[Fluffy]

Differencec between opening and overcalling is you have a double avaible, ,but when the structure doesn't fit the double you might have to overcall a 4 major.

When opening you can bid 3 card minors wich act as some kind of stayman .

[Gerben42]

But you only want to vagueify one of your minors so I play 5-cards majors, 1♦ promises four and 1♣ is basically asking for 4-card majors.

This is the basic structure of almost all of the systems played by the Estoril medal candidates that don't play an artificial system (like Precision or Swedish Club), for example:

* Everyone in Poland and surrounding countries (and stop calling Polish Club artificial!)
* Fantoni - Nunes (forcing 1-level bids, 5542)
* Lauria - Versace and Bocchi - Duboin (natural with 5542)
* Team Orange (5542 but 1C is forcing for some, others similar to PC)

[FrancesHinden]

Obviously "medal candidates" is subjective... but none of the English team play that.

Townsend/Gold (who just got a medal in the EBL Pairs) play strong NT, 4 card majors (5CM if 18-19)

Price/Simpson play strong & fours.

Justin/Jason play 14-16 and fours.

[flytoox]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 8 2005, 06:45 PM, said:

Obviously "medal candidates" is subjective

I agree with this and want to add that in this sense China is definitely a "candidate".

[pclayton]

Mauro, I think this is a sound idea. I'm sorry you getting a lot of flack. Certainly this example shows the gap between 'system' and 'judgement'.

This hand screams to play in a suit contract - even a 4-r rather than NT.

Using your guidelines it is a clear 1H opening. Over the KI 1S response rebid 1N. Unless you are playing a semi forcing NT response, opening 1S will very likely lead to a 4-2 fit.

I don't play KI so I would just open 1C or 1N.

[LH2650]

After 1 heart, how does this system allow play in a 4-4 spade fit, unless opener has reverse strength?

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Jul 9 2005, 02:59 AM, said:

Mauro, I think this is a sound idea. I'm sorry you getting a lot of flack. Certainly this example shows the gap between 'system' and 'judgement'.

This hand screams to play in a suit contract - even a 4-r rather than NT.

Using your guidelines it is a clear 1H opening. Over the KI 1S response rebid 1N.

Let me get this straight...

You're worried about opening 1NT because you have 2 suits wide open...
Your solution is to REBID 1NT

You still have two suits wide open, so you haven't solved that problem...
But at least you've been able to lie about your shape and, potentially, your strength as well

[Double !]

This is a problem hand, more so at matchpoints.
Playing imps, weak NT, I am OK with opening 1NT (unless also playing mini-roman: I might lie and open 2D). I have been playing an opening 2D to show this type of hand 12-15 with 4-4 in majors, and have had mixed results. Primarily, the bad results have occurred when we've wound up in 2NT (and a few times in a 2M 4-3 fit) when the field was going plus in 1NT.

I am not OK with opening this with a weak 1NT playing matchpoints. Sorry.

Playing Precision, we have agreed to open these hands 1D (again, matchpoint style).

Playing 15-17 NT, with most partners we play 5542, so, again, we're not opening a 4-card major. But don't despair. Playing Walsh-style, you can open this 1C and rebid 1NT if partner responds 1D: so you get to bid 1NT anyway.

[pclayton]

If pard is invitational or strong, all pairs will find their 4-4 major fit, whether they open 1N, 1H OR 1 of a minor.


When pard is weak, those opening 1N will have preempted out the 4-4 fit. Usually this a negative for us, but sometimes it will bury the opps minor fit as well.

If we open 1 of a minor, we can find the 4-4 easily enough, and finding the 4-4 spade fit will actually be easier. But if we only have a 7 card fit the hand is automatically relegated to playing 1N. I would argue, as would Mauro, that this hand with its concentrated honors, that its not a sound strategy.

If the opps buy the contract, pard knows what to lead. The 1 of a minor and 1N openers do not have that advantage.

If LHO bounces, we may get thrown into an uncomfortable 4-3 fit, but this doesn't seem fatal.

Anyway, bidding isn't a recipe, and occasionally we like to mix up our strategy to keep things fresh if for no other reason.

[hrothgar]

One additional comment:

As I noted earlier, I am VERY skeptical of the theory that players should distort their NT structure simple because suits are wide open. This seems especially unreasonable when we're discussion minimum strength balanced hands. I can't recall seeing this idea in a repuatable publication in lord knows how long. This is a theory that I associate with the weird old days of Cubertson, 16-18 NT openings, and the like...

In an earlier thread there was some discussion regarding what is the "purpose" behind NT openings (and, for that matter, NT rebids). I expressed the opinion that we are seeing a fundamental shift in the theory/practice of 1NT openings. Traditionally, the primary idea behind opening 1NT was to identify hands that would play well in a 1NT contract; Hence the emphasis on stoppers, playing strength, etc. More recently, the focus seems to be shifting towards the philosophy that the 1NT opening is most useful for the negative inferences that it provides. 1m and even 1M openings deny the playing strength that is shown by the 1NT opening.

From my perspective, this thread is a good illustration of this basic disagreement. Most players seem willing to accept an imperfect 1NT rebid in order to accurately describe shape and strength. Even those players who agree with opening 1M are treating the hand as if it were a balanced 5332 pattern rather than an unbalanced hand...

[Elianna]

pclayton, on Jul 8 2005, 10:35 PM, said:

If pard is invitational or strong, all pairs will find their 4-4 major fit, whether they open 1N, 1H OR 1 of a minor.

When pard is weak, those opening 1N will have preempted out the 4-4 fit. Usually this a negative for us, but sometimes it will bury the opps minor fit as well.

If we open 1 of a minor, we can find the 4-4 easily enough, and finding the 4-4 spade fit will actually be easier. But if we only have a 7 card fit the hand is automatically relegated to playing 1N. I would argue, as would Mauro, that this hand with its concentrated honors, that its not a sound strategy.

If the opps buy the contract, pard knows what to lead. The 1 of a minor and 1N openers do not have that advantage.

If LHO bounces, we may get thrown into an uncomfortable 4-3 fit, but this doesn't seem fatal.

Anyway, bidding isn't a recipe, and occasionally we like to mix up our strategy to keep things fresh if for no other reason.

I agree, as you said, that finding the 4-4 spade fit is only hard when partner is weak. But how are we going to find it if we open 1♥, and partner is weak (since 1NT shows 5+ ♠)? (I believe that you mentioned you prefer 1♥ to 1♠)

I agree that our hand would (just looking at it on it's own) prefer to be in a suit, but I would feel fairly confident that if the bidding went 1♦-1NT, we were in the correct place, as partner will have minor cards.

I think that when playing SA (or some variant) it is a lot more tempting to open 1M on four cards, and a lot safer. But playing strict 2/1 (with 1NT forcing) I still think that it's saying "partner, please put me in our 4-2 fit". And no one has told me how to avoid this, except Phil, who pointed out that if I open this 1♥, I can bid 1NT over 1♠, but as others have pointed out, I'm STILL suggesting playing in NT instead of a suit, and all I've done is prevent a heart lead, which would be a lead I'd like (that and spades) in NT.

I just can't help the feeling that I'm creating more problems than I'm solving.

[kenberg]

Playing Goren, as I learned oh so many years ago, I open 1S.
Playing your agreements and with your stipulations, I open 1H.
Playing Standard American, and w/o a stipulation, I open 1D
Playing with that occasional partner who insists 1D shows four, I open 1C.

Interesting game, this bridge is.

[pclayton]

I understand most of Richards points, and I would agree that there has been a recent trend toward pattern bidding and the need to get your your hand "off your chest" early in the bidding.

I've never really agreed with such an approach. This philosophy removes a lot of judgement from the auction. How can we sensibly investigate other strains like a 5-2 or 4-3 when pard won't think about investigating once we box our hand? Perhaps such an approach is borne out of relay systems where you can later determine honor placement and back into the proper strain and level. Us natural bidders don't have such tools available and must rely on good old fashioned judgement.

I suppose Richard would open a 12-14 NT with a hand like: AKxxx, KQx, xxx, xx as well as a hand like: KJ9xx, QTx, Qxx, AT. If my system allowed a 1S call on the 1st I would (no tenaces, mostly sharp cards and concentration of values). I happily open the 2nd hand 1N for all the opposite reasons why
I like 1S on the first.

As we develop our bidding system, I am starting to take the approach that a hand like my 1st example can be opened 1S, but a rebid of 2N is available after pard makes a 2/1 2C call. Or perhaps I can pass a semi forcing 1N response. To say that a 2N rebid after a 2C response "must" show a 15-17 "because" you "didn't" open a 12-14 NT is too rigid a style of thinking for me.

[luke warm]

i understand what you're saying, phil... but on the other side you have partner pretty much always knowing what you have (in terms of shape/strength).. maybe that's a slight disadvantage competitively, but i think it has to help constructively

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 10 2005, 05:38 AM, said:

i understand what you're saying, phil... but on the other side you have partner pretty much always knowing what you have (in terms of shape/strength).. maybe that's a slight disadvantage competitively, but i think it has to help constructively

Not sure if I agree with this logic...

If I allowed a nice, delicate "constructive" auction I can afford to multiplex lots of different hand types. I'm more worried about competitive auctions. Here, my priority is being able to communicate the crucial elements about my hand as quickly as possible

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Jul 10 2005, 01:26 AM, said:

I suppose Richard would open a 12-14 NT with a hand like: AKxxx, KQx, xxx, xx as well as a hand like: KJ9xx, QTx, Qxx, AT. If my system allowed a 1S call on the 1st I would (no tenaces, mostly sharp cards and concentration of values). I happily open the 2nd hand 1N for all the opposite reasons why
I like 1S on the first.

Three years ago, I was much more skeptical about opening 1NT with hands like "Example A". However, I noticed that a lot of the pairs whose bidding/play I respect were happily opening 1NT with these hand types. On occasion, they suffer a poor result, however, they have also dramatically improved other elements of their constructive bidding...

For what its worth, I'm MUCH happier opening a 12-14 NT with hand A than hand B. While Hand B contains 12 "HCP", its a real ratty 12... I'd probably opening a weak NT with it, however, I consider the bid marginal at best.

[Double !]

when the better mouse trap is finished, tried, and tested, please let me know.
we have some very large rodents in the south bronx.

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Jul 10 2005, 02:59 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 10 2005, 01:26 AM, said:

I suppose Richard would open a 12-14 NT with a hand like: AKxxx, KQx, xxx, xx as well as a hand like: KJ9xx, QTx, Qxx, AT. If my system allowed a 1S call on the 1st I would (no tenaces, mostly sharp cards and concentration of values). I happily open the 2nd hand 1N for all the opposite reasons why
I like 1S on the first.

Three years ago, I was much more skeptical about opening 1NT with hands like "Example A". However, I noticed that a lot of the pairs whose bidding/play I respect were happily opening 1NT with these hand types. On occasion, they suffer a poor result, however, they have also dramatically improved other elements of their constructive bidding...

For what its worth, I'm MUCH happier opening a 12-14 NT with hand A than hand B. While Hand B contains 12 "HCP", its a real ratty 12... I'd probably opening a weak NT with it, however, I consider the bid marginal at best.

Exactly.

By opening 1NT on hand A you lose the ability to differentiate between it and hand B, but you gain the ability to differentiate between it and all unbalanced hands with 5 spades.

So you can't argue for or against a 1NT on hand A simply by examining balanced hands, you must also look at your unbalanced 1S auctions.

Eric

[the hog]

"I suppose Richard would open a 12-14 NT with a hand like: AKxxx, KQx, xxx, xx as well as a hand like: KJ9xx, QTx, Qxx, AT. If my system allowed a 1S call on the 1st I would (no tenaces, mostly sharp cards and concentration of values). "

Richard is not the only one. I would unhesitatingly open both with 1NT, and my competitive bidding gains as a result, Phil. I look forward to discussing all of these things face to face with Richard in a couple of weeks.

Ron


Playing 2/1 and opening the original hand with 1M is a good way of playing in your 4-2 fit.

[Free]

I also don't really get the problem about this "suits stopped". If you play 10-12 NT range, try to stop 3 or 4 suits! If you play 12-14, it's a little better but still... Lets see what happens with these unstopped suits when you play 4M in a 4-3 fit: they lead one of your suits, you'll have to ruff in the long trump hand and you'll get short! Good luck making your 4M contract!

No way am I gonna lie about a major suit length when I'm opening! If it's in my NT range, I'll open 1NT. If I play sayc or something, I'll open 1♦. Don't feel the need to rape the system because I have 2 good suits and 2 bad ones...

There's always an alternative when you have 12hcp and don't want to open 1NT or 1♦: PASS!