[foobar]

Looks like a very interesting system:

1♣: 16+
1♦: 11-13 balanced OR 4CM5m OR any 4441/5m440
1♥/1♠: 5+
1N: 14-16 (10-12 NV 1st and 2nd with 13-15 hands in 1♦)
2♣: 6+♣ OR 5+♣ and 4♦; no 4CM
2♦: 6+♦ OR 5+♦ and 4♣; no 4CM
2M: Preempts
2N: 12-15; 5-5 minors

They play quasi-symmetric relays over most of their openings, but it should be easy to replace with plain symmetric if desired. IMO, the 1M responses to 1♦ are a little bit of an overkill, and I would offload a couple of hand types from 1♦ and put them into 1M, but it looks very playable.

[steve2005]

from ecats 2016 cc for 2016 European tams championship
http://info.ecatsbri...trom-Upmark.pdf

[Kungsgeten]

They play the Auby-Ebenius Club. There's notes published here: https://relaysystems...-relay-systems/

[foobar]

Kungsgeten, on 2023-July-26, 16:31, said:

They play the Auby-Ebenius Club. There's notes published here: https://relaysystems...-relay-systems/

Since their 1♦ opening is so well defined, do they really need to play 1♥ / 1♠ response as potentially artificial? It seems like it's best to natural responses, and then relay over the rebid. Unbalanced hands that don't have a 4CM are better off showing opposite partner's presumed 11-13 balanced hands. The other balanced hands that want to relay can always use some 2-level bid.

[Kungsgeten]

I haven't studied it in detail, but the whole system differentiates a lot between hands with/without shortness. To me it seems like their 1H response is the only artificial one? Either natural or GF relay (or balanced INV).

They can also respond 1M with a three card suit, but only with a weak (unbalanced) hand that doesn't want to pass 1D, so probably short(ish) diamonds and long clubs.

It is possible to play 1M as natural too, but then you'd have to bid 2m (GF) on a balanced four card suit sometimes. I think I've also seen variants of the opening bid where responding 1NT was GF relay (then 1M would often be a three card suit). It might be okay to use 2C as the relay too, depending on how high you feel comfortable resolving shape.

[foobar]

Kungsgeten, on 2023-July-27, 03:48, said:

I haven't studied it in detail, but the whole system differentiates a lot between hands with/without shortness. To me it seems like their 1H response is the only artificial one? Either natural or GF relay (or balanced INV).

They can also respond 1M with a three card suit, but only with a weak (unbalanced) hand that doesn't want to pass 1D, so probably short(ish) diamonds and long clubs.

It is possible to play 1M as natural too, but then you'd have to bid 2m (GF) on a balanced four card suit sometimes. I think I've also seen variants of the opening bid where responding 1NT was GF relay (then 1M would often be a three card suit). It might be okay to use 2C as the relay too, depending on how high you feel comfortable resolving shape.

Both 1♥/1♠ can be artificial per the below.

3 - 1♦ 13 (46)
3 1♦
1♥ a) Nat, normally 5-p
b) Weak hand (0-5) w/ 3*♥, <4♠ and a 5m where you don’t want to pass 1♦ (e.g. 3316)
c) “Bal” G/T vs. NT-hand w/ 2-3*♥ and 2-3*♠
d) Any FG hand that wants to (or must) use relays. A FG hand w/o SHO must start w/ 1♥.
The reason why you must start w/ 1♠ instead of 1♥ w/ a bal G/T and 4*♠ and <4*♥ is that if
you started w/ 1♥ and got a 2♥-response you were not going to find a potential 4-4 ♠ fit.
1♠ a) 4♠ (not FG strength w/o SHO, then 1♥ instead), no HCP requirement but normally 5-p
b) Same as 1♥ b, but here obviously <4♥ and 3*♠

[mycroft]

so 1♠ might, just possibly, be a very weak hand with only three spades, <4 hearts, and short diamonds (a reason not to pass 1♦, especially when that doesn't promise diamonds)?

Artificial, yeah, I guess, technically and to regulations. Looks pretty natural to me, though - I'd expect that many "totally natural" players, facing a "usually 11-13 (semi-)balanced" 1♦ opener, might manufacture said "artificial" call instead of going for a potential -400 undoubled in the opponents' fit. They just let the opponents know they are allowed that judgement (which is kind of nice, compared to the "I'll never respond with fewer than zero HCP" people).

One question for someone who's more experienced/Swedish/Norwegian - 1♣ includes "Any unbal hand or 5M(332) w/ 11- zz," - is that supposed to be "11 zz" (or "11+zz")? Both make sense, 11 or less does not.

(Looking further, it does look like it's "11zz"; I can see:

AEC club notes said:

Regardless of distribution, honour location etc you must open the bidding if either of these two
conditions is met.

• 9- zz for such distributions that requires at least 12 HCP, i.e. (4441), 5m4m(xx) and 5m5m(xx)
  
• Else 8- zz

The same pattern of "#- ", and that clearly isn't "number or fewer". But confirmation would be nice.)

[DavidKok]

Throughout the document I think they use the "#- zz" to indicate 'at least this many zz', the format being "min-max zz" with the max left blank.

[glen]

In this 2008 posting I mentioned what we played in the early 80s:

https://www.bridgeba...post__p__250761

the next poster, "blahonga" says:

Quote

My preferred opening structure is

1♣ 16+
1♦ 11-13 bal/11-15 4 card major and longer minor/12-16 4441
1♥/♠ 5+
1NT 14-16
2♣/♦ 11-15 6cards or 12-15 54 in minors. Denies a four card major
2♥/♠ weak
2NT 12-15 55 minors

I then replied about the 75 BW article:

A Disciplined Diamond (L.S. Torkelson, Bridge World Oct 75):

1♣: Big, if bal then 18+
1♦: 15-17 Bal OR 4cM + longer minor OR 3 4-card suits
1♥/♠: Five card majors
1NT: 12-14 Bal
2♣/♦: No 4cM, Six+ minor, or 5-4 in minors

[foobar]

glen, on 2023-August-01, 20:03, said:

In this 2008 posting I mentioned what we played in the early 80s:

https://www.bridgeba...post__p__250761

the next poster, "blahonga" says:



I then replied about the 75 BW article:

A Disciplined Diamond (L.S. Torkelson, Bridge World Oct 75):

1♣: Big, if bal then 18+
1♦: 15-17 Bal OR 4cM + longer minor OR 3 4-card suits
1♥/♠: Five card majors
1NT: 12-14 Bal
2♣/♦: No 4cM, Six+ minor, or 5-4 in minors

Nice find, Glen. It's too bad that "blahonga" seems to have disappeared from the forums in 2014, but the response structure appears to be remarkably similar to the Nystrom-Upmark notes (albeit with natural 1M responses).

[helene_t]

How does this system compare to IMPrecision?

[straube]

helene_t, on 2023-August-03, 15:43, said:

How does this system compare to IMPrecision?

It's similar. The 2m openings should have significantly worse auctions by allowing 4om. Even promising 6m auctions are a little tight. By promising only 5m you don't have an anchor suit.

By taking 5m4m out of 1D and swapping NT strength between 1D and 1N, they have slightly less pressure on the 1D opening. Maybe 1D-1S, 2C infers 4H/5C now which is a little better than 1D-1S, 2C showing minors (I forget exactly what lengths Adam and Sieong promise there but certain lengths rebid 1N which has its own difficulties). Not sure what 1D-1H, 2C is needed for since 4S/5C hands could just rebid 1S.

I like the IMprecision openings better.

[foobar]

straube, on 2023-August-03, 17:08, said:

It's similar. The 2m openings should have significantly worse auctions by allowing 4om. Even promising 6m auctions are a little tight. By promising only 5m you don't have an anchor suit.

By taking 5m4m out of 1D and swapping NT strength between 1D and 1N, they have slightly less pressure on the 1D opening. Maybe 1D-1S, 2C infers 4H/5C now which is a little better than 1D-1S, 2C showing minors (I forget exactly what lengths Adam and Sieong promise there but certain lengths rebid 1N which has its own difficulties). Not sure what 1D-1H, 2C is needed for since 4S/5C hands could just rebid 1S.

I like the IMprecision openings better.

In the balance, it might indeed come down to preferences and tradeoffs. I haven't run the scripts, but suspect that the 2m openings will be more frequent than those showing 6+m and another. On the flip-side, the 6m4M hands that would have opened 2m will now open 1♦ (for better or worse).

BTW, the 2m openings are a relay lover's dream .

[DavidKok]

helene_t, on 2023-August-03, 15:43, said:

How does this system compare to IMPrecision?

I think it is better than IMPrecision. This is one of the first systems I've seen in the Precision family where opener can recover in a competitive auction after opening 1♦. In return you have to play the uncomfortably high 2♦ opening, which gives you zero chances of backing into 1NT, 2♥ or 2♠ and even the odds of playing 2♦ only when it is right are slim (in fact, with the system in the pdf above it is difficult to get to 2M even over 2♣). But plenty of people sacrifice their 2♦ opening (e.g. to three-suited hands with short diamonds) anyway, compared to which it's not a big loss.

straube, on 2023-August-03, 17:08, said:

By taking 5m4m out of 1D and swapping NT strength between 1D and 1N, they have slightly less pressure on the 1D opening. Maybe 1D-1S, 2C infers 4H/5C now which is a little better than 1D-1S, 2C showing minors (I forget exactly what lengths Adam and Sieong promise there but certain lengths rebid 1N which has its own difficulties). Not sure what 1D-1H, 2C is needed for since 4S/5C hands could just rebid 1S.

I thought they switch the NT range depending on vulnerability and position (but playing a strong NT most of the time), and also that 1♦-1♥; 2♣ shows a good heart raise while 1♦-1♥; 2♦ shows 4♠3♥5(+)m max. Essentially these bids are not necessary, so they can be used in any way to take strain from other parts of the followup structure.

Edit: I should have added that since 1♦-1♥ does not promise hearts there is extra value in having a strong heart raise below 2♥, allowing the partnership to back into 2♥ when responder has, say, 2 HCP with a 3-card heart suit.

foobar, on 2023-August-03, 17:22, said:

I haven't run the scripts, but suspect that the 2m openings will be more frequent than those showing 6+m and another. On the flip-side, the 6m4M hands that would have opened 2m will now open 1♦ (for better or worse).

My scripts suggest that the classical Precision 2♣ opening (10-15 with 6(+) clubs and no 5cM) is around 2.0% of all hands, while the Nyström-Upmark hand is around 2.2% of all hands (same range but 6(+)♣ or 5♣4♦, and excluding a 4cM). If you limit the Nyström-Upmark opening to at least 11 HCP if 4♦5♣ (which seems sensible) the frequency drops to 2.1%. All things considered the differences are very small.

[straube]

I missed that 2m denies a 4-cd major. In that case I more stongly prefer IMprecision. Excepting the 5m440s most IMprecision 1Ds are a card away from a weak NT and this allows for preempting against them. For example 1D-3D is much more likely to be successful opposite an IMprecision 1D opening than something that could be 4216.

I did once play a system where 1D promised a major so we had a lot of 1D-1M, 2m auctions which were fun and sometimes lead us to a Moysian. Also our 2m openings denied a 4-cd major and we thought we were getting our best results with these openings. Even when we got to our worst minor fit, we were burying the major suit fits of our opponents.

So probably some tradeoffs with Imprecision.

[foobar]

straube, on 2023-August-05, 09:31, said:

I missed that 2m denies a 4-cd major. In that case I more stongly prefer IMprecision. Excepting the 5m440s most IMprecision 1Ds are a card away from a weak NT and this allows for preempting against them. For example 1D-3D is much more likely to be successful opposite an IMprecision 1D opening than something that could be 4216.

I did once play a system where 1D promised a major so we had a lot of 1D-1M, 2m auctions which were fun and sometimes lead us to a Moysian. Also our 2m openings denied a 4-cd major and we thought we were getting our best results with these openings. Even when we got to our worst minor fit, we were burying the major suit fits of our opponents.

So probably some tradeoffs with Imprecision.

I think that you are forgetting that this 1♦ opening doesn't include the 5m4+m hands. So, basically it comes down to:

1♦: 4441, 5+m4M, balanced hands

vs.

1♦: 4441, 5m4M, 5+m4+m, balanced hands

I would posit that the former has fewer unbalanced hands than the latter.

An even superior design might be to move the 4441 hands into 1M.

[straube]

foobar, on 2023-August-05, 16:12, said:

I think that you are forgetting that this 1♦ opening doesn't include the 5m4+m hands. So, basically it comes down to:

1♦: 4441, 5+m4M, balanced hands

vs.

1♦: 4441, 5m4M, 5+m4+m, balanced hands

I would posit that the former has fewer unbalanced hands than the latter.

An even superior design might be to move the 4441 hands into 1M.

I didn't forget that. Neither 1D includes 6m4m hands, right?

So

1♦: 4441, 5m4M, 5m4m, 5+m5+m, balanced hands

vs

1♦: 4441, 5+m4M, balanced hands

[foobar]

straube, on 2023-August-07, 14:56, said:

I didn't forget that. Neither 1D includes 6m4m hands, right?

So

1♦: 4441, 5m4M, 5m4m, 5+m5+m, balanced hands

vs

1♦: 4441, 5+m4M, balanced hands

Right, all unbalanced hands with one or both minors (5+m4+m) go either into 2m or 2N in their system.

[straube]

I was trying to sort out why both their 1D and 2m openings are underloaded compared to IMprecision...but that's just because they put their 5m/5m hands into 2N. I've never liked this opening but have played it only a little. If it's a successful opening and you don't mind not being able to relay those patterns out, then there's more to be said for the rest. Personally, I like 2m openings to promise 6 but opening 1D without a 4-cd major never really appealed to me.

[foobar]

straube, on 2023-August-07, 16:28, said:

I was trying to sort out why both their 1D and 2m openings are underloaded compared to IMprecision...but that's just because they put their 5m/5m hands into 2N.

Doesn't under-loading 1♦ reduce number of unbalanced hands in 1♦? Basically, in a contested auction, their system doesn't have to cater to the 5+m4+m hands, and while they have to account for 6m4M, they are less frequent.

straube, on 2023-August-07, 16:28, said:

I've never liked this opening but have played it only a little. If it's a successful opening and you don't mind not being able to relay those patterns out, then there's more to be said for the rest.

Think you probably meant some patterns in the 1♦ opening, since their 2m / 2N openings are ideal for relaying if that's desired.

straube, on 2023-August-07, 16:28, said:

Personally, I like 2m openings to promise 6 but opening 1D without a 4-cd major never really appealed to me.

Both systems can have a balanced 1♦ opening without a 4CM, right? Their system guarantees a 4CM in 1♦ if unbalanced.