[Robert]

Hello David C

1C-1S showing a zero count 3433 is 'somewhat' dangerous. Bidding 1C-1NT is even more dangerous.

If I wanted to use transfers and lost my 1C-1D negative bid, I think that I would try transferring to my lowest 3-4 card major and pass openers next bid if at all possible.

A reverse style Polish Club type auction after 1C-1D(neg.)-1M shows 3-4 cards.

1C-1D*=hearts(3-4 cards with 3343 seems better than 1C-1S saying I may have zero HCPs.

Didn't he say that he 'accepts' the transfer with minimum values and bids higher with extras. If he accepts, you pass.

If he bids higher, you pass anything that is not forcing. I do not recall his 1NT range. If it is 14-16, he could bid 1C-1D*-1NT showing 17-19.

I will close now and go back and check his 1NT range.

Are we looking at the same posts. I see 1S(which I believe=diamonds)-2C
which you think shows 4Ss and 0+HCP.

If the 1S bid shows spades fine. If the 1S* bid shows diamonds, bidding 1S*-2C showing 4 spades(with 0+HCP) does not appear to be a playable method.

I am curious. I will read the first post again very carefully.

Regards,
Robert

[Robert]

Hello David C

awm first post says 14-16HCP 1NT so my idea of bidding 1C-1D* 3+ heart transfer can be followed by a 1NT bid showing 17-19.

Partner can use Stayman or transfers to find out about major contracts 'if' he has values. If he is weak with five plus in hearts, he can transfer or pass as their methods and style permit.

I will look around some more to see what the 1S-2C auction means.

Regards,
Robert

[Robert]

hello David C

As far as I can make out: 1S=diamonds and 2C* does indeed show 4 spades(he says that it is a one round force in brackets) He also lists 1S*-2D*=no major and
0-8HCP.

I did not read the follow up details so my mistake in not 'knowing' that 1S-2C is 4 spades. You might have misread the 2D auction showing 0-8HCP and the one round force following 1S*-2C spade showing bid.

Ain't science wonderful?

It appears to me that the auction 1S showing diamonds-1NT and 2C showing hearts and spades respectively(and a one round force) is not nearly as good a method of bidding as 1D natural-1M(a one round force) since we can bail out in 1NT in the second auction.

Do you pass with less than 10HCP over a 1S* opening showing diamonds?
Forcing with much less than 10HCP over a 1S* opening is very dangerous. After you bid a forcing one round 1S*-1NT or 2C you cannot bail out in 1NT if the hands do not fit. Bidding 2NT without serious values is also not recommended.

I also do not see how you get to a 5-3 fit in responders major after 1S*-1NT or 2C showing a 4+ major. If parnter accepts with 3, responder still does not know if he has a 4-3 or 4-4 fit.

Maybe the Hackett method of majors first should be tried. You could use the
Little Major method where 1C and 1D showed 4+ cards in hearts and spades.

Natural one suiters of 2C and 2D and an opening 1S showing at least 5-4 minors.
The Little Majors' 1H* opening showing 20+HCP could somewhat limit the other system openings.

Maybe awm can post so more information on his methods?

Regards,
Robert

[awm]

Here are responses to 1♣:

1♦ = 4+♥
1♥ = 4+♠
1♠ = no 4cM, if balanced will be 0-5 or 12+, if unbalanced less than GF
1NT = 6-11, i.e. enough to cope with a 2NT raise from 17-19, but no game opposite 11-13
2♣/♦ = natural and game force
3♣/♦ = single suited invite (something like 10-11, 6+ cards)

After 1♣-1♠:

1NT = balanced hand, 11-13 or 17-19; 3-suited also possible if no 5-card clubs
2♣ = 5+♣, not a lot extra
2♦ = very strong hand, balanced or (4441) type
2♥/♠ = normal reverse, 5+♣ 4cM
2NT = super-strong club hand, no side major
3♣ = a sound 3♣ call

After 1♣-1♠-1NT: pass with 0-5, 2m with a suit (expect partner to pass w/11-13), 2NT=12-13, major suits and 3-level used to show invitational minor two suiters.

After 1♠-2♦ (min no major): pass with a minimum; 2M would be a sound reverse after a standard auction like 1♦-1NT, 2NT is super-strong hand, 3♦ is NF but enough extras for game possibilities.

After 1♠-1NT/2♣ (showing H/S): 2♣ shows 4 spades, frequently raise with 3-card support of partner's major, 2♦ rebid natural minimum, others much like after 1♠-2♦.

As to "don't we lose the ability to rebid 1NT": the 1♠ opening is generally an unbalanced hand with 5+♦, with 2353 or the like normally open 1♣ or 1NT. So these aren't hands that most people will bid/rebid 1NT on anyway. The only real loss here is that it becomes difficult to show hands with 5-4 in the minors; you don't really lose major fits.

[david_c]

Robert, on Nov 6 2005, 03:57 AM, said:

It appears to me that the auction 1S showing diamonds-1NT and 2C showing hearts and spades respectively(and a one round force) is not nearly as good a method of bidding as 1D natural-1M(a one round force) since we can bail out in 1NT in the second auction. 

Robert,

I think you are now realising why my first comment on this system was, "I suppose the weak point is likely to be the 1♠ opening. Having lots of forcing opening bids decreases the total amount of space available in the system, and probably 1♠ is where you will feel this most acutely."

For what it's worth, I think Adam's way of responding to 1♠ is the best available, but it still has big problems. You'll be playing a lot of 2♦ contracts on 5-1 fits. And the range for 1♠:2♣,2♦ and 1♠:2♣,2♠ is very wide so you're probably going to be missing a lot of games (or, if you prefer, stretching to silly ones). If you try to make the range narrower then you have a corresponding problem with wide-ranging reverses. And after all that you still have to sort out responder's rebid problem, at the two-level with a range of "0+" to deal with.

[Robert]

Hello David C

I never had any doubts about your comments about areas of possible(or likely)concern in a 'different' approach to system building methods.

Your comments have been 'right on the money' from my viewpoint. We merely had different views 'when' I did not study(read?) the details of the awm system post. You had some doubts about parts of the system and I shared most(all) of your concerns. We only had a major difference of opinion when I did not realize that 1S*-2C showed 'spades. Me bad. Sorry.

I collect bidding systems. I often build or modify whole systems or conventions.

Sometimes I spent several happy(?) hours trying to write a new approach to bidding only to discover the logic is fine, however, the bidding space does not allow the use of the new bidding.

Sometimes I decide to throw the whole effort out when I discover that I am thinking, "What was I thinking?"

I find that the study of a system sometimes shows me a new convention 'that I like.' My normal style is to modify to suit my own bidding style.

awm appears to have put in a lot of work on his system. If he enjoys playing it, more power to him.

My system choices have varied over the decades. I tend to change systems fairly often. I have played a lot of KS, Precision and Blue Team Club.

I have tinkered(and played) Roman Club, a forcing pass variant, many Precision type base systems, Power, Goren, Standard American, an almost pure canape system(with and without the forcing pass), Roth Stone and also some Acol. I left out Polish Club and a couple of others, but you should get the general idea.

Sometimes I played opening 1NT ranges down to 8-10HCP . Opposite a forcing pass, an 8-10 'opening bid' is fairly safe. i was a bit worried about playing an opening bid of !C* to show 0-9HCP(playing a forcing pass system), however, we did not often come to grief and the system was a lot of fun to play.

awm likely has that same feeling about his system. awm build an unusual system, which I normally like to read. I tend to 'copy' ideas or conventions that suit my bridge style.

I would be very nervous about the other pair doubling for takeout. If one opponent 'hears' that his partner has values, the rebid of 1NT showing 11-13 or
17-19 might start a 'doubling party.'

They could rule out responder's 12+ range and often rule out openers 17+HCP range. That would leave the system players with 0-5HCP opposite 11-13HCP with at least one opponent reaching for a Red card.

Even an overcall might 'turn loose the doubling dogs.' If even one of my current 8+HCP overcalls recieved a HCP showing double, a peek at my 15HCP overcall would strongly suggest that we do not have a fit and that we also have game(near game?) values. A Red card would be picked up, hopefully in tempo.

I did find awm system notes of some interest. It is not a system that fits my style, however, if I find one idea(convention) that I like, I am well pleased. awm has good ideas, the whole system just does not fit into my bridge playing style.

Regards,
Robert

[awm]

Well, I didn't really expect anyone to fall in love with this transfer method and want to adopt it. I'm just trying to present a contrasting view, because I've noticed certain approaches gaining a great deal of popularity in these forums. In particular:

(1) Strong or prepared 1♣ openings.

(2) Four card majors with possible canape.

(3) Highly artificial preempt structures.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of any of these approaches, and I wanted to float some ideas about how to design a system which is substantially different from both standard bidding and the systems which seem to be "popular."

[Flame]

Nice system awm dont take the silence the wrong way.
Thought of tranfers FN last week too (im guessing lots of systems freak has similar thoughts) you give some excelet bidding sequences there.
I wouldnt play exactly the same but might steal parts of it.
Thx

[Robert]

Hi awm No offense intended. I am a die hard transfer fan. I read a double transfer concept at the Cambridge web site a couple of years ago which changed my bidding style.

I have added layers of new meaning into my bids over 1NT. If you play a double transfer system, you gain additional meanings and also additional 'branches.'

Other places sometimes gain by adding double transfer sequences. Just getting a single step back is a system designers dream. With double transfers, you sometimes get several additional steps/meanings.

I really like to keep the bidding under 3NT and double transfers often give me the additional room.

Anyone reading my system notes could make a comment that I am completely mad. I have many long strings of 'double' transfer bids that convey a lot of information, however, they are not for the timid. One slip and the whole thing falls apart.

I change back and forth in my system 'likes.' I played a lot of weak four card majors when I played Blue Team Club. I converted to 5 card majors when I played Precision or KS.

My opening NT ranges from 8-10HCP to 17-20 in Roman Club or the Power system. I have also tinkered with Romex and its forcing 1NT opening.

When I played Roman Club, you sometimes have to open in a 3 card major. That is the system bid with3=3=2=5 because you cannot open 1C and you are playing a canape system. You open 1H and rebid 2Cs.

I modified the system into a 4 card major system with a 'shorter' 1D opening after making a major preference with 4 card support and found partner with a 3=3=2=5 shape.

Roman Club was fun to play, but that auction had to go.

Regards,
Robert