SteelWheel

This is tne new system recently published by Richard Granville and David Burn. In brief, it's a F*nt*n*s-like system with unlimited one-bids (except for 1♠ openings which are "standard"), and "strong weak-two bids" a la F-N. System summary available here: https://ebooksbridge.com/www/ebb/samples/SAMPLE_HONORS_MOSSOBiddingSystem.pdf If interested in giving it a spin, send me a PM, or look for me on BBO.

Can we turn this into a sticky for all Precision or all SMP players? I'm also looking for a good SMP pard, for both BBO play and hopefully for NABCs as well. I'm a Sapphire LM (halfway to Diamond). Many Regional wins. If interested, please send a PM or look for me online. btw, most of us could do a lot worse than to have Yasser as a partner...

Would be willing to build a serious (= for Regionals and NABCs) partnership based around SMP/MeckLIte. Plenty of experience with various strong club systems. Sapphire LM based 60% in NY and 40% in Vegas. PM if interested.

Hey Dan. What forum would you like us to use to post opinions or ask followup questions about SMP? This thread, a new topic on this thread, or the Non-Natural System board? Thanks.

My percentage has recently dropped from 100 to 99. The only reason I can think of for this is failure to complete several instant tournaments (fell asleep, sorry). In any case, these are solo tournaments, so my non-completion doesn't affect any other players or cause extra work for TDs--the whole thing runs on auto-pilot. I'm sure my percentage will eventually return to 100; nevertheless, this might be one area in which completion is somewhat irrelevant and should perhaps be eliminated from calculations.

I kibbed a fair amount of the BBO VuGraph for the Reisingers this past weekend. Most of the top American pairs seemed to be using one or the other of these systems (except for Meckwell themselves, of course playing their full system). Is there any literature out there on the "could be short ♣ with transfer responses" system? I have the pamphlet from Dan Neill's site describing the Welland/Auken system--it's hard to get a handle on it all as there are no explanations provided--just a recap of all(?) possible sequences. I have sort of the same question about Meck Lite. I've seen three or four different writeups all claiming to be "the one, true, Meck Lite". While each has the same basic idea (1♦ response negative, 1♥ 8-11, all other responses 12+), each also has a greater or lesser amount of artificiality. Is there a definitive version out there someplace? Thanks.

This looks a lot like the "button bid" and "launching pad" concept first advanced by the Granovetters in their book "Bridge Additions 96". For serious partnerships, having a method like this to build system notes is an excellent idea.

As I understand it, GUS has been in a "we're still tweaking it" mode for 4-5 years now, so there may not be any conflict as such between the Granovetter-Stansby CC and the article cited (which appears to be from a few years back). The (presumably authoritative) GUS pamphlet on 1NT openings gives the range as 12+ -16...with some caveats. The 12+ -14- range is for balanced hands with a five-card major or 14+ -16 (generally with a five card holding in some suit if at the low end). Obviously, you need to be playing some kind of puppet Stayman to sort out the hand types and reveal the five-card majors (which they have done in their system writeup) The GUS 1♦ open handles all the 12-14 NT hands without a five-card major as well as all the minimumish diamond hands and all 4441 5440 5431 hands lacking a five card major--so the total suicide diamond approach, IOW. As I browse through these pamphlets, it seems to me that much of this system may not be playable on the ACBL GCC, and would have to be mid-chart+. There are many interesting ideas in these booklets that can be adapted even to a 2/1 or standard system. En toto however, I'd like to see more of the great systemic triumphs of which this system is touted to be capable. I know! If the Granovetters really want to popularize their brainchild, they can pull a CC Wei, and pay some good (if not world-class) players to play this system in Regionals/NABCs and see what it can do. (hint hint....)

This is the system that the Granovetters are claiming is the Next Big Thing in strong club systems, and will immediately make you richer, better-looking..and yield lots of 70% matchpoint sessions and truckloads of IMPs. I've always found the Granovetters to be interesting theorists with their blend of old-fashioned ideas along with provocative new approaches. Obvious shift carding was (for me at least) a tremendously exciting new way to communicate with partner on defense, and I always try to wrangle new partners into giving it a go. I bought all their little booklets and pamphlets, mostly interested in their approach to strong club auctions, detailed at great length in the latest pamphlet. I found it quite strange--it feels like the responses leave the partnership too vulnerable to preemption, given that the focus for positive responses is on disclosure of AK and AKQ points and balanced vs unbalanced, yet leaves the actual disclosure of shape to later in the interrogation auction. Has anyone read (or better still played or even played against) this system? Curious what kinds of opinions there are out there on this one. I like looking for better mousetraps--just not convinced that this is it.

Many have abandoned the classic 13-15 NT range of Precision because of hands like this--it's kind of anti-field--even more so than a plain K/S-ish 12-14 weak notrump. At least there you get to open or rebid in such a way as to suggest the "other" range (the typical 15-17). These days many Precision pairs are playing the "medium NT" of 14-16--some playing 10-12 in some seats when NV, but still mostly based around 14-16--which is a bit more "with the field". Some go the other way, either playing a slightly wider ranged 12-15 (takes some of the pressure off the nebulous diamond) or 11/12-14 and push the floor for a 1♣ open to 15+ No matter what you do, you have to resign yourself to "the range issue" as a potential problem whenever you embrace a strong club or weak NT system. Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield...

The way I'm playing it right now is 12-15 NT, with the understanding that NV, a hand with 2.5 or 3 quick tricks looks like a 12 count. So far, no problems.

I'm crossing over to the dark side myself right now--using Ken Rexford's MICS (Modified Italian Canape System) with good results so far. MICS uses a "semi-forcing" NT response to opener's 1♥/1♠--theoretically passable by opener, but rarely passed in practice. Generally MICS uses "natural" responses to 1♥/1♠ openings. 2/1s are not GF, but rather more or less SA-style. The only possible exception is that sometimes a 1♠ response to a 1♥ open might be preferred to a 2♣/2♦ response, even with GI+ values--but that's not so radical.

You don't provide any information about the rest of your system, so can't evaluate fully... In general, my take on 2♦ opening bids is that they should be played specifically to cover a "hole" in your bidding system, not just employed willy-nilly on an ever-increasing number of hand types. The Precision 2♦ open addresses a specific issue (how to open an intermediate three-suiter with short diamonds). I've seen Precision pairs expand this to include all 4441 or 5440 patterns, and I wonder what hole they are trying to cover as all other three-suiters are pretty easily handled without need for a "gadget". Even Flannery addresses a specific issue--and "classic" Roman (strong variant only) addresses the problem of opening 2♣ and then being stuck for an intelligent rebid that gets all the information in there after the self-preemption. Playing 2♦ openings, and then constantly expanding the universe of hands they cover is sort of a "disease" in my opinion. I have one semi-regular pard who does this a lot, and I have to keep breaking him of the habit...

Hey Ken: I don't mind slightly sounder opening bid requirements than you. What do you think of 12-15 HCP for all 1 NT opens (including 5cM, and eventual thoughts of playing Keri to sort out min/max and other issues quickly), maybe along with a meta-understanding that any hand with an A and an AK (AQJx, other similar) looks like a 12 count when NV. The immediate suggestion that opening a one bid (other than 1♣ = "shape will be found here" is a very compelling part of the approach, for me,

All this discussion of canape and MICS..yet it still seems hard to find someone willing to give it a go. I have one local pard with whom I'm messing about with it; unfortunately he's a little travel-restricted, so not really able to blaze the tournament trail with him/it. Anyone interested in trying some MICS with an eye toward hitting some Regional or NABC competition? I spend half my time in the Northeast, other half west coast-ish...

Here in ACBL-land, nothing about scoring any bridge game makes much sense to me. For example, in local club games, the idea of scoring via any method other than matchpoints is virtually unheard of. However, in most Regional tournaments, the (by far) dominant method of scoring for nearly all events is by imps (not x-imps, but imps nonetheless). And why is this? Because the product that ACBL sells is masterpoints. Hence, nearly event is a "bracketed round-robin Swiss", where they just start cutting the field into seven or eight teams per bracket, and have each team play against all the others. After all, it awards more masterpoints, since each bracket rewards those precious gold points to at least three teams. Heaven forbid that any pair play their best all day long in a matchpoint event and have "nothing to show for it". Must award gold points!! I'm a lonely voice, I guess. I became a Life Master a long time ago, and it wasn't all that tough to get there, even under those old, draconian rules (y'know, the ones that required that you be able to beat LMs in order to become one?). Modern tournament bridge is so deathly dull with the heavy emphasis on formats which will award the most masterpoints possible (NABCs mostly excepted). But hey, where is someone ever supposed to learn how to play matchpoints (vs a strong field), or IMP pairs, or (gasp!) board-a-match, if the clubs and the non-national tournaments don't put such events on the schedule? ok, rant over. Go back to your normal business...

American Forcing Minor used a 1♦ opener which was either a 15-17 NT, or 15-20 HCP and the beginning of a possible canape sequence.

I've been playing around with Ken Rexford's MICS system, if that's of any interest.

Style #1 is the one my pards and I fell into when playing Precision with 14-16 NTs. So in theory, 1♦--1♥--1♠ showed an unbalanced hand (failure to open or rebid 1NT)--but we still weren't sure if clubs or diamonds was the five card suit (we played the 2♣ opening almost always had at least a six-card holding). Eventually, we found that we hated opening 1♦ on a non-suit when we had two perfectly good ones to be proud of. We started opening 1♠ a lot with chunky four-baggers. All of which has led me to believe that Hamman is right, and that four card major and canape is the right way to play a strong club system.

Used to play a lot of Precison and other strong club approaches (and a fair amount of weak NTs in otherwise "standard" systems). Recently discovered Ken Rexford's MICS (canape system), and find it fascinating. Would like to find someone willing to experiment with it online, and eventually hit a Regional or NABC. (I have just shy of 3000 attendance points, fwiw) I do travel quite a bit, splitting my time between the northeast and the west coast areas, so depending on where I am for work, I can carve out time for bridge here and there. The spring NABC in Reno is a possibility, for example. If interested, send me a PM here or on BBO directly.

Without having read this book, or knowing anything about it, my advice is stay away from Kickback. Unless you have a very serious partnership that is dedicated to working out which auctions are Kickback and which are not, it's just not worth it. The one time you manage to keep the bidding lower because you can bid 4♦ as Kickback for clubs will be more than offset by the number of times you find yourself playing 4♠ when you're cold for 6♥. I've never done more than briefly skim Kantar's book, but his key principle is that responder to a 4NT call should be in a position where his most frequent call will be 5♣, giving you the most room to mess around with followup asks, etc. It's probably marginally easier to learn that (or at least some of it) than committing to Kickback as your default method of Ace-asking. Just my opinion.

A similar sort of situation once befell me. In a regular (yet still mostly "we're basically winging it") partnership here on BBO, I opened 1NT 15-17) with a five-card heart suit. Pard was right there with 2♦, transfer to hearts. We had no agreements to play any sort of pre-accepts. Still, there I was about to play a ten-card heart fit . Surely, bidding 3♥ couldn't be so horribly wrong, could it? The more I looked at the hand though, the more I realized that if pard couldn't do anything over 2♥, eight tricks was probably the limit for the hand. I meekly accepted and so it came to pass that I took my eight-only tricks for a top score. Gotta love this game sometimes!

The key term here is in the title of the post: 2+ I run across Precision pairs frequently who promise only one or even zero diamonds for their 1♦ opening bid (at times, I've even been one-half of some of those pairs, usually at my partner's insistence--personally I don't like it, but I reluctantly go along). I agree that 2+ is not worth treating much differently--but I think there is probably a better way to handle the "Zero diamond" approach, depending on what hand-types the opponents are likely to include in their 1♦ opening bid.

-

If simplicity is the ultimate goal, you can't beat the simplest system of all: Concentrate on the bid, not the meaning of the bid. So, if they overcall 2♥, whatever it means (hearts, spades or minors, both majors, whatever), just assume it shows long hearts and act accordingly. It may not be the optimal system, but if you're looking for a KISS approach, it can't be beat.