Big Bang System now available

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

 

Big Bang system notes available at my systems page.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[steve2005]

any system with Mexican 2♦ 18-19 bal even if using 2♣ is flawed. this type of hand just isn't a problem hand.

 

using a 2 bid for even (ugh) Flannery is a better use, Precision 2♦ covers a hole as does Blue team 2♦.

 

 

 

[glen]

any system with Mexican 2♦ 18-19 bal even if using 2♣ is flawed. this type of hand just isn't a problem hand.

You hold:

 

♠ KQ3

♥ A94

♦ AJ

♣ KJ954

 

It goes 1♣(you)-2♠-P-P-?

 

Your bid?

 

Same hand, it goes 1♣(you)-1♠-P-3♠*-?

* Preemptive

 

Your bid?

 

Same hand, it goes 1♣(you)-3♦-P-P-?

 

Your bid?

[chasetb]

Steve, I honestly expect a little better from you. The Mexican 2♦ bid also allows you to stop in 2♠, which has won me a few tops. It also solves the Bridge World Death Hand and gives you a GF raise for cuebidding via 1m - 1M ; 2NT

 

While the Weak 2♦ bid no doubt has its advantages, for some reason I tend to get very bad results using it and playing against it. I blame Lady Luck for that.

[blackshoe]

In his latest series of books on Romex (Bid To Win, Play for Pleasure, (1990), et. al.) George Rosenkranz describes the Mexican 2♦ opening as "game forcing with primary diamonds, or a balanced hand with seven controls and usually 21-22 HCP, or a balanced hand with ten controls and usually 27-28 HCP, or some game forcing 4-4-4-1". Later in the series that last meaning is dropped from the convention. So it seems we have at least three different conventions called "Mexican 2♦". :blink: :huh: :ph34r:

[steve2005]

Chase: The advantages you listed for Mex are present in Transfer Walsh (which Big Bang uses something similar) without using a precious 2-bid. Now your point is valid about being able to play in 2♠ under GCC but is offset by hands where you open a minor and partner passes with weak hand an tolerance. No your not buying for 1 minor likely but now u know they have some of your minor and being able to compete more intelligently. Mexican starts higher but has compensation of ability to use transfers under GCC.

 

BW hand of death, yes that is good. There are other solutions (besides TW) under GCC for example artificial reverses but whenever u add artificiality it causes other problems or just play Precision.

 

Preempts are problem to all hands. A hand with same strength but 3-4-1-5 or 4-3-1-5 would have same problem. If pre-emption of balanced hands is your concern a lot of people include 19 or at least good 19's in 2N. A 19-20 range is not unheard of (Meckwell,have seen in some people playing Acol) Also, some people include 18 or at least bad 18's in their 1N. So could cover the Mexican bid range at cost of stretching your NT openings and you still have a free 2 bid.

 

It comes down to a tradeoff. Are your pluses from Mex 2♣ then what you were going to use the 2-bid for?

 

Personally, I wouldn't use Mexican or Flannery.

[benlessard]

Im a huge fan of most Rosenkraz ideas but the 2D Mex (all 3 versions of it !) is the bottom of the barrel.

 

Using 2C for GF or a 2/3pts range between 18-22 make a lot of sense Imo.

 

I even think playing 2C as 18-23 or 17-22 bal could work. Using 2D as any GF or a H preempt is palatable because true GF hands are so rare anyway.

[glen]

Preempts are problem to all hands

Not true, if you hold instead ♠ KQ3 ♥ A54 ♦ 1053 ♣ KJ32 on the preempts I gave, you will see there are no problems in selecting a rebid after the preempts. If you have a hand close to the expected strength and shape, you don't have a problem.

 

A hand with same strength but 3-4-1-5 or 4-3-1-5 would have same problem.

However in these Italian systems, when opener does take action after 1m-preempt, since the 18-19 balanced are excluded as a possible hand type, responder knows opener is big, unbalanced, with a natural opening.

[Vampyr]

One of this country's best pairs use a Mexican 2♦. Besides the advantage listed in the previous post, the 2NT rebid is freed up in constructive auctions. Do you give up too much? I dunno, but some people think so little of the 2♦ opening they use it for Flannery! :o

[suokko]

Top level italians think that Mexican 2♣ or 2♦ is clear long term winner because it makes later biding by 1m opener in competition better defined. I agree with their thinking on this. Big bang is using the 2♣ for 18-19 balanced which allows stopping to both 2M contracts. That includes even hands like 2-(344) and 2-(335) after opponents decide to preempt with spades.

 

After saying that I have to confess that I'm not playing Mexican two opening.

[steve2005]

Looking more closely at Big Bang using weak or mini-NT NV so they would have more difficulty with interference differentiating between 15-17 & 18-19 than in Transfer Walsh where your differentiating between 12-14/11-13 and 18-19/17-19 which is easiear. So they probably need Mexican to solve problems in their system..

 

Anyways as penance one of my local regular partners plays Mexican so we're going to give a try on BBO and locally. Big shoes to full, unlike chase I get good results from weak 2♦ lol.

[Gerben42]

I always felt that a major gain for short ♣ systems is that you stay on the 1-level with 18-19 balanced against a negative. Stopping in 2♠ can be nice compared to others stopping in 1♣, but so can stopping in 1NT.

[PrecisionL]

I have their book (in Italian), 2010.

 

Also see:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/64508-big-bang-the-bocchi-madala-system/page__p__774465__hl__%2B+%2Bbang__fromsearch__1#entry774465

[DJNeill]

I have their book (in Italian), 2010.

 

Also see:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/64508-big-bang-the-bocchi-madala-system/page__p__774465__hl__%2B+%2Bbang__fromsearch__1#entry774465

 

Just to be clear, the Big Bang system is related to but way better than the 2010 Bocchi-Duboin system in terms of detail (I think most branches end quickly in the 2010 book, but the Big Bang notes go much further).

[frawdo]

Opening 2♣2♦ and 2NT with hands in the 18-20 range is I believe a big winner. I have been playing 2NT (18-20) but there are real problems of getting too high on many hands. Playing 2♦ is slightly better but you cannot play in 2H. I think 2C is ideal so you can then play in 2H/2S.

 

One benefit of this range is the Bridge hand of Death often discussed. Great when you get it but I have been playing this for a while and am still waiting. I also play Gazzilli and again it is surprising how rarely you get the 6-4 hands and 5-5 hands that Gazzilli proponents (I am one) celebrate.

 

Surprisingly, I have found the biggest gains in preemption. When you open 2♣/2♦ and 2NT the opponents cannot Overcall a major, make a weak jump overcall and so on. This may sound obvious but I have had far more gains from keeping the opponents out of the auction by opening 2NT than from Bridge hand of Death successes. The sequences mentioned such as 1♣ - (1♠) -P - (2♠) are quite frequent in the modern era where people regularly overcall a Major with AQxxx and out. I myself will freely raise partners major with Kxx and out. So you have the wonderful spectacle of opening 1C with a 20 count and the opposition bidding to 2♠ with a combined 9 count (protected by the Law of course) and now where are you ?

 

My latest success at pairs was opening 2NT, going 2 off non-vulnerable to get a top with a string of 140's the other way ....

 

I am moving to 2♣ wth 18-20 Balanced very soon.

[Zelandakh]

Opening 2♣2♦ and 2NT with hands in the 18-20 range is I believe a big winner. I have been playing 2NT (18-20) but there are real problems of getting too high on many hands. Playing 2♦ is slightly better but you cannot play in 2H. I think 2C is ideal so you can then play in 2H/2S.

You can also play in 2M if your balanced 18-20 uses the auction 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT, or in the popular method in which one of 1m - 1M; 1NT shows 12-14 and the auction using the other minor is 18-20. There are many possible solutions, all with their own individual pros and cons.

[Kungsgeten]

I use 2D as 18-19 NT in my Swedish Club system. It helps in constructive auctions, but the main reason is competitive auctions. If I was to play a natural system I would probably use 2C as 18-19 NT or any GF. Now you can play transfer responses or just 2M as a sign-off (easier). 2D would be a multi, containing 22-24 NT or a major (do not like it, but it fits the structure) and 2NT would be 20-21.

[nullve]

Surprisingly, I have found the biggest gains in preemption. When you open 2♣/2♦ and 2NT the opponents cannot Overcall a major, make a weak jump overcall and so on. This may sound obvious but I have had far more gains from keeping the opponents out of the auction by opening 2NT than from Bridge hand of Death successes. The sequences mentioned such as 1♣ - (1♠) -P - (2♠) are quite frequent in the modern era where people regularly overcall a Major with AQxxx and out. I myself will freely raise partners major with Kxx and out. So you have the wonderful spectacle of opening 1C with a 20 count and the opposition bidding to 2♠ with a combined 9 count (protected by the Law of course) and now where are you ?

Suppose

 

A (= A(W)):

 

P = unsuitable for 2♣, otherwise standard

1♣ = nat. or 12-14/18-20 bal. (=> T-Walsh where 1♣-1R; 1N = 18-20 bal.)

2♣ = weak preempt W not overlapping with other openings

others: as in B below

 

B ("Big Bang"):

 

P = standard

1♣ = nat. unbal. or 12-14 bal.

2♣ = 18-20 bal.

others: as in A above

 

Then I strongly suspect (but can't prove) that for some choices of W, A will cause more damage to B (after a W opening) than B to A (after 1♣ interference). And I doubt that B can weigh up for this on deals with uncontested auctions at both tables in a "A vs. B" match. (I actually think B will do worse, largely because of the inability to stop in 1N after a Mexican 2♣.)

 

Also: If the 2M openings in A are Weak Twos (as in Big Bang) and

 

A' (= A'(U,V)):

 

P = unsuitable for 2♣/2M, otherwise standard

1♣ = as in A

2♣ = weak preempt U not overlapping with other openings

2M = weak preempts V not overlapping with other openings (e.g. V = Muiderberg if U = Wagner)

others: as in A and B above,

 

then A' will obviously be at least as good as A (but possibly better) for some choices of U and V.