[micsfyuen]

Hi, I am Michael, this is my first post here.

I love to read this forum, especially this non-natural discussion section, you guys have lots and lots of great ideas, and this is really enjoyable to learn in this forum.

I am an intermediate youth player, and always play very simple natural system with partners, I like KISS style with partners, but I definitely like to know any interesting systems and conventions.

EHAA (natural 2s and very constructive 1 opening) is a system that I quite like, but I don't see many people around playing it, are there any people playing this (or variant of this) with great success?

Here's a question I want to ask about EHAA.
Say, playing level 2 limited to 13 HCP and level 1 is 14+. How do EHAA bidders bid intermediate (10-13) distributional hands and hands with both majors?
1) If they pass,
a) how do they show this great playing strength after partner opens 3/4th seat or when opps bid?

2) If they open level 1,
a) how would partner distinguish between real contructive hands (14+) and weaker but distributional hands?
how much would partner need to make a game-force?

3) If they open level 2,
a) level 2 openings seem to have a really wide range of possibilities, how is partner possible to make judgement better than pure guessing?

[mike777]

Mike, I got a zillion pages of stuff, well ok maybe not a zillion, on EHAA. It is the first system I played back in 71. PM me and I can send you some stuff if you still need it.

[pbleighton]

Quote

EHAA (natural 2s and very constructive 1 opening) is a system that I quite like, but I don't see many people around playing it, are there any people playing this (or variant of this) with great success?

I play a version of it, but I'm not capable of having great success with any system

Quote

Here's a question I want to ask about EHAA.
Say, playing level 2 limited to 13 HCP and level 1 is 14+. How do EHAA bidders bid intermediate (10-13) distributional hands and hands with both majors?
1) If they pass,
a) how do they show this great playing strength after partner opens 3/4th seat or  when opps bid?

2) If they open level 1,
a) how would partner distinguish between real contructive hands (14+) and weaker but distributional hands?
how much would partner need to make a game-force?

3) If they open level 2,
a) level 2 openings seem to have a really wide range of possibilities, how is partner possible to make judgement better than pure guessing?

Pick your poison.

I prefer to play a modification of EHAA, as follows:

1NT = 10-13, with 14-16 in the 4th seat.
1 bids are 13+ unbalanced (occasionnally a really good 12, but not often)
2 bids are 9-12 (the 9 counts aren't bad, the 12 counts aren't great.

The reduced range of the 2 bids lets you bid games a LOT better. I use 2x-2NT as a game forcing relay, where opener just rebids his shape naturally. Hands with 4 card major side suits are handled much better this way, including those with 5-4 in the majors. I will open 5-4 in the majors with 12 hcp and the points in the right place at the one level, other than that I open at the 2 level or 1NT if 5422.

A new suit at the 2 level is a bailout, as in traditional EHAA, but a new suit at the 3 level is game forcing.

Peter

[rbforster]

Since you did post in Non-Natural Systems, how about giving up the intermediate 2♣ opener and have it show the same intermediate range with 5/4+ in the majors? No one else in the field is opening a intermediate/weak 2♣, so this probably won't be missed as much. You could have 2M as a signoff, 2N as GF relay, and 2♦ as asking for the longer major (either to pass with equal majors, or to invite with 2N/3M).

[hrothgar]

Here's a (quick) rules set for EHAA

1. If you hold 0-7 HCP, you will either pass or make a bid of 3♣+

2. If you hold 8 - 12 HCP

(a) Open 1NT with 10-12 balanced
(B) If you don't have 10-12 balanced, open 2x with any 5 card suit
© If you don't have 10-12 balanced OR a 5 card suit, pass

3. If you hold 13+ HCP

(a) Open 2N with 21-22 balanced
(B) If one of you suits is longer than the others, open one of that suit
© With two equal length suits
i. Open in the higher suit if you are 5-5 or 6-6
ii. Open in the lower suit if you are 4-4

[mycroft]

...And in true EHAA, unlike "really aggressive and wide range 2 bids", you *have to make* the call. You hold 86432 KQ3 JT5 87, red on white, in second? Open 2S. Partner will *not* play you for that hand if you pass - oops, missed 4H. Oops, let 3NT through because you can't have HKQ. Sorry, I didn't balance because you have a real garbage hand - but you don't.

Bidding is a "get in and get out" process; passing is a *big* warning sign to partner. The thing that was the oddest for me to get was that in game/slam exploration (what little there is - bashing frequently is better) or competitive auctions, the weak 2 bidder is frequently Captain.

Michael (who once passed 5 of 8 times as dealer in a session, playing EHAA).

[effervesce]

Hey Mike,
EHAA is more of a system designed for destructive bidding rather than constructive bidding.
I've only played the EHAA+ system rather than EHAA (see www.abo.fi/~jboling/bridge/ehaap.pdf). This puts hands in the 12-18 pt range as opening at the one level with a 4+ suit-as others have noted, if 4-4 the lower, if 5/5 then the higher. So that covers the 12-13 pt range of the 10-13 you asked about. For the 10-11 open at the two level with a 5 card suit. 10-13 bal open 1NT.

The notes say to play 2 level bids as 5-11 5+ suit but I'd suggest that it should vary with vulnerability and bidding position (ie use common sense! 2nd seat red vs white your partner wont be happy with a poor 5 card suit and weak hand-while in 3rd seat white vs red you have alot more leeway and 5- ~13 with 5 + suit is fine).

After a 3rd/4th seat opening by p, you're only really stuck with a 10-11 pt hand with 4441 type shape-a 2 over 1 or limit raise/mini-splinter or whatever you like to play should be able to show these hands.

For your last question-if you dont like the wide-ranging two bids then perhaps try playing the Fantoni-Nunes system (they're a world class partnership who do very well playing the system). I'd love to have a partner to learn that system with =p (I'd like to learn the version Gerben plays http://www.geocities...idge/mosca.html - anyone game?)

[micsfyuen]

Thx guys, your ideas are great

[Gerben42]

Quote

Say, playing level 2 limited to 13 HCP and level 1 is 14+. How do EHAA bidders bid intermediate (10-13) distributional hands and hands with both majors?
1) If they pass,
a) how do they show this great playing strength after partner opens 3/4th seat or  when opps bid?

2) If they open level 1,
a) how would partner distinguish between real contructive hands (14+) and weaker but distributional hands?
how much would partner need to make a game-force?

3) If they open level 2,
a) level 2 openings seem to have a really wide range of possibilities, how is partner possible to make judgement better than pure guessing?

1. By overbidding trying to catch up.

2. Tough...

3. Nope, just guess.

This is supposed to be the fun of it. If you don't think so, like me, try the simple version of Fantunes outlined here: http://www.geocities...tunessimple.pdf

[NickRW]

effervesce, on Jun 22 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

Hey Mike,
EHAA is more of a system designed for destructive bidding rather than constructive bidding.
I've only played the EHAA+ system rather than EHAA (see www.abo.fi/~jboling/bridge/ehaap.pdf).

Ah, I found this while reading all the back posts in this forum. I quite like the idea.

Playing EHAA looks like a lot of fun at MP. And, on a long IMPs match it possibly might gain as much as it loses from not having a big forcing opening. Never the less, I am uncomfortable with the idea of having no opening that is inherently forcing and, should one of those big 2♣ openers come up in a short match - well you'd be struggling to make up the possible deficit.

I am unconvinced about the merits of normal approaches to a strong 1♣ - they all seem to me to create as many problems as they solve. But the idea of leaving 1♣ as an mostly natural but possibly strong bid about 20% of the time seems to maybe have some mileage.... It seems to be an idea that is little discussed.

I'll give it some scrutiny. Thanks for the link.

Nick

[glen]

NickRW, on May 3 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

... But the idea of leaving 1♣ as an mostly natural but possibly strong bid about 20% of the time seems to maybe have some mileage....  It seems to be an idea that is little discussed.

Its been discussed and used, though is not mainstream. For example my ETM Pairs from the late 90s (notes are party like its 1999) had 1♣ as "♣s or any GF or balanced (12-14, 18-20, 23+)" (see ETM Pairs). A lot of these types of approaches involved taking a Polish ♣ framework and EHAA'ing it. A system that some considered EHAA'ing was Don Varvel's Unassuming Club (see An Unassuming Club), since it started with a weak notrump base so one could slide 1NT to 10-13 and adjust ranges as necessary.

The EHAA+ notes are very nice. I've found (via years of playing Polish and Big Club etc.) that really isn't much point to limiting to 18. Thus I would suggest either playing quite limited openings (say max of 15), or having the limit at a near GF (as in standard), or having no limit (Fantoni-Nunes for example), the latter which could use Gazzilli and Cole to allow the super strong hands to unwind properly.

[NickRW]

Thanks.

I quite like the look of AUC - it seems to solve the nebulous diamond, the problem with 5 clubs 4M, while still retaining 5CM - and, instead of shoving a rather amorphous thing like the weak NT into the the 1C opener as in Polish, most of the weaker options mean clubs.

It is not a little ironic that Don seems to lamment on one web page about the AUC that he wished he was a little less constrained about the 2 level openers (seeking to make them GCC legal). Where I play in EBU land I get the general impression we are generally more relaxed than ACBL land, but "either/or" clubs are level 4 - despite the fact that the AUC is arguably more natural than the likes of standard Precision - and that in the land of Acol! What a strange world we live in.

Nick

[lowerline]

Jlall, on May 4 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

Nobody has success at the highest levels of bridge with EHAA. Your point about hands that are intermediate with both majors is one of the many flaws in the system. The system is about making them guess a lot, and as such you guess a lot. If you really want a good constructive bidding system I would recommend not playing EHAA. There are many non natural systems (isn't EHAA very natural anyways?) that are also very good for constructive bidding if you want to learn one. Various strong club systems (relay and non relay) and Polish club are often used at the top levels of bridge.

Fantoni-Nunes? Their system is clearly EHAA-style... They made adjustements of course to make it more playable (f.i. for the intermediate hands with both majors, you mentioned)

Steven

[effervesce]

lowerline, on May 5 2008, 04:06 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 4 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

Nobody has success at the highest levels of bridge with EHAA. Your point about hands that are intermediate with both majors is one of the many flaws in the system. The system is about making them guess a lot, and as such you guess a lot. If you really want a good constructive bidding system I would recommend not playing EHAA. There are many non natural systems (isn't EHAA very natural anyways?) that are also very good for constructive bidding if you want to learn one. Various strong club systems (relay and non relay) and Polish club are often used at the top levels of bridge.

Fantoni-Nunes? Their system is clearly EHAA-style... They made adjustements of course to make it more playable (f.i. for the intermediate hands with both majors, you mentioned)

Steven

Sure, but Fantoni-Nunes 2s are more constructive. The very random nature of the 2x preempts of EHAA is what makes it unusable for competitive play.

[NickRW]

Jlall, on May 5 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

I think Fantoni-Nunes play a system that is different enough from EHAA to not classify it as EHAA.

Well, there is maybe quite a bit of truth in that. I'd say there is possibly more difference between FN and EHAA than there is between either, say, Precision and Polish, or SA versus Acol.

Never the less, it does have the same sort of style. Or would you disagree with that too...

Nick

[EricK]

effervesce, on May 5 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

lowerline, on May 5 2008, 04:06 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 4 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

Nobody has success at the highest levels of bridge with EHAA. Your point about hands that are intermediate with both majors is one of the many flaws in the system. The system is about making them guess a lot, and as such you guess a lot. If you really want a good constructive bidding system I would recommend not playing EHAA. There are many non natural systems (isn't EHAA very natural anyways?) that are also very good for constructive bidding if you want to learn one. Various strong club systems (relay and non relay) and Polish club are often used at the top levels of bridge.

Fantoni-Nunes? Their system is clearly EHAA-style... They made adjustements of course to make it more playable (f.i. for the intermediate hands with both majors, you mentioned)

Steven

Sure, but Fantoni-Nunes 2s are more constructive. The very random nature of the 2x preempts of EHAA is what makes it unusable for competitive play.

What would they open (if anything) with, say, ♠65432 ♥Jx ♦Qx ♣AKxx?

If that is a 2♠ opening, then the system is clearly EHAA-like IMO (at least wrt the weak 2s). If they require some substance to the suit then it isn't.

[Free]

EricK, on May 5 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

effervesce, on May 5 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

lowerline, on May 5 2008, 04:06 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 4 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

Nobody has success at the highest levels of bridge with EHAA. Your point about hands that are intermediate with both majors is one of the many flaws in the system. The system is about making them guess a lot, and as such you guess a lot. If you really want a good constructive bidding system I would recommend not playing EHAA. There are many non natural systems (isn't EHAA very natural anyways?) that are also very good for constructive bidding if you want to learn one. Various strong club systems (relay and non relay) and Polish club are often used at the top levels of bridge.

Fantoni-Nunes? Their system is clearly EHAA-style... They made adjustements of course to make it more playable (f.i. for the intermediate hands with both majors, you mentioned)

Steven

Sure, but Fantoni-Nunes 2s are more constructive. The very random nature of the 2x preempts of EHAA is what makes it unusable for competitive play.

What would they open (if anything) with, say, ♠65432 ♥Jx ♦Qx ♣AKxx?

If that is a 2♠ opening, then the system is clearly EHAA-like IMO (at least wrt the weak 2s). If they require some substance to the suit then it isn't.

That's a poor example. 5422's are considered balanced... Make it 65432-2-QJ2-AK32 and they'd open it 2♠.

[benlessard]

FN opening of 1M can be shade if they are 5-4 in the majors. At least in the earlier version.