PrecisionL's club structure

[straube]

I have been experimenting with the following strong ♣ design at local clubs:

Responses to 1

♣

(17+ bal, or 16+ unbalanced)

1

♦

= 4+

♥

and less than G.F. (8+ hcp)

1

♥

= 4+

♠

and less than G.F. (8+ hcp)

1

♠

= No 4-cd major and 0-7 hcp

1NT = G.F. (a) 5-4 or better in the majors or, (b) any 5-5

2

♣

= 5,6-cd minor (either)

2

♦

= G.F., 5+

♥

2

♥

= G.F., 5+

♠

2

♠

= G.F. any 4441 hand

[straube]

Maybe we need a c) in the 1♣ - 1N response to handle the GF balanced hands (unless that goes in 2N)?

[straube]

Whoops! 1♠ response = (a) 0-7 hcp & no 4-cd major, or (b) 8+ hcp and balanced

[straube]

This can possibly be improved upon.

 

After 1!c 1!s 1NT denying a major and weak I would like to be able to bid 2!c and 2!d to play. Maybe you can do that and do something else with 8+ and a four-card major.

 

But 1!c 1!d and 1!c 1!h showing four of the major and 0-7 or 8+ balanced might work even more efficiently so that 1!c 1!s always denies a major.

[straube]

I hope no one minds that I started a thread for PrecisionL's structure but it seems a very different topic.

 

I'd like to know how things continue. It seems like it devotes the sequences 1C-1D and 1C-1H and part of 1C-1S to what most systems would handle with 1C-1D (0-7) which is just a huge investment in negative hands.

 

Also not sure where the GF 4M/5+m hands go.

[KingCovert]

I hope no one minds that I started a thread for PrecisionL's structure but it seems a very different topic.

 

I'd like to know how things continue. It seems like it devotes the sequences 1C-1D and 1C-1H and part of 1C-1S to what most systems would handle with 1C-1D (0-7) which is just a huge investment in negative hands.

 

Also not sure where the GF 4M/5+m hands go.

 

You make it sound like investing bids in negative responses is a bad thing? I'm really not sure why you think that, but I'd challenge you to re-evaluate that position. My agreement with my long term partner is that 1D is the only positive response, it is Game-Forcing. Every other bid up until 2NT has a defined meaning to show shape and a negative response, as well as a couple gadgets built into the follow-up bids of these negative responses. If you try to define a set of agreements designed largely around positive responses, here's what's going to happen to you:

 

1) You're going to consume a LOT of bidding room making a positive response that VAGUELY describes responder's hand.

2) There will inevitably be holes in your set of agreements, or there will be unclear sequences.

3) When responder has a negative response, you won't have nearly enough information to ascertain whether or not to compete over what will most likely be rather solid interference with real values. Interference is far more negligible/exploitable when you know you have the majority of the strength.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done, but, from experience I'm rather convinced at this point that a large array of positive responses is usually inefficient. I'm hoping that this will give you some pause before continuing a discussion that begins with [2-3 bids] "is just a huge investment in negative hands". No, it's really not.

[PrecisionL]

Thanks Straube for this thread. This design was an attempt to improve partial score bidding with an emphasis on majors first (MAFIA). The previous design, Ultra Club Relay https://bridgewithda...19/07/Ultra.pdf was a design with 4-cd major transfer positive responses to 1♣. C3: Copious Canape Club is an update of Ultra, not posted on the internet.

 

A recent book by Lyle Poe has a similar theme, Transfer Responses to One Club with Relays

 

Balanced positives can be added to the 1♠ response.

 

Opener accepts the transfer with 3-cd support (if not 4333 distribution) and a minimum. Otherwise, opener bids his 4-cd major at the 1-level or 5-cd suit at the 2-level. To allow for strong hands by opener, we use opener's 2♦ rebid (after an opening 1♣ to be a Beta for Controls to cover 21+ hcp hands, balanced or otherwise.

 

If responder denies a 4-cd major, then opener hides his 4-cd M and finds another bid.

 

There is an investment in negative hands, as they make up about 50% of the responses to a strong ♣, thus this system may be more useful when not playing IMPs.

[straube]

You're welcome.

 

I tallied 100 hands for these responses (as I understand them) and got...

 

1D-15

1H-18

1S-37

1N-6

2C-8

2D-9

2H-7

2S-1

 

Probably you have something more accurate. I placed GF 5m332s into the 2C response (perhaps they go in 1S?) and I may have missed a couple of 5M/5ms in 1N (inflating the 2D and 2H responses). I did upgrade a couple of major suit hands that I deemed an obvious GF opposite a strong club.

 

Still, a lot of 1S responses. Doesn't seem like 1C-1S, 1N-2m could be afforded as non-forcing because there is too much to unwind. Really, 1S is a difficult (as well as frequent) response because it can be 0+.

 

I wonder very much about the use of 1C-1D, 1H and 1C-1H, 1S as specifically minimum with 3-card support. That first available rebid is too important to not be forcing and how often, really, do we have a minimum with 3 trump and no better place to play (i.e. an independent suit)? And how often is that really the last makeable spot? If we're in a 4-3 fit, 1N will often play as well or better. If we're in a 5-3, opener can offer 1N to play and accept a transfer to a major.

[mikestar13]

An interesting structure. How does it work after 1♣-2♣ with responder's minor suit ambiguous and possible four card majors?

[PrecisionL]

An interesting structure. How does it work after 1♣-2♣ with responder's minor suit ambiguous and possible four card majors?

There are two possible approaches:

(1) Make the 1M response unlimited instead of 0-7 hcp, or

(2) 1

♣

- 2

♣

- 2

♦

(Asking about minors, no 4-cd M)

Now 2

♥

= 5+

♣

And 2

♠

= 5+

♦

2NT = 5

♣

+ 4

♦

3

♣

= 5

♦

+ 4

♣

[Cascade]

It seems like it devotes the sequences 1C-1D and 1C-1H and part of 1C-1S to what most systems would handle with 1C-1D (0-7) which is just a huge investment in negative hands.

 

 

I tallied 100 hands for these responses (as I understand them) and got...

 

1D-15

1H-18

1S-37

1N-6

2C-8

2D-9

2H-7

2S-1

 

 

As you have discovered the investment is in the most common hands. As such I think that such a structure has some merit.

 

The idea I wrote about a few days ago where over 1♣, 1♦ was positive, 1♥ negative and 1♠ and up semi-positive is based on the same principle, but a quite different structure, of devoting more space immediately to the common semi-positive hands.

[Cascade]

There are two possible approaches:

(1) Make the 1M response unlimited instead of 0-7 hcp, or

(2) 1

♣

- 2

♣

- 2

♦

(Asking about minors, no 4-cd M)

Now 2

♥

= 5+

♣

And 2

♠

= 5+

♦

2NT = 5

♣

+ 4

♦

3

♣

= 5

♦

+ 4

♣

 

How do you ask about the majors if 1M is not unlimited?

[straube]

As you have discovered the investment is in the most common hands. As such I think that such a structure has some merit.

 

The idea I wrote about a few days ago where over 1♣, 1♦ was positive, 1♥ negative and 1♠ and up semi-positive is based on the same principle, but a quite different structure, of devoting more space immediately to the common semi-positive hands.

 

Hi Wayne, thanks again for the QP slam tallies. I looked them over again a few days ago and they were very helpful to our practice slam bidding.

 

As far as PrecisionL's structure goes, doesn't it exactly not invest in the most common hands? Investment equals space afforded, right? For example, 0-7 without a major plus GF balanced together constitute a large percentage of hands and have to share the 1S bid. That's a tremendous logjam right there and I can't see how to free it. How do you know what to do if pd can be 0-24 after his 1S response?

 

The structure you described the other day would have had a frequency tally such as

 

1D-45%

1H-19%

1S-16%

etc

 

and it wouldn't raise a red flag (for me anyway) on frequency grounds. I've usually found that club structures that do not somewhat adhere to Fibonnaci have problems. Of course just because a structure does adhere to Fibonnaci doesn't mean it doesn't have problems.

[KingCovert]

Can I ask? What is the goal of this thread? It's kind of confusing to me. Are we seeking to improve this system?

[straube]

Can I ask? What is the goal of this thread? It's kind of confusing to me. Are we seeking to improve this system?

 

Well, PrecisionL posted the framework for his system on another thread. I felt I had a useful criticism of it, but to me his system didn't seem related to that other thread so I started a new one. Other folks seem to think Precision's structure could be good and want to know more about it, its continuations and so forth. When we post here, we invite questions, comments and feedback.

[KingCovert]

Well, PrecisionL posted the framework for his system on another thread. I felt I had a useful criticism of it, but to me his system didn't seem related to that other thread so I started a new one. Other folks seem to think Precision's structure could be good and want to know more about it, its continuations and so forth. When we post here, we invite questions, comments and feedback.

 

Okay, totally reasonable. Well, I have a lot of thoughts on this system, but, I'll just start with this question.

 

2♦ is GF, 5+♥. 2♥ is GF, 5+♠. What happens when opener has a void in your major?

 

Strong hands do tend to be rather balanced, it's a byproduct of having a lot of face-cards in your hand and there not being so many face-cards in any one suit. But, extreme shortness in your long suit can still occur.

 

After my partner asked me this simple question, I'm pretty much resolved to the idea that positive bids that show a single suit at the 2-level is losing bridge. You consume so much bidding room on a bid that doesn't fully describe your shape and doesn't actually set trump.

 

Imagine the auction:

1♣ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♠ (presumably showing 6+♠?)

 

This auction is a nightmare. Here you are with your void in spades, and you may not make a game above 3NT. Maybe responder has slam-ish values, but should responder continue in a horrible misfit? Even if you have slam-ish values, where will the cuebids come from?

 

So, as a point of discussion, does anyone agree that this is a problem? If you subscribe to the claim that consuming so much bidding room to very ineffectively describe your shape isn't a great idea (it's not horrible, but not great IMO), what changes should be made?

[Cascade]

As far as PrecisionL's structure goes, doesn't it exactly not invest in the most common hands? Investment equals space afforded, right? For example, 0-7 without a major plus GF balanced together constitute a large percentage of hands and have to share the 1S bid. That's a tremendous logjam right there and I can't see how to free it. How do you know what to do if pd can be 0-24 after his 1S response?

 

The structure you described the other day would have had a frequency tally such as

 

1D-45%

1H-19%

1S-16%

etc

 

and it wouldn't raise a red flag (for me anyway) on frequency grounds. I've usually found that club structures that do not somewhat adhere to Fibonnaci have problems. Of course just because a structure does adhere to Fibonnaci doesn't mean it doesn't have problems.

 

1. You don't have to know what to do. Partner will tell you on the next round most of the time. Having said that I think there are some problems. For example you can make a minimum bid with minimum values and partner can pass, invite or force depending on strength. With extra values you can jump. Although with too many extras you might run out of room since partner has a very wide range. Some of that is mitigated against if the only strong hands are balanced as maybe as few as one bid can be used in the first instance to show the strong hand types. Wide ranges do have other problems for example with opposition preemption.

 

2. Fibonnaci counts the number of bids available. Fibonnaci is strict in terms of counting distributions or features that can be shown by the relay principle. However, it is not completely clear to me that the frequencies need to mimic that or at least how closely they need to mimic the Fibonnaci frequencies, especially when some distributions are more common and because of the complexity that at different stages of the auction we free up additional steps. That is, initially we want to get as much information in below 3NT as that is the first limiting contract with strong hands. However when a major fit is found we suddenly have three or four more free steps; if we are going to 5m then there are more steps or if 5M is safe there are more steps; if we can see small slam and a grand is possible then we have another bunch of extra steps.

 

I suppose if you mean by "somewhat" that lower bids need higher frequencies for a structure to be efficient then I agree with your comment. That is loosely the structure of the Fibonnaci sequence.

 

3. Of course Fibonnaci structures do not have to be practical. Fibonnaci just requires low frequency at higher levels. If you put low frequency balanced minimums at the highest level then you will be absurdly high and telegraphing that the opponents double.

[straube]

I think we're in basic agreement. I used "somewhat" deliberately.

 

If Fibonnaci were followed exactly we'd have something like 1D 41%, 1H 25%, 1S 16% and so on, but Fibonnaci comparisons are really based on the idea that one hand is asking and the other hand is telling (so the asking hand always bids the next step) which is not what we're doing here. So if the strong hand is not making that step, then I think it resembles something like 1D 50%, 1H 25% 1S 12.5% and so on....but that's not exactly right either and perhaps someone has a better handle on the math than I do. Anyway, countering that you have the possibility for interference which means that responder should spend space more liberally; if you knew that RHO was going to preempt 3S every time, you'd want partner to divide his bids between 1D and 3H evenly. Nothing new here, we've had these sorts of discussions before.

 

I'm sure there are many other considerations and you mentioned some. I think Fibonnaci frequencies are still a useful guide.

[KingCovert]

I think we're in basic agreement. I used "somewhat" deliberately.

 

If Fibonnaci were followed exactly we'd have something like 1D 41%, 1H 25%, 1S 16% and so on, but Fibonnaci comparisons are really based on the idea that one hand is asking and the other hand is telling (so the asking hand always bids the next step) which is not what we're doing here. So if the strong hand is not making that step, then I think it resembles something like 1D 50%, 1H 25% 1S 12.5% and so on....but that's not exactly right either and perhaps someone has a better handle on the math than I do. Anyway, countering that you have the possibility for interference which means that responder should spend space more liberally; if you knew that RHO was going to preempt 3S every time, you'd want partner to divide his bids between 1D and 3H evenly. Nothing new here, we've had these sorts of discussions before.

 

I'm sure there are many other considerations and you mentioned some. I think Fibonnaci frequencies are still a useful guide.

 

I wrote a horrible post replying to this... Let me try again.

 

I understand that frequency is valuable, but, I do think you place too much value upon it. What's significantly more valuable is assessing the necessary continuations in a sequence in order to make that sequence effective. When structuring your system, you can only consider frequency after determining and then guaranteeing the required utility of your bids.

 

So, with this perspective in mind, I think you place too much focus on frequency. Many of the bids in this particular structure, for example, are just ineffective. While this might sound harsh, I'd never entertain playing this set of agreements as constructed, it's woefully insufficient when responder doesn't have fit with Opener. This creates problematic holes/burdens. Yet, you've already started talking about a frequency analysis of this system. That's a major case of cart-before-the-horse syndrome.

[KingCovert]

In an attempt to be more constructive, how about this?

 

1♦ = 0-7, 3334/3343 or a hand with a 5+card suit.

1♥ = 0-7, 3-♥, 4♠

1♠ = 0-7, 4♥, 3-♠

1NT = 0-7, 4♥, 4♠

 

Let's put some more power back into Opener's hand, and let's clarify Responder's major suit holdings when holding negative values.

 

 

It's really important when designing strong club responses not to turn the strong hand into a passenger. The only time you really want to consider doing that is when responder is so shapely (5-5, 6-5, 7-4) that they definitively know what suits should be played.

[straube]

Larry, you might want to take a look at Benlessard's system. Not recommending it necessarily, but Ben is a strong believer in finding a landing spot for hands where responder is very negative. If I remember right his responses are something like...

 

1D-hearts, very weak or GF

.....1H-willing to play 1H

1H-spades, very weak or GF

.....1S-willing to play 1S

1S-denies a major?, very weak or GF?

 

and then his other bids should be semipositives.

 

His is a relay system. Don't know if you like relay or not.

[PrecisionL]

Thanks. Very similar to what I play in another partnership.