HD Bidding Systems

I brand bidding systems as "high definition" when they have many openings that are:
- limited
- non-nebulous, and not a catch-all
- are non-weak, but can be average (9-11) or better

In the May-June-July issues of Bridge World we saw some HD systems in action in Challenge the Champs, conducted by Kanadians Kokish & Kraft

In May-June we saw New Zealand's Newell and Reid, with this system:
http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/ConventionCards/2005%20Bermuda%20Bowl%20Estoril/New%20Zealand/reid-newell+notes+BSForm.pdf

In 1st and 2nd seat, its:
1C: 14+, any
1D: 4+Hs, can have longer second suit, 9-13
1H: 4+Ss, fewer than 4Hs, can have longer minor, 9-13
1S: 4+Ds, can have longer Cs, 9-13
1NT: 11/12-14
3C: 6+Cs, 10-13 (yes, the 3C opening, not 2C)

The rest of the openings are preemptive.

Ottawa expert Ralph Gamble has run extensive simulations of Rumble against the 14+ big club and what he found is aggressive jamming against the 14+ 1C doesn't work since the 1C opening side often doesn't have game - one goes for numbers against air.

Thus a conclusion could be if one is playing a 16+ or 17+ big club, there should be some 15s moved into the opening to protect it: the opponents can't jam as much in this case. However a wealth of experience has shown that the 15-16 balanced range should not be in the 1C big club.

Thus I believe the best approach is to include some unbalanced 15s into the big club.

In June-July we saw Australia's Nagy and Richman with this system in 1st and 2nd seat:
1C: 15+ any
1D: 4+Hs, may have longer minor, 9/10-14
1H: 4+Ss, may have longer minor, 9/10-14
1S: Minors, 9/10-14, at least 5-4/4-5, no 4cM
1NT: 11-14, if 4cM 11-12
2m: 6+, 9/10-14, no 4cM

The June battle between Newell and Reid against Nagy and Richman was won by N & R (okay, it was Newell and Reid), in a battle that not really about system but about judgment: deciding when and how to investigate slam possibilities.

In the May battle, Newell and Reid were trounced by the mostly natural Gold-Townsend. In the July Battle Nagy and Richman were crushed by natural "Dutch-Doubleton" methods of Bakkeren-Bertens.

Why did the HD systems do poorly relative to the natural methods?

In the May battle, the relay methods over the 14+ big club struggled to get to the best spot, and a decision on a hand where the opponents opened first was a large factor. In the July battle, the HD system didn't have the tool set to find the right spot on a few hands.

Bidding challenges are not the best spotlight dances for HD systems - these competitions focus on tough layouts where card location is critical to decision making - relay systems can help but only if they are tuned to finding full shape low enough to then have the bidding space to launch into card location relays.

The bread-n-butter*of HD systems are those many average strength hands where the HD system reaches a good spot in just a few bids. Natural systems, in contrast, may pass first, or may have a lengthy auction that provides the opponents with too much information. These types of hands are rarely found in bidding challenges, but are more of a success factor than tough-to-get-to slams that are relatively infrequent in everyday bidding, but seem to proliferate in bidding challenges.

* 100% organic whole wheat with olive oil margarine