[akhare]

straube, on Sep 13 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

ok. Let me attack this another way.  Let's say I was married to these club responses....

1D-GF
1H-any 5-7 hcps
1S-any 0-4 hcps
other-GF

How would you assign 1D, 1N, 2C, 2D, etc?

I don't think this scheme very optimal. It gains one step for the positive responses, but comes at the huge cost of playing a completely different structure after 1C - 1H.

Also, room after 1C - 1H auction is way too cramped and it seems much better to redefine the structure as:

1D: Any SP
1H: Spades, S+m / Bal -> 1N: S+C, 2C: S / S+D, 2D+ = bal
1S: Junk
1N: H / H+m -> 2D = H+C, 2H = H, 2S+ = H+D
2C: D / minors -> 2H = diamonds, 2S+ = minors
2D: Three suited
2H: Single suited clubs
2S+: Majors reversed, etc.

Granted, the single suiters start at 2H and two suiters at 2S, but IMO it isn't a very big loss.

BTW, note that original design intent of Moscito was to show as many SP shapes ASAP over 1♣ and immediate bids from 1H - 2S were reserved for that purpose.

In this scheme, given that all SP responses are compressed in a single bid, it makes much more sense to allow maximal space to unwind them (and still be able to find the best part score at the 2 level if necessary)...

[awm]

I think bidding over a 1♠ negative or a 1♥ semi-positive is pretty tough without a lot of complicated methods/agreements. You need a lot of work determining which sequences are forcing or not, as well as how to deal with competitive sequences. My impression from the "non-relay" restriction is that you're looking for a system without a huge amount of complexity, in which case I'd recommend sticking with 1♦ negative and other responses game forcing.

[straube]

awm, on Sep 13 2010, 10:38 PM, said:

I think bidding over a 1♠ negative or a 1♥ semi-positive is pretty tough without a lot of complicated methods/agreements. You need a lot of work determining which sequences are forcing or not, as well as how to deal with competitive sequences. My impression from the "non-relay" restriction is that you're looking for a system without a huge amount of complexity, in which case I'd recommend sticking with 1♦ negative and other responses game forcing.

These folks use 1C-1D, 1H-1S as a second negative and their 2C continuation shows an even bigger hand.

So I'm merely dividing the semipositives from the junk immediately. I'm sure they can get that.

1C-1H, 1S establishes a GF. Natural bidding ensues
1C-1S, 2C establishes a GF. Natural bidding again

What I'm trying to do is to decide what positives I want to show immediately as opposed to those that can wait with a 1D response. If I can solve this, I'm hoping that they can continue with natural or fairly natural bidding thereafter.

[akhare]

straube, on Sep 13 2010, 10:48 PM, said:

These folks use 1C-1D, 1H-1S as a second negative and their 2C continuation shows an even bigger hand.

So I'm merely dividing the semipositives from the junk immediately. I'm sure they can get that.

1C-1H, 1S establishes a GF. Natural bidding ensues
1C-1S, 2C establishes a GF. Natural bidding again

What I'm trying to do is to decide what positives I want to show immediately as opposed to those that can wait with a 1D response. If I can solve this, I'm hoping that they can continue with natural or fairly natural bidding thereafter.

Seems like for purely natural responses with 5+M:

1D: SP
1H: GF 5+ spades / Bal
1S: Junk
1N: GF 5+ Hearts
2C: GF Diamonds
2D: GF Clubs

is a pretty good start.

Frankly, I am struggling to see why 1C - 1H SP is actually better than 1C - 1D SP in this scheme of things...

[straube]

akhare, on Sep 13 2010, 10:57 PM, said:

straube, on Sep 13 2010, 10:48 PM, said:

These folks use 1C-1D, 1H-1S as a second negative and their 2C continuation shows an even bigger hand.

So I'm merely dividing the semipositives from the junk immediately.  I'm sure they can get that. 

1C-1H, 1S establishes a GF. Natural bidding ensues
1C-1S, 2C establishes a GF. Natural bidding again

What I'm trying to do is to decide what positives I want to show immediately as opposed to those that can wait with a 1D response.  If I can solve this, I'm hoping that they can continue with natural or fairly natural bidding thereafter.

Seems like for purely natural responses with 5+M:

1D: SP
1H: GF 5+ spades / Bal
1S: Junk
1N: GF 5+ Hearts
2C: GF Diamonds
2D: GF Clubs

is a pretty good start.

Frankly, I am struggling to see why 1C - 1H SP is actually better than 1C - 1D SP in this scheme of things...

If we look at standard Precision's initial responses...

1D-0-7
1H-8+, 5H
1S-8+, 5S
1N-8-13 bal
2C-8+, 5C
2D-8+, 5D

we see that 1H, 1S, 1N, 2C, 2D, etc are all devoted to GF hands.

This is the equivalent (looking at Fibonacci) of devoting 1D, 1N, 2C, 2D etc to GF hands...which is what I proposed.

If one devotes a 1D response to 5-7 as well as a 1S response to 0-4, then one has necessarily robbed the positives of something equivalent to a 1S response. That is a big difference.

What I've attempted to do with

1D-GF other
1H-semipositive
1S-neg
etc-GF other

is to separate the semipositives from the negatives straight away. This has the primary disadvantage of hurting auctions after 1C-1S (neg) because opener isn't allowed to show extras before learning of a second negative (as in 1C-1D (neg), 1H(extra)-1S (neg)). It has the primary advantage in letting opener assess game prospects if RHO interferes.

[hrothgar]

straube, on Sep 14 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

ok. Let me attack this another way. Let's say I was married to these club responses....

1D-GF
1H-any 5-7 hcps
1S-any 0-4 hcps
other-GF

How would you assign 1D, 1N, 2C, 2D, etc?

I really think that its insane to do this unless you're playing a simple relay structure like symmetric.

(Even playing symmetric, the response structure gets complicate)

[bluecalm]

Meckwell simplified base is simple and effective. You can use basically natural bidding using it.
I can write short summary if you are interested.

[straube]

bluecalm, on Sep 14 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

Meckwell simplified base is simple and effective. You can use basically natural bidding using it.
I can write short summary if you are interested.

Sure. Thanks.

[vang]

http://www.melodiccanada.com/dreamland/bbs.../0912/1389.html
"Simplified Version of Meckwell Precision System
Simplified Meckwell Precision system (for students)"

[bluecalm]

It goes like this:

1♣ - 1♦ = 0-7 any
then 1M is F1 4+ with possible longer minor. 2m is NF 16-21; 2H is Kokish, 2S is strong with spades

1♣ - 1♥ is 8-11 any shape

1♣ - 1♠ = 12+, 5+♠
1♣ - 1NT = 12+, 5+♥

After those you just bid as in normal 2/1 system having additional space after 1♠.
It's a bit easier here as your side has 28+hcp so you are in slam zone.

1♣ - 2♣/2♦ = 12+, 5+ natural
1♣ - 2♥ = 14+ balanced
1♣ - 2NT = 12-13 balanced (then system on as after 2NT opening)

1♣ - 2♠ = 12+, any 4-4-4-1 then it's simple to design system to show all the shortnesses and 12-13,14-15, 16+ ranges. (For example 2NT ask, 3♣ = either singleton D, or minimum with singleton S, 3D = singleton H, 3H singleton S 14+, 3S/3NT/4C = singleton club 12-13,14-15,16+; next step after 3C/3D/3H is range ask).

The biggest problem in the whole system is:

1♣ - 1♥
2♥ as it's quite high. To solve this problem you can try various things. One is to put all the hands with 5spades to 1♠ (making it 8+ instead of 12+) this way you have operational 2♠ bid here (Greco Hampson play that way). Other way I thought of is using:

1♣ - 1♥
2NT is 6H-4m and jumps to 3m are 5H-5m; both bids with minimum strength (16-19); and bidding 1NT with any 5-3-3-2 (with 5 hearts) so 2H rebid is 6+ hearts or 5H-4m without 6M-4m and 5-5 (unless slammish).

You honestly don't need any more conventions just bid natural after establishing GF.

[straube]

Thanks. I like the idea of using 1S as 8+ (seems too infrequent otherwise) but I might want to rearrange to...

1D-0-7
1H-8-11 any
1S-8+, H
1N-12+, S
2C-12+, D
2D-12+, C

I'm still thinking that most of these structures let responder give too much direction (take up too much space).

[bluecalm]

Quote

1S-8+, H
1N-12+, S
2C-12+, D
2D-12+, C

Not sure about witching minors. Switching majors seems like a good idea (to have more space with hearts).
Maybe even in basic version:

1♣ -
1♠ = hearts, 12+
1NT = spades, 12+

would be an improvement.

[Zelandakh]

These are the optimised responses to 1C for right-siding a contract while making sure that each bid contains the "correct" number of hands (latter not so important for non-relayers):-
1D = any non-GF
1H = 4+ spades, GF (not qualified for 2H or 2S)
1S = any hand without a 4 card major, GF
1N = heart 1-suiter, or hearts and clubs, GF
2C = hearts and diamonds, GF
2D = 4-5 hearts, balanced, 2-3 spades, GF
or 4-5 hearts, 0-1 spades, 4441/5440
2H = 4-5 spades, balanced, 2-3 hearts, GF
2S = 4-5 spades, 0-1 hearts, 4441/5440, GF

They were designed for a relay system but can be adapted to non-relay methods with a bit of work. The same applies to Meckwell responses, you can play them as written without using the following relay structure. Even without playing relays it can be helpful to use the next step to show extra strength and other bids as natural and minimum (probably 16-18). This makes it easier for Responder to judge when to make a slam try above game when they have extras.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on Sep 16 2010, 06:56 AM, said:

These are the optimised responses to 1C for right-siding a contract while making sure that each bid contains the "correct" number of hands (latter not so important for non-relayers):-
1D = any non-GF
1H = 4+ spades, GF (not qualified for 2H or 2S)
1S = any hand without a 4 card major, GF
1N = heart 1-suiter, or hearts and clubs, GF
2C = hearts and diamonds, GF
2D = 4-5 hearts, balanced, 2-3 spades, GF
or 4-5 hearts, 0-1 spades, 4441/5440
2H = 4-5 spades, balanced, 2-3 hearts, GF
2S = 4-5 spades, 0-1 hearts, 4441/5440, GF

They were designed for a relay system but can be adapted to non-relay methods with a bit of work. The same applies to Meckwell responses, you can play them as written without using the following relay structure. Even without playing relays it can be helpful to use the next step to show extra strength and other bids as natural and minimum (probably 16-18). This makes it easier for Responder to judge when to make a slam try above game when they have extras.

Optimized for what style of strong club opening...

I can virtually guaruntee that a set of optimal responses opposite a Blue Club style 1♣ opening doesn't work nearly as well opposite a MOSCITO strong club and vice versa.

[PrecisionL]

I have spent a lot of time studying the various 1♣ strong systems.

It does not make sense from a frequency or useful space design to play 1♣ - 1♥ = 8-11 and higher bids as 12+. If you must separate these ranges, they should be reversed.

Keylime and I have found the following to work very well.

Responses to 1♣ (16+ hcp or the distributional equivalent):

1♦ = 0-8 hcp (8 without an A or K)
1♥ = 4+♠ (unbalanced) , or 11-14 hcp & balanced
1♠ = 4+♥ (unbalanced)
1NT = 54 or better in the majors, or 44(41), or 5m440 with 11+ & 4+ controls
2♣  = 1 or both minors (denies a 4 cd M)
2♦ = 8-10 balanced
2♥ = 5♥332
2♠ = 5♠332
2NT = 15+ hcp
3X = 4441 hands & 8-10 hcp

[bluecalm]

Quote

It does not make sense from a frequency or useful space design to play 1♣ - 1♥ = 8-11 and higher bids as 12+. If you must separate these ranges, they should be reversed.

Why ?
If the system is not relay based then space for relays isn't the only criterium.
The whole idea is that 1♥ 8-11 is very frequent and bidding after this is simple while higher bids put you in slam zone so it doesn't hurt that much to lose space.

I don't know how much less frequent 12+ hands are comparing to 8-11 hands but there is the same amount of space after 1♥ than after all other bids combined (I am not talking about relay space; i am talking about ability to convey information by both sides).
Another thing is also that 1♣ is very often strong bal hand and it's important for this hand to be able to bid 1NT after 1H so other hand could start describing itself (in general distributional hand should describe itself to bal hand, not other way around).

Quote

1♦ = 0-8 hcp (8 without an A or K)
1♥ = 4+♠ (unbalanced) , or 11-14 hcp & balanced
1♠ = 4+♥ (unbalanced)
1NT = 54 or better in the majors, or 44(41), or 5m440 with 11+ & 4+ controls
2♣  = 1 or both minors (denies a 4 cd M)
2♦ = 8-10 balanced
2♥ = 5♥332
2♠ = 5♠332
2NT = 15+ hcp
3X = 4441 hands & 8-10 hcp

Sweet and all but you need a lot of agreements to untagle those.
Advantage of 1H = 8-11, others = 12+ natural is that you can just bid naturally.

OP says:

Quote

Remembering that they are not interested in relaying

It seems to me that those won't fit.

[PrecisionL]

Relays are not necessary for follow-ons and the major suits are ID early.

Responding to 1♣ (16+):

0-7 hcp = 46 %

8-11 hcp = 37.5 % (not adjusting for poor 8 hcp hands that respond 1♦)

12+ hcp = 16.5 %

I guess you pay your money and take your choice.

Edited: 9/21/10 2106 EDT

0-4 hcp = 17 %

5-7 hcp = 29 %

Probability estimated by numerical summation of most probable distributions for 16 - 30 hcp by 1 ♣ Opener.

[Flameous]

1♣ -

1♦ = 0-5 or 12+ (1♥ asks, other bids tend to show minimum)
Others natural or preferably transfers.
It's true that it's not so simple as typical in strong club cause now you have some inv. sequences, but responders hand is limited and almost GF. You could even play like 2/1 system w/ F1NT over 1♥/♠ which would be funny

2♥ and up can be used to show some specific, mainly you want to unload all 4441s w/ different strengths. Probably want a bid to show solid suit too, it's pretty useful once in a blue moon when it comes up.

[straube]

PrecisionL, on Sep 18 2010, 08:04 PM, said:

Relays are not necessary for follow-ons and the major suits are ID early.

Rseponding to 1♣ (16+):

0-7 hcp = 46 %

8-11 hcp = 37.5 % (not adjusting for poor 8 hcp hands that respond 1♦)

12+ hcp = 16.5 %

I guess you pay your money and take your choice.

I ran through 150 hands recently for
.....1D-GF bal or M or M/m
.....1H-semipositive (5-7 or so)
.....1S-negative (0-4 or so)
.....all else GF other

and got...

.....1D-30%
.....1H-29%
.....1S-29%
.....1N-4%
.....2C-3%
etc.

which
1) looks not quite right to me because a prior sample I'd run had something like 25% negatives and my 1H and 1S totals (58%) are higher than the 46% you got for your 1D response. Some of the difference is from how we tabulate results (I GF with most 8 pt hands)

2) seems to me a better use of 1-level space than is true for Meckwell Light. This is probably even more so if the results are more like...

.....1D-33%
.....1H-31%
.....1S-25%
.....1N-4%
.....2C-3%

I don't care for Meckwell Light because I prefer to find the right strain before learning if partner has extras. Seems like 1H has to be the 8-11 range or you would wind up with something like

.....1D-46%
.....1H-16.5%
.....1S-guessing 4%

[hrothgar]

Years back, I ran a lot of simulations studying the frequency of different responses opposite a 1st seat MOSCITO strong club opening. (Said sim ignored direct seat competitive bidding)

Here's what I ended up with

Game Forcing hands: 36.2%
Semi Positive hands: 45%
Double Negatives: 18.8%