[gwnn]

32519 said:

I think you’re losing sight of some basics.

LOL

[Cthulhu D]

Is that 1H is a wonder bid and probably not legal anywhere at all? The Australia BF definition is "An opening bid of one of a major with alternative possibilities that show length in one specified suit or
length in another specified suit." (in this case hearts or spades). The WBF has a similar regulation and I suspect most national bodies do too.

It's tough to tell if you skate through on the fact that you may have length in both suits, but it's something worth checking.

[Ace4hcp]

We have been trying the system for a while now, and all my opponents have been very supporting and tells us that the system is working, even though we have some occasional unfavorable results for us.

It feels good to finally have a system that you can count on!

[32519]

Having seen awm’s Recursive Diamond Notes http://cs.ucla.edu/~awm/bridge/rd.pdf , we are going to try some of his ideas here. We are going to reverse our 1♣ and 2♣ bids with a small adjustment to fit in with what we have been experimenting with thus far.

Awm’s 1♣ opening is adjusted slightly for our system as follows:
1♣ = 10-15 HCP, balanced or three suiter or minors
2♣ = All 20+ unbalanced hands
The 20-22 HCP balanced hands we will reintroduce via our version of Multi.

We also like awm’s response structure for his 1♦ opening bid. We think it will fit in nicely for our 1♦ bid as well. This is what awm suggests:
The most common response to 1♦ is 1♥, which shows any hand with game-forcing strength (9+ points usually) and also any very weak hand (0-4 points). All other bids show the intermediate range! The full set of responses looks like:
1♥ any 0-4 points or any GF
1♠ 5-8 hcp balanced or semi-balanced
1NT 5-8 points, three-suited hand with no 5-card major
2♣ 6+♣, 5-8 points, not balanced
2♦ 6+♦, 5-8 points, not balanced
2♥ 5+♥, 5-8 points, not balanced
2♠ 5+♠, 5-8 points, not exactly 3♥, not balanced
2NT both minors, 5-8 points
3♣ 5+♠, 4+♣, 3♥, 0-1♦, 5-8 points
3♦ 5+♠, 4+♦, 3♥, 0-1♣, 5-8 points
3♥ 6+♠, 3♥, 5-8 points

[32519]

 antonylee, on 2012-February-13, 05:44, said:

Sure, have fun designing your system (I'm all for experimentation) but make sure it can withstand at least non-preemptive competition (because I haven't even talked about 3m overcalls yet...).

I took antonylee’s challenge here to heart[♥] and have been running random hands through BBO’s deal generator, comparing the ability of natural systems to cope with 3-level pre-empts versus this system after a 1♥ opening. Thus far the score is equal with 4 out of 30 hands unable to cope with a 3♦ pre-empt in either system. And then this hand was dealt which I thought worthy of posting for further discussion.

---

In natural systems E/W can find a ♠ game after this sequence:
1♥-3♦-3♥-3♠
4♥-4♠-all pass

10 tricks are made with E/W only losing the 3 Aces

With this system the North hand cannot cope with the pre-empt. But what does East do now after this sequence:
1♥-3♦-P-?

The probability is high that East will pass over the 3♦ pre-empt. South won’t bid again. The end result is that N/S have made a substantial gain here.

I’m still running sims through the deal generator. The results of 30 hands isn’t enough.

[DrMunk]

 32519, on 2012-February-17, 15:41, said:

The probability is high that East will pass over the 3♦ pre-empt. South won’t bid again. The end result is that N/S have made a substantial gain here.

Sure looks like a big gain for your system.Some south players will make the mistake of leading a diamond against 4 spade. Some will do even worse and bid 5♥.

[32519]

I have run enough random deals through BBO’s deal generator and can give the following feedback:
1.) Natural bidding copes marginally better with 3-level pre-empts than this system.
2.) Amongst the random hands dealt, opening 1♥ in this system dealt the hand displayed 2 posts back where responder was forced to pass unable to cope with the pre-empt. A beneficial score resulted.
3.) The 1♥ bid here was also showing the following hidden benefit: When the hand belongs to the opponents, LHO doesn’t always have an automatic overcall unsure which major opener has.
4.) However, the BIG LOSER here is the memory work required to cope with a 3-level pre-empt. The bad scores are going to arise, not so much from inability to cope with the pre-empt, but rather from brain drain.

So we have dumped the previous 1♥ bid in favour of a natural 1♥ bid.

[manudude03]

Since you're reverting to a natural 1H, how do you show your single suited spade hands in 1st/2nd seats now (that were in the 1H range before)?

As for the hand you posted, 4S can be beaten rather trivially. Diamond lead, win the first trump, heart to the ace, diamond ruff, then cash the club for the defense's 4th trick.

[32519]

 manudude03, on 2012-February-20, 20:48, said:

Since you're reverting to a natural 1H, how do you show your single suited spade hands in 1st/2nd seats now (that were in the 1H range before)?

As for the hand you posted, 4S can be beaten rather trivially. Diamond lead, win the first trump, heart to the ace, diamond ruff, then cash the club for the defense's 4th trick.

The way we want to play the system at the moment is this:
1.) We still want to keep the 1♠ and 1NT bids available as a mini preempt in 1st and 2nd seat, especially at favourable vulnerability.
2.) The 1♠ bid shows 11-12 HCP and either a balanced hand or a 5-card ♠ suit. The 5-card suit is always applicable in 3rd and 4th seat. But what about 1st and 2nd seat? How does the bidding continue, responder with a bust, not knowing if opener is balanced or holding ♠. We are planning the continuation bidding along these lines –
...a. Pass shows a ♠ bust (at least 4)
...b. 1NT shows values interested in a game try. Openers replies are again the “reverse Stayman” structure higher up in this thread
......i. 2♣ = both majors
.....ii. 2♦ = 4-card ♥ suit
....iii. 2♥ = 4-card ♠ suit
.....iv. 2♠ = 5+ ♠
...c. 2♣/2♦/2♥ are all to play showing a 5-card suit and no game interest

Now to your question:
With ♠ being the boss suit, we are comfortable to keep the opponents guessing. The 1♣ bid becomes the catchall bid for all hands in the 10-15 HCP range that don’t fit in anywhere else (or don’t fit in due to seat). You are going to be dealt plenty of hands with a choice of where to open them, 1♣/1♠/1NT. The choice will be governed by seat and vulnerability.
Responses to a 1♣ opening are natural promising at least a 4-card suit and 6 HCP. Opener with a 5-card ♠ can safely bid 2♠ second time round showing the 13-15 HCP range. Your side has a minimum of 21 HCP and the boss suit.

With highly distributional hands in the 14-15 HCP range, an artificial 1 ♦can be opened to find out something more about responders hand. You don’t want to run the risk of responder passing these sorts of hands when opened 1♣.

[32519]

After making various changes along the way and dumping some of our original ideas, I believe pard and me now have our own unique system as well. How effective it is will only be discovered once we start actually playing it at the table. I have absolutely no idea if any of these ideas have been tried anywhere else before e.g. “Reverse Stayman” after a mini balanced pre-empt.

My next step is to print out this thread and sift through all the constructive feedback, adjusting the original set of system notes wherever necessary. Does anyone know how to do that? Neither the print function, nor the download button seems to work. I posted a separate query for Ben to look into.

A special thank you to the following posters –
1.) Zelandakh: His post got us thinking in the right direction, although not fully adopted.
2.) Manudude03: He pointed out some glaring oversights. No doubt we would eventually have corrected them ourselves. But we could do it now.
3.) Antonylee: He forced us into looking closer at coping with pre-empts after the 1♥ opening. The structure to cope with 3-level pre-empts would be unnecessary brain drain and was dumped.
4.) Awm: The 1♣ and 1♦ continuation structure from his Recursive Diamond Notes fit in nicely with what we are trying here. I don’t know if it is ethical to use someone else’s ideas.

[glen]

 32519, on 2012-February-21, 09:26, said:

... I don’t know if it is ethical to use someone else’s ideas

Not only ethical but is high praise

[gwnn]

32519, in what way do Antonylee's objections re: interference over 1♥ not apply to your other nebulous openings? E.g. 1♠-(3♦), you will be the partnership who will do all the guessing at the table. Will you just rebid spades always as opener?

[32519]

Others have also tried something different. Here are some of the more interesting systems I found in this forum:

Scream v IMPrecision v Straw Man http://www.bridgebas...n-vs-straw-man/

Pattern System http://www.bridgebas...pattern-system/

GaLwood http://www.bridgebas...bidding-system/

Little Canape http://www.bridgebas...tem-to-analyze/

[straube]

 32519, on 2012-February-26, 00:45, said:

Others have also tried something different. Here are some of the more interesting systems I found in this forum:

Scream v IMPrecision v Straw Man http://www.bridgebas...n-vs-straw-man/

Pattern System http://www.bridgebas...pattern-system/

GaLwood http://www.bridgebas...bidding-system/

Little Canape http://www.bridgebas...tem-to-analyze/

I think you mean "interesting" as a compliment, but I wouldn't group a particularly strong system like IMPrecision with some bad (Pattern System or Galwood) systems or doubtful systems (Little Canape).