[glen]

After 11 rounds and the Butler at Pau, we have these pairs at +1 IMPs per board, or close to it for pair 6:

1) Bocchi-Duboin: partnership spliting up due to leading the field, 1NT 15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=4+ unbalanced, 1♣=natural or 12-14 balanced, 2♣=18-19 balanced, 2♦=GF, 2M=weak, 2NT=20-22

2) (same average, less bds played than 1) Kopecky-Volhejn: modified EHAA (some Fantunes), 1NT 11+-14 can be semi-bal (5M, 6m, 4441, 5422, 5431) except 3rd seat (14-17), 1M=(13)14-20, 2M=5+M 9-13 (not other major ,not 5+ minor), 2♣=6-13 both majors, 2♦=6♠ 6-8 or 5-5+ ♠+m 6-13, 2NT=9-13 5-5+ ♥s+m. 1♣=natural or 18-20 bal or 21+ any, 1♦=natural or bal 15-17 (10-13 if 3rd seat)

3) Brink-Drijver: 1NT 15-17 or 1st fav 9-12. 1M=5+, 1♦=5 or 4-4-4-1 exactly, 1♣=natural or balanced 12-14 or 18-20, 2X=std (2NT=21-23)

4) Zhukov-Timakhovick: 1NT (14)15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=5 or 4-4-4-1 with black singleton, 1♣=natural or balanced 12-14 or 18-22 (that's what cc says but 2NT is 20-21(22)), 2♣=GF, 2♦=weak 2M or 22-24 Bal or 19-24 any 4-4-4-1, 2♥=5-5+ ♥s + any 5-10, 2♠=5-5+ ♠+m 5-10

5) Bertheau-Nystrom: 1NT 14-16, 4th 15-16, 1st-3rd fav 10-12. 1♣=16+, 1♦=other bal range<16, or 11-15 4M+5+m or a 4-4-4-1. 1M=5+. 2m=11-15, 6+m or 5m+4om 2M=weak, 2NT=12-15 5-5+ minors

6) Piekarek-Smirnov: 1NT 15-17(18), 1M=5+, 1♦=5 or 4-4-4-1 with black singleton, 1♣=natural or balanced 12-14 or (18)19+ any (not 21-22 bal). 2X all 5-11 (excluding 2♦ strong type): 2♣=5+♥s + 5any, 2♦=Weak two M or 21-22 bal, 2♥: majors (perhaps 2♥ often has just 4♥s due to 2♣ opening), 2♠: 5+♠s and 4+m, 2NT=5-5+ minors

[kenrexford]

I am tickled to see the increased number of people using an unbalanced 1♦ opening. Back in the early 1990's, I played a lot with my Dad, and we decided back then to never open 1♦ unless we had a stiff or a void on the side. Thus, 1♦ promised 4441 pattern, or 5+ diamonds with a stiff or void. 1♣ handled any unbalanced hand with clubs or any balanced hand. Way back then, I wrote up a proposed article on this (because it worked amazing wonders) for the local mini-bulletin; they laughed.

This was admittedly a bit much at times, even if it made for great stories. (The hand where my Dad opened 1♣ with xx in clubs but AKQJxx in diamonds was his favorite after 1♣-P-1M-2♦-P-P-X-P-P-P.) There were solutions (1♣...2♦ not a reverse, and not showing clubs, for example).

Later, with every partner (except one) I have played with regularly in a standard or 2/1 GF structure, 1♦ has been unbalanced. Sometimes, 7222's were the exception. Somtimes 6322 was "optional." Sometimes 2254 was an exception.

In 2002, I played in Montreal with a good friend. We had a ton of questions from people about "Note 14." (Not sure if it was actually "14," but whatever.) This was the note concerning the difference between a 1♣ and 1♦ opening. A few people mentioned some rumblings over in Europe along these lines.

Now, it seems that more and more people are adopting this approach. In my experience, the 5332 hands still work better through 1♣, because of the purity of the benefits, unless you have 6332 as an exception and would treat the 5332 as a one-suited hand. You gain a lot by being able to bid 1NT with a known stiff in partner's major. For example, if the auction is 1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT, Opener is known to have 3154 pattern. With fewer spades or a void in hearts, Opener would obviously rebid 2♣ or 2♦. If Opener could be 5332, then the ambiguity must be resolved, and that resolution requires space. If the pattern is known, then neat tricks like showing stiff honors, and not using checkback, and the like come in handy. 1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT is similar. Opener will have 1354 or 1453 pattern, which is fairly tight as well.

Additionally, a pure stiff guarantee allows some sexy spy-versus-spy work. Consider holding 2542 pattern and weakish after 1♦!-X-? 3♦ seems like the realistic call here. Even 1NT has an appeal.

[MickyB]

Wow - pretty huge that none of the pairs in question break up balanced hands by suit lengths in any way. Can't say I'm a huge fan of all of these systems, though, there's some pretty weird looking stuff there. Oh well, seems to work for them

[FrancesHinden]

MickyB, on Jun 19 2008, 04:58 AM, said:

Wow - pretty huge that none of the pairs in question break up balanced hands by suit lengths in any way. Can't say I'm a huge fan of all of these systems, though, there's some pretty weird looking stuff there. Oh well, seems to work for them

Just seems to indicate what most people know: it doesn't matter (that) much what you play as long as you know it well.

[helene_t]

MickyB, on Jun 19 2008, 04:58 AM, said:

Wow - pretty huge that none of the pairs in question break up balanced hands by suit lengths in any way.

Makes sense to me. When playing 5533 and holding a balanced 12-14 or 18-19 I always feel like flipping a coin to decide between 1♣ and 1♦. There must be more useful ways of using the distinction between the minors.

That said, Frances is right of course.

[benlessard]

Quote

Just seems to indicate what most people know: it doesn't matter (that) much what you play as long as you know it well.

For me its more like it doesnt matter that much what the basic structure is, as long as its coherent and has proper follow up and players are efficient at using the system.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Jun 18 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

Back in the early 1990's, I played a lot with my Dad, and we decided back then to never open 1♦ unless we had a stiff or a void on the side.

I would ASSume that these guys bid 1♦ with a suit oriented 6-3-2-2. They don't seem to have any other bid for that.

Playing a natural diamond precision, I can certainly see the advantage to 1♣-1♠-1NT being 2-3 card support, and 1♦-1♠-1NT being a singleton 90% of the time and never 3 card support.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jun 18 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

I am tickled to see the increased number of people using an unbalanced 1♦ opening. Back in the early 1990's, I played a lot with my Dad, and we decided back then to never open 1♦ unless we had a stiff or a void on the side. Thus, 1♦ promised 4441 pattern, or 5+ diamonds with a stiff or void. 1♣ handled any unbalanced hand with clubs or any balanced hand. Way back then, I wrote up a proposed article on this (because it worked amazing wonders) for the local mini-bulletin; they laughed.

Right now, Fantunes is planning to don disguises and crash the weekly game in Lima to steal the next big bidding idea.

My partner and I actually invented Hamilton in 1981. Fred visited a regional in Billings, MT and saw that we were playing it and ripped off the idea.

No one believes me.

[glen]

pclayton, on Jun 19 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

...My partner and I actually invented Hamilton in 1981. Fred visited a regional in Billings, MT and saw that we were playing it and ripped off the idea.

No one believes me.

I actually invented Hamilton in 1979. I gave it to my partner, we played it at the club. A couple of days later, playing it again, we bid it and get:

"Oh, I saw this before, I think its called Cappelletti"

Two tables over, we bid it again and get:

"Oh, I saw this before, I think its called Hamilton"

Oh well, I knew it should work at this point. At least I didn't spend any time naming it. Perhaps they could have blended names to get Hamletti.

--- ---

I'm looking forward to the Bocchi-Duboin split: it will be interesting to see what they keep from their system and what is new with their new partners.

[dake50]

Partition 1C/1D
NT ladder 14-17 in 1D; 18+ in 1C and ask NT ladder, not tell.
S, S+2nd, C, and not H(4=1=4=4) in 1C.
H, H+lower, D, and not S(1=4=4=4) in 1D.

Now responder even knows which near negative hands to go low: To 1C without S-fit goes negative even 2 hcp richer. Not-H to 1D goes low.
Competition to 1C, X if no S-fit; to 1D if no H-fit. Cheap suit if it is on-the-list suit; heavy values if it is on other-opening-list.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jun 19 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 18 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

I am tickled to see the increased number of people using an unbalanced 1♦ opening.  Back in the early 1990's, I played a lot with my Dad, and we decided back then to never open 1♦ unless we had a stiff or a void on the side.  Thus, 1♦ promised 4441 pattern, or 5+ diamonds with a stiff or void.  1♣ handled any unbalanced hand with clubs or any balanced hand.  Way back then, I wrote up a proposed article on this (because it worked amazing wonders) for the local mini-bulletin; they laughed.

Right now, Fantunes is planning to don disguises and crash the weekly game in Lima to steal the next big bidding idea.

My partner and I actually invented Hamilton in 1981. Fred visited a regional in Billings, MT and saw that we were playing it and ripped off the idea.

No one believes me.

I'm not sure if this is some sort of strange suggestion that I made this up.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jun 19 2008, 10:27 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 19 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 18 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

I am tickled to see the increased number of people using an unbalanced 1♦ opening.  Back in the early 1990's, I played a lot with my Dad, and we decided back then to never open 1♦ unless we had a stiff or a void on the side.  Thus, 1♦ promised 4441 pattern, or 5+ diamonds with a stiff or void.  1♣ handled any unbalanced hand with clubs or any balanced hand.  Way back then, I wrote up a proposed article on this (because it worked amazing wonders) for the local mini-bulletin; they laughed.

Right now, Fantunes is planning to don disguises and crash the weekly game in Lima to steal the next big bidding idea.

My partner and I actually invented Hamilton in 1981. Fred visited a regional in Billings, MT and saw that we were playing it and ripped off the idea.

No one believes me.

I'm not sure if this is some sort of strange suggestion that I made this up.

I'm not saying you made this up, I just hope you aren't implying you invented this concept.

[awm]

I think it is actually interesting that these opening structures are so similar. There are many possible systems which have had success in the past at high levels (strong club or "natural" openings, five card majors and four card majors with/without canape, weak and strong notrump, transfer openings, polish-style club, etc to name only the fairly common ones).

Looking at these top six:

(1) Five of six involve strong notrumps except possibly at favorable.
(2) Six of six involve five-card major openings.
(3) Five of six involve natural opening bids in the 16-20 hcp range (as opposed to strong club).
(4) Six of six do not choose 1m openings on balanced hands based on minor suit length.
(5) Five of six do not play 2♦ as a weak two, and all of these five are assigning at least some non-weak meanings to 2♦ (i.e. no mini-multi or ekrens twos).

In fact four of the systems (all but 2 and 5) seem very similar with only minor modifications (i.e. they are like standard or 2/1 except opening 1♣ on all balanced hands not in range and 1♦ promising five cards or 4441, and some slightly different choice of two-level openings).

[NickRW]

awm, on Jun 19 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

I think it is actually interesting that these opening structures are so similar....

Yes. That was pretty much my observation too. I looked after round 10 and also more recently at the cards of the top pairs - the names at the top change somewhat as fortunes come and go, but the general complexion of what you see on those cards is similar - i.e. 5542 1x openers, strong NT, and a lot of multi and two suited two openers - no particular consensus on exactly what the 2 openers should be, but they're generally, er, well, 'european' in flavour.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jun 19 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

I'm not saying you made this up, I just hope you aren't implying you invented this concept.

If by "invention" you mean that I got a patent for this, not at all. My point was not a claim of ownership in the idea.

The point was meant to be rather simple. Back in the 1990's, without any suggestion from anyone else to do this, I started playing that a 1♦ opening had to be an unbalanced hand. I never read this anywhere. It just made sense to me. So, we tried it out.

We quickly found out a lot of amazing inferences resulting from this tweak, and accordingly I thought that this was a neat idea to share with people. However, at that time, people who did not play this way found the idea laughable.

But, I persisted. Each partnership I made over the years included this treatment. Again, people laughed.

Now, it seems that this treatment is becoming wildly popular. I noticed a few starting to do this about three or four years ago, and the numbers have been increasing.

So, my point was that I feel extremely vindicated that the "laughable" idea that I had years ago turns out to be the idea du jour in the top game.

[NickRW]

Too early for a butler from the ladies contest yet, but England are leading and, despite the fact that this is 4 card major, weak no trump country, two of those pairs are playing 5542, strong NT.

Nick

[glen]

After 19 joining the pairs close to 1 imp per board (and a few of our top 6 slide from there) were:

3) Nilsson-Wrang: 1NT 14-16. 1♣=16+, 1♦=11-13 bal (can have 5 card major) or 11-15 unbal 5+m (if second suit, almost always a major) or a 4-4-4-1. 1M=5+ (not a 5-3-3-2 in 1st or 2nd). 2♣=5-4/4-5+ minors 11-15, 2♦=10-12 6M, 2M=weak, 2NT=11-15 6-4/4-6 minors

4) Kholomeev-Khyuppenen(Khiouppenen): 1NT 15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=4+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly, 1♣=3+, 2♣=strong (22+ if bal) or 5+♦s weak two, 2♦=18-19 balanced, 2M=weak, 2NT=20-21