Best system in 4th seat

[MickyB]

I've been considering how conditions affect what systems are best. I think position is probably the most significant factor.

 

So far, I think that -

 

Polish Club is best 1st vul/2nd seat (although both vul at MPs it is very tempting to pass flat 12-counts, especially when they might be about to open a weak NT on your left - last time I did this I went +300 when +200 would have been a near top. Not sure I can really justify changing the system to encourage this, though!)

 

 

Polish Club's strong NT/5cM base probably isn't aggressive enough to be considered optimal 1st NV. I quite like 10-13 NT, 1♣ as 14+♣/bal here. Whether I'd ever want to be playing both this and something completely different simultaneously is another matter!

 

In third seat, frequently opening four-card majors on weak hands seems beneficial. Assuming that your 1st seat openings are fairly middle-of-the-road, a 14-16 NT seems best - with 13 it's not the end of the world if partner has a maximum passed hand and you bid P:1M, 1NT:AP. I quite like the idea of having 1♣:1Y, 1NT as any 17-19 bal here - with 13 points or fewer, you'd have to find another action, most frequently passing.

 

If adopting an aggressive style 1st NV, the third seat 1NT opening range could be increased - flat 14s will have no interest in game opposite a passed hand.

 

 

4th seat, I'm less sure about. There's less reason to preempt with a 4cM opening than there is in third seat, but it doesn't hurt your own bidding much to do so IMO. It's tempting to revert to Polish Club, but I don't like how the ranges mesh - a 1♣ opening that is frequently a 12-14 NT leaves game a possibility opposite a flat 11 with no fit, it seems inefficient to let responder think that there might be a 24/25 point 3NT on when opener knows this isn't the case.

 

Any thoughts as to whether 14-16 4cM or Polish Club would be better here? Or what about something else entirely?

[gwnn]

Polish Club is best 1st vul/2nd seat

That sounds a little categorical.

[MickyB]

Polish Club is best 1st vul/2nd seat

That sounds a little categorical.

You've taken it a bit out of context.

 

So far, I think that -

 

Polish Club is best 1st vul/2nd seat

 

This was stated mainly to make clear that, in terms of memory load, it would be a sensible option for playing in 4th.

[dake50]

Seat is most significant. Just think of the spectrum of responses (hands that may be held needing differentiating) after 1-bid in 1-seat verses using partner-has-passed means many cases have disappeared.

Especially, I play 1C strong so my response structure to 3-/4-seat 1C is wa-a-ay different from 1-2-seat 1C responses. Further non-1C bids need have much less fear missing game on hands just short of a normal response so upped top ranges: 1S 1-seat =11-15; but 3-seat 11-17. Left with 2-suiters, super 3-suiters, super 1-suiters, and NT ladder ask that fear a pass on gamy hands.

[Gerben42]

Fantunes is great in 4th seat (also in other seats, anyway...)

 

From yesterday in the league:

 

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sajt53ht854da43ck]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

P P P 2♠

3♣ P P X

P P P

 

+500, thanks!

[gwnn]

would your partner's double have been negative?

[Free]

Fantunes is great in 4th seat (also in other seats, anyway...)

I agree, although 1st and 2nd seat are not as clear as 3rd and 4th imo.

[MickyB]

In first seat, Fantunes two-bids will often have good results from preempting the opposition, but I'd expect them to have a fair few bad results from preempting our side too. In fourth seat, I'd expect them to preempt us much more often than they preempt the opponents.

[kenrexford]

When deciding the answer, I'd suggest going through vugraph archives for deals where three initial passes occur.

 

You may be surprised at the results. I started looking into this a while back, and I was surprised by the situational recurrences. I cannot remember the specifics, but it quickly nixed my initial idea of what seemed an intuitively ideal four-seat opening structure. I'd suggest not only focusing on the likely hand patterns and strengths, but also the ideal end contracts and competitive threat types. My recollection was surprise in all three areas.

[Feegle]

Hope you don't mind if I ask a (basic?) bridge question here. Are you allowed to play different systems in different seats, e.g. on your convention card: Polish Club 1st/2nd seat, ACOL 3rd/4th ?

[Gerben42]

Hope you don't mind if I ask a (basic?) bridge question here. Are you allowed to play different systems in different seats, e.g. on your convention card: Polish Club 1st/2nd seat, ACOL 3rd/4th ?

 

This is sort of problematic. Do you play a different system if 1♠ p 2♦ is forcing, but p p 1♠ p 2♦ is not? In many countries there are regulations that you cannot play "2 systems" in the way of

 

* Polish Club Vuln.

* Acol NV

 

Varying the NT range seems to be allowed.

 

Pairs playing differently according to vulnerability include

 

Pratap - Landen

Martens - Jassem

[Rossoneri]

Hope you don't mind if I ask a (basic?) bridge question here. Are you allowed to play different systems in different seats, e.g. on your convention card: Polish Club 1st/2nd seat, ACOL 3rd/4th ?

Good question. Any idea what the WBF would class it under?

 

Hmm, how important would the considerations of letting opponents into the auction and letting them in when they would not have been in be?

[hrothgar]

Hope you don't mind if I ask a (basic?) bridge question here. Are you allowed to play different systems in different seats, e.g. on your convention card: Polish Club 1st/2nd seat, ACOL 3rd/4th ?

This very much depends on where you are playing

 

Its perfectly legitimate in the ACBL.

 

I know that you can't do so in other jurisdications (I believe that England bans this, though I'm not sure)

[kenrexford]

I never quite understood that "two systems" concern.

 

Suppose that you played "2/1 GF" in 1st-2nd seat and "canape" in 3rd-4th seat. What if you instead called the system "Noodle Scientific" and defined the system such that it paralleled 2/1 GF in 1st/2nd seat and canape in 3rd/4th seat?

[awm]

Here's a recent observation from when I was simulating something else.

 

Suppose that the folks in 1st-3rd seat have a fairly standard opening style. Then in 4th chair, it is more frequent to have a strong (15-17) notrump opening than a weak (12-14) notrump opening.

 

This is not true in any other seat.

[bhall]

I never quite understood that "two systems" concern.

 

Suppose that you played "2/1 GF" in 1st-2nd seat and "canape" in 3rd-4th seat.  What if you instead called the system "Noodle Scientific" and defined the system such that it paralleled 2/1 GF in 1st/2nd seat and canape in 3rd/4th seat?

Well, I might like to play:

 

"7 up" in first seat (P = 0-6 HCP)

Fantunes in second seat

Frequent Psyches in 3rd seat, and

Polish ♣ in 4th seat

 

But that would burden the other side with too many variations to defend against in any short match. I'm not even sure one could play that radical an approach in the Spingold or Vanderbilt.

 

It might be fun in a home team game, though.

[Free]

Hope you don't mind if I ask a (basic?) bridge question here. Are you allowed to play different systems in different seats, e.g. on your convention card: Polish Club 1st/2nd seat, ACOL 3rd/4th ?

Good question. Any idea what the WBF would class it under?

Red

[Rossoneri]

Hope you don't mind if I ask a (basic?) bridge question here. Are you allowed to play different systems in different seats, e.g. on your convention card: Polish Club 1st/2nd seat, ACOL 3rd/4th ?

Good question. Any idea what the WBF would class it under?

Red

Even if you have 3 different systems based on vul and/or position?

 

I remember seeing some italian youth pair playing prec and 2/1 based on vul, but that's the most I've ever seen. (It was red)

[Finch]

Hope you don't mind if I ask a (basic?) bridge question here. Are you allowed to play different systems in different seats, e.g. on your convention card: Polish Club 1st/2nd seat, ACOL 3rd/4th ?

This very much depends on where you are playing

 

Its perfectly legitimate in the ACBL.

 

I know that you can't do so in other jurisdications (I believe that England bans this, though I'm not sure)

The EBU don't ban this, but they restrict it:

 

"A partnership may play two Basic systems at different positions or vulnerabilities only in Level 4 or Unusual Systems competitions, and only where rounds are of 7 boards or more. Each member of the partnership must display two convention cards, indicating the occasions when the different systems apply.

 

It is permitted to vary certain parts of a system according to position and/or

vulnerability. Examples of variations which do not constitute playing two Basic systems for the purpose of this regulation are:

 

(a) Playing a different range for certain bids (for example opening no trumps or preempts).

(B) Playing five card majors in some positions and four card majors in others.

© Playing different lengths for minor suit openings, as a consequence of the

differences in (a) and/or (B).

(d) Playing different meanings for opening two-bids (for example playing Acol twos in 4th seat, weak twos otherwise).

 

10 A 9 A partnership may agree to play different systems against different opponents in the same event. The partnership must each make out different convention cards, and make sure the correct ones are offered to the relevant opponents."

 

Arguably 4-card and 5-card major systems are fundamentally different, but I think it's fairly clear what they are trying to get at.

[Free]

Hope you don't mind if I ask a (basic?) bridge question here. Are you allowed to play different systems in different seats, e.g. on your convention card: Polish Club 1st/2nd seat, ACOL 3rd/4th ?

Good question. Any idea what the WBF would class it under?

Red

Even if you have 3 different systems based on vul and/or position?

 

I remember seeing some italian youth pair playing prec and 2/1 based on vul, but that's the most I've ever seen. (It was red)

I think so

[MickyB]

It seems wrong to me to restrict the use of different methods opposite a passed hand. An "opening pass" communicates vital information; saying that a 1st/2nd seat 1D opening should mean the same thing as P:1D makes about as much sense as saying that P:1D should mean the same thing as 1C:1D.

[joshs]

Here's a recent observation from when I was simulating something else.

 

Suppose that the folks in 1st-3rd seat have a fairly standard opening style. Then in 4th chair, it is more frequent to have a strong (15-17) notrump opening than a weak (12-14) notrump opening.

 

This is not true in any other seat.

This actually gets more extreme if you play light openers.

 

Without simulation results to back me up, I make the following claims:

 

Suppose you play a 15+ strong club in 1/2, with other openings being 10-14, and you open most 10's.

Suppose the opps play a standard system (rule of 20ish openers).

Let P=Probability of holding a 15+ hand in first seat

Let Q=Probability of holding a 17+ hand in 3rd seat, after the first 2 players pass.

 

Claim A: Q>P, and its not even that close

 

Claim B: In this context, after only 2 passes, a strong NT (15-17) is more common than a weak NT (12-14) [unlike standard]

 

What hands you open in 1/2 has a big effect on the distribution of hands you have to deal with in 3/4, and thus its pretty clear that playing the exact same methods (or at least ranges) is not efficient.

 

For instance,

Claim C:

If you play standard methods, and a 15-17 NT in 1/2, its actually more efficient to play 14-16 in 3/4. I will let the simulators work this one out...

[Echognome]

Claim C:

If you play standard methods, and a 15-17 NT in 1/2, its actually more efficient to play 14-16 in 3/4. I will let the simulators work this one out...

Define "efficient".

 

I am not disputing the claims or even trying to be pedantic. I'm just trying to clarify what you are getting at.

[joshs]

Claim C:

If you play standard methods, and a 15-17 NT in 1/2, its actually more efficient to play 14-16 in 3/4. I will let the simulators work this one out...

Define "efficient".

 

I am not disputing the claims or even trying to be pedantic. I'm just trying to clarify what you are getting at.

Efficient-"performing or functioning in the best possible manner"

 

Now to evaluate efficiency you need a metric for "best", which in the case of bridge could be to

a. maximize your score per hand (in a given scoring method)

b. maximize you chance of winning a match or event (could be very different then a if you are a big favorite or underdog)

c. how much fun you have, in which case ignore my claims at efficiency, since clearly playing 0-12 NTs is more fun :)

 

 

I.E. An efficient method is one that is good at achiving your goals...

[kenrexford]

I agree whole-heartedly with the nonsense of requiring the same "system" for all seats.

 

Suppose that you play LIA, opening all 8-counts. Perfectly legit, right?

 

Well, why the heck would you use the same approach in fourth seat? That's just stupid.

 

I cannot imagine how the definition of a "system" would mean that you must ignore one action within the system, namely the pass, as suggested. A pass is not simply a waiting action, like a check in poker. A pass conveys meaning. Therefore, "responding" to the pass, even if it is a standard, non-forcing pass, cannot logically be restricted in any manner that makes logical sense, to me, so long as the structure of "openings" is one that would be allowed in first or second seat, perhaps.