A 3-card major system

[helene_t]

3-card majors sounds nasty because opps need to explore a fit in your "suit" while it's dangerous to overcall a natural 2M and they would like to use a double for other purposes. The "multi" 1♦ allows for some nasty paradox responses and also keeps the 1♣ opening cleaner by taking the 5M hands out of it.

 

1♣: 16+, no 5M

1♦: 9+, 5+ in either major, 2- in other majors unless 16+

1M: 11-15, 3-4 M, must have a canape suit if 11-13 (unless 4441), open 1♥ with 4-4 or 3-3

1N: 11-13

2♣: 11-15, 6+ clubs or 2-2-4-5

2♦: 11-15, 6+ diamonds or 2-2-5-4

 

1♦-(p)-?:

..Paradox responses

..1N semipositive with support for a specifc major but not for the other (to be discussed)

..2♣ semipositive or better, asks for a transfer

 

1♥-(p)-?

..1♠: relay

..1N: 4-5 spades, <10 points

..2♣: constructive raise

..2♦: spades, too strong and/or too many spades for 1N

 

1♠-(p)-?

..1N: in principle to play

..2♣: 10-12 points

..2♦: GF relay

..2♥: natural, semipositive

..2♠: constructive raise

[Gerben42]

I'm willing to try it out online :)

[cjames]

This looks interesting, are you goint to go any further with this project? It would be interesting to playtest (bid) on BBO.

[cherdano]

I am willing to play against it for $$$.

[helene_t]

I'm willing to try it out online :)

Great, let's try it out against Todd and Atul.

 

(If I win the lottery I will hire Soloway to play it against Arend for money).

 

It may not make so much sense to play 3-card majors in 3rd/4th since p has denied a hand with 5M and constructive values. Maybe it should revert to Precision with a 14-16 1NT in 3rd/4th.

[Cascade]

I think you will need more detailed ways to bid your own major after the 1♦ opening. Just to avoid the confusion that will inevitably come when you bid your six or seven card suit and partner thinks you are making some paradox response.

[helene_t]

I think you will need more detailed ways to bid your own major after the 1♦ opening. Just to avoid the confusion that will inevitably come when you bid your six or seven card suit and partner thinks you are making some paradox response.

What about 2♦ asking for the major that opener does not have? Just a random thought. It could easily become cryptic in contested auctions.

[Gerben42]

What about starting Paradox-responses only at the 2-level and having 1M natural?

 

What do you open with 5 - 4 in the majors (or for that matter, 5 - 3?).

 

I'd also prefer the 1♦ to be limited to 9 - 15 HCP.

[helene_t]

What about starting Paradox-responses only at the 2-level and having 1M natural?

Since 1♦ denies a 3-card in the other major unless 16+, the 1♥ response is not so useful in it's natural meaning. But maybe 1♥ should be an artificial relay, then with a 5-1 fit in hearts and less than invitational values we will end in 1N or maybe 2m or 2♠ if responder is weak with 6 spades.

 

What do you open with 5 - 4 in the majors (or for that matter, 5 - 3?)

Shorter major. But I suddenly realize that I can't bid 5-5 majors. Anyone for a 2♥ opening with 5-5 majors and 11-15 points?

[Gerben42]

horter major. But I suddenly realize that I can't bid 5-5 majors. Anyone for a 2♥ opening with 5-5 majors and 11-15 points?

 

Let's not. Instead you could put these into 1♦ also, for example after

 

1♦ - 1♥ (pass or correct), 2♥ would be a stubborn bid, but then shows 5 - 5.

For ACBL legality I'm told one should include 7+M into 1M also :)

 

Responses to 1♦ (9 - 15, 5/6 ♥ and/or 5/6 ♠):

 

1M: Pass or correct

1NT: Transfer to ♣

2♣: Transfer to ♦

2♦: Backward Multi: forcing 6+cards in probably the other major.

2M: Pass or correct

2NT: GF asking bid

[glen]

"The Bobby Knows Bridge" site provides this on G-Canape:

 

G-canape system

 

and one can find lots of examples in the 1990 World Championship book (though as a Canuck I would have liked less examples in the finals)

 

Regardless of what one includes in 1M, a 3 card or longer major suit opening is not ACBL legal, following their view of "natural".

 

From a system design point-of-view, the 3+ major suit openings allow the 1M openings to completely span a particular balanced range. So in 4+ canape, one often has something like:

 

1M: 4+, if balanced 11-13

1♦: can be balanced 11-13 without a four card major

 

In 3+ canape, one can have the 1M openings cover a complete balanced range:

1M: 3+, if balanced 9-11 (so covers all balanced 9-11s)

1♦: can be balanced 12-13

[akhare]

I'm willing to try it out online :)

Great, let's try it out against Todd and Atul.

That sounds interesting -- let us know when you folks are ready. At any rate, transfer openings with the occasional fert against vs. 3 card majors should keep the kibs entertained :)...

[awm]

I always thought the following structure would play okay:

 

1♦ = at least one five card major, denies holding 3-4 cards in a side major suit.

 

... 1♥ = "forcing notrump" type values, no real fit for hearts

...... Pass = very min hand, usually 6♥

...... 1♠ = 5+ spades, might have five hearts also

...... 1NT = strength showing, artificial

...... Else = natural with 5+♥ (so 2♣ = hearts and clubs) like rebid over 1♥-1NT(F)

 

... 1♠ = "forcing notrump" type values, would raise a 1♥ opening but not a 1♠ open

...... 1NT = strength showing, artificial, could be either major

...... 2m = natural with spades also

...... 2♥ = 5+♥, would pass a single raise of hearts (resp. shows shape with LR)

...... 2♠ = 6+♠, no 5♥

...... Else = like 1♠-1NT(F)

 

... 1NT = relay, at least very invitational

 

... 2m = natural, mildly invitational, no 3-card major holding

... 2♥ = single raise in ♥, at least single raise in ♠

... 2♠ = single raise in spades, really good fit for hearts (LR equivalent)

... 2NT = LR type hand in either major

 

Over 1♦-1NT or 1♦-1M-1NT-2♣ (relay):

 

2♣ = really bad hand, only possible non-GF over 1♦-1NT

2♦ = 5+♥, 0-2♠

2♥ = 5+/5+ majors (2♠ relays and can show exact pattern)

2♠ = 5+♠ and 4+♣, 0-2♥

2NT = 6+♠

3♣ = 5+/5+ in ♠ and ♦, after relay show 2♥, 1♥, 0♥

3♦ = 5♠ and 4♦, after relay 2-2, 1-3, 0-4

3♥ = 6+♠, 4♦, 2♥

3♠ = 6+♠, 4♦, 1♥

3NT = 6+♠, 4♦, 0♥

[Cascade]

Regardless of what one includes in 1M, a 3 card or longer major suit opening is not ACBL legal, following their view of "natural".

Three card Majors are legal everywhere.

 

SO are only allowed to regulate conventions (and light actions at the one level).

 

A bid is not conventional if it shows length - three cards - in the suit bid.

[keylime]

Helene,

 

This has piqued my interest.

[glen]

An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit

Now if somebody has gotten a reply from the ACBL that overrules this, or has managed to get it overruled somehow, then let us know. Otherwise it is not legal in the ACBL.

 

If it was legal, it would be a lot more fun than 10-12 notrumps.

[Cascade]

An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit

There is no law on defining natural. Anyone can do that.

 

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level. Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

[cherdano]

(If I win the lottery I will hire Soloway to play it against Arend for money).

Deal. (The lottery win should be able to cover the system losses, I agree.)

[hrothgar]

An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit

There is no law on defining natural. Anyone can do that.

 

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level. Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

Would it make you happier if the ACBL passed the following rule:

 

Players may not make use of any conventions if their system permits opening a three card major at the one level.

 

The WBF has made it perfectly clear that they will permit local sponsoring authorities to do whatever they damn well please, regardless of what the laws might say.

[glen]

There is no law on defining natural. Anyone can do that.

 

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level. Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

This is nice in theory. In reality it is not legal in the ACBL since you can't offer any method of getting them to agree with your view.

[Cascade]

There is no law on defining natural.  Anyone can do that.

 

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level.  Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

This is nice in theory. In reality it is not legal in the ACBL since you can't offer any method of getting them to agree with your view.

Its not a theory its what the laws of the game require.

 

I read in another thread a view that online bridge is not bridge.

 

If the SO is not willing to play according to the rules then I guess the game cannot be called bridge.

 

We rightly don't have much respect for players that deliberately break rules. The rules also constrain SO. I don't think it is too much to expect them to follow the rules.

[Cascade]

An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit

There is no law on defining natural. Anyone can do that.

 

There is a law allowing regulation of conventional bids and light openings at the one level. Sponsoring organizations are limited in their regulations to regulating only conventional bids (as defined in the laws of bridge) and light one-level openings.

Would it make you happier if the ACBL passed the following rule:

 

Players may not make use of any conventions if their system permits opening a three card major at the one level.

 

The WBF has made it perfectly clear that they will permit local sponsoring authorities to do whatever they damn well please, regardless of what the laws might say.

1. The ACBL have not said that.

 

2. I don't really believe that the WBF would allow anything. It just cannot be right for a regulation to violate another rule of the game.

[Echognome]

I'm sure what everyone is referring to is from the General Convention Chart. Number 1 under definitions is:

 

1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

 

Sounds to me like they are regulating the definition of natural. As a general aside, is it not up to the SO's to determine the interpretation of the laws in their respective region? Unless the laws say that natural means 3+ cards, then the SO's should have scope to say what they believe is the meaning of natural.

[awm]

Seems like there's yet another issue with the improper definition of conventional in the laws. The definition states that a convention is: A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there.

 

Some of the many obvious issues with this:

 

(1) Any opening bid which promises or denies length in a suit other than the one named could be considered conventional, since this conveys a meaning other than length or willingness to play in the suit named. So a 1♣ opening which denies a five card major in addition to showing three or more clubs would be a convention. So would a natural (six or more) 2M opening which denies four cards in the other major. So would a canape 1♠ opening (promises a longer side suit).

 

(2) Any opening bid which includes an upper limit on the length of the suit named would be conventional. For example, a 1♠ opening showing "four or five spades" conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in spades (in fact it says I am not willing to play in spades opposite less than two card support) and other than length in spades (it in fact indicates a maximum length in spades).

 

(3) Any notrump bid which is forcing is presumably conventional, since it carries information about length in various suits and does not necessarily indicate desire to play in notrump.

 

(4) On the other hand, a 2♥ opening which is non-forcing and shows "any hand with 0-7 hcp" is not conventional, because it does in fact convey a willingness to play in hearts (if partner is very weak or has heart length) and it doesn't carry any implications about length in suits other than hearts. Note that the definition in the laws continues: "an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention."

[helene_t]

At least in the Netherlands, the definition of the word "natural" serves the purpose of defining the kinds of openings against which opps cannot use BSC-defense in pairs events.

 

3-card majors may be Blue Sticker, i.e. opps can use psycho-suction or whatever against it (not sure about that), but it is certainly allowed. As for the ACBL thing it has been discussed intensively at rec.games.bridge

 

I have corrected an error in my original post: 2♦ can be 2-2-5-4.

 

I'll have to think a little more about the follow-ups to 1♦. This is clearly the hardest part of the system, the major suit openings can be reasonably dealt with by the short notes I made in the original post, I think.

 

Maybe one should open 1N with a 5-card major and pass with a 5M332 and 9-10 points. Then 1♦ promises either a 6-card major or 5M+4m, unless 14+. It would also help a little to raise the notrump range to 12-14. When vulnerable, that is probably a good idea anyway.

 

Thanx to Adam for input to the the 1♦ follow-ups.

 

I'm on vacation next week, if the weather is bad I'll have to kill the time developing the 3-card major system.