[rbforster]

Silent Club:

1♣-1♦ strong; most 0-7, some GFs
1♥-1♠ artificial most minimums; artificial 0-7
1N-2♥ 16-18 bal including 5M332; transfer 5+♠
2♠-3♣ completed; natural unbalanced invitational NF
4♠-P

Opener has a max with 3 good spades so accepting seems clear.

[nige1]

straube, on 2013-January-16, 13:57, said:

#07. You are South and 2nd seat. Unfavorable. IMPs. Uncontested auction

Jasmine Club:
North ♠ J9852 ♥- ♦ J76 ♣ AT962: -- 2♥ 3♥
South ♠ AQT ♥ K7653 ♦ AQ4 ♣ QJ: 1♣ 2♠ 4♠

• 1♣ = 16+ Artificial
• 2♥ = Weak two-suiter not ♥ (2N would have shown a weak 2-suiter including ♥).
• 2♠ = Pass/correct (2N would have asked for the suit above the other shortage).
• 3♥ = Art, Max with ♠ (2N would have shown a max with the minors).
• 4♠ = Nat.

Marks, IMO: 4♠ = 10. 5♠ = 7. 5♣ = 5. Partscores = 4. 3N = 3.

[JLOGIC]

rbforster, on 2013-January-16, 19:40, said:

Silent Club:

1♣-1♦ strong; most 0-7, some GFs
1♥-1♠ artificial most minimums; artificial 0-7
1N-2♥ 16-18 bal including 5M332; transfer 5+♠
2♠-3♣ completed; natural unbalanced invitational NF
4♠-P

Opener has a max with 3 good spades so accepting seems clear.

1C 1D
1H 1S as any 0-7 seems kinda bad to me. Is it not? (It feels confrontational but I don't mean it as such, it just seems bad for partscore bidding but I have no experience with it, further clarification would be cool). In particular, maybe the GF hands should bid 1S and the 0-7 hands should bid 1N + ?

[Free]

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-16, 15:00, said:

I don't think 2N should be rejecting, when you are rejecting an invite you should pass. You'd much rather play 2S in a 5-2 fit than correct to 2N and play 2N. To me, that is the main advantage in having 2C then 2S be an invite, being able to play 2S is a big winner.

Personally I play that 2N is a max with 2 trumps since I would always pass with a min. A lot of the time partner has the shapely invite he is not looking to play 3N, so bidding 2N with a max is useful when partner is 5-5 and you can still play 3 of the minor (and if he's not and has a 3N bid over 2N, nothing lost).

Interesting, never thought of it this way. I usually pass with ♠Hx though, while I'm not always as comfortable with ♠xx (or maybe a stiff). I'll definitely discuss this with my partner. Thanks!

[rbforster]

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-16, 22:43, said:

1C 1D
1H 1S as any 0-7 seems kinda bad to me. Is it not? (It feels confrontational but I don't mean it as such, it just seems bad for partscore bidding but I have no experience with it, further clarification would be cool).

Well you're right that my system does not prioritize part score hands, so yes, it's certainly behind systems where 1H was Kokish or extras and 1S was 0-4 instead. I am not set up to relay opposite any negative by responder, but the upside is my GF relays are almost always step lower than everyone elses' (not just on the 1C-1D ones). There are several factors that make this reasonably playable, although I expect we are behind both 2/1 and at best on par with other precision systems on a part score deal.

1. Opener has shown a minimum, 16-18ish, with 1H, so opposite 0-7 game is usually off and we don't need too many invitational sequences

2. Opener has a prepared and descriptive rebid - either 6+ single suited (or 6+/4 two suited), or a balanced hand (including 5M332/4441). These hand types, bid naturally, allow responder to pass or invite fairly easily (there are tricky ways for responder to sign off unilaterally in his own long suit at the 2 level, but these are rare). I've chosen to have opener show rather than responder for tempo reasons, although neither has really shown anything so far, shape-wise.

3. Two suited minimums by opener have been removed from this sequence (those are 1C-1D-1S with their own artificial scrambles), so there's less risk of missing a side suit fit when opener bids 1H

Hope this helps. I did very extensive probability-based convention testing for the 1C-1D tree in my system, so it's pretty good for what it is, but at the end of the day it was a design decision to emphasize game/slam bidding over part scores.

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-16, 22:43, said:

1C 1D
1H 1S
In particular, maybe the GF hands should bid 1S and the 0-7 hands should bid 1N + ?

The nice thing here is that I can continue with symmetric relays using 1N+ by the GF hands (showing H/H+m) having transferred successfully for right siding, parallel the bidding tree with the same spade hands (i.e. 1C-1H(spade GF)-1S(relay)-1N+ for S/S+m), and give useful meanings to all the higher bids that many 0-7 responding hands couldn't use without getting too high.

Tempo is also important here, because responder's temporizing 1S lets opener make a natural bid and allows most of the 0-4 hands to pass, whereas otherwise a natural 2 level bid by responder would still be wide ranging and opener might feel like inviting opposite a 0-4 hand and get too high (or alternatively we'd have to give up on various invite sequences).

[Zelandakh]

1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any
... - 1♦ = most non-GF
1♥ = 18-20 any or 23+ bal
... - 1♠ = relay
1NT = 18-20 bal
... - 2♥ = 5+ spades (implies INV+ values as no relay break last round)
2♠
... - 3♦ = 4+ clubs, GF
3♠ = spade fit, no club fit
... - 4♠

[Zelandakh]

Looking over the auctions, I do not think you should describe the 2♠ rebid as pass/correct Nige. Clearly it allows partner to show judgement since they did not pass it with spades. It seems more like a non-forcing relay to me, asking for both strength and shape. It also appears you are missing a response somewhere:

P = min with spades
2NT = max with minors
3♣ = min with minors
3♥ = max with spades

Would it not be better to have 3♦ here as max with spades and diamonds, with 3♥ as max with spades and clubs?

Or you could make 2♠ a genuine pass/correct bid and pass invites through 2NT. Say

3♣ = clubs + another, min (3♦ P/C; 3♥ GF relay
3♦ = spades and diamonds, min
3♥ = spades and clubs, max
3♠ = spades and diamonds, max
3NT = minors, max

or whatever. That gets you a level higher when you have a spade invite opposite a minimum pointy 2-suiter but is otherwise good. Either way, you definitely have to tighten up the definitions if playing an unusual system. Opponents need to know everything that you do (I do realise you are only summarising here of course).

[Hilver]

In HK.

1NT - 2♥
2♠ - 2NT
4♠

Explanation:
1NT = 16-18 HCP
2♥ = transfer to ♠
2NT = 5-card ♠, non forcing

Opener is just one spade short to bid 3♣ in stead of 2♠.
3♣ by opner would have meant maximum hand with 4-card ♠ and 2-card ♣.

Jan

[dake50]

................J9852
................void
................J76
................AT962

................AQT
................K7653
................AQ4
................QJ
1C-1D-
1NT-3C-
3H-3S-
4S.
This hand much relies on responder's negative to come alive.
Over 1NT, 2-suit is quits, so jump 3C.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-January-16, 21:53, said:

Jasmine Club:
North ♠ J9852 ♥- ♦ J76 ♣ AT962 -- 2♥ 3♥
South ♠ AQT ♥ K7653 ♦ AQ4 ♣ QJ 1♣ 2♠ 4♠

• 1♣ = 16+ Artificial
• 2♥ = Weak two-suiter not ♥ (2N would have shown a weak 2-suiter including ♥).
• 2♠ = Pass/correct (2N would have asked for the suit above the other shortage).
• 3♥ = Max with ♠ (2N would have shown a max with the minors).

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-17, 04:03, said:

Looking over the auctions, I do not think you should describe the 2♠ rebid as pass/correct Nige. Clearly it allows partner to show judgement since they did not pass it with spades. It seems more like a non-forcing relay to me, asking for both strength and shape.

Yes you are right

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-17, 04:03, said:

It also appears you are missing a response somewhere:

• _P = min with spades
• 2N = max with minors
• 3♣ = min with minors
• 3♥ = max with spades

Would it not be better to have

• 3♦ here as max with spades and diamonds, with
• 3♥ as max with spades and clubs?

Yes that may be better although it violates Martens Mushroom principle (keep them in the dark and feed them on ****)

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-17, 04:03, said:

Or you could make 2♠ a genuine pass/correct bid and pass invites through 2NT. Say

• 3♣ = clubs + another, min (3♦ P/C; 3♥ GF relay
• 3♦ = spades and diamonds, min
• 3♥ = spades and clubs, max
• 3♠ = spades and diamonds, max
• 3NT = minors, max

or whatever. That gets you a level higher when you have a spade invite opposite a minimum pointy 2-suiter but is otherwise good. Either way, you definitely have to tighten up the definitions if playing an unusual system. Opponents need to know everything that you do (I do realise you are only summarising here of course).

I prefer Zelandakh's former suggestions. Thank you for your interest and advice. We try to keep everything simple and consistent because there are only three Jasmine partnerships, none of them current. For your interest here is an
Introduction to Jasmine

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2013-January-17, 19:35, said:

We try to keep everything simple and consistent because there are only three Jasmine partnerships, none of them current.

Simple and consistent is good. Without consistency a bidding system is basically doomed because it will always be too difficult to use in practise and will probably not be robust in competition. I also sympathise with the other issue. I also do not have a partnership using my system at present, although I am perfectly happy playing simple Acol instead with my current partner. The good part about such periods is that you can make changes and upgrades more quickly. The downside is that you have no practise so the changes either have to be obviously better or require a lot of time with simulators to check for negatives.

To be honest tough, I always love looking at unusual bidding systems and often learn something that I can use from innovative design ideas used in them. Most designers of such systems are also open to suggestions - certainly if anyone is ever insulted by an idea from me then please let me know! This will perhaps be the enduring legacy of straube's bidding project. We will get to see other systems in operation and thereby get a feel for their characteristics. I am hoping that Ben (Lessard) will also join in, since his system is especially innovative. So far, I get the feeling that my system is surprisingly natural within the context of the others being used. That is a bit of a shock to me but it is early days! Similarly for Moscito - it comes across as more of a "quick and dirty" system than the others. That is usually bad for bidding contests and good for practical play. Trying to get a feel for which of the many systems are good on paper and which are really good is going to take a great deal of thought and effort. But I know that I for one will be very interested in the results, even if they are subjective in nature.

Edit: I forgot to write a comment about the actual Jasmine system! It looks on the surface as something akin to 4 card major Precision, albeit with the minor suit hands moved around a little. The part that concerns me is the 1♦ opening. If I am reading it right, this contains a) 8-15 (4441); b) 8-15 minor one-suiter; c) 8-15 minor + shorter major; d) 13-15 both minors; e) 9-11 balanced (?). That is quite a lot to sort out, even if Hand Type e is not included. For example, after a 1NT response, I cannot see how you can differentiate between (primary) clubs and both minors. Assuming you have a solution for that, the rest looks solid enough. The 2♣ response (to 1♣) is obviously overloaded but manageable; and if that were ever a problem it would be easy to fix by taking out the club-based hands and moving them into a 2♦ response. Anyway, I will watch how it all works out over the course of the project!

[the_clown]

Precision:

1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠#
1N - 2♥(17-19 ,maybe 5♥, not 5♠)
2♠-3♣
4♠

[Mbodell]

4♠S (tosr based system)

1♣-1♦ : art, forcing 16+ unbal or 18+ bal; art neg, 0-7 or occ more with <2 controls
1nt-2♥ : 18-19 balanced; transfer
2♠-3♣ : accept transfer; 5+♠, 5+♣ game force
4♠ : with at most 7 hcp or 1 control slam seems remote even with the auction hitting our black suits well. I did consider 3♠ for a while which might gets us to 6♠ (3♠-4♣cue-4♦cue-4♥cue-4ntkc-6♥odd with void-6♠), but wisely decided even a near perfect fit (like the actual hand) isn't cold

[qplus10]

1♣1♦
1nt(16-20)2♣

1♥and 1nt were tied at IMPs I resolved it with the mp score as usual.

2♣was stayman I think. Transfers were off but that may have been a general setting somewhere.

2♥3♣(natural and forcing)
3nt

[jack502]

1♣2♣
2♠4♠



2♣semi positive onesuiter hearts or 5+ spades and a minor
2♠ 15-18 3-4 spades convertable.

[mr1303]

1C 1D
1NT 2C (Keri, forces 2D)
2D 2S (invitational with 4/5 spades)
3S (accepting, 3 spades, not 4333) 4S

[benlessard]

http://bridge.downag...bod=1CP1DP2HP2S

str, H or pts
18-20 with 4H----no fit
3532----4S

[Lord Molyb]

Molybdenum Forcing Pass System:
S ---- N
P --- 1♣ (opening hand, 0-bad 12)
1♥ --- 1♠ (15-18, specifically not GF with 4+ spades)
1NT --- 2♣ (balanced, 5-4 in blacks with at least a few points)
3♠ --- 4♠ (super-accept of spades, signoff)

[Zelandakh]

Lord Molyb, on 2013-February-14, 20:41, said:

1♥ --- 1♠ (15-18, specifically not GF with 4+ spades)

I am finding many of the explanations difficult to follow. For example, does the above mean "4+ spades and less than GF values" or "any hand except a GF with 4+ spades", that is "4+ spades and less than GF values, or any GF hand with fewer than 4 spades". The latter seems to be correct grammatically but logic and the later auction suggests the former. Similarly, the 1♣ response to an opening pass has gone from "forced" to "bad 12 or less". If you want us to follow your auctions then you need to give full disclosure - pretend we are your opponents at the table and have asked about every bid.

[Lord Molyb]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-15, 03:36, said:

I am finding many of the explanations difficult to follow. For example, does the above mean "4+ spades and less than GF values" or "any hand except a GF with 4+ spades", that is "4+ spades and less than GF values, or any GF hand with fewer than 4 spades". The latter seems to be correct grammatically but logic and the later auction suggests the former. Similarly, the 1♣ response to an opening pass has gone from "forced" to "bad 12 or less". If you want us to follow your auctions then you need to give full disclosure - pretend we are your opponents at the table and have asked about every bid.

sorry, 1♣ shows 0-bad 12. There is another bid to show a GF hand (1♠)
Also the delayed one spade bid means that the hand is not GF opposite the 15-18 points partner has shown, with 4 spades.