[JmBrPotter]

The book MoTown Minors: Contract Bridge Bidding System is available for download, now. It is on the Bridge at the Village web site at URL "http://www.bridgeclu...ndex.php?id=740". The book is still a work in progress. The current version is a 2.5MB Adobe™ Acrobat™ portable document file. The book includes a table of contents; descriptive text; tabular presentation for related bids, rebids, and responses; exercises; exercise answers; appendices for conventions; glossary; and stubs for future content (e.g., an index). Any feedback will be deeply appreciated.

[PrecisionL]

Brian,

Dwayne and I played against a pair in VA playing a similar system. Thought you might be interested in this hand played against us (we passed thru out).

1♦ (17+ hcp) - 1♥ (Artificial and negative) - 2♠ (4+ cards and 22+ hcp) - 2NT (dbl negative) - 3♣ (2nd suit, 4-cards) all pass

This was a top for them as the opening lead gave declarer a trick and there was no entry to dummy. The field played 2NT down 1 or 2.

Larry

Will check with Dwayne for schedule for BBO

[WGF_Flame]

Hi,
Thanks for the book,

I like very much the idea of using both minors for many hand types as you do.
I don't like the 5M minimum hand opening 1C and even have to bid 2M with 5M4m.
I think you should try to give more space to the 5M, maybe the canape is not needed, maybe need some rebid changes, and quite likely you can save some space for it by using the 2 level bids for constructive hands.

The book itself was for me hard to read, too many words, not enough summery tables, too many words on the big hands that never come, too little on the every day hands. its possible that Its just me and my desire for a system notes rather then a book.

Thanks again,
good luck

[JmBrPotter]

 WGF_Flame, on 2012-February-28, 16:39, said:

. . .
I like very much the idea of using both minors for many hand types as you do.
I don't like the 5M minimum hand opening 1C and even have to bid 2M with 5M4m.
I think you should try to give more space to the 5M, maybe the canape is not needed, maybe need some rebid changes, and quite likely you can save some space for it by using the 2 level bids for constructive hands.
. . .

Sharon,

I did not like the idea until I saw all the bidding problems it solves. Making both 1♣ and 1♦ artificial and forcing does several good things, but it also throws some extra load onto 1M openings.

You know that some folks sometimes make Weak Two openings with 5-4-3-1 or 5-4-2-2 shape, right? Think of the MoTown sequences that begin "1♣-(Pass)-1♦-(Pass); 2M" as 5-4 (or 5-5 or 6-5 or 6-6) hands that were about a queen to an ace too strong for a weak two opening.

When you open nearly every hand with 10 HCP or more, you need GOOD brakes. The 2M rebid by a 1♣ opener is one of those. Responder will usually pass unless there are extras in responder's hand or a fit (e.g., four or more cards in each minor AND a ruffing value in opener's major). Remember, responder was forced. Opener may be making that 2M rebid with an eleven count that felt too good for a weak two opposite a responder with a misfit and about 4HCP. We sometimes go down a few playing 2M (especially, 2♠) undoubled into unbid adverse games.

Think of the 1♣ opener's 2M rebid as an intermediate two-level opening bid promising minimum range opening high card strength with 5+ cards in the opened major AND a minor the same length or one card shorter. We just did our little dance with 1♣ forcing and 1♦ waiting before making our two-suited opening bid in our real suit. That saves both 1M and 2M for hands (1M) where we may want to go places on our own or (2M) where we want to get our preempt on the table up front.

This system resembles the Roman Club in that much of it is about shape, but it is bigger and more aggressive about opening bids. Having frequent things like the minimum range 5M4m hands, minimum range 6m hands, and 11-14 count 4441s lumped into the 1♣ opening makes preempting 1♣ less desirable for our opponents (They may be preempting themselves!) I recommend that our opponents should preempt over our 1♦ openings. The weakest holding there is a balanced 15-18 count.

[WGF_Flame]

Hi again,

Its a matter of style ofcourse but for me, If I have a good idea about a system, I will try to make my system supirior to other systems at the point where my idea is in effect, but will try to stay with the other systems on the other hands. this give me the ability to say that my system is supirior.
This thinking of mine is why its hard for me to digest your system, because I see good in there, but I see also sequences where it is less good then other systems. I guess this will almost always happend, but in your system you took it far, you have these 1 minor openings which are special, but you also have your canape, and you also have all 2 level weak. I'm much more conservative or maybe old...

[WGF_Flame]

maybe ill be a bit practicle,
If I would asked to make a change to this system to make me like it alot, i would do the following.
1H - 4+ hearts canape or not.
1S - 4S canape.
2C/2D - 5+S4+m 9-14

This follows my thory that with hearts its not very important to tell if you have 4 or 5, while with spades its very important.

[JmBrPotter]

 WGF_Flame, on 2012-March-01, 10:01, said:

maybe ill be a bit practicle,
If I would asked to make a change to this system to make me like it alot, i would do the following.
1H - 4+ hearts canape or not.
1S - 4S canape.
2C/2D - 5+S4+m 9-14

This follows my theory that with hearts its not very important to tell if you have 4 or 5, while with spades its very important.

Sharon,

Your proposed change is playable, but it sacrifices two useful preempts. This is a bigger sacrifice than it is likely to seem. You will not "see" the losses because they take the form of gains you do not get.

You would not believe the "good board" percentage Bill and I have with our 2♣ openings! When we open 2♦, we seem to get about average (40-60% mp or +/-0-2 IMPs) unless one of us does something brilliant or stupid (the second being more likely) in the play. 2♣ openings give us about a 75% average matchpoint score no matter who plays the hand and nearly always gains 1-7 IMPs at IMP scoring. Passing the weak 2♣/♦ (especially, 2♣) openers gives the opponents the same free ride our team mates (other pairs) are getting at the other table(s). Now, we must work for a good score.

Most folks handle unobstructed auctions fairly well these days. Party favors like the ones we routinely get for opening 2♣ weak just do not come our way when we let the other side open and bid without obstruction. Doubling those loses by also losing 2♦ weak would really hurt. Four-suit weak twos (as in the original Roth-Stone system) are one of the MoTown foundation stones. The success of the weak 2♣ opening demonstrates the soundness of this choice.

Since some of those weak 2♣/♦ openers are 5-4 hands with about a seven-count, opening them with 3♣/♦ is not the option it is for classic 6-3-3-1 hands with good long suits. We might open those hands either 2♣/♦ or 3♣/♦ depending upon seat and vulnerability.

Your concern about KNOWING major suit lengths is valid. MoTown delivers. 1M shows four cards when 5-4 two-suited, five cards when 6-5 two-suited (yeah, 6 when 7-6 two-suited in your dreams), or 6+ cards when one-suited. The 2M rebid by a 1m opener always promises 5+ cards in M.

If we have the tickets, our limit bid canapé into 2M after opening 1m gives partner a promise of 5+ cards, range, and notice of a second (equal length or one card shorter) suit in an unspecified minor. The sequence also denies 5-4-4-0 shape (3-suiters have there own treatment.) Partner is well placed to act effectively after "1m-(Pass)-wait-(Pass); 2M". After "1♣-(Pass)-1♦-(Pass); 2M" responder can often pass with a poorly fitting nine-count. Opponents who notice that we stopped not infrequently enter the auction and discover that they are overboard when partner finds the red card. Declaring doubled at the three-level in a misfit with about half the deck rarely leads to a good score, and running often makes it worse. Coming in over the 1m opening might escape the double because we (having bid no suits) will have more trouble diagnosing the misfit.

BTW, "old" is an attitude as much as anything. "Old" attitudes are unlikely in this particular forum.