[giorgis_di]

DavidKok, on 2023-October-14, 07:21, said:

The difference is that 1NT does not specify a suit and is an artificial preempt. Those are subject to narrow restrictions. A natural weak two bid less so.

Your 1♣ opening is extremely fragile, both in and out of competition. In addition it is going to be the main opening by far and contains the weakest opening hand types (minimum balanced as well as minimum unbal with a long minor). You will be tested on this very often, and I think as a result this is a very weak system. You've given the continuations over the rest of the openings, but by frequency those are marginal compared to your 1♣ opening.

A similar ambiguity applies to the normal 1nt opening: the only thing you know is that opener has 15-17hcp and not a void or singleton. In my 1nt you know that opener has 0-5hcp and a long suit with limited values on this suit.

[DavidKok]

That is actually not the description of 'balanced'. Either way I was not attempting to debate whether or not your preempt should be legal, I was merely observing that, as far as I know, it is not. It falls under a general class of weak bids without an anchor suit, which contains an exception clause for natural notrump openings (provided they are of certain strength).

As an aside I would highly welcome you to play this against me, regardless of the legality.

[giorgis_di]

This is a description of a balanced or semi-balanced hand (like 5422, which I open 1nt with 54 in minors).

I would like to test it if I could find a partner. Just to repeat: these are some thoughts not been tested. The purpose of my post it to receive comments/feedback.

Also, I am not located in US, so I don’t know the extent to which these modifications are valid even within my country

[pescetom]

giorgis_di, on 2023-October-14, 06:33, said:

I don’t see why it is illegal? Which is the difference between 1nt= 6c unspecified weak hand versus a weak 2 opening bid? (Which can contain even less than 5hcp)

The main difference is that a natural weak two opening bid promises length in a specific suit, which makes it easier to defend against.
The exception is 2♦ Multi, which could be either major weak: but even that is controversial and disallowed in some tournaments.

In any case, it's not a question of opinions, the rules are there and a decent TD will not let you play this. It is also a severe offence to knowingly break the rules.

[DavidKok]

I'm also not playing under the ACBL. Your 1NT is a Highly Unusual Method under the WBF Systems Policy if it can be made on 7 HCP or less, and a lot of countries use the WBF rules. I think this is worth checking.

But I'm not actually that interested in whether or not your convention is legal. I think your opening set seriously damages the notrump ladder and overloads 1♣, while the 1NT opening will put you behind the field even when it comes up. Earlier I gave some motivation for these beliefs, if you are interested in discussing them I'd love to pick the discussion up from there.

[pescetom]

giorgis_di, on 2023-October-14, 07:48, said:

This is a description of a balanced or semi-balanced hand (like 5422, which I open 1nt with 54 in minors).

.

In US as I read it you are allowed to open a 6322 or 633H as 'balanced', but that doesn't necessarily mean you can exclude all other balanced shapes from 1NT.

If (like me) you are in Italy, as your nickname suggests, then you need 8+ HCP period.

[mikeh]

I am getting the impression that the OP wasn’t looking for constructive criticism but, rather, endorsement of his ideas.

[Gilithin]

Quite a long time ago, one of the stronger pairs in the Acol Club used to play a system built on a 1♣ opening showing any 16-19 and a 1♦ opening being 12-15 unbalanced without a 5 card major. Bolting your 1NT opening on to a system like this and moving the weak NT into 1♦ is something that makes a little more sense than your proposed method. That said, my partner and I loved playing against them as we were consistently able to make a mess of their constructive auctions. Making the 1♦ opening even more nebulous would therefore be playing with some degree of fire.
Now I do have to admit that I have myself in the past constructed several systems that were able to free up the 1NT opening for preemptive use. My choice for this was ♣ or ♦ or both majors but that is not important in the big picture. I eventually dropped all of these ideas because they all had problems elsewhere that I discovered were more costly than the benefits from the additional preempts. My very strong expectation is that you will also discover this eventually. A lot of system playtesting can help in this to iron out what is working and what is best to drop.

[giorgis_di]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-14, 16:05, said:

Quite a long time ago, one of the stronger pairs in the Acol Club used to play a system built on a 1♣ opening showing any 16-19 and a 1♦ opening being 12-15 unbalanced without a 5 card major. Bolting your 1NT opening on to a system like this and moving the weak NT into 1♦ is something that makes a little more sense than your proposed method. That said, my partner and I loved playing against them as we were consistently able to make a mess of their constructive auctions. Making the 1♦ opening even more nebulous would therefore be playing with some degree of fire.
Now I do have to admit that I have myself in the past constructed several systems that were able to free up the 1NT opening for preemptive use. My choice for this was ♣ or ♦ or both majors but that is not important in the big picture. I eventually dropped all of these ideas because they all had problems elsewhere that I discovered were more costly than the benefits from the additional preempts. My very strong expectation is that you will also discover this eventually. A lot of system playtesting can help in this to iron out what is working and what is best to drop.

Thanks for your constructive comment. Definitely, if I tried it I may discover that in many cases "my approach" can be quite problematic in many case, no doubt about that

[giorgis_di]

mikeh, on 2023-October-14, 09:15, said:

I am getting the impression that the OP wasn’t looking for constructive criticism but, rather, endorsement of his ideas.

Apart form some comments on whether "my approach" is legal or not in WBF tournaments, I didn't see any other constructive comment (there were few exceptions, though)

[straube]

giorgis_di, on 2023-October-14, 06:38, said:

1♣ = 11-21 unspecified suit, either balanced or unbalanced
2♣ = 22+ unspecified suit
1♦ = balanced 15-17
1♥/♠ = 11-21 with at least 5c
1nt = very weak 6c unspecified suit
Other 2 = a “good” 6c weak hand (promises some values on that suit)

Continuations:

A. After 1nt
Partner bids 2♣ = asking for the suit. Any other bid promises at least 16hcp

B. After 1♦
Partner has the following options:

I. 1♥ = unbalanced with 0-7. Opener rebids 1♠ asking for the longest suit

Ii. 1♠ = 0-7, but balanced. Opener rebids is sign off

Iii. 1nt = 8+ without 4c in majors
IV. Stayman, transfers, etc but all of these hands promise at least 8+ hcp

I looked at 50 hands that opened something other than pass and tallied....

1C.....26
1D.....7
1H.....6
1S.....7
1N....2
2C....0
2D....0
2H....0
2S....2
2N....0

I omitted also 3+ level preempts.

This told me what I already knew, that the 1C is overweighted in comparison to 1D. The 1N is also underweighted. 1N is a very useful opening to show a balanced hand! You want to be able to play there on occasion. As a side note, I'm not sure what your choice of opening is with 5M332 and 15-17. Both 1D and 1M are unattractive.

I assume you're familiar with Fibonnaci and that the frequency of your openings should have at least some resemblance to that.....or when not, you should want to have good reason for this.

Your 1C apparently holds 12-14 bal, 18-19 bal, and 11-21 unbalanced without a 5-cd major (unless 6-5 perhaps?). That's just an awful lot of hands and much too much to unwind. I expect you would have easy auctions after 1D and difficult auctions starting 1C.

[DavidKok]

giorgis_di, on 2023-October-14, 18:12, said:

Apart form some comments on whether "my approach" is legal or not in WBF tournaments, I didn't see any other constructive comment (there were few exceptions, though)

If you scroll to the top of your thread on page 1, I made an attempt at providing constructive criticism in the first reply. If you felt this was not constructive I would love to hear what I can do to improve that feedback. I feel like you have not engaged with what I wrote there.

[giorgis_di]

DavidKok, on 2023-October-15, 02:36, said:

If you scroll to the top of your thread on page 1, I made an attempt at providing constructive criticism in the first reply. If you felt this was not constructive I would love to hear what I can do to improve that feedback. I feel like you have not engaged with what I wrote there.

As I said there were few exceptions...your 1st post was one of them

[giorgis_di]

straube, on 2023-October-14, 21:41, said:

I looked at 50 hands that opened something other than pass and tallied....

1C.....26
1D.....7
1H.....6
1S.....7
1N....2
2C....0
2D....0
2H....0
2S....2
2N....0

I omitted also 3+ level preempts.

This told me what I already knew, that the 1C is overweighted in comparison to 1D. The 1N is also underweighted. 1N is a very useful opening to show a balanced hand! You want to be able to play there on occasion. As a side note, I'm not sure what your choice of opening is with 5M332 and 15-17. Both 1D and 1M are unattractive.

I assume you're familiar with Fibonnaci and that the frequency of your openings should have at least some resemblance to that.....or when not, you should want to have good reason for this.

Your 1C apparently holds 12-14 bal, 18-19 bal, and 11-21 unbalanced without a 5-cd major (unless 6-5 perhaps?). That's just an awful lot of hands and much too much to unwind. I expect you would have easy auctions after 1D and difficult auctions starting 1C.

Nowadays, I open 5332 (5c in majors) and 15-17 at 1 in the corresponding major

[giorgis_di]

straube, on 2023-October-14, 21:41, said:

I looked at 50 hands that opened something other than pass and tallied....

1C.....26
1D.....7
1H.....6
1S.....7
1N....2
2C....0
2D....0
2H....0
2S....2
2N....0

I omitted also 3+ level preempts.

This told me what I already knew, that the 1C is overweighted in comparison to 1D. The 1N is also underweighted. 1N is a very useful opening to show a balanced hand! You want to be able to play there on occasion. As a side note, I'm not sure what your choice of opening is with 5M332 and 15-17. Both 1D and 1M are unattractive.

I assume you're familiar with Fibonnaci and that the frequency of your openings should have at least some resemblance to that.....or when not, you should want to have good reason for this.

Your 1C apparently holds 12-14 bal, 18-19 bal, and 11-21 unbalanced without a 5-cd major (unless 6-5 perhaps?). That's just an awful lot of hands and much too much to unwind. I expect you would have easy auctions after 1D and difficult auctions starting 1C.

I don't disagree that there are a lot of hands that contained under the 1c opening. However, I believe that by using conventions you can still find the best suit. Yes, sometimes it might be more difficult and probably "my ideal" does not work in reality.

[mikeh]

giorgis_di, on 2023-October-14, 18:12, said:

Apart form some comments on whether "my approach" is legal or not in WBF tournaments, I didn't see any other constructive comment (there were few exceptions, though)

I suggest you re-read my first post. I emphasized what I see as a real problem with your ideas….you see to have overlooked the fact that you will have opponents.

I’ve seen a lot of ‘novel’ ideas over the years, and many of them suffer from one or both of the problems that I and others have identified with respect to yours.

By using 1N as you suggest, you cause a lot of ripples….dealing with David’s ‘notrump ladder’is but one of them. You’ve somewhat addressed this but I don’t see where you deal with the problems caused by interference

These days, especially at favourable, many pairs open at the 3 level on hands that would fit your 1N. For example, in my main partnership we’d routinely open 3D with something like x xx QJ9xxx Jxxx. While I think we’re on the aggressive side of current thinking, in this, we’re definitely not alone.

Compare having to start one’s auction over 3D or 1N.

Plus, if responder has a good fit for the preempt, one might see something like 3D (x) 5D ?

You can’t do that because responder has no idea which suit opener has, and may never find out!

Even if your favourable vul opening style is more conservative than the one I’ve cited, the underlying issue is the same. Very few good pairs require a 7 card suit for a 3 level opening anymore.

Now, your approach has a slight plus in that you (I think) require a 7 card suit for a 3 level preempt which does make responder’s decision making a bit easier than when the opening could be 6 or 7. However, 7 card suits are far less common than 6 card suits, so the gain will be infrequent, plus the uncertainty of length in the more common approach isn’t always bad for the preempting side, so I think this is a modest gain, far offset by the problems after your 1N bid.

Btw, from what I’ve seen, virtually every comment here, dealing with your ideas rather than your posts, contains constructive criticism. Your failure to engage with them is what causes me to doubt your motivation. Nobody likes seeing their pet ideas criticized…your reaction is a common one, but if you want to be seen as genuinely looking for advice rather than hoping for praise, you need to engage with the criticisms.

[giorgis_di]

mikeh, on 2023-October-15, 17:26, said:

I suggest you re-read my first post. I emphasized what I see as a real problem with your ideas….you see to have overlooked the fact that you will have opponents.

I’ve seen a lot of ‘novel’ ideas over the years, and many of them suffer from one or both of the problems that I and others have identified with respect to yours.

By using 1N as you suggest, you cause a lot of ripples….dealing with David’s ‘notrump ladder’is but one of them. You’ve somewhat addressed this but I don’t see where you deal with the problems caused by interference

These days, especially at favourable, many pairs open at the 3 level on hands that would fit your 1N. For example, in my main partnership we’d routinely open 3D with something like x xx QJ9xxx Jxxx. While I think we’re on the aggressive side of current thinking, in this, we’re definitely not alone.

Compare having to start one’s auction over 3D or 1N.

Plus, if responder has a good fit for the preempt, one might see something like 3D (x) 5D ?

You can’t do that because responder has no idea which suit opener has, and may never find out!

Even if your favourable vul opening style is more conservative than the one I’ve cited, the underlying issue is the same. Very few good pairs require a 7 card suit for a 3 level opening anymore.

Now, your approach has a slight plus in that you (I think) require a 7 card suit for a 3 level preempt which does make responder’s decision making a bit easier than when the opening could be 6 or 7. However, 7 card suits are far less common than 6 card suits, so the gain will be infrequent, plus the uncertainty of length in the more common approach isn’t always bad for the preempting side, so I think this is a modest gain, far offset by the problems after your 1N bid.

Btw, from what I’ve seen, virtually every comment here, dealing with your ideas rather than your posts, contains constructive criticism. Your failure to engage with them is what causes me to doubt your motivation. Nobody likes seeing their pet ideas criticized…your reaction is a common one, but if you want to be seen as genuinely looking for advice rather than hoping for praise, you need to engage with the criticisms.

I didn't see a constructive criticisms in most of the comments. The most discussion was around whether 1NT opening with a weak unknown hand is legal or not. Apart from that, there where some comments on that 1c is overloaded. This is not a criticism because I already know that. Also, almost no one paid attention on the difference between 1NT opening and 2-3 opening bids: the first shows no values, whereas the other two shows values. Just to give you an example:

xxx xxxxxx xx xx opens 1NT, 2c by my partner and then rebid 2h (assuming the long suit is hearts). Conversely, xx KQJxxx xx xx opens 2h (again by assuming hearts is the longest suit). The first serves exclusively as preempting whereas the second also indicates some leading values in the case where the weak hand is the defender.

Of course, such an approach has its drawbacks. But from the comments none of the responders commented on how e.g. "how would you handle that type of another type of hand" or "what will happen if your partner has this type of hand"? Such questions I consider as constructive critisim.

Also, I see some comments that 1NT is unambiguous. Yes it is true, but many opening bids or responses are unambiguous (e.g., precision 1 club, response 1NT)

Btw, your comment that I seek for approval of "my system" is completely offensive since from the beginning I stated that this is simple some ideas and I want comments from more experience players and also, I stated multiple times that I have not tested these ideals. Thus, in practice may turn to be completely impractical, something I never rejected in any of my previous comments.

[mikeh]

giorgis_di, on 2023-October-16, 02:22, said:

I didn't see a constructive criticisms in most of the comments. The most discussion was around whether 1NT opening with a weak unknown hand is legal or not. Apart from that, there where some comments on that 1c is overloaded. This is not a criticism because I already know that. Also, almost no one paid attention on the difference between 1NT opening and 2-3 opening bids: the first shows no values, whereas the other two shows values. Just to give you an example:

xxx xxxxxx xx xx opens 1NT, 2c by my partner and then rebid 2h (assuming the long suit is hearts). Conversely, xx KQJxxx xx xx opens 2h (again by assuming hearts is the longest suit). The first serves exclusively as preempting whereas the second also indicates some leading values in the case where the weak hand is the defender.

Of course, such an approach has its drawbacks. But from the comments none of the responders commented on how e.g. "how would you handle that type of another type of hand" or "what will happen if your partner has this type of hand"? Such questions I consider as constructive critisim.

Also, I see some comments that 1NT is unambiguous. Yes it is true, but many opening bids or responses are unambiguous (e.g., precision 1 club, response 1NT)

Btw, your comment that I seek for approval of "my system" is completely offensive since from the beginning I stated that this is simple some ideas and I want comments from more experience players and also, I stated multiple times that I have not tested these ideals. Thus, in practice may turn to be completely impractical, something I never rejected in any of my previous comments.

I don’t understand, if you’re really seeking advice, why you have yet to even recognize that your methods need to be able to cope with interference, let alone how to deal with partner having a big hand.

Plus in at least some bridge jurisdictions, purely destructive methods (and opening 1N with a zero count is clearly nothing but destructive in intent) are illegal.

Your refusal…or inability…to recognize or discuss these real world issues, in the face of numerous posts raising them, does not reflect well upon you. But I give up…

[giorgis_di]

mikeh, on 2023-October-16, 05:18, said:

I don’t understand, if you’re really seeking advice, why you have yet to even recognize that your methods need to be able to cope with interference, let alone how to deal with partner having a big hand.

Plus in at least some bridge jurisdictions, purely destructive methods (and opening 1N with a zero count is clearly nothing but destructive in intent) are illegal.

Your refusal…or inability…to recognize or discuss these real world issues, in the face of numerous posts raising them, does not reflect well upon you. But I give up…

When I say I am seeking advice mostly I don’t want any feedback on whether my bidding comply with some rules because not every league has the same rules and so, my bidding may be ok within my area (just to repeat I am not a us citizen, nor I play in any international competitions)

The comments I looked were mostly technical in a sense on whether such bidding makes sense, which drawback it has, etc. not whether it is legal or not

[giorgis_di]

mikeh, on 2023-October-15, 17:26, said:

I suggest you re-read my first post. I emphasized what I see as a real problem with your ideas….you see to have overlooked the fact that you will have opponents.

I’ve seen a lot of ‘novel’ ideas over the years, and many of them suffer from one or both of the problems that I and others have identified with respect to yours.

By using 1N as you suggest, you cause a lot of ripples….dealing with David’s ‘notrump ladder’is but one of them. You’ve somewhat addressed this but I don’t see where you deal with the problems caused by interference

These days, especially at favourable, many pairs open at the 3 level on hands that would fit your 1N. For example, in my main partnership we’d routinely open 3D with something like x xx QJ9xxx Jxxx. While I think we’re on the aggressive side of current thinking, in this, we’re definitely not alone.

Compare having to start one’s auction over 3D or 1N.

Plus, if responder has a good fit for the preempt, one might see something like 3D (x) 5D ?

You can’t do that because responder has no idea which suit opener has, and may never find out!

Even if your favourable vul opening style is more conservative than the one I’ve cited, the underlying issue is the same. Very few good pairs require a 7 card suit for a 3 level opening anymore.

Now, your approach has a slight plus in that you (I think) require a 7 card suit for a 3 level preempt which does make responder’s decision making a bit easier than when the opening could be 6 or 7. However, 7 card suits are far less common than 6 card suits, so the gain will be infrequent, plus the uncertainty of length in the more common approach isn’t always bad for the preempting side, so I think this is a modest gain, far offset by the problems after your 1N bid.

Btw, from what I’ve seen, virtually every comment here, dealing with your ideas rather than your posts, contains constructive criticism. Your failure to engage with them is what causes me to doubt your motivation. Nobody likes seeing their pet ideas criticized…your reaction is a common one, but if you want to be seen as genuinely looking for advice rather than hoping for praise, you need to engage with the criticisms.

I forgot to add that I haven't think about how to deal with inference. For instance, if the LHO doubles, then my partner's 2♣ is perceived as a strong hand (otherwise she/he could pass). Definitely, the situation becomes more complex if the LHO overcalls at 2. One option could be that x by my partner to show a strong hand (17+ hcp), but really haven't thought a lot the inference part.

Also, in your example would you open 3D with the following hand x xx Kxxxxxx xx? Probably not, and so in that case you still cannot preempt at 5D. On the contrary, by opening 1NT you may be able to do it