Feedback on "improved" 2/1 structure :-)

[Chamaco]

Hi all, I would like to hear the comments from the BBF friends about the following structure over 1M opening that I came up with.

 

The idea stems from my dislike vs the common forcing 1NT structure.

Indeed, it includes too many hand types and strength ranges:

- weak balanced hands

- invitational bal hands

- weak 3 card support hands

- invitational 3 card support hands

- weak 1 suiters

- invitational 1 suiters

 

In many cases, not being able to show immediately the 3 card support is a minus;

and, in many sequences, it is hard to differentiate between weak 1 suiter vs invitational 1suiter.

 

So my idea is to:

1- remove from 1NT forcing all hands with 3 card support, using transfer bids

2- use the jump to 3m as natural invitational, so to remove good 1 suiter from 1NT

3- play transfer bids

 

Four more points:

- we use this in a Precision context (1M = 10+/ 15 hcp)

- we do play 1M:2NT Martel (4+ support, invitational or better)

- we play Kaplan inversion over 1H opening (1S = like 1NT forcing, with at most 4 spades; 1NT = 5+ spades, unlimited)

- before this transfer structure I submit to you we played 1M:2C as 2-way = GF with either 5+ clubs or balanced; and all other 2/1 bids are 5+ card suits;

 

Below is the structure I would like to submit you, thanks a lot !

 

PS - for the "relay-maniac" friends :-) I know that in a strong club context, relays work well, but please spare me the usual relay-propaganda, as in any case I cannot get my teammates to accept it :-)

 

1S:

.....1NT= denies 3 card support, can be a balanced hand, invitational at most, a weak single suiter, or a GF with clubs; opener responds as to 1NT forcing

.....2C = GF = either 5+ diamonds or balanced (or 1-4-4-4)

.....2D = GF with 5+ hearts

.....2H = 3 card support, either weak or invitational

.....2S = constructive, 8-9hcp (or 9 losers)

.....2NT = 4 card support, inv+

.....3CDH = 6+ bagger invitational

.....3S = preempt

.....3NT and higher (splinters bla bla bla)

 

 

1H:

.....1S= art. 1R force, denies 5 spades, tends to deny 3cd support. can be a balanced hand, invitational at most, a weak single suiter, or a GF with clubs; opener responds 1NT if holding 4 spades otherwise he rebids as after 1NT forcing

.....1NT= 5+ spades, unlimited,

.....2C = GF = either 5+ diamonds or balanced (or 4-1-4-4)

.....2D = 3 card support, either weak or invitational

.....2H = constructive, 8-9hcp (or 9 losers)

.....2S = constructive JS = 9 losers, 6+ bagger

.....2NT = 4 card support, inv+

.....3CD = 6+ bagger invitational

.....3H = preempt

.....3S and higher (splinters bla bla bla)

[kenrexford]

The idea of unraveling some of the complexity inherent in the forcing notrump structure has been worked and reworked in many ways. This seems like a fair reworking also.

 

That being said, one suggested loss from this structure is in the inhibitive effect of the delayed raise on trash.

 

A simple example. If the auction with traditional methods is 1♥-P-1NT-P-2♣-P-2♥, the opponents have some uncertainty as to whether to compete. You may have a seven-fit or an eight-fit, and thus they may have more chance for a fit or less chance for a fit. This auction is one of the most troubling for the opponents.

 

By proving that 1NT auctions cannot be eight-fit starts, you will discourage bad competition and suggest defense by them when that is unfavorable for the ghood guys. Similarly, the transfer to 2♥ not only proves the eight-fit, thus encouraging competition, but it also provides a cheap cue as additional definition for the opponents in competing effectively.

 

This may be a cost worth incurring. But, one possibility worth considering is for the one-under (1♥-P-2♦) to show 2-3 hearts and a hand that would bid 2♥ after any minor rebid, or something like that. Just a concern I noticed...

[hrothgar]

One quick comment:

 

Its unclear whether 1♠ - 2♦ should promise game forcing values. I've seen a number of system that invert the 2♦ and 2♥ responses to a 1♠ opening simply to allow a 2/1 with a long heart suit and game invitational values.

[mike777]

Hi all, I would like to hear the comments from the BBF friends about the following structure over 1M opening that I came up with.

 

The idea stems from my dislike vs the common forcing 1NT structure.

Indeed, it includes too many hand types and strength ranges:

- weak balanced hands

- invitational bal hands

- weak 3 card support hands

- invitational 3 card support hands

- weak 1 suiters

- invitational 1 suiters

 

In many cases, not being able to show immediately the 3 card support is a minus;

and, in many sequences, it is hard to differentiate between weak 1 suiter vs invitational 1suiter.

 

So my idea is to:

1- remove from 1NT forcing all hands with 3 card support, using transfer bids

2- use the jump to 3m as natural invitational, so to remove good 1 suiter from 1NT

3- play transfer bids

 

Four more points:

- we use this in a Precision context (1M = 10+/ 15 hcp)

- we do play 1M:2NT Martel (4+ support, invitational or better)

- we play Kaplan inversion over 1H opening (1S = like 1NT forcing, with at most 4 spades; 1NT = 5+ spades, unlimited)

- before this transfer structure I submit to you  we  played 1M:2C as 2-way = GF with either 5+ clubs or balanced; and all other 2/1 bids are 5+ card suits;

 

Below is the structure I would like to submit you, thanks a lot !

 

PS - for the "relay-maniac" friends :-) I know that in a strong club context, relays work well, but please spare me the usual relay-propaganda, as in any case I cannot get my teammates to accept it :-)

 

1S:

.....1NT= denies 3 card support, can be a balanced hand, invitational at most, a weak single suiter, or a GF with clubs; opener responds as to 1NT forcing

.....2C = GF = either 5+ diamonds or balanced (or 1-4-4-4)

.....2D = GF with 5+ hearts

.....2H = 3 card support, either weak or invitational

.....2S = constructive, 8-9hcp (or 9 losers)

.....2NT = 4 card support, inv+

.....3CDH = 6+ bagger invitational

.....3S = preempt

.....3NT and higher (splinters bla bla bla)

 

 

1H:

.....1S= art. 1R force, denies 5 spades, tends to deny 3cd support. can be a balanced hand, invitational at most, a weak single suiter, or a GF with clubs; opener responds 1NT if holding 4 spades otherwise he rebids as after 1NT forcing

.....1NT= 5+ spades, unlimited,

.....2C = GF = either 5+ diamonds or balanced (or 4-1-4-4)

.....2D = 3 card support, either weak or invitational

.....2H = constructive, 8-9hcp (or 9 losers)

.....2S = constructive JS = 9 losers, 6+ bagger

.....2NT = 4 card support, inv+

.....3CD = 6+ bagger invitational

.....3H = preempt

.....3S and higher (splinters bla bla bla)

I certainly agree that many, including myself, throw a lot of trash into the 1nt response to a major. In general I am surprised how little this is as an issue at the table. One of the largest system holes for me is an invite hand with a long minor.

While BART can help a bit with some of these problems, in theory there are still common problem hands. The surprise is how little they come up at the table.

My guess is alot of this is due to "active overcalling" by the opp which make the onemajor=1nt=rebid problem deals few and far between.

 

I just have my doubts about adding your additional level of complexity to solve what seem to be somewhat rare problems at the table if not in theory.

[fred]

My initial reaction is that this is unsound.

 

You rate to lose heavily when responder has a game-forcing hand with clubs and I suspect that other 1NT forcing auctions will suffer as a result of having to cater to this possibility.

 

What you gain in return:

 

1) You take some hands with 3-card support out of 1NT forcing

 

2) You get to play transfer 2/1s

 

I personally don't think that 1) is a big deal if you play 1NT as forcing and if you are willing to be a little liberal with your "constructive" raises. I would be more worried about 1) if you played 1NT semi-forcing (as I prefer). However, that is not an option for you since 1NT could be a GF with long clubs.

 

Probably 2) is worth investigating, but my sense is that you would be better off if you found a way to do this that did not necessitate putting the club 2/1 into you 1NT response.

 

If 2) can be achieved, you might want to consider making these transfer 2/1s "invitational or better" (but you might not).

 

I get a strong sense of "you can't do everything" but only a moderate sense of "you can't do enough to make it a clear winner".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

One sensible start to unload the 1N forcing is to play invitational jumps (as you do).

One way to unload the 1N of the hands with 3-card support is to play a multi-way 2♣, either a limit raise or "natural" GF (or balanced GF), as has been mentioned in these forums many times. Since that limit raise can stop at the 2-level, it can include some lesser hands than in standard, and you can give up on playing 1M-2M as constructive.

 

Personally, I have had several bad experiences with 3-card support hands bidding 1N in competitive auctions.

[kenrexford]

Colin Ward fron Canada wrote up some stuff you might like, sort of hitting the feel of what you are after. 2♣ was an artificial GF, with all sorts of one-under rebids and asking bids and such. 2♦ was called "Toddler" or something like that, was semi-natural (3+ ♦) with invitational-only values and some weird follow-ups. This somehow affected 1NT in a good manner, apparently. Valentine Club or something like that. You can probably Google him and gind it.

[Chamaco]

Thanks a lot to everybody has contributed so far !! :) (and I hope there might be more comments to come ? :) )

 

One quick question to Fred (and whoever would like to comment), who has been so kind to comment.

 

Why is it so bad to incorporate the clubs GF in the 1NT bid ? Because of potential interference and/or preempts ?

 

My understanding is that the lack of fit almost guaranteed by the 1NT bid makes it less attractive for opps to come into a likely misfit auction, so the risk of opps overcalls is (on percentage) more reduced ?

 

Or is there something I am missing ?

 

Again, thanks to all the friends who will help me :-)

[mike777]

Well Miles version of 2/1 has 1nt forcing include all 4 card forcing game.....that means 2/1 promises 5 card suit. Of course he plays some strong 1d system now....just got his book so........

[fred]

Thanks a lot to everybody has contributed so far !! :lol: (and I hope there might be more comments to come ? :angry: )

 

One quick question to Fred (and whoever would like to comment), who has been so kind to comment.

 

Why is it so bad to incorporate the clubs GF in the 1NT bid ? Because of potential interference and/or preempts ?

 

My understanding is that the lack of fit almost guaranteed by the 1NT bid makes it less attractive for opps to come into a likely misfit auction, so the risk of opps overcalls is (on percentage) more reduced ?

 

Or is there something I am missing ?

 

Again, thanks to all the friends who will help me :-)

Nightmares are possible due to interference, but that is not the problem I was referring to.

 

The primary problem in my view is that the "club GF" covers a lot of ground even if you have another way to bid GF balanced hands and 4441s. You could have:

 

- pure 1-suiter (6+ clubs) with any GF+ strength and any club suit quality

- 2-suiter with primary clubs (5-4. 6-4. 6-5. 7-4) and any GF+ strength

- hand with clubs + spade support and any GF+ strength and wide variety of possible distributions

- notrumpish hand with any GF+ strength and any club suit quality

 

Using an economical 2C response to 1M is nice way for responder to try to start sorting this out at a low level.

 

Presumably in your method responder will eventually reveal that he has a GF hand with clubs. I don't know the details of your followups to 1NT, but I am betting that the "GF with clubs" messages are usually conveyed significantly higher than the 2C level.

 

So you should expect to lose to "standard" when club GFs are dealt - standard has more room (probably much more) for responder to express himself.

 

And the harder you try to express various club GF types in an economical way after 1NT, the more your other auctions after 1NT will suffer.

 

Establishing early game force has additional value because sometimes this allows opener to make an immediate expression of attitude which can greatly simplify the auction (for example, by jump-rebidding his suit to show a solid suit - your methods lose these nice bids when responder has a GF with clubs).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[SoTired]

This is what happens when you see a problem and try to find a quick solution without researching the full extent of the problem or the full extent of the solution.

 

With all due respect to all, because I have done this myself (When I considered using the 2C 2/1 bid to show either a club or diam GF bid), you can't replace a whole system with a 1 page summary list of responses.

 

Fred is an expert and plays an "expert system". An expert system is one that is both broad and deep. Broad means that there are many bids and responses defined. Deep means that the auction stays defined for several rounds of bids. Most possible bids, follow-ups and follow-ups to those are defined in an expert system. (In chess, broad means you know many, many openings, and deep means you know the Ruy Lopez to the 29th move). No doubt

 

opening bid - response

rebid - responder's rebid

opener's 2nd rebid - responder's 2nd rebid

 

Are mostly completely defined in an expert system. Seat-of-the-pants bidding and having to take inferences from what was bid or not bid are rarely necessary in an expert system because most of the bids are already defined in 100's of pages of notes. Trying to replace all that with a 1 page list of new bids, even ones that may be better, cannot fly until more detail is provided.

 

OTOH, for a person at Fred's level to post a message poking holes in the suggested system should be taken as a complement. If it was me and my system, I would use Fred's comments as a challenge to improve the structure and provide more depth. Real-life use and post-game analysis will provide further development. When you get to about 20-50 pages of notes, you may have something.

[Chamaco]

This is what happens when you see a problem and try to find a quick solution without researching the full extent of the problem or the full extent of the solution.

 

With all due respect to all, because I have done this myself (When I considered using the 2C 2/1 bid to show either a club or diam GF bid), you can't replace a whole system with a 1 page summary list of responses.

 

Fred is an expert and plays an "expert system". An expert system is one that is both broad and deep. Broad means that there are many bids and responses defined. Deep means that the auction stays defined for several rounds of bids. Most possible bids, follow-ups and follow-ups to those are defined in an expert system. (In chess, broad means you know many, many openings, and deep means you know the Ruy Lopez to the 29th move). No doubt

 

opening bid - response

rebid - responder's rebid

opener's 2nd rebid - responder's 2nd rebid

 

Are mostly completely defined in an expert system. Seat-of-the-pants bidding and having to take inferences from what was bid or not bid are rarely necessary in an expert system because most of the bids are already defined in 100's of pages of notes. Trying to replace all that with a 1 page list of new bids, even ones that may be better, cannot fly until more detail is provided.

 

OTOH, for a person at Fred's level to post a message poking holes in the suggested system should be taken as a complement. If it was me and my system, I would use Fred's comments as a challenge to improve the structure and provide more depth. Real-life use and post-game analysis will provide further development. When you get to about 20-50 pages of notes, you may have something.

SoTired,

first and foremost, I know very well that having Fred Gitelman contribution is a great honor for me.

 

English is not my native language, so some nuances might escape from my comments: e.g. it might have sound from my answer to him that I just wanted to defend at any cost the scheme I came up with, but this was not my intention.

My reply to Fred was genuinely intended to capture the essence of specific situations where my ideas might backfire.

 

Indeed, the reason why I post here is exactly what you recommend: investigating thoroughly the holes of a system, and evaluating the pros and cons.

And I start with the openings, and then wil investigate every system branch: I am a chess Master, so I know how to study opening theory, and I try my best to apply similar principles to bridge.

But BEFORE EMBARKING in depth, it is more useful to stop early and check whether the fist step has been done in a plausible direction.

Embarking in depth right away quite often leads to useless efforts if we were on a bad start.

 

The fact that I submit a scheme here to the BBF friends is a way for me to find easier and faster the points that I have overlooked.

 

In your comments you seem to imply some superficiality on my behalf, but I assure you that if it was so, I would have just started playing the "1-page system notes" without posting it here :-)

 

By the way do you have any significant and constructive contribution on the opening scheme (and possible troubles that might ensue) to provide for this post besides what has been written so far by Fred and the other friends ?

[SoTired]

By the way do you have any significant and constructive contribution on the opening scheme (and possible troubles that might ensue) to provide for this post besides what has been written so far by Fred and the other friends ?

Actually, after reading Fred's objections to the overloaded 1N, my first thought was to resurrect my 2C response that shows either a 2C or 2D bid. But then I remembered how impractical it was in later rounds of bidding trying to confirm a minor fit.

 

Fred mentioned that without the clear 2C response showing a club suit, opener could not bid 3M. I think a greater loss is opener's immediate splinter over 2C allowing the partnership to find difficult to bid minor slams.

 

In any case, except for some objections like that, a system change as radical as you suggest is difficult to evaluate, especially since transfers have proven useful in other situations.