DIP: 3rd & 4th Seat Opening Bids

While I prevaricate for a time on valuation methods and stronger responses to the 1NT opening, it seems an ideal opportunity to discuss and outline 3rd and 4th seat strong and intermediate range openings.

In DIP, 4 card major suits openings are emphasised in 1st and 2nd seat.  The as yet undiscussed weak range 2D and 2H openings also emphasise 4 card majors as well.  So, once you get around to opening in 3rd and 4th seat, it is assumed that many possible 4-4 fits with moderate strength or better between the two hands have already been discounted.  Remember, there are some balanced hands in the 10.0 to 11.8 fpc range which will have been passed, but if they contain a major, they can only be 4M333.

The number of hands which would naturally need to relay after an intermediate range opening has also effectively been reduced to nil.  As such, the benefits of transfer style openings in the majors has also largely been lost.  Further, because partner would have opened the majority of 10.0+ fpc count hands, there is little reason to stretch to open.  So somewhat antithetically to normal methods, DIP practitioners should go more conservative in 3rd/4th seat intermediate range openings than “normal” bidders.

With respect to the strong range, there are not too many hands which could easily FG relay opposite a 15.0+ fpc opening.  Whilst there are quite a few semi-POS possibles, there are fewer competitive advantages to be gained from a semi-POS structure, with at least one opponent and possible both already having been silent.  This suggests a possible switch to a more classic 1D ART & NEG, 1H+ FG POS relay structure, opposite a slightly stronger 1C opening (to bring more of responders potential hands into the FG POS picture).

Where does all the above lead to?  A 17.0+ fpc strong 1C opening and mostly natural 11.0 to 16.8 fpc intermediate strength openings.  Also, it is not incumbent to open 11.0 to 12.8 fpc hands if you don’t like the feel of them (which would likely mean in practice not opening if forced to show a bad suit, or to open 1D if you don’t have many of them, 4405 being the worst case scenario).

With 13.0+ fpc, you should always open.  Remember, the “best” hand that partner can come up with after having passed is an 11.8 fpc 5m4m22, so you shouldn’t miss a game if you pass a “bad” 12.8 fpc or worse in 3rd or 4th seat.

Speaking of “bad”, Thomas Andrews describes the ranges between points as follows

• 12.2 fpc::  “a good 12 count”
• 12.4 fpc::  “a very good 12 count”
• 12.6 fpc::  “a very bad 13 count”
• 12.8 fpc:: “a bad 13 count”

This seems a not unreasonable explanation method to adopt, when needed.

There are a few other residual points to consider for the intermediate range openings.  The first is the 1NT opening.  11.0 to 16.8 is clearly too wide a range for this.  As such, BAL hands are split into two ranges:

• 11.0 to 13.8 fpc
• 14.0 to 16.8 fpc

For 3rd and 4th seat openings, one of these BAL hand ranges is opened 1NT and one is slotted into the now slightly catch-all 1D opening.  There are two conflicting theories as to how one might allocate the above.

1. If the opponents are known to be going to compete, it would be better to have the stronger range in 1D:  then partner with diamonds can act, realistically hoping for one of (i) genuine diamonds, or (ii) a strong(ish) hand. However
2. If the opponents might double you for penalties, it would be desirable to have 1NT containing the stronger range:  this reduces the chance of getting in serious trouble.

As is often the case, the solution is a compromise, though a fairly optimal one I believe.  In 3rd seat (when the 4th hand opponent might still be very strong) 1NT gets the 14.0 to 16.8 range and 1D defaults to the 11.0 to 13.8 range.  In 4th seat, when both opponents are known not to be very strong, we try to capture the auction, with 1NT instead getting the 11.0 to 13.8 fpc range.  We put the stronger range into the 1D opening, to get the potential advantages if the opponents compete as discussed above.

Another residual point to consider is what to do with 4D5C hands.  In 1st and 2nd seat, these are put into the 2C opening.  Many other MOSCITO-like relayers would put these in with 1S(=D) but I think that cripples the 1S opening in competition:  4+ diamonds with a median of 6 diamonds is too great a range to handle.  By doing what DIP does, the minor suit showing openings average about 5.8 cards in the shown suit, which I think is quite workable.  However, with the ability to open 1D “sort of” showing diamonds in 3rd/4th seat, I think the balance changes considerably.  So, in 3rd and 4th seat, DIP opens 5C4D hands that are unsuitable for 1NT with 1D.  Consequently, 2C guarantees 6+ clubs, which is of course another good thing in competition.

The final residual point to consider is what to do with the two level pre-empts in 4th seat.  The answer is somewhat like most systems:  don’t have them.  The question is, what to use them for, or more accurately, how to use them to better define other bids.  The current proposition is to use 2D, 2H and 2S to show 14.0 to 16.8 fpc hands with good suits (probably KQxxxx or better).  This means that a same suit rebid of 2D, 2H or 2S either is minimum or doesn’t contain a good suit.  This should stop responder pushing too hard.  As always, there is a conflicting alternative:  play them as minimums, somewhat like Strong WK 2’s (for competitive reasons).  However, in 4th seat, the constructive use is preferred, so strong with good suit it is!

There is a case for making 2D, 2H and 2S similarly constructive in 3rd seat.  However, there is a competing case for maintaining pre-emptive weaponry in 3rd seat as well and currently, that case is deemed more compelling.

Please read the front page which contains the system for the net effect of all the above.  I’ll updating it fairly soon.

Regards, DipBridge.

DIP: 0.2.2

Cogitare, Constituere, Conficere!

Below is the new front page for DIP.  It will contain the system and ideas contained that have been discussed in the blog.  The other posts in the blog will be in reverse chronological order, so the most recent post is the next one down.

Openings Bids (1st/2nd Seat)

• 1♣::  ART, STR, 15.0+ fpc
• 1♦::  4+♥, 10.0 to 14.8 fpc:  inc 4♥5m but not 4♥6+m, inc 4♥4♠, not ♥<♠ unless 4♥5♠4m, not 3433
• 1♥::  4+♠, 10.0 to 14.8 fpc:  inc 4♠5m but not 4♠6+m, inc 5+♠5+♥, ♠>=♥, not 4333
• 1♠::  5+♦, 10.0 to 14.8 fpc:  usually 6+♦ (unless 5+♦4+♣), inc 6+♦4M, not 2254
• 1NT::  BAL, 12.0 to 14.8 fpc:  inc 5m4m22, no M unless 4M333
• 2♣::  5+♣, 10.0 to 14.8 fpc:  usually 6+♣ (unless 5+♣4♦), inc 6+♣4M, not 2245
• 2♦::  4+♠, 6.0 to 9.8 fpc:  long pointed, short round, “Jammer”:  4-5♠, 3-5♦, 3-5 RND, 0-2 O-RND
  
• 2♥::  4+♥, 6.0 to 9.8 fpc:  long round, short pointed, “Jammer”, 4-5♥, 3-5♣, 3-5 PTD, 0-2 O-PTD
• 2♠::  5♠, 6.0 to 9.8 fpc:  5♠332 or 5♠4m22

Openings Bids (3rd Seat)

• 1♣::  ART, STR, 17.0+ fpc
• 1♦::  0+♦, 11.0 to 16.8 fpc:  inc 4♦5♣, if BAL then 11.0 to 13.8 fpc
  
• 1♥::  5+♥, 11.0 to 16.8 fpc: 
  
• 1♠::  5+♠, 11.0 to 16.8 fpc: 
  
• 1NT::  BAL, 14.0 to 16.8 fpc:  not 5M332, inc 5m422
  
• 2♣::  6+♣, 11.0 to 16.8 fpc:  inc 6+♣4M
• 2♦::  4+♦, 0.0 to 10.8 fpc:  long diamond “Jammer”, 4-5♦, 3-5X, 3-5Y, 0-2Z
  
• 2♥::  5-6♥, 0.0 to 10.8 fpc:  6♥322, 5♥332 or 5♥422
• 2♠::  5-6♠, 0.0 to 10.8 fpc:  6♠322, 5♠332 or 5♠422

Openings Bids (4th Seat)

• 1♣::  ART, STR, 17.0+ fpc
• 1♦::  0+♦, 11.0 to 16.8 fpc:  inc 4♦5♣, if BAL then 14.0 to 16.8 fpc
  
• 1♥::  5+♥, 11.0 to 16.8 fpc: 
  
• 1♠::  5+♠, 11.0 to 16.8 fpc: 
  
• 1NT::  BAL, 11.0 to 13.8 fpc:  not 5M332, inc 5m422
  
• 2♣::  6+♣, 11.0 to 16.8 fpc:  inc 6+♣4X
• 2♦::  6+♦, 14.0 to 16.8 fpc:  good suit, usually KQxxxx or better
• 2♥::  6+♥, 14.0 to 16.8 fpc:  good suit, usually KQxxxx or better
• 2♠::  6+♠, 14.0 to 16.8 fpc:  good suit, usually KQxxxx or better

Definitions & Abbreviations

Where possible, definitions will conform to WBF Abbreviations, a copy of which can be found here

http://www16.plala.or.jp/KOKO33/system/abbrevi.html

In addition, there are the following

• fpc:  “Fifths Point Count”:  (A=4.0, K=2.8, Q=1.8, J=1, T=0.4), Note that fcp ≈ hcp = both 40 point decks
• inc:  “Includes”:  normally meaning it includes the subsequent hand shape

Version Control Log

• 0.2.2::  Added in the motto “cogitare, constituere, conficere”
• 0.2.1:: Changed the 2♦ Jammer opening in 3rd seat to guarantee 4-5♦ (rather than 3-5)
• 0.2.0::  Added in weak range openings up to 2♠
• 0.1.0::  Added in 3rd and 4th seat strong and intermediate range openings as described in 30/10/2008 blog.
• 0.0.0::  First version of system using “fpc”:  Earlier information from the blog also included.

DIP: Basic Hand Valuation

I’ve been distracted tangentially recently.

It started because I was thinking about the 1NT response structure:  in particular the invitational sequences.  This got me thinking again about hand valuation.  If it’s applicable in its basic form anywhere, it’s for auctions like 1NT 2NT and 1NT 3NT (or their DIP equivalents).  This led me (back) to the work of Thomas Andrews.  SD assured me his work was significant, and indeed it is.  You can find it, or get to it, from here

http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/mozilla.html

It is his hand evaluation work that is of most interest.  As you know, DIP currently uses ppc (Practical Point Count) valuation, where A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.75 and J=0.75.  It would also be reasonable to name this valuation method “Fourths” (you will see why later, apart from the obvious point that it uses a quarter point granularity of sorts).

Though Andrews cautions with the risks of using his current conclusions (and some of his work is ongoing), I am sufficiently impressed to move DIP across to it now.  Specifically, DIP will adopt his “Fifths” evaluator, where

• A=4.0
• K=2.8
• Q=1.8
• J=1.0
• T=0.4

In DIP, we’ll refer to it as fpc (Fifths Point Count).  Like ppc, it shares a 40 point deck with the classic hcp count, which should make conversions and explanations relatively easy when needed.  Also, I have always found it annoyingly difficult to write 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 in DIP, so am looking forward to being able to simply write “0.8″ or similar where needed.

In time, it may well be that I need to change some of the opening and response ranges to cater for the use of fpc.  We’ll keep them roughly as they currently are, for the present, and cross that bridge when we come to it (that is, after more experience with the method).

I think it is fair to compliment Woolsey as to how close his intuitive thoughts were to Andrews calculated ones, except for the apparent under-weighting of the J.  Scaling “Fifths” to where A=4.5, we see how close Woolsey was (ppc first, then fpc scaled in brackets) …

• A = 4.5 (4.5)
• K = 3 (3.15)
• Q = 1.75 (2.025)
• J = 0.75 (1.125)
• T = n/a (0.45)

Interestingly, Andrews also refers to Martelli’s valuation method (named BUM-RAP) which is geared to suit contracts.  It differs from ppc only in that Q=1.5 and T=0.25.  Nevetheless, I expect with many suit-contract auctions, users of DIP will be going down a different route than simplistic hand-evaluation, so this direction of thinking is not of great short term relevance.

I think I’ll use the change in valuation from ppc to fpc to change this blog’s structure slightly.  I’ll pin the current system, only as far as discussed in the blog, to the front page (and maybe begin a change log).  I’ll then let the current front page go to its “natural” place at the bottom.

Until then!

Regards, DipBridge

DIP: Responding to 1NT [II]

Since writing part [I] of this section, the signifcant other developer has been in touch about it.  I’m going to get sick of writing that term (significant other developer) after a while, so let’s refer to him here on as SD (which is preferable to the obvious alternative).

SD had some good ideas and thoughtful opinions as always.  I’m going to order them in this blog to suit my subsequent purposes, rather than how he sent them to me.  This is because they are somewhat intertwined (though not for reasons that are immediately apparent).  A summary of his ideas, opinions and thoughts is

• Why not switch the proposed treatment for 4H4S INV hands (currently 1NT 2D 2H 2S) with that for 5H INV hands (currently 1NT 2C 2D 2NT)?  SD’s main rationale was so that after 1NT 2D 2H 2S 2NT, responder could then bid 3m with 5m (or concentrated 4m maybe).
• If STAY(man) is to be used over 1NT (and more importantly, 2H to be available as R over 2D showing no M) why not allow 5m4m22 hands into 1NT?  There is sufficient space to do so (but not over 1NT 2S R as I had planned to use some time ago, but discarded).
• Given that if opener has a major he’s 4333, there is minimal concealment advantage when opener is declarer (which SD understands was behind the Scanian rationale for transferring with 4M’s).  So why not reverse the STAY responses, so 2H shows 4=3=3=3 and 2S shows 3=4=3=3?
• Should opener always super-accept a transfer with 4333 shape?  SD thinks maybe not.

SD also had some other comments (puppet-based alternatives, really) which are not directly relevant to what will appear below and won’t appear in this blog.

OK, let me re-state (and mildly re-order) the invitational hand types that we would like to find a home for below their “safety level”.

1. BAL, no M
2. 4S not 4H
3. 4H not 4S
4. 4S & 4H
5. 5S
6. 5H
7. 5S & 4H
8. 4S & 5H
9. 5S & 5H
10. 5H, 4+m
11. 5S, 4+m
12. 5+D (possibly with 4M) or 6+D
13. 5+C (possibly with 4M) or 6+D

This list is expanded from the original, with items 1-8 being the ones under primary consideration.

To repeat, SD’s first idea above was to play 1NT 2D 2H 2S as 5H, INV (swapping the 4S4H hands to 1NT 2C 2D 2NT).  I wasn’t initially a fan – it broke the “2D = 4 or 6 H if INV” rule, for one thing.  So I ruled it out, but then thought about it some more.  The fact that the 1NT can have one major, but not both, gives some interesting properties to STAY-like sequences in DIP.  Doing what SD suggested to achieve the primary desired effect (expression of INV 5H/5m hands) had a powerful side-effect:  all of cases (1) to (4) above could be brought safely into STAY, not just case (4).  On further thought, so could case (7), 5S & 4H.  The reason these 5 cases can be handled by STAY is because all potential 4-4 M fits are cleared up on the first response to STAY.  The only thing left to resolve from cases 1,2,3,4,5 & 7 is whether there is a 5-3+ S fit (and even that is already clear after a 2H 3=4=3=3 or 2S 4=3=3=3 response). I (very much) hope my logic above is sound, otherwise the whole house of cards below will fall apart.  Let’s cross fingers and assume it is.

So, by adopting SD’s suggested change, we have freed up at least four sequences that are safety-level relevant (1NT 2D 2H 2S, 1NT 2D 2H 2NT and 1NT 2H 2S 2NT and 1NT 2S) and only have two cases from the original 2C response that need alternative handling:  (6) 5H, for which we have already allocated a home, and (8) 5H & 4S, which we’ll give to the 1NT 2D 2H 2NT sequence.

So, the sequences 1NT 2H 2S 2NT and 1NT 2S are now freed up.  So what to do with them?  Let’s move to SD’s second suggestion (desire?):  allowing 5m4m22 hands into the 1NT opening.  Always a nice aspiration, my traditional fear has been the damage done to the safety-level of case (9) hands, those with 5S & 5H.  But now, we have an elegant way to deal with them:  1NT 2H 2S 2NT (NF).  I quite like the feel of this, as it is sort of analagous with 1NT 2D 2H 2NT showing H/S hand as described earlier.  So

• DIP can now officially allow 5m4m22 hands into the 1NT opening (with a decision still to be made as to whether to prohibit them from the 1S and 2C openings, with my inclination being “yes”), and
• 1NT 2S can be put to a more specific use.  This is likely to be both minors, of all strength ranges, a variant of what had been planned for it anyway.
• We’ve catered explicitly for cases (1) to (9) above, and cases (10) & (11) can be implicitly handled by responders 3rd round bidding of 3m after one of the three possible 1NT 2X 2Y 2S 2NT auctions

Assuming no logical flaw, we’re looking pretty good.  Case (12) and (13) can and should also be handled via STAY and simply rebidding 3m over the relevant response.  This gets a chance to find the 4-4 M fit on the way through, if relevant.  Finally, over a 2M response to STAY, 3M is INV, 3OM is R.  Note that in 1NT 2C 2S 3S, responder might have 4 or 5 S (if he chooses not to revalue the latter upwards).

So, the overall response structure to 1NT (though not complete) now looks like

• 2C:  STAY (ART FG R or BAL no M INV or 4S &/or 4H INV or 5S maybe with 4H INV or 5+m maybe with 4M INV)
• 2D:  TRF to H (WK H or 5H maybe with 4S INV or 5H with 4+m INV or some other strong hands as yet not spelled out)
• 2H:  TRF to S (WK S or 5S & 5H INV or some other strong hands as yet not spelled out)
• 2S:  both minors, any strength

SD’s third suggestion was to possibly reverse the M responses to STAY.  The short answer is that I don’t think you can and still play the above structure.  There are too many handling issues (basically, not enough bids over 2S=H and too many over 2H=S).  You COULD make it work by also switching the 5S cases with 5H ones wherever they occur, but playing 1NT 2D 2H 2S as showing 5S and not promising H is a bit too rich for me!

The final thought from SD was the merit of forcing a “super-accept” with a 4M333 when there is a 4 card fit to suit shown by TRF.  There is certainly now no compelling requirement to do so (with all the 4M invites moved into STAY) but it still feels right to me.

The above structure now feels right and sits comfortably within the system.  The downside would appear to be a fair bit of work on the 1NT 2C sequence which might be difficult to unscramble if 4th hand competes.  Nevertheless, the fact all WK sequences have been removed gives some latitude in this respect.  There is an argument for playing pass as forcing over some interference to 1NT 2C sequences (maybe at the two and four level)?  This blog is already long enough, so we’ll leave that for another time.

Regards, DipBridge

DIP: Responses to 1NT [I]

Back again.  This post would have been sooner except the responses structure to 1NT (BAL no M, or 4M333) have not been finalised.  Unfortunately, they still haven’t been finalised, but at least the thinking behind the requisite structure is becoming clearer.  As such, I am in a position to partially outline a potential structure.

The decision to include 4M333 hands as well (they now comprise 2 shapes of the 12 possible in the opening) was a fairly late one.  It is amazing how much the possible presence of a major suit complicates the response structure.  Nevertheless, here are some thoughts.

The “safety level” for invitational hands that are not 5+/5+ or 6+ in shape is usually 2NT.  I am going to assume for the present that inviting with invitational hands is regarded as desirable (there is a case for simply forcing to game with such hands, allowing extra space for strain investigation as needed).  If so, one needs to cater for the following invitational hand types at or below 2NT

1. BAL, no M
2. BAL, 4H
3. BAL, 4S
4. BAL, 4H & 4S
5. BAL, 5H
6. BAL, 5S
7. BAL, 5H & 4S
8. BAL, 4H & 5S

I’ve been through quite a few permutations as to how these might be handled.  Originally, I was proposing 2C as a puppet to 2D.  Or more accurately, I was thinking about a structure where each of these 8 types was somehow shown explicitly.  I just couldn’t get it to work* (maybe someone can supply a mathematical proof to show that I couldn’t)!

In a related, but different conversation, I had suggested to the significant other developer that maybe Stayman and Transfers had “had their day” as they were unlikely to have naturally evolved in an optimal form by accident.  Well, that may be true, but I find myself somewhat eating my words with what I’m about to suggest.  I think 2C as STAY(man) is probably going to work best here, but with one slightly unusual caveat:  that if invitational, at least one 5M is promised.  The reason will become apparent.  The responses to STAY are fairly normal (though by definition, more narrow)

• 2D:  no M
• 2H:  3=4=3=3
• 2S:  4=3=3=3 (it is possible that a subsequent version will have 2S:  4=3=3=3 MIN and 2NT:  4=3=3=3 MAX, but until the rest of the structure is complete, it is not yet clear)

Over these responses (and 2D in particular) 2S will show 5S INV and 2NT will show 5H INV.  It should be clear from these continuations and the fact that STAY has already accounted for any 4-4 M fits, that cases 5-8 above can be satisfactorily handled by this method.

The STAY path will also be used by strong hands that wish to R.  I had originally toyed with a direct 2S over 1NT fulfilling this functionality (better when 4th hand intervenes) but

• I need the direct 2S now for something else, and
• The extra step gained by using an indirect 2H rather than a direct 2S as R is quite significant when it gets to control showing.

So, over the 2H 3=4=4=4 and 2S 4=3=3=3, at least one three level bid (yet to be determined) will need to be reserved as control asking R.  Over 2D (no M) then 2H R, the structure will continue

• 2S:  1/S clubs (resolves as for 3C+ below after 2NT R)
• 2NT:  4C & 4D
• 3C:  3=3=4=3
• 3D:  2=3=5=3
• 3H:  3=2=5=3
• 3S:  3=3=5=2, B+2 or greater QP’s (9+ QP’s, i.e. A=3, K=2, Q=1)
• 3NT:  3=3=5=2, Base or B+1 QP’s (i.e. 7 or 8 QP’s, rarely 6, which is counted as “Base”)

You are getting a bit of a taste of the underlying relay structure above

• Low length first
• High shortage first
• Base = MIN(ppc) * 6 / 10, rounded down to the nearest integer (12 * 6 / 10 = 7.2 = 7 in the above case).  Note also that the use of ppc rather than hcp protects a little against B-1 QP hands being in range for the various openings.
• When two steps are available to run on and show QP controls (3S & 3NT), 3NT shows B or B+1, 3S shows the rest (although in some circumstances, 4C+ or 4D+ can be used to show B+4 or better)
• When three or more steps are so available, all steps but the first show B, then B+1 etc.  The first step then shows the rest (see the 4C & 4D example immediately below)

The both minors hands above show controls slightly differently (as they have an extra step).  After 3C R

• 3D:  2=3=4=4
• 3H:  3=2=4=4, B+2 or greater QP’s
• 3S:  3=2=4=4, Base QP’s
• 3NT:  3=2=4=4, B+1 QP’s

I’ll expand more on the resolution and control showing at a later time.  Suffice to say, it is not absolutely optimal and not intended to be.  It is intended to be practical, easy to remember, and nearly optimal.

OK, cases 5-8 from the original list are handled by STAY.  What about cases 1-4?

We handle 3 of the 4 cases by using the transfer mechanism provided by 2D(=H) and 2H(=S).  It is worth noting that if INV strength, these will have a 4M and/or a 6M, but not a 5M.  The relevant sequences are

• 1NT 2D 2H 2S (4H & 4S, INV)
• 1NT 2D 2H 2NT (4H, INV)
• 1NT 2H 2S 2NT (4S, INV)

That deals with cases 2-4.  It is almost certain that opener will be required to super-accept with 4 trumps opposite a transfer.  After this, there is not likely to be re-transfers thereafter (except, maybe, in strong auctions) as there is little advantage to opener being declarer when known to be 4333 shape.

The remaining case, is handled by what is initially a range-asking 2S.  It is almost certain that if showing a MAX, opener will be required to give a minor suit preference, so after 1NT 2S

• 2NT:  MIN
• 3C:  MAX, C >= D
• 3D:  MAX, D> C

I hope you can see where all the above is heading.  I hope I can (sensibly) complete it.

Regards, DipBridge

* remembering that I also needed to have a sensible sequence to allow simple FG relaying

DIP: Responses to 1S

Hi All,

Because the nature of the 1S(=D) opening is quite different from that of the 1R(ed) openings, the placement of the emphasis on the response structure varies as well.  The “Pivot”, however, will be kept:  it’s effectiveness will be reviewed over time.  So the response structure …

• 1NT:  R, much as for the major suit openings (i.e. strong, or moderately strong without clear direction, a 1NT’ish type of hand and maybe some raises)
• 2C:  Puppet to 2D
• 2D:  2D (sometimes 3), little if any game interest
• 2H:  5+H, NNF, <4S
• 2S:  5+S, NNF, <4H
• 2NT:  4+D INV or FG ART SPL
• 3C:  Pass (with 4+C) or Correct
• 3D:  3D (sometime 4), little if any game interest
• 3H:  Fit-showing, 6+H, usually only 3D
• 3S:  Fit-showing, 6+S, usually only 3D
• 3NT:  To play
• 4C:  Fit-showing, 6+C, 3+D
• 4D: PRE
• Game:  To play

It is probably worth noting what is planned for the 5+/4+ both majors hands, Constructive or better.  These will be handled via the 2C pivot.  The full continuation spectrum is still to planned, but

• 1S 2C 2D 2H will show 5+H & 4+S (NF)
• 1S 2C 2D 2S will show 5+S & 4H (NF)

MOSCITO2007, for those interested, handles these directly over 1S and in transfer fashion (2C = 5+S/4+H, 2D=5+H [and presumably possibly 4S], 2H = 5+S).  I prefer the approach chosen for DIP as I prefer NNF rather than transfers where the auction is not definitiely constructive in nature, and, the both major versions are relatively less frequent.  Also, going through the pivot allows the variants with either major longer to be shown explicitly.

There is some case for the pivot initially to be treated as a form of diamond raise (maybe a BAL INV).  In which case, opener would have the option of not bidding 2D if “accepting”, and then taking into account the other possible hand types responder might have and selecting the 2H+ rebid accordingly (and, as is typically the case with auctions of this nature, making the first bid which would have been passed were it responders rebid).

Regards, DipBridge

DIP: Responses to 1H

This blog should be mostly a formality:  the responses to 1H(=S) are mostly analagous to those for 1D(=H).  Without further ado …

• 1S:  R(elay), ART(ificial).  The kinds of hands included are likely to be from one of the following catgories:  (i) Slam Interest, or (ii) FG, but strain not clear, or (iii) INV, but strain not clear, or (iv) INV, with 3S, or (v) a hand that might bid 1NT if were available in it’s natural sense.
• 1NT:  “Pivot”:  A puppet to 2C.  Continuations will include (i) INV with 4-5S, and (ii) INV with a primary suit that isn’t S, and (iii) INV, 5+5+ not S, and probably (iv) a slightly stronger way to bid 2S than directly
• 2C:  5+C, NNF, < INV
• 2D:  5+D, NNF, < INV
• 2H:  5+H, NNF, <INV
• 2S:  3S (sometimes 4S BAL), little if any game interest
• 2NT:  4+S, BAL INV or FG SPL
• 3C:  Fit-showing, NF, 6+C, usually only 3S
• 3D:  Fit-showing, NF, 6+D, usually only 3S
• 3H:  Fit-showing, NF, 6+H, usually only 3S
• 3S:  4S (sometimes 5S BAL), little if any game interest
• 3NT:  4S, BAL, FG
• 4C:  4+S, ART VOID (D or H) SPL
• 4D:  4+S, REV TRF VOID (C) SPL
• Game:  to play (note this includes 4H)

It’s hopefully much the structure expected after seeing the 1D response structure.  It was decided to make 1H 4H natural, which means some fancy footwork on the 4C void splinter (4D R then 4H C void, 4S H void).

Until next time, DipBridge

DIP: Responses to 1D

To my audience (small as it might well be), I’m sorry for the delay in getting this blog done.  It came from reviewing as to how best to use the “Pivot” I alluded to earlier, and in particular, how the overall raise structure may work.

What seems clear is that the first step, the R step, should be for powerful hands, where slam might be possible opposite the right opener, or for more moderate hands, without clear direction and/or something to show.  The 1NT “Pivot” should contain hands unsuitable for the above, which will usually mean they have a clear direction, and are probably not FG.

You had a flavour of what this might be in the previous blog, but here are the basic response to 1D(=H).

• 1H:  R(elay), ART(ificial).  The kinds of hands included are likely to be from one of the following catgories:  (i) Slam Interest, or (ii) FG, but strain not clear, or (iii) INV, but strain not clear, or (iv) INV, with 3H, or (v) a hand that might bid 1NT if available in it’s natural sense.
• 1S:  4+S, F1 (Forcing 1 Round), < INV (about 6 to 11 3/4 ppc)
• 1NT:  “Pivot”:  A puppet to 2C.  Continuations to be fleshed out more fully, but will include (i) INV with 4-5H, and (ii) INV with a primary suit that isn’t H, and (iii) INV, 5+5+ not H, and probably (iv) a slightly stronger way to bid 2H than directly
• 2C:  5+C, NNF, < INV
• 2D:  5+D, NNF, < INV
• 2H:  3H (sometimes 4H BAL), little if any game interest
• 2S:  Fit-showing, NF, 6+S, usually only 3H
• 2NT:  4+H, BAL INV or FG SPL
• 3C:  Fit-showing, NF, 6+C, usually only 3H
• 3D:  it-showing, NF, 6+D, usually only 3H
• 3H:  4H (sometimes 5H BAL), little if any game interest
• 3S: 4+H, REV TRF VOID (D) SPL
• 3NT: 4H, BAL, FG
• 4C: 4+H, REV TRF VOID (S) SPL
• 4D:4+H, REV TRF VOID (C) SPL
• Game:  to play

I expect the above to both (i) flesh out, and (ii) change – once it’s used a bit more in anger.  But, it gives a fair to good indication as to the direction DIP is heading in.

I’ll try to get the 1H response structure out a little more quickly, but it should be quite analagous to the above.

Regards, DipBridge

DIP: Some thoughts on relaying in DIP

Over the next few days, I hope to blog about the responses to the Intermediate range openings.  Before doing so, however, it seems prudent to discuss the DIP philosophy on relaying.

I’m sure most if not all long time proponents of strong club and strong pass systems will tell you that it’s all about the Intermediate range openings, not the Strong range (and the typically associated constructive auctions, including Symmetric Relay based ones).  The only time I suspect this may not have been true was the 60’s and 70’s (Neapolitan, Roman, Blue and Precision Clubs) when people were fairly respectful of the Strong 1C openings.  Certainly, if the above is the consensus view, I share it.

When I first came across FPR (Forcing Pass Relay) people used to relay up to S+2 or S+3 over interference, that is, they still continue relaying even when they had lost 2, or even 3, steps.  I imagine many still do so.  I come from the almost the opposite school of thought.  When the opposition interfere, and show a suit, or even strongly imply a suit, I don’t want to relay at all.  Further, even if they don’t show a suit, if they cost us any steps at all, I don’t want to relay (remember, the D structure opposite 1C is already up one step from S).  What do I mean by not showing a suit?  Well, there’s CRASH (Colour/Rank/Shape) but there’s also the kind of stuff I used to play against a forcing pass in my youth:  like a 1S fert over a strong pass, for example!

The significant other developer of DIP doesn’t completely share my views on relays in competition, but, for the present at least, is deferring to my preferences in this regard.

The reason I started the above from the end (i.e. relays in competition) rather than the beginning is that my thinking on relay use and optimisation pervades purely constructive auctions as well.  You have already seen an example of this with the decision to include direct semi-POS and transfer captaincy POS bids opposite 1C:  not optimal from a relay perspective.  The former are good, however, in competitive and fast-arrival auctions, and the latter more effective at determining the correct strain for game (if occasionally less effective at getting to a good slam).

Moving on to what is coming up in this blog, the same sort of thinking is applicable to the relay responses to the Intermediate strength openings (1D, 1H, 1S, 1NT & 2C).  DIP has largley adopted the ideas I first saw in MOSCITO2007, namely

• Allowing responders step R response to contain the kind of stuff you would expect (some INV hands without clear direction and almost all FG hands) but also what would have been a normal 1NT response
• As a consequence, the first round rebids by the intermediate strength opener are largely NAT, to cater for the “1NT” type hand and facilitate a pass by responder

This doesn’t hurt the subsequent relay structure too much, but it would be disingenuous to say it had no cost at all.

No longer needing to bid 1NT with the 1NT type hand obviously frees up an extra low-level bid.  To take 1D(=H) as an example, with 1H now R and including the 1NT type hands, you now have 1S, 1NT, 2C, 2D, 2H, that is, 5 bids at or below 2 of the shown suit.  It would be entirely normal to pre-allocate four of these:  one to a raise, and three to show the other suits (whether naturally, or via some sort of transfer).  The questions are, how to best use the valuable extra bid that has been freed up and whether to play transfers or natural to show the other suits?  Some obvious candidate answers for the former question

• As an extra raise, that is a stronger raise to 2 of the suit.  This is what MOSCITO2007 does IIRC (with 2D being a stronger way to get to 2H over 1D)
• As an explicit game force relay
• Some sort of puppet/Lebensohl’ish type structure

In a previous life, I’ve played the latter method in a slightly different system, and found it useful.  I plan also to use it in DIP in the first instance.  It also fits in quite well with NNF type responses in the other three suits, which I have a slight preference for over transfer responses (the latter obviously being more effective when a highly constructive auction would be useful, but less frequent and hence effective in this scenario IMO).

So, to give you a partial flavour of what is coming up, over 1D(=H)

• 1H:  R, either (i) ART, FG, or (ii) INV no primary support, or (iii) 1NT type hand
• 1S:  4+S, NNF
• 1NT:  “Puppet” to 2C, typically some form of discrete INV hand-type
• 2C:  5+C, NNF
• 2D:  5+C, NNF
• 2H: 3H, NNF

You’ll see the above principles in broader action shortly.

I suppose the final thing to say is that including the 1NT hand types in th R response is also not without cost.  It would not have been unreasonable, in their absence, to have the R response set up some sort of Forcing Pass type auction over interference, at some levels at least (e.g 2 and 4).  The inclusion of the 1NT hand type makes this impractical, so, it’s take-out doubles in competition as high as you want to play them (up to and including 4H is my preference) and transferable value doubles thereafter.

Regards, DipBridge

DIP: Other responses to 1C

Just a shortish blog today (I hope).

To round off the responses to 1C, we now deal with 3C+.

There are a set of hands where the nature of the hand (solid and semi-solid suits) has a higher probability of being more important to get across (first at least) than exact shape.  We deal with these using bids from 3C+.  The responses to 1C are as follows

• 3C:  POS, ART, any solid suit
• 3D:  semi-POS, semi-SOL hearts
• 3H:  semi-POS, semi-SOL spades
• 3S:  semi-POS, semi-SOL clubs
• 3NT:  semi-POS, semi-SOL diamonds

There are probably some sensible uses for 4C+ (I’m open to suggestions) but I’m not going to worry too much about them for the present.

As this is a fairly short blog so far, I’ll touch on my current ideas on continuations after the above.  After 1C 3C(=any SOL POS), then

• 3D:  “I know your suit, tell me your shortage?” – resolve as normal, up 3 steps, specific control showing ignores the known suit
• 3H:  “I can’t determine your suit, tell me what it is?” – 3S=C, 3NT=D, 4C=H, 4D=S, 4H+ D but stronger than 3NT and not wanting to risk a pass
• 3S:  “I know your suit, do you have extra length?” – 3NT = 6, 4C = 7 etc
• 3NT:  To play, suggests a minimum and that the suit is known
• 4C:  ?
• 4D:  ?
• 4H+:  strong suggestion to play – “I either know your suit or don’t care”

As always, open to suggestions for 4C and 4D above.

For the semi-SOL, semi-POS’s, my thoughts were game (any strain) or bid of the shown suit – to play, otherwise, analagous to the SOL stuff, that is first step normal relay, second step asking extra length (remember, the suit is known, so that step is not needed).

As an aside, I first saw the “I know your suit, tell me …” when some Scandanavians were in Challenge the Champs in The Bridge World, sometime in 1997 (maybe it was Fallenius and Nilsland).  They also used 3C over their 1C opening to show a SOL suit, however, they played 3H as that option.  I’m unfamiliar with the rest of their structure, so I can’t tell you if their use for 3D was better, but it seems to me that opener will more often than not know what suit responder has, so the cheapest bid should cater for that possibility if it doesn’t otherwise obstruct the method.  I don’t believe that what I am proposing for DIP does so obstruct:  if you have to ask, only the major suits (or a very strong D hand) force past 3NT.  That’s no problem for the majors, you can play 4M, only losing out on the reasonably rare occasions when you didn’t merely like, but needed to play 3NT (this may be a little different at MPs, but DIP is geared to IMPs).

That’s it for today.

Regards, DipBridge