best variant for simple strong pass system

[whereagles]

I call this "Melga", which is portuguese for mosquito (not moscito)

 

Backbone:

 

"Openings" (1st/2nd seat):

pass = 0-8 or 15+ forcing

1M = 9-14 5+ cards

1NT= 12-14 bal

2NT= 18-20 bal

2x+= classic preempt in x (with a trash pree, you pass or open 1x)

 

3rd/4th seat openers and follow ups have a bucket load of subtleties which don't matter now. The point is which variant you prefer for 1m openers:

 

Variant 1:

1m = nat 3+ cards, either bal 9-11 or unbal 5+m (4 if 4441)

 

Variant 2:

1C = 9-11 bal

1D = 9-14 unbal

 

Pros/cons of variant 1:

+ Easy going, no need for gadgets.

- Responder may want to bid over 1m with 7-10 H but the system works best if all responses show 9+ H.

 

Pros/cons of variant 2:

+ Bids with 7-10 H are under control after 1C and 1D (see below).

+ 1D allows for 2/3/4/5C as pass/correct, regardless of strength of responder.

- Needs gadgets.

- Auction after 1D can get complicated when resp has majors and up to 14 H.

 

So which variant you think is preferable? Thx.

[PhilKing]

I call this "Melga", which is portuguese for mosquito (not moscito)

 

Backbone:

 

Openings (1st/2nd seat):

1C = 0-8 or 15+ forcing

1M = 9-14 5+ cards

1NT= 12-14 bal

2NT= 18-20 bal

2x+= classic preempt in x (with a trash pree, you pass or open 1x)

 

3rd/4th seat openers and follow ups have a bucket load of subtleties which don't matter now. The point is which variant you prefer for 1m openers:

 

Variant 1:

1m = nat 3+ cards, either bal 9-11 or unbal 5+m (4 if 4441)

 

Variant 2:

1C = 9-11 bal

1D = 9-14 unbal

 

Pros/cons of variant 1:

+ Easy going, no need for gadgets.

- Responder may want to bid over 1m with 7-10 H but the system works best if all responses show 9+ H.

 

Pros/cons of variant 2:

+ Bids with 7-10 H are under control after 1C and 1D (see below).

+ 1D allows for 2/3/4/5C as pass/correct, regardless of strength of responder.

- Needs gadgets.

- Auction after 1D can get complicated when resp has majors and up to 14 H.

 

So which variant you think is preferable? Thx.

 

One of us is being a bit thick - are you sure you don't mean Pass is 0-8 or 15+?

[steve2005]

One of us is being a bit thick - are you sure you don't mean Pass is 0-8 or 15+?

I think your right pass=0-8 etc

as he later talks of possible 1♣ as 9-11 bal

[dake50]

More return for upping the fert to say 1S or 1Nt,

of course with some "real" value cases included

-- just to not be "open book" on those ferts.

This is just the reason sanctioning bodies outlaw these systems.

Can you imagine a TD adjudicating a successful fert?

Even with documented "we always do this; it is systemic"?

Let alone players screaming "They don't bid like us, that's not fair".

[whereagles]

Yes, sorry: pass = 0-8 or 15+. Fixed

 

As for the "ferts", if you play 1C/D as natural, this two-way pass system is as simple as it gets to defend against. If you play it as pattern-showing (1C bal, 1D unbal), then it gets a bit more difficult.. but still simple to deal with, if you compare it with other HUM systems.

[gnasher]

I prefer 2 to 1, but in 2 I think you should swap the bids, so

1C = unbalanced

1D = balanced

 

That gives you more space on the hands where you need it most. It's also more preemptive, because the balanced hands are more common than the unbalanced hands.

[Cascade]

I prefer 2 to 1,

 

Is that similar to 2/1?

[Kungsgeten]

I like variant 1 more than variant 2. There's a lot of hands in a 9-14 unbalanced (but without 5 card major) bid. I would personally consider 4 card openings; pushing the aggressiveness further. Consider:

 

Pass = 0-8 or 15+

1X = 4+ suit, either 9-11 balanced or 9-14 unbalanced

1NT = 12-14

2X = Preempt

2NT = 18-20

 

Holding 4432 you could choose to open your lowest suit, or perhaps hearts -> spades -> better minor.

 

If you go for the neboulous unbalanced 1C/1D I would suggest extracting the 4M + 5m hands from that opening, perhaps playing 2M openings as 9-14 4M and 5+m or using 1M as 4+ possibly canapé (Magic Diamond style).

 

I tried this structure a couple of times, only when non-vul:

 

pass = 15+ any

1m = 8-14, 5+ minor or 4441

1M = 8-14, 5+ major

1N = 11-14

2X = 4+ suit, 0-7 hcp

2N = 8-10 hcp

 

It's pretty bloody.

[blackshoe]

So all 2 level opening are ferts? Seems a bit wasteful of bidding space. :unsure:

[Kungsgeten]

Not really ferts since all 2-openings show a suit. The idea wasn't to make a good system. The idea was to make a 100% natural pass system. In Sweden we have the "dot rules" which says that opening bids get a number of dots depending on their artificiality. Different tournaments have different caps for how many dots are allowed in a system. This pass system would get zero dots. In comparison, SAYC would get 2 dots and Precision club (with nebulous 1D, roman 2D and natural 2NT) would get 4 dots. I think a two-way pass, as suggested by OP, or a catch-all fert is better than these Lorenzo twos (http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/oltbrink_bidding_system.html).

 

I've played a combination of Moscito and Magic Diamond with a two-way pass, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. The 1C opening is awkward and the 1S opening is scary when vulnerable, but overall I liked it:

 

Pass = 0-7 hcp or 17+ hcp (18+ if balanced)

1C = 12-16 any unbalanced or 15-17 balanced

1D = 4+ hearts (not 4432 or 4333), may have longer minor, 8-11 hcp

1H = 4+ spades (not 4432 or 4333), may have longer minor, 8-11 hcp

1S = 8-11 balanced, no 5-card major

1N = 12-14

2m = Unbalanced 5+ minor, no 4+ major, 8-11 hcp

2M = 5-5 major + minor, 8-11 hcp

2N = We played this as 5-5 majors and 15-17 hcp due to the dot system regulations I wrote about above

[dake50]

"Openings" (1st/2nd seat):

pass = 0-8 or 15+ forcing

 

*** I think way too much to untangle if (surely) opponents take up space -

they should be up to 2M,3m before pass can try to untangle all the 15+ hands by hcp and shape.

EG. take 2-suiters out by Mm opens 1M to jump m, shows 15-18 5-5 concentrated in 2-suits.

Even a two strengths 3-suited "Roman" - like opening 2D: 4441, 8-12 or 15-18.

[whereagles]

Thx all. Here are some further comments.

 

@gnasher: (reverse 1C/1D) Sure. I put them like that because of one simple reason: if you want to practice this system in regular tournaments, it might be banned from many of them. Then you could do this: pass = 0-8 or 9-11 bal, 1C = 15+, 1D = unbal 9-14. This turns the forcing pass system into a variant of regular precision, which can be played all around. Making 1D the unbal variant keeps mnemonics.

 

@Kungsgeten:

(Four card openings) Hmmm.. you have a point, but I'm not sure I'd want to open 1S on 4-3-3-3.

(5m-4M hands) Totally agree they are extremely annoying to handle. Variant 2 is aimed at these, at the cost of increased artificiality.

(Using 2 level openings) Don't like that sort of way out. I always try and keep my 2 level openers for weak 2s. Personal choice, really.

 

Curious question: how many dots would variant 1 and 2 get in Sweden?

 

@dake50:

(Untangle "pass" opener) Actually, the system allows for a symmetric overcall scheme which I'm still devising:

 

"pass" (1x) ??

 

Now:

1y = nat 9-14 GF opposite strong pass variant (i.e. "I have a positive over a 15+ pass").

Dbl= 9-14 short in x OR 15+ any shape. Advancer's min bids are 0-8, all else shows 15+.

2y+= classic preempt. Not pressure bid - you don't want to make it hard on pard if he has 15+.

Cue/2NT = two-suited overcalls, but always 15+ or thereabouts (frees up some hands from dbl).

 

Tweaks still in development. Noted your ideas. Thx.

 

Note also that if opps start opening/preempting over "pass" on trash, they might be getting in *their* own way: pass is 75% weak, 25% strong (100 000 hands sim data). That's the whole point of the two-way pass: they just can't preempt like crazy as they would opposite a strong club.

[Kungsgeten]

Opening 4333 on 1S has a preemptive effect but ofcourse it is hard to find your best partscore. I think father/son Bilde played 5443 when they won Vanderbilt with the Auken team. 1S was 5+, 1H was 5+ except when 4-4 in the majors. I'm sure 5533 or 5542 works fine too, but it makes the system less aggressive.

 

I do not think that variant 2 is more aimed at the 4M and 5+ minor hands. Sure, if opener get a second bid before the opponents bid everything is clear. If you get this luxury then you would probably find the correct contract using either method. If the opponents interfere opener (and responder) will probably have a though time deciding what to do.

 

I like your idea of keeping the system "natural", and I like the weak twos too. Your problem hands are:

 

1. 4M and 5+m

2. 6+m

3. 5-4 / 5-5 minors

4. 9-11 balanced

 

If playing artifically (with your framework) I would combine 2 and 3 into the same category and then combine 9-11 balanced into that category or the 4M, 5+m category. Pretty popular among strong clubbers in Sweden (Nyström-Bertheau and Ahlesved-Petersson) is using 1D as balanced or 4M, 4+m and playing 2m as natural. Here's some alternatives:

 

1C = No major. Unbalanced with both minors or 6+ minor

1D = 9-11 bal or 4M and 4+m (if 4441)

(you could probably switch 1C and 1D, I do not know which one would work out best)

 

1C = 4M and 4+m

1D = 9-11 bal or minors or 6+m

(these could be switched too)

 

1C = 9-11 balanced or 5+ clubs (a short club)

1D = 4+ diamonds unbalanced

(a 5542 system)

 

 

About the dots: It depends on your responses to the pass opening. Responses usually do not get any dots, but a "odd pass" (except when always strong) is not considered an opening bid.

The basic opening structures, not considering the responses, would get:

 

Variant 1: 2 dots. One each for the 1m openings (since they're not natural, any suit bid which may contain less than 4 cards in the suit is considered unnatural).

 

Variant 2: 5 dots. Two for the 1C opening (can be down to 2 cards, but if less then 4 cards then always balanced). Three for the 1D opening (does not promise any cards in the suit or any other suit).

 

If your responses to the two-way pass is anything like the ones I'm familiar with then:

 

Pass--

1C = Weak or strong (0-8 or 17+ or similar). 3 dots.

1D = Nebulous. 3 dots.

1M = 5+ suit

1N = 14-17

2m = Natural or Precision style. If 2D is precision style then it get 1 dot.

 

The dots of the openings and the responses do not stack however, so you only count the highest variant. I would guess that your system gets 6 or 7 dots, which makes it legal in any event (except if a club has special rules forbidding or only allowing certain methods, like a beginner event).

 

You may want to get some inspiration from the Swedish system Symmetriskt Reläpass (symmetric relay pass): http://bridge.winge.se/mediawiki/index.php/Symetriskt_Rel%C3%A4pass

[OleBerg]

I play Pass = 0-8 or 16+, and has done for quite some time.

 

I would always prefer something that tends to be natural. Otherwise you're very handicapped in all the competitive sequences after the opening of 1m. And believe me, they will be competitive.

 

I have chosen:

 

1♣ = 9-12 balanced or 9-15 natural

1♦ = 9-15 4+, unbalanced

 

This structure combined with Transfer-Walsh, allows a system where you can respond 1m - 1M on 4hcp, and still get out alive. (Opener has a "good-raise to 2M" - option below the three-level.)

 

I don't think it would make a big difference if I switched to 1m = 3+, but I would not try the "balanced/unbalanced" method.

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[OleBerg]

And just for inspiration, here are our replies to the Pass-opening:

 

1♣ = 0-8 or 16+

1♦ = 9-15, natural (But not one-suiter), or balanced.

1♥ = 9-15, 5+ or specific 4-4-1-4

1♠ = 9-15, 5+

1NT = 9-15, 5+♣, 4+♦

2♣ = 9-15, 6+♣ or 5+♣, 4+♥/♠

2♦ = 9-15, one-suited diamonds.

2♥/♠ = Disciplined weak-twos, at most 8 points.

2NT = 5+♣,5+♦, at most 8 points.

 

The one-suited diamond hand has been taken out of the 1♦ reply to allow for a smooth relay-structure.

[dick payne]

Over the years keen rivals have tried all sorts of defences to VFP in an effort to prove its fallacy. One defence which has been in place for several years is to produce a variable forcing pass over our pass. The idea is to catch us bidding on nothing. This had never come up until last Monday

Board 11 Love all Dealer South

K643

J52

532

Q109

A98 Q5

A87 Q94

AK107 QJ98

A64 K875

J1072

K1063

64

J32

W N E S

Pass

Pass! 1C Pass 1D

Dble Pass Pass Rdble

Pass 1S Pass Pass

Dble All pass

 

West thought that Christmas had come at last. The contract went two off for 300 and they made 430 in the other room. Perhaps the only fallacy that this demonstrates is that it is a waste of time trying to penalise the opponents if they have all of the one level to choose from

[whereagles]

The problem of VFP systems isn't when opps get busy. It's when they play their normal game. The uncertainty created by the VFP might complicate stuff for the VFP side itself, whereas opponents have an easy ride because they're just playing their normal system.

 

The VFP side needs to do its homework properly to mitigate the uncertainty. This may not as bad as it seems:

 

Overcalls:

 

pass (1x) 1y

 

This can be done on 9-14. Then pard can cue for a game force with all the 15+ hands (or make some artificial 2NT response). All other bids show 0-8.

 

 

Take out dbls:

 

A. pass (1x) dbl

B. pass (pass) 1x (dbl)

 

This can show short x and 9-14 or any 15+ (except balanced 15-17, which overcalls a normal 1NT as usual). Now advancer bids cue/2NT/3-level jump as game forcing 15+ or anything else natural 0-8.

[Gerben42]

Hi, please have a look at something I wrote a long time ago. Maybe you can use some ideas if you like.

 

http://www.geocities.ws/gerben47/bridge/tuebpass.html