[nullve]

From last night:

---

EW were non-BBO robots playing a fairly standard 2/1 system.

How would you bid the EW cards using your system?

[DavidKok]

Realistically:
2♦-(P)-2♥-(P);
P-(P).
Both players might choose to do something different, but realistically this is what I expect would happen at the table.

For most pairs playing a system similar to mine I instead expect to find
P-(P)-1♥-(P);
1NT-(P)-P-(P).

Plenty of other approaches exist that can be more scientific, e.g. playing Kaplan Inversion 5, or my canapé system, or other artificial systems. But I think that's getting off topic rather than being helpful.

If you allow (or mandate) 2m rebids on three that infrequently produces auctions like this. Personally I think this incurs more costs than benefits, but many people disagree. As a final note, wasn't West's system bid over 2♣ an 'impossible 2♠'? I'd consider this a good raise to 3♣, rather than a competitive one.

[apollo1201]

With W being a passed hand (then 1NT is not forcing, right?), there are good arguments to rebid 2C as E:
- W could still have a 11-count
- there could be a better partial to play than 1NT
- our 2nd suit is C which keeps the bidding lower

Even if the changes or finding a good fit are less than if we were 2533, it is probably better to bid (some sim lover can probably confirm😁😁)

W has a reasonable raise especially hoping a 4 cd suit opposite and normal opening strength

So I d also arrive here. Not that I know which contract I d like to play seeing both hands (2S maybe?)

That is the risk of not letting 1NT. Ending up in a 43 fit at the 3 level. If S wanted to balance, we ve lost a huge score.

[mikeh]

This is a nightmare hand for the methods I play. East has to guess at his second turn and so does west.

However: we open virtually al 11 counts which gives east a reason to pass 1N. Yes, they may run diamonds while we catch responder with something like KQx x xxx Kxxxxx. Too bad. No method is perfect: show me your pet method and I’ll show you a hand type that is a nightmare for you.

I’d expect P 1H 1N P in my partnerships. Btw, we treat 1N as that oxymoron: semi forcing. If opener does bid, it’s the same scheme as if the 1N was by an unpassed hand, which is sub optimum since the hands possible for 1N are constrained by the passed hand status and the availability of drury. However, we play a form of Bart and we like that method sufficiently that we feel that we can cope on most hands. For us, 2C could be 4=5=2=2 with a 15 count (we’d never open 1N with that shape…ok…AJxx Jxxxx AQ Ax. Maybe��

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2024-February-21, 14:00, said:

Plenty of other approaches exist that can be more scientific, e.g. playing Kaplan Inversion 5, or my canapé system, or other artificial systems. But I think that's getting off topic rather than being helpful.

No, I'm interested!

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2024-February-21, 13:44, said:

How would you bid the EW cards using your system?

1♥ - 2♣; AP

[pescetom]

I'm mildly surprised that nobody would bid like the robots.
Playing 2/1 with a SF 1NT that is the same auction I would expect with my human partners.

[DavidKok]

nullve, on 2024-February-21, 15:09, said:

No, I'm interested!

I've previously written longer threads about this, and developed the system a lot with the help of others without sharing the results on the forums after each iteration (notably, I've changed things around a bit since this thread, though the core is still the same). The system auction on the example hands would be
P-(P)-1♠*-(P);
P!-(P)

though the (slightly optimistic)
P-(P)-1♠*-(P);
1NT-(P)-2♥*-(P);
2♠-(P)-P-(P)
is also a possibility.

I'll start a new thread (sometime in the next few days) instead of derailing this one further.

[shyams]

My partner and I would probably replicate the bot bidding.

[fuzzyquack]

Contract is reasonable. If on this particular hand we could make 2♠ or 1N while we go down in 3♣, I'm still not willing to mess up my system with Flannery

[helene_t]

Max Hardy would bid
pass-1♥
1♠-2♠

But normal people who don't play Flannery will play 3♣

Edit:
pass-1♥
1NT-pass
is also a reasonable auction in almost any system. Maybe W is a bit heavy in Acol and E a bit heavy in SA, but in Dutch Acol that's what most would bid.

[mw64ahw]

Playing KI5
1♥-1♠ F1
2♦* 4♠ - 2♠

*I use the 2♦ bid as a Multi so may contain some strong hands.

Responder with ♠ and a limit bid bids 2NT to show 4♠ or 55 minors or weak 6+♦. Opener with 4♠ picks a minor and responder passes or corrects using 3♥ to show the strong limit bid and 3♠ to show a weak one.

With ♦ bid 1NT after 1♠ and responder can enquire with 2♣ or pass

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2024-February-21, 15:55, said:

1♥ - 2♣; AP

Why 2♣ ?

WE would bid 1♥-1N if disciplined

1♥-2♦-2♥ if not

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-February-22, 05:14, said:

WE would bid 1♥-1N if disciplined

1♥-2♦-2♥ if not

I would find it very easy to be disciplined here with a misfitting, aceless nine-count. A 2♦ response wouldn't be in the picture for us, playing Acol.

1♥-1NT-Pass would be automatic.

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2024-February-22, 05:59, said:

I would find it very easy to be disciplined here with a misfitting, aceless nine-count. A 2♦ response wouldn't be in the picture for us, playing Acol.

1♥-1NT-Pass would be automatic.

The problem is I play Acol weak NT, partner will pass a balanced 15-16 opposite this, and there are planty of these that will make 3N.

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-February-22, 06:35, said:

The problem is I play Acol weak NT, partner will pass a balanced 15-16 opposite this, and there are planty of these that will make 3N.

I play Acol as well. Yes 3NT might sometimes make opposite a balanced 15-16, but in my experience it is more likely if I have a fitting card in partner's hearts. I would be reluctant to upgrade a nine-count when holding a small singleton in partner's suit.

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2024-February-22, 07:58, said:

I play Acol as well. Yes 3NT might sometimes make opposite a balanced 15-16, but in my experience it is more likely if I have a fitting card in partner's hearts. I would be reluctant to upgrade a nine-count when holding a small singleton in partner's suit.

The problem is that my hand may be worth a lot of tricks, give partner ♦Jx for example, and if partner has put opps off a heart lead, this could play really well when he only has one heart stop. A10xx, Axxx, Jx, AQx for example.

[gszes]

1h 1n 2c AP

Odds of 3c doing anything other than increasing our risk seem minimal. The short heart is NOT an asset for game no aces another downgrade and the spade J iffy at best opposite opener's likely 9+ rounded cards. 3n will sometimes make but that seems like a pretty small target for the increased risk. At IMPS I would probably feel compelled to try 3c as long as it is understood to be a hand with LESS value than the impossible 2s. Make my hand xxx K Axxxx Kxxx and I would bid 2s (over the 2c bid) anytime.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-February-22, 05:14, said:

Why 2♣ ?

WE would bid 1♥-1N if disciplined

1♥-2♦-2♥ if not

I thought people knew my system - 1NT would be weak with 4+ spades, 2♣ is weak with 4+ clubs and 0-3 spades. A 2♦ response is weak with 5+ diamonds and no other 4 card suit (but you can ignore a 4 card suit on freaks with one very long suit, just as you might occasionally skip over a 4 card major in a natural system). None of these weak responses is forcing. Good (INV+) hands without 4+ hearts all start with a 1♠ relay. The aim of the method is to stop as low as possible in some 7+ card fit on weak hands while still allowing for full relays in GF auctions. Play-testing showed that bidding up-the-line was superior to bidding the longer suit first in this specific structure.

[fuzzyquack]

As always, I'm taken aback with so many posts about systems where staying at a low level is possible for particular not-so-fitting a hand. Most of those systems would miss a playable game should E had even more for his bid. If E held something like x, Axxxx, Ax, AQxxx even a slam would be in the picture. E had extras both in HCP and shape, and W gave a relatively strong courtesy raise. There are many hands with trumps splitting 5-1 where 3♣ makes. If the contract goes down, who cares. As a general remark, there is always a cost for any reasonable bidding system yet such cost is far below the cost of a home-cooked system.