[JmBrPotter]

WGregg and I have stolen from the best to build an ACBL GCC compliant unusual system. We've played it in regional KOs and open pairs with good results, but we need more playing time against competent opponents. Now, we play BBO speedballs to avoid the hassle of opponents who flake out on us---sometimes in the middle of a hand. If you and your partner are interested in practicing against or learning (or both) a distinctly different bidding system, please, contact WGregg or JmBrPotter on BBO or use other contact information available in this post to contact me.

MoTown Minors System opening bid properties:

1♣: 11-37, Conventional, 1RF
1M: - Minor suit one suited with 11-15
1M: - Two-suited 11-15 with an unspecified 4+ card minor and a 5+ card major
1M: - Minor suit two-suited with 16+
1M: - Three-suited with 11-14, 18-20, or 24-26
1M: - Balanced with 20-23, 26-27, or 30+
1M: - Strong (17+ HCP and 8+ offensive winners and 4+ defensive winners) with 5+ ♥s
1M: - Assorted 11+ winner hands that will launch an asking bid sequence over responder's likely 1♦ response

1♦: 15-37, Conventional, 1RF
1M: - Minor suit one-suited with 16-20
1M: - Two-suited 16-20 with an unspecified 4+ card minor and a 5+ card major
1M: - Minor suit oriented (one or both minors) and Strong (17+ HCP and 9+ offensive winners and 4+ defensive winners)
1M: - Three-suited with 15-17, 21-23, or 27-34
1M: - Balanced with 15-19, 24-25, or 28-29
1M: - Strong (17+ HCP and 8+ offensive winners and 4+ defensive winners) with 5+ ♠s
1M: - Assorted 11+ winner hands that will launch an asking bid sequence over responder's likely 1♥ response

1♥ / ♠: 11-20 and One-suited (6+ in bid suit) or Two-suited (4+ in bid suit and 5+ in another suit)
1M / M: - 1NT forcing response
1M / M: - 2/1 GF response & rebid style adjusted for 4-card major

1NT: 10-14 and balanced---may conceal a 5-card major---rarely, may have 5-4 shape (e.g., AQ AQ Qxxx xxxxx)
1NT: - 2♣ = 5-card major Stayman
1NT: - 2♦ / 2♥ = Jacoby with doubleton showing super accepts
1NT: - 2♠ / 2NT = transfer to ♣s / ♦s
1NT: - Redouble = relay to 2♣ (run out)
1NT: - 2-suit at "1NT-X-Pass-Pass; 2-Suit" and "1NT-Pass-Pass-X; 2-Suit" = run out to 5-card suit

2-Suit: Weak Two Opening Bid

2NT: 11-15 with 5-4 (requires extra HCP), 5-5, 6-5, 6-6, or 7-6 minor suit two-suited distribution

3-Suit: One-suited preempt (Denies suit AKQ5432 or better; Denies AKQ in 7-card suit)

3NT: One-suited; unspecified 7-card suit headed by AKQ; no side A; no side K; no other side entry

4-suit: One-suited preempt (usually, 8-9 cards)

5-suit: One-suited preempt (usually, 10 cards)

6-suit: 12 tricks in hand; A or K of opened suit is the only loser

[Free]

How do you explain your 1m openings to your opponents in a reasonable short comprehensive way?

[rbforster]

Free, on 2011-November-01, 10:05, said:

How do you explain your 1m openings to your opponents in a reasonable short comprehensive way?

1♣ catchall, usually 11-15, forcing
1♦ catchall, usually 16+, forcing?

Fwiw, I think you can do a whole lot weirder things under GCC...pass all you 13-15 counts in 1st/2nd while opening all 8-12s, play weak 2m and 3m openings promising only 3 cards and possibly certain much longer suits, 2/1 as drop dead, 1NT as 8-9 or 2NT as 12-14... I could go on but I hope you got some fun ideas.

[inquiry]

How well do you do when you open the bidding, compared to when your opponents open the bidding?

if you threw out your 1nt opening bids, how well do you do when you open the bidding compared to when your opponents opening the bidding (i ask this later question because as it turns out, people playing weak notrump do better -- on average -- than those playing 15-17 1nt in online Acbl events...probably because they have more established partnerships).

To be fair, do the comparison based on versus par results rather than imps in general or matchpoints actually won. You can figure this out fairly quickly using the double dummy solver from the authors of bridge captain. You should do better when you control the hands (you open), but lets remove the 1nt from the equation... you should still do better when you open than when random opponents open. is this the case?

The assumption here is that you play against the same quality "random" opponents in these acbl thingees. Your bridge skill is unchanged no matter who opens, so my assumption would be that if you do much better when you open then the system might have merit (surprise factor of the unusual method might add to your better results when you open). if you do much worse when you open, then when they open, what would that say about your method? Do you feel like you are getting to best contract more often now that you are playing this system?

as far as describing the method, include canape in the description somewhere, as that seems to be the best description. Might you open 1D on 4-4-1-4 (stiff diamond)? In this case, i wonder if any short description will be fair. Anyway, good luck with it. I would be willing to play against it sometime, assuming you do better when you open using it than when the opponents open against you.

[shevek]

Fine to play test, if you have filled out a complete Full Disclosure card, including competitive.
Should take you a few days.

Please advise

Nick

[Free]

rbforster, on 2011-November-01, 14:17, said:

1♣ catchall, usually 11-15, forcing
1♦ catchall, usually 16+, forcing?

Fwiw, I think you can do a whole lot weirder things under GCC...pass all you 13-15 counts in 1st/2nd while opening all 8-12s, play weak 2m and 3m openings promising only 3 cards and possibly certain much longer suits, 2/1 as drop dead, 1NT as 8-9 or 2NT as 12-14... I could go on but I hope you got some fun ideas.

Imo "may have a 5 card M" is required to the explanation, for the rest I guess you can get away with it.

I'd love to see the system in action, but it's rare that both me and one of my f2f partners are online. We'll see.

[JmBrPotter]

Free, on 2011-November-01, 10:05, said:

How do you explain your 1m openings to your opponents in a reasonable short comprehensive way?

I use the following BBO alert text:
1♣: 11+; Conv; 1RF
1♦: 15+; Conv; 1RF

I expect opponents to read (using 1♣ as an example) that as “11 or more HCP; Conventional opening bid Forcing for one round.”

That is terse and omits the (substantial) nuances regarding hands the opener cannot hold (e.g., a 1♣ opener cannot hold a powerful one-suited or two-suited hand with spades as a dominant suit—something an opponent contemplating a preemptive overcall in spades might like to know). It is not clear where we should strike the balance between terse and something that better resembles full disclosure. As the auction evolves, additional alerts paint a picture so that the defenders eventually learn everything that our rebids tell partner.

[JmBrPotter]

rbforster, on 2011-November-01, 14:17, said:

1♣ catchall, usually 11-15, forcing
1♦ catchall, usually 16+, forcing?

Fwiw, I think you can do a whole lot weirder things under GCC...pass all you 13-15 counts in 1st/2nd while opening all 8-12s, play weak 2m and 3m openings promising only 3 cards and possibly certain much longer suits, 2/1 as drop dead, 1NT as 8-9 or 2NT as 12-14... I could go on but I hope you got some fun ideas.

I posted how I alert. It appears at #7, below.

You may certainly psyche a pass in first or second seat, but the first or second seat pass may not be a force on 3/4 seat. You may not have an agreement to open below 1NT with less than 10HCP. There are severe restrictions on response and rebid structures after a 1NT opening that might promise less than 10HCP.

The methods Bill and I use already disrupt opponents enough. Even the simple things like 1NT 10-14 (frequent, very frequent) and 2♣ weak present our opponents with auctions/problems other folks holding their cards (e.g., our teammates) typically did not face. Sometimes, that works significantly to our advantage. Once, we went for 1400 when we got caught after a vulnerable third seat 1NT opening on 10HCP when the opponents had no slam. Bad result, that one.

[rbforster]

JmBrPotter, on 2011-November-05, 16:50, said:

You may certainly psyche a pass in first or second seat, but the first or second seat pass may not be a force on 3/4 seat. You may not have an agreement to open below 1NT with less than 10HCP. There are severe restrictions on response and rebid structures after a 1NT opening that might promise less than 10HCP.

Passing with 13-15 isnt a psych, its just unusual and doesn't need to be an absolute force on 3rd/4th who can legally open with 8+. You may agree to open 1NT with 8+ points, but if you include 8 or 9 point hands regularly there are restrictions on conventional responses. These are much less of an issue with the 8-9 range I suggest since theres no need for invitations - natural bids are either NF (2 of a suit) or GF (2NT+).

[JmBrPotter]

inquiry, on 2011-November-01, 16:30, said:

How well do you do when you open the bidding, compared to when your opponents open the bidding?

if you threw out your 1nt opening bids, how well do you do when you open the bidding compared to when your opponents opening the bidding (i ask this later question because as it turns out, people playing weak notrump do better -- on average -- than those playing 15-17 1nt in online Acbl events...probably because they have more established partnerships).

To be fair, do the comparison based on versus par results rather than imps in general or matchpoints actually won. You can figure this out fairly quickly using the double dummy solver from the authors of bridge captain. You should do better when you control the hands (you open), but lets remove the 1nt from the equation... you should still do better when you open than when random opponents open. is this the case?

The assumption here is that you play against the same quality "random" opponents in these acbl thingees. Your bridge skill is unchanged no matter who opens, so my assumption would be that if you do much better when you open then the system might have merit (surprise factor of the unusual method might add to your better results when you open). if you do much worse when you open, then when they open, what would that say about your method? Do you feel like you are getting to best contract more often now that you are playing this system?

as far as describing the method, include canape in the description somewhere, as that seems to be the best description. Might you open 1D on 4-4-1-4 (stiff diamond)? In this case, i wonder if any short description will be fair. Anyway, good luck with it. I would be willing to play against it sometime, assuming you do better when you open using it than when the opponents open against you.

Ben,

If you come to the Myrtle Beach New Year’s Regional, look for Bill and me in the KOs.

If you slip me an e-mail address, I’ll do some truly full disclosure by e-mailing the complete system book.

I have not done a heavy duty analysis of how well our methods work with some attempt to remove biases as you suggest.

I can offer the following impressions (not objective observations):

- The “established partnership” effect definitely applies. Bill and I have played together for over a decade.

- Players weaker than Bill and I may often do worse against us than they do against other pairs of approximately our strength. The “surprise effect” is both real and more significant among weaker players.

- Even against good players, the 10-11HCP 1NT openings and the weak 2♣ openings have beneficial effects purely from preemptive impact. It is tougher to find the cold game or slam over 1NT or 2♣ than over “Pass”. The lost bidding round sometimes helps opponents get to an inferior contract so that we pick up an IMP or some unearned match points.

- It is nearly always right to preempt or otherwise compete when we open 1♣ and frequently wise to act defensively over 1♦. Stronger players who act over our forcing openings when they have suitable values/shape do much better against us than those who give us a free run. Part of that is because they are better, and part is because some of our sequences over 1♣ or 1♦ get difficult if we lose bidding steps. We have methods to deal with intervention, but we bid more accurately against quiet opponents.

- Our partscore competitive bidding is a little weaker than it was when we bid K-S. With 1♥ and 1♠ (usually, four-card suits) as the only natural, suit openings for 11-20 point unbalanced hands, we're sometimes slow out of the blocks in the knife fight for a partscore when we open 1♣ (and sometimes, 1♦ when we are more likely to own the hand). In unobstructed auctions, our bidding feels about the same as it was with K-S. We’re getting better results overall than we did three years ago (when we switched systems), but the improvement is confounded with improvements to our defense, declarer play, and leads. Bill bids a Precision/Blue Club/Neapolitan Club based system with a different partner who lives 900 miles nearer to him than I do. They are also improving. I doubt that much of the total improvement in our game rests on system.

- System design intent is to steal hands where both sides can make something by bidding 1NT a lot. That happens and it (usually) works. Throwing those hands out of an analysis would tip the bias the other way. Opponents see our 1NT opening and sometimes get too high in a successful effort to “stop us from stealing.” Improvements to our defense over the past year have made that defensive tactic less pleasant more often for more opponents. We have robust methods for both running out to a suit and competing when opponents act over 1NT. We are glad that so few people play DONT against a weak notrump.

- Canapé happens only after a 1♥ or 1♠ opening. We pre-alert it with a welcome message on BBO and with a one-page handout in face-to-face play. The same handout has a one-page defense to our 1♣ and 1♦ openings (the defense we use against artificial 1♣, 1♦, 1♥, and 2♣ bids that do not name a suit) on the back. Since canapé is alertable during the auction, another alert comes along with each canapé bid during the auction. Auctions that begin “1m-(Pass)-Herbert-(Pass); 2M” promise a two-suited hand with the rebid major and an unspecified minor. The ”2M” bid gets an alert as promising an unspecified minor suit the same length as the major or one card shorter.

- We play more contracts (about 60% to 65% of the hands we play) than our opponents, in part because we open so much that we do steal some hands where both sides can make something. We also go down in partials when the opponents own the hand and let us play it rather than seeking their spot. Sometimes this is good; sometimes not. 1NT-4 undoubled versus an adverse making game is a result we see in team matches. Is that good bidding by us? We do not think so. Fix for the opponents? Maybe. Weak bidding by the opponents? Sometimes. Poor judgment or methods by the opponents? Sometimes. We stress our opponents in novel ways. Stressed players sometimes make reasonable seeming choices that work out poorly. We exploit that.

- Consider hands that will pass out at most tables. Often, one of us will open those hands 1NT. Allowed to play 1NT, we often go +90 or +120 (less often, -50, -100, or -200—all the same zero at match point scoring, but different at IMPs). The +90 or +120 is usually good at either game and it happens more often that a minus. When an opponent get frisky over 1NT on these hands, we can go +100, +200, or +300 surprisingly often—tending to make opponents less frisky for the rest of the match.

- I think (especially on BBO) we are often matched against competition with a similar number of (perhaps, BBO) masterpoints who do not play as well as Bill and I. Often, when we come up against more advanced (especially, in the ACBL face-to-face tournament world) opponents, we get the short end of the stick. Stronger players are better at swinging the ax to good effect.

[JmBrPotter]

Free, on 2011-November-02, 00:27, said:

Imo "may have a 5 card M" is required to the explanation, for the rest I guess you can get away with it.

I'd love to see the system in action, but it's rare that both me and one of my f2f partners are online. We'll see.

Free,

In "full disclosure terms", it is probably more important to mention reasonably likely holdings that are not possible. For example, a 1♣ opener cannot have a big hand with a 5+ spade suit (or a 5+ minor suit) as a primary feature (All of those open 1♦.) A 1♦ opener similarly cannot have a big hand with a 5+ heart suit (or minor suit two-suitedness) as its primary feature (Those open 1♣.) Except for (1) the way the hands are partitioned between 1♣ and 1♦ and (2) the inclusion of quite a few 11-15 point hands in the 1♣ opening, the 1♣ and 1♦ openings both operate similarly to common Big Club openings (but with less overloading because two openings share the load). Tactics that will work against most Big Club openings will also work against our 1♣ and 1♦ openings. Foreknowledge about stuff opener cannot have may help a defender compete, better.

Bill and I are on US Eastern Standard Time. I guess that there's about a 10 hour time shift between you and us. Something like Saturday morning for us and Sunday evening for you might work do you think?

[JmBrPotter]

JmBrPotter, on 2011-November-05, 21:30, said:

Free,

In "full disclosure terms", it is probably more important to mention reasonably likely holdings that are not possible. For example, a 1♣ opener cannot have a big hand with a 5+ spade suit (or a 5+ minor suit) as a primary feature (All of those open 1♦.) A 1♦ opener similarly cannot have a big hand with a 5+ heart suit (or minor suit two-suitedness) as its primary feature (Those open 1♣.) Except for (1) the way the hands are partitioned between 1♣ and 1♦ and (2) the inclusion of quite a few 11-15 point hands in the 1♣ opening, the 1♣ and 1♦ openings both operate similarly to common Big Club openings (but with less overloading because two openings share the load). Tactics that will work against most Big Club openings will also work against our 1♣ and 1♦ openings. Foreknowledge about stuff opener cannot have may help a defender compete, better.

Bill and I are on US Eastern Standard Time. I guess that there's about a 10 hour time shift between you and us. Something like Saturday morning for us and Sunday evening for you might work do you think?

Ooops, got that continent wrong. Good timing might be weekend mornings for Bill and me and weekend afternoons for you and your partner, right?