Stayman, then 2S

[whereagles]

A modern system is not 4-card majors. (...)

As just one example of how hampered you are by opening a 4-card major before a 4-card minor is an auction like this:

 

1♠ - 2♦

3♦

 

That can still be 4-4.

Hum.. your example actually has an easy way out without much twinking :P But anyway, while 4-card majors do have some advantages, it's probably true 5-card majors are more systematic and easier to deal with.

[Finch]

A modern system is not 4-card majors. I can mention several other approaches, but basically I think it's much better to play 5-card majors. To be fair, many British pairs of the "younger" generation have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and have started to change their old-fashioned system.

I can't decide whether to give you stick or not!

 

I have played both, and much prefer playing 5 card majors. So does Jeffrey, who also happens to be a vehement defender of the 4CM style when commentating (more so than I, usually).

 

So I agree with you, and therefore shouldn't really start arguing.

 

But I'm argumentative by nature. I think 4CM style has a lot going for it that many people don't really see or understand (or do see but don't agree with, of course, that's allowed).

 

It is considerably harder to play 4CM well than any 5CM system. It is also much harder to defend against.

 

p.s. And England is not the only home of 4CM systems: what about Blue Club or the alive-and-well Moscito?

[Walddk]

A modern system is not 4-card majors. (...)

As just one example of how hampered you are by opening a 4-card major before a 4-card minor is an auction like this:

 

1♠ - 2♦

3♦

 

That can still be 4-4.

Hum.. your example actually has an easy way out without much twinking :P

Which when 3♦ is non-forcing? How can responder risk 3♠ now with 3-card support and 8-11 hcp? Fine if opener has 5, not so good if he has 4. And finally, is 3♠ now forcing or not?

 

Roland

[whereagles]

Why would you bid 3♦ on a 44? With a 44 you are in the strong NT region and should bid 2NT, no? Consequently, 3♦ should show a 5 spades and 4 diams (whether you are min or not is another story).

[Walddk]

Why would you bid 3♦ on a 44? With a 44 you are in the strong NT region and should bid 2NT, no? Consequently, 3♦ should show a 5 spades and 4 diams (whether you are min or not is another story).

So you bid 2NT to show 15-17 balanced with our without diamond support, fine. Next question: how do you find your diamond slam when responder is 2-4-4-3 with a good hand? 3♥? Does that promise 5 diamonds? And if it does not, should I now bid 4♦ with 4-card support and bypass 3NT, especially at matchpoints?

 

If not, must I then conceal my diamond fit forever? There is definitely a significant flaw.

 

To Frances:

You can't compare Acol to Blue Club and/or Moscito (or Hamway's Precision for that matter), because all those systems are based on a strong club, and accordingly 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ show limited openings. That is not the case in Acol.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

Said it before, said it again: In order to work efficiently, bidding systems need to be well integrated. You can't take votes about individual bidding sequences in isolation from the rest of the system (or, in this case, in isolation from the rest of the NT module). Let me rephrase that - you can, but you end up with a damn crappy system.

 

Comment 1: There are a 1001 different treatments over NT. Even within a limited geographic range there is nothing really approaching standard.

 

Comment 2: Consider (once again) that the FD file is intended both for disclosure AND for teaching programs. Polling the BBO forum isn't nearly as important as talking to teachers and finding out what they prefer to present to students.

 

Comment 3: Pick a single, well designed NT system and copy this faithfully. I don't care if you decide to standardize on the Scanian NT structure, Keri, Washington Standard, WJ2005, or what have you. I do care that the structure as a whole is well designed and well documented.

Richard, no, I can't pick a NT system for BBO advanced. The purpose of BBO advanced is not to create a perfect bidding system. Instead, it is mostly about documenting what people assume to be standard, and possibly making choices where there are a few standard versions.

It is pretty clear that the standard 1NT system for adv/exp players contains

1. Stayman

2. 4-suit transfers

Further, it makes sense to follow Fred's writeup and BWS as far as immediate 3-level bids are concerned (3m = minors weak/strong, 3M = 54 minors with shortness in that suit).

That already defines a lot of sequences.

 

What I am polling here is not what people think what these sequences should be (I have no idea how this 2♠/2N inversion idea got into this thread), but what people think that is standard, or should be standard for a pickup partnership.

 

"Picking" a system won't work. People will agree "2/1, ok lets load BBO adv", will play what they believe is standard, and then if the FD file claims s.th. completely different, they won't adopt to that. So the FD file would just create MI.

 

FWIW, for these two sequences I am torn between leaving them as undefined (although nobody agreed with Justin, they all proved him right :) ), or following BWS and define it as natural, invitational.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

Richard, no, I can't pick a NT system for BBO advanced. The purpose of BBO advanced is not to create a perfect bidding system. Instead, it is mostly about documenting what people assume to be standard, and possibly making choices where there are a few standard versions.

Actually, you can...

 

That's the beauty of this whole thing. There's no "install base" of BBO advanced players deeply commited to the purity of their methods. Imposing a new NT system isn't going to cause people to run screaming into the night. And even if people beleive that what they play is standard, they're wrong. Even if there are players completely and utterly devoted to BBO Advanced, you can easily side step them. Don't call the new FD file "BBO Advanced". Call it "BBO 2/1"...

 

I strongly suspect that people will prefer to see a standard (any standard) put into place.

 

At one point in time, there was an attempt to use SAYC as a "standard" for online bridge. This failed miserable for one very simple reason. SAYC is a shitty system full of big stinking holes. As a result, all the different teachers out there tried to fix these holes when they taught SAYC to their students. And all of these teachers had very different ideas about what was best. Move to the present day: If you sit down and agree to play SAYC you have no idea

 

1. What 1m - 2N shows

2. How many Spades partner has in an auction like 1S - 2D - 2S

3. Whether partner is going to pass 1S - 2D - 2N

4. Whether 1C - 1D - 1S promises an unbalanced hand

5. Yada, yada, yada

 

Hence my belief that its VERY important to chose a system that is well documented and "good enough" that the teachers won't feel the need to tinker...

[whereagles]

So you bid 2NT to show 15-17 balanced with our without diamond support, fine. Next question: how do you find your diamond slam when responder is 2-4-4-3 with a good hand? 3♥? Does that promise 5 diamonds? And if it does not, should I now bid 4♦ with 4-card support and bypass 3NT, especially at matchpoints?

 

If not, must I then conceal my diamond fit forever? There is definitely a significant flaw.

Well, the 2NT rebid is both GF and very precise. It should be no problem for responder to know if he's on the slam zone or not. If he (responder) happens to make a move towards slam, we can show the diamond fit.

 

Incidently, 3♥ should show a red 44, since with a 54 you can try 3♦ instead of bidding hearts.

[david_c]

FWIW, for these two sequences I am torn between leaving them as undefined (although nobody agreed with Justin, they all proved him right :) ), or following BWS and define it as natural, invitational.

Elsewhere you've said you want the BBO-Advanced file to resolve things like RKCB 1430 vs. 3041. I don't really understand how this question is very different. Consistency seems important.

[cherdano]

FWIW, for these two sequences I am torn between leaving them as undefined (although nobody agreed with Justin, they all proved him right :) ), or following BWS and define it as natural, invitational.

Elsewhere you've said you want the BBO-Advanced file to resolve things like RKCB 1430 vs. 3041. I don't really understand how this question is very different. Consistency seems important.

Well, the difference is that you can just live without using the sequences here. Whereas you can hardly live without knowing whether 1C-1S-2D-2S is forcing.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

Incidently, 3♥ should show a red 44, since with a 54 you can try 3♦ instead of bidding hearts.

This is too complicated for comfort. How much easier would it not have been if I could have opened 1♦ and get 2♦ (inverted) unless he has a major to show? Now we have found our fit at the 2-level instead of the 4-level.

 

I claim that opening 1♠ with 44 in spades and diamonds can easily complicate matters if I'm not allowed to support diamonds over a 2♦ response. Support with support is a very good rule.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

How about moving the 4-card major discussion to the convention bashing thread?

[whereagles]

Incidently, 3♥ should show a red 44, since with a 54 you can try 3♦ instead of bidding hearts.

This is too complicated for comfort. How much easier would it not have been if I could have opened 1♦ and get 2♦ (inverted) unless he has a major to show? Now we have found our fit at the 2-level instead of the 4-level.

 

I claim that opening 1♠ with 44 in spades and diamonds can easily complicate matters if I'm not allowed to support diamonds over a 2♦ response. Support with support is a very good rule.

Yes, it's obviously easier to bid the hand if it had been opened 1♦. Actually, in the old Jais-Lahana book on 4-card majors (french style), the rule for opening 44s was:

 

If 44 are adjacent: open the highest

If 44 are not adjacent: open the lowest

 

so a 4 spade + 4 diams would open 1♦, even in a 4-card majors system. Incidently, 4333s were always opened 1♣.

[Walddk]

If 44 are adjacent: open the highest

If 44 are not adjacent: open the lowest

 

so a 4 spade + 4 diams would open 1♦, even in a 4-card majors system. Incidently, 4333s were always opened 1♣.

Tell that to the acolites and see if you can get through the barrier.

 

Roland

[MickyB]

That sounds like old-fashioned Acol, and is markedly inferior to modern Acol IMO - presumably the intention is to open 1S and rebid 2H on a 4432.

[Walddk]

What is modern Acol, Mike? Do you teach your students to bid 4-card suits up the line now or not? I hope so, but even if this is the case, you and I also know that lots, like in thousands, still play it the old-fashioned way.

 

Roland

[Blofeld]

What is modern Acol, Mike? Do you teach your students to bid 4-card suits up the line now or not? I hope so, but even if this is the case, you and I also know that lots, like in thousands, still play it the old-fashioned way.

Bidding 4-card suits up the line is a system without a great deal of merit: one would almost certainly be better playing 5 card majors.

 

The main advantage of 4cM openings is that on the hands with a 4 card major, you can mention it immediately ...

 

So, modern Acol style is to open a 4 card major in preference to a minor (though with both majors or both minors tend to open the lower of the two).

 

This method certainly has disadvantages, but it's a hassle to defend against. I'm always very happy to find that my opponents bid 4 card suits up the line ...

[Walddk]

What is modern Acol, Mike? Do you teach your students to bid 4-card suits up the line now or not? I hope so, but even if this is the case, you and I also know that lots, like in thousands, still play it the old-fashioned way.

Bidding 4-card suits up the line is a system without a great deal of merit: one would almost certainly be better playing 5 card majors.

 

The main advantage of 4cM openings is that on the hands with a 4 card major, you can mention it immediately ...

 

So, modern Acol style is to open a 4 card major in preference to a minor (though with both majors or both minors tend to open the lower of the two).

 

This method certainly has disadvantages, but it's a hassle to defend against. I'm always very happy to find that my opponents bid 4 card suits up the line ...

Interesting. So Reese and Dormer were wrong when they wrote The Acol System Today (1961).

 

4432

Open the higher of touching suits, but with clubs and spades open one club. With non-touching suits, spades and diamonds, or hearts and clubs, it is generally right to open the lower-ranking suit.

 

There are, however, hands where the position of the doubleton makes it desirable to open the higher-ranking suit.

 

♠62 ♥AK85 ♦1073 ♣AK42

 

You may want to bid both suits and the most likely means to that end is to open one heart. If you open one club and partner responds one spade you have not the stuff for a reverse bid of two hearts: you have to go 1NT on a hand better fitted for suit play. In addition, you conceal the most valuable feature, the heart suit.

 

So to you Acol-experts: how do you teach your students today. The Reese/Dormer way, or the alternative way?

 

Roland

[Limey_p]

Poll preferences:

 

1. Invitational with 5 spades and 4 hearts

 

2. Invitational with 4 spades and less than 4 hearts

[MickyB]

I've moved this post on 4 card majors to this new thread. Edited March 8, 2006 by MickyB

[inquiry]

I doubt public polls will solve questions like this, that is why I didn't run public polls before. The FD czars and the team working in FD files simply have to do the best they can to put something standard(ish) in for the routine auctions that fit with the rest of the system.

 

I think all weak hands with both majors (regardless of the relative legth) need to go via 2H after 1N-2C-2D... while invite hand with spades needs to go via 2S. Invite hands with 5H and 4S use jacoby then bid 2S. These seems logical, consistent and gives you some way to invite given that jumps to 3M are forcing and smolen.

 

Ben

[Gerben42]

I doubt public polls will solve questions like this, that is why I didn't run public polls before. The FD czars and the team working in FD files simply have to do the best they can to put something standard(ish) in for the routine auctions that fit with the rest of the system.

 

Yes, agree with this.

 

 

I think all weak hands with both majors (regardless of the relative legth) need to go via 2H after 1N-2C-2D... while invite hand with spades needs to go via 2S. Invite hands with 5H and 4S use jacoby then bid 2S. These seems logical, consistent and gives you some way to invite given that jumps to 3M are forcing and smolen.

 

I agree heartily with this also.

[helene_t]

1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ is used to show invite with 4♠.

I would reverse it and let 2NT be invitational with 4 spades, and 2♠ invitational without 4 spades. This way, opener will always be declarer.

 

Roland

Yes, both approaches work, but it's not even close to a standard meaning I'm afraid. [...]

FWIW, it's standard in the Netherlands, at least according to the Dutch BF.

[cherdano]

I doubt public polls will solve questions like this, that is why I didn't run public polls before. The FD czars and the team working in FD files simply have to do the best they can to put something standard(ish) in for the routine auctions that fit with the rest of the system.

Well, one certainly can't make a poll and then just pick the version with the most votes. On the other hand it can help finding out what are the standard-ish options.

 

I also still have that dream that by getting more people involved (instead of making all decisions in private), the FD files might finally receive a little more help from more volunteers...

 

Arend

[cherdano]

Richard, no, I can't pick a NT system for BBO advanced. The purpose of BBO advanced is not to create a perfect bidding system. Instead, it is mostly about documenting what people assume to be standard, and possibly making choices where there are a few standard versions.

Actually, you can...

 

That's the beauty of this whole thing. There's no "install base" of BBO advanced players deeply commited to the purity of their methods. Imposing a new NT system isn't going to cause people to run screaming into the night. And even if people beleive that what they play is standard, they're wrong. Even if there are players completely and utterly devoted to BBO Advanced, you can easily side step them. Don't call the new FD file "BBO Advanced". Call it "BBO 2/1"...

 

I strongly suspect that people will prefer to see a standard (any standard) put into place.

Well, I strongly disagree, but I won't say many words because I have explained this before. The "install base" are pickup to semi-regular partnerships on BBO playing "2/1". They won't learn a new NT system because there is a BBO adv file using Keri/Scanian whatever; they would either ignore that part of the file, or just not use the file at all.

 

Here is my speculation on why SAYC failed: because instead of documenting what was standard (1m-2NT = invitational), it tried to make the "right" choices. But of course, when people agreed to play "SAYC", they were continuing to play what they thought to be standard, and it wouldn't have occurred to them that 1m-2NT is in fact GF in the system they agreed on.

 

(Pure speculation as SAYC is older than my bridge life.)

 

Ared