BridgeMatters

This blog provides supplementary thoughts and ideas to the www.bridgematters.com site. If you haven't seen the main site, there is a lot there including the Martel and Rodwell interviews, photos, and articles. This blog is focused on advancing bridge theory by discussing the application of new ideas. All original content is copyright 2009 Glen Ashton.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Freeing up the one level for two hand types


Success factors/priorities for a system:

- Separation of balanced (bal) and unbalanced (unbal) hand types below 18
- Opening showing 4Ss unbal
- Openings showing 5+Ss or 5+Hs
- Openings showing a minor suit unbal, can be combined with a big hand type

This requires two opening suit bids at the one level to be freed up, one to show 4Ss unbal, and the other the balanced hand outside of the 1NT range.

Here's a mid-chart example:

1C: 4+Ds, 10+, unbal, fewer than 4Ss OR 17+ Cs or 18+ Any
1D: 4Ss, 10-17, unbal, often longer second suit OR 16-17 7+Cs
1H: 15-17 bal
1S: 5+Ss, unbal, 10-17
1NT: 12-14 bal
2C: 6+Cs or 5Cs+4Hs, fewer than 4Ss, unbal, 10-16
2D: 5+Hs, fewer than 4Ss, singleton if just 5Hs, 15-17
2H: 5+Hs, fewer than 4Ss, singleton if just 5Hs, 10-14

Since the ACBL has further restricted mid-chart (senior citizens more comfortable, younger players less fun or less younger players), the 1D opening cannot be a pure 4S bid anymore - here we add the 16-17 7Cs option to make it a "catch-all" that does not promise any particular suit.

1H and 2D are 15-17 artificial, since 15+ artificial openings are allowed, but 14s would not be upgradable into these openings. The shapes 2-5-4-2 and 2-5-2-4 exactly would have to be treated as balanced, as the 2D and 2H openings promise a singleton if just 5Hs. The 1C(two-way)-1D(negative);-P (minimum, Ds unbal) sequence is the way scientists get to the standard 1D all pass.

Here's a super chart:

1C: 4+Ds, 10+, unbal, fewer than 4Ss OR 17+ Cs or 18+ Any
1D: 11-14 bal
1H: 4Ss, 10-17, often longer second suit
1S: 5+Ss, unbal, 10-17
1NT: 14/15-17 bal
2C: 6+Cs or 5Cs+4Hs, fewer than 4Ss, unbal, 10-16
2D: 5+Hs, fewer than 4Ss, singleton if just 5Hs, 14-17
2H: 5+Hs, fewer than 4Ss, singleton if just 5Hs, 10-13

The 2H and 2D openings will hurt sometimes, taking up too much of our bidding space, but the opening makes it easier to get to 4H without the opponents reaching 4S, a common irritating circumstance.

Labels:

4 Comments:

  • At 6:06 PM, Anonymous David Morgan said…

    While I agree that the tightening of mid-chart regulations* means that 1D cannot just show UNB hands with 4S and 10-16 maybe the beter alternative (including to avoid the accusation that the alternative is a fix and would never be used ATT) is a small set of very strong hands also with exactly 4S. Perhaps something like 4441 hands with 4S, 20-23. This way O will almost always be able to move over any action responder makes because he has so much more than the weak alternative promised.

    David

    * Great irony that the country that in virtually all other spheres opposes restrictive regulation is at the forefront of restrictive regulation in bridge.

     
  • At 8:54 PM, Anonymous David Morgan said…

    It's not possible under current ACBL regs -- as I understand them -- but it's worth considering a system where 1D shows hands with 5+S and 1S shows UNB hands with exactly 4S. The idea is to maximise the preemptive value of the 1S opening: when O has 5+S it is very likely we can compete in S so it doesn't matter as much that we allow easier entry into the auction by the opps. When we have exactly 4S and don't have the same likelihood that we can outbid the opps it is more important to take up as much space as possible.

    David

     
  • At 1:55 AM, Blogger mabraham said…

    Seems a reasonable set of things to prioritise.

    Of course, the ACBL will re-interpret the mid-chart regs to suit themselves at the time. In 2002 the relevant committee took the position that there existed no approvable suggested defence to 1D and 1H openings that promise 10-14 in the next higher suit, and withdrew one they'd previously approved for a similar system. This despite a Meckwell on the committee pointing out that our suggested defence was clearly correct (Use your normal methods after our major opening, plus a natural 1-level overcall in our major.) One committee member suggested to us that we sue the ACBL :-)

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger thg said…

    "This despite a Meckwell on the committee pointing out that our suggested defence was clearly correct (Use your normal methods after our major opening, plus a natural 1-level overcall in our major.) One committee member suggested to us that we sue the ACBL :-)"

    Meckstroth and the C&C Committee (responsible for mid-chart method approval) are dead set against allowing MOSCITO in ACBL events.

    Just my opinion, but I don't think adding the strong 7+ club hands into the 1D opening would make it "all-purpose" and GCC legal. At least that is what I believe the official ruling would be.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home