"Unlimited" majors, strong clubbers?

[nullve]

In case it hasn't occured to you: limited 1M openings are not an essential part of strong club (or diamond) systems:

 

I just came back from Summer NABC. Played strong 1C (17+ if BAL) and wide range 1M for 400+ boards against top notch opponents, winning two regional imp events and losing in R32 in Spingold.

 

IMHO: 17 BAL in 1C was never a problem. Limited opening bids in 1M is over rated, prefer including 5+M & 4+ sidesuit in 1M instead of 1C since these are easily the hands most vulnerable to enemy interference.

That works very well and makes 1C-1D continuations must easier.

So if you play a strong club (or diamond) system, especially one with 5c+ 1M openings, why are your 1M openings (un)limited?

[hrothgar]

 

So if you play a strong club (or diamond) system, especially one with 5c+ 1M openings, why are your 1M openings (un)limited?

 

1. 1M - 4M

2. 1M - 2M

3. 1M - 3N

4. 1M - 3M

[awm]

The basic reason is that I think opening shapely 8- and 9-counts is a winning tactic but partner has to be able to cope with it. A range of "8+ unlimited" or "8-21" or the like doesn't work well, because partner has to keep the auction open in case of the big hand while getting out fast opposite the bad hand...

 

The only top pair I'm aware of playing truly "unlimited" 1M is a certain famous cheating pair, and even they were more like 14+ than 8+

 

And 8+ to 15 is already a pretty wide range for me.

[Kungsgeten]

So if you play a strong club (or diamond) system, especially one with 5c+ 1M openings, why are your 1M openings (un)limited?

 

Probably because we didn't question it, when deciding to play a forcing club. Having limited major suit openings is very comfortable, you do not have to discuss a lot of what to do after the opening bid (unless you want to) and there are very few difficult auctions. Some (usually those who haven't tried a system with limited openings) consider strong club to be a complicated and "hard" system, but I disagree: It is a lot easier to play strong club than a "natural" system. There might be more specific auctions to study, but the problematic sequences (what do I do now?) presented are fewer.

 

I'm not very big on the whole "We can raise to 3 or 4M with a big variety of hands" reasoning. Sure, sometimes that is the case, but we usually do not. This may seem dumb, but the reason is that a 11-16 (in our case) opening with 5+M isn't as limited as one might think. Also bidding 1M-4M, and then the opponents decide to enter the auction, now it will be hard for opener to make an intelligent decision if 4M can be "anything from 0 points to a GF not interested in slam"; it will all be up to responder. What I do like about limited openings is the option to the describe the hand in more detail, with the rebids (especially with extreme shape), which isn't always possible in a natural systems since you need the rebids to define your strength.

 

I wonder how much better the 1M opening becomes by removing the strong single-suited hands from it... Ulf Nilsson is also a fan of unbalanced major suit openings (denying 5M332), so my guess would be that his major suit openings in the discussed system is something like: "5+M, 11-19 unbal. If single-suited, then 11-15."

[steve2005]

I think a system where 1M can be stronger could be worked out. I think you want your limit lower than 21 though.

While yes 54 hands vulnerable to inference they don't otherwise cause big bidding problems,

The difficulty strong club hands are with minor suits. Starting 16 point hands at 2m is a disadvantage.

Having 1D potential stronger may give better rewards in uncontested auction,

Clubs possibly too, but that is harder. Maybe 2C=12-16 or 12-17.

[The_Badger]

The Polish Club system does go some way to having stronger major-suited hands opened on 17HCPs maximum, whilst stronger hands are opened 1♣, but then again the 1♣ bid is two-sided used for a weaker hand too.

 

Whilst the major suit opening isn't unlimited, it does mark an advance from the Blue Club norm of 16 maximum and a 4 card suit, with canapé; and the Precision norm of 15 maximum with a five card major.

 

The system infrastructure of Fantunes is truly unique, and the thinking behind it revolutionary, but given the success of Polish Club I am sure there is a way of using a strong 1♣ system without the weak hand option, and incorporating semi-unlimited majors into the mix, perhaps upping the major suit bids to 19 maximum.

[ulven]

Is there a question for me?

 

In current system version 1M denies 5332 in 1st & 2nd, 10-19 if 54+, 10-14 if 1-suited.

 

The system is really good, and I am capable of judging that.

 

Yes, limited hands have some advantages, but this approach has bigger upsides if you really think about it.

 

This summer NABC included beating Zimmerman Multon Helness Helgemo in the final of a bracketed KO.

[WellSpyder]

1. 1M - 4M

2. 1M - 2M

3. 1M - 3N

4. 1M - 3M

1M - Pass?

[nullve]

I'm sure there are good reasons for preferring either a standard system or a strong club system to a strong diamond system, but it would be interesting to hear how people would rank the following frameworks,

 

a) strong club, limited 1M openings

b) strong club, standard 1M openings

c) strong diamond, limited 1M openings

d) strong diamond, standard 1M openings

e) standard (= wide-ranging quasi-natural 1m openings, wide-ranging natural 1M openings),

 

by imagining picking the best possible system within each.

 

My own ranking right now:

 

a) < b) < c) < d) < e).

[foobar]

I'm sure there are good reasons for preferring either a standard system or a strong club system to a strong diamond system, but it would be interesting to hear how people would rank the following frameworks,

 

a) strong club, limited 1M openings

b) strong club, standard 1M openings

c) strong diamond, limited 1M openings

d) strong diamond, standard 1M openings

e) standard (= wide-ranging quasi-natural 1m openings, wide-ranging natural 1M openings),

 

by imagining picking the best possible system within each.

 

My own ranking right now:

 

a) < b) < c) < d) < e).

 

Not sure whether you really intended to rank strong club with limited openings at the very bottom, but my rankings would be almost a mirror image. Regarding wide ranging 1M openings, my opinion echoes awm's in that 8-21 (or even 8-19 or 11 -19) is way too wide.

 

a > c > b > d > e

[awm]

The sequences in standard bidding for 1M openings with extras are really bad -- it's very easy to miss game or play in the wrong game or play in a dumb 2nt when opener makes a try opposite a weak response, etc. And this isn't just my opinion -- it's the reason lots of good pairs have taken to playing Bart or Gazzilli or the like (which create other issues of course). It's also the reason you see people open 1nt or rebid 2nt with singletons, six card minors, five card majors, etc. Basically their methods for dealing with hands of 16-18 HCP are terrible.

 

Of course there are negatives to a strong club too, but one of the big wins is much better methods on the 16-18 range. In unobstructed auctions it's not just a little better either, but ridiculously better! Even in competition we usually come out ahead because partner can show a suit in a lot of auctions where he can't in standard (i.e. 1H-2S and partner has some 2236 eight count, he cannot really bid, but after strong club you have an easy auction).

 

Anyway I don't see much point in adopting strong club (with the attending problems around minor suits, especially in competition) only to throw the 16-18 5-card major hands back into the awfulness of standard bidding on hands in this range!

 

So I'd rate a > c > e > b > d.

[nullve]

Not sure whether you really intended to rank strong club with limited openings at the very bottom

Not what you'd expect from a regular poster in this forum, was it? :)

 

The sequences in standard bidding for 1M openings with extras are really bad -- it's very easy to miss game or play in the wrong game or play in a dumb 2nt when opener makes a try opposite a weak response, etc. And this isn't just my opinion -- it's the reason lots of good pairs have taken to playing Bart or Gazzilli or the like (which create other issues of course). It's also the reason you see people open 1nt or rebid 2nt with singletons, six card minors, five card majors, etc. Basically their methods for dealing with hands of 16-18 HCP are terrible.

 

Of course there are negatives to a strong club too, but one of the big wins is much better methods on the 16-18 range. In unobstructed auctions it's not just a little better either, but ridiculously better! Even in competition we usually come out ahead because partner can show a suit in a lot of auctions where he can't in standard (i.e. 1H-2S and partner has some 2236 eight count, he cannot really bid, but after strong club you have an easy auction).

 

Anyway I don't see much point in adopting strong club (with the attending problems around minor suits, especially in competition) only to throw the 16-18 5-card major hands back into the awfulness of standard bidding on hands in this range!

 

So I'd rate a > c > e > b > d.

The "standard" framework was supposed to be broad enough to include systems with some artificial rebids over 1x-1y/N, too. Sorry if that wasn't clear. :( But anyway, I agree with you to the extent that if the standard framework is split into

 

e1) standard with only natural rebids over 1x-1y/N

e2) standard with some artificial rebids over 1x-1y/N,

 

then my ranking becomes

 

e1) < a) < b) < c) < d) < e2).

[awm]

As mentioned before, the various artificial rebid styles all have costs, in many cases high ones. It's impossible to go through all of them, but common issues include:

 

1. Ending up at the three level when opener has something decent opposite a misfitting bad hand.

2. Being unable to play in 2m in many sequences, or in some cases unable to even show a long minor.

3. Not enough calls to show shape correctly in both a forcing and non-forcing way.

 

It's a little better than "natural" but not a huge amount. Still nowhere close to relay or the like. And you still see people with all these gadgets do stuff like open 1nt on 4522!

[Zelandakh]

I think you also need to differentiate between truly limited (max ~15), semi-limited (max ~17), semi-unlimited (max ~19) and unlimited (max just below GF) openings as each of these has a different character. In terms of the given systems, it seems clear from expert practice that a and e should be at the top. I would hesitate to rate b, c and d as they are too rare at that level but my guess for those would be c then b then d.

 

I think though that the discussion of the pros and cons between limited and semi-limited strong club systems is much more interesting and relevant than between limited and unlimited. If going for unlimited majors then transfer openings (whether 1-under or 2-under) strike me as a much more harmonious basis than combining with a strong club or diamond.

[nullve]

I think you also need to differentiate between truly limited (max ~15), semi-limited (max ~17), semi-unlimited (max ~19) and unlimited (max just below GF) openings as each of these has a different character.

If you mean that ranges such as "11-15", "11-17", "11-19" and "11-21" all have different character, then I agree. But I think that has more to do with other aspects of the 1M range than just its upper limit. If the range is continuous (e.g. "11-21", but unlike benlessard's "11-14 or 18-22"), then the width is probably what matters the most. For example, my 1M opening/overcall ranges are "10-21"/"8-19", respectively, which means I can use essentially the same continuations in both cases. (For example, 2♣ over (1♦)-1♠-1N is Gazzili, but with the strong option starting at "14" instead of "16".)

[Zelandakh]

If you mean that ranges such as "11-15", "11-17", "11-19" and "11-21" all have different character, then I agree. But I think that has more to do with other aspects of the 1M range than just its upper limit.

But the upper limit does have direct consequences. The ability to respond 1M - 4M with the first range is directly linked with the low upper range allowing slam to be ruled out with even some rather good hands. This happens much less with the second range. Between the second and third range, the upper limit directly impacts the requirement for false preference in the third range on many hands that can be safely passed in the second. There are other efficiency gains to be had too (the second is the range I have delved into the most due to my own system) but whether they can be said to be a direct result of the upper end or not is perhaps more subjective. The smallest difference is between the last 2 ranges, where the separator is the inclusion of Acol 2-type hands. If you do not include a method for removing these from your 1M openings then they need to be accounted for in the rebid structure, although the practical difference is admittedly small here.

 

You can see clearly that each lowering of the upper range comes with a practical advantage that is directly related to that upper limit. Against that, you typically lose some homogeneity, often meaning that other parts of the system can suffer in competition. There is a trade-off here, which is why I prefer the semi-limited approach. This trade-off is in turn probably why your suggestion of unlimited 1M openings with a strong 1♣ or 1♦ is rarely played. You are losing all of the benefits of the smaller range for only a negligible advantage. If you disagree then I wouldsuggest you construct such a system and playtest it. I suspect you will find out the issues soon enough if you do this objectively.

[nullve]

But the upper limit does have direct consequences. The ability to respond 1M - 4M with the first range is directly linked with the low upper range allowing slam to be ruled out with even some rather good hands. This happens much less with the second range. Between the second and third range, the upper limit directly impacts the requirement for false preference in the third range on many hands that can be safely passed in the second. There are other efficiency gains to be had too (the second is the range I have delved into the most due to my own system) but whether they can be said to be a direct result of the upper end or not is perhaps more subjective. The smallest difference is between the last 2 ranges, where the separator is the inclusion of Acol 2-type hands. If you do not include a method for removing these from your 1M openings then they need to be accounted for in the rebid structure, although the practical difference is admittedly small here.

If we're talking about ranges with the same lower limit, then I agree with all of this. But it seems to me that "9-15" (Moss-Grue Precision?) is more like "11-17" (Polish Club) than "11-15" (classic Precision) in terms of the ability to bid 1M-4M, the need for an artficial rebid structure over 1M-1♠/N, etc.

[ulven]

If you disagree then I would suggest you construct such a system and playtest it.

Yes, yes and already did, but will take it a step further now and test that.

 

Two comments:

- A 2-suited hand with a 5-card major is the hand type that's the most vulnerable to interference after a strong club. Each silly result you might see when opened 1M has to be compared to the silly results you end up after a contested 1C auction. What's the plus/minus bottom line? And for the argument about 1M-4M being good. Sure. But 1M-2M, 4M is also good and should be compared to auctions like 1C (strong) - 1NT, 2M - 3M etc in terms of available space for slam investigation and anonymity / information leakage.

- The key to make this work is keeping the strong 1-suited M hands in the 1C opening.

[ulven]

I suspect you will find out the issues soon enough if you do this objectively.

I suspect prevalent theory and my experiences doesn't match. Or maybe I fail the objectivity test... and just keep playing shitty stuff that doesn't work :-).

[foobar]

I suspect prevalent theory and my experiences doesn't match. Or maybe I fail the objectivity test... and just keep playing shitty stuff that doesn't work :-).

Can we have a link to your preferred methods please?

[yunling]

I don't think limited 1M is a significant winner here. If so, we should probably make the range of a 1M overcall narrower as well——which is contrary to expert practice. They believe double than bid a new suit with 16-17 is a loser. Opening 1M is a little different from overcalling but the risk and award are similar.

 

My choice is extending 1M to the lower edge instead of the higher one. I think it is clear that being able to open 1M on 9/10 count is a bigger winner than 16/17.

So I rate

9-15 > 11-17 ≈ 11-21 > 11-15

[Zelandakh]

I suspect prevalent theory and my experiences doesn't match. Or maybe I fail the objectivity test... and just keep playing shitty stuff that doesn't work :-).

I think you will find the following blog entries interesting as the thought process within them seems to mesh with some of your own ideas. Although it is 10 years old now, it is still one of the best series on system design imho:-

 

DBT1 - Intro

DBT2 - 1Bid/2Bid 1

DBT3 - 1Bid/2Bid 2

DBT4 - Unbal Hands

DBT5 - Showing Shape

DBT6 - Bal Hands 1

DBT7 - Bal Hands 2

DBT8 - Homogeneity 1

DBT9 - Homogeneity 2

DBT10 - Homogeneity 3

DBT11 - Homogeneity 4

DBT12 - Strength-showing Openings

DBT13 - Limited Suit openings

DBT14 - Conclusion

[straube]

I'm critical of his series. We have this from his intro...

 

But ignoring competitive auctions is a fairly easy mistake to make. I've often seen systems suggested where a 1C opening is made on a variety of possible hands, and the idea is to reveal which hand type is held with the rebid. Such systems often violate the Think-Competitive principle: if the opponents interfere at a high level, it may be too dangerous for opener to describe his hand. It is of course possible to create a workable multi-way 1C opening, but you have ensure that you can cater for all the various hand types in competition.

 

Elsewhere he writes...

 

Polish Club is one of my preferred systems, and it demonstrates many of the things I've talked about in my series on bidding theory. It features a multi-way 1C opening bid fairly similar to the simpler example, Swedish Club, which was discussed there. But there is an additional natural hand type that is included in the bid, making it essentially a three-way bid.

 

So he kind of has to square this somehow....

 

Some systems have bids which are explicitly defined as multi-way bids. Perhaps the archetypal example of a multi-way opening bid is the "Swedish" 1C opening, which shows either a weak balanced hand (11-13 HCP, say), or a strong hand of any shape (typically played as 17+ HCP). Natural systems do not use this sort of bid; however, many opening bids still contain a wide variety of possible hand types. For example, playing strong NT and 4-card majors, a 1H opening could be anything from a minimum balanced hand to a very strong 1- or 2-suiter. Clearly these are very different hand types, so the bid can be thought of as a multi-way bid in much the same way as the Swedish 1C is. The only difference is that the hand types in the natural bid are not separated by such a clear dividing line.

 

Essentially he says that natural systems (say opening 1H with xx AQxxx xxx AQx or x AKQxx AKxxx Kx) are multi-way, too. He has a point there, but what about the obvious comparison of little club to strong club? He's referring to strong club auctions in the passages that follow...

 

The small number of one-bid hands also gives responder an unusual problem. Suppose that he has to deal with a low-level overcall (somewhere between 1H and 2S, say). When he has a "positive" hand, good enough to force to game opposite opener's known strength, things are generally fairly easy. But more interesting is when he has a slightly weaker hand, a "semi-positive". These are not good enough to force to game immediately, so they have to be bid carefully, not going past the best part-score. Much of the time, it will be best to pass and wait for opener to describe his hand. However, since opener can occasionally have a one-bid hand, passing may result in the overcall being passed out. So responder is forced to act on a semi-positive hand if he wishes to compete for the part-score opposite a one-bid hand.

 

Now, if opener actually turns out to have extra values, any action from responder effectively commits the partnership to game. So the range of strength for the semi-positive hand types needs to be very narrow - not good enough to force to game immediately, but happy to play in game if opener has any extras. This does not seem to be very efficient: you are using an awful lot of system (the semi-positive responses and their continuations) to cater for a very small number of hands (opener's one-bid hands). This takes away space that could be used for more common hand types. Well-designed systems can use transfers or suchlike to combine the semi-positives and the positives into a single bid, but you still see the problem with semi-positives when responder makes a double, or where there isn't room for transfers, or when opener is prevented from showing his hand by having to cater for responder's possible minimum.

 

You can contrast this with the multi-way opening bids discussed previously. The equivalent of "semi-positive" hands for Swedish Club are those hands which want to compete opposite a weak NT hand, with the auction 1C : (2D) : 2S being a classic example. This has a much wider range. At the lower end, it only needs to be good enough for game opposite the strong option, so perhaps 6+ HCP. This is almost the same as opposite a strong opening bid. But the upper limit is determined by whether it is good enough to force to game immediately, which is much higher for the multi-way opening. So these semi-positive responses, which use up most of the available space, are much better used after a multi-way opening.

 

Some Strong Club systems go so far as to make responder's pass forcing over certain overcalls. In a sense this avoids the problem of having a small number of one-bid hands to deal with, by requiring opener to always take a second bid. But of course this takes away one of the main advantages of strength-showing openings, which is that they describe the strength of their minimum hands (particularly balanced hands) without opener having to take a dangerous second bid.

 

So somehow Swedish or Polish Club is better placed than strong club after say a 1C start and a 2D preempt? Little club responders can make a non-forcing bid here (say 2S) with 6+ hcps and that's equally welcome opposite a weak NT or a strong hand. If opener has a strong hand, he bids again and forces game.

 

But if we know opener has a strong club, we're so much better off. Just as an example, we can use ciphers here (2H transfers to spades, possibly willing to pass 2S) and 2S as GF hearts because responder can count on a big hand. The transfer in other words caters to hands that want to compete and not force game even though partner has a strong hand; this ought to represent a two-point range or so that little club can't handle. Little club couldn't also use the 2S bid to force game with hearts because responder would need to have essentially an opening hand to do so. No, little club is disadvantaged here. Also, little club has to reserve bids to force even against the possibility that opener has a weak NT.

 

DavidC makes a couple of mistakes. One is that little club is so much overloaded in comparison to strong club. Little club is essentially the strong club plus weak NT plus maybe clubs. It really should be a tremendous violation against the thrust of his articles.

 

The other mistake is that he forgets that strong club empowers responder to act with less. It's not all about opener describing his hand, whether it's balanced or unbalanced. It's a lot about responder bidding with fewer values and showing his own shape.

[PrecisionL]

I don't think limited 1M is a significant winner here. If so, we should probably make the range of a 1M overcall narrower as well——which is contrary to expert practice. They believe double than bid a new suit with 16-17 is a loser. Opening 1M is a little different from overcalling but the risk and award are similar.

 

My choice is extending 1M to the lower edge instead of the higher one. I think it is clear that being able to open 1M on 9/10 count is a bigger winner than 16/17.

So I rate

9-15 > 11-17 ≈ 11-21 > 11-15

16-17 hcp hands are problem hands in most systems of bidding. That reason is why Precision does so well with these strength hands.

 

As to defensive bidding, 16-17 hands are again problems and many of my partnerships use the Power Double to show 16-17 hcp hands, even with a 5 or 6-cd suit.