System adjustments

[Walddk]

I think all systems need some adjustments now that light openings with shapely hands even in 1st and 2nd are very frequent. There is no reason to think that this will change.

 

So if no one can stop the trend, we must approach the systems and make less rebids by opener forcing in Standard American, French Standard and Acol among other natural systems. We can start with rebid own suit after a 2-o-1 response and support for responder's suit as cheaply as possible. Both are played as forcing in some systems.

 

2/1 is not the answer to everything though. The 2-o-1 reponse may also have to be adjusted, so that 1NT shows 6-12, maybe even 13! (rather than 11). Most 12 counts can't really force to game opposite an opening that could easily be down to 10 or 11 hcp, sometimes even (8)9.

 

Roland

[pbleighton]

Agree completely.

 

I play super-light openings (down to a decent 8) in the majors. If light, the hand may have 4 trumps. A 2/1 reponse requires 13 (good 12), and is forcing for one round. 1M-1NT goes up to a somewhat above average 12 count. The following rebids are minimum (8 to a somewhat above average 11) and NF after a 2/1 response:

1) Rebid of major (shows 5+ trumps).

2) 2NT (shows 4/terrible 5)

3) 3 of partner's suit.

 

Peter

[hotShot]

Well perhaps we should adjust the systems, and while we are at it, it's time for the "Return of the Penalty Double" on 1 and 2 level.

The fight around the partscore is won by those who play best,

not by those who open lightest.

For most of the "normal player", it's far more important to work on their playing skill on the defending end and of cause the declarer play.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi Roland,

 

you dont need to change Acol, at least not if you are playing it,

as it was played in the stone age, because the main problem

with this style was, to create a force, which was only possible

using fourth suit forcing.

 

If you are playing a natural system with light openers, you

could play it Acol style, regarless if you open with 4 cards mayor

or 5 card mayor, and also regardless of your NT opening range.

 

It works fine. And this is already a standard system in certain

regions. But if one does adopt this syle, one needs to accept, that

one will occasional miss certain slams.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hrothgar]

I've long beleived that 2/1 game forcing responses are incompatible with a light opening style. The utilitzation of bidding space is extremely inefficient.

 

MOSCITO uses an extremely light opening structure.

 

♠ KT872

♥ A5

♦ Q2

♣ T653

 

or

 

♠ J87643

♥ AK94

♦ 6

♣ 93

 

are both example of minimum "constructive" openings.

 

We've actually had to go one step further. Our 2/1 are natural and constructive, but non-forcing...

[Chamaco]

I think it depends on how light an opening can be.

 

I'll try an example to be clearer.

In my current pship we play Precision (1C = 16+) and we allow for light 1 of a suit opener (2C has stricter requirements).

 

But, the 1x opener must ALWAYS comply (in 1st/2nd seat) to the follwing: no more than 7 losers, 2+ quick tricks in defense.

So, opening with 2 aces and nothing else is indeed playable, as long as the hand has 7 losers (and usually a few Tens :D ).

 

Responder plays a 2/1 GF if he has in turn no more than 7 losers, 2+ QT, but usually less aggressive than opener (e.g. not bid 2/1 GF hlding 2 Aces only, minimum is usually about 10 hcp and great shape/intermediates): with more than 7 losers, he'll invite even holding a 12.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So I simply suppose that the key to modifying the requirements for a 2/1 GF is simply to have light penings but DISCIPLINED in terms of losers and Quick Tricks.

 

And I believe this discussion should first set the minimum standards for the light openers befoe setting the requirements for a GF response :-)

 

Tell me, "How light is light??" for opener, and I'll tell you "How strong is strong" for responder :rolleyes:

[hrothgar]

I think it depends on how light an opening can be.

 

I'll try an example to be clearer.

In my current pship we play Precision (1C = 16+) and we allow for light 1 of a suit opener (2C has stricter requirements).

 

But, the 1x opener must ALWAYS comply (in 1st/2nd seat) to the follwing: no more than 7 losers, 2+ quick tricks in defense.

So, opening with 2 aces and nothing else is indeed playable, as long as the hand has 7 losers (and usually a few Tens :D ).

 

Responder plays a 2/1 GF if he has in turn no more than 7 losers, 2+ QT, but usually less aggressive than opener (e.g. not bid 2/1 GF hlding 2 Aces only, minimum is usually about 10 hcp and great shape/intermediates): with more than 7 losers, he'll invite even holding a 12.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So I simply suppose that the key to modifying the requirements for a 2/1 GF is simply to have light penings but DISCIPLINED in terms of losers and Quick Tricks.

 

And I believe this discussion should first set the minimum standards for the light openers befoe setting the requirements for a GF response :-)

 

Tell me, "How light is light??" for opener, and I'll tell you "How strong is strong" for responder :rolleyes:

Quick comment:

 

Have you ever estimately the frequency with which you get dealt hands suitable for a 2/1 response to your 1M opening? I can't swear to it, but is suspect that you are responding 1NT on an enormous range of hands...

[Chamaco]

Quick comment:

 

Have you ever estimately the frequency with which you get dealt hands suitable for a 2/1 response to your 1M opening?  I can't swear to it, but is suspect that you are responding 1NT on an enormous range of hands...

Richard,

I agree with you.

I indeed fancy the Viking Club structure (1NT = generic GF, 2C = generic invitational hand, 2X = nonforing constructive), but cannot change system every season, in oder to selfprotect myself from the aggression of my partners :-)

 

---------------------------------

 

Addendum:

we respond 1NT forcing (with Kaplan inversion over 1H opener) also with VERY light hands (except total misfits) at white, to steal the hand, so the widerange problem is even moe frequent, but it did not damage too much so far: in fact, in a limited opener system, eventual further actions will be taken by the 1NT bidder.

[mike777]

I think all systems need some adjustments now that light openings with shapely hands even in 1st and 2nd are very frequent. There is no reason to think that this will change.

 

So if no one can stop the trend, we must approach the systems and make less rebids by opener forcing in Standard American, French Standard and Acol among other natural systems. We can start with rebid own suit after a 2-o-1 response and support for responder's suit as cheaply as possible. Both are played as forcing in some systems.

 

2/1 is not the answer to everything though. The 2-o-1 reponse may also have to be adjusted, so that 1NT shows 6-12, maybe even 13! (rather than 11). Most 12 counts can't really force to game opposite an opening that could easily be down to 10 or 11 hcp, sometimes even (8)9.

 

Roland

I already play 2/1=14 HCP to go with lite openings rather than "good 12".

1nt semi-forcing, that means forcing 90% of time.

NFB=7-12 HCP, x with 13HCP in general.

1nt=14-16 so open 1 and rebid nt=11-13 very often.

lite openings not as frequent as Moscito but still come up often.

After 2/1, rebid shape, that means when you rebid you first suit you very often have 6 not 5 as most play 2/1. Also means 2nt rebid very often 11-13 and rebids at 3 level do not promise extra.

[inquiry]

I play a version of 2/1, but I open much lighter than most 2/1 players, and even lighter than many precision players. I have opened 7 point hands seriously (no psyche) many times. Last night I opened this hand [hv=s=skqxxxhdxxxxcaxxx]133|100|First chair, no one vul, imps, with A NEW PARTNER (one I never had played with before)[/hv]

 

Ok, that nine hcp is not horrible, but change spade Q to Jack and I still open 1♠.

 

So how do I deal with these light opening bids within the paramaters of a 2/1 forcing system. I have modified the system with a regular partner, but not by adding more and more non-forcing rebids. But rather by using jump shifts by responder as invitational (non-forcing), adopt xyz and use if on lots of auctions, change 2NT rebid by opener to show strong hand with support to allow narrow ranges of simple raise (which I play as really weak) and jump raise, which while weak is VERY LIMITED (2 pt range). I have also made 1NT response to 1M as semi-forcing and absolutely denying as many as three card support, or sufficient values to force to game,

 

Since I have pulled all the weak hands with support out of 1NT response, 1M-2M is weak. Thus, I adopted Barry Crane approach of an initial 2C response to 1M to be "drury" (well maybe reverse drury). Opener rebids 2M only if he would have passed a limited 11-12 raise. Thus, we stop in 2M on lots of hands where responder is fairly strong. I also include the good game invite balance hands in 2C (once where the forcing 1NT bidder would ahve rebid 2NT or 3NT naturally), as well as any hand with real clubs and game force. I separate between these hands by raising (or passing with support), rebidding NT (or passing with 2 cards and weak hand), or bidding something else (real clubs, GF).

 

Finally, like precision and other systems, I have actually limited my one level bids, but in an odd way. With strong one suiters:

With a major and 8 sure tricks and 5+ controls, I will open 2C, we can stop in 2H/2S

With a minor one suiter and 9.5 tricks, I open 2D (multi)

With balanced hand 20=bad 22 I open 2NT, good22-24 I open 2D, 25+ 2C thenrebid 3N

With strong two suiters, I use that misIry convention

With "strong" three suiters I open 2C and rebid 2NT (Strong here is odd use of the word, as 15hcp and 5 controls is often enough for this auction).

 

This means that when I open one of a suit, if one suiter, it fails to meet the requirements of acol 2 bid, if balanced, it is less than 20hcp, if two suiter, it fails to meet the requirements for the misIry bid (4 losers or less, 10 cards or more), and if it is a three suiter, it is generally 6 losers or more, or less than 5 controls with 5 losers. This takes the pressure off responder to respond at all, if he doesn't want too.

 

ben

[pclayton]

There is well known player in Montana named Al Mcalear that plays a system called "Rabbit". It allows for very lite openers - down to about the right 7 counts and it has a simplified response structure:

 

---> All 1/1's and 2/1's are non-forcing

---> 1N response to a major is forcing but limited

---> A jump shift (promising 15+) is the only way to force.

---> A 1♦ response to 1♣ is artificial, showing 10-15 with several hand types

---> Just about any 5-5 is opened with the LOWER suit

---> NFB's always

---> 4C is ALWAYS key card gerber (except over 1N)

 

Anytime I play with Mac, we play this and I've learn to despise most of it.

 

----> Opponents frequently get the opportunity to balance at the one level

----> Our constructive bidding is severely impaired

----> Figuring out partner's hand is a problem

 

If lite openers are going to become more the norm, then I see an semi-artificial response of 2♣ becoming more in vogue to clarify opener's hand and slow down the auction.

 

2/1 GF doesn't make a whole lot of sense with lite openers.

[hrothgar]

If lite openers are going to become more the norm, then I see an semi-artificial response of 2♣ becoming more in vogue to clarify opener's hand and slow down the auction.

 

2/1 GF doesn't make a whole lot of sense with lite openers.

You clearly need SOMETHING to sort the different hand types out

 

Traditionally, players using light opening systems adopted one of two different approaches:

 

1. Transfer advances over the limited openings

2. Some for of relay

 

I have a strong preference for relay methods and prefer to bite the bullet by using a first step response as strong artifical and forcing. All strong hands that want to establish captaincy use the relay (responder has the option of using a splinter to show strong hands or make a descriptive 3 level bid with a game invite)

 

Inquiry has also adopted relay methods, however, he has chosen to use 2 separate relays (a forcing NT response and an artifical 2♣ bid)

[whereagles]

It is best not to let 1 level openings drop below a certain level. It is hard enough to describe your hand with 12-20 openings, let alone 8-20 ones.

 

Of course, if you're playing limited openings you can relax opening requirements a bit, but otherwise you might be complicating your task a bit unless you don't mind putting up with artificial stuff like permanent Drury or something like that.

[inquiry]

Inquiry has also adopted relay methods, however, he has chosen to use 2 separate relays (a forcing NT response and an artifical 2♣ bid)

My 1NT is most definetly not a relay, and is NOT FORCING. I identified it as "semi-forcing". My 2♣, can be described as relay, as it ask for specific info from opener, aka it is "drury" (or better) even by an unpassed hand. Yet I have never seen drury formally identified as a relay method per se. When I do bid 2C, I have one of three types of hands, usually clarified on responders next bid. Constructive or better raise, balanced game try without three card support, or 5+ clubs, true game force.

[hrothgar]

My 1NT is most definetly not a relay, and is NOT FORCING. I identified it as "semi-forcing". My 2♣, can be described as relay, as it ask for specific info from opener, aka it is "drury" (or better) even by an unpassed hand. Yet I have never seen drury formally identified as a relay method per se. When I do bid 2C, I have one of three types of hands, usually clarified on responders next bid. Constructive or better raise, balanced game try without three card support, or 5+ clubs, true game force.

Regretfully the world of bridge has not yet established a standard definition of the world relay. At least in North America, a "relay" seems to be an asking bid that people don't like. Asking bids that people do like get fancy names like "Stayman" or "Drury" or "Forcing NT" ("Semi-Forcing NT" for that matter). In either case, the meaning is the same... These bids ask partner to describe there hand.

 

If I got to make all the rules, I would introduce a formal distinction between relays and asking bids based on recusion. Assume for the moment, that I make an asking bis and partner describes their hand in some way. If I have the option of following this description with another aksing bid, then the first asking bid is defined as a relay. The second asking bid would be a relay if I had the option of making a third asking bid after I get the answer to the second...

 

However, this is very much a minority position. As far as I know, I'm the only one who agrees with it.

[Cascade]

However, this is very much a minority position. As far as I know, I'm the only one who agrees with it.

And you modestly consider yourself a minority?

[keylime]

I'm with hrothgar here - our 2/1's are nonforcing. All out Gf's go through 1NT.

 

Even with sound openings I see 2/1 consistently made on 10-11 hcps with flat shape.

[awm]

I've never had much success with methods treating 2/1 calls as nonforcing. I guess my issues are the following:

 

(1) If 2/1 calls can be invitational (i.e. there is some relay bid like 1NT which is game forcing) then when does opener pass? Does he need length in responder's suit? It seems like whatever answer you give, the wrong action will be taken on some hands (i.e. if you always raise with 3-card support, what does responder bid with five bad cards? if you often pass with three, what if responder has seven?)

 

(2) If 2/1 calls are always weak (i.e. the relay bid is invitational+ or there are two relay bids one which is game force and one which is invite) then how often do people bid over the relay? It seems like an amorphous "artificial forcing any reasonable hand" bid is just an invitation to opponents to preempt your auction and totally destroy your methods. It says "hey you don't have constructive values for game opponents, but partner and I have NO IDEA how our hands are fitting... so please destroy our auction now." Then again, maybe opponents don't bid this way for those of you who play this method.

 

---------------------

 

Anyways, with many of my regular partners, I play methods where major suit openings show about 8-15 hcp. Our follow-ups are mostly natural, but there are some special sequences. First a few notes on our openings:

 

(1) We do not open particularly aggressively with balanced hands. Holding 5332, our 1-major opening is normally a very good 11 to a bad 13 hcp. With more we open 1NT (14-16) counting one for the five card suit. With less we will pass.

 

(2) Holding a six-card major and no 4+ card side suit, we tend not to open 1-major with bad hands. If the major suit is lousy we will pass holding less than 11 hcp. If the major suit if reasonable we open a weak two bid.

 

In response to 1-major, our bids look much like what you'd expect playing 2/1 with sound openings. 1NT response is something like 6 to a bad 12 (although we sometimes pass with less than 8 because of the upper limit of our range). Two-over-one responses show at least a good twelve. They are not forcing to game unless a major-suit fit is found. Our opening bids normally have 7 losers or fewer, so if we have 8+ cards in a major we will bid game regardless.

 

After 1♠-2♣:

 

2♦/2♥ are natural, forcing and wide ranging. Responder can force game by bidding the fourth suit, or by bidding one of opener's MAJOR suits to the three level. 2♠ shows a doubleton and is non-forcing.

2♠ is artificial. It shows a bad hand (8-11 hcp or thereabouts) with 4+♣. Note that this is the only possible bad hand that can't bid two of a red suit. This 2♠ bid is NOT forcing, nor is a 3♣ correction by responder.

2NT is artificial. It shows 6+♠ and game values opposite partner's bid. Note that hands with 6+♠ and less than game values will have a 4+ card side suit to bid, as otherwise they would've passed or opened 2♠ to begin with.

3♣ is natural and forcing, 3+♣ (but usually four unless holding 5(23)3 shape).

3NT shows exactly 5332 distribution (doubleton club, else would raise the clubs) and a very good eleven to a bad 13 hcp. This jumps the auction, but it is also extremely descriptive.

 

After 1♠-2♦:

 

2♥ is natural. Responder can force to game by bidding either major at the three level, or by bidding the fourth suit (3♣).

2♠ is artificial. It shows a bad hand (8-11 hcp) with 4+♣. Not forcing.

2NT shows 6+♠ and game forcing.

3♣ is two-way, showing either a bad hand (8-11) with a diamond fit, or a game forcing hand with 4+♣. Responder bids 3♦ if not willing to force game opposite the 8-11 hand with a diamond fit (i.e. 12-14 hcp usually). Any other bid is game forcing.

3♦ is natural and forcing.

3NT shows 5323 exactly.

 

After 1♠-2♥:

 

2♠ shows a minimum hand with a side 4+ card minor. Not forcing.

2NT shows 6+♠ game force.

3♣/♦ game forcing

3♥ shows a heart fit. This could be a light opener, but it's game forcing because of 7 losers opposite 7 losers and a major suit fit.

3NT shows 5233 exactly.

[hrothgar]

(2) If 2/1 calls are always weak (i.e. the relay bid is invitational+ or there are two relay bids one which is game force and one which is invite) then how often do people bid over the relay? It seems like an amorphous "artificial forcing any reasonable hand" bid is just an invitation to opponents to preempt your auction and totally destroy your methods. It says "hey you don't have constructive values for game opponents, but partner and I have NO IDEA how our hands are fitting... so please destroy our auction now." Then again, maybe opponents don't bid this way for those of you who play this method.

Couple quick comments:

 

1. Playing MOSCITO, our 2/1 bids promise roughly 7-11 HCP with 5+ cards in the bid suit. While they are natural and constructive, they are also non-forcing.

 

2. Responder has a series of specialized responses that are used to show game invitational vlues with a fit for partner's suit. For example, following a 1♥ opening (promising 4+ Spades)

 

4X = Splinter

3♥ = Game invite with 6 hearts and 3 Spades

3♦ = game invite with 6 Diamonds and 3 Spades

3♣ = Game invite with 6 Clubs and 3 Spades

2NT = 4 Spades, 7 of fewer losers

 

Hence, while the relay is game invitational, if the relay asker has a game invitational hand, he (pretty much) denies a fit. If the relay asker does show a fit, then we're in an immediate game force.

 

Quite honestly, I've gotten to the point where I almost welcome interference into our relay auctions. Our methods are designed to maximize the chance at generating low level penalty doubles and we generate a lot of +300s and +500s opposite air...

[awm]

My question about Moscito is the following. Suppose the auction starts:

 

1♥ (spades) - Pass - 1♠ (inv+ relay) - 3♥ (natural preempt)

 

If opener passes, is it forcing? If it is, then don't you get stuck on some invitational hands? If it's not, what does opener bid to show a max? If always double, then partner's in guess mode. If something else, you can get pretty high on misfit hands when you should've defended.

 

Suppose responder holds something like:

 

Kx

Qxx

AQJxxx

Qx

 

If opener has four or even five diamonds, I doubt that defending 3♥ or 3♥X will be a particularly good result. Even if opener holds some hearts as well, say:

 

AQxx

Axx

Kxxxx

x

 

It's easy to imagine 3♥ going down only one, whereas 5♦ would seem like a favorite. On the other hand, reverse opener's minor suits and I definitely want a piece of 3♥X.

 

These secondary suit fits would seem to be very hard to find, whereas a standard auction would start with 1♦ opened, and even playing canape with natural forcing 2/1 calls opener will be aware of the big diamond fit by the time the heart preempt is made.

[helene_t]

To me, natural methods means 2/1 GF. If that implies that I can't play 8-22 major suit openings, so be it. I'm willing to play the 1NT response as only semi-forcing, though.

 

This is not because I consider 2/1 GF a technically superior principle. I'm unable to judge on that, and besides it seems unlikely that such a simple principle could be the optimal solution.

 

The reason is that is should be easy to determine the forcing character of a call so that my limited mental resources can be used for more important purposes, such as card evaluation and play. The thread "Is it forcing?" shows that the forcing characters of many calls are not clear to everybody when the agreement is to play SAYC. If you agree to play "Dutch Acol" it's even worse, let alone what will happen if you agree to play "5-card major strong notrump".

 

Of course, there are many solutions available to would-be light openers. Play Polish Club or Precision, play transfer openings and/or transfer responses, or use a relay system. This may all be better without being more complicated. But then we are not talking about adjustments anymore.

[helene_t]

Regretfully the world of bridge has not yet established a standard definition of the word relay. At least in North America, a "relay" seems to be an asking bid that people don't like. Asking bids that people do like get fancy names like "Stayman" or "Drury" or "Forcing NT" ("Semi-Forcing NT" for that matter). In either case, the meaning is the same... These bids ask partner to describe there hand.

I agree. But why would you need a formal destiction of "relay" versus "asking bid"? Oh yes, because relays are not allowed in certain events. But then you would need different definitions of "relay" for different types of events. It would be less confusing, for each type of event, to state what is allowed and what isn't in non-ambigous terms. For example: All bids must either show length (3+m or 4+M or 6+ in two hands) in a suit or a certain minimum (15+ in one hand or 19+ in two hands) of HCPs. And then a list of exceptions, including Garbage Stayman. The latter is probably a relay but that doesn't matter.

[Gerben42]

So relay systems are not allowed. Someone tell me the difference between these two sequences:

 

ALLOWED:

 

1NT (14-16) - 2♣ (Stayman)

2♠ (4♠) - 3♣ (Minor Suit Stayman)

3♠ (4342) - 4♦ (Transfer)

4♥ (accepted) - 5♦ (To play)

 

DISALLOWED:

 

1NT (14-16) - 2♣ (Relay)

2♠ (4♠) - 3♣ (Relay)

3♠ (4342) - 4♦ (End signal)

4♥ (forced) - 5♦ (To play)

[hrothgar]

Suppose responder holds something like:

 

Kx

Qxx

AQJxxx

Qx

 

If opener has four or even five diamonds, I doubt that defending 3♥ or 3♥X will be a particularly good result. Even if opener holds some hearts as well, say:

 

AQxx

Axx

Kxxxx

x

 

It's easy to imagine 3♥ going down only one, whereas 5♦ would seem like a favorite. On the other hand, reverse opener's minor suits and I definitely want a piece of 3♥X.

The example seems rather contrived:

 

1. Unclear whether responder has a hand that would chose to relay over a 1H opening. Personally, I'd probably bid an immediate 3NT...

 

2. You posit a player jumping to 3♥ holding (at best) KJTxxxx. The 3♥ bidder is in the sandwich position. He knows that he has strong hands on either side of him with no established fit. Partner rates to be broke. Jumping on the three level with a weak suit doesn't rate to be a long term winner.

 

3. The opponents have a 10 card club fit that has never been mentioned. Either the 3♥ bidder has a big two suited hand (7-4 or 7-5 or so) OR responder in direct seat passing a 7 card slub suit. Once again, this feels forced...

[Rebound]

This is not because I consider 2/1 GF a technically superior principle. I'm unable to judge on that, and besides it seems unlikely that such a simple principle could be the optimal solution.

 

.... The thread "Is it forcing?" shows that the forcing characters of many calls are not clear to everybody when the agreement is to play SAYC. If you agree to play "Dutch Acol" it's even worse, let alone what will happen if you agree to play "5-card major strong notrump".

It is precisely because it is simple that it has value. Granted, it adds complexity to the 1NT response. However, by definition, this response is rather likely to lead to a partscore - muddier methods will endager fewer points. I tend to play a lot more IMPs than matchpoints and I guess I tend not to fight over partscores as much as most. I'm not in favor of ultra-light openings. For me, opening 11 is pushing it. Fortunately, our system is geared around low-level penalty doubles, so come get me and we'll see what works better lol :-)

 

Just kidding, of course, but whether they work better or not you won't see me doing it.