[hrothgar]

BridgeBuff, on Aug 29 2004, 06:23 AM, said:

Personally I don't like using up three two-level bids like the Frelling trio does.

I'd LOVE to be able to compress the Frelling 2 structure into a smaller number of openings, or, alternatively to increase the number of hand types shown with one or more of the openings. I even experimented with bundling a hand with 5+ Diamonds and 5+ Clubs into the 2D opening bid. However, I don't see anyway to do so while preserving anything resembling a constructive response structure.

I'm quite proud of the fact that the Frelling 2 opening structure allows very frequent openings while preserving the option for accurate game explorations.

Its possible that the Jammer 2D allows a better response structure than Frelling. In particular, if you can use 2H as an artifical ask rather than a scramble, I can almost see things working. As I noted before, I'd be very interested in seeing your recommended response structure...

[Flame]

Frelling seems like a great convention, i already asked my partner to play it and hopefully he will agree.
I have some questions
1. on bad vul maybe even when everyone is vul, doesnt it make sense to make it 5/4 instead of 4/4 ?
2. Will the 2d opening lead to many bad mp results because we will play partscores in diamonds instead of major ?
3. does the system as published in Chris Ryall's site was updated or is it the one you play ?
Thxs for sharing this cool tool.

[hrothgar]

Flame, on Aug 29 2004, 02:15 PM, said:

Frelling seems like a great convention, i already asked my partner to play it and hopefully he will agree.
I have some questions
1. on bad vul maybe even when everyone is vul, doesnt it make sense to make it 5/4 instead of 4/4 ?
2. Will the 2d opening lead to many bad mp results because we will play partscores in diamonds instead of major ?
3. does the system as published in Chris Ryall's site was updated or is it the one you play ?
Thxs for sharing this cool tool.

The version that was posted on Chris Ryall's web site is still pretty accurate. I'm sure that there are some typos (I'm notorious for typos), but no major changes to the structures.

There is one point that I think requires more emphasis. Over time, I've noticed that responder should bid very conservatively holding balanced hands. For example, suppose that partner opens 2♦ and you hold

♠ K7
♥ KQT3
♦ AQ3
♣ T864

You have a nice 14 count. If partner holds a shapely unbalanced hand with hearts, 4♥ could easily be on. If partner has a nice maximum, you could even make 3N. Personally, I'd pass. I find that the games that I miss are more than balanced by the chance to defend doubled contracts after over aggressive balancing decisions by the opponents.

Please note: Change the hand slightly such that responder holds:

♠ K7
♥ KQT3
♦ AQT3
♣ 864

And I would recommend a 3♣ response. here, I am happy to declar 3♦ opposite Diamonds and Spades and will get to 4♥ opposite a maximum with the red suits.

To date, I haven't required 5-4 shape to amke a vulnerable 2♦ opening. if you do decide to do so, you'l realize more benefits if you require 5 cards in a known suit.

[BridgeBuff]

Jtfanclub:

Of course there are combinations of patterns that don’t do well. It is that way with any bid. I don’t stop using Unusual NT because sometimes partner is 5=5 in the majors. I don’t stop opening 1H because sometimes LHO has eight of them. The bid is lawful about 2/3 of the time, and not lawful about 1/3. You found one of the 1/3. This Jammer is way less risky than opening 3♣ with a 6-bagger.

And no, using 4=3=3=3 doesn’t work because there are too many bad matches.

You would be making the same point about diamonds if opener had 4=2=4=3 instead of 4=2=3=4 shape. You have to consider where it works, not just where it doesn’t. I agree it is possible that removing 4432 might improve the lawfulness (with lower frequency) and I’ll look at that down the road. But there IS an advantage to those 4432 hands … dummy doesn’t go down with a singleton or void in partner’s 6-bagger.

There are other variations that are more lawful. Jammer Short Club, for example, is very safe ….

Hrothgar:

Simple response system. This unlikely is optimum; some smart guy can sharpen it up. Remember there is a ‘safe haven’ in the anchor suit spades.

2♥ is pass/correct (opener passes even with three hearts)
2♠ says pass
2NT says bid best minor (also after 2♦/2♥||2♠/2NT)
3♣ says pass
3♦ is artificial force
3♥ is good suit
3♠ is preemptive

Responder needs a forcing bid; looks to me like 3♦ is best. 2NT either directly or as a second bid asks for best minor.

Responder has a one-suiter (6+). With long diamonds he passes. With hearts he bids 2♥ and if opener rebids 2♠ (denying three hearts) then must decide what to do. If including 4432, then much of the time opener will have a doubleton heart so 3♥ is an option. Or responder can bid 2♠ with three, or trot out a 4-card minor. With 2=6=3=3 he, what, can rebid 3♥ or try 2NT. I would have to test that scenario to determine which was best long-term strategy. With 6+ clubs he bids 3♣ and hopes.

If he has 4+ spades he bids spades.

If responder has a “two-suiter” 4=4 or better, he usually bids the cheaper suit. With 3=4=4=2 he tries 2♥ (slightly better than 2♠) and passes 2♠. With 2=4=3=4 or 2=4=4=3 he tries 2♥, then after 2♠ bids (I can’t remember if 2NT is better than simply bidding the four-bagger, have to look it up). With 2=4=5=2 or 2=4=2=5 he starts hearts, then bids the minor.

The worse responder holdings are 2=335 hands. With five diamonds, pass. With five hearts, try 2♥ then 2NT. With 2=3=3=5, try 2♥ and get stuck sometimes in your 3=3 heart fit (although opps have no idea of course).

There are some sample auctions here

http://www.bridgebuff.com/jammer2d.htm

[hrothgar]

BridgeBuff, on Aug 29 2004, 11:26 PM, said:

Hrothgar:

Simple response system. This unlikely is optimum; some smart guy can sharpen it up. Remember there is a ‘safe haven’ in the anchor suit spades.

2♥ is pass/correct (opener passes even with three hearts)
2♠ says pass
2NT says bid best minor (also after 2♦/2♥||2♠/2NT)
3♣ says pass
3♦ is artificial force
3♥ is good suit
3♠ is preemptive

From my perspective, this illustrates the big problem with this opening.

By your own calculations, you're opening 2♦ on 15% of all hands, and from what I can tell you can't control the auction afterwards.

Case in point: How would you handle the following hand types:

Game invitational values with 4-5 Hearts?
Game forcing values with 5 Hearts?
Game forcing values with 3 Spades?
Game forcing hands with both minors?

[BridgeBuff]

I think 7%, not 15%. I mis-spoke if I said otherwise.

Hey that's why I need someone smart to look at the responses! Know anyone like that?

Quote

Game invitational values with 4-5 Hearts?
Game forcing values with 5 Hearts?
Game forcing values with 3 Spades?
Game forcing hands with both minors?

It's been some time since I played this and right now I'm not where my instructions! to my pard are. I think I used 2NT as a request for best minor, but if responder rebids something .. that's something else.

With invitational hearts, start 2NT and over opener's minor, bid 3♥?

With forcing hearts start 3♦. If partner has hearts, he'll bid them and you're off to the races.

I guess with forcing values and three spades you could consider 3NT if balanced. Maybe you could use 2NT with a 3♠ rebid to show that hand.

With forcing both minors, maybe start 2NT, then bidding the other minor shows that hand.

The point of it was to be aggressive and frequent and lawful and a real irritant and only to take up one lousy bid, not a precision instrument. You want precision, use the Frelling bids and use up all your two bids :-)

[jtfanclub]

BridgeBuff, on Aug 29 2004, 03:26 PM, said:

Jtfanclub:

Of course there are combinations of patterns that don’t do well. It is that way with any bid. I don’t stop using Unusual NT because sometimes partner is 5=5 in the majors. I don’t stop opening 1H because sometimes LHO has eight of them.

I didn't make myself clear, I'm sorry.

I'm saying if OPENER has 4-2-3-4, it looks worse than 4-3-3-3. What hand could responder have where you'd say "whew, good thing I'm 4234" (in that order)?


I am presuming that the response when weak is 2S with 3 or more spades, pass with two or fewer, never look for a heart fit when weak (unless doubled, at which point you have XX for runout). Is that correct?

[BridgeBuff]

Quote

I'm saying if OPENER has 4-2-3-4, it looks worse than 4-3-3-3. What hand could responder have where you'd say "whew, good thing I'm 4234" (in that order)?


I am presuming that the response when weak is 2S with 3 or more spades, pass with two or fewer, never look for a heart fit when weak (unless doubled, at which point you have XX for runout). Is that correct?

Well whenever partner has ANY suit except hearts, especially if he has clubs, the 4=2=3=4 will be a better dummy than 4=3=3=3.

I've scribbled a possible response system previously. You would look for a heart fit if you had an escape somewhere. With say 2=6=4=1 you might first pass, then try 2♥ if doubled. You might try 2♥ first, then over 2♠ bid 3♦. Or you might try passing the 2♠ rebid (20% of the time opener will have five, more if you remove 4432's). If the heart suit is a good one, rebid 3♥. Some juggling is required; we discovered that when playing it. Don't forget the opps have no idea that we haven't found a nice fit somewhere. There is some adventure, some table-feel is useful, and it isn't for the faint-of-heart.

Maybe you have a good idea there .. pass with any weak hand (<3 spades) and build some framework around XX.

[MickyB]

I've played a 2♦ bid similar to Frelling 2♦ in several partnerships. My personal preference is to restrict it to 4-5♦ and exactly 4 in the major, which is usually called 'Rough Diamond'. This is because 4D5M will frequently leave you in diamonds when you should be in the major, and 5-5s have too much playing strength unless very weak in HCP.

Like Richard, I feel that Jammer is inferior to Rough and Frelling bids for a number of reasons - it seems to give the opponents more options (usually two doubles and a cue for direct seat), gets to the 3 level too often, doesn't do as well constructively and (I suspect) lands in misfits more often. These are big costs for a little extra frequency. Even if you want to keep 2♥ and 2♠ as natural, I would choose Frelling 2♦ over Jammer 2♦.

IMO opening Rough/Frelling 2♦ on a 4-4 2nd seat vul is a big risk for little gain, it should almost certainly be kept to 5-4 here IMO, if it is going to be played at all. In one partnership I am hoping to play Rough Club (4♣4M) and Diamond as 3-9 1st NV and 5-9 in 2nd green vul, then in other positions play GF 2♣ opener (probably with weak options) with constructive (6-10/8-11) multi+dutch 2s. I haven't analysed any results to back up not playing Rough bids at other positions and vuls, I probably should!

[BridgeBuff]

You guys might prefer Short Club Jammer. Frequency is about 4% (compared to 7% for Long Spade). It is lawful 72% of the time (compared to 2% and 74% lawful for 9+ major Ekren). I forget the response structure I used to derive the 72% but it would be something fairly straighforward. Didn't play it because it lacked an anchor suit so the clubs wouldn't let me ... hmmmmm combine short club with long spade ....

[jtfanclub]

BridgeBuff, on Aug 30 2004, 12:51 PM, said:

Didn't play it because it lacked an anchor suit so the clubs wouldn't let me ... hmmmmm combine short club with long spade ....

That seems odd. Do they let you play mini-Roman?

The reason why I don't mind being 4333 (4 spades, 3 clubs of course) is because while that terrible shape probably cost us a trick, it probably also gained them a trick (making the thirteeth card of a 4-3 fit good, let's say). So if you're pre-empting, why not?

[hrothgar]

One last comment thatis probably worth making:

3 suited hands are often MUCH better on defense than offense:
Just another reason why I prefer the 4432/two suited assumed fit style to this
4432/three suited structure...

[MickyB]

BridgeBuff, on Aug 30 2004, 06:51 PM, said:

You guys might prefer Short Club Jammer. Frequency is about 4% (compared to 7% for Long Spade). It is lawful 72% of the time (compared to 2% and 74% lawful for 9+ major Ekren). I forget the response structure I used to derive the 72% but it would be something fairly straighforward. Didn't play it because it lacked an anchor suit so the clubs wouldn't let me ... hmmmmm combine short club with long spade ....

Possibly, but compared to Rough Diamond it is less frequent and gives the opps more info, with no advantages that I can see. IMO by far the best Jammer variant is Long Diamond, indeed most of the criticisms in this thread don't apply to it.

[BridgeBuff]

I’m curious how someone judged that Rough Diamond was a relatively safe bid. In fact it is very dangerous.

This is how I test these bids. My commercial deal generator cannot do it without some tweaking, so I sneak in a back door and build some code. To test RD I simply generate a random deal, no constraints, and if the South hand qualifies for RD (I’m looking only at pattern, not HCP), then I check to see what the North hand would do, and what is the resulting degree of fit.

The South hand qualifies if it has 4/5 diamonds and either 4 hearts or 4 spades.

When that happens, the North hand has some choices, in approximately this order. Small variations to this order would not make much difference.

· North has 4+ both majors. He bids 2H, pass or correct. If South has hearts, they play in 2H, otherwise they play in 2S.
· If North has 4+ hearts and 4+ diamonds, he tries 2H and if South corrects to 2S, he plays in 3D
· If North has 7+ hearts they play in 3H
· If North has 7+ spades they play in 3S
· If North has 6+ clubs they play in 3C
· If North has 3+ in both majors, he bids 2H pass/correct and they play in 2H or 2S
· If North has 5+ spades they play in 2S
· If North has 5+ diamonds they play in 3D
· If North has 3+ diamonds they play in 2D ‘he passes

Now you are approaching very dangerous territory. What is left are basically hands with 4-5 clubs, and 4-5 of a major. Options with 2515, say, are a little scary. There are more of these than you might think.

I guessed that if North has 5 clubs, he would try the major and bid 3C necessary.

For something like 2524, I passed ….

This might be improved slightly. I made no provision for contracts in NT. I also assumed that the contract would be played in the lowest strain (except for the 3D preempt).

After several thousand trails, the (ABCD) values are (6, 38, 38, 18) meaning 6% of contracts were 2 trumps short of law requirements, 38% were 1 trump short, 38% were lawful, and 18% were better than lawful.

That’s a fairly scary bid at just 56% lawful. Long Spade Jammer was 62% lawful and Short Club was 72% lawful.

I don’t think I made a material mistake.

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Aug 30 2004, 07:19 PM, said:

One last comment thatis probably worth making:

3 suited hands are often MUCH better on defense than offense:
Just another reason why I prefer the 4432/two suited assumed fit style to this
4432/three suited structure...

I don't understand what you are saying.

A 4432 hand is just as suited to defense whether you call it a 3 suiter or a 2 suiter. If you want to defend with it, then pass. If you want to try to declare with it why does it matter if it called a 2 suiter or a 3 suiter?

Eric

[MickyB]

Hrothgar is referring to the other hand types in the bid - Jammer opens 4432s and 3 suiters, Rough Diamond opens 4432s and 2 suiters.

Bridgebuff - I would be very surprised if your figures are correct, they are nothing like the ones I've seen other people suggest. Do you have anything in there that will stop it being played in the major when responder is 3343, or from being played in spades when responder is 5242 opposite 4 hearts? Or in clubs when responder is 2146 or 2236? Also, I wouldn't often bid past 2♦ holding 4♦4major, and if I did I wouldn't expect law protection.

[Free]

BridgeBuff, on Aug 31 2004, 04:09 AM, said:

~snip~
After several thousand trails, the (ABCD) values are (6, 38, 38, 18) meaning 6% of contracts were 2 trumps short of law requirements, 38% were 1 trump short, 38% were lawful, and 18% were better than lawful.

That’s a fairly scary bid at just 56% lawful. Long Spade Jammer was 62% lawful and Short Club was 72% lawful.

I don’t think I made a material mistake.

You think this is scary? I think it's a WONDERFUL system!

- We are not looking for the optimal contract, we are looking for a 'playable' contract. 2-level in a 4-3 is playable (watch MOSCITO sometimes ).
- What kind of opps play penalty Dbl at 2-level on a 2♦ opening? I don't think many do that, so you play undoubled and you'll have a good score.
- You can preempt hard in ♦, even violating the LOTT and bid 3♦ on a 4 card, hoping opener has a 5 card...
- From the moment opps bid, you lose the possible backfiring, so no problems there.

I remember a hand where Richard opened 2♥ showing 4+♥ and either 4+♠/5+♣. I had something like a 5-1-5-2 and I passed! We had a good score since opps bid and got the trumps against them . Richard thought it would be better for me to bid P/C and play in a possible 5-2 fit in 3♣, but I still think passing can be good on such hands. Opps will Double 3♣ a lot easier imo. My LHO has to pass or bid. They usually bid, and if he Dbls and it comes back at me, I can still bid...

[hrothgar]

When I ran my last set of simulations, the Frelling 2♦ opening resulted in:

a 7+ card fit ~90% of the time
an 8+ card fit ~65% of the time

Accordingly, we will play a 2 level contract in a 7 card fit approximately 25% of the time.

While you characterize this as a Law Violation, I actually consider it to be a part of the strength of the system. Its relatively easy to complete over LAW-abiding bids. When was the last time that good opponents allowed you to playing 2♥ in a known 8 card fit? the very same fit that protects you allows the opponents to compete effectively.

In contrast, a bidding style that allow a partnership to declare 2M with a reasonable number of 7 card fits places MUCH more pressure on the opponents since they have much less protection when they choose to balance.

[BridgeBuff]

Quote

Bridgebuff - I would be very surprised if your figures are correct, they are nothing like the ones I've seen other people suggest. Do you have anything in there that will stop it being played in the major when responder is 3343, or from being played in spades when responder is 5242 opposite 4 hearts? Or in clubs when responder is 2146 or 2236? Also, I wouldn't often bid past 2♦ holding 4♦4major, and if I did I wouldn't expect law protection.

I'll check to make sure it passes with it 3=3=4=3.

I'll see what it does with 3=4=4=2 and the like; pretty sure it passes.

What is the book sequence when responder is 5=2=4=2 vs say 6=2=2=3? The source I checked said bid 2S with 5+ spades, and opener would pass (or raise with 4). If you think it is better tactics to pass with 5=2=4=2 (or bid 3D) you'll miss out on some nice spade fits. I can check either way.

I'll check those club hands too.

I very much doubt these changes will make much difference but we'll see.

This is the only way to properly simulate the lawfulness of the bid, by stepping through a set of sensible responses. You cannot rely on pattern tables, because the shape of the opener influences the shape of responder. Also you have to make sure your analysis is not double-dummy, that responder isn't peeking.

The analysis is correct (pending these tweaks). One source at the Cavendish site said there was a '66% chance of landing in an 8-card fit in hearts spades or clubs for a 2H opening. That club fit is unlawful, so any comparison you want to make with the (ABCD) notation is comparing apples with oranges because that notation reflects 8-fits at the two-level and 9-fits at the three-level. And if someone thinks that a system which generates lots of 4=3 fits with weak hands at the two-level is GOOD, then that guy is a better dummy player than I am, even though it does pressure the opps.

Where two suits are known for sure, the Ekren majors say, the lawfulness is higher because responder knows more about opener's hand. Where there is doubt, sometimes for safety's sake responder must settle in an inferior spot when there is a chance of a better spot but it isn't prudent to look for it. With 4=2=3=4 responder will normally pass Rough Diamond (won't he?) but if the analysis 'peeks' and sees 4 spades with opener ....

2D Ekren 9+ majors is lawful 74%. Short Club Jammer is lawful 72%, and with twice the frequency (although apparently not playable in the ACBL).

[BridgeBuff]

Those response tweaks improved Rough Diamond a little more than I thought, to (5, 35, 40, 20). That makes it 60% lawful (8-fit at two-level, 9-fit at three-level) putting it in approximately the same class as Long Spade Jammer at 62%, so both provide roughly the same 4=3 thrills at the two-level, and 5=3 thrills at the three-level.

Frequencies are approximately equivalent as well.

I will check out that Long Diamond Jammer variation to see what's up there.