[32519]

With the myriad of conventions available to any partnership to pick from, is it any wonder that “standard systems” quickly deviate from the original? Once enough people have deviated from the original to something different, should the deviation not become the new standard?

Let’s look at two well known systems: 2/1 and Precision.
In 2/1 an opening bid of 1♣ or 1♦ promises 12+ HCP. Now for (some of) the responses –
• 2♦ over 1♦ = natural, non-forcing raise with 6-9 HCP and 5+ ♦ (some allow only 4). The bid denies holding a 4-card major
• 3♦ over 1♦ = limit raise with 10-12 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major
• 2NT over 1♦ = 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit, balanced or semi-balanced
• 2♣/3♣ over 1♣ = the same as over a 1♦ opening
• 2♦ over 1♣ = game force artificial raise of ♣, 12+ HCP, 5+ ♣, no 4-card major (Criss-Cross)
• 2NT over 1♣ = the same as over a 1♦ opening
• 2♣ over 1♦ = game force, 12+ HCP (compare with Precision below)
• 3♣ over 1♦ = game force artificial raise of ♦, 12+ HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major (Criss-Cross)

(Can anybody supply the detail as to what the latest official ACBL SAYC booklet says regarding minor suit openings and responses?)

In Precision an opening bid of 1♦ is the “catchall bid” for opening hands that don’t fit anywhere else in the system. We will again only look at some of the responses –
• 2♦ over 1♦ = 11+ HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major (Inverted Minor Raise)
• 2NT over 1♦ = 11-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit, balanced or semi-balanced
• 3♦ over 1♦ = weak preemptive raise with 6-9 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major, usually includes a singleton or void (Inverted Minor Raise)
• 2♣ over 1♦ = natural, 5+ ♣. The bid can either be game-forcing or limit bid showing 10-12 HCP according to partnership agreement.

No problems thus far until we start clouding the basic system through the introduction of conventions. To start off this thread, the following 3 are introduced: Inverted Minor Raises, Criss-Cross and Flip-Flop (please add others).
Definitions:
Inverted Minor Raises: http://www.bridgeguy...ted_minors.html
Criss Cross Raise: http://www.bridgehan...Cross_Raise.htm
In general, those partnerships using Limit Raises in responding to a minor suit opening encounter bidding problems; if the responder also holds opening values, balanced distribution, and no other suitable bid after a minor suit opening by partner. Several solutions have been invented and devised. One is the Criss-Cross Raise, or Criss-Cross Jump Shift, as it is sometimes called. The bidding sequence: 1♣-2♦, shows (a) opening values, and (b) a forcing raise in Clubs. The bidding sequence: 1♦-3♣ shows (a) opening values, and (b) a forcing raise in Diamonds.
Flip-Flop: A reversal of the usual meaning of a 2NT response, normally agreed as a Jordan 2NT raise, when a minor suit opening is doubled. The concept is to use the bid preemptively, thereby using the jump raise to show invitational values. An example clarifies this concept:
North East South West Meaning/Description
1♦ X 2NT Flip-Flop or a preemptive raise in ♦ (6-9 HCP)
1♦ X 3♦ A jump shows a limit raise in ♦ (10-12 HCP)

Inverted Minor Raises (as used by Precision) must surely be an improvement on the natural (6-9 HCP) and limit raise (10-12 HCP) (as used by 2/1). For players learning and playing more than 1 system, standardising responses such as this will surely make memorising the continuation bidding of different systems much easier.

What are your thoughts on this? The example introduced here is very likely already being used by many 2/1 players.

I am of the opinion that blindly following system rules and conventions must never be allowed to override judgement and experience built up over years of play. As an example here consider the response of 2NT over a minor suit opening from both 2/1 and Precision. With these sorts of hands the auction is steering towards 3NT. But from which side will it be better played? The fact that responder does not hold a 4-card major increases the probability that opener does. Depending on responders holding in the majors, it will probably be beneficial for 3NT to be played by opener. An Inverted Minor Raise could possibly convey this message to opener. On the other hand where responder holds e.g. AQx in either major, it will probably be better for the lead to come up to responder. Playing 3NT from responders side now looks more attractive.

[barmar]

In the US, I think most 2/1 players play Inverted Minors, and the ones who don't usually play Criss-Cross or Flip-Flop -- old fashioned raises are practically nonexistent among intermediate and advanced players.

Some of the bids you listed in your "standard" responses look more like Criss-Cross. Old fashioned raises didn't include 1♣-2♦ as an artificial ♣ raise.

[32519]

barmar, on 2011-December-17, 02:38, said:

In the US, I think most 2/1 players play Inverted Minors, and the ones who don't usually play Criss-Cross or Flip-Flop -- old fashioned raises are practically nonexistent among intermediate and advanced players.

Some of the bids you listed in your "standard" responses look more like Criss-Cross. Old fashioned raises didn't include 1♣-2♦ as an artificial ♣ raise.

Your post here seems to support both of my suggestions –
1. Once enough people have deviated from the original to something different, should the deviation not become the new standard?
To start off this thread I used Paul Thurston’s “The Pocket Guide to 2/1.” It was published in 2005 and no doubt considered “standard” back then. Your post suggests that the standard has changed creating a “new standard.”
2. For players learning and playing more than 1 system, standardizing responses such as this will surely make memorizing the continuation bidding of different systems much easier.
Your post suggests support for this proposal as well. Where there is overlap between different systems opening bid and continuation bidding structures, choose the better (best?) one and standardise the bidding sequences. Memory load is reduced.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2011-December-17, 03:36, said:

To start off this thread I used Paul Thurston’s “The Pocket Guide to 2/1.” It was published in 2005 and no doubt considered “standard” back then.

Where did you ever come up with this idea?

[brian_m]

32519, on 2011-December-17, 01:58, said:

With the myriad of conventions available to any partnership to pick from, is it any wonder that “standard systems” quickly deviate from the original? Once enough people have deviated from the original to something different, should the deviation not become the new standard?

<...>

In Precision an opening bid of 1♦ is the “catchall bid” for opening hands that don’t fit anywhere else in the system. We will again only look at some of the responses –
• 2♦ over 1♦ = 11+ HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major (Inverted Minor Raise)
• 2NT over 1♦ = 11-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit, balanced or semi-balanced
• 3♦ over 1♦ = weak preemptive raise with 6-9 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major, usually includes a singleton or void (Inverted Minor Raise)
• 2♣ over 1♦ = natural, 5+ ♣. The bid can either be game-forcing or limit bid showing 10-12 HCP according to partnership agreement.
<...>

I'm not sure whose version of Precision you're using as your standard - but when I learned Precision back in the early 1970s, from Reese's write-up of Blue Team methods, I'm fairly sure that 2♣ and 2♦ over a 1♦ opener were both only 4+ cards and 1♦-2NT was 15+, game forcing and asking opener to bid 4 card suits upwards.

[glen]

32519, on 2011-December-17, 01:58, said:

... Once enough people have deviated from the original to something different, should the deviation become * the new standard?

Yes, if the majority deviate to the same something, and no otherwise.

* the question was "should the deviation not become the new standard", and edited for clarity

[32519]

2/1 has moved on. This thread titled “Max Hardy’s 2/1: Revised…Expanded…Outdated” can be found in the SAYC and 2/1 Forum http://www.bridgebas...s-two-over-one/
Threads like these advocate what once might have been considered “standard” are no longer so. As the game of bridge continues to evolve, a “new standard” will keep on replacing the old one. And it is for this very reason that people are forever building new systems. It is probably only at the highest level that anybody will be up-to-date with the latest developments. The rest of us will always be in “catch-up” mode. Threads in these forums are started to learn from more experienced players. Constructive / objective posting helps the “catch-up” mode of less experienced players.

[blackshoe]

From the SAYC booklet:

Responses to 1 of a minor:

2NT: balanced 13-15, GF
3NT: balanced 16-17
Neither has a four card major.

"There is no forcing minor suit raise". Pretty much all bids are natural, and the direct raises are weak (that is, < 10 HCP). Four card suits up the line at the one level.

With one of my partners, in a 2/1 context, I play both inverted minor (GF) and criss-cross (invitational, limit raise, F3m or 2NT) raises. This combination of agreements is certainly not standard. I also play flip-flop. I wouldn't call that standard, either.

[32519]

Here is an interesting thread from the SAYC and 2/1 Forum titled “Which Minor to Open: How many styles are there?” http://www.bridgebas...-minor-to-open/

The thread starts off with a list of 8 possibilities for opening the bidding with “Better Minor” in natural 5-card major systems. The opening poster also raised and interesting question, “I also wonder which percentage of bridge players know what their regular partner is playing here.” The thread received 36 replies.
Which brings us back to the question raised here: Where there is overlap between different systems, choose the better (best) option and standardise opening bids and follow ups. It simplifies the memory load.

[32519]

Some more interesing threads discussing minor suit openings and follow ups:

1.) Playing a 5-card major system “1♦ is 4” http://www.bridgebas...1-diamond-is-4/

2.) A thread discussing CrissCross http://www.bridgebas...-for-beginners/ It received 41 replies.

3.) Opening the bidding on a 2-card ♣ suit allows the introduction of Transfer Walsh http://en.wikipedia..../Transfer_Walsh which appears to be growing in popularity.

[fromageGB]

While I would like to see transfer walsh and an unbalanced diamond become the standard minor openings, I can't really see it happening. There are just so many alternative continuations you can get into that would make it very difficult to agree on a "standard".

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-17, 13:00, said:

From the SAYC booklet:

Responses to 1 of a minor:

2NT: balanced 13-15, GF
3NT: balanced 16-17
Neither has a four card major.

But hardly anyone plays that, either. Even if they claim to be playing SAYC, they probably play 2NT invitational.

[blackshoe]

Then when they claim to be playing SAYC, they are misinforming whoever they're talking to.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-18, 20:17, said:

Then when they claim to be playing SAYC, they are misinforming whoever they're talking to.

They're misinformed themselves. None of them ever actually study the SAYC booklet, they just learn by osmosis.

[blackshoe]

Of course.

[32519]

Minor suit openings have lead to some interesting threads in the various forums. Here is one sharing thoughts on "Inverted Minor raise by a Passed Hand." http://www.bridgebas...-a-passed-hand/

[32519]

Having proper partnership continuation bidding agreements over minor suit openings cannot be underestimated. From reading some earlier threads on the topic it would appear that even top flight players aren’t all in agreement as to the best methods to be used and/or have their own preferred methods for doing so. Regular partnerships (especially beginner/intermediate) can only gain through having proper agreements on the following –
• Weak/preemptive raise (0-7 HCP)
• Constructive raise (8-10 HCP)
• Limit/invitational raise (11-12 HCP)
• Game force raise (13+ HCP)
You need at least 3 different bids to differentiate between minor suit raises. The 4th is optional.
Some of the posters suggested 1m-2M for constructive raises (8-10 HCP) and support for the minor. In a different thread covering Reverse Flannery http://www.bridgebas...verse-flannery/ 2M over 1m showed 5♠4♥. The HCP for the bid can be adjusted according to agreement.
Some more interesting threads covering minor suit openings and continuations –
1.) Minors in 2/1 http://www.bridgebas...2-minors-in-21/ The thread covers different minor suit continuations. The opening poster asks the question, “Can you play them all?”
2.) Inverted minors: How weak? http://www.bridgebas...inors-how-weak/
3.) Inverted minors revised http://www.bridgebas...minors-revised/ (The plot thickens!)

Up to you now. Over and out.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2011-December-18, 13:59, said:

But hardly anyone plays that, either. Even if they claim to be playing SAYC, they probably play 2NT invitational.

Especially those playing on BBO who select the "SAYC" stock convention card, which specifies 11-12.

[f0rdy]

fromageGB, on 2011-December-18, 12:23, said:

While I would like to see transfer walsh and an unbalanced diamond become the standard minor openings, I can't really see it happening. There are just so many alternative continuations you can get into that would make it very difficult to agree on a "standard".

Is there anything that's even played by some sizeable minority of unbalanced-diamond pairs, never mind a majority? When I played it we had a lot of artificial rebids, particularly after eg 1D - 1S (I think every rebid except 2D between 1N and 3D was different from 'standard'), but even if you kept to the simplest plausible rebid structure, the fact you have two intrinsically different minor openings is going to make it seem complicated for intermediate+ or pickup partnerships. Even playing a 5542 system in standard, it makes sense to keep the responses and rebids conceptually pretty similar.

[fromageGB]

f0rdy, on 2011-December-21, 11:34, said:

Is there anything that's even played by some sizeable minority of unbalanced-diamond pairs, never mind a majority? When I played it we had a lot of artificial rebids, particularly after eg 1D - 1S (I think every rebid except 2D between 1N and 3D was different from 'standard'), but even if you kept to the simplest plausible rebid structure, the fact you have two intrinsically different minor openings is going to make it seem complicated for intermediate+ or pickup partnerships. Even playing a 5542 system in standard, it makes sense to keep the responses and rebids conceptually pretty similar.

We have a very simple - skeletal - rebid structure after a diamond open that you will no doubt think deficient, but can be easily taken on by beginners. However, it has to be completely different from the rebid structure after a club open, as this is a completely different animal. This shouldn't be a problem, though, for any beginner can understand that a bidding structure over 1M is different to the structure over 1NT.