[awm]

Sam and I have gone through a lot of system changes because we both like to tinker, we have relatively good memories for complex stuff, and we're a strong enough partnership and playing against high enough level opposition that we think it matters. Basically:

We started off playing Recursive Diamond because we both knew it (because of partners in common) and it's goofy and fun. The system picks up a lot of good results on shapely/light/limited major suit openings and natural/intermediate 2-minor openings, but the sequences after the strong artificial 1♦ opening are nothing special. We decided there must be a way to improve our slam bidding after strong hands without sacrificing the rest of the opening structure. Looking at what many of our friends were playing (and methods again that we were both familiar with from other partnerships) we switched to a strong club system with transfer-oriented symmetric relay responses while retaining our 1M/2m opening structure.

The big problem at this point seemed to be that people always bid over our strong club. All this relay stuff we spent so much time perfecting basically never came up in practice, and we ended up in a lot of "guess" auctions at high levels. At this point we considered switching to a two-way club style opening structure, but we didn't want to give up on the relays since they seemed to work so beautifully in bidding practice (and we do occasionally have an unobstructed auction). After a bunch of work to try to hybridize polish club with symmetric relay we came up with something halfway decent and tried it for a while. The problem was, getting to the right spot after people preempt a polish club seemed even more difficult because responder can't bid freely on nine counts in case opener has a weak notrump. Rather than adopt negative free bids (which seems to be what many two-way club players do) which would take us well out of our comfort zone, we decided to give up on the experiment and revert to strong club. After all, plenty of top pairs play a big club, it can't be all bad...

More recently we discovered three issues with symmetric-style relays. One is the previously mentioned "finding the queen" problem. A second was the sequence 1♣(strong)-1♦(neg)-1♥(really strong) which burns a lot of space and also makes it harder to describe the minimum club openers that include hearts. The third was that sometimes the wrong hand seems to be doing the describing and it would be nice to give responder a chance to relay on some hands. After a fair amount of experimenting we decided to switch to AKQ points with direct bids showing "semi-positive up to min GF" and 1♦ being either desperately weak or a slammish GF. This also helps a bit with the "what happens when opponents interfere" issues because responder makes the ambiguous 1♦ call less often (and when he does and then opponents bid, opener usually wants to pass).

Another interesting situation arose when we noticed that in general our results over our (natural intermediate) 2♦ opening seemed to be better than over our (natural intermediate) 2♣. This is kind of weird because we obviously have more space over 2♣. We were playing basically natural bidding over the diamonds and something close to Wei precision over 2♣. We tried a bunch of different relay-based structures over the 2♣ with marginal improvement. After a lot of work, we devised a transfer-based structure that seemed to be excellent, and spent a lot of time in bidding practice perfecting it. Then we played a bunch of real hands, and realized that this structure was so complex (and totally different from anything else in our system) that we couldn't remember it, and scrapped it. Now we play 2M forcing and 2♦ relay (we can remember relays because we use the same relay structure throughout pretty much).

[foo]

<Advertisement mode on>

Adam, your post is basically an advetisement for an KS-like 2/1 GF, 1N= 12-14, 5cM, sound minor opening system with asking bids and relays in certain auctions.

Diving into a well developed KS system's 1m auction is =much= more dangerous than diving into a Strong C or Strong D auction.

...and it is much more flexible than any of the Forcing 1C or 1D systems.

<Advertisement mode off>

[MickyB]

foo, on May 23 2006, 11:42 PM, said:

<Advertisement mode on>

Adam, your post is basically an advetisement for an KS-like 2/1 GF, 1N= 12-14, 5cM, sound minor opening system with asking bids and relays in certain auctions.

Nono, you misread - he was advertising Siege.

[awm]

Well it's easy to read what I'm saying as advertising anything I suppose. Sam and my experience has been that controlled, light, natural openings are a big win and fit well with our general style. Of course, your experience may differ, but we find that we usually win by opening 1M with hands like:

AQxxx
x
Kxxx
xxx

We don't feel particularly comfortable with styles that advocate 1M with a range of 8-21 hcp because we find it difficult to control the subsequent auction. We don't like "four-card major maybe canape" styles because we feel that a big part of the advantage of "getting in early" is knowing opener's longest suit which kind of goes by the wayside if you open 1♠ with four small spades and a longer minor. We also feel that light major openings interact poorly with styles where responder must immediately decide whether to game force (i.e. 2/1 GF or GF relay) because the degree of strength necessary makes such a GF too infrequent.

We're also not big fans of the weak NT opening at vulnerable, having gone for -200 at MPs opposite no game way too many times.

Of course, there's no reason our experience has to match anyone else's. Some players are more comfortable with certain styles than others.

[foo]

We find that we usually win by opening 1M with hands like:

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx

We don't feel particularly comfortable with styles that advocate 1M with a range of 8-21 hcp because we find it difficult to control the subsequent auction. We don't like "four-card major maybe canape" styles because we feel that a big part of the advantage of "getting in early" is knowing opener's longest suit which kind of goes by the wayside if you open 1♠ with four small spades and a longer minor. We also feel that light major openings interact poorly with styles where responder must immediately decide whether to game force (i.e. 2/1 GF or GF relay) because the degree of strength necessary makes such a GF too infrequent.
...and there's no problem opening disciplined light 1M openings w/ 2+ Quick Tricks and an easy rebid like the one above in a longest suit first based 2/1 GF style. You just have to make sure you and GOP are on the same wavelength.

If you are going to open hands like the above in a 2/1 GF context, then Responder has to make sure they do not shade their 2/1's in terms of controls and trick taking power.
...and your Declarer play has to be appropriate to how aggressively you are bidding.


We're also not big fans of the weak NT opening at vulnerable, having gone for -200 at MPs opposite no game way too many times.
YMMV. IME, _disciplined_ 1N= 12-14 openings are a win over the long run at all vulnerabilities in any form of scoring.

Disciplined 1N=12-14 openings, a decent 1N response structure, and good judgement will find good games (and avoid bad ones) that are more difficult to make the correct decision on in Strong NT systems.

When there is no game for Us on the board, disciplined 1N= 12-14 openings give Us an advantage in winning the partscore battle. TBF, this is negated to some extent by the fact that Weak(er) NT's mean We will play 1N on some hands where We should be in a suit contract that Strong(er) NT pairs will not.

IME, the pairs who most tend to get in trouble are the ones who use 1N= 11-14 as an undisciplined semi-preempt.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 24 2006, 04:12 AM, said:

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx


..and there's no problem opening disciplined light 1M openings w/ 2+ Quick Tricks and an easy rebid like the one above in a longest suit first based 2/1 GF style.  You just have to make sure you and GOP are on the same wavelength.

I think that there is a major issue with opening that kind of crap playing 2/1 game force.

If your 2/1 responses need enough strength to offer a reasonable chance of game opposite a misfitting nine count then your 2/1 are going to be few and far between. In turn, your forcing NT structure is going to get severely overloaded.

The 2/1 response structure doesn't support a light opening style particularly well.

[foo]

hrothgar, on May 23 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

foo, on May 24 2006, 04:12 AM, said:

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx


..and there's no problem opening disciplined light 1M openings w/ 2+ Quick Tricks and an easy rebid like the one above in a longest suit first based 2/1 GF style.  You just have to make sure you and GOP are on the same wavelength.

I think that there is a major issue with opening that kind of crap playing 2/1 game force.

If your 2/1 responses need enough strength to offer a reasonable chance of game opposite a misfitting nine count then your 2/1 are going to be few and far between. In turn, your forcing NT structure is going to get severely overloaded.

The 2/1 response structure doesn't support a light opening style particularly well.

The given hand is not as, err, bad, as some might think. {Let's keep the language clean given the guidelines of the forums?}

People open quacky 12 HCP 8 loser hands with 2- controls 1m all the time playing Standard w/o doubts or hesitation when those hands are =worse= hands than the one awm posted.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on May 23 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

foo, on May 24 2006, 04:12 AM, said:

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx


..and there's no problem opening disciplined light 1M openings w/ 2+ Quick Tricks and an easy rebid like the one above in a longest suit first based 2/1 GF style.  You just have to make sure you and GOP are on the same wavelength.

I think that there is a major issue with opening that kind of crap playing 2/1 game force.

If your 2/1 responses need enough strength to offer a reasonable chance of game opposite a misfitting nine count then your 2/1 are going to be few and far between. In turn, your forcing NT structure is going to get severely overloaded.

The 2/1 response structure doesn't support a light opening style particularly well.

Surprise the 1nt does not seem more overloaded than the junkyard of bids that it is already so far at the table. Part of the reason maybe that after opening lite lho overcalls more often resulting in less forcing 1nt responses? That does not mean that 1nt is not a junkyard bid still.

In theory long minor invites should be more trouble than they are at the table. My guess is with all the active bidding by opponents losing that constructive auction becomes a minor issue.

[Echognome]

I can offer yet another reason to change system: To play with better people.

Some of the best people in my area played symmetric relay, so I wanted to learn the system too. I was lucky enough that they offered me their notes and I learned it.

As people that know me can tell you, I am definitely a system tinkerer. I like "building a better mousetrap" and trying to come up with the best ways to play things. So although I play the "book" system when I play with the players that taught me, I developed a variant of it to play with my regular partner. Some of the variants were because we liked certain bids from our old system (e.g. Ekren 2♣) and some from just some ideas I had from playing other systems.

When I think of a treatment or a convention, I normally go to one of the online sites and generate about 30-50 hands where it would come up. Then I see how the convention does at dealing with these hands. I then consider if the gain from the change is greater than what we used to play. Sometimes this latter part is very difficult. For example, what is the loss from making a bid more nebulous or making another bid less nebulous? What is the gain from adding a preempt? The preempt certainly gains on frequency. After having found a promising idea, I run it by my regular partner. He is usually quite amenable, but sometimes finds some fault in my thinking. This is a good thing. Then we implement the change and try it out at the club or on bbo. We try to get as much practice as we can get after any big change. We don't like having any big misunderstandings when playing in tournaments, especially when we have teammates to consider.

I normally experiment on changes with my regular partner (he's a patient soul). Then if I find something to be successful, I recommend it to the group as a whole. (There are about 6 of us that play the system.) We share ideas on email and have all agreed that no changes to the base system will be made until the off season. I have a list of about half a dozen ideas. I send a list of these proposals with my reasoning of why we need the change and what we should consider doing instead and then I try to list the pros and cons of the change. I then welcome feedback by the other group members. I find this to be an excellent way to make changes as other group members can think of things that you might not have.

[slothy]

dogsbreath, on May 23 2006, 01:07 PM, said:

dear Hotshot..

Evolution is wonderful .. in nature it created the SeaHorse and in bridge it created irish keyCard Gerber

the sea-horse has evolved so that the males of the species nurse their young in their mouths....

now how evolved is that

Edit: Before i get accused of being sexist....it is not the fact that the males are the child-rearers it is the fact that is mouth-orientated...

[helene_t]

slothy, on May 24 2006, 02:15 PM, said:

the sea-horse has evolved so that the males of the species nurse their young in their mouths....

huh? This is certainly not true for all species. In at least some species, the males keep the babies in a sort of skin-fold close to the abdomen.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 24 2006, 04:44 AM, said:

People open quacky 12 HCP 8 loser hands with 2- controls 1m all the time playing Standard w/o doubts or hesitation when those hands are =worse= hands than the one awm posted.

Comment 1: Opening these sorts of hands in the context of a 2/1 GF system is (generally) frowned up on these forums. The fact that people do stupid things with some hands really doesn't justify making an equally egregious mistake with others.

Comment 2: Its a lot safer to open these hands playing "standard" where an auction like

1♠ - 2♣
2N - 3♣

isn't forcing

[foo]

hrothgar, on May 24 2006, 08:00 AM, said:

foo, on May 24 2006, 04:44 AM, said:

People open quacky 12 HCP 8 loser hands with 2- controls 1m all the time playing Standard w/o doubts or hesitation when those hands are =worse= hands than the one awm posted.

Comment 1: Opening these sorts of hands in the context of a 2/1 GF system is (generally) frowned up on these forums. The fact that people do stupid things with some hands really doesn't justify making an equally egregious mistake with others.

Comment 2: Its a lot safer to open these hands playing "standard" where an auction like 1♠ - 2♣;2N - 3♣ isn't forcing

Reply1a: Of course it is and it should be. "Up the middle bridge" is what the vast majority of players should be using; not attempting to emulate the bidding habits of world class players.

Reply1b: There is at least one hand eval method that says AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx
should be opened.
AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx
9+3+4+9= 25 Zar
+1 for all points in 3- suits
+1 for having 4+S's in a borderline hand= 26-27 Adjusted Zar

Please note I am =NOT= saying I agree that all players in all partnerships should open this (Nor am I advocating Zar. For instance Zar says KQxxx.x.KQxx.xxx should also open 1S. Not my cup of tea.) I'm merely noting that to consider opening it is far from crazy.

Reply1c: Opening this 1S is a far less egregious mistake than opening quacky 12 HCP 8+ loser hands 1m.


Reply2: Actually, I'm not sure of that. Standard's strength is the ability to have delicate auctions when Responder has invitational values. Responder being able to do this presumes reasonably sound openings. Aggressive initial action "throws a large stone" into the Standard "pond".

In contrast; since 2/1 GF requires so much more for a 2/1 already, the slight stiffening of requirements for Responder's GF 2/1 to cater to the possiblity of aggressive initial action is a considerably smaller "stone".

I am =NOT= advocating this, but as an experiment a reasonable aggressive initial action form of 2/1 GF might be
a= Opener promises 2+ Quick Tricks, 3+ controls, and 7- losers.
b= Responder's GF 2/1 promises 4+ controls and 4+ cover cards

[jdonn]

foo, on May 24 2006, 10:47 AM, said:

Please note I am =NOT= saying I agree that all players in all partnerships should open this (Nor am I advocating Zar. For instance Zar says KQxxx.x.KQxx.xxx should also open 1S. Not my cup of tea.) I'm merely noting that to consider opening it is far from crazy.

Zar count does say to open AQxxx x Kxxx xxx with 1♠.

Your conclusion is that even though you wouldn't do so, to consider opening 1♠ is not completely crazy.

My conclusion is that this is the billionth reason that Zar count IS completely crazy.

[foo]

jdonn, on May 24 2006, 10:53 AM, said:

foo, on May 24 2006, 10:47 AM, said:

Please note I am =NOT= saying I agree that all players in all partnerships should open this (Nor am I advocating Zar.  For instance Zar says KQxxx.x.KQxx.xxx should also open 1S.  Not my cup of tea.)  I'm merely noting that to consider opening it is far from crazy.

Zar count does say to open AQxxx x Kxxx xxx with 1♠.

Your conclusion is that even though you wouldn't do so, to consider opening 1♠ is not completely crazy.

My conclusion is that this is the billionth reason that Zar count IS completely crazy.

I am not making any conclusions. I'm simply pointing out that
a= quite a few good players, many of them very good players, would open AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx just as awm and his partner would.

b= there is at least one form of objective measurement based on reasonably sound analysis and that has some degree of popularity that agrees.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 24 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

I am not making any conclusions. I'm simply pointing out that
a= quite a few good players, many of them very good players, would open AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx just as awm and his partner would.

Returning back to the original topic (changing systems and all that)

As I recall, Adam specifically stated that that he wanted to be able to open hands like AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx but was uncomfortable doing so within the context of a standard opening structure where a 1 level opening could show upwards of 21 points.

I agree that many experts would open the hand in question, but they would do so in the context of a Precision/MOSCITO/Acol system.

I don't think that you'd find many folks opening this playing BWS or even K-S.

[awm]

The problem with openings like AQxxx x Kxxx xxx is what does partner do holding:

xx AKxxx AQx xxx

Playing two-over-one most of us force to game on that hand. Even using ZAR, the second hand evaluates to 13+5+8+3 = 29 ZAR, a full opener and worthy of a game force. Good luck making any game on these two combined hands.

Of course, the author of ZAR points himself admits that you have to adjust for degree of fit or misfit. These two hands don't fit very well, and this indicates some downgrades to reflect the fact that there's no game on this "52 ZAR" pair of hands. But if you play 2/1 GF, you have to decide whether to force game before you can fully measure the degree of fit/misfit. This indicates that the 2/1 GF bid should be a relatively sound judgement -- you should expect to have good chances at game even if your hands don't fit well. So you really need to guarantee around 25 hcp at a minimum, guaranteeing 52 ZAR before fit adjustments doesn't do it.

Now this is not necessarily a criticism of 2/1 GF. The point is just that if you open hands like my AQxxx x Kxxx xxx, which I believe is of comparable value to a standard opening bid in the presence of a spade fit, you really need to have your game forcing 2/1s guarantee something like 15 hcp when they don't include 3+ cards in opener's major. Frequency-wise, this means an awful lot of ugly 1NT responses and awfully few of those pretty 2/1 auctions. Also note that when your opening range looks like Sam and mine (basically we open on the rule of 18 although we are somewhat more conservative with 5332 hands) the most frequent hands are around the average (11 hcp) rather than the minimum (in standard most frequent hands have around 12-13 I think). Since opener will "often but not always" have a few extras it makes the immediate 2/1 decision even less appealing.

In our methods a 2/1 promises values for game in the presence of a major suit fit and the auction can end very quickly if a misfit is in the offing. Our auction on the above hands would actually be 1♠(1) - 2♥(2) - 2♠(3) - PASS. Here (1) 8-15 5+♠ rule of 18 (2) 5+♥ normally 12+ points (3) 8-11 hcp no ♥ fit, ♠+a minor not forcing. Note how much simpler this is than a 2/1 GF structure where you have to either bid 2♥ initially (getting to a bad game) or start with 1NT and then decide what to do over 2♦ (basically all your rebids are simply too wide-ranging in values not to mention the normal bid/hide hearts problem in this sequence in 2/1).

[joshs]

awm, on May 24 2006, 12:16 PM, said:

The problem with openings like AQxxx x Kxxx xxx is what does partner do holding:

xx AKxxx AQx xxx

Playing two-over-one most of us force to game on that hand. Even using ZAR, the second hand evaluates to 13+5+8+3 = 29 ZAR, a full opener and worthy of a game force. Good luck making any game on these two combined hands.

Of course, the author of ZAR points himself admits that you have to adjust for degree of fit or misfit. These two hands don't fit very well, and this indicates some downgrades to reflect the fact that there's no game on this "52 ZAR" pair of hands. But if you play 2/1 GF, you have to decide whether to force game before you can fully measure the degree of fit/misfit. This indicates that the 2/1 GF bid should be a relatively sound judgement -- you should expect to have good chances at game even if your hands don't fit well. So you really need to guarantee around 25 hcp at a minimum, guaranteeing 52 ZAR before fit adjustments doesn't do it.

Now this is not necessarily a criticism of 2/1 GF. The point is just that if you open hands like my AQxxx x Kxxx xxx, which I believe is of comparable value to a standard opening bid in the presence of a spade fit, you really need to have your game forcing 2/1s guarantee something like 15 hcp when they don't include 3+ cards in opener's major. Frequency-wise, this means an awful lot of ugly 1NT responses and awfully few of those pretty 2/1 auctions. Also note that when your opening range looks like Sam and mine (basically we open on the rule of 18 although we are somewhat more conservative with 5332 hands) the most frequent hands are around the average (11 hcp) rather than the minimum (in standard most frequent hands have around 12-13 I think). Since opener will "often but not always" have a few extras it makes the immediate 2/1 decision even less appealing.

In our methods a 2/1 promises values for game in the presence of a major suit fit and the auction can end very quickly if a misfit is in the offing. Our auction on the above hands would actually be 1♠(1) - 2♥(2) - 2♠(3) - PASS. Here (1) 8-15 5+♠ rule of 18 (2) 5+♥ normally 12+ points (3) 8-11 hcp no ♥ fit, ♠+a minor not forcing. Note how much simpler this is than a 2/1 GF structure where you have to either bid 2♥ initially (getting to a bad game) or start with 1NT and then decide what to do over 2♦ (basically all your rebids are simply too wide-ranging in values not to mention the normal bid/hide hearts problem in this sequence in 2/1).

Here is a general problem in 2/1:

Lets say you need x points to game force over a 1M opening (including whatever upgrade you make for playing strength and fit). You then invite game with x-2 points. And you may have problems with x-4 points.

For instance, playing Std 2/1 with sound opening bids, you might game force on 12's. With 10-11 and no fit you have no problem, you bid 1N then 2N. But what happens when you have 8-9? Partner with 16-17 can't know what to do.

The wider the range for the 1M bid the more HCP combinations cause problems. Lets say 1M is 9-20 HCP.

Putting these in 2 point bins:
9-10 vs 15+ no problem (3N might not make but at least it will not be rediculous)
9-10 vs 13-14 stop in 2N or 3 something if this is your invitational range
9-10 vs less, no problem and long as you don't go beyond 2M with 11-12!

11-12 vs 13+ no problem
11-12 11-12 - might miss a game, but probably happily stop low

13-14 vs 13+ no problem
13-14 vs 11-12. You will miss a game unless responder has a way of differentiaiting the 12 count from a 6 count!

15-16 vs 13+ no problem
15-16 vs 9-12 may be a problem and if opener always makes a 3'rd bid with 15-16 then
15-16 vs 5-8 is a problem

The wider the range 1M is, the more combinations cause problems, since it makes the sequence 1M-1N-2x-2M OR the sequence 1M-1N-2x-2N too wide ranging (or maybe both).

Gazelli, or bart helps some...

[foo]

Again, while I am =not= advocating this sort of aggressive opening style, IMHO there are a number of systemic issues here and the situation is not as clear cut as some may say..

Clearly if we knew as soon as we picked up our hand that We had no chance of game and no fit, we'd usually choose to defend.
The given example:
AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx
+
xx AKxxx AQx xxx
Has a decent chance of setting even a 2 level contract.
OTOH, if we must play it the best place for Us is either 1N or 2S in our "Kaplan fit"

However, unless we cheat we don't get the option to choose between aggression and conservatism when we first pick up our hand... So we have to analyze our hand and play the odds.

AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx
What is Responder's most likely shape?
2 2/3 S's + 4 H's + 3 D's + 3 1/3 C's => 3433 or 2434 w/ 3433 being 2x more likely

What is Responder's most likely values?
(SK;HA,HK;DA;CA,CK) + (SJ;HQ,HJ;DQ,DJ;CQ,CJ)
=> 2 from set "A" (60% A+K + 20% K+K or A+A) plus
2 1/3 from set "B" (~31% Q+J ~23% Q+J+J ~16% of J+J or Q+Q+J)
=> 10 HCP A+K+Q+J

So by far the most likely auction if we did open AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx is 1S-1N;?? ...which we can pass to show a sub-minimum the same way we do when we open light in 3rd chair and this auction occurs.


This doesn't even begin to adequately cover all the issues needed to play such aggressive openings in a "natural" system, and awm and others are right that being this "edgey" is going to hurt you sometimes, but hopefully I've shown that the issue is not as simple nor as clear-cut as some may claim.

[mike777]

I do play a lightish opening 2/1 style with a strongish reply style.
These example hands are close but here is how I resolve them.
1) I pass that 9 hcp hand with only 54 shape....but make it 5-5 or 6-4 and I would have opened it.
2) 2/1 promises 14+ hcp often but that responder hand is a really nice 13 so I would have bid 2H g/f with it. Though with no fit and flat I would be ready to say sorry if no game.

Again both of these examples hands are really close but I would have passed that 54 9 hcp hand.