[glen]

straube, on 2014-March-11, 22:04, said:

1C-15+
1D-3-suited or both minors
1H-5H
1S-5S
1N-12-14
2C-6C
2D-6D

what we played over three decades ago:
1C-16+ unbal, 17+ bal
1D-3-suited or both minors or 15-16 bal
1H-5H
1S-5S
1N-(11)12-14
2C-6C
2D-6D

[straube]

glen, on 2014-March-11, 23:09, said:

what we played over three decades ago:
1C-16+ unbal, 17+ bal
1D-3-suited or both minors or 15-16 bal
1H-5H
1S-5S
1N-(11)12-14
2C-6C
2D-6D

Looks like Adam's system except for the inversion of the strong and weak NT. Ours is

1C-16+ unbal, 17+ bal
1D-weak NT, 3-suited, 4M/6D, minors
1H-5H
1S-5S
1N-14-16
2C-6C, not 4H
2D-6D, no major
2N-6C/4H

[dick payne]

there have been comments with regard to distinguishing between distributional hands and quasi-balanced hands at the first bid. I have never heard of this at the one level, but for me it sounds good technique and it is essential at the two level 2H,2S,2NT are opening bids judged on the losing count showing 5-5 or better in two suits 8-15 points.which restricts one bids to no more distributional than 6-4 I have mentioned these elsewhere and someone pointed out that with this wide range you may be in trouble with a big misfit. Quite so. The perfect bidding system is a will o' the wisp which seduces and deludes us all. A more pragmatic criterion of any treatment is whether it gains more than it loses against good players.
The reason for distinguishing between distibutional and quasi-balanced hands is because responder's technique is quite different If partner opens one cabbage or one brussel sprout a nine count is a nine count Here is a run of the mill nine count xx / Kxxx/ Qxxx / Axx. Suppose partner has 5-5 or better in the reds or perhaps 5-5 or better in the reds, this nominal nine count becomes a beast of a different hue according to partner having the reds or the blacks. If he has the blacks we must bid 3C and hope the weather stays fine, but if he has no more than six losers in the reds we want to be in 4H even if he has only a ten count
Although it is not entirely relevant, and at the risk of using up the gigabites of the ether I will relate an unusual hand which came up ten days ago in our winter league. The hands are computer dealt for us by a friend and we suspect his computer has a sense of humour
Board 23 Dealer South Game all
-
A107643
K765432
-
K743

[dick payne]

sorry pressed the wrong button again
K743 AQ108
K8 QJ52
QJ98 A
A52 8743
J9652
9
10
KQJ1096

Partner pushed out a 2S bid , acceptable in our system, well nearly, next hand passed and I did not see any merit in bidding so we played 2S, two off
In the other room South passed, (more to most people's taste) West bid a Blue Club 1D. It might be kindest to draw a veil over the subsequent bidding, but that would leave the story untold. North, a Grand Master made three bids on his hand, and out team-mates subsided in 4S undoable. It's a funny game though many treat it seriously

[hrothgar]

I am highly skeptical that technical merit has a significant impact on the decision to adopt four card majors or five cards majors. Rather, I think that network effects and field protection have a dominant effect.

Let's start with network effects. If you are playing the same bidding system as almost everyone else around you

1. Its much easier to learn the bidding system in question. There are plenty of books, teachers, what have you to learn from. It's relatively easy to discuss hands.
2. There is a large and active community working to improve the bidding system

In contrast, if you're playing an idiosyncratic bidding system (MOSCITO, Blue Club, what have you) its a lot more difficult to learn the system. Look back earlier in this thread. People are talking about the need to get books in the original Italian and 50 year old World Championship Books in order to figure out the nuances of the bidding system. In a similar vein, I've probably written the best treatment on MOSCITO and this is grossly inadequate.

Balanced against this, there are some very significant advantages to playing something weird.

1. Until you reach the most rarified levels of play, your antifield system will improve the frequency with which you place in events. It will also increase the chances that you do very poorly. However, if you're "only" concern is maximizing the frequency that you score in the money, high variance methods are your friend.

2. Equally significant, because your side will have much more experience with various "unique" sequences, you'll probably be much better positioned when these come up. As a practical example, if you are playing MOSCITO, you're going to play a LOT of Moysian 2M contract. You'll either need to get good at the various ways to bring these homes or score quite poorly. In contrast, I doubt that your opponents will have as much experience defending against a Moysian.

[kenrexford]

glen, on 2014-March-11, 18:33, said:

For this particular theory, a lot of the discussion has been around whether one diamond should be unbalanced or not, and some discussion in a big club context whether one diamond should be only quasi-balanced (a style I played over 3 decades ago), and shapely minor hands open 2 of a minor. For example KRex wrote about it in 2008, about a system he had played for 20 years:

http://cuebiddingatb...nd-opening.html

However note that KRex in his Modified Italian Canape System has balanced hands in his major openings (on a technical note he should flip the ranges, having a major in the weak notrump only when minimum, and opening 1H/S when 13-14, not 11-12, this would be Modified Modified Italian Canape System until his lawsuit)

Miles wrote about in My System, The Unbalanced Diamond, in his conversational style, and a summary/experience is here:

http://web.mit.edu/m...ced_Diamond.pdf

There was debate about the Polish club versions, such as changes between WJ2000 and WJ2005, and when balanced hands should opening 1♦

Likewise a discussion of the Fantunes system, where 1NT handles all minimum balanced hands, included 5-4-2-2s with a five card major and a four card minor

The Auken-Welland system (quick guess to what country they are now playing for), based on Roy's partnership with Fallenius, and Swedish bridge ideas, focused on the one club opening being most often balanced or close to it.

No lawsuit would be filed. That said, I considered that alteration, but it causes some problems.

First, with an opening 1NT range of 13-16, you cannot include balanced 11-12 HCP hands without unduly expanding the range. Most 11-12 balanced hands are just passed, but not opening these with a four-card major seems bad. Hence, the question was whether to have the balanced hands impure/unwieldy or to have the canapé openings impure/unwieldy. The structure of responses for the canapé hands was more suited to messing with these auctions except in the event of interference. Interference obviously causes a problem when Responder cannot be assured that Opener has an unbalanced hand and in fact might be light, as you noticed. However, the experience, albeit painful in these circumstances, was not as bad as the wild ranging 1NT. That said, it is a close call. I would not be entirely opposed to the switch, especially when Opener is 4432 with a major and a minor (where Opener can pretend he is a major-MINOR canapé).

Second, technically my add-on of the 11-12 balanced 4-card major holding is already a modification of MICS. Pure MICS simply passes 11-12 balanced hands unless they can be upgraded to 13.

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2014-March-11, 22:04, said:

I don't really like the idea of 1D being natural and unbalanced because the frequency for this is pretty low considering that 1D is your second most important opening bid.

There is a notable difference, however, between 1♣ and 1♦ openings and "useful space." The difference might seem small, but it is powerful (from experience).

If 1♦ is unbalanced, you end up opening 1♣ only with the balanced hands not appropriate for a 1♦ opening. That means, roughly, balanced hands with 3♦/2♣ or with 4-5 diamonds. That small subset of balanced openings is not much to move down to 1♣ in comparison with the space gain advantage of the 1♣ opening.




Consider this another way. Opening either minor standard style makes 1D less efficient than 1C. If 1D unbalanced loses efficiency, the loss of efficiency will be less than a restriction from equal starting points.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-12, 06:49, said:

There is a notable difference, however, between 1♣ and 1♦ openings and "useful space." The difference might seem small, but it is powerful (from experience).

If 1♦ is unbalanced, you end up opening 1♣ only with the balanced hands not appropriate for a 1♦ opening. That means, roughly, balanced hands with 3♦/2♣ or with 4-5 diamonds. That small subset of balanced openings is not much to move down to 1♣ in comparison with the space gain advantage of the 1♣ opening.




Consider this another way. Opening either minor standard style makes 1D less efficient than 1C. If 1D unbalanced loses efficiency, the loss of efficiency will be less than a restriction from equal starting points.

I think I understand you. You might be pointing out (for example) that opening 1C natural/balanced allows for transfers while the 1D opening does not. Ergo 1D ought to be very special. Here's the deal count for Fantunes as reported by Bill Jacobs....

........................imps per deal
1C....22.............0.5
1D.....6..............0.91
1M....19............0.79
1N.....28...........0.61
2L.....25............0.73

such that the 1D opening occurs as frequently as a 2L opening and almost four times less than the 1C opening. The imps per deal also suggests that the bid is too specialized for its "lowness". I would think that the higher the bid, the more preference (distribution) ought to be being shown and the more imps per deal ought to be won.

I think Moscito would have one of the better distributions (though I haven't tabulated it)

1C-15+
1D-4+H
1H-4+S
1S-4+D
1N-12-14

but that's illegal in the ACBL. So for me it's a choice between

1C-16+
1D-nebulous
1M-5+
1N-14-16 (or weak)

and

1C-nebulous
1D-16+
1M-5+
1N-14-16 (or weak)

the latter having the better distribution graph except that that's not everything. If you open good hands with every distribution with one bid that bid ought to allow about as much room for finding fits as do all the limited openings.

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2014-March-12, 10:14, said:

I think I understand you. You might be pointing out (for example) that opening 1C natural/balanced allows for transfers while the 1D opening does not. Ergo 1D ought to be very special. Here's the deal count for Fantunes as reported by Bill Jacobs....

........................imps per deal
1C....22.............0.5
1D.....6..............0.91
1M....19............0.79
1N.....28...........0.61
2L.....25............0.73

such that the 1D opening occurs as frequently as a 2L opening and almost four times less than the 1C opening. The imps per deal also suggests that the bid is too specialized for its "lowness". I would think that the higher the bid, the more preference (distribution) ought to be being shown and the more imps per deal ought to be won.

I think Moscito would have one of the better distributions (though I haven't tabulated it)

1C-15+
1D-4+H
1H-4+S
1S-4+D
1N-12-14

but that's illegal in the ACBL. So for me it's a choice between

1C-16+
1D-nebulous
1M-5+
1N-14-16 (or weak)

and

1C-nebulous
1D-16+
1M-5+
1N-14-16 (or weak)

the latter having the better distribution graph except that that's not everything. If you open good hands with every distribution with one bid that bid ought to allow about as much room for finding fits as do all the limited openings.

I played a strong 1♦ in a canapé context for a while. In the system where I used that, 1♦ carried a lot of weight when 1♣ was strong, so we switched it. The 1♣ opening did work more smoothly that way. However, that one loss of space with strong hands was quite important and frankly unmanageable.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-12, 11:10, said:

I played a strong 1♦ in a canapé context for a while. In the system where I used that, 1♦ carried a lot of weight when 1♣ was strong, so we switched it. The 1♣ opening did work more smoothly that way. However, that one loss of space with strong hands was quite important and frankly unmanageable.

Yeah. I've never played a strong diamond so I appreciate hearing your experience. I know Adam has a strong diamond system that he feels is playable, but he prefers a strong club, too. I feel the room I have with a strong club is adequate but I'd be happy for a bit more.

[PrecisionL]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-12, 11:10, said:

I played a strong 1♦ in a canapé context for a while. In the system where I used that, 1♦ carried a lot of weight when 1♣ was strong, so we switched it. The 1♣ opening did work more smoothly that way. However, that one loss of space with strong hands was quite important and frankly unmanageable.

I am also currently playing a strong 1♦ system mostly for Match Point Pairs competition. Our bidding has improved with 1♣ being the catch-all and we have simplified some responses to the 1♦ opening bid, thus less memory work: 1♥ being 0-4 hcp or 8+ hcp and 1♠ being 5-7 hcp, 1NT = the majors, 2♣ = 1 or both minors, 2♦ = 8-11 balanced and 2 Major = 5M + 4♣/4♦. We (Keylime and I) also play canape with 4-card majors.

Thus, opening bids have the following ranges:

8-12 hcp Open 1M or 2 of a suit or 2NT (minors)
11-14 hcp Open 1NT
12-16 hcp Open 1♣

17+ hcp Open 1♦

[dick payne]

It strikes me that the defining characteristic of various 1C systems is their responses to the strong club, controls, natural positives or point count. I would be interested to know the relative popularity of these three

[mycroft]

Heh. The most popular is "we know what we play, but it doesn't matter because we never have the auction go 1♣-p. So here's what we actually play at the table."

[straube]

dick payne, on 2014-March-14, 08:10, said:

It strikes me that the defining characteristic of various 1C systems is their responses to the strong club, controls, natural positives or point count. I would be interested to know the relative popularity of these three

I think the primary division depends on how strong club systems separate negative, semipositive and positive responses. Advancements in relay have allowed some creativity here.

Schenken,Blue Team, Precision, TOSR, etc...
1D-negative and semipositive
etc-GF

SCREAM
1D-GF
1H-semipositive
1S-negative
etc-GF

Moscito
1D-GF
1H-semipositive
1S-negative
etc-mostly semipositive

IMprecision
1D-negative or strong GF
etc-semipositive or light GF

Silent Club
1D-GF hearts or negative or semipositive
etc-GF

I think responding with hcp ranges is extinct and with controls ought to be.

[dick payne]

Controls/points
Straube says “I think responding with hcp ranges is extinct and with controls ought to be”
I don’t understand how to distinguish between a negative and a semi-positive if it is not defined in points, and is a positive not defined as x+ points?
I understand the case for controls being extinct. Any ambitious player who is thinking of using them should be warned off. The trouble with controls is that with all the Aces and Kings all you can guarantee to make is 2NT. A Blue Club heart response is 6-16 points and a 1S response is seven to the rest of the deck. The way to investigate the hand is cue bidding. It is very accident prone and not properly explained either by Reese or Mingoni. Their explanation of uneconomical cue bidding may sound fine, but over the years it is a recipe for disaster. Over the course of twenty-five years partners and I persisted with cue bidding and in spite of all the disasters, We gained sufficient confidence to use Blackwood no more than once a year. It is very , very complicated. I have already drawn people’s attention to two flawed examples of cue bidding in Mingoni’s book. If he does not understand it how can we be expected to do so
For the last twenty odd years I have played natural positives and point count responses, and have come to the conclusion that point count is simplest The following framework is efficient 1C 16+
responses 1D 0-6, 1H 7-8, 1S 9+, 2 any 5-6 points with a six card suit.
At the risk of using up the ether and boring the readers I will explain my use of the response of 1NT. I f the bidding is 1C 1D 1NT opener shows 16-19 and responder 0-6. If responder feels like bidding Stayman he is practically always wrong to do so The response of 1NT shows 5-6 points with 4-4 or better in the majors. If Stayman is not needed 2C can be Gladiator and an immediate 2M is another golden negative 5-6 points decent five card suit
After the point count response of 1D/ 1H/ 1S the next suit up rebid of 1H/1S/1NT is conventional and strong 1H over 1D is A Kokish bid showing 20+ and asking fo 0-4 or 5-6. 1S over 1H is 18+ points and it follows that 1NT,2C,2D,2H,2S promise 16-17 and the sequences are freewheeling. 1NT over 1S shows 19+ points and asks for range. With 16-18 make any other bid. Partner becomes senior hand and is free to look for the less likely slam

[hrothgar]

dick payne, on 2014-March-19, 05:24, said:

Controls/points
Straube says “I think responding with hcp ranges is extinct and with controls ought to be”
I don’t understand how to distinguish between a negative and a semi-positive if it is not defined in points, and is a positive not defined as x+ points?

Far be it from my to put words into Straube's mouth, but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to assume that he was referring to systems that ONLY provide information about controls or ONLY provide information about HCPs.

[Balrog49]

It's easy to replace control responses or whatever with a simple or complex Precision 1♣ structure. 1♣ then becomes 16+ unbalanced or 18+ balanced. Responder showing a suit and game values on the first round of bidding can be a huge advantage if there's interference.

Having recently been victimized by them, I consider the Meckwell-style responses to 1♣ to be better than traditional Precision because they're designed to right-side the contract. Unfortunately, I've never been able to get my hands on the Meckwell notes and have only a general idea of opener's rebids.

If anyone has information on this, please let me know.

[dick payne]

Canape in the majors
In some two club systems, the cutting edge of technology is a 2D bid showing a weak two in a major, a flat 19-20, or a strong three in a minor. Shades of Colonel Buller. Introducing your suit for the first time at the three level on a strong hand is not a thing of grace and beauty.
In a one club system there are several examples of a 2m bid being game forcing. For example 1C 1S 2C ?. Canape in the majors can solve some problems here. Responder bids majors up the line, 2H shows hearts, 4-6, opener agrees immediately with 4 hearts, bids 2S with spades 4-5, or 2NT/3C/3D with no major. In this case responder can rebid hearts.
--- 2C 2H 2S 3H 3S opener shows 5 spades and denies three hearts
--- 2C 2S 2NT/3C 3H responder shows 5-5 in the majors

[straube]

hrothgar, on 2014-March-19, 07:28, said:

Far be it from my to put words into Straube's mouth, but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to assume that he was referring to systems that ONLY provide information about controls or ONLY provide information about HCPs.

Yes. That's what I had assumed. Most systems use hcps, controls, or queen/relay points to separate negative, semipositive and positive responses.

[straube]

dick payne, on 2014-March-19, 05:24, said:

For the last twenty odd years I have played natural positives and point count responses, and have come to the conclusion that point count is simplest The following framework is efficient 1C 16+
responses 1D 0-6, 1H 7-8, 1S 9+, 2 any 5-6 points with a six card suit.
At the risk of using up the ether and boring the readers I will explain my use of the response of 1NT. I f the bidding is 1C 1D 1NT opener shows 16-19 and responder 0-6. If responder feels like bidding Stayman he is practically always wrong to do so The response of 1NT shows 5-6 points with 4-4 or better in the majors. If Stayman is not needed 2C can be Gladiator and an immediate 2M is another golden negative 5-6 points decent five card suit
After the point count response of 1D/ 1H/ 1S the next suit up rebid of 1H/1S/1NT is conventional and strong 1H over 1D is A Kokish bid showing 20+ and asking fo 0-4 or 5-6. 1S over 1H is 18+ points and it follows that 1NT,2C,2D,2H,2S promise 16-17 and the sequences are freewheeling. 1NT over 1S shows 19+ points and asks for range. With 16-18 make any other bid. Partner becomes senior hand and is free to look for the less likely slam

Why don't you run 100 hand and tally your responses to 1C and let us know the results? You can do this on BBO by starting a Teaching Table and setting one's hand's requirements to 16+ hcps. I don't think the results will be favorable but we'll see.