[fazzzoola]

My partner and I have been developing our own system, GaLwood, off and on, since November 2005. Current version is GaLwood III.

We need a few experts to lend their minds to upgrade it to expert levels.

More info on the web site: galwood.com

Please contact me if you're interested or if you know someone would might be.

Thanks,

Georges

[Free]

Welcome to the forums.

I don't like to say it, but after giving it a quick look, I think you have to start all over again if you want to upgrade it to expert levels.
- 1♣ is way too overloaded and very vulnerable to preemption. Even a simple overcall may result in a disaster.
- opening 3NT with strong balanced hands is ridiculous
- there are hands with 18+HCP which have a 6+ card suit. Apparently you don't have a bid for these
- you lose all of your preempts which can be a great source of gains.

Am I right that you only play rubber bridge?

[whereagles]

In general, you try and split hand types into two kinds of 1-bids. This isn't common, but it is possible to bid this way. However, the way you do it may not be the best. In particular:

- 1♣ is overloaded
- other 1x bids are underloaded
- the 2NT opening is too wide-ranging
- top card (AK) requirements on 1/2NT bids may cause you to be stuck without onpening bid for some hands, e.g. KQx KQx AQxx QJx (19 hcp, no 5 top cards to open 1NT)

[straube]

I agree with the previous criticisms. Apparently you have to pass 11 and 12 point hands. A properly functioning system is able to open lighter and stop before the bidding gets too high.

[fazzzoola]

Free, on 2011-March-16, 02:59, said:

Welcome to the forums.

I don't like to say it, but after giving it a quick look, I think you have to start all over again if you want to upgrade it to expert levels.
- 1♣ is way too overloaded and very vulnerable to preemption. Even a simple overcall may result in a disaster.
- opening 3NT with strong balanced hands is ridiculous
- there are hands with 18+HCP which have a 6+ card suit. Apparently you don't have a bid for these
- you lose all of your preempts which can be a great source of gains.

Am I right that you only play rubber bridge?

I do have to admit that 1♣ is a bit "loaded" - ok, I may have to yield to "overloaded", lol... However, I don't see any way around it. 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ indicate either a 2 suited hand (5+/5+ dist.), or, if the suit is rebid, then it's a 6+ suit, and a jump rebid would indicate 18+ points.


2 level openings are meant to be semi weak, 11-14 pts. While this may seem a bit too strong, looking at various 6+ suits and remaining distribution, the point counts seem to be in that range. The same thing seems to apply to 3 level "pre-emptive" bids - 10-13 points including distribution. So, have I really lost preempts?

As to opening 3N w/ balanced hands, it may seem ridiculous. I would agree that it is highly unlikely, but, how else can one show such a hand? 1♣-2N? 1♣-3N?

As to 1♣ being vulnerable to opps preempts, I agree, but, then again, aren't most all systems subject to the same vulnerability?

Before judging too harshly, which I don't mind if it's warranted, please look at the main features.

BTW, I now play mostly on BBO. I will be looking for a partner to play live duplicate in San Antonio.

Last but not least, thanks for the reply,


Georges

[fazzzoola]

whereagles, on 2011-March-16, 08:19, said:

In general, you try and split hand types into two kinds of 1-bids. This isn't common, but it is possible to bid this way. However, the way you do it may not be the best. In particular:

- 1♣ is overloaded
- other 1x bids are underloaded
- the 2NT opening is too wide-ranging
- top card (AK) requirements on 1/2NT bids may cause you to be stuck without onpening bid for some hands, e.g. KQx KQx AQxx QJx (19 hcp, no 5 top cards to open 1NT)

First of all, thanks for the reply.

1♣ may be overloaded. So, let me ask this question: if I were to use the better minor convention, thereby denying a 5CM, responder's available bids are 1♥, 1♠, 1N, 2♣, 2♦,2♥, 2♠, 2N, etc... Isn't that the same kind of overload?

Perhaps I just don't understand what is meant by being overloaded.

As to the 2N range being too wide, I can only say this: w/ 4 kings and 2 aces, that would be 18 HCP, w/ 4 aces and 2 kings, that would be 22 HCP. That range is mandatory simply from the requirement of having 6 aces/kings combined. I had to make the range parallel with bonus points, i.e. AK combinations for which I add 1 BP, and, since there are at least 2 AK combinations in this opening, things do appear to be in line.

AS to 19 HCP hands, there is a mechanism included: 1♣ - 1x response, then 1N by opener showing 15-19 HCP and not having 4/8 top cards, i.e. having lots of values in queens and jacks.

Thanks again for the reply

Georges

[fazzzoola]

straube, on 2011-March-16, 10:15, said:

I agree with the previous criticisms. Apparently you have to pass 11 and 12 point hands. A properly functioning system is able to open lighter and stop before the bidding gets too high.

I would have to disagree with the "have to" pass 11/12 point hands. Based on partnership agreements, one could open those in 3rd position, coudln't one? Also, hands with 6+ suits with < 15 points total are opened on the 2nd level, as in 2♣, 2♦, 2♥, 2♠.

What I would really like to have is this: one, two, or three experts debate, argue, discuss GaLwood in earnest, so as to discover the real weaknesses, the true strengths, and how to improve the system. I'll be glad to stand on its merits, and correct deficiencies.

Thanks again for the reply,

Georges

[fazzzoola]

BTW, I am not adverse to making adjustments to GaLwood. I just need good reasons to do so.

[mike777]

fazzzoola, on 2011-March-16, 10:28, said:

I do have to admit that 1♣ is a bit "loaded" - ok, I may have to yield to "overloaded", lol... However, I don't see any way around it. 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ indicate either a 2 suited hand (5+/5+ dist.), or, if the suit is rebid, then it's a 6+ suit, and a jump rebid would indicate 18+ points.


2 level openings are meant to be semi weak, 11-14 pts. While this may seem a bit too strong, looking at various 6+ suits and remaining distribution, the point counts seem to be in that range. The same thing seems to apply to 3 level "pre-emptive" bids - 10-13 points including distribution. So, have I really lost preempts?

As to opening 3N w/ balanced hands, it may seem ridiculous. I would agree that it is highly unlikely, but, how else can one show such a hand? 1♣-2N? 1♣-3N?

As to 1♣ being vulnerable to opps preempts, I agree, but, then again, aren't most all systems subject to the same vulnerability?

Before judging too harshly, which I don't mind if it's warranted, please look at the main features.

BTW, I now play mostly on BBO. I will be looking for a partner to play live duplicate in San Antonio.

Last but not least, thanks for the reply,


Georges

This post of your system reminds me of the old Simple Club system.......2 levelbids are interm.....1d, 1h and 1s promise 2 suited hands 54 or more. This is a canape, strong club wk nt, int 2 bids system one suited hands...does this sound like yours?

Basically simple club is...strong club, 2 suited one bids, wk nt bal hands, 3 suited 2c and one suited 2d, 2h 2s, 2nt,3c openings int. strength.

Simple club is listed in the Bridge Encyclopedia.

[straube]

I think the 1N promises an absolute minimum of 16 hcps (4 kings + 1 ace). It's not a weak notrump.

[chasetb]

Honestly, you should just scrap the whole bidding system and start over. Being a connoisseur of bidding systems, you have several fatal problems:

1.) 1♣ is ridiculous. When it is weak, it isn't lead-directing or showing a suit in case of competition. It can be strong, but then you split some of those hands into 1NT, 2NT, and 3NT. This doesn't even include the fact that responses to 1♣ and trying to show the difference between the strong and weak 1♣ hand will be more complicated than any Precision Club or Polish Club. And the 15% of time you don't have an 8-card fit, you are throwing points out the window.

2.) Your 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ are underused. This becomes even more exasperated because of imperfect shuffling and dealing at the local club - the already low percentages are even lower.

3.) The 1NT, 2NT, and 3NT ranges are too widespread, not to mention very poor. The # of keycards on average will be all the HCP of the bid, and that is never good. Kings, Queens, and Jacks are better for NT; Aces and Kings are better for a suit contract. Speaking of suits, uou will miss fits because partner won't know when to go on, and when to pass. A good example of this is: ♠AKx ♥AKxxx ♦ KQx ♣Ax opposite ♠x ♥Jxxx ♦ xxxxx ♣xxx. You'll struggle in NT if they have a stopper, yet have great play of 4♥.

I could go even more into detail, but I think that should be enough. If you want an easy system that is fairly accurate, learn Precision. It's not as complicated as you think. Precision Today is a great book for this.

[manudude03]

Add me to the chorus who is thinking this is unplayable. Take a simple auction like 1C-1S. You have a 1534 shape so you bid 2H showing 13-17. Your partner is then forced into a very uncomfortable decision with say AJxxx xx Kxxx xx. It's all so well saying like 75% or whatever is opened 1C. Let's look into those shapes in a little more detail.

4333- 4 ways
4432- 12 ways
4441- 4 ways
5332- 12 ways
5422- 12 ways
5431- 24 ways
5440- 12 ways

Those shapes alone add up to 80 different shapes. That is very overcrowded indeed. I don't claim to be a non-natural systems expert, but that's going to land you in some very awkward spots when you're not in a GF. Also, you seem to have quite a few contradictions in the website, you can't have a bid that shows 13-17 if you're going to find yourself opening on 18+ hands in need of a reverse.

Also, you appear to have no options about a hand such as AJx x AKx AQJxxx.


I think you're missing the point about the pre-emption part. At least in standard auctions, responder knows something useful about the hand even if it's not much. With this 1C opener, you know virtually nothing.

[fazzzoola]

mike777, on 2011-March-16, 11:47, said:

This post of your system reminds me of the old Simple Club system.......2 levelbids are interm.....1d, 1h and 1s promise 2 suited hands 54 or more. This is a canape, strong club wk nt, int 2 bids system one suited hands...does this sound like yours?

Basically simple club is...strong club, 2 suited one bids, wk nt bal hands, 3 suited 2c and one suited 2d, 2h 2s, 2nt,3c openings int. strength.

Simple club is listed in the Bridge Encyclopedia.

In GaLwood, 1C is an artificial bid indicating opening points and a general denial of other potentials, unless a "corrective" bid is made later. 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ are two suited bids or single 6+ suits w/ 15-19 points. NT openers are strong, thereby leaving 2 ♣, ♦ ♥ and ♠ as semi-weak 6+ suits and 11-14 points, and 3 level opening bids as almost preemptive.

I built the system based on a rather thorough statiscal analysis of randomly generated bridge hands, some 14 million of them, priority given to shapes and then to point counts - of course, not to forget that duplicate hands are often NOT randomly generated, thereby strongly skewing the statistics in favor of oddly distributed hands. If I remember correctly, some 75% of hands have 5-4-x-x 5-3-x-x or 4-4-x-x or 4-3-x-x shapes. I have the actual data. Apparently, 5% of random hands are two suited. So, it seemed "natural" to build the system with an artificial "short" club type opening, a strong 1N/2N opening, and a 1♦/♥/{spades] opening for 2 suited hands, bidding the higher ranking suit first. This "allowed" me to have all 2 level suit openings as 6+ suits and a mid range point count (which they seem to have anyway), and all 3 level suit openings as 7+ suits preemptive types. This also allowed a mechanism for the responder to show strong hands with 1N replies and jump shifts.

I have looked at current conventions like transfers, stayman, drury, flannery. I think that they can be used w/ GaLwood. We do not use Gerber. We do use progressive blackwood and rarely use artificial later bids except in forced game/slam situations.

As far as I can tell, my current partner and I seem to be relatively comfortable playing vs intermediates and many (who claim to be) experts. We find that we have early knowledge of game and slam possibilities, and we are able to stop early when we just don't have enough for game.

I know that, not being an expert, we must be missing some things. So, what is needed is a few experts to delve into the details so that we can discuss, debate, and perhaps even argue over issues, all the while improving the system. For myself, this is an exercise in logic, in building, if not a better mouse trap, an interesting one, and, yes, there is some pride in this, but it is secondary. I am not so arrogant as to think that I can outthink 50 years of experts. However, I am intelligent enough to put gray cells to some use.

Thanks for the reply,

Georges

[straube]

I think you should look at a few hundred hands and tally your openings and then see how often you open 1C vs 1D vs 1H, etc. What (I think) everyone is telling you is that your 1C opening will be way high in terms of frequency and your 1D, 1H, 1S, etc will be way low. Let's say it comes out like....

1C-70%
1D-3%
1H-3%
1S-4%
1N-3%

etc.

that ought to tell you that 1C is overloaded. Too many patterns go through too few (one) bids.

Not only that, but your 1C doesn't allow for partner to pass. Many natural systems allow for 1C to be passed and this adds meaning to responder's other bids.

Your 1C doesn't promise a strong hand, so responder has to temporize with 1D before he can show you that he actually has some modest values. So 1C-1D is overloaded, too.

So run a frequency diagram for 1C responses and compare it to standard systems (which allow for pass) and see what you get.

What if it's.....

Pass 0%
1D 70%
1H 6%
1S 6%
etc

You should find out that you have a tremendous logjam around your 1C and 1C-1D sequences.

I think 1C-1D, 1H isn't even forcing! You put so many hand through 1C-1D and the next bid isn't a forcing bid. Opener has to jump apparently to force.

I think most people here would say that your system doesn't need to be tweaked or overhauled, but that it has fundamental problems. I agree with the poster who recommended Precision for you. It's a good system.

[awm]

The preemptive bids are not an issue. You're counting points for distribution: hands with a six-card suit normally have 2-3 distribution points; hands with a seven-card suit normally have about 3. Thus excluding distribution points, your two-bids are about 8+ to 12 and your three-bids are about 7-10. This is a little more sound than most people play, but it's not crazy. In fact 8-12 is sort of the "sweet spot" where the most common hand types lie. This part of the system seems pretty good.

It seems like basically what's going on here is that you took a Polish Club type system and then threw all hands without a six-card suit or 5-5 in two suits into the 1♣ opener. So now 1♣ is any of (1) 13-17 no six-card suit not 5/5 shape (2) 15-17 clubs (3) 18+ not suitable for 1NT/2NT. This is an awful lot of hands; your own statistics have you opening 1♣ something like 70% of the time. I suspect you will do well when you don't open 1♣ since your other openings are more descriptive (in terms of shape or strength or both) than more standard methods. But the 1♣ opening is going to be a huge mess, especially if the opponents intervene. There are altogether too many hand types to distinguish, and you are so far behind standard bidders here...

My feeling is that if you allowed opening 1♦/1♥/1♠ with hands including five cards in that suit (removing the 5/5 requirement) then those openings would become way more frequent and the 1♣ opening would be way less frequent and easier to handle (basically the only non-strong hands in there would be balanced or three-suited without a five-card non-club suit). This is closer to "normal polish club" and I think a lot better than what you currently are doing.

[straube]

awm, on 2011-March-16, 15:53, said:

The preemptive bids are not an issue. You're counting points for distribution: hands with a six-card suit normally have 2-3 distribution points; hands with a seven-card suit normally have about 3. Thus excluding distribution points, your two-bids are about 8+ to 12 and your three-bids are about 7-10. This is a little more sound than most people play, but it's not crazy. In fact 8-12 is sort of the "sweet spot" where the most common hand types lie. This part of the system seems pretty good.

It seems like basically what's going on here is that you took a Polish Club type system and then threw all hands without a six-card suit or 5-5 in two suits into the 1♣ opener. So now 1♣ is any of (1) 13-17 no six-card suit not 5/5 shape (2) 15-17 clubs (3) 18+ not suitable for 1NT/2NT. This is an awful lot of hands; your own statistics have you opening 1♣ something like 70% of the time. I suspect you will do well when you don't open 1♣ since your other openings are more descriptive (in terms of shape or strength or both) than more standard methods. But the 1♣ opening is going to be a huge mess, especially if the opponents intervene. There are altogether too many hand types to distinguish, and you are so far behind standard bidders here...

My feeling is that if you allowed opening 1♦/1♥/1♠ with hands including five cards in that suit (removing the 5/5 requirement) then those openings would become way more frequent and the 1♣ opening would be way less frequent and easier to handle (basically the only non-strong hands in there would be balanced or three-suited without a five-card non-club suit). This is closer to "normal polish club" and I think a lot better than what you currently are doing.

Would the 1C handle the weak NT hands, too?

I was wondering if Fantunes might appeal to him. I don't have a writeup, but they use their 2-level openings similarly and their 1-level openings (aside from 1N) are all forcing, so he'd be able to show the two-suited hands.

[Vampyr]

Another variation on what awm said above...I think that if you required only 5 cards for the 2-bids and removed the suit quality requirements (EHAA-style) and switched to a weak NT, you would unload the 1♣ opening somewhat and have some descriptive ways to open minimum-opening bid hands. You will still find yourself having to begin to describe 1♣ openings at the 3-level, but at least you won't be opening it as frequently.

[fazzzoola]

straube, on 2011-March-16, 12:08, said:

I think the 1N promises an absolute minimum of 16 hcps (4 kings + 1 ace). It's not a weak notrump.

I don't think I ever said that the 1N opening was weak... aamof, the description, on the galwood.com site specifically states, in the opening bids page:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRONG opening bid which GUARANTEES 5/8 top cards (5 aces and kings combined), and probably fairly even distribution.

This bid replaces the traditional strong 2C and 2N opening bids, thus allowing all two level bids to be natural as well as the uses of more advanced conventions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have replaced the traditional 2C bid with several options, each one showing a specific minimum point count and structure, or, showing the point count, but not having the required structure.

[fazzzoola]

straube, on 2011-March-16, 15:15, said:

I think you should look at a few hundred hands and tally your openings and then see how often you open 1C vs 1D vs 1H, etc. What (I think) everyone is telling you is that your 1C opening will be way high in terms of frequency and your 1D, 1H, 1S, etc will be way low. Let's say it comes out like....

1C-70%
1D-3%
1H-3%
1S-4%
1N-3%

etc.

that ought to tell you that 1C is overloaded. Too many patterns go through too few (one) bids.

Not only that, but your 1C doesn't allow for partner to pass. Many natural systems allow for 1C to be passed and this adds meaning to responder's other bids.

Your 1C doesn't promise a strong hand, so responder has to temporize with 1D before he can show you that he actually has some modest values. So 1C-1D is overloaded, too.

So run a frequency diagram for 1C responses and compare it to standard systems (which allow for pass) and see what you get.

What if it's.....

Pass 0%
1D 70%
1H 6%
1S 6%
etc

You should find out that you have a tremendous logjam around your 1C and 1C-1D sequences.

I think 1C-1D, 1H isn't even forcing! You put so many hand through 1C-1D and the next bid isn't a forcing bid. Opener has to jump apparently to force.

I think most people here would say that your system doesn't need to be tweaked or overhauled, but that it has fundamental problems. I agree with the poster who recommended Precision for you. It's a good system.

========================================================================

In random distribution of hands, which does not equate to duplicate bridge hands:

35.1% of all hands have 4-4-4-1, 4-4-x-x or 4-3-x-x distribution;
15.5% of all hands have 5-3-3-2 distribution;
24.8% of all hands have 5-4-x-x distribution;
4.1% of all hands have 5-5-x-x distribution;
9.1% of all hands have 6-3-x-x distribution;
6.0% of all hands have 6-5-x-x distribution;
1.4% of all hands have 6-6-x-x or 6-5-x-x distribution;
0.1% of all hands have 7-6-x-x or 7-5-x-x distribution;

basically, that accounts for 99+% of all hands. I will try and make the time to study the distribution of hands on BBO, both in vugraph and in regular games.

I think we can safely assume/accept/agree that 1/2 the hands with one 5-card suit are in the majors, and the other 1/2 in the minors.

BTW, doesn't 2C-2D (waiting) have similar issues as 1C-1D? In galwood, the 1D response simply means that responder may have a bust hand, or, if he/she bids again, then he/she has 7-13 points, a 4+ card diamond suit, and possibly other values, even a maximum hand allowing the partnership to explore game possibilities.

Having said that, under standard openings, i.e. better minor et al, roughly 55% of the hands are opened with either 1C or 1D. So, isn't that an overload in its own right? Aren't there 100s of possible bidding sequences from there?

Under galwood, 75% of the hands are opened with 1C (artificial). Galwood does not mean to open a 5 card suit. Identification of a 5 card suit can be done via rebids or, in the case of an 18+ point hand, by a single jump bid, signaling responder to immediately reevaluate the situation from his/her perspective.

While galwood does strongly encourage game contracts in 2/1 situations, where the partnership has >26 pts, it also identifies situations where a game is not really possible and bidding can stop at a lower level.

I don't know if I've made some good points. I hope I have. However, regardless of this, the real issue is that I would like and need to have one or two experts delve into the details with me - not so much online, but IRL.

Whatever follows, thanks for the interest and reply.

Georges

[straube]

fazzzoola, on 2011-March-16, 22:33, said:

I don't think I ever said that the 1N opening was weak... aamof, the description, on the galwood.com site specifically states, in the opening bids page:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRONG opening bid which GUARANTEES 5/8 top cards (5 aces and kings combined), and probably fairly even distribution.

This bid replaces the traditional strong 2C and 2N opening bids, thus allowing all two level bids to be natural as well as the uses of more advanced conventions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have replaced the traditional 2C bid with several options, each one showing a specific minimum point count and structure, or, showing the point count, but not having the required structure.

Right. I said this in reply to mike777 who thought your system resembled something he knows as the "Simple Club". I think mike777 thought you played a weak NT but you play a very strong NT.

Good luck with your system designing. Cool website btw. I wish I knew how to design one.