While I would not go so far as Fred's '99%' of players, I would suggest that developing players avoid the crutch, and don't rely on the positive impacts of bidding systems while trying to get better. Then later, when they are ready to take on the world (and/or Fred), they can pick a system or two to beat up Hamman and rest of the bridge mob. I don't know about Brad, but I think that Fred may believe that his system is not any "better" or worse than the other systems employed at the highest levels, and that his competitive advantage comes from always knowing what they are doing - that is trying to play error-free bridge. Fred's teammates Eric Greco and Geoff Hampson likely believe that system is important in some way, as they switched from 2/1 to Meckwell strong club. They might have done this because they believe it is more effective, or they might have done it because they like opening 11 counts. Perhaps they could lend Fred their notes.

Although I fully agree that Hamman would be “on top” playing any decent system, it has been said that he split with Wolff because the latter would not change their bidding methods. So Hamman himself could believe that methods are important (at the highest levels) and hence the quote from this book. For myself, even as a long-time system designer and chaser of bidding science utopias, I don’t believe Hamman’s choice of system had much bearing on his results in general. For players like Hamman, and his current partner Soloway, their success over the years, in my view, derives from their amazing ability to play consistent error-free bridge. In such light, the number one factor in deciding on a system to play should be does it assist the partnership in consistently reducing the number of errors. Put another way, the system chosen should be one the partnership is comfortable with, and enjoys playing. I think Hamman likes his system a lot, though I have wondered if Soloway would prefer 2/1, given he played it with Walsh and Goldman (though with Goldman for some time they dabbled with using a light opening bid strong club system when not vulnerable). Although Soloway might prefer 2/1, I don’t think he minds playing Hamman’s system, since he knows it functions well too.

Please note that Fred wrote this before Episode III, Revenge of the Roman Numerals, where he takes on the Italian Team for several years, and then switches over to the dark side (I think it was some strong diamond system with 8-12 openings but I don’t have the screenplay at hand – rumour has it Yoda was based on Joey Silver). Although system and/or comprehensive sets of partnership agreements are needed at high levels (at least until Fred proves that he can win playing two pages of Goren notes), developing players should avoid the crutch and distraction of highly evolved bidding systems and stick with mainstream methods. So forget all that Darth Vader equipment (though I think that mechanical breathing would throw off the opponents) and learn to wield a light sabre first.

Thats a very nice method.

How about 1NT is 12-15 balanced or 11-15 with 6+♣s usually no major suit singleton/void. With 1-3-3-6 or 3-1-3-6 open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. After 1♦-1♥, opener should be able to pass with 5+♥s. I don't think 1♣-1♦ need promise ♥s.

Avm’s post has a good summary (thanks!). Some experts are playing 1♦-2♥ as a strong jump shift in ♥s or a game invite in notrump without a four card major. This allows opener to play the notrump contract if deemed necessary, and also lets 1♦-2NT be natural and game forcing. This then ensures that 1♦-2♣ is real ♣s. In the Gitelman-Moss system, 1♦-2♣-2♦ promises 4 or longer ♦s and a minimum. No other details are known at this time, but I suspect they play 1♦-2NT as natural and game forcing, so 1♦-2♣ is real clubs. If we rely on thirty years of Kokish work, there is no perfect 1♦-2♣ scheme. For something unusual and imperfect, a transfer scheme: 1♦-2♣- ? 2♦: Transfer to ♥s or 6+♦s & no second suit. 2♥: Transfer to ♠s. 2♠: Transfer to ♣s, 4+♣s & 5+♦s. 2NT: Balanced, no four card major but stoppers in both majors, not 4♣s. 3♣: 4♣s & 4♦s, balanced or singleton in a major. Rest: As usual. Transfer to majors can be with a balanced hand that has a stopper in the major transferred to but no stopper in other major. After 2♦, 2♥ asks for details, 2♠ showing 6+♦s, 2NT showing a balanced hand with 4♥s (may have 4♠s too) or a ♥ stopper with no ♠ stopper, 3X shaping out with ♥s with a new suit showing a singleton/void (so 4-4-4-1 exactly rebids 3♣s). After 2♥, 2♠ asks for details, as over 2♦ but with ♠s instead of ♥s. After 2♠, 2NT or 3♣ asks for details. After 2NT, 3♣ asks for details, while 3♥/3♠ shows location of values with long ♣s. After 3♣, 3♦ asks for details. Beside the ask-for-details bids, the rest of the bidding is natural and game forcing.

I was trying to remember where I first saw it, and I think it might have been Soloway-Goldman in the 90s. I certainly did not come up with it.

As noted in the other reply to your questions, many play Kokish 2♥ here (or as Kokish/Kraft call it "Birthright"). If not playing Kokish, 2♠ would show 5 and responder would then bid 2NT if no ♥ fit and no five card suit (♠s,♣s,♦s) to show. No, 3♥/3♠ should be five or longer suits, and 3♦ should be semi-natural, allowing opener to introduce a four card major. See, for example, Modern American Bidding by Kokish & Kraft. Also: 2♣ 2♦ (waiting) 3♥/3♠ should show 4 cards in bid major with longer ♦s. Then: 2♣ 2♦ (waiting) 3♦ 3♥/3♠ will be five or longer suits, since no need to look for 4-4 fit here. Yes 5 card or longer suits, and otherwise bid 2NT. The 2NT rebids by responder sometimes seem to wrong side the contract, since responder usually has very few points. For this and other reasons, some play 2♣-2♥ as super negative (0-3 say), so that 2♦ waiting promises some points. Others play cheapest minor below 3NT (or 3NT if none) as the second negative after the 2♦ waiting response was made. A better scheme after 2♦ waiting and 2♥/♠ by opener that nobody uses would be to have 2NT show a fit for opener's major (assuming Kokish/Birthright not used), 3♣ be a waiting bid, and 3 of opener's major to show ♣s. So: 2♣ 2♦ (waitng) 2♥ (?) 2♠ = five or longer ♠s 2NT = three or longer ♥s (look at all the room to explore for slam) 3♣ = waiting, can be very weak 3♦ = five or longer ♦s 3♥ = five or longer ♣s 2♣ 2♦ (waitng) 2♠ (?) 2NT = three or longer ♠s (look at all the room to explore for slam) 3♣ = waiting, can be very weak 3♦ = five or longer ♦s 3♥ = five or longer ♥s 3♠ = five or longer ♣s Since you may very well be the first partnership to use this in the world, you would be free to name it anything you want, like "WTF" or "Daft".

First, anybody with the ability please change this topic title to "The GM System". (Done! - thanks sombody!) Second, just updating this with information from General Bridge Discussion. GM includes Meckwell vs. strong (14+) NT: 2♣=♣s+major 2♦=♦s+major 2♥=♥s 2♠=♠s Double=Single minor or both majors or good/great hand. After partner bids 2♣ Pass=♣s 2♦=♦s 2♥=♥s & ♠s 2♠=♠s, good/great hand 2NT+: Rest natural, good/great hand Third, another update: 1♦-2♣-2♦ promises 4 or longer ♦s and a minimum. No other details are known at this time, but I suspect they play 1♦-2NT as natural and game forcing, so 1♦-2♣ is real clubs. Fourth, another update: 1NT-2♦ is a Jacoby transfer to ♥s or both minors. After opener's 2♥ bid, 2♠ shows both minors (rest of bids show ♥s).

Common approach is for opener's suit rebid to be played as an ask with 3+ steps: 1) No fit, no extras. 2) No fit, extras (defined as extra HCP and/or good 2/1 points, A=2, K=1) 3) Fit, no extras Above step 3 - fit, extras. After 1) and 2) opener now has a chance to bid a second suit before responder continues to describe hand, which allows opener to catch up in showing shape. Meckwell switch suits for opener's rebid, so that major suit can be shown/asking as the cheapest bids. For example if 1♣-1♠ showed ♥s, 2♣s would now show ♠s and ask for the step replies as above.

Love to get a copy even if in (gasp) Italian. Send to FN @ bridgematters . com Didn't have their notes, just went through the vugraph archives looking at all the hands they played, so it seemed to me that opener usually passes. I agree, that if the style is for opener to raise any time there is a four card fit, you can't respond on these weak hands. In which case I would not play FN two bids as the problems you posed earlier are unsolvable. For example if you wait until they double, and then run out on a misfit hand, the sharks will taste the blood in the water, and goodbye to various body parts.

First, note that FN with hands of the shape for a two level suit opening, open 1 of a suit instead with some 12 HCP hands, and many 13 HCP hands. Also they open a few 8 HCP hands on the two level, and some 9 HCP hands (except in 3rd seat where they frequently do so with 8-9 since responder will usually not have enough values to get them in trouble). So the two level openings have quite a narrow effective range, and should be treated as 10-12 hands, even though they will sometimes have poor 13s and good 9s or great 8s. Thus the FN style is not to have too many game invite sequences - instead they usually force to game or stay low. So if responder bids a suit that opener has 3 or 4 card support for, opener will usually pass. To raise would require a four card fit, maximum, and extra shape (not just 5-4-3-1). Playing this style, responder can explore for a better fit on a weak hand, as the bidding will stay low. This is why FN don't mind opening 2♦ with 4-4-4-1. Responder will not pass with a singleton/void in ♦s, but instead will bid a four card or longer major with one. Also responder knows that since opener is often 5-4-3-1 (and never 5-4-2-2) opener will either pass with a 3 or 4 card fit, or bid again if singleton/void. For example if 5-2-1-5 over a 2♦ opening, responder bids 2♠, and if opener runs out of that, there is likely a ♣ fit. Note how effective this approach can be against the opponents. The bidding goes 2♦-Pass-2♠-?. Now does the opponent bid here, into a possible misfit, or pass here and perhaps miss out on game or a good part score? Compare to a Precision 2♦ instead - now the opponent knows that 2♦-Pass-2♠ is based on some sort of fit. Sometimes the FN run out will leave them at the three level playing in opener's suit with no fit. Stuff happens. The opponents don't often double and the contract goes down a bunch, but two of the same contract was also going down.

A One-Notrump OPening Marionette by Paul Glick in The Bridge World, September 2002, suggested a Precision system where the 1NT opening shows 5 clubs and a side four card suit, 11-15. A variation of this could be a Romex 1NT multi system. Here 1NT shows a six card suit or longer suit, no second suit, 11-15. Partner uses pass or correct two level responses, or bids 2NT to ask. For example, 1NT-2C-?, now pass=6+Cs, 2d=6+Ds, 2h=6+Hs, 2s=6+s, 3X=natural with seven card suit and maximum. Now 1D has to handle balanced 12-15, or you can bid 1H or 1S with balanced 12-15 and 4 or 5 in the major, and 1D only if no four card major. Note that Herbert relays are not ACBL GCC legal, which has bugged canape system designers in North America a long time.

BOTTOMLINE AND FINAL QUESTION I would like from all of you suggestion for a. 2-LEVEL OPENING REQUIREMENTS We all know FN suggest (9+)10-13 hcp and unbalanced hands. (only exception 5422 with majors) But what about suit quality ? What would you open, vulnerable, holding: KQx-Txxxx-AKxx-x Yes, playing FN. My idea is to consider a xxxxx suit as a 4 bagger, and to open in many cases 1NT with 5431 and an empty 5 bagger. Any thoughts ? Too much playing strength if partner has 4 card fit for 5 card major. If singleton in other major, partner may transfer to suit and have you play there on 5-1 fit. what about, say, a slightly better suit, but not so great, e.g.: Kxx-Kxxxx-AKxx-x ? Would you open 2H vulnerable ? Yes, playing FN style. b. NON FORCING RESPONSES According to the requirements for the 2-level openings, how would you handle as responder the hands in the 0-7/8 hcp range in misfit with the opened suit ? Scramble out to better fit if can find one - FN do this all the time. Opponents rarely know when to double, and sometimes miss entering auction when they should. E.g., suppose ur pard opens 2D how do u handle the following hands ? Consider that pard will not pass your NF bid if he has 0-2 card support, and he'll raise you with 4 cards and the minimum BASICALLY, THE QUESTION IS: SHOULD THE NF BID BE A RESCUE BID ? AND IF SO WHAT SUIT REQUIREMENTS ARE NEEDED ? hand 1 KQxx-xx-x-Jxxxxx This hand cannot rescue directly in a minor; 3C wd be forcing. It does has a decent 4 card suit though. 2S, non-forcing, playing FN style. hand 2 Kxxx-xx-x-JTxxxx This hand is a misfit in diamonds, but the spade suit is a lousy 4 bagger. Yet we might have a better spot than 2D. 2S, non-forcing, playing FN style. hand 3 JTxxx-Kxxx-x-xxx Here we have BOTH majors to offer, what strategy should we adopt ? 2H, non-forcing, playing FN style. Partner will bid 2S if no fit and 4Ss. hand 4 Qxxxx-xx-x-Axxxx Here we have 2 places to play, but should we risk that pard rebids diamonds at the 3 level ? 2S, non-forcing, playing FN style. Partner with no fit should bid 3C with 4+Cs or 2NT with much of anything else, allowing a 3C rebid by responder.

The Canadian team now Qs the same year as the world event - the final of the Canadian National Team Championship is on BBO vugraph, Saturday June 4th. Maybe not the drama city of the US trials, but some hard fought bridge nonetheless. This year's teams are: http://www.cbf.ca/BWeek/05files/CNTC05_rosters.html Including: Nicolas L'Écuyer, Kamel Fergani, Jurek Czyzowicz, Darren Wolpert, Gavin Wolpert, Vincent Demuy In order to inoculate Jurek from bad results from teammates, my wife and I are playing on his team tomorrow in a local match against another CNTC attending team.