The 15 to 17 Gap

[kenrexford]

Another thread brings up a topic I thought I would discuss, as to my thouhhts, in case anyone cares.

 

Strong club systems typically hit at 16 as the split, which is curious. 16 HCP is a tough holding in natural bidding. Sure, 15 to 17 is great if balanced, but that range is the source of great headache when unbalanced.

 

Strong club systems avoid the problem with the 1C opening. This forces a pattern problem, however, because of the loss of the natural club opening. The solution is intermediate two bids, to solve pattern.

 

Natural bidding with the unbalanced 15 to 17 has some easy patterns. The reverse hand type, with a 2NT bust response, allows for these patterns to be solved. My delayed canape bids expand the solution deeper.

 

The problem most exists in the jump shift patterns, which happen to also often be the high reverse problem hands, coincidentally, which is somewhat tbe same problem.

 

The high reverse problem hands are heart-club, spade-club, and spade-diamond. Diamond-heart has no high reverse problem but has a simple rebid range problem. Similarly, spade-heart has a rebid problem.

 

If a club rebid is artificial, this often helps, as with Gazilli and similar concepts. I have written previously and in my blog on other ideas for an artificial club rebid. But, freeing 2C is powerful.

 

Because of this, alone, but also to solve the high reverse problem, the pattern solution from Roman Club, the Roman 2S and 2H openings, would greatly improve natural bidding. If the light opening 5+M/4+C hands were opened 2M, a world of solutions is open.

 

That would reduce the problem to major-diamond and majors (spades equal or longer).

 

Imagine a simple scheme. 2M handles light M-C hands. You could be very basic and have 2D openings show light open with spade-heart, longer or equal spades (Eichenbaum's "Sparts 2D"). Then, diamond rebids (e.g., 1S-1N-2D) could be light, with club rebids (e.g., 1S-1N-2C) as spades-diamonds with extras. Too basic, but wow would just that be nice.

 

The point of all of this is to suggest thought. Weak twos suck. The addiction to weak twos is often unbreakable, but tbey just cause unne essary grief in unseen ways, by depriving people of useful innovation to solve an obvious but unsolved gap in natural bidding, the 15 to 17 unbalanced hand. Many strong club folks know this, but natural folks resist.

 

With canape, especially, intermediate twos purify everything as to pattern. Strength is fine tuned already, once the pattern proble is solved.

 

In natural bidding, pattern is usually easy. That's why naturals love natural. But, range is atrocious. 2/1 is designed to help, but it only goes so far, and even that breaks down badly on range, which explains the Frankenstein Lawrence approach, which is itself a sacrifice of pattern to cater better to range. All og this is painful.

 

If naturals would just use 2 bid openinfs to solve the natural range problem, tada! Easier sequences. Better results. Sanity.

 

But, weak two crack won't let go.

[inquiry]

Basically, I think you are re-inventing Ritong two clubs... with his two major openings.

 

see...

 

 

 

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/7444-gazzilli/page__view__findpost__p__63372

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/10776-riton-2c/page__p__98909__hl__ritong__fromsearch__1?do=findComment&comment=98909

 

 

 

 

 

[mgoetze]

I used to play Riton 2♣ along with Riton 2M openings. But then I found that weak 2s actually don't suck. :P

[kenrexford]

I used to play Riton 2♣ along with Riton 2M openings. But then I found that weak 2s actually don't suck. :P

Addict! Crack addicts also think crack is great.

[nullve]

I play a (vaguely 2/1-based) system where

 

* 1M openings are very wide-ranging (rules of 19-30, or "10-21")

* all 2-openings are weak (except for some discreetly inserted GF hand types),

 

but there's nothing resembling a "15-17 gap" over 1♥-1♠(5+, 4+ S) or 1M-1N(5-12, NF) .

 

For example, with 2542 opposite 10 hcp, 4234 (as in the 'simple bidding situation?' thread), the bidding could go either

 

1♥-1♠ (rules of 19-30, 5+ H, unbal. \\ 5+, 4+ S)

1N-2♦ (rules of 19-21, 3-S5H4+m / rules of 25-27, any \\ 8+, relay)

2♥-P (rules of 19-21, 2-S5H4+m \\ ---),

 

1♥-1♠ (rules of 19-30, 5+ H, unbal. \\ 5+, 4+ S)

2♣-2♥ (rules of 22-24, 3-S5H4+m \\ to play opposite 2- S, pref. opposite 5H4D)

P(2- S),

 

1♥-1♠ (rules of 19-30, 5+ H, unbal. \\ 5+, 4+ S)

1N-2♦ (rules of 19-21, 3-S5H4+m / rules of 25-27, any \\ 8+, relay)

3♣-3♦ (rules of 25-27, 3-S4+D, not 5H5D \\ relay)

3♥-3♠ (2542 or 6H4D \\ relay, suggesting 2 H)

3N-P (2542 (hence 16-18 hcp) \\ ---)

 

or

 

1♥-1♠ (rules of 19-30, 5+ H, unbal. \\ 5+, 4+ S)

3♣-3♦ (rules of 28-30, 3-S4+D, not 5H5D \\ relay)

3♥-3♠ (2542 or 6H4D \\ relay, suggesting 2 H)

3N-P (2542 (hence 19-21 hcp) \\ ---).

[Kungsgeten]

A while ago I tried to create a core structure for an easy natural system -- a next step for players wanting to evolve from the local club standard. The conventions chosen were meant to simplify bidding in other cumbersome situations, and the goal was that the conventions themselves should be fairly easy. This system used the following two-openings:

 

2♣ = 18--19 NT or any GF.

2♦ = Multi. 22--24 NT or a weak major.

2♥♠ = Roman, 11--15.

2NT = 20--21.

 

When looking at the rest of the system, this solved many problems in standard. Removing the 18--19 NT even made it possible to have a simple transfer structure over 1♣, which to me is easier than many of the alternatives.

[wank]

I used to play Riton 2♣ along with Riton 2M openings. But then I found that weak 2s actually don't suck. :P

 

helgemo said that when he was playing for monaco whenever his opps opened a weak 2 he mentally wrote down 10 out because he knew F+N would be coming back with a crap board from the other table

[Zelandakh]

There is an alternative but it requires a slightly different mindset. My system divides opening hands as weak (to 17) or strong (18+) and then, over a weak type the responding hands into weak or INV+ hand types and the rebid ranges then change depending on this range. It means that you never end up with a gap. For weak-weak, Opener's strong rebids are invitational (~16+), weak ones non-forcing. For weak-strong, Opener's strong rebids (~14+) are GF. The strong opening hands use a fairly standard strong club relay structure. I think this ability to change rebid ranges based on Responder's strength is the simplest and most powerful way of dealing with this issue. I does mean redesigning the enture response structure rather than only the rebids but if there is one posetr here that would have fun doing that it has to be you Ken! :P B-)

[PrecisionL]

helgemo said that when he was playing for monaco whenever his opps opened a weak 2 he mentally wrote down 10 out because he knew F+N would be coming back with a crap board from the other table

Free analyzed 100 hands where F-N opened a 2-bid (any suit) and found a net gain of 150 IMPs. Fred G also worried about losing IMPs when playing with Rubin-Ekeblad and their Intermediate 2-bids.

 

This is not an easy issue to analyze. In Rubin-Ekeblad's case, the 2-bids supplemented the rest of the system.

 

In two of my Strong Club partnerships, I do not play weak 2-bids in the majors. See Bailey 2-bids or Heavy weak 2-bids (bridgematters.com).

[Jinksy]

Free analyzed 100 hands where F-N opened a 2-bid (any suit) and found a net gain of 150 IMPs. Fred G also worried about losing IMPs when playing with Rubin-Ekeblad and their Intermediate 2-bids.

 

Bill Jacobs had similar stats on his partnerships Fantunes 2-bids. That seems not really relevant to how good weak 2s are, though (Jacobs also records those as being the hands on which his partnership lost the most IMPs).

[steve2005]

Free analyzed 100 hands where F-N opened a 2-bid (any suit) and found a net gain of 150 IMPs.

Weren't they cheating though?!

Some have gone so far as to say, "F-N 2's unplayable without cheating".

[mikestar13]

Weren't they cheating though?!

Some have gone so far as to say, "F-N 2's unplayable without cheating".

 

F-N's cheating would invalidate any stats obtained by F-N themselves. It does not prove their system has no merit for honest players--some stats from such players would be useful. Cheaters can get better results from any system than honest players would with the same system (else why cheat?), and cheaters can probably do better with a poor system than honest players can do with a good system--which many assert is exactly what happened in F-N's case. But we really need more data from honest players before we can reach a conclusion about the merits or lack thereof of the system formerly known as Fantunes. Bill Jacobs says his partnership loses imps on the two bids, but gains on the overall system if I understand him correctly. Richard Granville has done some interesting work on variants of the system (see his articles on Bridge Winners).

 

In any case, weak twos are useful, but another use might fit the overall system better, depending on what it is--you need to look at the whole system under consideration. How many imps an alternative bid gains or loses vs a weak two is only one factor--how the negative inferences cause gains or losses in the one bids is quite important as well.

[awm]

While it's true that F-N cheating doesn't invalidate their system, there are methods where cheating helps you more and their methods seem to fit that.

 

The problem is that they preempt on a wide range of shapes, so a little cheating goes a long way (for example knowing whether the two bid has a six card suit helps a lot in deciding whether to pass with singleton, or how high to compete). A system with more classical two bids yields less opportunities for cheating to help (in the bidding anyway) because partner knows what to expect without any illegal "help."

[aguahombre]

While it's true that F-N cheating doesn't invalidate their system, there are methods where cheating helps you more and their methods seem to fit that.

 

The problem is that they preempt on a wide range of shapes, so a little cheating goes a long way (for example knowing whether the two bid has a six card suit helps a lot in deciding whether to pass with singleton, or how high to compete). A system with more classical two bids yields less opportunities for cheating to help (in the bidding anyway) because partner knows what to expect without any illegal "help."

Yes. Illegal signals are especially effective for "either/or" situations, both in bidding and in play. When opponents interfere, an opening bid with two possible meanings or a wide range might well be 'unplayable' without such communication.

 

In any case, the opponents will be at least one round behind in discovering what the 'receiver' already knows. He cannot disclose Suction (for instance) by saying a bid "shows Spades or the minors but this time it shows the minors." Even I might wonder how he knows that.

[mikestar13]

While it's true that F-N cheating doesn't invalidate their system, there are methods where cheating helps you more and their methods seem to fit that.

 

The problem is that they preempt on a wide range of shapes, so a little cheating goes a long way (for example knowing whether the two bid has a six card suit helps a lot in deciding whether to pass with singleton, or how high to compete). A system with more classical two bids yields less opportunities for cheating to help (in the bidding anyway) because partner knows what to expect without any illegal "help."

 

You have a very valid point: F-N were gaining imps on their two bids, while I would expect honest players would show a loss (though comparison with other wide ranging preemptive styles would be useful). That still doesn't mean the the overall system is a net loser, though of course it can be. Anybody have numbers about how F-N style one bids do in the hands of honest players?

[Phil]

The 10-13 2M opener seems to work better if the other major is excluded. I think Fantunes did this with 2H, but not 2S?

[Phil]

Double

[nullve]

The 10-13 2M opener seems to work better if the other major is excluded. I think Fantunes did this with 2H, but not 2S?

http://bridgewithdan.com/systems/Fantoni_Nunes.txt