[chalks]

I've been playing bridge for quite some time, but only recently started playing competitively. There's a local bridge club that's very active, and I've been playing a lot on BBO. I generally play SAYC to the best of my ability, and would love to learn precision (but haven't found a partner who knows it). That said, I've been toying with trying some new openings, and I'm looking for feedback/someone to try them with online.

I am NOT qualified to be making stuff like this up, as I don't know enough about the history of bridge, or the many different systems already out there. I mainly did this as a thought exercise, and because I was unhappy with the 1 level openings meaning so little in SAYC (or maybe they mean more, and I just don't know). So. I'm really happy with the openings I've come up with instead, but the responses are maybe a little complicated/unhelpful. Also, I haven't taken into account what happens with interference: probably just natural overcalls and/or negative doubles... your standard stuff. Bids marked with * force a response (only marked the first time they appear in this post). Anyways, without further ado, here it is.

Openings:
1 level bids (including nt) show 13+ HCP.
1♣* means you have 4-4 or better count in minors
1♦* means you have 4-4 or better count in majors
1♥ means you have 4-4 or better count in hearts and one minor
1♠ means you have 4-4 or better count in spades and one minor
1nt means your shape is 4-3-3-3

If your partnership is concerned with interference, you open the highest bid possible. with 5♠, 4♣, 4♦, you bid 1♠, not 1♣. If your partnership is concerned with getting the most possible slam tries (see strong hand responses below), you open the lowest bid possible. With 5♠, 4♣, 4♦, you bid 1♣, not 1♠.

stayman is no longer used because it's unlikely that you have a 4 card major. Transfers are used, however (so 2♣ asks for a 2♦ bid).

Weak 2s are still a viable opening, though it may make sense to change it to mean extremely unbalanced hands with 13+ hcp, instead of fewer points. 2♣ would still be strong.

Responses:
if partner has 0-6 hcp and no interference, over minor openings, must bid the smallest possible bid in the implied suit. For example, with 0 hcp:
1♣ p 1♦
1♦ p 1♥
over major openings, you should pass (since opener has at least something in those majors). For example, with 0 hcp:
1♥ p p
1♠ p p

with 6-10 points and suit fit, bid lowest that doesn't show 0hcp:
1♣ p (2♣ or 2♦)
1♥ p (2♥ or 1nt*) (if you want to find the minor, and only have 6-10 hcp, 1nt asks for the minor from the opener. this is NOT a natural 1nt. Without interference, you will probably end up signed off in 2♣ or 2♦)

with 10+ hcp, no suit fit, and you want to invite game, shift into your best suit (5+ cards at minimum with at least one honor) that hasn't been mentioned. Opener should probably respond (though with a weak suit match, could probably just let it ride e.g. with shape 4-4-3-2):
1♣ p (1♥ or 1♠)
1♥ p (1♠)
1♠ p (2♥) (if you have a good minor, then you have a potential suit fit, see below.)

with 10+ hcp, suit fit, and want to invite game jump in matched suit.
1♣ p (3♣ or 2♦)
1♥ p (3♥ or 2nt*) (2nt forcing a minor response as 1nt does above)

with a very strong hand, no suit fit, and want to force game, jump into non implied suit that is your best. This denies both implied suits from the opening. Over 1c, you are saying you have no minors. Over a major, you are saying "all I have is the other major". Your partner MUST respond to this, so you both get a chance to correct to desired suit:
1♣ p (2♥* or 2♠*)
1♥ p (2♠*)
1♠ p (3♥*) (if you have a good minor, then you have a potential suit fit, see below.)

with a very strong hand, suit fit, and want to force game, jump into game, or nt:
1♣ p (5♣ or 5♦ or 3nt)
1♥ p (4♥ or 3nt) (to these particular 3nt bids, partner is forced to show minor if partnership agrees, or if they'd rather not force, partner can choose whether to show minor or leave in nt)

with a very strong hand, suit fit, and want to invite slam, jump into 1 below game (allowing blackwood, jumping straight to game precludes it):
1♣ p (4♣ or 4♦)
1h p (3♥) (yes, this means it's difficult to invite slam with strong minors. your best bet would be to bid 3nt)

I'm not sure about all the responses. It's a tad complicated. However, it does get a LOT of information about your hand out there, and I think it covers a lot of the possible hand shapes. I think it might be difficult to get into a nt bid with this, but I'm not sure. Also, with interference, I think you would just bid naturally. Also also, I think you could probably leave your responses to be as they naturally would using sayc, and you could still do very well. It's the openings that I like most.


So. What do you think? Would anyone be interested in trying this system with me? If not, based on this post, is there a system already out there that you think would make me happy? Thanks.

[rbforster]

It seems ok, but I can think of at least 3 issues:

1. You seem to have overlooked 5332 shape - there is no opening for this. Maybe NT?

2. What are you doing with strong balanced hands too weak to open 2♣? If you bid either 1N or 2N, so is that 1N 13-15 and 2N 19-21, then what do you do with 16-18? Or do you just pass 13-15 balanced, and open 16-18 1N and 19-21 2N? Weird but possible I guess, although I wouldn't want to be passing 5M332 hands with 15 counts.

3. Your 1M openers are going to be ambiguous with respect to the longer suit (major vs minor), which means you'll have a hard time playing in the right part score sometimes. 1♥ is opened on x4x6 and also x6x4, and there isn't space to separate these if partner makes a cheap 1N response.

[Cascade]

rbforster, on 2011-December-03, 15:00, said:

1. You seem to have overlooked 5332 shape - there is no opening for this. Maybe NT?

Not to mention more extreme single suiters.

[chalks]

rbforster, on 2011-December-03, 15:00, said:

1. You seem to have overlooked 5332 shape - there is no opening for this. Maybe NT?

I did miss that. I think that shape would be reasonable to leave open to declarer: NT for no clear strong suit, 1♣ or 1♦ otherwise, and correct to 5 card suit (as those both require your partner to respond). This means those two openings are a little more forgiving in their requirements.

rbforster, on 2011-December-03, 15:00, said:

2. What are you doing with strong balanced hands too weak to open 2♣? If you bid either 1N or 2N, so is that 1N 13-15 and 2N 19-21, then what do you do with 16-18? Or do you just pass 13-15 balanced, and open 16-18 1N and 19-21 2N? Weird but possible I guess, although I wouldn't want to be passing 5M332 hands with 15 counts.

very good point, the gap there is troublesome. Maybe use a 1♣/1♦ open (for same reason as above) and jump into suit to show strength?

rbforster, on 2011-December-03, 15:00, said:

3. Your 1M openers are going to be ambiguous with respect to the longer suit (major vs minor), which means you'll have a hard time playing in the right part score sometimes. 1♥ is opened on x4x6 and also x6x4, and there isn't space to separate these if partner makes a cheap 1N response.

I thought about that, and I think there are a few solutions. You could make the openers minor answer be forcing (which would put you into 3 level at minimum, which could be disastrous). You could say that the 1nt bid from responder is stronger than 6-10, and then the previous option would be more palatable. Or maybe if opener has a x6x4 shape, they just bid the major instead of answering. Again, this could be bad, but probably not as bad as getting to the 3 level.

I think the best option for that, however, would be to modify a major opening to always mean primary strength in the major. You lose out on being able to easily show strength in a single minor. You could take 2c and 2d to show that, but then you lose a preempt and your strong 2c. hrmm.


Thank you for pointing those things out.


edit: and yes, extreme single suiters seem to be a difficulty. Not sure how I would handle those.

[fromageGB]

As your ideas are off-beat, and gappy in their coverage, you may find it difficult to get anyone to attempt them with you. If you are not happy with SAYC major openings, then there is probably no hope for you unless you learn a "standard" system like precision from a book, then look for partners in that.

If you are OK with the majors, but dislike the lack of meaning of the openings of one of a minor, then try transfer walsh. This can be a big improvement. The trouble with that is that there are many flavours and treatments, so if you find a partner willing to show you the ropes, best to initially learn and try his methods, then - if you are happy with the partnership - maybe try other flavours together by agreement.

But I strongly think you need a face to face partner at the local club who will learn with you, as discussion is vital.

[chalks]

fromageGB, on 2011-December-03, 15:58, said:

As your ideas are off-beat, and gappy in their coverage, you may find it difficult to get anyone to attempt them with you. If you are not happy with SAYC major openings, then there is probably no hope for you unless you learn a "standard" system like precision from a book, then look for partners in that.

As I said, I'm by no means qualified to be making up stuff like this. I find it very helpful to try, however, as it forces into my head a better appreciation of the wide variety of hands possible. Helps keep me clear headed when bidding out in the wild.

fromageGB, on 2011-December-03, 15:58, said:

If you are OK with the majors, but dislike the lack of meaning of the openings of one of a minor, then try transfer walsh. This can be a big improvement. The trouble with that is that there are many flavours and treatments, so if you find a partner willing to show you the ropes, best to initially learn and try his methods, then - if you are happy with the partnership - maybe try other flavours together by agreement.

But I strongly think you need a face to face partner at the local club who will learn with you, as discussion is vital.

Transfer walsh is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, thank you! Also, luckily for me, there's a very active club less than a few miles from my house that meets 4(!) times a week. I'm sure someone there would be able to help.

[Cascade]

chalks, on 2011-December-03, 15:27, said:

edit: and yes, extreme single suiters seem to be a difficulty. Not sure how I would handle those.

I wouldn't normally think of 6322, 6331, 7222, 7321 as extreme.

[blackshoe]

It's good to see someone take the bull by the horns and try to improve his bidding system.

You might try to find a partner who's willing to learn Precision along with you. Get a book (a copy for each), read it, sit down and discuss it and make up system cards, try it. For most books (I'd recommend Berkowitz-Manley Precision Today) just start with the early chapters. Add the more complicated stuff in later chapters after you're comfortable with the system.

An alternative route: switch to 2/1 GF (say from Hardy's last two books, Modern Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century and Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century) and then, or perhaps instead of the advanced book, give Romex a try (start with Godfrey's Bridge Challenge (GBC) and then Bid To Win, Play For Pleasure). You'll probably see some negative opinions of this idea: Romex has been around a long time, and acquired an early reputation for being very complicated. It need not be, though, and GBC leaves out most of the complications. It's basically a 2/1 system with limited (to 18 HCP) opening suit bids and four (count 'em! ) strong openings. I wouldn't jump into it right away — you need a good grounding in 2/1 first IMO).

[Fluffy]

If you even try this you will soon realice that your 1NT opening is never coming, and that you ahve to make it just a regualr balanced hand with whatever range you like, droping the 4333 to 1♣.

Your 2 level openings will have to contain the 6 card suit hands.