[Chamaco]

Hi all, for the enjoyment of all the BBO strongclubbers, here is a brief recap of a new system published in an Italian booklet.
The authors have calculated the probability of occurrence of each hand, and it turns out that the probability of each opening of this system matches better with the theoretical distribution.

I will just post here the openings, eventual discussions may follow from here.

------------------------------------
1♣ = 16+ any hand
1♦= 11/12-15 balanced with at least a major
1♥= 11-15, 5+
1♠= 11-15, 5+, NO 5-5 major (they open 2NT with 5-5 M)
1NT = 11/12-15 balanced, NO 4 cd Mjr
2♣= 11-15, one suited in any minor, or 55/54/45 in the minors
2♦= Multi= weak 2 in a major or weak 3 in a minor
2♥= 11-15, canape', 4♥-5+ in a minor
2♠= 11-15 canapè, 4♠-5+ in a minor
2NT = 11-15 5-5 majors
3♣= 65/66 or better in the minors
3♦= 65 or better in minors, longer diamonds

3♥ and higher openings can be played whichever way you like
------------------------------------

I think this scheme solves a few problems:
a) no "nebulous diamond"= the opening is strictly balanced. 5m-4M hands are incorporated in the 2M canape' opening
b ) weak NT does NOT bury fits: you will not risk passing a weak NT opening when you have a good partscore in a major, since weak NT denies a 4 cd major

Some issues to be worried or thoughts for improvement:
a) 2♣ is relatively overloaded, yet there is room for finding a safe spot
b ) multi 2♦ loses some preemptive power (especially if u open 2♦ with a weak 3 hand in a minor). If one is willing to give up the 2NT bid for 55M, the weak 3 in a minor can be moved to the 2NT opener;
c) canapè opening 2♥ may be risky at unfav vuln, making it necessary sometimes to play a 5-2 fit in a minor at level 3.

[csdenmark]

I have learned to have much respect for the italians as innovators. As always you cannot judge purely based on openings. The continuations are much needed and the judgement of a system to be based on that.

To me it looks like 3♣♦ are mostly waste. I think moving preempt of minors from 2♦ to 3♣ would be an improvement. Looks like some problems easily will occur after the 1♣ open.

I like the options from Precision to be implemented:

3♦ Sharif
3NT Any 7 solid
4♣♦ Namyats

But if so maybe better just to stick to Precision.

[Chamaco]

Claus, I am also a bit worried of losing preemption with hands worth a weak 3 in a minor (that's why I think of moving it into 2NT).

Anyway, there is a reason of keeping 3♣♦ as big 2-suiters in minors 11-15:
it helps keeping very well-defined the 1D opener.
There may be a wastage of preemption (but preempting with 2NT is not so bad IMHO), but that way you guarantee opening 1♦ with exactly a balanced 11/12-15 with at least a 4 cd major.
This helps in turn to define very well the weak NT: exactly 11/12-15 WITHOUT a 4 card major.

In my view defining well these opening is a huge advantage.

Of course there are a few prices to pay.

[csdenmark]

Mauro please present the full dept from one of the openings. Then I think we a chance to see.

I am very impressed of Quadri Italia system. I think it is a pity so few play that. But of course a very huge description. I was overwhelmed as I last week received the book in photocopy - double size of the book of the championsystem Belladonna/Garozzo. In italian language.

Serena has been very nice and helpful and I hope soon to be able to correct the files so it will be easier for all to play this fantastic system based on loser counting. The italian tradition.

[Free]

What I like:
1♣ (ok, it's a weak spot, but it helps all other openings)
1♦
1M

What I might like
2M: can be dangerous, but that's what I like. The question is: what's more frequent: 5M-4+m or 4M-5+m...

What I don't like:
1NT 11-15: range is too big imo, but I think not all 11HCP balanced will be opened
2♣: loses preemptive value as you don't need ♣, and it's brown sticker
2NT: there are more uses for 2NT than 5-5M, and you don't need to pre-empt with such hands. Better to switch the 3♣ opening for that, and use 2NT for 5-5m
3♣ and 3♦: see 2NT

Remarks:
In one of my partnerships I'm used to play without a 3♣ preempt, and it didn't get us any bottoms, and didn't block us from getting good scores. A 3♣ preempt is well worth a sacrifice if it's replaces with something usefull.

[hrothgar]

Doesn't look like something that I'd be willing to play (and for anyone who knows me, that says a lot)

There are 17 different bids between 1C and 3D. This system is allocating 16 of these to show hands with 11+ HCP AND, the innovators are simultaneously trying to claim that this system is somehow more aligned with the "frequency" of different hand types? This system looks to have an incredibly poorly defined pass.

Furthermore, I'm not impressed with "lumping" any preemptive single suited hand into a 2D opening. At times, I LIKE being able to raise my partner's suit.

Furthermore, the 2C opening looks like a big loser. The Precision 2C opening (5+ Clubs and a 4+ card major or 6+ Clubs) is generally considered an Achilles heels of the system. This opening, which could be based on a 3=3=6=1, looks significantly worse.

The 3m openings are a joke.

[inquiry]

I agree with richard on at least one point. The Multi 2♦ bid here as a generic 2M or 3m preempt is simply horrid. First, it doesn't preempt very much indeed, and second, responder will not be able to bump the preempt, for the simple reason he has no clue what suit his partner holds. At least will normal multi, you can bump the auction when you hold support for both majors. And, lets look at one example...

2♦ - 2♥ - Pass - 4♥
?

No matter what opener's suit is, can he move here? He doesn't know if support exist for his suit, and responder doesn't know either. Sure if responder was short in ♥, there maybe a fair landing spot. In addition, responder has no idea what suit his partner has, and so doesn't know how to defend or what suit might be best to lead.

No, I am not impressed with the 2♦ opening bid, at first reading of this FAST system.


Ben

[Free]

Woops, didn't see that the 2M openings are 11-15. So I don't like these as well. In other words, I don't like about every opening from 1NT and higher. I won't play it as well

[1eyedjack]

In addition to the wide point range for the 1N opener, the supposed benefits of not opening 1NT with a 4 card major (the better to find your own major fit via 1D opening) are at least in part if not wholly offset by the loss of pre-emption against the opponents that the 1NT opener affords on those occasions when you do not have a major suit fit.

Which is the winner out of that exchange I do not know for sure. I have spent most of my life stretching progressively more and more to open 1NT on any hand that remotely fits a weak 1N hand, and without keeping count I have difficulty accepting that this tendency of mine would grow with time if it was continuously costing more than it gained.

[inquiry]

The wide range 1NT is an interesting concept to deal with. I have played 1NT being from (11)12-16... but I have grown fond, at least conceptionally, of the way ETM Victory shows their balanced hands. Each auction has a 2hcp range for balanced hands. With such a narrow range, they don't need "invitational" sequences, responder simply decides. This makes all the auctions with balanced hands much simplier on their face.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

I agree with Ben, Richard and Frederick - total garbage... And no any relation with percenages... If you like to look system really based upon % look Regress, hope Claus already prepared his files about it . There is nothing more easy than to play any strong pass system with normall pass and strong ♣/♦ opening... Poles did their job so well and so scientifically that probably in this area (percentage systems, major oriented systems, distributional systems) will be not be invented better solutions, if rules of bridge will not change, say incude 0NT bid...

Spoiler

------------------------------------------------

Misho

[csdenmark]

Yes Misho - I agree with you. The polish pass system has been a school and a good one. But I really think we ought to have more information about this system - italians are good and purely openings are insufficient to judge anything from.

http://groups.msn.co...LES/regres.msnw

[Chamaco]

Hi all and ty for comments.
I will post more details soon (book is not here right now).

In the meantime, I have to say that the definition of the balanced hands 11-15 was actually of mine, the authors refer to 12-15.
I may open a balanced 11 count in 3rd seat, but that is not a part of the system.


I forgot one thing in the system definition: 11-15 4441 (any shortness) are lumped into 1♦ opening, which is forcing (responder has to bid even with 0 hcp, negative responses being 1♥/♠/NT).

------------------------------------

I agree on criticism about minor suit preemption.
2♦ seems a poor way to preempt in a minor, so I am rather willing to give up 2NT as 5-5 Major opening to use it as a weak 3 bid in a minor.

For the rest of the system, the Multi 2♦ for a weak 2 in a major is not so bad after all.

The other peculiar bids are
- 2♣ as minor single suiter or two-suiter
- 2♥/♠= 4M-5+ m
- 3♣/♦= minimum opener, big 2 suiter in minors

The authors claim that the system is able to disclore most of the hands in one bid, the most effective way (in their opinion) to let responder place the contract while being less vulnerable to overcalls.

I am no expert, so cannot say anything really meaningful, I can just say I found their arguments convincing (except the 2NT for 5-5 in majors, and 3m preempts into 2♦ multi).
Esecially I like the idea of opening with a separate bid (whatever that is) all unbalanced hands without a 5cd Major so that 1♦ and 1NT can be ONLY balanced with and without major.

[Chamaco]

As promised, I add some of the continuations responding to FAST opening bids.
I will skip 1♣ and 1M, since there are so many sequences available on these openings and will concentrate on responding to openings peculiar of the system.
I will start with the 1♦ opening
------------------------------

1♦ Opening = 12-15 balanced WITH a 4 cd major OR 4441 (any sngltn)
Responder cannot pass

1♥= natural negative, 0-8/9 hcp, opener rebids
- 1S = natural, no ♥ support
- 1NT = 4441 snglt ♥
- 2 ♣♦ = sngltn ♣♦
- 2♥= max balanced with support
- pass = min bal + support

1♠= natural negative, 0-8/9 hcp, opener rebids
- 1NT = 4441 snglt ♠
- 2 ♣♦♥ = sngltn ♣♦
- 2♠= max balanced with support
- pass = min bal + support

1NT= NO 4 cd major, negative, 0-8/9 hcp, opener rebids
- 1NT = 4441 snglt ♠
- 2 ♣= sngltn in a major
- 2♦= void in clubs (and 5♦, otherwise wd have opened 1M)
- pass = balanced hand

2♣= Staymanic positive response, opener rebids
- 2♦= unused
- 2♥= 4 ♥, no 4 spades, min hand
- 2♠= 4♠, no 4 ♥, min hand
- 2NT = 4-4 ♥♠, min hand
- 3♣=4♥3♠, max hand
- 3♦=4♠3♥, max
- 3♥= 4♥2♠, max
- 3♠= 4♠2♥, max
- 3NT = 4-4 ♥♠, max
Further sequences are described but would be long to write them down here


2♦= relay, no interest for majors, opener rebids
- 2NT= min balanced
- 3NT = max balanced
- 2M = cheapest 4 card suit in 4441

2♥♠= non forcing, opener can raise to invite holding 4 card support and a max hand

3♥♠= 6 cards, natural, game force

3NT = to play

4♣= Modified Combined A+K asking bid (peculiar of FAST system)

4♦ = "Pick a major"

[Free]

I find it really weird that 1♦-2♣-2♦ has no use... why not use this bid?? The lower you can stay, the better. Perhaps use it for 4-4M or something, so you can play 2♣ as a weak bid as well?

[Chamaco]

Free, on Apr 7 2004, 08:39 PM, said:

I find it really weird that 1♦-2♣-2♦ has no use... why not use this bid?? The lower you can stay, the better. Perhaps use it for 4-4M or something, so you can play 2♣ as a weak bid as well?

Hi Free
I agree that the unused step is weird.
There are other sequences that - in my view - leave ample room for ad-hoc changes, such as the one you suggested.

[Chamaco]

1NT Opening = 12-15 bal, no 4 cd major

Weak responses (0-9), natural (5 bagger for maj, 6 bagger for min)
2♥♠/3♣♦
---
2SA = nat invitational
---
2♣= relay, asks distribution and range (12-13 = min, 14-15 = max)
- 2♦= min., unspecified 5332 (2♦asks long suit, further relay asks doubleton)
- 2♥= min, 4♣-333
- 2♠= min, 4♦-333
- 2NT= min, 4♦-4♣-32 (3♣asks 3-card suit: 3♦=♠, 3♥=♥)
- 3♣ = max, 5♣332 (next relay asks dbltn)
- 3♦ = max, 5♦332 (next relay asks dbltn)
- 3♥ = max 4♣333
- 3♠ = max 4♦333
- 3NT = max, 4♣4♦-32
---
2♦ = relay asking for 3-card major
- 2♥= min, 3♥
- 2♠= min, 3♠
- 2NT= min, 3♥+3♠
- 3♣ = max, 53♥32♠
- 3♦ = max, 53♠32♥
- 3♥ = max 443♥2♠
- 3♠ = 443♠2♥
- 3NT = max, 4333/5332, 3♥+3♠
----
3♥/♠ = game force, 5+ cards, Modified Support Asking Bid (will not describe here their version of SAB)
----
4♣/♦= Xfer to 4♥/♠

[Chamaco]

2♣ Opening
Denies a 4 card major
Includes:

• single suiter (6+) in a minor
  
• 54/45 in minors
  
• 5530/6430 in minors (contain a 3 card major); 55/64 min hands without 3 card major are opened 3♣♦

Responses

Weak responses (0-9)
2♥♠/3♦= natural, 5 cards; eventual rebids are natural
3♣= pass or correct

Invitational
2SA= nat invit to 3SA

Positive
2♦= relay
-2♥= no 3 cd major, 2♠ is relay:
--2SA = 5422, min
--3♣♦= min, natural 1-suiter
-- 3♥= max, ♣ 1-suiter
-- 3♠= max, ♦ 1-suiter
-- 3NT = max, 5422
-2♠= two suiter + 3♠
-2NT= 2-suiter + 3♥
- 3♣ = 6+♣+3♥
- 3♦= 6+♣+3♠
- 3♥ = 6+♦+3♥
- 3♠= 6+♦+3♠
- 3NT = 6+♦+3♥+3♠
- 4♣= 6+♣+3♥+3♠

3♥♠ = 6 bagger, natural, asks for Aces+ Kings in case of 3 cd support by opener, otherwise opener bids 3NT

4♦= Pick a major

[helene_t]

2♦ opening: a brown sticker?

At least in the Netherlands, all weak (9-) variants of a two-opening must promise a 4-card or longer in a known suit. The normal "multi" is and exeption. So this system would not be allowed except when playing teams (IMP) at the highest level. Is this different in Italy, or is the system meant to be used when playing team (IMP) competition?

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Apr 24 2004, 10:59 AM, said:

2♦ opening: a brown sticker?

At least in the Netherlands, all weak (9-) variants of a two-opening must promise a 4-card or longer in a known suit. The normal "multi" is and exeption. So this system would not be allowed except when playing teams (IMP) at the highest level. Is this different in Italy, or is the system meant to be used when playing team (IMP) competition?

Below is what I know about brown stickers rulings in Italy concerning this specific issue.
However, I am not a TD, so my information may be (partially) incorrect.

Weak openings with unspecified suit of at least 4 cards length is considered brown sticker below 3NT.
The same rulings you mentioned for multi 2D also applies.

In several competitions, even mid-flight events, players are allowed to insert in their CC at most 2 Brown Sticker per system they play.
Some competitions, however, do not allow for ANY brown stickers.