Step one denies Inv. values.

[EricK]

In standard systems (but not 2/1), after 1♠ pretty much all non invitational hands bid 1NT (i.e. the cheapest bid) and the inv+ hands bid something else. How about extending that to all opening bids? So that after eg 1♣, 1♦ is bid on all hands with less than, say, a good 10 points or so and immediate higher bids show stronger hands. A 1NT response to these lower openings can be two-way - either balanced and invitational or 5+ length in the next suit (eg ♦ after a ♣ opening, ♠ after a ♥ opening).

 

What are the benefits? One benefit is to immediately tell opener that it is likely to be our hand. After something like 1♣ (P) 1♥ (2♠) in standard bidding opener might have a problem if he has a minimum hand with some support as bidding risks getting too high, but passing puts partner under pressure to reopen in case we can make a partscore. If the 1♥ response promises values then the partnership is much better placed. It is true that in these methods 1♣ 1♦ is open to pre-emption as responder hasn't even mentioned his suit. But with responder by definition being weak on these sequences it is less likely to be an issue.

[goodwintr]

A similar idea was propounded in about 1929 (!) by S. Garton Churchill. The book to read is "Churchill Natural Bidding System At Contract Bridge," 1979. Churchill played that the "negative" response over all of the one-bids was 1NT, not the cheapest bid (except 1NT over 1S). He called it the "Utility Notrump." I am not at all sure you can play "cheapest-bid-negative" under current ACBL convention regulations -- even though, like the Utility Notrump, it goes back to no later than the 'thirties, when it was known as the "Herbert Negative." It was part of the Vienna system.

 

As a corollary, new-suit responses, including one-over-one responses, were "positive" or "constructive" in Churchill's style. And as a corollary to that, Churchill played that new-suit over new-suit bids by opener were forcing: responder would never want to pass anyway, because he had already shown positive values.

 

TLGoodwin

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

have a look at Power-Acol by Klinger, he propoes

a similar idea.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

I consider that idea strategically wrong because it violates the principle that shape is more important than hcp.

[EricK]

I consider that idea strategically wrong because it violates the principle that shape is more important than hcp.

Just out of interest, how strong do you play a 2/1 to be?

[whereagles]

Hum.. well, the usual 12+ if misfitted. A bit less with fit.

 

Maybe 13+ if really misfitted (e.g. void in opener's major).

[EricK]

Hum.. well, the usual 12+ if misfitted. A bit less with fit.

 

Maybe 13+ if really misfitted (e.g. void in opener's major).

Why isn't this strategically wrong, violating as it does the principle that shape is more important than HCP?

[whereagles]

No, because the 2/1 shows strength AND shape. The fact that it overloads the forcing 1NT is offset by the fact that the 2/1 becomes more defined. Same as strong club: the muddiness of the strong 1♣ is offset by the advantages of the limited openers.

 

Incidently, there was no need for you to be sarcastic.

[awm]

Hmm... I definitely believe in showing shape first. And I don't play game-forcing two-over-ones, preferring something like a "good ten" plus and occasionally even lighter on a very distributional hand. Another issue is that finding major suit fits is potentially very important, even more so than indicating minor suit shape. So in an auction starting with (say) 1♣, it is very important to show a major right away if I have one. I don't want our spade fit to be preempted out of the auction when responder's LHO bids hearts or the other minor. The major suit fit is more valuable than minor suit fit because it's more likely to win a competitive auction (higher suit) and more likely to make a thin fitting game (lower game level).

 

So I wouldn't be eager to respond to 1♣ with "1♦ artificial less than GF values" and in fact this does seem worse than responding to 1♠ with "1nt artificial less than GF values" because I prefer to "hide" a primary minor suit rather than a primary major suit (if I have to hide something).

[EricK]

No, because the 2/1 shows strength AND shape. The fact that it overloads the forcing 1NT is offset by the fact that the 2/1 becomes more defined. Same as strong club: the muddiness of the strong 1♣ is offset by the advantages of the limited openers.

 

Incidently, there was no need for you to be sarcastic.

But where, then, is the difference between this and my proposed method? I overload the first step but the other steps now show strength and shape.

 

Indeed one could play that over 1♣, a 1M response shows inv+ values and 5+ cards, with balanced hands with or without a 4 card major going into 1NT. This is even more in line with emphasising showing shape than normal methods.

 

You are right that there was no need to be sarcastic, but equally there was no need not to be sarcastic. I had to make a choice on the whole sarcasm issue. I apologise if my choice upset you in any way.

[awm]

Let me give an example of the difference...

 

Say partner opens 1♠ and I have 2-3-5-3 shape with about 8 hcp. I can't bid my diamonds and so respond 1NT. Then LHO bids 2♥. What will happen? It's quite possible that we have a nine card diamond fit that we will be unable to find. Partner will normally pass with, say, 5-2-4-2 and a minimum opening. I can't really balance diamonds because partner need not have a fit. So it's quite possible that either: (1) We will play 2♠ instead of 3♦. (2) We will defend 3♥ without ever finding our diamond fit. Neither of these is really a disaster. In the first case, spades will often take one trick fewer than diamonds, but if it's only one trick we will be fine, as diamonds is a level higher. If we're going down a lot, 2♠ might actually be better as it's harder to double. Occasionally we will lose if diamonds plays two or more tricks better than spades. In the second case, we only really lose big if we can make 4♦ and they can make 3♥. This is possible, but again not that likely, especially since partner might double 2♥ with shortage or bid with five diamonds, and otherwise we have a nine card fit and they have eight.

 

Now suppose partner opens 1♦ and I have 5-3-2-3 shape with about 8 hcp. I can't bid my spades since we are playing that 1♠ shows more values, so I bid 1♥ "artificial force." Now my LHO bids 2♥ (natural). What can happen? In principle I can balance 2♠ if 2♥ comes to me, but this at best a guess. It's quite possible that partner has some 1-4-5-3 or 1-3-5-4. If my RHO raises 2♥ to 3♥, then any bid by me is quite dangerous and we could easily miss a nine card spade fit.

 

The point is that finding a spade fit early is really essential, because competing in spades allows us to bid at the same level as the opponents. So when I have spades, I want to bid them ASAP. When I have diamonds, it is less important that I bid them right away.

 

The 1NT response to 1M is more of a "necessary evil" than a good thing. The off-shape 1NT bid is necessary because we need to slow down the auction with a bad hand opposite a moderately self-preempting 1M opening. It actually often gives us trouble in a competitive auction (especially the wide-ranging 1NT forcing bid). I wouldn't be eager to add similar nebulous bids to other auctions.

[EricK]

awm, I appreciate what you are saying. But every system involves compromises. Whereas you in principle lose over all the hands which have to reply with step 1 (as they are not now as well defined), you in principle gain over all the hands which don't have to answer step 1 (as they are now better defined). Since the weaker hands are less likely to be hands which you want to play anyway, there is a reasonable chance that the gains will outweigh the losses.

 

It is not enough to say a method is bad simply because there is a class of hand which it handles worse than other methods. You must also consider those hands it handles better than the other methods and make an overall comparison.

 

If RHO is going to compete over 1♣ 1♥, I would be much happier if I knew partner had at least invitational values. I can make a forcing pass in some cases, for instance, or can make a penalty double in others. If RHO competes over 1♣ 1♦(negative), I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that partner is weak. I will not be tempted to overcompete the hand in case partner has more than a minimum. And if partner does come back in after making the initial negative I will still not be tempted to overcompete.

[cherdano]

The 1N response to 1M is overloaded because we are short of space.

 

I agree with Adam that it would probably be a bad tradeoff to do the same over a 1♣ opening. One reason is that opener only promises 3+ clubs and is thus a lot more likely to have a fit for my 5-card heart suit. But if it goes 1C P 1D* 1S P 2S, what can we do with 3424 (opener) opposite 2533 (responder)?

 

Also, the hands where responder are weak are the hands where it is most likely to be a part score battle, so I don't understand why you think in this case the preemption by opponents is less likely to be a problem.

[awm]

In addition to possibly losing major suit fits on hands where the points are equally divided, I'm not sure you're really so much better off when partner shows values.

 

The issue is that over a standard 1♣-Pass-1♠ (for example), the opponents could easily have game on power. People bid and respond pretty light at times. This creates several major issues:

 

(1) Suppose fourth hand has something like a strong notrump. If he passes, he could easily get talked out of a game. If he bids, he could easily go for a number. There are various viewpoints on what the right action is with such a hand, but the fact is that either bidding or passing could lead to a disaster, and the best you can do is try to maximize your odds (not to mention a question as to whether it's good to even have 1NT as a natural bid here). If 1♣-pass-1♠ shows inv+ values, then it's completely clear to pass with the strong notrump. So you're free to use 1nt as two-suited takeout and avoid any disaster with the big hand (knowing you will not miss a game, partner has nothing).

 

(2) Suppose fourth hand has something like a weak two bid in hearts. Bidding 3♥ is potentially dangerous. Bidding 2♥ seems very reasonable, as it will obstruct the opponents auction and may help partner find a lead and/or a sacrifice. But most people play that a 2♥ overcall in this position shows a good hand, not a bunch of decent hearts and out. This is very reasonable because, again, the auction 1♣-pass-1♠ doesn't show much in the way of values. Partner needs to know whether to look for game opposite my overcall, or whether to penalize opponents. But if we know that 1♣-pass-1♠ shows "inv+ values" then I am free to bid 2♥ on a "weak two bid" because partner knows I can't have much for points and we can't have game on values.

 

There is also an issue with starting to describe shapely hands early. Say partner opens 1♣ and I have a weak 5-5 majors hand. In standard bidding I can bid my spades and then get out in partner's better major after 1♣-1♠-1nt. If I am forced to bid 1♦ "negative" we will probably hear 1♣-1♦-1nt and I have shown neither major.

[Impact]

I have had quite a lot of experience with this style as the first bridge I learnt form my parents was modified Vienna:-

 

5 card suits (11/12-18) , except 1C which was either a weak NT, 4441, 19+ short of GF and 2C strong.

 

Over the mainstream openings there was a first step negative (< about 9 but something, noting that you must reply to 1C), other non-jump bids were natural 8/9-11, and jumps in new suits were GF, 5+ cards (!!).

 

So 1D was non-forcing but the responses were:

1H=6-8 nebulous not suitable for a raise, or 8-11 balanced unsuitable for raise

1S= 8/9-11 natural, constructive but non-forcing

1NT= 8/9-11 showing H but non-forcing!

2C= 8/9-11 natural non-forcing

limit raises, but 2NT response was strong and GF (might conceal a balanced raise)

 

Similarly over 1M opening with next suit a combination forcing NT!!

Oddly enough this "natural" bidding is pretty easy to learn, encourages flexibility and judgement (are you negative, constructive but non-forcing or GF). It was not mainstream but easy to learn, and I think probably for social bridge and the very occasional duplicate they played, well ahead of its time!

 

Note that the 1C was likely to be a weak NT, but effectively all Acol 2 type hands and superstrong NT (19-21) could be handled cheaply and effectively:

1C -1D (0-7any, 8-11 no Major and no 5 card minor)

?

1M was only 4 cards and either 4M441 or weak NT

1NT= no 4M, weak NT strength but could be 2-2-4-5

2C natural limited to about 15

2D= 19+ with main D

2H= 19+ with main H

2S= 19+ with main S

2NT= 19-21 natural

3C= natural but non-forcing limited to about 18

Higher= forcing with C and nominated 2nd suit!!!

 

1C -?

1D= as above

1H=8/9-11 natural

1S= 8/9-11 natural

1NT= GF balanced or indeterminate minors

2minor= 8/9-11 natural

2M= GF 5+cards nat

2NT= GF both minors

3C= GF sets C

3D= GF sets D

3M= natural Invitation sets suit

3NT= to play (???)

 

In retrospect the structure could have been improved but my parents weren't young and it was the early 1970's...

It sounds crude but was very effective indeed, albeit when used by a neophyte like me, fraught with disaster given my lack of judgement and playing skills...

 

When you look at it, the losses were negligible (the greatest perhaps being 1D-1H

when you had a weak hand with D & 4H, and didn't want to bid 2H when there was a 44fit, and the equivalent when having opened 1H you received a 1S response and he actually had S, particularly only 4), but there are gains and losses in any methods and they just look foreign.

 

By contrast there was a lot of room to stop accurately in partscores, but the worst auctions started

 

1S- 3H (5+H GF, could be only 12+HCP....!!!)

 

Funnily enough I think it would be easier for beginners to understand since they bid their own suit except for an opening of 1C and everything is value showing except next suit up (with a substitute bid). You get used to thinking of every hand within context as weak, moderate or strong for your response, and for opener's potential rebid while HCP quickly become just a guide.

 

My father told me he had learnt Vienna in Vienna as a schoolboy before WWII, then not played until postwar in London, and had settled on this version in the early 50s when he left London and came to Australia!

[EricK]

The 1N response to 1M is overloaded because we are short of space.

 

I agree with Adam that it would probably be a bad tradeoff to do the same over a 1♣ opening. One reason is that opener only promises 3+ clubs and is thus a lot more likely to have a fit for my 5-card heart suit. But if it goes 1C P 1D* 1S P 2S, what can we do with 3424 (opener) opposite 2533 (responder)?

 

Also, the hands where responder are weak are the hands where it is most likely to be a part score battle, so I don't understand why you think in this case the preemption by opponents is less likely to be a problem.

With the 3424 hand you can double over 1♠ and then partner can bid 3♥ over 2♠. Obviously you can come up with hands without such a simple solution, but I don't think isolated hands prove anything anyway.

 

Being pre-empted out of a game (or pre-empted into a non-making game are likely to be more costly than being pre-empted out of a making part-score or out of a good partscore sacrifice. Also, if they have ♠ we are likely to lose the part score battle anyway, but if we have ♠ we might very well be able to get them into play later. Not all the time, granted - but we won't miss out on them all the time either. The fact that if they have a fit then so do we will still apply, and both players will still be able to balance or pre-balance. We will just have a greater idea of our combined assets.

[cherdano]

Well, if you want a weak NT with 3424 to make a takeout double of 1S after having opened 1C, then that's just goes to show how problematic the method is IMO... Also, it is not enough to say it is more costly to be preempted out of games and less costly out of partscores, the point is that in standard you are never preempted out of showing your shape; and not showing shape is more likely to cost double game swings then not showing strength.

 

Anyway, I agree that there isn't much point in discussing much further, we all know when it wins and when it loses, we just disagree on how frequent that will happen.

[whereagles]

1. But where, then, is the difference between this and my proposed method? I overload the first step but the other steps now show strength and shape.

 

2. Indeed one could play that over 1♣, a 1M response shows inv+ values and 5+ cards, with balanced hands with or without a 4 card major going into 1NT. This is even more in line with emphasising showing shape than normal methods.

1. Well, as a matter of fact, you're right.. there aren't many :P But hey, I never said I liked 2/1.. lol.

 

Anyway, there is one important difference: the 2/1 sets a game force. That allows making forcing raises below game, which can be very important in slam exploration. In your idea, one still has to sort out whether responder is inv or GF, and that can be rather space-consuming when you least want it.

 

2. As others have said, that makes you somewhat vulnerable to preemption. In fact, the forcing 1NT of 2/1 systems is quite liable to preemption by 4th, especially he has spades.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you'll get into trouble every time. Just that I've played similar methods at several stages and am not too happy with the results. Mainly because of the preemption issue, if that's what you're wondering :)

[EricK]

Well, if you want a weak NT with 3424 to make a takeout double of 1S after having opened 1C, then that's just goes to show how problematic the method is IMO

I want a weak NT to open 1NT. But that is a discussion for another thread. I might even want the strong 3424 to open 1♥ but that is a discussion for yet another thread!