four card spades, five card hearts

[Danlo]

I've done some simulations on competitive bidding, that suggest to me it is preferable to open a five card hearts and a four card spades suit. The most standard layout:

 

1♥ = 5+ hearts, 12-19 HCP

1♠ = 4+ spades, 10-15 HCP

 

The 1S opening will contain all 4333 and 4432 hands with 4 spades and may even contain some 5422 hands with a five card minor. Though the effect of that decision may is unclear, it may be too much of a hinder in subsequent bidding.

 

The reason for this opening scheme is the (age-old) observation that it pays to have the boss suit. How much it pays, I only found out recently in my competitive simulations. In deals where there are no extreme distributions and no large (9+ card) fits, there almost always is a four point region (say 18-21 combined HCP), where the boss suit wins - even when the boss suit people have less trumps than the others. This region is far larger than I expected.

 

There is a distinct and in this scheme maybe somewhat exagerated difference in the 1♥ and 1♠ opening: the 1♥ opening is more constructive (stronger) and shows more hearts, so you can more easily compete at the two/three level. The spade opening is more competitive (weaker) and concentrates on blocking the opponents path quite early in the bidding.

 

The spade opening has to use a relaybid to be feasable (note that it now contains all kinds of balanced hands that in standard systems reside in 1C and/or 1NT), my preference is to use 1NT for this purpose. The rest of the bids are nonforcing.

 

Does anyone even like the idea, or does anyone have experience with this kind of system?

[jtfanclub]

How much it pays, I only found out recently in my competitive simulations.

I'm curious: what did your competitive simulations showed with specifically 4-3-3-3 distribution with 4 spades? I've been wondering how useful it would be to have a 1NT opening that promised exactly 4 spades (with a junk 1D bid that denied 4 spades).

[Danlo]

I'm curious: what did your competitive simulations showed with specifically 4-3-3-3 distribution with 4 spades? I've been wondering how useful it would be to have a 1NT opening that promised exactly 4 spades (with a junk 1D bid that denied 4 spades).

It shows that 4333 is worse than 4432. But my analysis gets a little thin there, the number of deals I use is simply not large enough. The difference seems to be about a point (about as expected) in the competitive region. ut may be up to two points in the game region, which is a little more than I expected. 5332 seems to be about equal to 4432, while 5422 seems to be worth a little more in the game region.

 

But all with a healthy amount of scepticism, because of the very small (<100 to <<100 deals) samples. The reason I do give you the results is because they are reasonably consistent over the whole area of analysis.

 

A 1NT opening that promises exactly 4 spades has two disadvantages over my 1S opening:

 

1. it is more risky for partner to pass (not only because of double trouble, but also because of possible bad results compared to 1S passed)

2. there is no obvious forcing bid that doesn't have the drawback of limiting partners nonforcing options (like 1NT after 1S)

 

Even so, it may be that the 1NT response (forcing and unlimited, but not in principle GF) is not allowed in certain ACBL levels of competition.

[jtfanclub]

It shows that 4333 is worse than 4432.

I meant which ends up being better: 4333 with 4 spades, or (say) 4432 with 2 spades and 4 of each minor? Does having the boss suit beat out having terrible shape?

[whereagles]

Question: what do you do with a 44 major?

[EarlPurple]

Just because you have the boss suit do you really have to go out and bid it right away?

 

With the use of negative doubles, you often will not lose the spade suit.

 

Holding 4-4 in the majors, if you are going to open with one of them, then 1♥ is better. Partner can raise it or bid 1♠ himself with 4. The opps will only be able to compete in the minors, unless, of course, your partner has no more than 1 spade in which case the opps have 8 and can compete in the suit. But I don't think that's reason enough to open it, after all you might be happy to defend a spade contract by the opponents if you know trumps break 4-1.

 

Opening 1♠ and rebidding 2♥ on a 4-4 hand is plain wrong in my opinion, and is either going to land you in lots of 4-2 fits as partner gives preference to spades, or you'd have to use 2NT as "run-out" instead of forward-going.

[luke warm]

I've done some simulations on competitive bidding, that suggest to me it is preferable to open a five card hearts and a four card spades suit. The most standard layout:

 

1♥ = 5+ hearts, 12-19 HCP

1♠ = 4+ spades, 10-15 HCP

 

The 1S opening will contain all 4333 and 4432 hands with 4 spades and may even contain some 5422 hands with a five card minor. Though the effect of that decision may is unclear, it may be too much of a hinder in subsequent bidding.

 

The reason for this opening scheme is the (age-old) observation that it pays to have the boss suit. How much it pays, I only found out recently in my competitive simulations. In deals where there are no extreme distributions and no large (9+ card) fits, there almost always is a four point region (say 18-21 combined HCP), where the boss suit wins - even when the boss suit people have less trumps than the others. This region is far larger than I expected.

 

There is a distinct and in this scheme maybe somewhat exagerated difference in the 1♥ and 1♠ opening: the 1♥ opening is more constructive (stronger) and shows more hearts, so you can more easily compete at the two/three level. The spade opening is more competitive (weaker) and concentrates on blocking the opponents path quite early in the bidding.

 

The spade opening has to use a relaybid to be feasable (note that it now contains all kinds of balanced hands that in standard systems reside in 1C and/or 1NT), my preference is to use 1NT for this purpose. The rest of the bids are nonforcing.

 

Does anyone even like the idea, or does anyone have experience with this kind of system?

presently we play all strong hands are opened 1c, all 2 suited hands are opened canape (unless the 2nd suit is clubs), all one suited hands are opened at the 2 level (2nt and 3c for the club suit), and all 3 suited hands are opened 2c

 

that means 4=5=x=x hands are opened 1s... and there is a relay to find the 2nd suit... i am beginning to like this scheme... the more i study it, the more i like it

[Danlo]

presently we play all strong hands are opened 1c, all 2 suited hands are opened canape (unless the 2nd suit is clubs), all one suited hands are opened at the 2 level (2nt and 3c for the club suit), and all 3 suited hands are opened 2c

 

that means 4=5=x=x hands are opened 1s... and there is a relay to find the 2nd suit... i am beginning to like this scheme... the more i study it, the more i like it

Do you have more info on the 2 level openings? One suited two level openings is something I've been experimenting with and that I find attractive. I'd like to about the responses you use.

[Danlo]

It shows that 4333 is worse than 4432.

I meant which ends up being better: 4333 with 4 spades, or (say) 4432 with 2 spades and 4 of each minor? Does having the boss suit beat out having terrible shape?

I'd have to look into that, it will take me some time though. The analysis is not yet rigged for this specific question.

[Danlo]

Just because you have the boss suit do you really have to go out and bid it right away?

 

With the use of negative doubles, you often will not lose the spade suit.

I'm not afraid of losing the suit.

 

But if you don't bid it, you give the opponents more room to push you to the three level. Having the boss suit is something to capitalize on, so you make it more difficult for the opponents to push you, because they must take more risks to enter the bidding. And they have less room to investigate strength and fit.

 

The goal is to buy the contract at the two level more often, and to be able to punish them for balancing more often.

 

There is another gain (that can also be a loss): you unburden your minor suit opening bids buy taking out the weakish balanced hands with spades (I dislike the 1C-1H-1S-1NT sequence in natural systems).

 

However, the opponents get a little edge, because they can overcall spades just a little more easily.

 

The concept can also be useful to unburden the 1D opening bid in precisionish systems and gain even more competitive edge (Especially in combination with the 2 level one suited opening bids). You may even be able to drop the range of the 1S opening bid a bit. Even though I don't think opening balanced hands with less than 10 HCP is a long term winner.

 

It also combines well with a conventional 1NT opening bid (as opposed to the standard weak/strong 1NT opening bid). Something I'm quite fond of (Hence this post in non-natural systems).

 

If you use a 'fuzzy club' opening that can also hold 13-15 balanced hands without spades, combine it with a conventional 1NT (for some of the more difficult strong variants, possibly some two- or three suited hands) and one suited 2 level bids, you end up with a whole new system concept.

 

But now we're getting way out of the scope of my original post.

[Flame]

Playing 1s as 4 card will help hands wit 4 cards but hands with 5+ cards will suffer in competition. Not saying the idea is bad, i used to try having 2 bids for showing spades.

[Danlo]

Playing 1s as 4 card will help hands wit 4 cards but hands with 5+ cards will suffer in competition. Not saying the idea is bad, i used to try having 2 bids for showing spades.

But then you use a canapé type bid with four spades and possibly a longer second suit?

 

I want to make a primary distinction between 4/5 card suits and 6+ card suits (possibly combining 6322 and 7222 with the 4/5 card suits. These hands are not as strong as they seem). And secondary balanced vs unbalanced. And after that bal4 vs bal5 or unbal4 vs unbal5.

[MickyB]

While I have never played anything quite like this, I have been considering something along these lines for a while.

 

Try looking at The Way Forward, it is very similar to your idea, down to 1♥ being wide-ranging. The system file is at at http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/bridge/

 

As has been mentioned before, opening 1♠ on 4-4-(32) isn't a good idea. TWF opens these with a nebulous 1♦.

 

I don't think it is practical to use 1♠:1NT as anything other than natural NF. How else do you bid 4-3-4-2 opposite 2-4-3-4? TWF uses 2♣ as the GF relay, although I'm not convinced that this leaves enough room.

 

Two other ideas that I have had along these lines...

 

Take the hands with exactly 5♠ out of the 1♠ opener. This means that 1♠:1N, 2m promises 5 cards in the minor, and means there is plenty of room for relays after 1♠:2♣. You can also make single raises on 3 or 4 card support, yet responder will still know exactly how good your fit is. See the thread 'Strong Club - 1M = 4 or 6 cards' in this forum.

 

A 1♦ opener promising 4+♠. This was inspired by MOSCITO, which uses transfer 4 card major opening bids. This solves the 44(32) issue, because there is room to find your heart fit. Continuations something like this...

 

1♦:1♥ = INV+ relay, usually won't have 4 card spade support (as there is too much risk of being badly placed by preemption, better to show the fit immediately). Now 1♠ = exactly 4♠ - the final contract is much more likely to be in NT than ♠ when opener has exactly 4, so this will right-side many contracts.

 

1♦:1♠ = 4+♥, forcing 1 round

1NT, 2♣, 2♦ natural NF. 2NT INV+ raise, 3 bids fit-jumps with exactly 3♠

 

MOSCITO makes a single raise show exactly 3 trumps and some points (6-10 ish). This is so that opener can make safe penalty doubles after the opps balance, without worrying that responder will have a bust, or that we are doubling 3m on an 18 total trick hand. This has two downsides - firstly with 4 card support, you have to preempt straight to the 3 level, which can turn out badly when the last making contract on the hand was 2♠ (or even 2m for the opps). Secondly, you have to pass the transfer opener when you are very weak. This is ok when the opps have a game on, but not so great when they do not. I'm not sure whether I agree with this approach or not. One idea I have had is that with 4 card support and a singleton, you must preempt to the 3 level, but with a flat hand you do not have to. This way, if partner makes a penalty double after a balance, if you do have 4 card support in ♠ you will also have two of their suit which should be useful on defence.

 

A 2♥ response could be used as some kind of raise, but this gives the opps more info and options to decide whether to compete.

 

I am probably wrong, but there may have been a misunderstanding before - JT was suggesting a 1NT opener showing a *balanced* hand with exactly 4♠. Over this, there shouldn't be any problem getting into 2♠ with a fit or playing 1N on many hands without a spade fit.

[Danlo]

While I have never played anything quite like this, I have been considering something along these lines for a while.

 

Try looking at The Way Forward, it is very similar to your idea, down to 1♥ being wide-ranging. The system file is at at http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/bridge/

 

As has been mentioned before, opening 1♠ on 4-4-(32) isn't a good idea. TWF opens these with a nebulous 1♦.

 

I don't think it is practical to use 1♠:1NT as anything other than natural NF. How else do you bid 4-3-4-2 opposite 2-4-3-4? TWF uses 2♣ as the GF relay, although I'm not convinced that this leaves enough room.

Thanks for the information!

 

Eerie, the similarity between the opening bids. And probably originating from very different lines of inquiry (not much double dummy analysis in those days, I figure).

 

I concede the 4H4S point. Not a good idea. I should have thought about it earlier.

 

I have a problem with the NF 1NT bid, I don't know on which hands to bid it - probably 11-12 balanced with a doubleton spade, but those are relatively rare. A wider range means I'll miss games, a weaker range means I'll go down too many too often. I'll take my chances passing 1S, let the opponents figure things out. They don't know what I have. I'm far from convinced that playing 1NT is generally better than playing 1S. In a MP setting it may be, in an IMP setting I'm reasonably sure that on average it isn't.

 

I've been contemplating the canapé issue, but I'm not convinced that it gains. Because minor suit openings are no longer 4333/4432 with spades, a 1S rebid after a minor suit opening already promises a 5 card in the minor and 4 spades. So you have already gained a perfect way of bidding those hands, why overload the spade opening?

 

It may be a good strategy to dislodge the stronger, unbalanced hands with a five card spade opening. Not the 5332 or 5422 hands. But only if there is a nice way to place them in another part of the system. The 1S bid is loaded, but not overloaded now.

[luke warm]

Do you have more info on the 2 level openings? One suited two level openings is something I've been experimenting with and that I find attractive. I'd like to about the responses you use.

pretty much the same structure as over weak 2 bids... 2nt is ogust, any other bid is forcing, except for a raise.. if a new suit is bid, opener will usually return to his suit, raise responder, or show a 2nd suit...

 

I've been contemplating the canapé issue, but I'm not convinced that it gains. Because minor suit openings are no longer 4333/4432 with spades, a 1S rebid after a minor suit opening already promises a 5 card in the minor and 4 spades. So you have already gained a perfect way of bidding those hands, why overload the spade opening?

 

It may be a good strategy to dislodge the stronger, unbalanced hands with a five card spade opening. Not the 5332 or 5422 hands. But only if there is a nice way to place them in another part of the system. The 1S bid is loaded, but not overloaded now.

i believe it gains a lot... no need anymore for random 4 card suit bidding (opener's shape is generally known)... and as long as the responses cover as many contingencies as possible, the only downside is missing a potential fit in opener's 2nd suit when the ops overcall... but the advantages seem to outweigh this

 

as for 5332 hands or 4=4=2=3, these are opened 1nt if 12-15 or 1C if 16+... we have plenty of tools to ferret out opener's distribution, all before 3nt is reached... if you will post hands i'll try to give some example bidding

[MickyB]

I have a problem with the NF 1NT bid, I don't know on which hands to bid it - probably 11-12 balanced with a doubleton spade, but those are relatively rare. A wider range means I'll miss games, a weaker range means I'll go down too many too often. I'll take my chances passing 1S, let the opponents figure things out. They don't know what I have. I'm far from convinced that playing 1NT is generally better than playing 1S. In a MP setting it may be, in an IMP setting I'm reasonably sure that on average it isn't.

 

I've been contemplating the canapé issue, but I'm not convinced that it gains. Because minor suit openings are no longer 4333/4432 with spades, a 1S rebid after a minor suit opening already promises a 5 card in the minor and 4 spades. So you have already gained a perfect way of bidding those hands, why overload the spade opening?

I don't see why a wider range should lead to your missing games...either play a 14-16 NT, so that only 11-13 bal passes the 1NT response, or use eg 2♦ as artificial invite. I don't think it being weaker will make you go down too many too often, you will escape 4-2 spade fits to play 1NT and minor fits. I can see the logic in accepting the misfits and passing, but you could miss games opposite a shapely opener if you pass these hands.

 

Opening 1m and rebidding 1♠ is a nice description, however I think that this system requires an artificial 1♣ opener and a nebulous 1♦ opener. I presumed you were going to play a strong club, in which case 5♣4♠ isn't too well handled and you could be preempted out of showing your spades when holding 5♦4♠. Also, an overloaded 1♦ opener might benefit from an artificial 1♠ rebid.

 

Responding to a single suited two bid should indeed be similar to responding to a weak two, however OGUST is awful for both :D In response to 2♥, I would suggest:

 

2♠ natural F1

2N, 3♣ transfers - now 3N = choice of games, 3♥ = invite with side suit.

3♦ general (balancedish) invite

[tysen2k]

1♥ = 5+ hearts, 12-19 HCP

1♠ = 4+ spades, 10-15 HCP

Hi Bert,

 

You and I have talked previously about bidding system design. The funny thing is that some of the simulations I've run suggest that the opposite system might be better:

 

1♠ = 5+, wide point range

1♥ = 4+, more narrow range

 

The possession of at least 5 spades makes partner's job a lot easier if the bidding gets competitive. If you only promise 4, then partner can't compete as well.

Hearts is the suit you are most likely to "lose" if you don't bid it. So dropping the requirement to 4 cards increases the frequency, making sure you don't lose a 4-4 fit there and allows partner to bid spades if you have 4-4 there instead.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Tysen