[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-August-15, 09:08, said:

I don't mind double=majors, and play Mathé by preference...

I would like to follow this up but have no desire to hijack the thread, so will open a new one specific to interference over strong 1♣.
I trust those playing strong 1♣ will contribute against their own interest

[DavidKok]

straube, on 2023-August-15, 11:00, said:

I've had pretty good luck opening the minor with 4M/6m hands. Very often we don't have a major suit fit or if we do, the minor suit fit scores more tricks. I'm sure there are counter-arguments.

[..]

Same idea for 2D opening

It's specifically the 2D opening I'm worried about. Does 2D-2H show spades or GF relay? How do you sign off? Most of the time it shouldn't be an issue, and Precision players have used constructive methods over 2♣ for a long time without all that many issues. I fully expect these to work very well, though on balance I think it's slightly easier still in the Nyström-Upmark system.

[straube]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-15, 14:33, said:

It's specifically the 2D opening I'm worried about. Does 2D-2H show spades or GF relay? How do you sign off? Most of the time it shouldn't be an issue, and Precision players have used constructive methods over 2♣ for a long time without all that many issues. I fully expect these to work very well, though on balance I think it's slightly easier still in the Nyström-Upmark system.

Yes, 2D-2H is GI 5S OR GF any. Everything is symmetrical with 2C

2D-2S=4+H
.....2N-4S
..........3C-5H
.....3C-3H
2D-2N-D raise
2D-3C-4S

Having a 6m as your anchor means that you can explore for major suit fits without worrying about whether 2N needs to be a possible sign off. You're going to play a fit at the 3-level or tough it out in opener's minor at the 3-level.

[DavidKok]

While I'm very happy with the developments of my 4cM strong club system, I find I keep coming back to AEC as a solid alternative with lower shock value. So I've been studying up on this system as well in an attempt to better understand it and possibly simplify it a bit to make it easier to get into. If other people are (still) interested in this system I'd love to see more discussion on it. Some questions that I had include:

• What is their "5+ scheme"? I think it is not the 'standard' GRAMMY 1M-2♣ shape-showing GF relay scheme, they reserve the first step for weak hands (see for example board 20). But GRAMMY is already +2 over symmetric, does this mean they are going to +3 often? Or perhaps not doing full shape resolution?
  
• In a similar vein, how does the "10* scheme" work? I think this refers to hands with 4M6(+)m (e.g. 1♦-1♥; 2NT showing a maximum 6(+)♦4♥ and 3♣ now being a game forcing relay).
  
• They also mention a "1-0-2 scheme" a number of times, which I think refers to the number of cards in a specific suit (the suit is clear in context). What are the continuations?
  
• Furthermore they also have a 1-suiter scheme (with known suit) and 2-suiter scheme (with known suits and relative lengths), I'd also like to know more about this.
  
• The details on continuations over their 2m openings are somewhat sparse, though I think I'd start with something closer to natural anyway.
  
• Is there a writeup of good methods to use in competition over this? In general I'm not that concerned with the 1♣, 1♥, 1♠ or 1NT opening (these are similar enough to other systems that similar approaches should work well), but the 1♦, 2♣ and 2♦ openings might be very suitable for new inferences and methods on competitive auctions.

[foobar]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-04, 07:41, said:

While I'm very happy with the developments of my 4cM strong club system, I find I keep coming back to AEC as a solid alternative with lower shock value. So I've been studying up on this system as well in an attempt to better understand it and possibly simplify it a bit to make it easier to get into. If other people are (still) interested in this system I'd love to see more discussion on it. Some questions that I had include:

• What is their "5+ scheme"? I think it is not the 'standard' GRAMMY 1M-2♣ shape-showing GF relay scheme, they reserve the first step for weak hands (see for example board 20). But GRAMMY is already +2 over symmetric, does this mean they are going to +3 often? Or perhaps not doing full shape resolution?
  
• In a similar vein, how does the "10* scheme" work? I think this refers to hands with 4M6(+)m (e.g. 1♦-1♥; 2NT showing a maximum 6(+)♦4♥ and 3♣ now being a game forcing relay).
  
• They also mention a "1-0-2 scheme" a number of times, which I think refers to the number of cards in a specific suit (the suit is clear in context). What are the continuations?
  
• Furthermore they also have a 1-suiter scheme (with known suit) and 2-suiter scheme (with known suits and relative lengths), I'd also like to know more about this.
  
• The details on continuations over their 2m openings are somewhat sparse, though I think I'd start with something closer to natural anyway.
  
• Is there a writeup of good methods to use in competition over this? In general I'm not that concerned with the 1♣, 1♥, 1♠ or 1NT opening (these are similar enough to other systems that similar approaches should work well), but the 1♦, 2♣ and 2♦ openings might be very suitable for new inferences and methods on competitive auctions.

Glad to see another fan .

Regarding #1, I don't really see why Grammy needs to be +2, and IMO it should be possible to achieve +1. In the same vein, I don't quite see the need for the 10+ scheme over 1♦, since it should be possible to use 1♦ - 2♣ as a GF relay given that they can't have hands with one or both minors. Also, for the single suited scheme, I think it's OK to not resolve the 6322 completely.

Regarding write-ups, my document (already shared with you) might be a good starting point.

[DavidKok]

The 10* scheme is only relevant on certain sequences, where they did not initially force to game but only establish a game force on later rounds. Hence the need for a whole new scheme, I suppose. That remark on their 1♦ opening resolves one of the bigger concerns of mine - I'm not a fan of their 3-way or 4-way 1♦-1♥ sequence, especially not if I'm trying to simplify the system and pick it up one chunk at a time. But if instead I can use 2♣ as a GF relay then I can reserve 1♦-1M for (ostensibly) natural calls, at least for now. Let me try my hand at a simple relay scheme from there:
1♦-2♣; ?

• 2♦ - ♦ + M unbal or 4441/5440 short black suit
  
• 2♥ - Balanced any
  
• 2♠ - 5(+)♣ + 4♥
  
• 2NT - 4441/5440 short red suit
  
• 3♣+ - 5(+)♣ + 4♠ two-suited scheme

This looks like a straightforward +1 scheme to me.

Thank you for reminding me of your notes, I had forgotten your +1 Grammy scheme but it looks really solid.

[DavidKok]

We had a long and fruitful discussion on AEC, and came up with a way to hopefully simplify it while keeping most of the system intact. Here are the openings and the response structures (the openings are also listed earlier in the thread, but it's been a while so perhaps a refresher can't hurt), if people are interested I'd love to generate some discussion on this. We made a few strange choices, I'll list them at the end:

• 1♣ - 16+ unbal or 17+ bal. Use any set of responses you like, but since the other openings allow for (somewhat symmetric) relay you might as well slap it on here as well.
  
• 1♦ - 11-13 bal or 11-15 4M5(+)m or 11-15 any 4441.
  Spoiler

  • 1M - natural, may be very weak (no particular HCP requirement, can be a 0-count). Note that 1D-1M; 2m shows 5(+)m4oM. The original system has a truly fabulous system over 1D-1M, we've simplified it a bunch for ease of learning even though this is a clear downgrade.
    
  • 1NT - semiforcing (up to a bad 12). This probably should not be very weak, as we'll play here facing 11-13 bal.
    
  • 2♣ - game forcing relay. This is mostly symmetric +1:
    • 2♦ - 5(+)♦4M unbal or specific 4441's/5m440's (short black suit).
      
    • 2♥ - bal any. This would be +2 to completely resolve, so instead some different approach is required for balanced hands. We have one, but for now it's less than ideal. Thankfully responder will most often bid 1♦-1M; 1NT-2♦ (XYNT) and initiate a shape-asking sequence at a lower level with more information.
      
    • 2♠ - 5(+)♣4♥
      
    • 2NT - Specific 4441's/5m440's (short red suit).
      
    • 3♣+ - two-suited scheme for 5(+)♣4♠ at +1.
  • 2D-2NT as you please (UMJOODO, weak, intermediate, strong jump shifts, 2♦ Multi, you name it).
    
  • 3m IJS (approx 9-11 with 6(+)m).
• 1♥ - 10-15 5(+)H, leaning very aggressive. Open most 10's and some 9's.
  Spoiler

  • 1♠ - 4+, typically denies a fit. No particular HCP requirement, can be a 0-count. Over 1♥-1♠ we play Gazzilli (despite the limited opening structure!).
    
  • 1NT - semiforcing, can be very weak. Over 1♥-1NT we play Gazzilli (despite the limited opening structure!).
    
  • 2♣ - game forcing relay.
    • 2♦ - 4♠5(+)♥ or any 55(+). 2♥ relay.
      • 2♠ - Any 55 (if the secondary suit is spades it promises at least 5=6), 2NT asks for the suit, then we show suits coded in ascending order.
        
      • 2NT+ - short two-suiter scheme with 4♠5(+)♥.
    • 2♥ - 4♦ two-suiter, then 2NT+ short two-suited scheme.
      
    • 2♠ - 6(+)♥ single-suited. This resolves at +1, so instead of full shape-showing we use a different single-suited scheme after 2NT relay.
      
    • 2NT+ - 5(+)♥4♣ short two-suited scheme.
  • 2♦ - limit raise in hearts.
    
  • 2♥ - competitive raise, can be very weak (approx 0-9).
    
  • 2♠ - your choice, but IJS (approx 9-11 with 6(+)♠ and at most 2 hearts) is easy to remember, even though those hands would fit well in the Gazzilli structure too.
    
  • 2NT Stenberg/J2NT.
    
  • 3m IJS.
• 1♠ - 10-15 5(+)S, leaning very aggressive. Open most 10's and some 9's.
  Spoiler

  • 1NT semiforcing, can be very weak. Over 1♠-1NT we play Gazzilli (despite the limited opening structure!).
    
  • 2♣ game forcing relay.
    • 2♦ - 4♥5(+)♠ or any 55(+). 2♥ relay.
      • 2♠ - Any 55, 2NT asks for the suit, then we show suits coded in ascending order (which happens to be natural).
        
      • 2NT+ - short two-suiter scheme with 4♥5(+)♠.
    • 2♥ - 4♦ two-suiter, then 2NT+ short two-suited scheme.
      
    • 2♠ - 6(+)♠ single-suited. This resolves at +1, so instead of full shape-showing we use a different single-suited scheme after 2NT relay.
      
    • 2NT+ - 5(+)♠4♣ short two-suited scheme.
  • 2♦ - invitational+ transfer to hearts.
    
  • 2♥ - limit raise in spades.
    
  • 2♠ - competitive raise, can be very weak (approx 0-9).
    
  • 2NT - Stenberg/J2NT.
    
  • 3m - IJS.
    
  • 3♥ - IJS, probably superfluous with 2♦ existing.
• 1NT - 14-16
  
• 2♣ - 10-15 6(+)♣ or 11-15 5♣4♦. Denies a 4cM.
  Spoiler

  • 2♦ - Invitational+ relay.
    • 2♥ - both minors 5(+)♣4♦.
      • 2♠ - Game forcing relay, 2NT+ two-suited scheme.
        
      • 2NT - natural invitational.
        
      • 3♣ - natural invitational.
        
      • 3♦ - natural invitational.
    • 2♠ - 6(+)♣ single-suited minimum.
      
    • 2NT+ - single-suited maximum.
  • 2♥ - (5)6+ hearts NF constructive.
    
  • 2♠ - (5)6+ spades NF constructive.
    
  • 2NT - natural invitational NF.
    
  • 3♣ - barrage.
    
  • 3♦-3♠ - splinters setting clubs.
    
  • 3NT - to play.
• 2♦ - 10-15 6(+)♦ or 11-15 5♦4♣. Denies a 4cM.
  Spoiler

  • 2♥ - Game forcing relay, similar to 2♣ but there is less room to show min-max:
    • 2♠ - 5(+)♦4♣, now after 2NT we use the two-suited scheme at +1.
      
    • 2NT+ - single-suited scheme.
  • 2♠ - (5)6+ spades NF constructive.
    
  • 2NT - natural invitational NF.
    
  • 3♣ - ??? (optional: (5)6+ hearts invitational+).
    
  • 3♦ - barrage.
    
  • 3♥-3♠ - splinters setting clubs.
    
  • 3NT - to play.
• 2M - Weak two.
  
• 2NT - 12-15 55m. 3m to play, 3♥ artificial game force (quite awkward).

Our strange choices: we put all 4441's in 1D. We will also experiment with putting 5M332 11-13 in 1D, treating it as balanced before treating it as 5cM. Incidentally this means that 1M-2C relay is at +0.5, rather than the customary +2 for GRAMMY.

Mostly I think this system caters to really aggressive openings (open most unbalanced 10s and some 9s) and is ahead of the field on competitive auctions, which you rate to get frequently (especially if you start opening really light). You can slap on any competitive structure you prefer, I recommend lots of transfers. This system also gives responder the freedom to act both really soundly and really light, as e.g. the Gazzilli over 1M and NF shape-showing bids over 1D-1M will prevent us from getting high even if responder had a near bust. Of course that needs to be alerted. Personally I like how the most frequent sequences - opening 1♦ and looking for a major fit in or out of competition, partner opening 1♥ or 1♠ and us raising in or out of competition, and the 2♣ and 2♦ openings denying a 4cM - give us freedom to choose to be aggressive or conservative without getting too high. The relays look daunting and are unfortunately necessary to play these 2/1 bids, but really don't make up the core of the system by frequency or, I suspect, IMP/MP gains.

[awm]

A few questions:

Have you run some sims on the 2m openings? It seems to me that a responder hand with 10-12 or so and a 5-major will be quite common and has no great way to continue (not strong enough to GF but could easily make game opposite a max and/or 3-card major fit, and doesn’t really want to play 2M opposite a singleton).

The choice to get 5+/4 two suited hands on the standard track whil 5/5 hands do not fully resolve seems interesting — it’s true that 5/4 is most frequent but more shape has more slam potential; why do you think this is better than putting all two suiters at +1?

I’m also curious about your 1M-2♣-2♠ continuations; to me this looks more like +2 and it seems hard to squeeze everything in, even if you can drop the 5332s.

Do you dislike 1♦-1♥ natural or relay for some reason? This seems to resolve better on the 1♦ opens as well as freeing up 2♣ as a natural call.

[DavidKok]

awm, on 2023-November-06, 09:28, said:

Have you run some sims on the 2m openings? It seems to me that a responder hand with 10-12 or so and a 5-major will be quite common and has no great way to continue (not strong enough to GF but could easily make game opposite a max and/or 3-card major fit, and doesn’t really want to play 2M opposite a singleton).

I haven't run any simulations on this (yet). Over 2♣ there are some options, 2♦ is a real problem and I hope it won't come up too often. Thankfully it's a relatively specific combination of opening bid, responsive shape and responsive strength. Personally I think non-relay schemes over the 2m openings might well be better, but in the context of the rest of the system this is not something I wanted to suggest.

awm, on 2023-November-06, 09:28, said:

The choice to get 5+/4 two suited hands on the standard track whil 5/5 hands do not fully resolve seems interesting — it’s true that 5/4 is most frequent but more shape has more slam potential; why do you think this is better than putting all two suiters at +1?

Personally I think the frequency considerations are decisive, as you mention. Also we might open more aggressively with 55 so the slam potential of this shape might be somewhat reduced (though still higher than your average 54, I bet). Also conditional on us holding a limited opening 55 and the opponents not being in the auction and partner not making a raise first round I think there is a significant potential of a misfit, or at least no superfit.

awm, on 2023-November-06, 09:28, said:

I’m also curious about your 1M-2♣-2♠ continuations; to me this looks more like +2 and it seems hard to squeeze everything in, even if you can drop the 5332s.

I think this is +2 but then drops 5332 putting it at +1, if I'm not mistaken. We definitely can't fit everything in, and have scheme here that doesn't fully resolve shape but is hopefully good enough.

awm, on 2023-November-06, 09:28, said:

Do you dislike 1♦-1♥ natural or relay for some reason? This seems to resolve better on the 1♦ opens as well as freeing up 2♣ as a natural call.

Yes, I dislike it quite a bit. In context of this system it makes a lot of sense, but it is complicated and vulnerable to fourth hand interference. The purpose was to simplify the structure, and using 1♦-1♥ as a four-way bid as in AEC does not meet that description. Personally I think it might work very well and the relay aficionados can build a very nice system around it, but it makes the system difficult to comprehend and pick up. So we've intentionally simplified this part at the cost of some of the relay structure, gaining on the competitive auctions in the process.

I really should stress that what I like most about this system is the competitive and aggressive sequences that it enables. The relay structure is to me somewhere between a necessary evil and an afterthought. I had to look through hundreds of deals on vugraph to find a few examples of Nyström-Upmark using their relays in an attempt to understand them a bit better. So if there is a possible trade-off between competitive advantages and relay sequences it seems sensible to me to sacrifice the relay auctions (which may or may not come up) and retain the competitive aspects of the openings and responses (which will matter far more often). If you wish to lean more into the relay aspect, but expose yourself more to fourth hand interference, 1♦-1♥ multi-way relay might be more suitable.

[foobar]

awm, on 2023-November-06, 09:28, said:

A few questions:

Have you run some sims on the 2m openings? It seems to me that a responder hand with 10-12 or so and a 5-major will be quite common and has no great way to continue (not strong enough to GF but could easily make game opposite a max and/or 3-card major fit, and doesn’t really want to play 2M opposite a singleton).

The original system uses 2M responses as F1, so that's certainly an option. Over 2D, 2N is the obvious swap with hearts.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-04, 07:41, said:

I think it is not the 'standard' GRAMMY 1M-2♣ shape-showing GF relay scheme

GRAMMY = ?

[foobar]

nullve, on 2023-November-06, 14:29, said:

GRAMMY = ?

It's the 1M - 2C GFR that was suggested in Kit Woolsey's KK-relay book. It's +2 as written, but probably doesn't have to be.

[DavidKok]

It's an acronym for Gameforcing Relay After a Major. There's a wider class of symmetric +2 relays that start 1M-2♣, I was using this one as a representative.

The 1-suited scheme we propose to use was invented by Ulf Nilsson:

• 3♣ - Any 6322 or 7222. We will not resolve the location of the 3-card suit, so for the purposes of DCB assume a specific suit (e.g. clubs).
  • 3♦ - Strength-asking relay.
    • 3♥ - Max with 6.
      
    • 3♠ - 7222.
      
    • 3NT - Min with 6, good suit (the original splits by suit quality here, but it might be wise to compress that).
      
    • 4♣ - Min with 6, bad suit (ditto).
  • 3♥ - Natural (the other major is likely superfluous).
    
  • 3♠ - Natural (the other major is likely superfluous).
    
  • 3NT - Natural.
• 3♦ - 7+ with shortage, 3♥ asks. Note that low short patterns out at 4♣.
  
• 3♥ - 6331 high short.
  
• 3♠ - 6331 middle short.
  
• 3NT - 6331 low short (if desired, with zoom for strength).

It might be an interesting alternative to resolve the hands with 7+ past 3NT, assuming we likely don't want to play 3NT facing a 7-card major suit. If the partnership plays wide-ranging 4M openings, 3NT as a good 4M opening or 4m as Namyats those hands are quite rare anyway, so I feel they should not be prioritised in the relay scheme. Also DCB will fetch suit quality information as well if we are slammish, though this is likely very important information for choice of game decisions.

[foobar]

awm, on 2023-November-06, 09:28, said:

The choice to get 5+/4 two suited hands on the standard track whil 5/5 hands do not fully resolve seems interesting — it’s true that 5/4 is most frequent but more shape has more slam potential; why do you think this is better than putting all two suiters at +1?

I’m also curious about your 1M-2♣-2♠ continuations; to me this looks more like +2 and it seems hard to squeeze everything in, even if you can drop the 5332s.

Do you dislike 1♦-1♥ natural or relay for some reason? This seems to resolve better on the 1♦ opens as well as freeing up 2♣ as a natural call.

The +1 scheme allows the same relay responses over 1C-positives, 1C-balanced positive-reverse relay, 1M - 2C GFR. In fact, the 1D - 2C GFR can be very similar to the 1M - 2C (with the logical exception for balanced hands).

IMO, while the +0 track is ideal in theory, the sheer mnemonic ease of +1 makes it a compelling alternative.

[foobar]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-06, 03:13, said:

We had a long and fruitful discussion on AEC, and came up with a way to hopefully simplify it while keeping most of the system intact. Here are the openings and the response structures (the openings are also listed earlier in the thread, but it's been a while so perhaps a refresher can't hurt), if people are interested I'd love to generate some discussion on this. We made a few strange choices, I'll list them at the end:

• 2♣ - 10-15 6(+)♣ or 11-15 5♣4♦. Denies a 4cM.
  Spoiler

  • 2♦ - Invitational+ relay.
    • 2♥ - both minors 5(+)♣4♦.
      • 2♠ - Game forcing relay, 2NT+ two-suited scheme.
        
      • 2NT - natural invitational.
        
      • 3♣ - natural invitational.
        
      • 3♦ - natural invitational.
    • 2♠ - 6(+)♣ single-suited minimum.
      
    • 2NT+ - single-suited maximum.
  • 2♥ - (5)6+ hearts NF constructive.
    
  • 2♠ - (5)6+ spades NF constructive.
    
  • 2NT - natural invitational NF.
    
  • 3♣ - barrage.
    
  • 3♦-3♠ - splinters setting clubs.
    
  • 3NT - to play.
• 2♦ - 10-15 6(+)♦ or 11-15 5♦4♣. Denies a 4cM.
  Spoiler

  • 2♥ - Game forcing relay, similar to 2♣ but there is less room to show min-max:
    • 2♠ - 5(+)♦4♣, now after 2NT we use the two-suited scheme at +1.
      
    • 2NT+ - single-suited scheme.
  • 2♠ - (5)6+ spades NF constructive.
    
  • 2NT - natural invitational NF.
    
  • 3♣ - ??? (optional: (5)6+ hearts invitational+).
    
  • 3♦ - barrage.
    
  • 3♥-3♠ - splinters setting clubs.
    
  • 3NT - to play.
• 2M - Weak two.
  
• 2NT - 12-15 55m. 3m to play, 3♥ artificial game force (quite awkward).

One thing I was wondering about is whether using 2N was 6m4m either way, with the 5-5 hands in 2♦ might be slightly superior.

[DavidKok]

I'm not sure that there's a big difference, or if there is one which option is better. Since 2m may already be on a five card suit (and, in fact, quite frequently is - 5m4om is quite frequent compared to 6m without a 4cM) the sixth card in the opened suit is probably about as likely to go undiscovered on the auction as the fifth card in the other minor. Maybe the 6-4 should be in 2m because it plays better if partner passes?

[foobar]

Resurrecting this thread after the holiday break since we have had related discussions in the other thread.

The TLDR version so far is that AEC (the system in question) and IMPrecision use an artificial 1♦ opening. The main design differences are:

[AEC]
1♦: 0+♦; mostly 11-13 balanced, but can be really off-shape with 5+m4CM. It emphatically cannot have any unbalanced minor suited hands without a 4CM.
2♣ / 2♦: 5+m with 4+om possible (assuming we don't dump 55m into 2N)

[IMPrecision]:
1♦: 0+♦; mostly 11-13 balanced, but includes 5m4CM and 55m. It emphatically cannot have 6m4M hands
2♣ / 2♦: 6+m with 4-card side suit possible

The agreement here seems to that opening 2m with 6+ is likely better in contested auctions (but discovering 4-4M fits over 2m might be awkward). However, the assertion is that the AEC is more resilient in in the event of interference over the more frequent 1♦ opening.

Some open questions around the 2m openings -- don't know if DavidKok got around to running the sims suggested below.

awm, on 2023-November-06, 09:28, said:

A few questions:
Have you run some sims on the 2m openings? It seems to me that a responder hand with 10-12 or so and a 5-major will be quite common and has no great way to continue (not strong enough to GF but could easily make game opposite a max and/or 3-card major fit, and doesn't really want to play 2M opposite a singleton).

DavidKok, on 2023-November-06, 10:00, said:

I haven't run any simulations on this (yet). Over 2♣ there are some options, 2♦ is a real problem and I hope it won't come up too often. Thankfully it's a relatively specific combination of opening bid, responsive shape and responsive strength. Personally I think non-relay schemes over the 2m openings might well be better, but in the context of the rest of the system this is not something I wanted to suggest.

[DavidKok]

Thank you for the reminder, I've just run that particular simulations. Of one million hands with North dealer, there were 22,289 2♣ openings (2.3%), of which 17,685 did not have East overcall (1.8%). Of those, South had a 10-12 hand with a five card or longer major 2,637 times (0.3%).

Personally I think a non-relay structure is superior over the AEC 2m openings. I rather like the openings, but I'm not as fond of the suggested continuations. Not having to look for a 4-4 fit relieves responder of a lot of issues both in and out of competition, and my experience with the Cottontail 2♣ (similar to the AEC one but worse) have been surprisingly positive. It's also worth mentioning that a good fraction of these 0.3% problem deals responder might have extra major suit length (if I restrict it to 6(+)-card suits I get 1,009 results - i.e. about 38% of the problem deals, some of which I suspect are worth an upgrade to a game force) but also a good fraction of 8- and 9-counts might be worth an upgrade to an invitational hand.

I'm not sure how to interpret these results. Is 2,637/1,000,000 per opening a lot? That's approximately one in every 379 deals, or one in 190 for both 2♣ and 2♦ combined. Though the real number at the table will be lower as we're not always sitting in first seat. Or it might be higher as we may decide to include some nice 10- or 9-counts in the opening. More importantly, I suggest a response structure that caters to these particular problem hand types anyway. I think the bigger problem hands are the ~11-12 (semi)balanced hands with poor minor suit support, where 3NT might be making facing a maximum but 3m might be a poor contract facing a 5-card suit. Again, I think these hands can be dealt with in the response structure, but AEC does not do this.

[foobar]

DavidKok, on 2024-January-28, 16:03, said:

Personally I think a non-relay structure is superior over the AEC 2m openings. I rather like the openings, but I'm not as fond of the suggested continuations. Not having to look for a 4-4 fit relieves responder of a lot of issues both in and out of competition, and my experience with the Cottontail 2♣ (similar to the AEC one but worse) have been surprisingly positive.
...
More importantly, I suggest a response structure that caters to these particular problem hand types anyway. I think the bigger problem hands are the ~11-12 (semi)balanced hands with poor minor suit support, where 3NT might be making facing a maximum but 3m might be a poor contract facing a 5-card suit. Again, I think these hands can be dealt with in the response structure, but AEC does not do this.

Thanks for the sims -- it's very interesting data.

For those interested, here's a suggested alternative structure over the AEC 2♣ opening we had discussed sometime back. Note that it's still WIP:

2♦ / 2♥: NFB+ transfer
2♠: Generic asking relay
2N: Natural NF
3♣: Blocking raise
3x: Splinter

Opener accepts the NFB+ transfer (with a singleton in a pinch) if they would have passed the equivalent natural bid, and anything except 3♣ is forward going.

Over 2♠, 2N/3♣ are offers to play, 3♦ ostensibly GF with ♦, with 3M presumably shortness.

Things are more tricky over 2♦, so maybe just bite the bullet and play 2♥ = invite+ any, 2♠ = natural NF, 2N=Natural NF (or 5♥). Over 2♦ - 2♥, possibly 2♠ = minors (allowing a bailout in 3m), 2N=min single suited ♦, else max GF with ♦s.

[foobar]

foobar, on 2024-January-28, 22:52, said:

Thanks for the sims -- it's very interesting data.

For those interested, here's a suggested alternative structure over the AEC 2♣ opening we had discussed sometime back. Note that it's still WIP:

2♦ / 2♥: NFB+ transfer
2♠: Generic asking relay
2N: Natural NF
3♣: Blocking raise
3x: Splinter

Opener accepts the NFB+ transfer (with a singleton in a pinch) if they would have passed the equivalent natural bid, and anything except 3♣ is forward going.

Over 2♠, 2N/3♣ are offers to play, 3♦ ostensibly GF with ♦, with 3M presumably shortness.

Things are more tricky over 2♦, so maybe just bite the bullet and play 2♥ = invite+ any, 2♠ = natural NF, 2N=Natural NF (or 5♥). Over 2♦ - 2♥, possibly 2♠ = minors (allowing a bailout in 3m), 2N=min single suited ♦, else max GF with ♦s.

@straube, Since you are good at these type of things, can you think of a better scheme to improve on the above (given no 4CM in 2m)? It might be OK to sacrifice the 5m5m hands by dumping them in 2C if necessary since we are crunched for space over 2D).