big pass system

[rbforster]

Nick suggested in this thread the outline of a system that passed all balanced hands of 16 or less. I'm not sure this is a good idea, but I thought the idea was interesting enough to try to throw something together to start some discussion. I tried to incorporate the ideas Nick had assembled (light canape 1H, wider ranging 5+ 1S, wide ranging 2C, etc).

 

P weak or 0-16 bal (no 5cM if 8+)

1♣ 10-15(16) unbalanced catchall: 5 card minor, or 5 hearts (generally stronger than 1♥), or 4441

1♦ strong: 16+ unbal or 22+ if balanced

1♥ 4+ 8-13, 4♥ minor canape, 5332, 1444, or 6+ and a little too good for a weak two

1♠ 5+ 8-15(16 if bal)

1N 17-19 bal

2m 8-15 6+

2M normal weak twos

2N 20-21

 

Over 1♦, play you favorite strong diamond system.

Over 1♣, use 1♦ as catchall, either weak or no better bid, and otherwise standard responses.

 

1♣(unbal catchall)-1♦(weak or catchall)-?

 

1♥ 5+ hearts with a side suit, or 5332 14-16

1♠ 4 cards, 4S/5m or 4441

1N both minors: 5/4+ either longer

2m 4♥/5 minor and a decent hand (13-15, else open 1♥)

2♥ 6+ and a decent hand

 

P-?

 

1♣ 8-15 catchall: 8-13 balanced, 3-suiters, 2 suiters with a 5c minor, or 6+ diamonds and a good hand

1♦ strong: 16+ unbal, bal: 17-19 or 22+

1M usually 5+ 8-15

1N 14-16

2♣ 8-15 6+

2♦ 8-11 6+ (could maybe be weaker too)

2M normal weak twos

2N 20-21

 

After P-1M, use Drury or 1N forcing to handle decent passed hands.

 

P-1♣-?

 

1♦ catchall: weak with no 4cM or balanced 11-13 (4cM ok)

----> 1M natural, Polish style (could be 3 if 8-10 balanced); 1N rebid or 2M raise show 11-13 bal

----> 1N 11-13 balanced

----> 2♣ both minors, 5/4+ either way

----> 2♦ 6+ good hand with diamonds (13-15)

1M natural NF (limited to 10 hcp): 4 cards if 8-10 bal, or 5+ if weak ~4-7 pts

1N 14-16 bal no 5cM, strong NT systems on (4cM ok)

[precpj]

why play some system you will be vittually alerting every bid if you are lucky enough to find a partner to go along :D ?

 

I can see the merits for a long match whereas the bidding notes have to be preexchanged

 

precpj

[rbforster]

why play  some system you will be  vittually alerting every bid if you are lucky enough to find a partner to go along ;) ?

This is Non-Natural Systems... it's par for the course. Besides, aside from the customary alerts of 1m openings similar to any strong C/D system, all the rest of the bids are very natural. All the bids show the suit they have!

[wclass___]

I doun't even think that it could be fun to play this. :(

[awm]

As is often the case, I think we need to ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish.

 

Some possible thoughts include:

 

(1) Opening light with shapely hands is a really huge win, so we want to do that as much as possible. Getting rid of the weak notrump hands from our opening structure frees up more calls to describe the shapely hands accurately.

 

(2) Having pass show a balanced hand has substantial advantages, in that it allows a greater degree of safety when preempting opposite a passed hand.

 

Note that the structure Rob put forward seems to lose out on both of these, making the 1NT opening a relatively infrequent 17-19 and including a sizable number of unbalanced hands (0-7) in pass.

 

Perhaps an alternative structure is in order.

 

Pass = 0-16 balanced

1♣ = 16+ artificial (17+ if balanced)

1♦ = 8-15 with one or both minors (NT rebid shows both minors)

1M = 8-15 with 5+ in the major suit bid

1N = 0-7 with 5+♦ or unbalanced with 4+/4+ in the minors

2♣ = 0-7 with 5+♣

2♦ = 0-7 unbalanced with a 5+♥ or with 5♠/4+m

2♥ = 0-7 with at least 4-4 in the majors unbalanced

2♠ = 0-7 with 6+♠

[NickRW]

Making the system work from the point of view of 1st/2nd seat seemed to be at least a tractable problem. My biggest query over its workability stemmed from what do you do in 3rd/4th seat given that partner has made a non forcing pass that includes some reasonably strong balanced hands.

 

Designing a system for 4th seat is, in general, a piece of cake, in that you do not need to have preempts - but having to open some hands there that you'd normally pass seems suicidal to me.

 

The most difficult seat to design for (again in general) is 3rd seat. In this position you need access to all the light openers and/or preemptive calls you can possibly spare - yet, with 2 passes in front of 3rd seat, a system designer has to be mindful that stronger than average hands are somewhat more likely. Loading the 3rd seat opener with having to cater for 1st seat having passed a bal 15 count or so seems to be a bridge way too far.

 

I understand where Tysen was coming from - he was playing about with some simulation software inspired by Matt Ginsberg - and I can well understand how come that software would suggest that certain 1st seat openings were a good idea and that balanced hands were quite often better left for partner to speak first. However, I am not at all sure that the software took too much account of what problems this would make for 3rd seat following the potentially big pass.

 

It is almost as if such a system needs a 1♣ opener in 3rd seat that shows a bal 9 or so to which 1st seat often passes - and you scramble your best fit if doubled. Probably not as unworkable as it sounds - but it sounds awful to me anyway.

 

Nick

[rbforster]

Nice suggestion Adam. If you're opening all your unbalanced hands in 1st/2nd, the strong forcing option in 3rd/4th can be higher since there are so many fewer hand types to worry about.

 

In particular, I think 1♣ probably wants to include a couple of the balanced 8-16 ranges since you'll have a potentially artificial 1♦ response that you can use to separate strengths. Maybe this means you play a strong diamond in 3rd/4th.

[awm]

Sure, here's a possibility for 3rd/4th seat:

 

Pass = 0-7 (if 5-7 then no 5M)

1♣ = 8-15 unbalanced with a 4M but no 5M, or 8-13 balanced

1♦ = 16+ artificial (or 17+ balanced)

1M = 11-15 with 5+M

1N = 14-16 balanced

2m = 5+m no 4M with 8-15

2M = 5+M with 5-10

 

The wide ranges become much more manageable opposite a balanced partner; for example over a 2m opening we always have at least a seven card fit in the minor and will not normally have a major suit fit. Some responses to these bids:

 

Pass-1♣:

 

---> 1♦ shows 0-10 (no game on power)

---> 1M shows 11-13 with 4-5M (NF)

---> 1N shows 11-13 no 4M

---> 2♣ shows 14-16 with a 4M (stayman)

---> 2♦ shows 14-16 no 4M, but not wanting to declare notrump

---> 2N shows 14-15 no 4M, want to declare notrump

---> 3x = maximum worried about this particular suit for notrump (stopper ask)

---> 3N shows 16 no 4M, want to declare notrump

 

Pass-1♣-1♦:

 

---> Bid a four-card major if any; feel free to pass with 5+♦

---> 1NT rebid wide ranging (8-13) but try to bid a major (even 3-card) when minimum

 

Pass-1♦:

 

---> Your choice, but easy to use steps here since balanced hand guaranteed

---> I like 1♥ GF relay (opener describes) and 1♠ negative

[NickRW]

Thanks Adam. Food for thought - and probably a lot more workable than years of conditioning to play differently would initially suggest.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

As is often the case, I think we need to ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish.

 

Some possible thoughts include:

 

(1) Opening light with shapely hands is a really huge win, so we want to do that as much as possible. Getting rid of the weak notrump hands from our opening structure frees up more calls to describe the shapely hands accurately.

 

(2) Having pass show a balanced hand has substantial advantages, in that it allows a greater degree of safety when preempting opposite a passed hand.

 

I think Tysen's core idea was the 0-16 balanced pass. And I think the reason this is at least a potentially worthwhile idea and maybe, just maybe, worth the hassle it gives to 3rd seat, is much the same argument in favour of the weak NT. The weak NT gives a much better definition (and strength) to all your other 1x openers - because they are inherently all unbal and/or 15+ (regardless of whether you play 5cM, 5 card spades or 4cM). The other advantage of the weak NT is that it can be quite preemptive - but this is offset by the fact that you can preempt your own side (major fits can be lost if responder is weak). If you can find a way of incorporating the weak NT somewhere else without too much downside, then - well - it is an idea worth thinking about.

 

With respect to also passing 15 and 16 balanced hands - well - the objection to the weak NT (sometimes losing a major fit) also applies to the strong NT as well - just to a lesser extent. The case for including these in the pass is weaker - but maybe necessary to make the whole thing hang together.

 

I know Tysen's simulations suggested that a 17-21 range for an opening NT was workable. We're so used to 3, maybe 4 point ranges that this seems unworkable at first sight - but - with the extra strength there is (almost) no reason to run away from 1NT when responder is very weak - which potentially simplifies responders problems.

 

The other point to this is that taking away so many bal hands from the opening structure, then opening a lot of light but shapely hands becomes very viable - which is huge as you point out. I am not quite sure that this necessarily means we open shapely yarboroughs though :D

 

Nick

[scsm1963]

I assume the bid pass is only for 1st and 2nd seat opening. What do you open in 3rd seat. I would assume then the 1NT would be 10-13 (preemptive) for balanced hands and 1C would be the either strong balanced 14-16 or weak unbalanced with !c's

[mtvesuvius]

I was thinking... Something that might work interesting, although I haven't really considered too many options, would be in "Intermediate" pass system:

 

1♣ = 16+

1♦ = 0-8 Any

1♥ = 9-12 Balanced or Any 4441

1♠ = 5+♠ 9-12

1NT = 5+♥ 9-12

2♣ = 5+♣ 9-12

2♦ = 5+♦ 9-12

2♥ = ♥+m 9-12

2♠ = ♠+m 9-12

Pass = 13-15 Any

 

I haven't thought through the continuations much, but I think with a little tweaking it would make a good system... Or maybe it's unplayable :P

 

Ideas/Comments/Thoughts are appreciated (including the "you're insane" comments.)

[Free]

I was thinking... Something that might work interesting, although I haven't really considered too many options, would be in "Intermediate" pass system:

 

1♣ = 16+

1♦ = 0-8 Any

1♥ = 9-12 Balanced or Any 4441

1♠ = 5+♠ 9-12

1NT = 5+♥ 9-12

2♣ = 5+♣ 9-12

2♦ = 5+♦ 9-12

2♥ = ♥+m 9-12

2♠ = ♠+m 9-12

Pass = 13-15 Any

 

I haven't thought through the continuations much, but I think with a little tweaking it would make a good system... Or maybe it's unplayable :)

 

Ideas/Comments/Thoughts are appreciated (including the "you're insane" comments.)

The idea of playing strong ♣ and reverse the pass and 1♦ openings isn't new. The reason why it's not played much is because it's HUM...

 

However I disagree that this structure would become a good system after some tweaking. 1NT and 2m openings are randomizing results. It's a bit like Fantunes two's.

I also don't see the need to open 1♥ with balanced/4441. Just open 1NT even with 4441, that usually works out just fine. As a result you get a natural NF 1♥ opening which is very limited in strength, and a mini 1NT opening to put up the pressure! Playing like this, I'd use 2M as 4M with a longer minor.

 

While we're at it, why not play strong pass and put all 13-15HCP hands in 1♣? Responder can bid 1♦ relay and opener can use the same structure to show his hand. I think this already has been proposed on this forum, but I'm not sure. (even after the strong pass you can use 1♦ as a GF relay, 1♣ as double negative, and the rest as semipositive - all lowering the memory load)

[rbforster]

I was thinking... Something that might work interesting, although I haven't really considered too many options, would be in "Intermediate" pass system:

 

1♣ = 16+

1♦ = 0-8 Any

Pass = 13-15 Any

You can see my original post on a semiforcing pass system, which combines your 1♦ and pass bids (Pass = 0-7 or 13-15) into an otherwise standard-but-light-opening strong club framework.

 

I've played some "constructive pass" systems similar to the one you suggest (although I was playing Pass=(8)9-12 instead of 13-15), and found them not particularly good. That might be a function of the range however, perhaps being stronger is better than constructive, since you're more likely to be able to take a call later if you pass first and the auction ends up being lively.