[hrothgar]

tysen2k, on Jan 26 2005, 08:56 PM, said:

flytoox, on Jan 26 2005, 08:49 AM, said:

What is the negative response to strong 1D opening?

I've seen a 1♥ bid used as a negative response, but the beauty of the simulations that I ran is that you don't even have to know what the continuations are to be able to judge the merits of the opening bids.

For those of you who are wondering how that's even possible, I use a method described by Matt Ginsberg here. The basics are that you don't assume what the continuations are going to be but rather assume that you will be able to define the continuations later at some given level of efficiency (I assumed 18% which seemed to work out quite well).

Tysen

I'll note in passing that Ginsburg's own results with these methods were highly questionable. As I recall, he eventually abandoned the work...

[mike777]

Please note if opening ( often canape) 1D, 1H or 1S promises 2 suited hand and often(not 100%) exactly only 4 card opening length then responder becomes much less concerned about raising with 3 card support and more concerned with P longer unknown second suit.

Playing in 4-3 fit becomes a rare event at 2 level or higher but you get many of the advantages of playing 4 card major openings.

[tysen2k]

hrothgar, on Jan 26 2005, 12:57 PM, said:

I'll note in passing that Ginsburg's own results with these methods were highly questionable.  As I recall, he eventually abandoned the work...

Yes they were questionable, but in studying the system and his results, it looked like the reason his results were so strange was because his assumed continuing effeciency was too high. The opening bid definitions that his computer eventually produced said to pass on ~80% of all hands. What was happening was that the computer assumed that the follow-ups would be so effecient that it didn't want to waste any precious bidding space on opening since his partner would be able to open better than he could. I've talked with Matt about this and he agreed with my conclusions.

In duplicating his work with a lower effeciency I'm producing much more "normal" results.

Ginsberg did abandon the project but that was because of a lack of time, not interest. This was before GIB was released and so once that became a product he spent his time maintaining that. He did try to start to tackle the problem again about a year ago, got some programmers to volunteer to help him, and then everyone ended up flaking on him.

Tysen

[blahonga]

My preferred opening structure, which is quite popular in Sweden, playing strong club is as follows:

1♣ 16+
1♦ 11-13 bal or 10-15 unbalanced with a four card major
1♥/♠ 10-15 5+
1NT 14-16 bal
2 ♣/♦ 10-15 6+ or 12-15 5 cards, with 4 of the other minor. Denies a four card major.

The 1♦-opening is quite easy to cope with, although high level competition is a bit troublesome. Undisturbed it is a breeze though. Knowing that 2♣/♦ denies a four card major really makes the difference though.

/Mattias

[MickyB]

Think I would rather play a 12-15 NT denying/rarely having a 4 card major, then 1♦ can promise a 4 card major. Or even better, play 1♦ as promising exactly 5 cards in a major...

BTW david_c is unable to access the forums atm, which may be why he hasn't participated in this thread for the past few days. None of the normal links work for him, and DrTodd is having the same problem.

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2005-January-27, 20:33

[pbleighton]

I play:
1C - 15+, any shape
1D - 10-14, 0+ diamonds, unbalanced, either
1) any 4441, or
2) minor 2 suiter, or
3) 4 of a major and 5+ of a minor
1M - 9-14, 5+ cards
1NT - 11-14
2m - 6+ cards, no 4cM
2M - 3-9, 5+ cards (vul is better)
2NT - 8-12, 5-5 or better in the minors

The 1D opener in uncontested auctions is good, the
non-fit rebids after 1D-1M clarify the shape quite
nicely.

The 1M and 2m openings are great.

Peter

[mgoetze]

david_c, on Jan 22 2005, 01:16 PM, said:

1. How useful is it for the limited opening to be limited?

balanced hands - It is essential that the stength required for opening 1C with a balanced hand is relatively low. If it was made higher, then either you would have to play a wide-range 1NT opening, or you would have to open a nebulous 1D on lots of hands. This would be highly undesirable.

I disagree. With my regular partner, I am currently playing a wide-ranging 1NT opening (11-15) which denies a 4-card major. This gives us the bidding room we need to invite in two different ways depending on responder's range. Our 1D opening has a lot of hand types in it, of course, but this is actually OK - it is, after all, the third-lowest possible opening bid. We just need a few artificial methods after 1D so that by the time of opener's rebid, we almost always know whether we have a 4-4 fit in a major or not. For instance, 1D-1H-2C/2D both show 4 Spades as well as 5+ in the minor; without 4 Spades the rebid is either 1NT or 3C/3D. This works quite well for us, YMMV.

Quote

"spades" and "hearts" hands - Limited 1S and 1H opening bids are very useful indeed. Indeed you could say that these bids are the reason you play a strong club in the first place. Even so, you would have to rate a limit of the order of 15-16HCP as "useful", rather than "essential" as in the case of balanced hands. (You'd find it difficult to argue that a Standard American 1S or 1H opening bid is unplayable.)

Sure, but it is easy to put various not-too-weak NTs into a system, because the continuations are usually quite simple. 1NT, 1C-1D-1NT, 1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT, you can play them as all the same thing just with different ranges. Distributional hands are more difficult to bid, because there are more combinations. We've even gone so far as to include all hands without a singleton/void in our "balanced" positive response to 1C, even 7222's.

Limited 1H/1S openings are great because you know right away whether trying to find out more about opener's distribution rates to be worthwhile. If you have only 2-card support but can see right away that you won't have enough points for 3NT, there's no need to mess around looking for a minor suit fit.

Quote

"diamonds" hands - These definitely get the wooden spoon. It is certainly useful to have a small range for 1D, but much less so than for 1S and 1H, the reasons being:
- responder often needs to check on major-suit fits before knowing what the final contract should be, which is not a problem when the opening bid is 1S or 1H;
- the shape is less well defined (another reason why it is difficult for responder to set the final contract quickly);
- there is more space available after 1D than after 1S or 1H.

I think it's very important for 1D to be limited, but maybe that's because my 1D includes a lot more than just "diamonds hands". The more you need to find out opener's distribution the less you want to be worrying about how many points he might have.

Quote

"clubs" hands - It's so difficult to bid constructively after a Precision 2C opening that it's absolutely essential for 2C to have a narrow range - even more so than in the case of balanced hands.

It gets much easier if you play that 2C denies a 4-card major, putting such hands in 1D instead.

Quote

2. How easy is it to bid the hand after opening a strong 1C?

Yes, there is a problem with the standard responses to 1C in Precision. Or make that at least two problems, if you consider wrongsiding the contract a problem. Particularily 1C-1NT as a balanced positive is silly. It's quite easy to fix, thought. Just an example: 1C-...
...1D is negative
...1H is positive in Spades or Clubs
...1S is balanced positive
...1NT is positive in Hearts
...2C is positive in Diamonds

leaving plenty of room for Semipositives/4441's/whatever.

Of course, in my experience, actually getting to respond to 1C at the one level is so rare it is hardly worth worrying about.

Of course, the modifications I suggest do mean you won't be playing "Standard Precision" anymore. But I think the system is not so fundamentally flawed as to still be unplayable after a few tweaks.

Regards,
Michael

[Free]

Peter, at this moment I play something similar (1st & 2nd seat only) :

1♣ = 15+ any
1♦ = (9)10-14 no 5 card M, 0+♦
1M = (9)10-14 5+M
1NT = 10-12 balanced, no 5 card M
2♣ = weak, 4+♣ & 4+M (no 3-suiter)
2♦ = weak, 4+♦ & 4+M (no 3-suiter)
2♥ = weak, 4+♥ & 4+♠ (no 3-suiter)
2♠ = weak, 5+♠
2NT = preempt ♣
3♣ = weak with 5+♣ & 5+♦

Full relaystructures after all 1-level bids (including 1NT).

I also noticed the 1♦ is quite workable if we don't get much intervention. Without any intervention it works like a charm.
1M openings are always great.
1NT is heavy, gains a lot in MP's. At this moment we play this at any vulnerability, but this might change when we have to play really serious matches in imps
2m openings are VERY frequent and work out quite well. Finding a playable contract is often quite easy.

[mila85]

MickyB, on Jan 27 2005, 09:14 PM, said:

BTW david_c is unable to access the forums atm, which may be why he hasn't participated in this thread for the past few days. None of the normal links work for him, and DrTodd is having the same problem.

I had the same problem.
http://forums.bridgebase.com/

[inquiry]

mila85, on Jan 28 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

MickyB, on Jan 27 2005, 09:14 PM, said:

BTW david_c is unable to access the forums atm, which may be why he hasn't participated in this thread for the past few days. None of the normal links work for him, and DrTodd is having the same problem.

I had the same problem.
http://forums.bridgebase.com/

If you are in touch with him, have him try...

www.bridgebase.com/forums

[mikestar]

I've found that I rather like a big club system with "4 1/2" card majors. Here's how it works (balanced = 4333, 4432, or 5332):

1C = 16+ art.
1D = 10-15 4+ diamonds unbalanced.
1H = 10-15 4+ hearts unbalanced.
1S = 10-15 4+ spades unbalanced.
1N = 12-15 balanced, may have 5 card major (pass balanced 11 or less)
2C = 10-15 6+ clubs single suited.


1D/1H will have 4 cards with 4441 shape or longer clubs
1S will have 4 cards with longer clubs only.

If you open 1 of a suit with a five card suit, you will have a second suit.
Since a 1 of a suit opener can't be balanced, minimum NT rebids by opener can be used artificially as a low level force with difficult hands. (If the response is 1N we give up the ability to play in 2C and use 2C as NMF by opener.)

I find that this eliminates the worst hands for 4 card majors (weakish balanced) so you are unlikely to be in 2M on 4-3 when you should be in NT or defending.

It also makes 4cM infrequent enough that it's fairy safe to assume five in cometetive situations where you can't find out partner's length.

Notice that 1D is a real suit just like the majors.

2C guarantees 6 cards and no second suit in principle (we might conceal 4 mediocre diamonds or 4 worthless hearts/spades). This is rare but quite playable. I prefer transfer response to 2C where opener accepts with a doubleton (or three and a very bad hand) jumps with 3 cards, and bids a 3C, 2N or a new suit with a stiff or a void in the transfer suit.

[EarlPurple]

One way you can get around the nebulous diamond problem in Precision is:

1NT opening range 13-15

Balanced 12-point hands you simply pass. You gain little by opening 1♦ anyway, as you take away very little bidding space from the opps.

You now simply open 1♦ when you have diamonds.

I have also experimented in the past with the 2♦ opening showing 12-15 points, a good 6-card suit headed by two top honours, and no 4 card major. The response system is simply:

- 2 of a major promises 5 and is forcing
- 2NT is invitational (though can be made conventional whereby you check for stoppers on the way to 3NT)
- 3♦ is probably played as pre-emptive but you can make it invitational or even forcing if you wish instead.

That method also overcomes the problem of nebulous diamond, though you lose the possibility to use 2♦ as a weak pre-emptive bid.

By the way, I have rarely held a 13-15 point 4-4-1-4 hand when playing this method, but decided the correct opening bid for such a hand should be 2♣. If partner has a fit for one of your majors you hope to find it. Or you hope the opps will intervene when you are about to play in a 4-2 fit. No, you won't always reach the best contract but it will rarely turn up and when it does it's only a part-score swing you are going to lose.

[Robert]

Hello everyone

A very interesting article. I am slightly curious why you play Precision and do not like it? I like to build bridge systems and suspect that you share my interest.

My choice of system is generally that I play whatever is my current favorite.
I started playing Precision when it first came out. A recent partner wanted to play something in a Big Club framework so we hammered details out for many Precision type bids.

I have also been tinkering with a POWER like base system. I really like that
1C*-1M-2D* bid showing a 3 card major raise. It makes LAW decisions easier.

The multiple use of 1C* opening has some drawbacks, however, the other pair cannot assume that it is strong when they choose their defensive methods.

Being able to bid your suits with a 11-18HCP base is another two edged sword.
I feel that the advantages are better than the negatives.

My first reaction to !C*-1D-2M showing 19-21HCP was horror, however, it seems to work pretty well. I do like the 1C*-1D*-2C* showing a standard strong 2C opening values(near game in any suit or 23+HCP)

The 1C*-1D*-2D* showing unbalanced minors(I also include 4441) 19+HCP is a real interesting bidding tool. Some problems and many advantages.

We appear to disagree over NT ranges. I really like my choice of 1C*-1D*-1NT showing 18-20 and opening a 15-17NT. With 12-14HCP, you sometimes get to bid a 3 card major after 1C*-1D*- however, partner is aware and fairly weak!

I played decades of weak NT(and some mini NTs from 10-12 down to 8-10HCP)
so I am not scared of opening 1NT with 12-14HCP. It is a matter of style and how the rest of the system works. I played a lot of KS type based system and really enjoyed it.

I belong to the 'other' school that 1D* need not show a suit and you appear to like 1D showing Ds. Meckwell seems to survive playing a 2+ 1D opening and I also fall into that school.

Have you read Precision in the 90's? I do not agree with all of his ideas, however, many of them are very good. My Precision type 1C bidding includes many of his ideas.

Best Regards,
Robert

[Chamaco]

david_c, on Jan 22 2005, 06:16 PM, said:

The thing to notice here is that the strength required to open 1C is almost independent of the distribution of the hand. This is what I perceive to be a problem with the system.

I had missed this post :-)

I think the point raised by david is a very important one: in my opinion, 2-suited hands should be taken out of the 1C opener, because the 2 suiters are the most vulnerable to preemption (we often "lose" one suit "on the way").

Instead, by eliminating the 2suiter from 1C, we increase the chances to handle well opps preemption, including a better opportunity to penalize them when it's right.

This sounds like a commercial for "Misiry" 2 suited openings or the like :-)

=====

Incidentally, I am using Real Diamond now, and I am beginning to lean more and more towards the use of 1H opening that might be a 4 card suit if 44 in the majors (including 4441's and even 4432's, so that the weak NT cannot have 44M).

This fits well with the use of Kaplan Inversion over 1H opening: we do play some moysians, but thx to KI we are able to stop in 1NT (or in spades) when it's right .

[david_c]

Robert, on Nov 4 2005, 06:34 AM, said:

A very interesting article.  I am slightly curious why you play Precision and do not like it?

Mainly because of EBU system regulations. I'd rather be playing Polish Club, Millennium Club, or even MOSCITO, but that would limit our opportunities to play in face-to-face games.

Quote

I belong to the 'other' school that 1D* need not show a suit and you appear to like 1D showing Ds.  Meckwell seems to survive playing a 2+ 1D opening and I also fall into that school.

There's a lot to like about having 1♦ show diamonds. But actually I play it as 2+ when playing Precision, and would agree with you that this is better if 1♣ shows 16+ HCPs any shape.

[mr1303]

Another key point, I've been told in good faith that MisIry is not permitted in EBU land, even at level IV.

The paragraph

Quote

Three of a suit opening bids:

These may be played as any one of:
(a) a specified one-suited hand, any defined values.
( a one-suited hand containing one of two specified suits neither of which must be the bid suit, any defined values.
© an unspecified solid suit with high cards outside.
(d) an unspecified solid suit without high cards outside.
(e) a two-suited hand with both suits specified, any defined values.

Since a MisIry bid (I'll use 3C, showing either diamonds or a strong hand without diamonds) does not fit into any categories, it's disallowed.

[Chamaco]

mr1303, on Nov 4 2005, 02:08 PM, said:

Another key point, I've been told in good faith that MisIry is not permitted in EBU land, even at level IV.
.....

Uho oh.. I am sorry... Until now I thought that the Italian Federation only would ban legitimate openings :-)

However, we are currently playing xfer openings at the 2 level, that (I think), wd fit into the EBU "legality":

2D = weak 2 in H or strong 55+ or better H+ minor
2H = weak 2 in S or strong 55+ S + minor
2S = weak/strong 55+ in minors
2NT = "Michaels" = weak/strong 55+M

There are variations over this : e.g. the structure might include 64 openings, and/or one can decide to switch the 2S and 2NT openings so that 2S is NF (obviously the sttrong 55M should then be opened via 2D or 2H in that case).

This scheme (or its modifications) would allow to exclude the strong 2 suiter from the big club, and, at least IMO, would solve most of the problematic hands, without having to resort to wider-range 1 openings.

[hrothgar]

mr1303, on Nov 4 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

Another key point, I've been told in good faith that MisIry is not permitted in EBU land, even at level IV.

In my experience, the EBU is quite reasonable about sanctioning new conventions.
It typically takes some time for the proposal to work its way through the system, however new methods are permitted. Case in point: As I recall, it took about 8 months for MOSCITO style transfer openings to get sanctioned at Level 4. (Welcome change from the US where they were judged to be inherently destructive)

I suspect that if you just ask, you'd be allowed to play MISERY

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Nov 4 2005, 03:28 PM, said:

mr1303, on Nov 4 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

Another key point, I've been told in good faith that MisIry is not permitted in EBU land, even at level IV.

In my experience, the EBU is quite reasonable about sanctioning new conventions.

Indeed - and while Mark is correct that MisIry is currently not allowed, this is going to change when the new regulations come out. The L&E minutes suggest it was applied for by some guy called "M. Haag" (so, a big thank you to him).

[Gerben42]

Maybe someone should suggest allowing Fantunes 1-openings (natural but forcing) at level 3 in the EBU. I might be moving there and if I do I probably would like to play that... Besides these are not hard to defend so should be even allowed at the lower levels.