[Flinthos]

There is a lot of discussion on responses to a string 1C opening. As an experienced user of 1C-1D=negative or Semi-positive hand, I encounter a lot of trouble in the Bidding sequence 1C-(pass)-1D-(bid) holding a Semi-positive hand as the 1D bidder.

A solution to this problem is to not bid 1D on these hands, and use 1D as a GF bid. A possible structure is:

1♦ = Game force, denies 5440 shape
1♥ = Semi positive, denies a unbalanced hand with a 5 card major
1♠ = Double Negative
1N = Semi positive, Unbalanced with 5 Hearts
2♣ = Semi positive, 5+ Spades and (4 Clubs or 4 Hearts)
2♦ = Semi-positive with 5+ Spades and 4 Diamonds
2♥ = Semi-positive with 6 Hearts
2♠ = semi-positive with 6 Spades
2N = Game forcing 5440, major suit void
3♣ = Any 7 card suit to the AKQxxxx
3♦ = Game forcing 5440, Diamond void
3♥ = Game forcing 4=4=5=0 shape
3♠ = Game forcing 4=5=4=0 shape
3NT = Game forcing 5=4=4=0 shape

Now my question is: how does one continu after 1C-1D, assuming no interference. Do you use a relay system. If so, who does the asking and who describes the hand? Does anyone have an example structure for me?

I'd love to hear your opinion on this topic,
Flinthos

[straube]

1S as DN is awful. I'm 100% sure about that.

The best structure I'm aware is IMprecision which you can find listed in Dan's system index or by googling awm ucla IMprecision. Its 1C is DN or GF and its other bids are semipositives.

Or play 1D as negative. Best of luck.

[PrecisionL]

A useful design for playing match point pairs (maybe not so good for IMPs?).

See also The Revision Club System 4th Ed. 2009 by John Montgomery

Nightmare http://www.infobridg...htmare_2005.pdf or

My version https://www.bridgeba...club-structure/

[foobar]

Flinthos, on 2019-December-14, 15:07, said:

There is a lot of discussion on responses to a string 1C opening. As an experienced user of 1C-1D=negative or Semi-positive hand, I encounter a lot of trouble in the Bidding sequence 1C-(pass)-1D-(bid) holding a Semi-positive hand as the 1D bidder.

A solution to this problem is to not bid 1D on these hands, and use 1D as a GF bid. A possible structure is:

1♦ = Game force, denies 5440 shape
1♥ = Semi positive, denies a unbalanced hand with a 5 card major
1♠ = Double Negative
1N = Semi positive, Unbalanced with 5 Hearts
2♣ = Semi positive, 5+ Spades and (4 Clubs or 4 Hearts)
2♦ = Semi-positive with 5+ Spades and 4 Diamonds
2♥ = Semi-positive with 6 Hearts
2♠ = semi-positive with 6 Spades
2N = Game forcing 5440, major suit void
3♣ = Any 7 card suit to the AKQxxxx
3♦ = Game forcing 5440, Diamond void
3♥ = Game forcing 4=4=5=0 shape
3♠ = Game forcing 4=5=4=0 shape
3NT = Game forcing 5=4=4=0 shape

Now my question is: how does one continu after 1C-1D, assuming no interference. Do you use a relay system. If so, who does the asking and who describes the hand? Does anyone have an example structure for me?

I'd love to hear your opinion on this topic,
Flinthos

This looks exactly like a the the post-2000 incarnation of Moscito. While echoing straube's assertion that 1♠ as an immediate DN is terrible, perhaps hrothgar@ might be able to shed some light on your questions. Note that since IMPrecision uses 1♣ - 1♦ (GF or DN) - 1♥ - 1♠ as DN in conjunction with relays for the GF hands, perhaps you can borrow a leaf from it?

[Flinthos]

Thank you for your responses, it is greatly appreciated.

Having looked into the systems you have sent me, I like IMPrecision quite a lot. I'll probably be giving it a try.
And indeed, playing 1C-1S as DN does not seem very efficient.

[KingCovert]

My partner and I play the following after 1♣ (Not always the case, but let's assume 17+):

1♦: GF

Openers rebids are:
1NT: 17-19 Balanced. Systems on.
2NT: 23+ Balanced. Systems on.
Jump shift: Shows a singleton in the suit below the suit bid

Otherwise, opener rebids as if playing Canape.

Responder introduces 5-card suits, and otherwise raises when agreeing 8+card fits, a direct raise shows a keycard in the suit, a jump shift agrees the suit and shows the Ace in that suit. a Double jump in the suit shows no keycards.
Otherwise, NT denies a 5-card suit and primary support for the bid suit, the cheaper the NT bid, the better the hand.

1♥: Negative, Not single-suited or Two-suited. IE: No more than 8 cards in our two longest suits. So, 5332, 4441, 4432, 4333. Never 6331/6332/5431/5422 etc...

1♠: Negative, 4♣ and a longer suit OR 6+♣ with no other 4-card suit.
1N: Negative, 4♦ and a longer suit OR 6+♦ with no other 4-card suit.
2♣: Negative, 4♥ and a longer suit OR 6+♥ with no other 4-card suit.
2♦: Negative, 4♠ and a longer suit OR 6+♠ with no other 4-card suit.

These four bids are all negative, they are all patterned out as if playing Canape (Shorter suit, and then longer suit), and never includes 5-5 or better (see below), maybe (6+)-4, but not 5-5.
The "anchor" suit is the suit described by increasing two steps. So, 1♠ --> 1N --> 2♣, and 1♠ always shows clubs in some form.

This gap of two steps is intentional, we play the intermediate bid as an artificial force. It requires responder to pattern out their shape, either a long single suiter, or to reveal their second suit. 2NT shows maximum values and a single suiter. Otherwise opener's other bids are not-forcing and natural. Responder should continue with the upper end of the range, something like a good 5 to 7.

For responses to 1♥, notice the two step gap still exists here too, after the artificial force (1♠), 1NT is a minimum, 2NT is a maximum without shortness. 2X is a maximum with shortness in that suit. We consider a doubleton shortness, but, If your doubleton is like AJ or better... Well, that doubleton is your whole hand, so, we bid as if we don't have shortness.

2♥: Negative, 5-5 or better, without ♥.
2♠: Negative, 5-5 or better, with ♥, without ♠. Aka, Hearts and a Minor.
2N: Negative, 5-5 or better, with ♥, with ♠. Aka, both Majors.

Our philosophy in responding to these 5-5 two suiters is something like this: If responder bids 2♥, denying hearts, 3♣ shows a preference for clubs over diamonds, but ultimately, says, I LOVE spades. Bypassing the cheapest suit shows a strong willingness to play in it, if there are multiple suits still available, above that cheapest suit, then, you're taking preference between them. This works because responder has a two suiter from within 3 suits. Also, we bid to the level we'd like to play at, so, 3♠ is stronger than 2♠. One can probably make their own agreement around bidding 3♥ in this situation, where hearts are denied. Seems forcing.

There's more to it, but that's the basics. It's very effective in my opinion. Negative bids that can effectively show single or two suiters as these do are quite nice, you can keep the level low, and find part scores when necessary, or otherwise, safe landing spots.

[ulven]

"There is a lot of discussion on responses to a string 1C opening. As an experienced user of 1C-1D=negative or Semi-positive hand, I encounter a lot of trouble in the Bidding sequence 1C-(pass)-1D-(bid) holding a Semi-positive hand as the 1D bidder."

Just played 15+ 1C with 1D 0-8 reply for 8 days in SF NABC against top level opposition. Not once did we encounter an overcall after 1C-1D. This thread is a lot of hoopla for a non-problem IMO. Mess up the structure and add a lot of complexity. You are focusing on the wrong area for improvement.

[KingCovert]

ulven, on 2019-December-17, 19:54, said:

"There is a lot of discussion on responses to a string 1C opening. As an experienced user of 1C-1D=negative or Semi-positive hand, I encounter a lot of trouble in the Bidding sequence 1C-(pass)-1D-(bid) holding a Semi-positive hand as the 1D bidder."

Just played 15+ 1C with 1D 0-8 reply for 8 days in SF NABC against top level opposition. Not once did we encounter an overcall after 1C-1D. This thread is a lot of hoopla for a non-problem IMO. Mess up the structure and add a lot of complexity. You are focusing on the wrong area for improvement.

So, because you assert that the competition was strong, we must take your word for it? If no one competed over that sequence when afforded the opportunity at the one level, sounds like they aren't strong players. Or... You got some rather fortunate deals.

Regardless, since you're so certain that people in this thread are focusing on the wrong things, you've surely identified the right things for us to discuss?

That was oddly missing from your post. Curious. I'm sorry that some people have attacked your precious agreement, but that might be because it's actually rather bad.

Negative bids that show no shape are borderline stupid. We're not opening at the two level, we have the room to spend on shape. You know what auctions need room? Auctions that have slam aspirations or need to find the right game need bidding room.

The three best things about 1D GF are simple. The first is that you leave room to pattern out and start cuebidding at a very low level. The second is that when your opponents do interfere, stupidly, you know that you have the vast majority of the points and can compete/penalize with ease. The last is that it frees all your other responses from showing GF values, and can instead focus on specifying more exactly the strength and shape of an otherwise significantly below average hand.

These are real and tangible benefits.

[ulven]

KingCovert, on 2019-December-18, 10:38, said:

So, because you assert that the competition was strong, we must take your word for it? If no one competed over that sequence when afforded the opportunity at the one level, sounds like they aren't strong players. Or... You got some rather fortunate deals.

Regardless, since you're so certain that people in this thread are focusing on the wrong things, you've surely identified the right things for us to discuss?

That was oddly missing from your post. Curious. I'm sorry that some people have attacked your precious agreement, but that might be because it's actually rather bad.

Negative bids that show no shape are borderline stupid. We're not opening at the two level, we have the room to spend on shape. You know what auctions need room? Auctions that have slam aspirations or need to find the right game need bidding room.

The three best things about 1D GF are simple. The first is that you leave room to pattern out and start cuebidding at a very low level. The second is that when your opponents do interfere, stupidly, you know that you have the vast majority of the points and can compete/penalize with ease. The last is that it frees all your other responses from showing GF values, and can instead focus on specifying more exactly the strength and shape of an otherwise significantly below average hand.

These are real and tangible benefits.

Since you challenge my assertion about strong opposition, IMO it was competent by ACBL standards. 1st day regional Swiss, 2nd place after losing final match to Bob Hamman's team. 2 days of Soloway (failed to Q for KO after bad 4th session), 2 days Mitchell BAM - tied for 4th place, 3 days of Keohane NA Swiss - 4th place. I guess that's about 400 fortunate deals then.

Different partnerships should focus on different areas in their system for improvement, I can't make a general assertion here in the forum. Maybe you should spend time on this but probably you would get better "mileage" on something else given how rare this 'problem' is. If everything else in your system is perfect then fine. I do have a very good structure after 1C-1D to develop the subsequent auction. And I do know which auctions that need room, doing just fine in the slam department, thx. Not to shappy in the game area either, btw. I do not agree that negative bids that show no shape are borderline stupid but maybe that just means that I'm incompetent.

I do think that when you are playing for many days you should try to have symmetric solutions, resusable modules and easy to remember agreeements rather than a tailor-made optimal set for each situation. FYI, our set of notes are 6 pages for constructive bidding and not many partnerships have a more effective bidding system than I have. That probably a statement that's hard to believe but I stand by it.

[KingCovert]

ulven, on 2019-December-18, 11:43, said:

Since you challenge my assertion about strong opposition, IMO it was competent by ACBL standards. 1st day regional Swiss, 2nd place after losing final match to Bob Hamman's team. 2 days of Soloway (failed to Q for KO after bad 4th session), 2 days Mitchell BAM - tied for 4th place, 3 days of Keohane NA Swiss - 4th place. I guess that's about 400 fortunate deals then.

Different partnerships should focus on different areas in their system for improvement, I can't make a general assertion here in the forum. Maybe you should spend time on this but probably you would get better "mileage" on something else given how rare this 'problem' is. If everything else in your system is perfect then fine. I do have a very good structure after 1C-1D to develop the subsequent auction. And I do know which auctions that need room, doing just fine in the slam department, thx. Not to shappy in the game area either, btw. I do not agree that negative bids that show no shape are borderline stupid but maybe that just means that I'm incompetent.

I do think that when you are playing for many days you should try to have symmetric solutions, resusable modules and easy to remember agreeements rather than a tailor-made optimal set for each situation. FYI, our set of notes are 6 pages for constructive bidding and not many partnerships have a more effective bidding system than I have. That probably a statement that's hard to believe but I stand by it.

Ah, I see, you had the sequence 1C-1D 400 times in those 8 days. Sounds pretty fortunate to me. I don't know if you're being intentionally daft, or if you are just prone to missing the point: I was giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt as they may well have not had the appropriate hand to interfere with. That went right over your head it seems.

Ironically, if you read my post just above your first one, you will see a VERY symmetric set of agreements over 1♣, that is 80-90% of what my partner and I play. I can't comment on your system, you've neither described your system nor more valuable areas to improve. You've only asserted that there are better areas to improve and that your system is good. All of which may be true, but at the end of the day, my initial problem still remains. To call things "hoopla over a non-problem" with absolutely no qualification is just obnoxious and unhelpful.

There are many people out there who have interesting and valuable information to share, despite my tendency to be argumentative I am happy to acknowledge that, and you may be one of them. However, you do have some obligation to qualify statements you make, or people like me can question you bluntly. You seem to think that I'm calling you a bad player, I'm not, only a lazy poster.

[ulven]

KingCovert, on 2019-December-18, 13:50, said:

Ah, I see, you had the sequence 1C-1D 400 times in those 8 days. Sounds pretty fortunate to me. I don't know if you're being intentionally daft, or if you are just prone to missing the point: I was giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt as they may well have not had the appropriate hand to interfere with. That went right over your head it seems.

Ironically, if you read my post just above your first one, you will see a VERY symmetric set of agreements over 1♣, that is 80-90% of what my partner and I play. I can't comment on your system, you've neither described your system nor more valuable areas to improve. You've only asserted that there are better areas to improve and that your system is good. All of which may be true, but at the end of the day, my initial problem still remains. To call things "hoopla over a non-problem" with absolutely no qualification is just obnoxious and unhelpful.

There are many people out there who have interesting and valuable information to share, despite my tendency to be argumentative I am happy to acknowledge that, and you may be one of them. However, you do have some obligation to qualify statements you make, or people like me can question you bluntly. You seem to think that I'm calling you a bad player, I'm not, only a lazy poster.

*ROTL*

Maybe you're missing my point. If a situation doesn't' come up in practical play in 400 boards, then that's of (very) limited concern to me. Reality trumps theory.

I don't have any incentive to prove anything to you. I am willing to share when someone asks, but with your attitude I don't care anymore.

[mikestar13]

KingCovert, on 2019-December-17, 15:57, said:

My partner and I play the following after 1♣ (Not always the case, but let's assume 17+):

1♦: GF

Openers rebids are:
1NT: 17-19 Balanced. Systems on.
2NT: 23+ Balanced. Systems on.
Jump shift: Shows a singleton in the suit below the suit bid

Otherwise, opener rebids as if playing Canape. ...

Responder introduces 5-card suits, and otherwise raises when agreeing 8+card fits, a direct raise shows a keycard in the suit, a jump shift agrees the suit and shows the Ace in that suit. a Double jump in the suit shows no keycards.
Otherwise, NT denies a 5-card suit and primary support for the bid suit, the cheaper the NT bid, the better the hand.

1♥: Negative, Not single-suited or Two-suited. IE: No more than 8 cards in our two longest suits. So, 5332, 4441, 4432, 4333. Never 6331/6332/5431/5422 etc ...

Interesting structure, but it has the same problem as 1♦ 0-8: how do you distinguish the double negatives from the semi-positives? 2NT = 0-8, 5-5 majors is admirably precise WRT distribution, but it seems to be an unplayably wide range at the three level.

[nullve]

ulven, on 2019-December-18, 14:07, said:

If a situation doesn't' come up in practical play in 400 boards, then that's of (very) limited concern to me.

Then what do you mean by 'situation'?

[ulven]

4th hand interference after 1C-1D in this case.

[KingCovert]

mikestar13, on 2019-December-23, 12:15, said:

Interesting structure, but it has the same problem as 1♦ 0-8: how do you distinguish the double negatives from the semi-positives? 2NT = 0-8, 5-5 majors is admirably precise WRT distribution, but it seems to be an unplayably wide range at the three level.

Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation. I'm sure these forums were far more peaceful without me!

You can distinguish double negative hands rather easily. Let's take the auction 1♣ - 1NT.

1NT shows a negative hand (0-7), with exactly 4♦ and a longer suit, or with 6+♦ and no other 4-card suit.

Opener's conventional options are:
2♣: The cheapest bid, and the only bid between 1NT and the anchor suit (♦). Artificial and Forcing. Responder should complete patterning out their hand. Conventionally, 2NT shows a semi-positive hand with 6+ cards in the anchor suit. 2NT shows this for all 4 of these Canape sequences.
2♦: Agreeing diamonds, Not Forcing.
3♦: Agreeing diamonds, showing a better hand than 2♦. Not Forcing.

You'd usually distinguish between 2♦ and 3♦ in these sequences based on Losing Trick Count, but, this would really depend upon your preferred methods of evaluation. Essentially, the cheapest bid is a force, probably a hand you'd like to play game in opposite the right double negative hand. A jump in the anchor suit agrees the suit, probably requiring something like a bad to okay semi-positive hand to continue. The cheapest bid of the anchor suit would still agree the suit, but, responder might need to hold a good semi-positive hand. A maximum, or a hand with good honours or tenaces. New suits are not forcing and natural (6+ cards), no trump is not forcing and natural. (Except the sequence 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT)

Responder should continue over non-forcing bids with a semi-positive hand, but, judgement can always be exercised. The non-forcing bid is made for a reason, sometimes it's just the best spot. Feel free to DM me if you want to learn more, or discuss things in more depth.