[bluecalm]

Let's say we design standardish system with either T-Walsh, Walsh or up-the-line bidding.
Our task is to decide what to do with 18-19 balanced hands. Some possible approaches are:
a)standard: put it in both 1C and 1D and then jump to 2N
b)improved standard: put it in 1C and jump to 2N after 1/1 response
c)T-Walsh std: put it into 1C but then jump to 2N after transfer anyway
d)T-Walsh alternative: put it into 1C and then always accept transfer with 12-14 (regardless of fit degree) and bid 1N with 18-19. Jumping is required only after 1S response.
e)negative 1D: like in Polish systems, use 1D negative response and bit 1N with 18-19 after that; then normal 1/1 is constructive and jumping to 2N is not a problem
f)put it in 2D opening

Now, the major concern in standard is that if it goes: 1m - 1M - 2N then you are often too high already and if you wish to have a way to get out in 3 level partial your game/slam system suffers. This is a problem especially at matchpoints. This hand comes up about one time in 48 and my estimation is that in about half the cases you will suffer by not being able to stop in comfortable 1N or 2M contract.
Another concern is competitive bidding when it's often important if partner has strong hand with real suit or 18-19 balanced (this is why a) is very bad).

I feel that f) is clearly superior to b) because of competitive stuff but also constructive bidding is much better when we implement f). I feel however that cost of f) is still high - we lose 1N and 2H partials (as well as garbage stayman) comparing to d) and e). I feel this is big at matchpoints. Suffering once every two 50 hand sessions because of your system comparing to precision or polish club guys sounds bad not to mention that having 2D opening for other things is valuable too.

This is why I am leaning toward eitehr d) or e). I have a lot of experience with e) and it's decent but 1C - 1D auctions are clumsy and the whole system is very passive making it easy for opponents to get into the bidding at low level. I have 0 experience playing d) but it looks tempting. My friend is currently doing this in his partnership and he likes it.

Thoughts ?

[paulg]

I play (d) except that we reverse the 2♦ and 2NT rebids (i.e., 1♣-1♠-2♦ shows 18-19 balanced and 2NT shows the diamond reverse) as played by Fredin-Fallenius-Welland.

Lauria implied in an interview that he disliked the 2♦ opening bid and sequences, but put up with them because of the competitive advantages in other auctions.

[MickyB]

g) 1C = nat/17-19 NT, 1D = nat/11-13 NT. Now 1C:1S!, 1N = 17-19 NT. Clearly better uncontested auctions than the alternatives and arguably better contested auctions than many of them - having both weak bal and strong bal in the same opening puts a lot of pressure on the strong bal hands IMO.

[dake50]

Into 1C and a Gazilli-like 2C(even 2D) rebid to get
partner to show his stuff or have no stuff.

[steve2005]

1♣-1♦(walsh)-1♥Kokish relay-1♠(pretty well forced)-1N (18-19 or 18-20 depending on your 2N range)
after a 1♥/1♠ jump to 2N with 18-19 or 18-20

[han]

I think I've played all and they all seemed fine. I didn't understand why b is an improvement over a btw.

[bluecalm]

Quote

. I didn't understand why b is an improvement over a btw.

Mainly because in comp when you open 1m and then double you have either real suit or 18-19bal. This is bad but it's twice as bad if you have this problem after both 1C and 1D.

[han]

ok, but then if you double you could have only 2 clubs. And if you rebid 2NT your hand is less well defined, which may hurt your slam bidding. Seems like your 1C opening will be worse and your 1D opening will be better, but both marginally.

[bluecalm]

I don't agree it's marginal.
Strong hands are one thing, being able to compete in diamonds opposite weak hand is another (and freeing 2NT for other purposes after 1D is yet another)
I know it's not a proof but it's still strong argument: there isn't one elite pair playing 1D as 3+ despite variety of systems and approaches represented in that group.

EDIT: apparently Levin - Weinstein used to do that but it seems they open 1C now or maybe they vary it according to some other factors

[han]

I didn't know that there were no elite pairs playing 1D as 3+.

[gnasher]

Are any of these pairs any good?

http://bridgefiles.n...-moss+notes.pdf

http://www.clairebri...-wooldridge.pdf

http://bridgefiles.n...tel-stansby.pdf

bluecalm said:

EDIT: apparently Levin - Weinstein used to do that but it seems they open 1C now or maybe they vary it according to some other factors

Their convention card for the 2012 trials says that 1♦ can be 3.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-August-26, 05:24

[bluecalm]

Yes, very good. Far from elite though (elite is by definition very narrow group -pairs which win major things regularly ).
Only Gitelman-Moss qualify by recent results but they aren't full time players let alone ones spending much time on honing their system.

[paulg]

 bluecalm, on 2012-August-26, 05:21, said:

Yes, very good. Far from elite though (elite is by definition very narrow group -pairs which win major things regularly ).
Only Gitelman-Moss qualify by recent results but they aren't full time players let alone ones spending much time on honing their system.

I think you are lucky that down votes are not enabled, as well as being a poor way to engender input from all of the non-elite who have only played in the Bermuda Bowl final.

[han]

How many elite pairs are there in the world that play a standardish system? Two? If neither of those two pairs plays that 1D can be 3, I don't consider that very strong evidence indeed.

[gnasher]

What about these guys?

http://info.ecatsbri...geland-nybo.pdf

http://info.ecatsbri...pis-quantin.pdf

http://info.ecatsbri...emo-helness.pdf

The last pair have only been representing their country for a year or so, so they probably don't count. Still, they're shown a bit of promise.

[glen]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-26, 08:54, said:

What about these guys?

http://info.ecatsbri...geland-nybo.pdf

http://info.ecatsbri...pis-quantin.pdf

http://info.ecatsbri...emo-helness.pdf

The last pair have only been representing their country for a year or so, so they probably don't count. Still, they're shown a bit of promise.

The first and last pair use 4+

[gnasher]

 glen, on 2012-August-26, 09:06, said:

The first and last pair use 4+

I'm getting a bit confused. Are we talking about who plays Bluecalm's option (a), or who plays (a) with a 3-card diamond opening? Helgemo-Helness and Brogeland-Nybo both play (a), but they do it with a 4-card diamond opening.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-August-26, 09:21

[bluecalm]

Quote

The first and last pair use 4+

Yeah but admittedly they open (or at least used to as I didn't import the newest hands) 1D with 18-19 and 4D.
I am interested in 18-19 bal part. 1D on diamonds is another topic and I think it's boring.
I was responding to han's 3+ comment when I mentioned elite partnership. 1D with 18-19 and 4 D is another matter altogether (I still think it's worse than 1C but I think it's close).

[glen]

g) putting 18-19 into 2♣ strong opening, for examples:
http://www.ecatsbrid...-Hoftaniska.pdf
http://www.ecatsbrid...dala-bocchi.pdf
h) 2♣ as 18-19, 2♦ as strong, for example:
http://info.ecatsbri...cchi-duboin.pdf

[FM75]

 bluecalm, on 2012-August-25, 15:53, said:

Now, the major concern in standard is that if it goes: 1m - 1M - 2N then you are often too high already and if you wish to have a way to get out in 3 level partial your game/slam system suffers. This is a problem especially at matchpoints. This hand comes up about one time in 48 and my estimation is that in about half the cases you will suffer by not being able to stop in comfortable 1N or 2M contract.

Thoughts ?

I think you have over-estimated the frequency by nearly a factor of two.

18-19 occurs about 2.6 % of the time, but imposing balanced - defined as any 5332, 4432, or 4333 cuts the frequency almost exactly in half, to 1.3%. Eliminate 5332 reduces the frequency to 0.9%. If you consider that roughly 50% of the 5332's could be opened 1M instead of 1m, then a good estimate of the 18-19 balanced including any 5332, where the 5 is a minor would be about 1.1%.

You can play with this:

balanced = shape(north, any 5332 + any 4333 + any 4423)
strength = hcp(north)>=18 and hcp (north) < 20

strength and balanced

action frequency "hcp" (hcp(north), 18, 19)

in the BBO Dealer program. (Paste the script in and modify as you see fit.)

That script is not sufficient to elicit 1M responses, unless they are forced, which might reduce the frequency further.

This post has been edited by FM75: 2012-August-26, 09:35