Little Major

[EricK]

Terrence Reese's Little Major system used a 1♣ bid to show ♥ and a 1♦ bid to show ♠.

 

This seems like a sensible idea (use the two lowest bids to give information about the two most important suits).

 

If a modern system designer were to use these two bids as the basis of a system, what might the rest of the system be like (i.e. meanings of other opening bids and basic response structure to all openings)?

[helene_t]

In order to get as much symmetri as possible, let,s start with 2-under throughout:

1♣->4+♥

1♦->4+♠

1♥->NT (bal or semibal, no 4-card M)

1♠->5+♣ (usually 6)

1NT->5+♦ (usually 6)

 

The cheapest bid asks partner to describe his had naturally, wide-range. Thus, it is generally based on either a very weak hand or an inv+ hand. Intermediate hand give a descriptive bid directly over p's opening.For example:

1♥*-1NT**

2m***

*13+ **7-9 ***invitational

 

A transfer accept of NT or a minor suit is intermediate, but a transfer accept of a major is weak. This is because a weak responder with 3-card supprt for opener's major must be able to give preference for opener's first suit before opener bypasses it:

 

1♣-1♦

?

 

1♥: 5+ hearts

1♠: 44M

1NT: (semi)bal or 1444

[Kaapo]

Terrence Reese's Little Major system used a 1♣ bid to show ♥ and a 1♦ bid to show ♠.

 

This seems like a sensible idea (use the two lowest bids to give information about the two most important suits).

 

If a modern system designer were to use these two bids as the basis of a system, what might the rest of the system be like (i.e. meanings of other opening bids and basic response structure to all openings)?

There's a system called UTRopia which has 1♣ = ♥, 1♦ = ♠, 1♥ = bal/4441 and 1♠/NT = ♣/♦.

 

I also found a system called Bohemian that fitted into my thread on strong heart systems with 1♣ = ♥, 1♦ = ♠ and 1♥ = 16+.

[hrothgar]

The last really strong player I know of who was using with these methods at a top level was Bjorn Fallenius. You can see Hamman compaining about the system in "At the Table".

 

Of course, this was back before Bjorn moved to the US.

[Flame]

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/bradco/sys...rimsonDeath.pdf

[awm]

Doesn't DrTodd's strong pass system use 1♣=hearts and 1♦=spades? Seems like there are some relaying advantages here...

 

It really bothers me to see people like Bob Hamman or Jeff Meckstroth complain about artificial methods. I can empathize with someone who doesn't like complicated bidding and feels it detracts from the play and defense aspect of the game. And I actually agree that playing complex, unusual methods in a limited event is somewhat unfair. But why is it that the people who often complain most vehemently about methods like transfer openings are people who play byzantine artificial systems themselves? It seems like these people honestly believe that their own highly non-standard artificial methods should be legal (and even in some cases ruled natural) whereas other people's such methods should be banned. Highly inconsistant and unfair point of view, it seems to me... and unfortunately some major organizations seem inclined to listen to them.

[Cascade]

New Zealander Andy Braithwaite, inventor of T-Rex which was played in Maastricht in 2000, is currently playing :

 

1♣ = ♥s 9+

1♦ = ♠s 9+

1♥ = ♣s 13+

1♠ = ♦s 13+

1NT = Bal no major weak - not sure of the exact range

2♣ = ♣s 9-12

2♦ = ♦s 9-12

2♥ = ♥s 4-8

2♠ = ♠s 4-8

 

The auction develops with symmetric relays on many strong hands.

 

Braitwaite's system is likely to be similar to the Crimson Death system that Flame linked to as he is a sometime partner of both Brad Coles and David Appleton. I am not sure of the origins of these methods.

[akhare]

Doesn't DrTodd's strong pass system use 1♣=hearts and 1♦=spades? Seems like there are some relaying advantages here...

 

It really bothers me to see people like Bob Hamman or Jeff Meckstroth complain about artificial methods. I can empathize with someone who doesn't like complicated bidding and feels it detracts from the play and defense aspect of the game. And I actually agree that playing complex, unusual methods in a limited event is somewhat unfair.

Yes, Todd and I play the Dejeneur FP system which indeed uses 1♣=hearts and 1♦=spades.

 

I whole heartedly agree w/ your comments about the top players lambasting (and effectively stonewalling against other "complex and artificial" methods) while using their clout to making sure that their pet treatments go untouched.

 

There was a lengthy thread about this a little while back (regarding Moscito and the ACBL). That thread raised some hope, but the smart money bet is that the ACBL won't approve defences such systems at any level any time soon (not while we have these world champions at the helm stoking their vested interests).

 

Atul

[joshs]

New Zealander Andy Braithwaite, inventor of T-Rex which was played in Maastricht in 2000, is currently playing :

 

1♣ = ♥s 9+

1♦ = ♠s 9+

1♥ = ♣s 13+

1♠ = ♦s 13+

1NT = Bal no major weak - not sure of the exact range

2♣ = ♣s 9-12

2♦ = ♦s 9-12

2♥ = ♥s 4-8

2♠ = ♠s 4-8

 

The auction develops with symmetric relays on many strong hands.

 

Braitwaite's system is likely to be similar to the Crimson Death system that Flame linked to as he is a sometime partner of both Brad Coles and David Appleton. I am not sure of the origins of these methods.

I had a fun evening playing T-Rex in a team league event in Auckland with Andy's partner Mike Ware about 6 years ago (Andy was out of town so I was filling in). I remember one hand, I opened 1D showing Spades and Mike decided to relay out my hand and leave me to play it in game with him holding a balanced 8 count. A very strange practicle joke on your partner.... We were already way ahead, so it didn't really matter.

 

I think Marsden's old forcing pass system (came before Moscito) used 1C to show hearts and 1D to show spades, and Tresboof (which Todd plays) is a varient of that old system.