System changes

[hrothgar]

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

 

 

..and there's no problem opening disciplined light 1M openings w/ 2+ Quick Tricks and an easy rebid like the one above in a longest suit first based 2/1 GF style.  You just have to make sure you and GOP are on the same wavelength.

I think that there is a major issue with opening that kind of crap playing 2/1 game force.

 

If your 2/1 responses need enough strength to offer a reasonable chance of game opposite a misfitting nine count then your 2/1 are going to be few and far between. In turn, your forcing NT structure is going to get severely overloaded.

 

The 2/1 response structure doesn't support a light opening style particularly well.

[foo]

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

 

 

..and there's no problem opening disciplined light 1M openings w/ 2+ Quick Tricks and an easy rebid like the one above in a longest suit first based 2/1 GF style.  You just have to make sure you and GOP are on the same wavelength.

I think that there is a major issue with opening that kind of crap playing 2/1 game force.

 

If your 2/1 responses need enough strength to offer a reasonable chance of game opposite a misfitting nine count then your 2/1 are going to be few and far between. In turn, your forcing NT structure is going to get severely overloaded.

 

The 2/1 response structure doesn't support a light opening style particularly well.

The given hand is not as, err, bad, as some might think. {Let's keep the language clean given the guidelines of the forums?}

 

People open quacky 12 HCP 8 loser hands with 2- controls 1m all the time playing Standard w/o doubts or hesitation when those hands are =worse= hands than the one awm posted.

[mike777]

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

 

 

..and there's no problem opening disciplined light 1M openings w/ 2+ Quick Tricks and an easy rebid like the one above in a longest suit first based 2/1 GF style.  You just have to make sure you and GOP are on the same wavelength.

I think that there is a major issue with opening that kind of crap playing 2/1 game force.

 

If your 2/1 responses need enough strength to offer a reasonable chance of game opposite a misfitting nine count then your 2/1 are going to be few and far between. In turn, your forcing NT structure is going to get severely overloaded.

 

The 2/1 response structure doesn't support a light opening style particularly well.

Surprise the 1nt does not seem more overloaded than the junkyard of bids that it is already so far at the table. Part of the reason maybe that after opening lite lho overcalls more often resulting in less forcing 1nt responses? That does not mean that 1nt is not a junkyard bid still.

 

In theory long minor invites should be more trouble than they are at the table. My guess is with all the active bidding by opponents losing that constructive auction becomes a minor issue.

[Echognome]

I can offer yet another reason to change system: To play with better people.

 

Some of the best people in my area played symmetric relay, so I wanted to learn the system too. I was lucky enough that they offered me their notes and I learned it.

 

As people that know me can tell you, I am definitely a system tinkerer. I like "building a better mousetrap" and trying to come up with the best ways to play things. So although I play the "book" system when I play with the players that taught me, I developed a variant of it to play with my regular partner. Some of the variants were because we liked certain bids from our old system (e.g. Ekren 2♣) and some from just some ideas I had from playing other systems.

 

When I think of a treatment or a convention, I normally go to one of the online sites and generate about 30-50 hands where it would come up. Then I see how the convention does at dealing with these hands. I then consider if the gain from the change is greater than what we used to play. Sometimes this latter part is very difficult. For example, what is the loss from making a bid more nebulous or making another bid less nebulous? What is the gain from adding a preempt? The preempt certainly gains on frequency. After having found a promising idea, I run it by my regular partner. He is usually quite amenable, but sometimes finds some fault in my thinking. This is a good thing. Then we implement the change and try it out at the club or on bbo. We try to get as much practice as we can get after any big change. We don't like having any big misunderstandings when playing in tournaments, especially when we have teammates to consider.

 

I normally experiment on changes with my regular partner (he's a patient soul). Then if I find something to be successful, I recommend it to the group as a whole. (There are about 6 of us that play the system.) We share ideas on email and have all agreed that no changes to the base system will be made until the off season. I have a list of about half a dozen ideas. I send a list of these proposals with my reasoning of why we need the change and what we should consider doing instead and then I try to list the pros and cons of the change. I then welcome feedback by the other group members. I find this to be an excellent way to make changes as other group members can think of things that you might not have.

[slothy]

dear Hotshot..

 

Evolution is wonderful .. in nature it created the SeaHorse and in bridge it created irish keyCard Gerber

the sea-horse has evolved so that the males of the species nurse their young in their mouths....

 

now how evolved is that :)

 

Edit: Before i get accused of being sexist....it is not the fact that the males are the child-rearers it is the fact that is mouth-orientated...

[helene_t]

the sea-horse has evolved so that the males of the species nurse their young in their mouths....

huh? This is certainly not true for all species. In at least some species, the males keep the babies in a sort of skin-fold close to the abdomen.

[hrothgar]

People open quacky 12 HCP 8 loser hands with 2- controls 1m all the time playing Standard w/o doubts or hesitation when those hands are =worse= hands than the one awm posted.

Comment 1: Opening these sorts of hands in the context of a 2/1 GF system is (generally) frowned up on these forums. The fact that people do stupid things with some hands really doesn't justify making an equally egregious mistake with others.

 

Comment 2: Its a lot safer to open these hands playing "standard" where an auction like

 

1♠ - 2♣

2N - 3♣

 

isn't forcing

[foo]

People open quacky 12 HCP 8 loser hands with 2- controls 1m all the time playing Standard w/o doubts or hesitation when those hands are =worse= hands than the one awm posted.

Comment 1: Opening these sorts of hands in the context of a 2/1 GF system is (generally) frowned up on these forums. The fact that people do stupid things with some hands really doesn't justify making an equally egregious mistake with others.

 

Comment 2: Its a lot safer to open these hands playing "standard" where an auction like 1♠ - 2♣;2N - 3♣ isn't forcing

Reply1a: Of course it is and it should be. "Up the middle bridge" is what the vast majority of players should be using; not attempting to emulate the bidding habits of world class players.

 

Reply1b: There is at least one hand eval method that says AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

should be opened.

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

9+3+4+9= 25 Zar

+1 for all points in 3- suits

+1 for having 4+S's in a borderline hand= 26-27 Adjusted Zar

 

Please note I am =NOT= saying I agree that all players in all partnerships should open this (Nor am I advocating Zar. For instance Zar says KQxxx.x.KQxx.xxx should also open 1S. Not my cup of tea.) I'm merely noting that to consider opening it is far from crazy.

 

Reply1c: Opening this 1S is a far less egregious mistake than opening quacky 12 HCP 8+ loser hands 1m.

 

 

Reply2: Actually, I'm not sure of that. Standard's strength is the ability to have delicate auctions when Responder has invitational values. Responder being able to do this presumes reasonably sound openings. Aggressive initial action "throws a large stone" into the Standard "pond".

 

In contrast; since 2/1 GF requires so much more for a 2/1 already, the slight stiffening of requirements for Responder's GF 2/1 to cater to the possiblity of aggressive initial action is a considerably smaller "stone".

 

I am =NOT= advocating this, but as an experiment a reasonable aggressive initial action form of 2/1 GF might be

a= Opener promises 2+ Quick Tricks, 3+ controls, and 7- losers.

b= Responder's GF 2/1 promises 4+ controls and 4+ cover cards

[jdonn]

Please note I am =NOT= saying I agree that all players in all partnerships should open this (Nor am I advocating Zar. For instance Zar says KQxxx.x.KQxx.xxx should also open 1S. Not my cup of tea.) I'm merely noting that to consider opening it is far from crazy.

Zar count does say to open AQxxx x Kxxx xxx with 1♠.

 

Your conclusion is that even though you wouldn't do so, to consider opening 1♠ is not completely crazy.

 

My conclusion is that this is the billionth reason that Zar count IS completely crazy.

[foo]

Please note I am =NOT= saying I agree that all players in all partnerships should open this (Nor am I advocating Zar.  For instance Zar says KQxxx.x.KQxx.xxx should also open 1S.  Not my cup of tea.)  I'm merely noting that to consider opening it is far from crazy.

Zar count does say to open AQxxx x Kxxx xxx with 1♠.

 

Your conclusion is that even though you wouldn't do so, to consider opening 1♠ is not completely crazy.

 

My conclusion is that this is the billionth reason that Zar count IS completely crazy.

I am not making any conclusions. I'm simply pointing out that

a= quite a few good players, many of them very good players, would open AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx just as awm and his partner would.

 

b= there is at least one form of objective measurement based on reasonably sound analysis and that has some degree of popularity that agrees.

[hrothgar]

I am not making any conclusions. I'm simply pointing out that

a= quite a few good players, many of them very good players, would open AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx just as awm and his partner would.

Returning back to the original topic (changing systems and all that)

 

As I recall, Adam specifically stated that that he wanted to be able to open hands like AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx but was uncomfortable doing so within the context of a standard opening structure where a 1 level opening could show upwards of 21 points.

 

I agree that many experts would open the hand in question, but they would do so in the context of a Precision/MOSCITO/Acol system.

 

I don't think that you'd find many folks opening this playing BWS or even K-S.

[awm]

The problem with openings like AQxxx x Kxxx xxx is what does partner do holding:

 

xx AKxxx AQx xxx

 

Playing two-over-one most of us force to game on that hand. Even using ZAR, the second hand evaluates to 13+5+8+3 = 29 ZAR, a full opener and worthy of a game force. Good luck making any game on these two combined hands.

 

Of course, the author of ZAR points himself admits that you have to adjust for degree of fit or misfit. These two hands don't fit very well, and this indicates some downgrades to reflect the fact that there's no game on this "52 ZAR" pair of hands. But if you play 2/1 GF, you have to decide whether to force game before you can fully measure the degree of fit/misfit. This indicates that the 2/1 GF bid should be a relatively sound judgement -- you should expect to have good chances at game even if your hands don't fit well. So you really need to guarantee around 25 hcp at a minimum, guaranteeing 52 ZAR before fit adjustments doesn't do it.

 

Now this is not necessarily a criticism of 2/1 GF. The point is just that if you open hands like my AQxxx x Kxxx xxx, which I believe is of comparable value to a standard opening bid in the presence of a spade fit, you really need to have your game forcing 2/1s guarantee something like 15 hcp when they don't include 3+ cards in opener's major. Frequency-wise, this means an awful lot of ugly 1NT responses and awfully few of those pretty 2/1 auctions. Also note that when your opening range looks like Sam and mine (basically we open on the rule of 18 although we are somewhat more conservative with 5332 hands) the most frequent hands are around the average (11 hcp) rather than the minimum (in standard most frequent hands have around 12-13 I think). Since opener will "often but not always" have a few extras it makes the immediate 2/1 decision even less appealing.

 

In our methods a 2/1 promises values for game in the presence of a major suit fit and the auction can end very quickly if a misfit is in the offing. Our auction on the above hands would actually be 1♠(1) - 2♥(2) - 2♠(3) - PASS. Here (1) 8-15 5+♠ rule of 18 (2) 5+♥ normally 12+ points (3) 8-11 hcp no ♥ fit, ♠+a minor not forcing. Note how much simpler this is than a 2/1 GF structure where you have to either bid 2♥ initially (getting to a bad game) or start with 1NT and then decide what to do over 2♦ (basically all your rebids are simply too wide-ranging in values not to mention the normal bid/hide hearts problem in this sequence in 2/1).

[joshs]

The problem with openings like AQxxx x Kxxx xxx is what does partner do holding:

 

xx AKxxx AQx xxx

 

Playing two-over-one most of us force to game on that hand. Even using ZAR, the second hand evaluates to 13+5+8+3 = 29 ZAR, a full opener and worthy of a game force. Good luck making any game on these two combined hands.

 

Of course, the author of ZAR points himself admits that you have to adjust for degree of fit or misfit. These two hands don't fit very well, and this indicates some downgrades to reflect the fact that there's no game on this "52 ZAR" pair of hands. But if you play 2/1 GF, you have to decide whether to force game before you can fully measure the degree of fit/misfit. This indicates that the 2/1 GF bid should be a relatively sound judgement -- you should expect to have good chances at game even if your hands don't fit well. So you really need to guarantee around 25 hcp at a minimum, guaranteeing 52 ZAR before fit adjustments doesn't do it.

 

Now this is not necessarily a criticism of 2/1 GF. The point is just that if you open hands like my AQxxx x Kxxx xxx, which I believe is of comparable value to a standard opening bid in the presence of a spade fit, you really need to have your game forcing 2/1s guarantee something like 15 hcp when they don't include 3+ cards in opener's major. Frequency-wise, this means an awful lot of ugly 1NT responses and awfully few of those pretty 2/1 auctions. Also note that when your opening range looks like Sam and mine (basically we open on the rule of 18 although we are somewhat more conservative with 5332 hands) the most frequent hands are around the average (11 hcp) rather than the minimum (in standard most frequent hands have around 12-13 I think). Since opener will "often but not always" have a few extras it makes the immediate 2/1 decision even less appealing.

 

In our methods a 2/1 promises values for game in the presence of a major suit fit and the auction can end very quickly if a misfit is in the offing. Our auction on the above hands would actually be 1♠(1) - 2♥(2) - 2♠(3) - PASS. Here (1) 8-15 5+♠ rule of 18 (2) 5+♥ normally 12+ points (3) 8-11 hcp no ♥ fit, ♠+a minor not forcing. Note how much simpler this is than a 2/1 GF structure where you have to either bid 2♥ initially (getting to a bad game) or start with 1NT and then decide what to do over 2♦ (basically all your rebids are simply too wide-ranging in values not to mention the normal bid/hide hearts problem in this sequence in 2/1).

Here is a general problem in 2/1:

 

Lets say you need x points to game force over a 1M opening (including whatever upgrade you make for playing strength and fit). You then invite game with x-2 points. And you may have problems with x-4 points.

 

For instance, playing Std 2/1 with sound opening bids, you might game force on 12's. With 10-11 and no fit you have no problem, you bid 1N then 2N. But what happens when you have 8-9? Partner with 16-17 can't know what to do.

 

The wider the range for the 1M bid the more HCP combinations cause problems. Lets say 1M is 9-20 HCP.

 

Putting these in 2 point bins:

9-10 vs 15+ no problem (3N might not make but at least it will not be rediculous)

9-10 vs 13-14 stop in 2N or 3 something if this is your invitational range

9-10 vs less, no problem and long as you don't go beyond 2M with 11-12!

 

11-12 vs 13+ no problem

11-12 11-12 - might miss a game, but probably happily stop low

 

13-14 vs 13+ no problem

13-14 vs 11-12. You will miss a game unless responder has a way of differentiaiting the 12 count from a 6 count!

 

15-16 vs 13+ no problem

15-16 vs 9-12 may be a problem and if opener always makes a 3'rd bid with 15-16 then

15-16 vs 5-8 is a problem

 

The wider the range 1M is, the more combinations cause problems, since it makes the sequence 1M-1N-2x-2M OR the sequence 1M-1N-2x-2N too wide ranging (or maybe both).

 

Gazelli, or bart helps some...

[foo]

Again, while I am =not= advocating this sort of aggressive opening style, IMHO there are a number of systemic issues here and the situation is not as clear cut as some may say..

 

Clearly if we knew as soon as we picked up our hand that We had no chance of game and no fit, we'd usually choose to defend.

The given example:

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

+

xx AKxxx AQx xxx

Has a decent chance of setting even a 2 level contract.

OTOH, if we must play it the best place for Us is either 1N or 2S in our "Kaplan fit"

 

However, unless we cheat we don't get the option to choose between aggression and conservatism when we first pick up our hand... So we have to analyze our hand and play the odds.

 

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

What is Responder's most likely shape?

2 2/3 S's + 4 H's + 3 D's + 3 1/3 C's => 3433 or 2434 w/ 3433 being 2x more likely

 

What is Responder's most likely values?

(SK;HA,HK;DA;CA,CK) + (SJ;HQ,HJ;DQ,DJ;CQ,CJ)

=> 2 from set "A" (60% A+K + 20% K+K or A+A) plus

2 1/3 from set "B" (~31% Q+J ~23% Q+J+J ~16% of J+J or Q+Q+J)

=> 10 HCP A+K+Q+J

 

So by far the most likely auction if we did open AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx is 1S-1N;?? ...which we can pass to show a sub-minimum the same way we do when we open light in 3rd chair and this auction occurs.

 

 

This doesn't even begin to adequately cover all the issues needed to play such aggressive openings in a "natural" system, and awm and others are right that being this "edgey" is going to hurt you sometimes, but hopefully I've shown that the issue is not as simple nor as clear-cut as some may claim.

[mike777]

I do play a lightish opening 2/1 style with a strongish reply style.

These example hands are close but here is how I resolve them.

1) I pass that 9 hcp hand with only 54 shape....but make it 5-5 or 6-4 and I would have opened it.

2) 2/1 promises 14+ hcp often but that responder hand is a really nice 13 so I would have bid 2H g/f with it. Though with no fit and flat I would be ready to say sorry if no game.

 

Again both of these examples hands are really close but I would have passed that 54 9 hcp hand.

[foo]

Again both of these examples hands are really close but I would have passed that 54 9 hcp hand.

Ok, so you do not open

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

 

Would you open

AQJxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

or

AQxxx.x.KJxx.xxx

or

AQTxx.x.KTxx.xxx

 

Where's your "floor" for 5431's? and why is your "floor" where it is?

[mike777]

Again both of these examples hands are really close but I would have passed that 54 9 hcp hand.

Ok, so you do not open

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

 

Would you open

AQJxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

or

AQxxx.x.KJxx.xxx

or

AQTxx.x.KTxx.xxx

 

Where's your "floor" for 5431's? and why is your "floor" where it is?

Open nearly all 5431 10 point hands that are not flawed. Basically the biggest flaw is holding short suit honors, don't count them for much. Another flaw would be poor suit quality in your long suits, especially the 5 bagger.

 

pass AJ9x...9xxxx..x...AJ9

pass Kxx...x...KT9x...ATxxx Prime high cards but spread out and awkward rebid problems but add a jack or switch minors and I open.

 

A nine pointer 5431 would be borderline if you give me a bunch of honors and spots in my long suits

[civill]

I think there are four good reasons for making changes:

 

i) You are a top class full-time pro partnership and the edge you have from playing the best (rather than a 95% solution) is worth working at. 

 

ii) You are a long-term partnership, but when you first started playing you didn't work a lot of things out in detail. (For example, I used only to play with one partner in 'fun' events; we played very little system. We've recently started playing more seriously, so we've improved some of the stuff that we were only really playing by default because we hadn't got round to discussing anything more complex.)

 

iii) You are a new(ish) partnership and don't yet know what you want to play, or are working on one particular area. We went through a phase of fiddling with our 1NT response structure over the course of a few months until we were happy with the final result, for example.

 

iv) You become convinced over the course of a large number of hands that what you are currently playing is definitely a long way short of 'best', and the pain of change is outweighed by the benefits.  This is the same reason as when people change their methods after one bad result, but I think you need to apply a more long-term approach: only when you have a string of bad results and few good ones is it worth changing.

Before the age of Internet bridge,as a non-professional player,I had not enough informations about new/fresh conventions and systems.

Thanks for USA's computer technology,I can take part in these forums and other online bridge activities.

After read lots of bidding files,there is a problem up to me,which is that whats the principle of bridge bidding?

 

You know,in the bridge match,there are lots of different systems playing a same set of cards,most of them can arrive same contracts,that's to see,there are a principle of bidding.

So,trying to find the principles,I decide to reaearch on bidding,conventions and systems,and now I think I might get some of them.

That's the reason why I have a special interest on system changes.

 

Thank you for accessing my blog and giving some opinions on systems or conventions.

Edited May 26, 2006 by civill