Jinksy

By the way, playing your version, how did you cope with nn45 hands with 18-24 points after a 1D response? If P bids a positive 1M you can just reverse normally, but over 1D your 2D bid is presumably GF.

That's basically the system I'm playing atm, Phil. Wrongsiding feels like a big deal esp when you've got 4ish opposite 16ish, and given that the 1C opening bid is so high frequency it feels like we're losing a lot to it. What do you think of the idea as 1C / 1D as 'either Hs or negative'? It's obviously going to suffer if LHO decides to get involved now, and I'm not sure how tough it will be to untangle below 1N whether P has Hs. On the upside any continuation to 1C *besides* 1D now becomes massively easier to cope with.

I've spent quite a while looking them. I'm not thrilled by their jumps to 2M, which seem to take a lot of room to not define the hand at all well. It's also often not clear from the notes what the system on complex sequences *is*, since Dan's apparently only been able to write down what they actually had when they made various bids. Given that it has a lot of artificial sequences and a number of others where they seem to end up at the three level with little expectation of points or a fit, I've found it hard to draw much inspiration from.

Gerben's system *is* my current base. The negative D works well in many ways, but has a number of flaws that seem to add up, especially because the 1C opening is by some way the second most (possibly the most) common in the system - 1) 1C 1D seems much rarer than the higher sequences, 2) 1C 1M 2N is a disaster waiting to happen, 3) 1C 1M 2M is ill-defined and hard to untangle, 4) 1C 1~D 3C more or less needs to be GF, which means 1C 1~D 2C is very vague, and 5) you frequently wrongside NT contracts via 1C 1N or 1C 1D 1M 1N. Of these 5 is the biggest issue so far, 2 is a pain not so much in that we’ve missed slams as it means we often reveal pointless info on the way to a 3N neither of uswould dream of bypassing if you knew the other's playing strength. 3 is a pain though not a disaster, and a couple of relays could probably sort it out, 1 and 4 haven’t seemed to matter much yet. I’d dismissed the ‘xfer accept as strong hand’ idea from a general aversion to having cheap bids that rarely come up, but your setup does seem like it could make a number of problems go away, so I’ll play with it. I’ve also thought a bit more about cheap 2-way responses, and wondered whether it would be better to do a straightforward combo of 1D as either negative or H xfer positive, so that higher bids actually guarantee some points. Then we’d be in a much better position to continue from them, and we’d just have to sort out the 1C 1D continuations.

I've just been fiddling around with ideas as they come to me, and going by the principle that I want to bias the auction towards the cheapest sequences, it occurred to me that you could have 2-way responses, which are something like either a weak xfer, or a hand strong enough that it doesn't mind too much if the opponents get involved before it shows the other type. So 1C P 1D would be something like '0-N points with 4+ Hs or any balanced GF'. Have any structures like that been documented online already? (or tested and found wanting)

I mean a standardish basic system, presumably with 5cMs, where 1C is artificial only in the sense that it might be as short as 2. Some context - I'm fiddling with a Fantunes-derived system where it *has* to be forcing (and is slightly more conventional in that it's natural or any 15+ balanced with no 5cM), but to make up for that the initial 1C shows a hand about a K stronger than normal. We're currently playing a negative 1D system over it, but I'm frustrated that it often wrongsides NT contracts and makes it hard for either player to limit their hand after bypassing 1D. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you can play in 3N when it's right even with a 4-4 major fit? We can't really afford this possibility, given that opener is initially unlimited.

I gather some people play 1C openings that could contain 2C as completely forcing - is there a set of system notes online explaining how you deal with such a system, or can anyone here describe their treatment? It seems like you'd have a tough time untangling the various strengths, especially if you wanted to minimise the information given to the defence on the way to a <=game contract.

It suggests inefficiency, not that the idea of inviting is fundamentally flawed. I don't see any harm in inviting opposite wide-ranging hands (that's why we have auctions like 1S P 2S P 3C etc), but it seems like either you should have an invitational bid and a range that makes it worthwhile or a small range and no invitational bid. Personally the idea of choosing between P or 3N on a 3-point range scares me too much, but I can see that doing so would sometimes be a winner. Tightening all NT ranges isn't an option, so this seems like a good alternative.

With my most regular p I play this (11-14 1st and second, 15-17 third and fourth, colourblind) and I don’t have anything against it, but I still quite like a weak NT 3rd and 4th – third because you can now chance doing it slightly light (or very light at green), knowing that P won’t invite, and still have a good chance of it getting passed out, fourth because it’s now very likely to be passed out, meaning you might be able to get a +ive score when they have a spade fit.

My partner and I were discussing invites after NT openings, and both thought that the common sentiment among strong players that they wouldn’t miss invites much/at all if they gave them up altogether suggested the normal three-point range was inefficient. I’ve now switched to an 11-14 NT opening with most partners, which also has the benefit of avoiding those horrible P P 1N (with 12 or a bad 13) auctions, where you dread partner’s inevitable invite – obviously in principle you end up in the same spot, but it means third in you can think about opening 1N on much weaker hands if circumstances look right, and has the usual preemptive value over an opponent in 2nd who might have wanted to compete. I’ve also been thinking about extending the logic to 1N rebids, which would let us have a 10-13 mini opening and a 14-17 1N rebid, though this seems like it would cause problems for 2/1 bids. (perhaps having a 2/1 GFing system would help here?) Presumably these possibilities aren’t new… What are people’s experiences with them? Does it make a difference whether you’re playing a strongish or weakish NT?

Here's a specific question - how much have you (/others) found this relevant to bidding after a NT opening? (does it make a difference what the range is?) My instinct is to mostly give up on minor games except on really extreme hands, and just bid 3N without telling the defence all this info about my and p's minor suit holdings.

That's the main purpose of this exercise, but each of the systems above has at least one mechanism I hadn't considered, hence me being keen to know a) if there are other plausible ones and b) how effective people have found the different options. I have a lot of time for MickyB's argument that the benefit of normal Stayman is so high on eg 4450, 4351 hands where whether you even invite depends on P's reponse that any attempt to change that mechanism is off to a bad start. But having 2C force 2D seems to open so many doors that it feels like a worthwhile sacrifice...

I dug through the archives here and found a bit of discussion of Keri, which led me to these others, but found very little discussion of them, still less how they compare to each other. Was wondering if anyone had experience of playing Heeman or ETM, especially if you've tried both them and Keri - in which case, how did they compare? The options I've found: Keri Hitchhiker (aka condensed transfers - Gerben's system) Heeman Everything that Matters Are there any others? How do they compare to each other? The first two have a fundamental idea after which the continuations are relatively malleable (eg 2C puppeting 2D so that you can play in 2M for Keri, 2D asking for opener's short major so you can decide whether your two-suiter is pulling its weight for Hitchiker). The latter two seem more complicated - more of a large set of interdependent conventions than a core idea. Thoughts? Are there other systems worth investigating? (I'm interested primarily in their use for a mini or weak NT)

Well yes, that was part of the dispute. The two of us rarely play together, so we don't have any agreements.

3N surely the best spot? Ideally by N, though given S's need for a 1N response that's surely a pipe dream. But even by S, you seem to have a 50-50 chance of making conditonal on a H lead.

AKQxx K KTx KJxx opposite xx xxxx AQJxx xx The bidding goes PPP to the N hand, then (unopposed) 1S 1N / 3C 3D / 3S 4D PPP We were playing a basic Acol-based system. North said that S had shown a hand with a weak 2 not pure enough for a second seat preempt, and wanted to get out of the auction. South said that if his suit wasn't worth pushing for at the 2 level, it wasn't worth pushing for at the 4 level, and that 4D was therefore a cue agreeing Ss. N said that 3S had just shown extra suit quality/no better bid. S said that with interest in further discussion about denomination, N could have bid 3H. N said that this would show a better H fragment than he had. I submit our dispute to the BBO gods ;)

After the auction 1M 1a 2C 2D 2M, which bids by responder are forcing? My current guesses: 2N seems like it would be useful both as natural invite and as forcing. 3m might depend on whether you're playing IJSes? If so, it's surely weak, hoping to play there, if not I suppose it needs to be forcing. 3M seems like it should be considering you still don't know if opener has 6 of the suit, so given that you didn't raise them the first time you either have 2 card supp or a 3 card limit raise (not sure about this - bit rusty on 5cM 2/1) 3oM must vary depending on both the initial sequence and whether you play 1H 1S as a WJS, but is presumably natural where that makes sense and normally GF or at least F1 over 3H. 4m doesn't exist? Can't see you suddenly having a hand that wants to slamhunt in the major, you've had your chance to force in the minor, and without a known fit you're obviously not bypassing 3N.

But we're only talking about auctions where you don't have a primary fit, which is going to reduce the amount of competition by a fair bit. And about auctions which specifically start with 0-2 passes, a bid and a direct overcall. While I agree you'll see a lot of competition on part score auctions, a lot of that is balancing, and maybe 1/4 is after bid-pass-bid. You seem to be comparing best with worst. Does anyone still play 1M P 2N as natural? When I'm playing 2/1 NGF, I'd bid 2C on that hand, and opener has a simple 3D splinter. Meanwhile I don't know what system allows you to have 3C as 5-5 GF in 2/1, but it's more sophisticated than anything I play (the Gazz variants I've read have 3C as a 5-5 limit bid)... You might - though why doesn't the 'opps compete in part score auctions' logic apply here? I'll bet you get to play in 1N more often with NGF - 1M with the actual hand you gave rather than the one you meant, 1N all pass.

That's not true. Every time you have the auction 1M 1N you've benefited, since you now know more about responder's hand. So actually it's only on hands where responder does have a GF that you clearly benefit, which must be well under 50%.

That's not what I'm looking for. I'm after a sense of the kind of hands on which 2/1 helps, and why. (and thanks to those who've provided them)

I would assume the one on Bridgeguys.

Some thoughts about the standard version of Gazz I had today. Presumably I'm not the first, so hopefully someone can tell me if there's a good reason why this doesn't make sense. On what non-strong hands do you want to bother bidding 2C? The answer seems to me to be 'very few'. The possibility of you having 4(/5/6!) Cs is basically irrelevant to responder's subsequent bid if, as seems to be necessary, you're sometimes making the bid on weak hands with almost no lower bound on your C suit. So really the 2C rebid seems to divide between 1) real mins that hate 1N but don't have an extra M or an honest suit to bid before 2M - ie 5nn5 or n5n5, or the occasional 45(4m), 2) semi-mins (13-15) that are bidding because they have to, just in case p has a real max, and 3) strong hands. The problem with 1) is that most of the time a weak p won't find your suit, and even if he does, it might not have been worth going to the 3 level for. The problem with the standard 2M rebid is that when p passes it (as I would guess he does on most auctions), the extra definition seems like it might help the opps more than it does you - if you have a 6 card suit (esp Hs), they can strain to protect. So one solution would be to feed 1) into the 2M rebid, and stop it from promising 6M, which might actually be a net positive for that bid for the competitive reason above. *** That bit probably relates to Gazz in any system. I think the reasoning below only applies to Fantunes-style forcing 1-bids: That raises the possibility of feeding 2) into the 2M rebid as well, though that seems less desirable. It would mean that now the 2C rebid is 'pure', though, which could help a lot with bidding strong hands. Now the 2D 2M 'minimum' rebid could be a bit stronger - 19-21, say, so that the positive 2D bid itself could be weaker than normal - maybe 3+, which would help a lot with bidding almost-GF balanced hands (which currently have a theoretical range of 21-24 after 1M 1N 2N, which seems horrifically wide to me). *** Opinions on any of the above welcomed.

In response to your question, I and a few regular Ps are trying to settle on a coherent (Fantunes derived) system that doesn't have anything that we consider glaring flaws. I'm actually slightly in favour of 2/1 GF, but it makes life extremely difficult after a 1N response when the range on it is 0-8!

I'm not crazy about the initial X. S might compete quite heavily in Ss as a result. Why not 1N? At this vul P will surely raise you with as much as a 7 count.

Please construct a pair of hands (ideally several) that a sensible 2/1 GF sequence gets you to a contract that a sensible 2/1 NGF sequence will likely miss. I'm sure there are plenty of such hands, but I still haven't got a sense of their qualities to know what I'm gaining in return for what seem to me to be the more obvious losses (when 1N is the only making contract, for eg). Still thinking of having NGF 2/1s in Fantunes. It seems like without them you're making life deeply unpleasant for yourself when (for eg) you have a balanced 21-24 count with a 5cM, and after a Gazzilli sequence, p shows you a min, esp if his rebid is 2N or above.