[ArtK78]

One more agreement that bears mentioning.

My regular partner and I have agreed that 3 of a minor preempts in 1st & 2nd seats have suits headed by AQ or AK or better. While this limits the number of hands that we can open 3 of a minor, when we do open 3 of a minor it is great for offense and defense both.

And, once you get used to it, you find that opening 3 of a minor is overrated.

I am told that this is a treatment devised by Barry Crane.

[32519]

Mbodell, on 2013-April-18, 01:03, said:

10-12 nt.There are obviously a lot of impacts to this, and it fits better into a strong club framework IMHO, but I feel like this is a huge overall winner at my level.

CamHenry, on 2013-April-18, 02:02, said:

9-11 NT for me! Again, this is in a strong minor framework, but it means that your third seat 1NT can be 9-15 because you're not likely to be missing game (as a shapely 8-count would already have opened in first seat). The looks of consternation when you announce (or alert, or whatever; depending on jurisdiction) your 1NT range are classic.

paulg, on 2013-April-18, 02:14, said:

As I've said before, our team mates rake in the points with their weak notrump when playing in the ACBL. A big factor is that even good players seem unable to take a penalty when they should, mainly because they double too light.

Lord Molyb, on 2013-April-18, 19:22, said:

Really? Our 10-13 NT has only been average so far

GreenMan, on 2013-April-18, 19:35, said:

Years ago my regular partner and I installed the 10-12 1NT. The first tournament event we played in, it came up a number of times and we finished first. Then it rarely came up again and we had so-so results thenceforth.

ArtK78, on 2013-April-19, 12:27, said:

+1Been playing this for years with one partner. Many good results, few bad ones. And some of the bad ones are when we are not content to let the opening bid do the work for us and we try to improve the contract.By the way, I play the 10-12 1NT in the context of a light-opening but otherwise Standard system.

What does your continuation bidding structure look like after opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT?
1. Do you even bother looking for a 4-card major suit fit? If yes, then what route do you follow?
2. Any 2-level bid by responder is to play? Or is it forcing for 1-round?
3. Does the 10-12 HCP range forbid the possession of a 5-card suit?

Maybe I'll give this a try as well?

[WellSpyder]

Phil, on 2013-April-19, 09:49, said:

We sit across the table from one another don't say anything.

Very unusual and it rakes in good results.

PhilKing, on 2013-April-19, 10:50, said:

It's a common agreement - it's just unusual to stick to it.

But what is your real partnership agreement if you don't stick to your formal agreement?? Another tricky problem for the TDs to sort out.....

FWIW, this is one agreement I've been trying to get incorporated into our system for years, but partner seems reluctant to agree to it for some reason.

[fromageGB]

Not unusual, but not "standard" : transfers. After opposition overcall in suit or NT, response to 1♣, etc.
Slightly unusual: some transfer walsh responses/continuations ; a shortage 1♦ opening (6 card or shortage elsewhere).

[CamHenry]

32519, on 2013-April-22, 04:35, said:

What does your continuation bidding structure look like after opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT?
1. Do you even bother looking for a 4-card major suit fit? If yes, then what route do you follow?
2. Any 2-level bid by responder is to play? Or is it forcing for 1-round?
3. Does the 10-12 HCP range forbid the possession of a 5-card suit?

Maybe I'll give this a try as well?

1/2: a lot depends on whether responder is a passed hand or not. If passed, all bids are natural and to play. If unpassed, we play:
2♣ = 5-card Puppet-ish (including weak takeout in a minor)
2♦/2♥ = transfers
2♠ = range enquiry or GF+ ♣ (opener rebids 2N min, 3♣ max)
2N = ♦ transfer (3♣ superaccept)
3♣/3♦ = semi-running suit

However, we rarely transfer with 7HCP and a 5-card suit: the transfer is very weak or inv+, unless it has extra trumps. We also play compulsory super-accepts. As Art says, once you've opened a super-light 1NT, you should rarely try to find a better partscore.

3: no, we can have a 5-card major (due to our 2♣ response structure), and responder can show 5-3 majors with a GF hand, so we rarely play the "wrong" game when appropriate. Every now and again I'll open a 9-11 NT on xx/xx/xxx/AKQxxx, and it's even more satisfying on a 9-15.

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2013-April-22, 04:35, said:

What does your continuation bidding structure look like after opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT?

If you are serious about playing a mini NT then the ETM response structure is very good...but also a lot of work. You can play a Stayman + transfer method but it does not get the most out of the pressure the opening bid generates. Especially at Pairs, it is often more important to get to a playable spot quickly than to get to the best contract, since a large proportion of the deals will be part-score scraps. That means that apparently very simple and rustic methods can turn out to be highly effective.

[lalldonn]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-19, 12:42, said:

One more agreement that bears mentioning.

My regular partner and I have agreed that 3 of a minor preempts in 1st & 2nd seats have suits headed by AQ or AK or better. While this limits the number of hands that we can open 3 of a minor, when we do open 3 of a minor it is great for offense and defense both.

And, once you get used to it, you find that opening 3 of a minor is overrated.

I am told that this is a treatment devised by Barry Crane.

That's where we should get our advice about preempting style. From 50 years ago.

[aguahombre]

lalldonn, on 2013-April-22, 09:29, said:

That's where we should get our advice about preempting style. From 50 years ago.

Perhaps not. But including it as an unusual agreement which has proved beneficial to the poster might be appropriate to this thread.

My unusual agreement was not intended as advice, nor even useful to others who have different structures. Pard and I take some of our ideas from the oldies as well; some of them are now unusual, but we haven't discarded them because they still fit nicely.

With regard to preempting style, the ancient ideas about relative suit quality, outside stuff, and attention to vulnerability still have merit. In particular they seem to allow partner/advancer to make more informed decisions.

[ArtK78]

lalldonn, on 2013-April-22, 09:29, said:

That's where we should get our advice about preempting style. From 50 years ago.

It is my understanding that Barry Crane believed that preempting 3 of a minor was not very productive, so he chose to use this treatment, which he considered an improvement.

I wouldn't dismiss a treatment devised by the best matchpoint player of all time. And, as they used to say in the old Alka-Seltzer commercial, "Try it, you'll like it!" Of course, you may then decide as the customer did, "I tried it. I thought I was going to die!"

[CSGibson]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-22, 11:31, said:

It is my understanding that Barry Crane believed that preempting 3 of a minor was not very productive, so he chose to use this treatment, which he considered an improvement.

I wouldn't dismiss a treatment devised by the best matchpoint player of all time. And, as they used to say in the old Alka-Seltzer commercial, "Try it, you'll like it!" Of course, you may then decide as the customer did, "I tried it. I thought I was going to die!"

Did Barry Crane play in an era before lebensohl defenses to weak 2 bids were popular?

The reason I ask is that I find 3m preempts more effective than any 2 level preempts, precisely because they do take away lebensohl, and I am unwilling to restrict my less effective 2M preempts to that level of constructiveness, so I am fairly sure I would also be unwilling to play 3m preempts that way.

As a caveat, I'm fairly sure that when those preempts come up that you have much better auctions/decisions than your counterpart. My problem comes from the clear path given to opponents on auctions where you are not allowed to preempt.

[32519]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-22, 08:35, said:

If you are serious about playing a mini NT then the ETM response structure is very good...but also a lot of work. You can play a Stayman + transfer method but it does not get the most out of the pressure the opening bid generates. Especially at Pairs, it is often more important to get to a playable spot quickly than to get to the best contract, since a large proportion of the deals will be part-score scraps. That means that apparently very simple and rustic methods can turn out to be highly effective.

Zel, you are the equivalent of a walking bridge encyclopaedia! I won’t even ask how you know about all this stuff.

There is absolutely zero chance that my current F2F partner will put in the effort to play the complex follow up structure in the link you have provided. So I am turning to you for some help in your “simple and rustic” suggestion. Something simple yet effective that doesn’t require much memory load. I am putting the following forward as a starting point –

1NT (10-12 HCP), denies a 5-card major, may contain a 5-card minor
• Pass (no way of improving the contract)
• 2♣ / 2♦ / 2♥ / 2♠ = To play, 5+ card suit
• 2NT = 12-13 HCP, invitational to 3NT, may or may not contain a 4-card major
oooo 3♣ = 12 HCP, 4-cards in both majors (allowing the potentially stronger hand to become declarer in ♥ or ♠) [Reverse Stayman]
oooo 3♦ = 12 HCP, 4-card ♥ suit (allowing the potentially stronger hand to become declarer in ♥) [Reverse Stayman]
oooo 3♥ = 12 HCP, 4-card ♠ suit (allowing the potentially stronger hand to become declarer in ♠) [Reverse Stayman]
oooo 3NT = 12 HCP, to play, no 4-card major
• 3♣ = 14+ HCP, GF, Stayman
oooo [Responses are Transfer Stayman to allow the stronger hand to be declarer]
oooo 3♦ = 4-card ♥ suit
oooo 3♥ = 4-card ♠ suit
oooo 3NT = no 4-card major
oooo 4♣ = 4-cards in both majors, minimum, 10-11 HCP
oooo 4♦ = 4-cards in both majors, maximum, 12 HCP

Please help me to fine tune this.

[Free]

Currently I have the following unusual agreements in 2 different partnerships:
- Wilkosz 2♦ has been great ever since we started playing it. Opps have messed up quite a lot though.
- Trash preempts when NV vs V first seat: 0-7HCP (never a good max) with at least a 5 card suit. Suit quality isn't important, neither is distribution. Works brilliant in my experience.

Still, one of my all time favorites is the MOSCITO 1♠ opening (9-14HCP, 4+♦, can have longer ♣, usually no 4M), combined with the rest of the system ofcourse...

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-22, 11:31, said:

It is my understanding that Barry Crane believed that preempting 3 of a minor was not very productive, so he chose to use this treatment, which he considered an improvement.

I wouldn't dismiss a treatment devised by the best matchpoint player of all time. And, as they used to say in the old Alka-Seltzer commercial, "Try it, you'll like it!" Of course, you may then decide as the customer did, "I tried it. I thought I was going to die!"

I find it incredibly easy to dismiss a decades-old theory formed at a time when the standard of play, and especially the standard of bidding theory, was much lower, especially when it is such an obviously bad one. Sorry there is a reason that the level of bridge is so much higher now, one of which is that bidding theories that haven't held up have been abandoned.

It is also a huge stretch to say he is the best matchpoint player of all time. He might be adjusted for time, but my guess is someone like Meckstroth or Levin is currently better by a substantial margin than he ever was. Calling Crane the best matchpoint player of all time is like calling Schenken the best bridge player of all time, and telling someone they shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Schenken club as a bidding system.

[GreenMan]

rogerclee, on 2013-April-22, 14:33, said:

It is also a huge stretch to say he is the best matchpoint player of all time. He might be adjusted for time, but my guess is someone like Meckstroth or Levin is currently better by a substantial margin than he ever was. Calling Crane the best matchpoint player of all time is like calling Schenken the best bridge player of all time, and telling someone they shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Schenken club as a bidding system.

Meckstroth and Levin, like many of their peers, play matchpoints infrequently, so the evidence for their superiority at that form of scoring is conjectural.

[Cthulhu D]

The biggest obvious winners are going to be preempts and overcalls because they are frequent and the gains are closely linked to the point at which you use the method. For us it is:

2C: Weak with diamonds or some strong hands
2H: Ekrens - Both majors weak (4+/4+)

For bids we can play all the time, these are our biggest winners - the amount of time people go wrong in both auctions is phenomenal, and the annciliarly benefits (the 2C bid frees up 2D for multi at minimal cost, which then frees up 2H for ekrens. I have yet to come up with a good use for 2S). For brown sticker stuff, (1x)-1y: 3-4 cards in the suit bid, 5 cards in an unbid suit is a huge winner against bad pairs in competitions where you can play it, because you can pick off their suit and bad pairs struggle to get back.

The biggest losers we play atm imho are the (1x)-X = 15+ semi balanced power double which results in average or bad results basically every time - the room has overcalled 1NT and then had an auction on firm footing to the normal spot, but you're in a much less certain place and it's tricky to get to the right spot. We've only got +800 once.

I think of the constructive methods we play, 1M-2NT-3C as a minimum opening is a subtle winner every time it comes up. Transfer responses to one club is a less clear winner - 1C-1X-1NT is good, but 1C-1S-?? has had ups and downs. I tend to think it's a plus but the business case is less clear.

[ArtK78]

rogerclee, on 2013-April-22, 14:33, said:

I find it incredibly easy to dismiss a decades-old theory formed at a time when the standard of play, and especially the standard of bidding theory, was much lower, especially when it is such an obviously bad one. Sorry there is a reason that the level of bridge is so much higher now, one of which is that bidding theories that haven't held up have been abandoned.

It is also a huge stretch to say he is the best matchpoint player of all time. He might be adjusted for time, but my guess is someone like Meckstroth or Levin is currently better by a substantial margin than he ever was. Calling Crane the best matchpoint player of all time is like calling Schenken the best bridge player of all time, and telling someone they shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Schenken club as a bidding system.

You speak of the "Crane era" as if it were the dark ages. It was not that long ago. Barry Crane died in 1985 at the age of 57. While this may be before your time, it is not before mine. And bridge in the 80s was not prehistoric by any stretch. We used Stayman and Blackwood and, gasp! even Lebensohl. Sometimes we even gave count.

I remember hearing the story of a player being congratulated for his and his partner's huge game in the final session of a qualifying and final open pairs. The friend assumed this player and his partner had won. The player turned to his friend and said "Not so fast - Barry is in the field." Crane and his partner won by two boards.

There are a lot of Barry Crane stories out there. Unfortunately, I never played against him. I played in a few events that he was in (including one regional pair event that my partner and I won). But, for the most part, he was on the West Coast and I was on the East Coast.

[aguahombre]

He was as gracious to up-and-comers away from the table as he was fierce at the table. The main reason it only took the biggies around ten years to equal his masterpoint holding after his murder was that he could only make it for 2 to 3 days of tournaments because of his occupation with producing/directing things like Mannix and Police Story.

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-22, 19:08, said:

You speak of the "Crane era" as if it were the dark ages. It was not that long ago. Barry Crane died in 1985 at the age of 57. While this may be before your time, it is not before mine. And bridge in the 80s was not prehistoric by any stretch. We used Stayman and Blackwood and, gasp! even Lebensohl. Sometimes we even gave count.

I remember hearing the story of a player being congratulated for his and his partner's huge game in the final session of a qualifying and final open pairs. The friend assumed this player and his partner had won. The player turned to his friend and said "Not so fast - Barry is in the field." Crane and his partner won by two boards.

There are a lot of Barry Crane stories out there. Unfortunately, I never played against him. I played in a few events that he was in (including one regional pair event that my partner and I won). But, for the most part, he was on the West Coast and I was on the East Coast.

So let me be clear that this is your chain of logic:

1) There once was a regional pair game that someone thought he had won, but in reality, Barry Crane won it by 2 boards.
2) You never played a single hand of bridge against Barry Crane in your life. Since so little has been written up about his play (since he did not participate much in high level IMP events, which is mostly what the literature covers), I assume that means that you know very little about how he actually played from either first hand knowledge or from study, and you are simply parroting the glamorization of a huge personality in bridge who met a sensational early end.
3) Therefore Barry Crane is the best matchpoint player of all time.
4) Therefore his weird view about 3m preempts that no top player in the modern game would even remotely agree with is worthy of consideration.

You are also forgetting that Crane preferred his partners to play like robots, that he was fickle and capricious, and that his partners tried their best to please him even when his rules were illogical, since it was the only way to not have Crane steaming and ruining your game, despite superior bridge judgment saying otherwise.

[Siegmund]

Unusual agreements that rake in good results:

With two partners, we don't use Michaels, but instead use cuebids to show otherwise hard-to-bid 4-5 overcalls (1C-2C 4S 5+Red, 1D-2D 4M 5+C, 1H-2H 4S 5+min, plus 1C-2D 4H 5+D and 1D-2H 4S 5+H.) I find we lose very little on the 5-5s by bidding them naturally, and gain a lot from finding 4-4 and even 4-3 fits at the 2-level that nobody else in the room is getting to.

Related to the above, we gain quite a bit any time we use pass-or-correct / paradox methods, whether after cuebids, in our notrump defense, or a few other places, vs. the typical American pair who always asks with 2NT after 1M-2M if he wants to know overcaller's major, always bids 2D over partner's 2C DONT bid if he doesn't like clubs, etc.

My answer would have been Wilkosz in a heartbeat, if I had anywhere except BBO I could legally play it. I dream of living long enough to see it brought back to respectability:)

[Mbodell]

32519, on 2013-April-22, 04:35, said:

What does your continuation bidding structure look like after opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT?
1. Do you even bother looking for a 4-card major suit fit? If yes, then what route do you follow?
2. Any 2-level bid by responder is to play? Or is it forcing for 1-round?
3. Does the 10-12 HCP range forbid the possession of a 5-card suit?

Maybe I'll give this a try as well?

Use your regular system for 1st and 2nd seat. I'm extremely skeptical of anyone who thinks that transfers are a loser due to not putting people under pressure because IME opponents don't use the extra space very well and it helps with our constructive bidding a lot.

Over 3rd and 4th seat (especially if you open light) then just pass unless you have the majors. I play, over 3rd and 4th, that 2♣ is both majors stronger ♥, 2♦ is both majors stronger ♠, 2♥ is both majors equal, and 2♠ is just spades. This is after finding that trying to play 2 red let opponents find their better part scores but playing 1nt just won lots.