Big Bang: The Bocchi Madala system

[patroclo]

Has someone a written document of this system ?

[PrecisionL]

The only reference is this interview:

 

http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org/eng/norberto-bocchi-the-big-bang-theory-interview.html

[bluecalm]

I took a look at vugraph hands of which they are many now and it looks like standardish Italian system with weak NT mixed in some vulnerabilities.

So they open 5 card majors and 1D keeps changing but as of now I believe is 5+ (unless 4-4-4D-1). After 2/1 there is ton of relays, there is Gazilli with again relays to the end (similar as Bocchi played with Duboin I believe). Then they put the trouble hand 18-19bal in 2C gaining a step over Lauria-Versace's 2D but it's still over 1NT :-)

They hope GF hand don't come around often and they allocate 2D opening for that. 2H/2S are some novel preempts if not vul.

As to 1C opening they bid suits up the line: that is 1D is hearts, 1H is spades and 1S is diamonds while 1NT is rare but in general means 3334 or (233)5C Then as there is no 18-19 in 1C they are able to have all he usual multi reverses available and don't need to jump to 2NT with 18bal opposite possible bust.

If you have any particular question I can try to dig up the sequences but they change stuff often so dunno how the things are as of right now.

As to general style they open a lot of crap at 3level non-vul but are disciplined vul. They bid any game that possibly could be bid. They open 1M with 5M-3-3-2 15-17 and as other Italian pairs default to game if that hits any 8PC in partner's hand.

[esmerax]

Don't miss the Big Bang Theory Part II

 

http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org/eng/norberto-bocchi-the-big-bang-theorypart-two.html

[helene_t]

here is another interview:

 

http://newinbridge.com/news/2014/jan/bocchi-focus-vulnerability

[glen]

I took a look at vugraph hands of which they are many now and it looks like standardish Italian system with weak NT mixed in some vulnerabilities ...

weak or mini, see:

madala-bocchi.pdf

[Gerben42]

I am surprised that although they have transfer responses to 1♣, they cannot manage to put 18-19 balanced hands into 1♣ so that those can be played on the 1-level opposite a bad hand.

 

Last time I checked, the auction 2♣ - Pass - 1NT was not allowed...

[PhilKing]

I am surprised that although they have transfer responses to 1♣, they cannot manage to put 18-19 balanced hands into 1♣ so that those can be played on the 1-level opposite a bad hand.

 

Last time I checked, the auction 2♣ - Pass - 1NT was not allowed...

 

Amazingly, they could manage it - after all, they are not stupid. But they believe it is better not to.

[PrecisionL]

weak or mini, see:

madala-bocchi.pdf

 

I have looked at their convention card and it is very difficult to understand the responses to 2♣ and 2♦. Does anyone understand the back of their CC?

[chasetb]

Their CC has some REALLY bad formatting. It looks like the card they contributed still had some responses by Opener with 2♣ as 18-19 bal or 23+ . They used that when Vul in 2011, then moved all 23+ balanced hands into 2♦. Their 2011 notes say nothing on how they respond after these bids.

 

After 2♣ opening: (18-19 bal.)

2♦ = Xfer, 4+ ♥

2♥ = Xfer, 4+ ♠

2♠ = Puppet to 2NT, any hand that wants partner to play NT, or 4♠ - 5+ minor, GF

2NT = GF balanced, asks partner about minors (usually 11+ with tenaces, 6m in the picture)

3♣ = At least 5-4 Majors, I assume INV+

3♦ = 4-4 Majors, I assume INV+

3♥/3♠ = GF, short in that Major, one or both minors

4♣/4♦ = Slam try, has the OTHER minor

 

While I'm not 100% sure, I think the top lines to their 2♦ opener is what they use now, and the bottom lines was what they used to use. They played it completely differently in 2011, so this CC is all I have to deal with.

 

After 2♦ (23+ balanced or any GF)

2♥ = Relay

2♠ = any good 6+ card suit

2NT = ♣ + ♦

3♣ = ♣ + ♥

3♦ = ♣ + ♠

3♥ = ♦ + ♥

3♠ = ♦ + ♠

3NT = ♥ + ♠

[PrecisionL]

Their CC has some REALLY bad formatting. It looks like the card they contributed still had some responses by Opener with 2♣ as 18-19 bal or 23+ . They used that when Vul in 2011, then moved all 23+ balanced hands into 2♦. Their 2011 notes say nothing on how they respond after these bids.

 

[snip]

 

While I'm not 100% sure, I think the top lines to their 2♦ opener is what they use now, and the bottom lines was what they used to use. They played it completely differently in 2011, so this CC is all I have to deal with.

 

After 2♦ (23+ balanced or any GF)

2♥ = Relay

2♠ = any good 6+ card suit

2NT = ♣ + ♦

3♣ = ♣ + ♥

3♦ = ♣ + ♠

3♥ = ♦ + ♥

3♠ = ♦ + ♠

3NT = ♥ + ♠

 

Thank you. I thought the two suiters were shown by opener after the 2♥ relay ...

[chasetb]

Thank you. I thought the two suiters [over 2♦] were shown by opener after the 2♥ relay ...

Well, I don't think that it's opener for 3 reasons:

1.) Opener doesn't have to have a two-suiter -> it could be a single-suiter or balanced

2.) It's listed under Responses, and that should refer to Responder

3.) Under Rebids, it shows:

2♦-2♥; 2♠ = At least 1 Major

2♦-2♥; 2NT = Strong 1-suiter, some sort of ask

2♦-2NT; 3♣ = Clubs

 

Again, it's a total mess. I have decided to use archived Vugraph hands - you can see the hands here.

 

EDIT - 2♦-2♥; 2NT shows either any balanced hand or Strong 1-suiter. (2013 BB RR10 - 32) Then, -3♥(no 4M?)-3♠; 3NT.

The same sequence starts in 2013 European Champions Cup, Final A, segment 2 - 24 (... -3♣-3♠ = 5, maybe more).

 

2♣-2♦; 2♥-3♠; 3NT was 4 hearts and 10 HCP. (2013 BB RR5 - 16) It also has been with a good 6 HCP, opps doubled 3♠ and opener XX for 3-card support.

2♣-3♥; 3♠-3NT; 4♣-4♠ was a GF hand with 5 Spades, on a 5-3 fit. (2013 BB SF2 - 28)

2♣-2♥; 2♠-3NT, 4♠ was a rejected slam try, Dummy had 6 Spades and a nice 10 HCP. (2013 BB SF4 - 24)

2♣-2♠; 2NT-3♠; 3NT showed 0-1 ♠, 1 or both minors. (2013 BB RR8 - 30)

[PrecisionL]

1393788697[/url]' post='781095']

Well, I don't think that it's opener for 3 reasons:

1.) Opener doesn't have to have a two-suiter -> it could be a single-suiter or balanced

2.) It's listed under Responses, and that should refer to Responder

3.) Under Rebids, it shows:

2♦-2♥; 2♠ = At least 1 Major

2♦-2♥; 2NT = Strong 1-suiter, some sort of ask

2♦-2NT; 3♣ = Clubs

 

Again, it's a total mess. I have decided to use archived Vugraph hands - you can see the hands here.

 

EDIT - 2♦-2♥; 2NT shows either any balanced hand or Strong 1-suiter. (2013 BB RR10 - 32) Then, -3♥(no 4M?)-3♠; 3NT.

The same sequence starts in 2013 European Champions Cup, Final A, segment 2 - 24 (... -3♣-3♠ = 5, maybe more).

 

2♣-2♦; 2♥-3♠; 3NT was 4 hearts and 10 HCP. (2013 BB RR5 - 16) It also has been with a good 6 HCP, opps doubled 3♠ and opener XX for 3-card support.

2♣-3♥; 3♠-3NT; 4♣-4♠ was a GF hand with 5 Spades, on a 5-3 fit. (2013 BB SF2 - 28)

2♣-2♥; 2♠-3NT, 4♠ was a rejected slam try, Dummy had 6 Spades and a nice 10 HCP. (2013 BB SF4 - 24)

2♣-2♠; 2NT-3♠; 3NT showed 0-1 ♠, 1 or both minors. (2013 BB RR8 - 30)

 

Thank you very much for your efforts!

[WGF_Flame]

strong club is outdated he says...

[falcon111]

I am not sure about detailed developments of 2♦ opening (as per BM CC), but could have worked in the following way :

 

2♦ 2♥ (Relay)

2♠= Either 5+♥/♠ plus 4+unspecfied card on the side or 6+♥/♠ mono suiter .

2NT= Bal 23 + --> system on

3♣=5+♣plus 4+unspecfied card on the side

3♦= 6+♣/♦

3♥=5+♦plus 4+♣

3♠=5+♦plus 4+♥

3NT=5+♦plus 4+♠

4♣=5+♦plus 4+♠stronger .

 

After :

2♦ 2♥ (Relay)

2♠ 2NT(RELAY)

3♣= 5+♥plus 4+unspecfied card on the side --> 3♦(relay ) for 4+unspecfied card on the side whereas 3♥ sets ♥ and 4x cue bid in favor of hearts and 4♥is retained as Sign-off .

3♦=6+♥/♠ mono suiter ---> 3♥(relay)---> 3♠=6+♠ & 3NT=6+♥

3♥=5+♠& 4+♣--->3♠sets ♠& 4♣sets ♣

3♠=5+♠&4+♦-->4♣sets ♠& 4♦sets ♦(better than direct 4♠/5♦Sign off ?)

3NT=5+♠& 4+♥-->4♣sets ♥& 4♦sets ♠(better than direct 4♥/4♠Sign off ?)

4♣=5+♠& 4+♥stronger++?

[chasetb]

These are from the 2012 European Championships. 2♣ was always 18-19 balanced, but could include any 23+ balanced when NV. All 3 of these hands were (17)18-19 however.

2♣-2♦ ; 2♥-3♣ GF, 5(or more?) ; 3♥, cuebid to 4♥ (RR4 - 19)

2♣-2♦ ; 2♥-3♣, 3♦ only 2; 3♥-3NT (RR14 - 9)

2♣-2♥; 2♠-3♣ GF, 5(or more?) ; 4♠ with 3-card support, 6 ctrls, 17 HCP (Italian Club 2013, Final 3/5 - 23)

 

EDIT - Thanks to PrecisionL, I found some hidden text on their 2013 WBF CC. What I found was different from what he has:

2♦ - 2NT; 3♣ = Clubs min / 3♦ = Diamonds min / 3♥ = Clubs MAX / 3♠ = Diamonds MAX

 

I also found that they do indeed play the two-suiters over 2♦, starting at 2NT.

[falcon111]

These are from the 2012 European Championships. 2♣ was always 18-19 balanced, but could include any 23+ balanced when NV. All 3 of these hands were (17)18-19 however.

2♣-2♦ ; 2♥-3♣ GF, 5(or more?) ; 3♥, cuebid to 4♥ (RR4 - 19)

2♣-2♦ ; 2♥-3♣, 3♦ only 2; 3♥-3NT (RR14 - 9)

2♣-2♥; 2♠-3♣ GF, 5(or more?) ; 4♠ with 3-card support, 6 ctrls, 17 HCP (Italian Club 2013, Final 3/5 - 23)

 

EDIT - Thanks to PrecisionL, I found some hidden text on their 2013 WBF CC. What I found was different from what he has:

2♦ - 2NT; 3♣ = Clubs min / 3♦ = Diamonds min / 3♥ = Clubs MAX / 3♠ = Diamonds MAX

 

I also found that they do indeed play the two-suiters over 2♦, starting at 2NT.

 

I think that PrecisionL has posted the correct document because in 2011 BM CC they used to play 2♦=4♠+5+minor(non-vul).

Their 2011 CC may have a detailed discussion in support of the following :

 

OPENING 2♦ (4♠5+minor)(non vul)[2011 CC ]

 

2♦ 2♥ = non forcing

2♠ = to play

2NT = relay positive

3♣ = pass or correct

3♦ = 5+♥ forcing game

3♥ = 6+♥ limit

3♠ = barrage

3NT = to play

4♣ = pass or correct

4♦ = to play(pd may bid 5)

4♥/♠= to play

4NT = bid your minor

5♣/♦= to play

Responses were [2011 -- 2♦=4♠+5+m (non-vul)]

2♦ 2♥

2♠ = 4♠ good and max, 1♥ →2nt nat, 3♣ pass or correct

2NT = supermax with 1♥→3♣ pass or correct

3♣ = 6+♣ good suit

3♦ = 6+♦ good suit

3♥ = 3♥ non minimum

 

 

2♦ 2NT

3♣ =minimum 5+♣→3♠ limit, other F.G

3♦=minimum 5+♦→3♠ limit other F.G

3♥=max 5+♣→F.G

3♠=max5+♦ →F.G

 

2♦ 3♦

3♥=5+♣ max, 1♥

3♠=5+♦ max, 1♥

3NT= 3♥ non minimum

4♣/♦=2 cards in ♥ and 5 + cards in the bidding minor

4♥=3♥ minimum

 

But most probably 2013 CC was not updated or formatted correctly if so lot of features wouldn't have been there (which they used earlier in 2011 ).

[PrecisionL]

Finally got their book from Rome: IL SISTEMA by Bocchi-Duboin, 2010

 

Opening of 2♣: 18-19 Balanced, no 5 major, no singleton, only 1 doubleton.

 

pass = Weak with long clubs (Note 5/2/14: No provision for playing in 3

♦

if weak)

2

♦

= Transfer with 4+

♥

2

♥

= Transfer with 4+

♠

2

♠

= Transfer to 2NT:

(1) To Play, or raise to 3NT, or

(2) 4

♠

& 5+

♣

/

♦

, or

(3) 5

♣

& 5

♦

{Edited: 8/17/14)

2NT = Balanced without 4

♠

or 4

♥

, Slam Interest

3

♣

4-cd minor (3

♦

asks) {Edited 8/17/14}

3

♦

5-cd minor (3

♥

asks) {Edited 8/17/14}

3

♥

3=2=4=4 {Edited 8/17/14]

3

♠

2=3=4=4 {Edited 8/17/14}

3NT No Minor {Edited 8/17/14}

3

♣

= 5-4 Majors, G.F.

3

♦

No 4M, asks for 5M {Edited 8/17/14}

3

♥

5

♠

& 4

♥

{Edited 8/17/14]

3

♠

5

♥

& 4

♠

{Edited 8/17/14}

3NT 5

♠

& 5

♥

, No slam interest {Edited 8/17/14}

4

♣

/4

♦

5

♠

& 5

♥

slammish {Edited 8/17/14}

4

♥

Asking for shortness {Added 8/17/14}

3M 4-cd fit {Edited 8/17/14}

3

♦

= 4-4 Majors, or (4-1)=4=4

3

♥

= 3=1=(5-4), or 2=1=(6-4)

3

♠

= 1=3=(5-4), or 1=2=(6-4)

3NT

4

♣

= 6+

♦

with Slam Interest

4

♦

= 6+

♣

with Slam Interest

NOTE (5/2/14): See reference for non-transfer responses @ 2-level to 2

♣

18-20 balanced.

http://www.montrealr...ontreal/2C.html

[PrecisionL]

Finally got their book from Rome: IL SISTEMA by Bocchi-Duboin, 2010:2♦ Opening Bid: (1) Balanced 23+ (80% are balanced) - G.F., or

(2) Game Force Unbalanced.

Responses to 2♦:

2

♥

Without any of the hands following, or asking about the hand opened

2

♠

5+

♥

: QJxxxx & 6+ hcp

2NT 5+

♠

: QJxxx & 6+ hcp

3

♣

6+

♦

: KQ

xxxx & 6+ hcp (Edited 8/16/14)

3

♦

6+

♣

KQx

xxx & 6+ hcp

(Edited 8/16/14)

3

♥

7+

♠

with only 1 honor Q or better

(Edited 8/16/14)

3

♠

7+

♥

with only 1 honor Q or better

(Edited 8/16/14)

2♦ - 2♥ -

2

♠

5+

♠

, or 4+

♠

semi-balanced with a 5-cd minor; 2NT = Relay for 2nd suit

2NT 23+ Balanced without 5-cd major

3

♣

Natural, or bicolor

♥

&

♣

, 3

♦

asks (relay?)(Edited 8/16/14)

3

♦

bicolor

♥

&

♦

(Edited 8/16/14)

3

♥

6+

♥

semi-balanced (Edited 8/16/14)

3

♠

5+

♥

with 4

♠

(Edited 8/16/14)

3NT 6+

♦

(Edited 8/16/14)

4

♣

5+

♣

with 5+

♦

slam interest (Edited 8/16/14)

4

♦

6+

♦

with slam interest (Edited 8/16/14)

2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 2NT (Asking Distribution with 0-3♠):

3

♣

bicolor

♣

+

♠

: cheapestbid = relay

3

♦

bicolor

♦

+

♠

3

♥

5+

♠

with 4+

♥

on/about which/whom 4

♣

fix/focus tromps

♥

e 4

♦

focus atout

♠

3

♠

6+

♠

FM or better

3NT 9 tricks with 5+

♠

2♦ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♦:

3

♥

monocolor a

♣

3

♠

5+

♣

with 4+

♠

3NT 5+

♠

with 4+

♣

4

♣

5+

♠

with 4+

♣

da slam

2♦ - 2♠ = 5+♥

2NT Interrgativo3

♣

Natural bicolor:

♣

&

♠

3

♦

bicolor

♦

&

♥

3

♥

Minors3

♠

6+

♠

FM3NT 6+

♦

, N.F.4

♣

Minors & slam interest4

♦

6+

♦

di slam

2♦ - 2♠ - 2NT

3

♣

= 5+

♥

3

♦

= 1-suited in

♥

s

3

♥

= 5+

♥

&4+

♣

, no slam interest

3

♠

= 5+

♥

& 4+

♦

, no slam interest

3NT = 5+

♥

& 4+

♠

, no slam interest

2♦ - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♦

3

♥

= 1-suited in

♣

3

♠

= 5+

♣

& 4+

♠

3NT = 5+

♠

& 4+

♣

4

♣

= 5+

♠

& 4+

♣

, da slam

2♦ - 2NT = 5+♠ (Edited8/16/14)

3

♣

Asking

3

♦

5+

♥

+ 4

♣

/

♦

, 3

♥

= Relay

3

♥

6+

♥

3

♠

5+

♣

& 5[ diamonds]

3NT 6+

♣

or 6+

♦

4

♣

6+

♣

, slam interest

4

♦

6+

♦

, slam interest

2♦ - 2NT - 3♣ (Edited 8/16/14)

3

♦

5+

♠

3

♥

5+

♠

& 4

♣

3

♠

5+

♠

& 4

♦

3NT 5+

♠

& 4

♥

4

♣

5+

♠

& 4

♥

with slam interest

2♦ - 3♣ = 6+♦ (Edited 8/16/14)

3

♦

Relay

3

♥

5+

♥

3

♠

5+

♠

3NT Natural

4

♣

6+

♣

4

♦

= RKC: 0-4 / 1-3 / 2 / 2 + Q of trumps

2♦ - 3♦ = 6+♣ (Edited 8/16/14)

3

♥

5+

♥

3

♠

5+

♠

3NT 6+

♦

, N.F.

4

♣

RKC for

♣

4

♦

6+

♦

, slam interest

To be completed with descriptions of above ........

DONE 8/16/14

Wow! Lots of memory work for very rare auctions!

 

I won't be using these 2♦ follow-ons approach in any of my partnerships

 

However, I do like their 2♣ sequences!

 

NOTE: Dan Neill has 42 pages of notes available: www.bridgewithdan.com (Added 8/17/14)

[PrecisionL]

Has someone a written document of this system ?

 

Yes, Dan Neill has 42 pages of notes translated from the Italian.

 

My link

 

 

 

[Pigge63]

Thinking about taking up the variable NT from this system, with two variations - 11-13 (1st, 2nd NV) and 14-16 (the rest)to simplify a bit. (Otherwise: open 11 counts, 5cM, 1cl=cl or bal with no transfers, unbal d)

 

How does this system deal with bal 14-16 1st/2nd NV after for instance 1M-1NT? Does 2cl (Gazilli) include 14-16 bal? Cannot find it on their system card. Seems a Little awkward to me but may be the price you have to pay for the 11-13 NT.

 

 

Any other thoughts on the basic idea or this specific sequence? Thanks for your time and attention.

[nullve]

Thinking about taking up the variable NT from this system, with two variations - 11-13 (1st, 2nd NV) and 14-16 (the rest)to simplify a bit. (Otherwise: open 11 counts, 5cM, 1cl=cl or bal with no transfers, unbal d)

Variable NT ranges are not a new idea. I played 1N as 10-12/12-14/15-17 depending on vulnerability almost 30 years ago, and I remember the idea had already been around for a while. I now play 1N as 11-13 in 1st/2nd NV and 14-16 otherwise.

 

How does this system deal with bal 14-16 1st/2nd NV after for instance 1M-1NT? Does 2cl (Gazilli) include 14-16 bal? Cannot find it on their system card.

According to this CC, http://info.ecatsbridge.com/Systems/2013worldteamchampionships-bali/bermudabowl/italy/madala-bocchi.pdf,

 

1♥-1♠/N; 2♣ = 11-15, 5H4C [meaning 5+H4+C?] or 16+, any

1♠-1N; 2♣ = 11-15, 6 S [meaning 6+ S?] or 16+, any

1♠-1N; 2♠ = 11-15, 5S4C [meaning 5+S4+C?]

 

But maybe they treat 5M(332) outside the 10-13/12-14 1N range as either 5M4C (with 5M3C(32))) or 5M4D (with 5M2C33) .

 

Seems a Little awkward to me but may be the price you have to pay for the 11-13 NT.

No, opening 1♣ (nat. or bal.) with 5M(332) works just fine.

Edited February 16, 2016 by nullve

[Pigge63]

Thank you for taking your time - much appreciated. I would prefer 2d as a second bid to be natural, both in relation to limited and unlimited partner. So we end up bidding 2cl will all balanced hands above our weak/mini NT range. Think one can sort things out - say 1M-1NT-2cl*-2d* (8+)-2NT (14-16 bal)-2 we still have 22hcp in the worst case.... (BTW Will not consider putting each bal hand in 1cl :-))

[vmsmith]

Good luck remembering all this. Bridge now has its own Tower of Babel. Sure hope you guys play for something worth more than a few match points or IMPs.

[newroad]

Hi Nullve et al,

 

My take is that switching NT ranges according to vulnerability needs to demonstrate some serious upside as there are two clear downsides

 

1. It forces you to, in effect, play two (or more) systems, with the consequent memory effects, and assuming you agree with this
   
2. One of the two systems is likely logically inferior to the other
   

 

If the upside is allegedly (reduction of penalty) risk based, then the empirical evidence from Fantoni/Nunes (notwithstanding their current difficulties) playing a WK NT, similar citations from Bill Jacobs and my own anecdotal experience (being a late convert to WK NT's) would suggest that the gain there is minimal. Clearly and separately, a 10-12 NT NV vs VUL has some pre-emptive merit: I'm not sure how to measure this other than statistically over a significant number of deals.

 

Conversely, and for the purposes of discussion, let's consider a 12-14 WK NT as "normal" for these 3-way NT guys, and played at equal VUL. If you then switch to 10-12 at NV vs V, you are presumably going to get range issues somewhere in your system: a mild inferiority I would presume? Similarly, if you switch to 15-17 V vs NV, then you lose some constructive benefits, e.g. if you are playing inverted minor raises, you can now no longer play 1m 2m 2NT as forcing: also a mild inferiority I would presume.

 

Consequently, it seems to me best to pick a NT range and then optimise ones methods around it.

 

Regards, Newroad