[relknes]

The vast majority of opening bids in a system are natural bids, even for most non-natural systems. In fact, the natural portion of the system is often considered the strength of a non-natural system, with the non-natural bids serving to limit the scope of the natural openings. In the system that I am considering, the strong hands (15+ points) are split between 1♣ and 1♦, while every other bid except 2N promises the suit opened (though sometimes a side suit as well). It is an agressive system, in that it opens all 10+ point hands and all unbalanced 8-9 point hands, and I am wondering if the openings are narrow enough to make that work or if they need to be changed.
The general approach is majors first openings, with the goal of forcing the oponents to come in at the 2 level if they want to compete when opener has 8-14 points (with the exception of them overcalling 1♠ over a 1♥ opener, but there is not much that can be done there).

1♥ = 4+ hearts, 8-14 points, unbalanced if 8-9 points
1♠ = 4+ spades, 8-14 points, unbalanced if 8-9 points
1N = 10-13 points, balanced, no 4 card major
2♣ = 5+ clubs, unbalanced, 8-14 points, no 4 card major
2♦ = 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, 8-14 points, no 4 card major
2♥ = two suited in ♥ and ♠, 7-11 points
2♠ = two suited in ♣ and ♠, 7-11 points
2N = two suited in ♦ and ♠, 7-11 points
3♣ = two suited in ♣ and ♥, 7-11 points
3♦ = two suited in ♦ and ♥, 7-11 points

As opener, starting with a major and then bidding a second suit (that isn't a raise of partner) shows 12-14 points and a 2 suited hand (or else you would have opened with one of the preempts).
Another thing that I am nervous about, in addition to the width of the 8-14 point openers, with this layout is that it often forces partner to choose at the 3 level between 2 suits when opener might be as little as 5-4 in those suits, giving no indication as to which of the suits is 5 and which might be 4. The gains through preemption and the refinement that this brings to the 1M rebids might not be worth the risk of a down 4 board. The 2♥ preempt should be fine, I think, and even the 2♠ should have some value, but above that I am concerned... what are people's thoughts?
By the way, if people are currious about the 14 point balanced hands, they are handled in the 1♣ opening when they don't contain a 4 card major.
Thanks in advance for your imput.

[straube]

Too aggressive/preemptive for me. Also I think you are not getting full value for 1C and 1D. 15+ hands are too few to assign both of your two most important bids to their use.

[relknes]

 straube, on 2011-March-28, 16:52, said:

Too aggressive/preemptive for me. Also I think you are not getting full value for 1C and 1D. 15+ hands are too few to assign both of your two most important bids to their use.

Interesting. Is this an absolute issue or one relative to the other bids in the system?
The three most common natural bidding structures will open 1♣ or 1♦ roughly 7-9 percent of the time each, depending on the exact structure used. 4 card major systems hover around 7% while 5 card major systems are around 9% (From Roy Hugh's "Building a Bidding System" page 117).
Roughly 14.2% of hands are 15+ points, so when you add in the 14 point balanced hands with no 4 card major, this system will open 1♣ and 1♦ well over 7% of the time each. This is actually slightly more frequent than a natural 4 card major system, which open with these bids slightly less than 7% of the time each (again from Hugh's book).
Now, these are less frequent in proportion to the other bids in this system, since it opens hands that a basic 4 card major system would pass. However, this is more a problem of overloading the other bids than it is of underutalizing the 1m bids (though that is a bit like saying that the fall dosn't kill you, just the sudden stop at the end...)
This is the basic reason that I was concerned that my 8-14 range was too wide, even though it is a narrower range than a Standard American 1 level bid. Perhaps "too heavy" would be a better term than "too wide". The 1♥ opening, for instance, seems like it would be so frequent that it might cause problems.
I tried to relieve some of this pressure on the 1M bids by incorperating the two suited preempts for every combination that includes a major, but I am worried that it might create more problems than it solves.

[gwnn]

The advantage of 11-21 as opposed to 8-14 is that in the first case you can reasonably assume your partner has a minimum, since 11-13 is much more likely than 14-16 which is much more likely than 17-19 etc, and this is just a priori, in competitive auctions it is even more likely he has a minimum. 8-14 is different, perhaps 12-14 is a little less likely when everyone's bidding, but 8-11 or so is almost equally likely and 13 points isn't enough to just show extras alone, as you could do with 16 in a standard system. Of course this is rather theoretical and not so serious. I agree with straube too, it is no coincidence that all strong club systems (except, apparently, yours) use 1♦ as some sort of catchall bid.

[Free]

I've played a strong ♣ system with 1♣ as 15+HCP any, which worked great. I don't see the point in throwing away another opening for similar hands, opps will preempt and you will have problems with it anyway. Better imo is to use 1♦ for some minor oriented hands (with 4 card Majors and an overlapping 1NT opening you can play this natural), this can free up the 2♦ opening. Since you like to open 2-suiters, you might want to give Wilkosz a look. That way you can bid out all M-m and M-M 2-suiters, stay low, and have the 2M calls available for something else (if you like something agressive, I'd advise you Lorenzo 2M: 4+M, 0-7HCP, but not a good hand).

I wonder: what do you do with 14HCP balanced?

[relknes]

 Free, on 2011-March-29, 02:30, said:

I've played a strong ♣ system with 1♣ as 15+HCP any, which worked great. I don't see the point in throwing away another opening for similar hands, opps will preempt and you will have problems with it anyway. Better imo is to use 1♦ for some minor oriented hands (with 4 card Majors and an overlapping 1NT opening you can play this natural), this can free up the 2♦ opening. Since you like to open 2-suiters, you might want to give Wilkosz a look. That way you can bid out all M-m and M-M 2-suiters, stay low, and have the 2M calls available for something else (if you like something agressive, I'd advise you Lorenzo 2M: 4+M, 0-7HCP, but not a good hand).

I wonder: what do you do with 14HCP balanced?

The 14 point balanced hands are lumped into the 1♣ bid, as mentioned in the orriginal post.
People seem hung up on the 2 artificial bids, so I mind as well list what I had in mind, though I was hoping for more imput on the weak and mid-range bids.
The pair of artificial bids I had in mind are:
1♣ = 15+ unbalanced with either clubs or hearts, or varrious balanced ranges (14-16, 20-21, and 24-25)
1♦ = 15+ unbalanced with either diamonds or spades, or varrious balanced ranges (17-19, 22-23, and 26+)
There were 3 advantages that I was hoping for:
1. Easy handling of strong 3 suited hands (opener indicates the top and bottom suit with their initial bid and then bids the middle suit with their re-bid, for instance 1♣-1♦-1♠ to indicate hearts clubs and spades, 1♣-1♦-2♦ to indicate clubs diamonds and hearts, etc)
2. Narrow ranges on strong balanced hands
3. Easy negative and double negative responses that don't risk wrong-siding (after 1♣, 1♦ would be 5-9, 1♠ would be 0-4, and anything else would be game forcing. Likewise, after 1♦, 1♥ would be 5-9, 2♣ would be 0-4, and anything else would be game forcing). This allows opener to sign off at a low level in the strong hand's best suit played from the right side.

[wclass___]

Some time ago i had come up with something similar: My idea


1♥/1♠ openings are simply too wide.

2♣/♦ are too wide. I strongly advise not to open these hands in 8-10 range. They don't put much pressure on opponents, no great game potential, no particular reason to open at all, really.

My idea was particularly for VUL 1st/2nd seat as i think there are way better system for NV. So i think your NT range is too low at VUL and too infrequent at NV.

I think that system is theoretically sound. I played that system for a while, and although hands that were opened in 1M did quite well, i always felt some lack of accomplishment. Like... something just don't fit together. Then i found what i think are better methods for VUL 1st/2nd seat and haven't looked back much.

[dake50]

Similar to what I play. ** suggestions **

strong hands (15+ points) are split between 1♣ and 1♦,
** I partition 1C has spades: S1, SH, SD, SC, or bal 18+, or C1 **
** 1D has not spades: H1, HD, HC, D1, DC, bal 14-17 **

1♥ = 4+ hearts, 8-14 points, unbalanced if 8-9 points
** I only open 1H 8-11 if 0-2xS - with 4+H and 3+S, we can reopen 2M. **

1♠ = 4+ spades, 8-14 points, unbalanced if 8-9 points
** 1S 8-14 bal/not as take 1-level is valuable. **
** 1S on bal 10-13 iff honors in S+2nd; 1N else **

1N = 10-13 points, balanced, no 4 card major
** 4xS iff 4=3=3=3; 4H iff 2-3xS to get above a 1S overcall **

2♣ = 5+ clubs, unbalanced, 8-14 points, no 4 card major
2♦ = 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, 8-14 points, no 4 card major
** 8-12 2m has the old disciplined weak2- a source of tricks if slight hcp. **

Send me a system notes file if you would. I think we have near jelling minds.

[straube]

 relknes, on 2011-March-29, 01:26, said:

Interesting. Is this an absolute issue or one relative to the other bids in the system?
The three most common natural bidding structures will open 1♣ or 1♦ roughly 7-9 percent of the time each, depending on the exact structure used. 4 card major systems hover around 7% while 5 card major systems are around 9% (From Roy Hugh's "Building a Bidding System" page 117).
Roughly 14.2% of hands are 15+ points, so when you add in the 14 point balanced hands with no 4 card major, this system will open 1♣ and 1♦ well over 7% of the time each. This is actually slightly more frequent than a natural 4 card major system, which open with these bids slightly less than 7% of the time each (again from Hugh's book).
Now, these are less frequent in proportion to the other bids in this system, since it opens hands that a basic 4 card major system would pass. However, this is more a problem of overloading the other bids than it is of underutalizing the 1m bids (though that is a bit like saying that the fall dosn't kill you, just the sudden stop at the end...)
This is the basic reason that I was concerned that my 8-14 range was too wide, even though it is a narrower range than a Standard American 1 level bid. Perhaps "too heavy" would be a better term than "too wide". The 1♥ opening, for instance, seems like it would be so frequent that it might cause problems.
I tried to relieve some of this pressure on the 1M bids by incorperating the two suited preempts for every combination that includes a major, but I am worried that it might create more problems than it solves.

I was thinking relative to the other bids in the system. I'm less certain of that now.

I would guess my opening distribution percentages would be something like...
1C-17% 16+
1D-38% 10-15 artificial
1H-8%
1S-8%
1N-16% 14-16
2C-2%
2D-1%
2H-4%
2S-4%
2N-1%

What are yours like?

I've never really liked that my 1C was less common than the 1D, but I've supposed that the club needs more room (requiring a negative response, for example) whereas 1D is nf. I've also thought that 1N is just an attractive opening to make and is more frequent in many systems.

Your system uses a weak NT, so (in a sense) you're moving my strong NT hands in with your 1m opening and moving most of my 1D hands into your 1N opening.

OTOH, I imagine both your 1C and 1D bids are forcing, but only my 1C bid is forcing. So you lose 1D-P. That is, at some point, responder has to let opener know he has a bad hand and it costs an important low level sequence to do that.

What are your 1M-2m responses? Are they forcing or game forcing? Opposite a potential 8 pt hand, I would think you would have common 1M-1N, P sequences but you obviously win big when you find an immediate fit.

[relknes]

 dake50, on 2011-March-29, 05:52, said:

Similar to what I play. ** suggestions **

strong hands (15+ points) are split between 1♣ and 1♦,
** I partition 1C has spades: S1, SH, SD, SC, or bal 18+, or C1 **
** 1D has not spades: H1, HD, HC, D1, DC, bal 14-17 **

1♥ = 4+ hearts, 8-14 points, unbalanced if 8-9 points
** I only open 1H 8-11 if 0-2xS - with 4+H and 3+S, we can reopen 2M. **

1♠ = 4+ spades, 8-14 points, unbalanced if 8-9 points
** 1S 8-14 bal/not as take 1-level is valuable. **
** 1S on bal 10-13 iff honors in S+2nd; 1N else **

1N = 10-13 points, balanced, no 4 card major
** 4xS iff 4=3=3=3; 4H iff 2-3xS to get above a 1S overcall **

2♣ = 5+ clubs, unbalanced, 8-14 points, no 4 card major
2♦ = 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, 8-14 points, no 4 card major
** 8-12 2m has the old disciplined weak2- a source of tricks if slight hcp. **

Send me a system notes file if you would. I think we have near jelling minds.

Here are my notes on the system thus far. The document only covers the openings and the responses to the 1 level bids so far, but I have a lot more than that planned out obviously. Hopefully this will give some idea of the direction that the system is taking.
 MOSS Bidding System.pdf (10.2K)
Number of downloads: 9

Straube: Here are the rough percentages for each opening bid (acurate to about 1/4 percent)
Pass = 27%
1♣ = 7.5% (10.3% if you don't include Pass as a bid)
1♦ = 7% (9.6%)
1♥ = 13.5% (18.5%)
1♠ = 11.5% (15.6%)
1N = 5.7% (7.8%)
2♣ = 8% (11%)
2♦ = 8% (11%)
2♥ = 2.2% (3%)
2♠ = 2.2% (3%)
2N = 2.2% (3%)
3♣ = 2.2% (3%)
3♦ = 2.2% (3%)
higher preempts = rare

[straube]

Here's how the Fibonacci sequence would award percentages to openings...assuming
.....A) responder will relay opener's hand
.....B) opener's hand must be described by the point of 3N
.....C) I did my math right

P-not included

1C-38%
1D-23%
1H-14%
1S-9%
1N-6%
2C-3%
2D-2%
2H-1%
2S-1%
2N-1%
etc. less than 1%

Of course, I'm assuming relay auctions. But still, this gives me an idea of how much power each opening has relative to each other. I think if someone doesn't look at bidding this way, not only for openings, but for responses, that they will likely pack too many things into some bids and not into others.

I ran through not quite 300 hands for my own system. I passed or preempted (at the 3-level) 52% of the hands. The other openings came out as...

1C-23% (low because I need to reserve room for a negative response, plus this bid contains hands that are more important)
1D-25%
1H-14%
1S-12%
1N-18% (high compared to ideal because it's a very descriptive bid and needs little further description as a practical matter)
2C-4%
2D-0%
2H-2%
2S-4%
2N-1%

So this resembles my Fibonacci numbers better than my prior guesstimate. Of course, the math changes slightly if pass is counted as a step.

I'm still concerned then about your opening structure and using both 1C and 1D for strong hands. I think you ought to have difficult auctions after your higher openings just based on my interpretation of the math. You ought to be too high a lot of the time.

My thought has been to focus on our constructive auctions, pay attention to the frequency of openings and responses, make the system as efficient as possible, and then lower the opening requirements to the extent possible.

I'm less familiar with preemptive sorts of systems. awm (Adam) has a constructive system but he is able to open 8 pt hands with a major. You might ask him how he handles these light openings.

[relknes]

The ideal way, mathematically, to structure a system depends on a number of factors. The most important of which is actually how often your oponents will bid or overcall with a cirtain bid. Thus it depends heavilly on what assumptions you are making about how your opponents will bid.
For example, if you somehow knew that your left hand opponent was going to bid 1N, regardless of what you bid below that, and pass if you bid 1NT or higher (yes I realize that this would be a rediculous set of assumptions), then your ideal mathematical distribution of bids would be:
Pass = 16.4%
1♣ = 16.4%
1♦ = 16.4%
1♥ = 16.4%
1♠ = 16.4%
1NT = 16.4%
2♣ = 0.8%
2♦ = 0.4%
2♥ = 0.2%
etc.
This assumes that your goal is the maximum transmition of information in the least space through symetric bidding (ie. both players "telling" what is in their hand rather than just 1 of the partners), without regard to whether or not you can actually make the contract. The bit about the LHO overcalling 1NT regardless of their hand is admittedly silly, but it hammers home the point that the "ideal" looks vastly different in competition. The Fibonnacci sequence that you mentioned is designed to be the ideal way that an uninterupted asymetric relay can transmit the most information in the least space. That is a fine way to structure a system when competition is unlikely, such as over a very strong opening bid, but I would suggest that it is a poor way to structure a set of openings when competitive bidding is likely (such as when the opener has less than 15 points).
When competition is likely, the mathematical ideal is much more eavenly spread, as the above example illustrates, but more importantly the "ideal" takes a back seat to two other factors:
1. How likely are you to reach a reasonable contract?
2. How likely are you to prevent your opponents from reaching a reasonable contract?
This is the essence of preemption. More important than the relative percentage of each bid is how well the bids function at accomplishing these two goals. This is why, as you mentioned, 1N is often "overloaded" when seen from a strictly constructive view. It is a bid that will usually yield a reasonable contract, while being high enough to make life a bit more difficult for the opponents if they want to compete, thus its being overloaded is not a problem.
I personally think that opening 1♣ or 1♦ on less than about 13 points is ill advised. You are simply asking to compete in a minor while the opponents compete in a major. This is part of why I tend to favor a weak NT from a theoretical point of view.
Incidentally, my least favorite bid from this perspective is a Precision style 1♦. It lets the opponents overcall in 1 of either major, in a point range where competitive auctions are very likely, while simultaneously telling your partner virtually nothing useful about your hand. I cringe at the thought!

[wclass___]

Quote

I've never really liked that my 1C was less common than the 1D

Your 1♣ is unlimited both HCP and shape wise, while your 1♦ is limited both in HCP and shape. 1♦ is more frequent than 1♣ only because particular point range is way more frequent. Precision like 1♦ have always been one of my favorite bids, it comes up often, it is limited both in shape and HCP also it is low. It is the best opening bid for relay methods, also it doesn't give away unnecessary information to opponents and it is generally harder to defend than natural 1c/d.

Quote

I've also thought that 1N is just an attractive opening to make and is more frequent in many systems.

Here you are definitely on the right track.. (comparing to Fibonacci stuff). The idea is to find an opening bid where you can add hands without noticeable effect on score. 1N is surely 1st to come in mind. e.g. Look on F-N 1N opening... i think it might be as frequent as sum of all other 1 opening bids.

Also there are hands like 5m4m 6m+; these hands you do not want to open in 1c/1d, because you will often be forced to compete, and opponents will eat up your extra space you had anyway. OTOH hands like 5m4M you are more willing to stay low, because it is more likely that you will be able to bid in an uncontested auction.

tysen (don't remember accurate nickname), did some interesting stuff analyzing these kinds of problems, and as i remember one could really draw some useful and logical conclusions. e.g. you should go low with spades... opponents are unlikely to disturb you much and you may take full advantage of your bidding room. I find this very true for precision or polish club like systems where you open 1♣ with strong one suited hand. If opponents compete and you have spades you are generally safe, if you have hearts it is not that safe... I saw this idea also somewhere else where 1♠ 11-15; 1♥ 11-17; 1♦ 11-19 were suggested.

Quote

So you lose 1D-P. That is, at some point, responder has to let opener know he has a bad hand and it costs an important low level sequence to do that.

Surely it all depends on how your 1♦ is defined, but i think it is not that important sequence. Some time ago i moved to 1♦=5♦+ 11+ unbal and forcing, it works great and i think it has a lot of merit. Also i think that forcing 1♦ is the most powerful F-N opening bid, although tbh it is too infrequent.

[hrothgar]

I find it very difficult to evaluate a structure of opening bids without seeing information about the responses.

An isolated set of opening bids is almost meaningless.
In contrast, the relationship between the opening bids and the response strcuture are the ehart and soul of the system.

[straube]

 relknes, on 2011-March-30, 02:27, said:

The ideal way, mathematically, to structure a system depends on a number of factors. The most important of which is actually how often your oponents will bid or overcall with a cirtain bid. Thus it depends heavilly on what assumptions you are making about how your opponents will bid.
For example, if you somehow knew that your left hand opponent was going to bid 1N, regardless of what you bid below that, and pass if you bid 1NT or higher (yes I realize that this would be a rediculous set of assumptions), then your ideal mathematical distribution of bids would be:
Pass = 16.4%
1♣ = 16.4%
1♦ = 16.4%
1♥ = 16.4%
1♠ = 16.4%
1NT = 16.4%
2♣ = 0.8%
2♦ = 0.4%
2♥ = 0.2%
etc.
This assumes that your goal is the maximum transmition of information in the least space through symetric bidding (ie. both players "telling" what is in their hand rather than just 1 of the partners), without regard to whether or not you can actually make the contract. The bit about the LHO overcalling 1NT regardless of their hand is admittedly silly, but it hammers home the point that the "ideal" looks vastly different in competition. The Fibonnacci sequence that you mentioned is designed to be the ideal way that an uninterupted asymetric relay can transmit the most information in the least space. That is a fine way to structure a system when competition is unlikely, such as over a very strong opening bid, but I would suggest that it is a poor way to structure a set of openings when competitive bidding is likely (such as when the opener has less than 15 points).
When competition is likely, the mathematical ideal is much more eavenly spread, as the above example illustrates, but more importantly the "ideal" takes a back seat to two other factors:
1. How likely are you to reach a reasonable contract?
2. How likely are you to prevent your opponents from reaching a reasonable contract?
This is the essence of preemption. More important than the relative percentage of each bid is how well the bids function at accomplishing these two goals. This is why, as you mentioned, 1N is often "overloaded" when seen from a strictly constructive view. It is a bid that will usually yield a reasonable contract, while being high enough to make life a bit more difficult for the opponents if they want to compete, thus its being overloaded is not a problem.
I personally think that opening 1♣ or 1♦ on less than about 13 points is ill advised. You are simply asking to compete in a minor while the opponents compete in a major. This is part of why I tend to favor a weak NT from a theoretical point of view.
Incidentally, my least favorite bid from this perspective is a Precision style 1♦. It lets the opponents overcall in 1 of either major, in a point range where competitive auctions are very likely, while simultaneously telling your partner virtually nothing useful about your hand. I cringe at the thought!

I agree with your point. The possibility of interference means that we will want to "flatten" the fibonacci curve. It definitely depends how often the opponents will interfere. I've thought before that if the opps always overcalled (successfully) a spade to my strong club, that I might as well open 1H with my good hand. Opponents have similar space considerations that we do but as they hopefully have fewer values will tend to spend that space more freely. OTOH, when they double (usually their own attempt to show values and conserve space) we suddenly gain a lot of room (pass and redbl).

Another thing I think about is where my opening is in relation to the law of total tricks. No doubt that's why you're nervous about a few of your preempts (with 5/4s). It holds true at lower levels, too. Opening 1S with four spades is right at one's expected law level and it's hard for partner to take us further unless he has a fit or values, etc. Opening 1N with a balanced hand is probably past one's law level and is why I like to have a few extra points to protect me and to support partner in fit-finding.

Btw, I think an opening such as 2S showing clubs and spades is better constructed than an opening such as 2H showing hearts and spades because 2S leaves an intervening 2N as an asking bid (like are you max or minimum?) while the S1 (and most important) response to 2H is simply a correction.

Sorry for all the fibonacci stuff I've thrown, but I still think it's useful when looking at one's opening/responding frequencies.

[awm]

The idea of having two strong (or possibly strong) openings at the one-level seems reasonable to me, and I don't see any concern about bid frequencies. What I'd worry about more is whether this system is simply opening too aggressively, and will obtain a lot of bad results by going down in contracts multiple tricks at vulnerable, or being doubled by the opponents.

Personally I am not enamored of opening balanced 10-counts at vulnerable. Very few good players are using a 10-13 notrump range when red, I think for good reason. It is simply too common to find a hand where you have i.e. 10 opposite 7 and just drift down three tricks for -300 when the best opponents can do is to make a partial. You also occasionally get doubled for penalty, and you occasionally tell the opponents how to play their normal contract by locating all the values for them.

The 2m openings have a rather wide range, and sorting this out may be difficult. For example if I have some 12-count with only doubleton in partner's minor it's not real clear how to bid over 2m. Your 1M openings obviously have the same range, but there you have more space to sort things out (and can play 1NT with two balanced hands and less than game values, which is usually a good partial). I'd have to see a good response structure before I'd be really convinced about 2m here.

The preemptive openings also seem over-aggressive to me. Sure, you will have a fit more often than not. But when you don't have a fit (or at least don't have a good fit) you will often be going for a pretty big number for no real reason. And you also seem to lose on the one-suited minor hands, where opening 3m can often get you to a good 3NT game and consumes a lot of space from opponents in a relatively safe way. Preempting on 5-5 hands is actually pretty safe (see the great results from Wilkosz for example) but 5-4 hands are more a randomizer than a big winner even for the tamer Muiderburg twos (where you know which is the five-card suit and can always get out at the two-level).

[relknes]

 straube, on 2011-March-30, 08:07, said:

I agree with your point. The possibility of interference means that we will want to "flatten" the fibonacci curve. It definitely depends how often the opponents will interfere. I've thought before that if the opps always overcalled (successfully) a spade to my strong club, that I might as well open 1H with my good hand. Opponents have similar space considerations that we do but as they hopefully have fewer values will tend to spend that space more freely. OTOH, when they double (usually their own attempt to show values and conserve space) we suddenly gain a lot of room (pass and redbl).

Another thing I think about is where my opening is in relation to the law of total tricks. No doubt that's why you're nervous about a few of your preempts (with 5/4s). It holds true at lower levels, too. Opening 1S with four spades is right at one's expected law level and it's hard for partner to take us further unless he has a fit or values, etc. Opening 1N with a balanced hand is probably past one's law level and is why I like to have a few extra points to protect me and to support partner in fit-finding.

Btw, I think an opening such as 2S showing clubs and spades is better constructed than an opening such as 2H showing hearts and spades because 2S leaves an intervening 2N as an asking bid (like are you max or minimum?) while the S1 (and most important) response to 2H is simply a correction.

Sorry for all the fibonacci stuff I've thrown, but I still think it's useful when looking at one's opening/responding frequencies.

I appreciate the Fibonacci stuff, actually. In fact, my response structures will hopefully conform much better to that sort of patern than my opening structure. This is because, once one partner has opened and the other has shown the values necessary to respond, a competitive situation becomes a lot less likely. Likewise, once opener shows 15+ points, competition becomes a lot less likely.
For my opening structure, I thought of it more in terms of blocks. There are 5 blocks of hands that I considered.
1. Strong hands that would benefit from more bidding space and had little to fear from competition. These were relegated to the 1m openings.
2. Hands that expect to be in competition at least through the 1 level, and have a major to compete in. These were given the 1M openings.
3. Hanads that expect competition through the 1 level, but can't compete in a major. These were given the 1N and 2m openings, in order to prevent the opponents from overcalling with 1M.
4. Hands that expect the opponents to be able to compete to the 2 level, and have a good shot at a fit. These were given the 2M, 2N, and 3m openings, so that the opponents can't overcall at the 2 level.
5. Hands that are such trash that they shouldn't even compete for the 1 level. These are passed.
Each of these blocks was given a fairly flat distribution, since they were designed not with constructive bidding in mind, but with the expectation of competition.
I am hoping that my response structures will follow a Fibonacci type structure. I have not yet run the numbers on that, but we will see how close i can manage to get the structure to the mathematical ideal.
Before I do that, however, I am going to examine the 2 suited preempts in light of the Law of Total Tricks, as you suggested. If they fail that test, then I will have to find annother way to relieve the pressure on the 1M bids, perhaps making them 9-14 instead of 8-14.

[straube]

 wclass___, on 2011-March-30, 05:11, said:

Your 1♣ is unlimited both HCP and shape wise, while your 1♦ is limited both in HCP and shape. 1♦ is more frequent than 1♣ only because particular point range is way more frequent. Precision like 1♦ have always been one of my favorite bids, it comes up often, it is limited both in shape and HCP also it is low. It is the best opening bid for relay methods, also it doesn't give away unnecessary information to opponents and it is generally harder to defend than natural 1c/d.

Here you are definitely on the right track.. (comparing to Fibonacci stuff). The idea is to find an opening bid where you can add hands without noticeable effect on score. 1N is surely 1st to come in mind. e.g. Look on F-N 1N opening... i think it might be as frequent as sum of all other 1 opening bids.

Also there are hands like 5m4m 6m+; these hands you do not want to open in 1c/1d, because you will often be forced to compete, and opponents will eat up your extra space you had anyway. OTOH hands like 5m4M you are more willing to stay low, because it is more likely that you will be able to bid in an uncontested auction.

tysen (don't remember accurate nickname), did some interesting stuff analyzing these kinds of problems, and as i remember one could really draw some useful and logical conclusions. e.g. you should go low with spades... opponents are unlikely to disturb you much and you may take full advantage of your bidding room. I find this very true for precision or polish club like systems where you open 1♣ with strong one suited hand. If opponents compete and you have spades you are generally safe, if you have hearts it is not that safe... I saw this idea also somewhere else where 1♠ 11-15; 1♥ 11-17; 1♦ 11-19 were suggested.

Surely it all depends on how your 1♦ is defined, but i think it is not that important sequence. Some time ago i moved to 1♦=5♦+ 11+ unbal and forcing, it works great and i think it has a lot of merit. Also i think that forcing 1♦ is the most powerful F-N opening bid, although tbh it is too infrequent.

I thought this was a good post (even if mostly contradicting me ). Do you happen to have F-N notes you could share with me? I'm a bit skeptical of it, but they obviously do very well, and I don't know very much about it.

[wclass___]

Just those you can get from http://bridgewithdan...tems/index.html

That system doesn't shine in uncontested auctions much.

One more interesting idea i got from their system are their 2♥/2♠ openings. It gets the main message across while not telling opponents much. It comes up more frequent and 2M (just like natural limited 1NT) are generally opening bids you want to open more.

Also Hamman-Mahmood and probalby some other pairs play 2M as 6+ or constructive 2-suiter, with different point range though.

[relknes]

So, after running the numbers on the preemptive bids, I found that although the probability of an 8 card fit is roughly 3/4, the probability of a 9 card fit is only about 1/3. In other words, the 2H bid is safe 75% of the time, and the 2S bid is safe roughly 50% of the time, but the other preempts are going to get you to a level higher than the Law of Total Tricks dictates 2/3 of the time... so they have to go.
To relieve the pressure on the 1M bids, it seems wise to limit their point range to 9-14.
Question for AWM concerning the 1NT bid. You mentioned to posability of going down 3 in 1NT when the opponents only have a partial. But if they take 9 tricks in NT defending, surely they can take 9 tricks in NT declaring, or am I missing something? Then again, pointwise it seems like 17 for us and 23 for them should leave us down 1-2 and them making a partial. Is it just in those situations where they would make game because of how the cards lay, but not have bid it?
I am considering moving the 1NT opening to "11-14 balanced with no decent 4 card major" in response to AWM's concern. I think I would have to allow 1NT on a poor 4 card major to keep the frequency of 1NT reasonable. It would also help lessen some more of the pressure on the 1M bids. What do people think?