[MickyB]

This is reposted from rgb. Since writing this I have gone off the idea of a strong club in 3rd or 4th seat because the benefits of limited openings are greatly reduced, and it impacts the ability to make a lead directing bid in either minor. At least I worked out not to suggest a forcing pass in 3rd seat before I posted it! The Hog has replied on rgb saying:

'I would not worry too much about vulnerability, but there is something to be
said for playing Moscito in 1st and 2nd seats and say Standard in 3rd and
4th.'

Here's the original post:

I have been considering which systems are most suitable in different
seats and at different vuls. This is entirely theoretical, at least
until I have practised all the systems thoroughly and have found a
partner as insane as I am! Any additions, comments or criticisms?

1st seat
Favourable vul - you have quite a lot of reason to be preemptive (two
opps and only one partner to preempt). This favours Weak Opening
Systems, Mini NTs, loose preempts. MOSCITO, or even better, a similar
forcing pass system, would be ideal.

Unfavourable - The opps can now interfere aggressively over a strong
bid, destroying our constructive bidding, so a multi-club would seem to
be best. A two-way pass is ruled out by the fert bid being more risky
for less gain. Preempts are also riskier for less gain, so are now
primarily used to show hands that are close to opening (6/7-10 or so).
Multi+Lucas would help resist the temptation to open 1M light,
particularly useful for playing 2/1 GF.

What would you choose for both vul and neither vul?

2nd seat
3rd seat is often well placed to preempt now, as partner has limited
his strength, so a lot of hands he now knows that his side will not
have game. For this reason, it is important to be as descriptive as
possible in one bid. A multi-club system is particularly vulnerable to
this interference, the ambiguity of the multi-club backfiring, making it
completely unsound here IMO. There is also less reason to be
pre-emptive. Maybe MOSCITO/forcing pass at green vul with either strong
NT+5 card majors or Nightmare (1C 15+bal or clubs, or any GF, weak NT,
Precision 2C opener) at other vuls - I believe the latter should handle
interference a lot better than a regular strong club? Constructive
multi+lucas as in 1st unfavourable.

3rd+4th seat
4 card majors, strongish NT (something like 14-16 assuming you open bal
12s but not bal 11s in 1st+2nd), possibly with a strong club+relays at
green vul would seem reasonable. 4 card suits let you make lead
directing bids (particularly when 1C is also natural), and lets you open
a suit and pass partner's response on weak NTs - should a 2/1 require a
5 card suit for this reason? I have Mike Lawrence's Passed Hand Bidding
on order!

Hope someone out there found this interesting!

[pbleighton]

The only thing I have done in this regard is to play 10+-14 NT in the first 3 seats, and 15-17 in the 4th seat. We routinely open 1D/1H/1S with decent 5332s (1C is 2+ clubs, 12-21), so weak NT will fail too often in the 4th seat. This is a system hack, but it seems better to face reality

We have noticed a significant difference in the performance of weak NT vul vs NV (especially in the third seat), but have thus far been unwilling to complicate our bidding by using true variable NT (since vul weak NT isn't not too bad, and still has a lot of benefits), but I can certainly see the point of doing so. The "death score" for weak NT vul isn't -800 or -1100, since it almost never happens, but -200... 1NT-All Pass and then down 2 to prevent the opponent's playing a part score. This is fairly frequent, and totally unavoidable.

As far as light one-of-a-suit openings go, there seems to be a lot less difference vul vs NV than there is with NT - there are a lot fewer death scores to contend with. Missed games and slams due to less precise bidding (or interference over a strong club) do sting more when vul, however.

If I was going to go to the trouble of playing a different system vul vs NV, the NV system would be extremely aggressive, and something I would be unwilling to play when vulnerable - which probably means I couldn't play it in the ACBL

Peter

[Flame]

I think only profesionals should get into this, for non profesionals there is more then enough work to do inorder to get one good system running without making too many mistakes, i can tell you that i love systems, i love making systems, unlike most people i know i like bidding more then play, BUT i can also tell you that the more complex my system is the worse my results are, this is because of bidding mistakes and misunderstanding and imo more importent, i have less of my brain cells avaliable for all the rest of the bridge activities and there is alot to do beside remembering your system.
The adv you will get from having variable system is not even close to the adv you can get by siting down calmer.

[1eyedjack]

MickyB, on May 31 2004, 08:15 PM, said:

What would you choose for both vul and neither vul?

The vulnerability of the (potential) preempter is of greater relevance than that of his opponents. The extent of that relevance may depend also on method of scoring (ie MP v IMP) - a variable omitted from the original spec.

[Gerben47]

I'm no fan of playing two seperate systems at the same time.

Have you considered raising the requirements of the strong club in 3rd and 4th seat?
1C (1st / 2nd) is 15+
1C (3rd / 4th) is 17+

This is more suitable to Magic Diamond, for example I currently play it like this:

1st / 2nd seat:

1C = 13 - 16 any (14 - 17- NT)
1D = 17+ any
1NT = 10+ - 13
Rest = 9 - 12

3rd/4th seat

1C = 16 - 19 any (17 - 20- NT)
1D = 20+ any
1NT = 13+ - 16
Rest = 12 - 15

This way you have your suit opening bids at the top of your frequency distribution at all times.
In 3rd seat your minimum requirements are shaded as a minimum opening bid would have had no game interest opposite anything that justified a pass by partner.
In 4th seat you might pass hands that others open.

Your HCP expectation when others open rule of 20 is:
1st seat: 10.0 HCP
2nd seat: 10.9 HCP
3rd seat: 12.1 HCP
4th seat: 14.7 HCP (15.2 HCP if one previous player opened rule of 19 systematically)

Playing an agressive strong club system, 50% of your 4th seat opening bids will be 1C (as your average will be even above 15.2 since both partner and 3rd seat might've violated rule of 20).
That can't be right.

[MickyB]

Ooooh yes, I completely forgot about scoring...although I've probably suggested playing enough systems already Thanks for the replies. I realise that actually playing that many systems isn't a good idea (well, not good for results anyway)! I was more interested in the theory, and possibly, as Ron suggested, picking 2 different systems to play. I was also interested to see if anyone would agree with my statement that multi-clubs are unsound except in first seat, but no-one has yet done so, guess I'll just experiment next time I get a few boards against some WJ opps

Cheers everyone!

[hrothgar]

MickyB, on Jun 2 2004, 09:35 PM, said:

Ooooh yes, I completely forgot about scoring...although I've probably suggested playing enough systems already Thanks for the replies. I realise that actually playing that many systems isn't a good idea (well, not good for results anyway)! I was more interested in the theory, and possibly, as Ron suggested, picking 2 different systems to play. I was also interested to see if anyone would agree with my statement that multi-clubs are unsound except in first seat, but no-one has yet done so, guess I'll just experiment next time I get a few boards against some WJ opps 

Cheers everyone!

Comment 1:

In my experience, most pairs play different systems in different seats. Most pairs, play CLOSELY related systems, however, I don't know many pairs who apply the same standards for a third seat opening as they do for a fourth seat openings. Bids like fit jumps in 3rd/4th seat and, of course, drury further reinforce this point. I'll note in passing that Gerben professes to be playing a single system (Magic Diamond) in all seats. However, Magic Diamond has systemized two different systems under a single name. I used to play Magic Diamond. The 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th seat opening strucutres are sufficiently distinct as to consistute separate systems.

Comment 2:

I prefer to play very light opening styles in 1st/2nd seat, combined with a more sound style in 3rd/4th. My preference is MOSCITO in 1st/2nd and Blue Club in 3rd/4th. This style is very much the opposite of traditional theories which preach sound initial action in 1st/2nd while lightening up in 3rd/4th.

[mishovnbg]

I am used to play long time 2 different systems varied by vul. 15 years ago it was ROMEX in vul and Lambda (strong pass system) in NV. I also now played french major in vul, precision in NV and varied by position and vul NT.
My opinion: yes, you have advantages, but no, you pay more than you gain for sure. I have good memory and can play very complicate systems, like one we play with Ben . But I am not a computer and complicate agreements lead to mistakes more often, than gains from opps ones. The really wining system need to be also enough simple, because people's reserves are not unlimited. My main work in bidding theory is finding of wining workable versions of meta agreements, but most of time it is like invention of perpetuum mobile
Misho

[Gerben47]

It depends how you count, of course. Even in standard bidding you might be playing at least 3 different "systems".

For most pairs there are hands a) and such that:

In 1st seat you open but not a).
In 3rd seat you open both
In 4th seat you open a) but not .

This is probably a good exercise trying to think of hands a) and with your partner.

I would also count the original MagicD as two different systems. However, the way I play it (with the point range shifted two point upwards) I'm basically doing what everyone else does in a natural system so I would count this as one system. After two passes the 1C and 1D as I play it are very nice, after three passes they are great. And it saves you the trouble of learning the 2nd Magic Diamond system for 3rd and 4th seat. (Note that on my website the ranges are somewhat different. I'm still not sure what range I like best).

[keylime]

If memory serves, on USA II, Landen-Pratap (don't even ask me to speek Prat's last name, it's a doozy), use a dual system method based on vulnerability. They don't have a unusually specialized opening to show a strong hand, outside of 2♣. They just want to open what most overcall normally. It's not overally complicated - very Cranelike in getting in and out and on with it.

The lovely Mrs. and I have experimented with dual systems ourselves - strong diamond at unfavorable vul, precision at favorable/equal vul. The memory strain was so bad that it got dropped after three weeks. At least it helped us during that swiss event where our teammates just had it rough - couldn't find their way out of a paper bag...

[Gerben47]

Brink - Oltmans played a 2-system method in the Dutch top teams league.
Vulnerable they played what most played: Dutch Doubleton, but not vulnerable they played... OltBrink.

2-level bids were FORCED weak bids with 0 - 7 HCP, so pass shows 8 - 11 ish, 1C was 16+, 1D could be anything without 5card M.
In 3rd and 4th responding to the 8 - 11 pass...