[Jinksy]

I dug through the archives here and found a bit of discussion of Keri, which led me to these others, but found very little discussion of them, still less how they compare to each other. Was wondering if anyone had experience of playing Heeman or ETM, especially if you've tried both them and Keri - in which case, how did they compare?

The options I've found:

Keri
Hitchhiker (aka condensed transfers - Gerben's system)
Heeman
Everything that Matters

Are there any others? How do they compare to each other?

The first two have a fundamental idea after which the continuations are relatively malleable (eg 2C puppeting 2D so that you can play in 2M for Keri, 2D asking for opener's short major so you can decide whether your two-suiter is pulling its weight for Hitchiker). The latter two seem more complicated - more of a large set of interdependent conventions than a core idea.

Thoughts? Are there other systems worth investigating? (I'm interested primarily in their use for a mini or weak NT)

[FrancesHinden]

Write your own. It's not that hard, and it's an interesting exercise.
First, define your objectives and rank them - these will be some combination of
- stop in 2M with an invitational hand opposite a minimum
- conceal information about declarer's hand
- get to good 5-2 major suit games instead of hopeless 3NT
- avoid playing in 2NT
- bid minor suit games accurately
- bid slams more accurately
- be able to find a 4-4 major suit fit and then decide to play in 3NT
- be able to offer to play in 3NT when responder has a 6-card major
- bid to game with as few artificial bids as possible
- find a good 2-level contract to play in when responder is very weak
- coping with intervention if 4th hand bids

...then start playing around with different options

I'm on my third home-brewed system (over 25 years or so, it's not like we keep re-writing it) and we get them slightly better each time

[Cthulhu D]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-12, 13:12, said:

I'm on my third home-brewed system (over 25 years or so, it's not like we keep re-writing it) and we get them slightly better each time

I think for anyone who isn't a national champion player like yourself, it's worth starting with whatever the latest in cutting edge thinking is, and then changing it to meet whatever your defined objectives are.

Edit: In starting with, I mean that you need to think about why expert X has structured the system like that. If you don't understand it's not wise tinkering with it, but trying to understand is an important effort.

[Jinksy]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-12, 13:12, said:

Write your own. It's not that hard, and it's an interesting exercise.

That's the main purpose of this exercise, but each of the systems above has at least one mechanism I hadn't considered, hence me being keen to know a) if there are other plausible ones and b) how effective people have found the different options.

I have a lot of time for MickyB's argument that the benefit of normal Stayman is so high on eg 4450, 4351 hands where whether you even invite depends on P's reponse that any attempt to change that mechanism is off to a bad start. But having 2C force 2D seems to open so many doors that it feels like a worthwhile sacrifice...

[Jinksy]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-12, 13:12, said:

- bid minor suit games accurately

Here's a specific question - how much have you (/others) found this relevant to bidding after a NT opening? (does it make a difference what the range is?) My instinct is to mostly give up on minor games except on really extreme hands, and just bid 3N without telling the defence all this info about my and p's minor suit holdings.

[mgoetze]

Jinksy, on 2012-April-12, 10:13, said:

I dug through the archives here and found a bit of discussion of Keri, which led me to these others, but found very little discussion of them

BBF Systems Index
As always I appreciate suggestions for worthwhile threads to include.

[Gerben42]

Michael you might want to update the link to my files

Gerben

[mgoetze]

Gerben42, on 2012-April-16, 06:54, said:

Michael you might want to update the link to my files

Done but could you please stop changing it every year?

[gnasher]

I play something loosely based on Heeman. Some of the differences are:
- We couldn't see any point the way that major-suit transfers are five if weak and four if strong, and it semeed to make competitive auctions more complicated. Hence we decided to put the 4-card major hands through 2♣ and the 5-card major hands through 2♦ and 2♥.
- We added a few more puppets. For example, in Heeman 1NT-1♣;2♦-2♠ shows one or both minors, and natural bidding starts at that point. Instead, we play the 2♠ as a puppet to 2NT, then 3♣ as a further puppet to 3♦. That gives us (after 1NT-1♣;2♦-2♠;2NT):
* 3♣ shows diamonds and forces 3♦, then 3♥/♠/NT shows a specific shortage
* 3♦ shows both minors, game-forcing
* 3♥/♠/NT shows clubs and a specific shortage
- Instead of CONFIT we play a Baron-like method
- We replaced the weak-doubleton ask with 2NT showing a one-suited invitation in any suit, typically AQxxxx and nothing else.
- We replaced the 3♦ Multi with 3♦ and 3♥ as transfers, invitational one-suited, 5332 slam try, or 6322 slam try.

[benlessard]

http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry243019

this is old however but might be a starting point.

http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry329371

more recent.

[Gerben42]

Nuremberg is deepest Weak NT country, and with most pickup partners here I play 2-way Stayman. What I have noticed compared to my own system (Hitchhiker) is that:

* Hands with game interest + 5cM are terrible using forcing Stayman, which is what Hitchhiker was designed for. The best thing to do with unbalanced invites (i.e. 10-count 5143 or so opposite 12-14) is to bid 2M and hope some opponent gets greedy and reopens
* Slam bidding is better using forcing Stayman than with Hitchhiker.

Not that I already knew this, but the question is how often do you have a slam after 1NT?

Another variation I found was 2♣ asking for the number of ♥:

Answers:
2♦ = 3♥
2♥ = 4♥
2♠ = 2♥ and therefore 3+♠

With weak both majors you already get partner's preference and with 5♥ invite you know if there is a fit or not.

[FrancesHinden]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-12, 19:19, said:

I think for anyone who isn't a national champion player like yourself, it's worth starting with whatever the latest in cutting edge thinking is, and then changing it to meet whatever your defined objectives are.

Edit: In starting with, I mean that you need to think about why expert X has structured the system like that. If you don't understand it's not wise tinkering with it, but trying to understand is an important effort.

I was writing system a long time before I won anything (some might say there is a causal statement there, but I don't think so).

[FrancesHinden]

Jinksy, on 2012-April-13, 03:12, said:

Here's a specific question - how much have you (/others) found this relevant to bidding after a NT opening? (does it make a difference what the range is?) My instinct is to mostly give up on minor games except on really extreme hands, and just bid 3N without telling the defence all this info about my and p's minor suit holdings.

It depends a bit on the form of scoring, that approach of 'just bid 3N' has obviously more going for it at matchpoints.
In practice it's actually not so just about playing in 5m, but also about bidding perfect fit minor suit slams, and also playing in a 5-2 major suit fit instead of 3NT sometimes.

Many detailed systems in response to 1NT include ways of showing a 3-suiter with a shortage in a major (one common method is 1NT-3M shows 0 or 1 of that major). That's one way of playing in either 5m or a 4-3 major suit fit when 3NT is bad.

[FrancesHinden]

Gerben42, on 2012-April-17, 05:09, said:

Nuremberg is deepest Weak NT country, and with most pickup partners here I play 2-way Stayman. What I have noticed compared to my own system (Hitchhiker) is that:

* Hands with game interest + 5cM are terrible using forcing Stayman, which is what Hitchhiker was designed for. The best thing to do with unbalanced invites (i.e. 10-count 5143 or so opposite 12-14) is to bid 2M and hope some opponent gets greedy and reopens
* Slam bidding is better using forcing Stayman than with Hitchhiker.

Not that I already knew this, but the question is how often do you have a slam after 1NT?

Another variation I found was 2♣ asking for the number of ♥:

Answers:
2♦ = 3♥
2♥ = 4♥
2♠ = 2♥ and therefore 3+♠

With weak both majors you already get partner's preference and with 5♥ invite you know if there is a fit or not.

This does rather depend on opener not being 2245 or 2263/2236

Which brings us to another point about designing system in response to 1NT - what do you open 1NT with? If you freely have a 5-card major, you may need to take that into account; if you often have a 6-card minor similarly. If you are very pure and only have 4333, 4432 or 5332 with a 5-card minor, then you can have much more delicate shape relay type auctions because opener's hand is much more tightly defined.

[MickyB]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-18, 14:11, said:

This does rather depend on opener not being 2245 or 2263/2236

Which brings us to another point about designing system in response to 1NT - what do you open 1NT with? If you freely have a 5-card major, you may need to take that into account; if you often have a 6-card minor similarly. If you are very pure and only have 4333, 4432 or 5332 with a 5-card minor, then you can have much more delicate shape relay type auctions because opener's hand is much more tightly defined.

Glad you phrased it that way round. I'd never give up opening 1NT on 22(54) and the like just to make a set of responses work.

[Cthulhu D]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-18, 14:06, said:

I was writing system a long time before I won anything (some might say there is a causal statement there, but I don't think so).

I'm agree that it's a good thing to write your own system - it forces you to think about why things work like that, rather than just 'operating' the system.

I just also think that it's right to start by surveying what 'best practice' is and understanding why it operates like that. Then from that base, doing your own thing. You see further when you stand on the shoulders of giants and all that. Plus it exposes you to ideas that are a bit out of the box so you will question your current local maximum.

Edit: It is possible that this reflects my personal biases from my professional career, where step 1 is almost always 'so what's everyone else doing with the same problem...'

[Siegmund]

I am not convinced I've seen anything better than Stayman and transfers, but I do enjoy experimenting with variations on ETM's approach where 2C asks about hearts and 2D asks about spades. That approach works better the more constrained opener's distribution, as mentioned above.

I have always thought 2-way stayman was the wrong way around -- 2C either drop-dead or GF, and either 2D for all invitations, or 2D for inv 4CM hands plus a few other GF hands, seemed like it might work better. But I've never seriously played 2-way stayman or bothered to experiment extensively with it.

[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2012-April-16, 11:05, said:

I play something loosely based on Heeman. Some of the differences are:
- We couldn't see any point the way that major-suit transfers are five if weak and four if strong, and it semeed to make competitive auctions more complicated. Hence we decided to put the 4-card major hands through 2♣ and the 5-card major hands through 2♦ and 2♥.
- We added a few more puppets. For example, in Heeman 1NT-1♣;2♦-2♠ shows one or both minors, and natural bidding starts at that point. Instead, we play the 2♠ as a puppet to 2NT, then 3♣ as a further puppet to 3♦. That gives us (after 1NT-1♣;2♦-2♠;2NT):
* 3♣ shows diamonds and forces 3♦, then 3♥/♠/NT shows a specific shortage
* 3♦ shows both minors, game-forcing
* 3♥/♠/NT shows clubs and a specific shortage
- Instead of CONFIT we play a Baron-like method
- We replaced the weak-doubleton ask with 2NT showing a one-suited invitation in any suit, typically AQxxxx and nothing else.
- We replaced the 3♦ Multi with 3♦ and 3♥ as transfers, invitational one-suited, 5332 slam try, or 6322 slam try.

How do you show hands with both majors?