[foobar]

The idea of 1♣ - 1♠ as 0-4 appears to be fairly popular in some strong ♣ systems (almost all are 15+ I think). Based on my limited experience with it, the 1♠ DN makes it really awkward for opener to describe the hand.

What do folks on the forum think about it? Does it even make sense outside a 15+ ♣ system? What schemes do you employ over 1♣ - 1♠?

[awm]

It's pretty bad on the double-negative hands when compared to a method where they respond 1♦ and opener's 1M rebid is natural and forcing one round. The issue is that you don't have space for opener to show two specific suits at a reasonable level, nor is it easy for responder to introduce a long suit of his own.

For example, say opener has a 1453 shape; if he can rebid 1♥ (natural/forcing) then we find a 4-4 heart fit, and if responder makes a weakness signal opener can then bid 2♦ and we find a fit there too. In comparison over 1♣-1♠ opener is probably bidding 1NT (could get fixed by a transfer to spades or miss a 4-4 heart fit or 5-4 diamond fit to play in 1NT with no entries to dummy) or 2♦ (not so great if responder has short diamonds and four hearts).

There are a few counter-points to this:

1. This is usually a "pick the partscore" issue and not a game issue. A lot of players tend not to focus their efforts on reaching good partscores, figuring that they may as well just stop low and hope for the best. I think this is a good way to lose 5 IMPs with some frequency, but to each their own.
2. While the comparison to "strong club with 1M rebid natural/forcing" looks pretty bad, the comparison to "natural bidding" (where you have either responder passing the opening, or opener starting with 2♣) looks much more even. The comparison to "strong club with 1M rebid natural/non-forcing" also doesn't look as bad.
3. Most people who play this system aren't claiming that their 1♣-1♠ auctions are great -- their claim is more that they gain so much from starting other sequences more cheaply that it's worth having the somewhat bad 1♠ double negative sequences. While I'm personally skeptical of this, it does make the comparison quite a bit more complex and there are potential gains elsewhere in the structure.

[PrecisionL]

We tried various designs in our strong club (16+) system including the 1♠ response as a double negative and gave them all up after just a few months. We really like 1♣ - 1♦ - 1M as 4+ and a one round force as Johnson-Berkowitz introduced over 20 years ago.

In fact we liked that canape approach so much that we gave up 5-cd Majors to make the rest of our system canape (for non 1♣ openings at the 1-level).

The Johnson-Berkowitz notes by Don Varvel first introduced us to this design:

https://web.archive....lub/bc_jb1c.txt

We also tried some 2-way semi-positives transfers to the majors:

1♣ - 1♦ = (a) 0-7 hcp, or (b) 4+ hcp with 4+♥. Responder's cheapest Rebid confirms 0-4 hcp.
1♣ - 1♥ = (4+♠ (0-3♥) and 4+ hcp

Opener accepts transfer with minimum and 3+ card support. Responder passes with the 4-7 hand and bids again if 8+ hcp.

Edit 9/24/24: We gave these ideas up also.

[nullve]

foobar, on 2024-September-20, 22:49, said:

What do folks on the forum think about it? Does it even make sense outside a 15+ ♣ system? What schemes do you employ over 1♣ - 1♠?

I don't play this, but I've looked at 1♦(strong)-1♠(DN OR ?), which is very similar.

I believe a workable scheme would need to look something like

1♣-1♠; ?:

1N: naturalish, but could have a small singleton (void?), even in a major
...P: allowed
...2♣+ = as in a good NT defence with "penalty" X, except also with 5M(332)
2♣+ = as in a good NT defence with (Asptro?) or without (Woolsey?) "penalty" X OR very strong

In greater detail, for example

1N: also with 4M5+m, i.e. shape consistent with a Woolsey X
...P: allowed
...2♣+ = as in Asptro except that 2M-2 includes 5M(332)
2♣+ = as in the 2♣+ part of Woolsey OR very strong

.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2024-September-23, 13:55

[straube]

Feels like we're recycling old stuff. Atul, you and I played this in MOSCITO and SCREAM and 1S DN was just awful. My view is MOSCITO is totally unplayable and SCREAM got smoked when we had our "bidding competition" ages ago, certainly by IMprecision and just about everything else as well.

[nullve]

straube, on 2024-September-23, 15:21, said:

Feels like we're recycling old stuff. Atul, you and I played this in MOSCITO and SCREAM and 1S DN was just awful.

So what did you play over 1♣-1♠?

[straube]

nullve, on 2024-September-23, 16:52, said:

So what did you play over 1♣-1♠?

I don't remember very much of the structure. 2C was Stayman or very strong hands. 2D and 2H were transfers, could be strong as well. Probably 2S was minor suit stayman to begin with.

1N was rebid was something like 17-20 and handled all the 4441s and 5m431s.

Lots of 5-1 major suit fits (either way). Lots of missed 4-4 major suit fits.

I told myself for awhile that we were burying the opponents' fits along with ours. The problem is that having opened, we have the bid until they take that from us, and we have to land somewhere.

IMprecision is just so far better. Even a vanilla 1C-1D (0-7).

[nullve]

straube, on 2024-September-23, 20:31, said:

Lots of 5-1 major suit fits (either way).

That was because of your chosen structure, not because of 1♠ being DN.

[straube]

nullve, on 2024-September-23, 20:44, said:

That was because of your chosen structure, not because of 1♠ being DN.

I'll leave the thread then. I hope your solution works well for you.

[awm]

Suppose we try to work backward and construct some structure over 1♠.

It seems like if you can't play 1NT with (4333) opposite (4333) you're headed for disaster a lot of the time. So most likely you want (4333) openers to rebid 1NT and responders to pass the 1NT rebid.

What about opener's (4432)? Certainly you could require opener to scramble on these hands, but you won't do so well when responder is (4333) and no 4-4 fit surfaces, not to mention that it can be hard to guarantee that you find all 4-4 fits at the two-level. So probably opener is rebidding 1NT with (4432) also and the 1NT rebid is at least somewhat natural.

Does it make sense for opener to rebid 1NT with a small singleton? It seems to me that responder is generally passing with balanced hands, and if opener has 4153 (for example) playing 1NT is quite inferior to a 4-4 spade fit or a 5-3/5-4 diamond fit (and you will often have at least one of those). Rebidding 1NT with this hand also runs into problems when responder has five hearts; sure you can invent some sequence where responder bids 2♣ with five hearts and opener can bid 2♦ to show singleton heart, but this could be 4135 or 3145 or 4153 or 4144 and it's not clear how responder knows what to do with his 5♥-(332) hands.

So it seems like you will run into trouble unless 1NT is really a (semi)-balanced hand. This means all opener's hands with small singletons need to bid 2♣+. You need 2m by opener to show some kind of two-suiter, so opener's one-suited minor hands must always play at the three-level. There are basically two approaches to the 2m bids: either they are natural (showing the bid minor and another suit) which maximises your chance to get out at the two-level but sometimes means you end up playing 2m when you have a better fit in 2M... or they are not natural (say showing a corresponding major) and you cannot play 2m when this is your best fit and are forced to the three-level to play in a minor. Both of these situations are quite inferior to a method where opener can rebid his major at the one-level (you're either missing major suit fits, which could even mean missing games if opener has extra shape... or you're playing a lot of hands at the three-level instead of the two-level). This is in addition to having trouble when opener really has a game force, since all of 1NT,2♣,2♦ show particular shapes.

While there's obviously some amount of flexibility in your choice of follow-ups, it seems like you will run into some problems regardless.

[kwiktrix]

As the individual who probably provoked this thread, here are my thoughts:
1) if the 1D response includes junk hands, you are letting the opponents in the auction cheaply - ESPECIALLY 4th seat - when responder has junk.
2) when responder has balanced junk, unless you have a monster 22+ balanced hand or a strong shapely assortment, you do not want to be declaring. 1N is the response for any balanced hand from 15-21, 2C to find the junk hand’s major (if any - or to show a 2suiter), any other bid to play.
3) its value is not constructive, it is obstructive. More importantly, it allows the other non-GF responses to be semi positives.

[awm]

kwiktrix, on 2024-September-24, 14:00, said:

As the individual who probably provoked this thread, here are my thoughts:
1) if the 1D response includes junk hands, you are letting the opponents in the auction cheaply - ESPECIALLY 4th seat - when responder has junk.
2) when responder has balanced junk, unless you have a monster 22+ balanced hand or a strong shapely assortment, you do not want to be declaring. 1N is the response for any balanced hand from 15-21, 2C to find the junk hand’s major (if any - or to show a 2suiter), any other bid to play.

This isn't really consistent. If you do not want to be declaring, isn't it good to be letting the opponents into the auction? If you shut them out, you'll be declaring...

Of course, it's not really true that you don't want to declare -- you often have around half the values despite the weak response. If you have a fit somewhere it can be your hand for a partial or even a game. You don't really need that much strength; give opener ♠AKxxx ♥x ♦AKxxx ♣Ax and you have good odds for game if partner produces queen-fourth of spades and out. Even opposite ♠xxxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xxx it's a worthwhile game to bid at IMPs (you really just need spades to divide). Hands like this (where you just need four-card support for your major) are not unusual. But it's unpleasant to be forced to play these hands at the three-level when partner has no fit for the major.

kwiktrix, on 2024-September-24, 14:00, said:

3) its value is not constructive, it is obstructive. More importantly, it allows the other non-GF responses to be semi positives.

But who are you obstructing? Opponent in 2nd seat has already passed over a strong club, so he's probably balanced (or really weak). I guess you've kept 4th hand from doubling 1♦ or bidding 1♥ (if he was doing one of those things). But you've also greatly obstructed your own partscore (or light game) auctions if you have a fit, and if you have no fit then keeping 4th hand out could easily come back to bite you.

kwiktrix, on 2024-September-24, 14:00, said:

More importantly, it allows the other non-GF responses to be semi positives.

This last is the one real advantage. But there are other ways to avoid bidding 1♦ on semi-positives that don't come with such a high cost.

[nullve]

awm, on 2024-September-24, 10:39, said:

Does it make sense for opener to rebid 1NT with a small singleton? It seems to me that responder is generally passing with balanced hands, and if opener has 4153 (for example) playing 1NT is quite inferior to a 4-4 spade fit or a 5-3/5-4 diamond fit (and you will often have at least one of those). Rebidding 1NT with this hand also runs into problems when responder has five hearts; sure you can invent some sequence where responder bids 2♣ with five hearts and opener can bid 2♦ to show singleton heart, but this could be 4135 or 3145 or 4153 or 4144 and it's not clear how responder knows what to do with his 5♥-(332) hands.

My example structure was just that: an example structure. (Personally, I'd rather base a structure on my own 2-level preempts / NT defence.) But even then the partnership should be able to land on their feet most of the time with 31(54)/4144/41(53) opposite 5H(332) if playing continuations like

1♣-1♠; 1N-2♣; ?:

P = 6+(!) C (anticipating problems after 1♣-1♠; 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥, say)
2♦ = relay
...2♥: now also with 5H(332) (not just 5H4+m3-S)
2♥ = to play
2♠ = 4144!
...P: certainly with 35(32)
...2N = 2533 (the worst case scenario?)
...3m = to play
(...)

1♣-1♠; 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥; ?:

P = H tolerance
2♠ = 4S5+m1-H
...P = 3 S (e.g. with 35(32))
...2N = pick a minor
...3♣/3♦ = to play
2N: suggesting 3154
3♣: suggesting 3145 (didn't pass 2♣)
(...)

awm, on 2024-September-24, 10:39, said:

So it seems like you will run into trouble unless 1NT is really a (semi)-balanced hand.

That will happen sooner or later, of course.

awm, on 2024-September-24, 10:39, said:

This means all opener's hands with small singletons need to bid 2♣+.

That just doesn't seem to follow.

awm, on 2024-September-24, 10:39, said:

You need 2m by opener to show some kind of two-suiter, so opener's one-suited minor hands must always play at the three-level.

I don't think so. Apart from putting one-suited minor hands in 1N (which I suspect would be my choice with non-GF club one-suiters, btw), one option could be to play

1♣-1♠; 2♣ = 5+M4+OM (as in Woolsey) OR diamond one-suiter OR [something strong],

allowing Opener to pass the 2♦ relay with a non-GF diamond one-suiter.

awm, on 2024-September-24, 10:39, said:

There are basically two approaches to the 2m bids: either they are natural (showing the bid minor and another suit) which maximises your chance to get out at the two-level but sometimes means you end up playing 2m when you have a better fit in 2M... or they are not natural (say showing a corresponding major) and you cannot play 2m when this is your best fit and are forced to the three-level to play in a minor.

Not only do you sometimes end up in 2m with a better fit in 2M, but knowing whether partner has 5 or 6+ m is often critical. And for example in a strong club system where 1♣-1♦; 2m = 6+ m or 5m4Om and it's true that a 6-1 m fit doesn't have to be played at the three-level, Responder has no way of knowing that 2m will not be on a 5-1 fit.

awm, on 2024-September-24, 10:39, said:

Both of these situations are quite inferior to a method where opener can rebid his major at the one-level (you're either missing major suit fits, which could even mean missing games if opener has extra shape... or you're playing a lot of hands at the three-level instead of the two-level). This is in addition to having trouble when opener really has a game force, since all of 1NT,2♣,2♦ show particular shapes.

While there's obviously some amount of flexibility in your choice of follow-ups, it seems like you will run into some problems regardless.

The lack of bidding space will be a problem on very strong hands, maybe more so if 1♣ starts at 15 instead of 17 hcp on balanced hands, since one extra balanced range might have to be covered.

I'm primarily interested in 1♠ DN in a strong diamond context, though, and the idea is that a response structure based on

1♥ = (any?) SP OR ? (then 1N is 17-19 if BAL; stronger hands can force to game)
1♠ = (any?) DN OR ? (then 1N is 17-21 if BAL)

can be used to stay sufficiently low with 20-21 BAL in the absence of a Birthright-style mechanism.

[hrothgar]

Few thoughts here about the use of the 1!C - 1!S double negative in the MOSCITO context.
(For what its worth, I suggested this to Paul Marston and I a likely to blame for his decision to start using this in some late versions of MOSCITO)

The primary impetuous for using the 1!S double negative is that MOSCITO has a very light 1!C club opening.
As such, game forcing responses were (relatively) rare and the 1!C - 1!D auction was badly overloaded.

In particular, there was a bunch of concern that opponents were able to disrupt the bidding after 1!C - 1!D, especially since we hadn't shown values or be able to establish a forcing pass.

As such, we decided to use bids from 1!H --> 2!S to show various types of semi positives, with the primary goal being to clarify length in the majors using relatively natural bidding.

It was understood that the auctions after the double negative would not be things of beauty.

At a meta level, I don't know any people who play strong club because they love the strong club opening. Rather, they want to reap the benefits from the light / limited constructive openings. In much the same way, I don't love auctions after the double negative. Rather, I want to enjoy the benefits fro the semi positive responses.

[foobar]

hrothgar, on 2024-September-25, 06:54, said:

The primary impetuous for using the 1!S double negative is that MOSCITO has a very light 1!C club opening.
As such, game forcing responses were (relatively) rare and the 1!C - 1!D auction was badly overloaded.

In particular, there was a bunch of concern that opponents were able to disrupt the bidding after 1!C - 1!D, especially since we hadn't shown values or be able to establish a forcing pass.

It's a given that a lighter 1♣ will result in an increased frequency of 1♣ openings and 1♦ responses. The corollary is that by extension it also translates into an increase in 4th hand overcalls.

It sounds perfectly logical, but in your experience, has this actually been the case at the table? FWIW, IME playing mostly 16+ ♣, second hand interference is much more frequent compared to after a 1♦ response.

[Zelandakh]

Your old partner straube tried really hard to make 1♠ DN work without imho ever really cracking it. I spent some time on the subject myself and came to the conclusion that it is just a worse method unless you really really need that 1♦ response for something specific, such as reverse relays. In any case, I am fairly sure that straube did the most work on this so my suggestion would be to start by looking up those (very) old threads and collating the best ideas into a new one for review from the usual NNSD suspects.

[foobar]

 Zelandakh, on 2024-September-30, 12:06, said:

Your old partner straube tried really hard to make 1♠ DN work without imho ever really cracking it. I spent some time on the subject myself and came to the conclusion that it is just a worse method unless you really really need that 1♦ response for something specific, such as reverse relays. In any case, I am fairly sure that straube did the most work on this so my suggestion would be to start by looking up those (very) old threads and collating the best ideas into a new one for review from the usual NNSD suspects.

It's great to see you back on the forums. BTW, my opinion about 1♣ - 1♠ hasn't changed, and the thread was an attempt to get a better understanding of the motivation behind the design.

Adam pointed out that one option might be to designate 1♦ as say DN with most of the remaining responses as SP (and F1). This is essentially the IMPrecision 1♦ sans the super-positive, and auctions over 1♣ - 1♦ (DN) are likely to fare better than 1♣ - 1♠ (DN). The downside is that unlike 1♦ (GF), the SPs don't necessarily setup a FP (whether they should, is a different question).

In any case, if 1♦ as GF is a must, we are probably endplayed into using 1♠ as a DN (confirmed by Kurt and Richard).

[effervesce]

After IC - 1S double negative we played (based on Marston's moscito notes)

1S Responses
1S is negative: approximately 0-4HCP, less than 3QP
	1NT = 15-20 balanced/semi-balanced
		2C = Stayman
		2D/H/S/NT = polish-style transfers, non-acceptance is natural
	2C = GF
		2D = balanced
		2H/2S/3C/3D = natural, 5+
		2NT = minors
	2D/2H/2S/3C = polish-style transfers
	2NT = 21-22
		3C = Stayman (after 3C:3D then 4NT = NNF)
		3D/3H = transfers (then 4NT = NNF)
		3S = minor suit Stayman. Only show minor if want to.
		3NT = to play
		4C = aces 0123 then 5C is kings 0123
		4D/4H = transfers, then 4NT = RKC
		4NT = NNF
	3D/3H/3S = NNF
	3NT = to play

Of course, the 1C-1S is crap and its what you pay for playing 1C-1D as GF. You need to make the 1C-1D GF positive and other semipositive bids so good and worth it so much that the opponents want to bid with garbage over your 1C to minimise your losses on 1C-1S.

[foobar]

effervesce, on 2024-October-01, 06:32, said:

Of course, the 1C-1S is crap and its what you pay for playing 1C-1D as GF. You need to make the 1C-1D GF positive and other semipositive bids so good and worth it so much that the opponents want to bid with garbage over your 1C to minimise your losses on 1C-1S.

I am still curious about this assertion. If second hand interferes, everyone is on the same playing field regardless of the 1C opening strength. So, the gains for SPs to offset the losses from 1♣ - 1♠ have to come from auctions that would have previously gone 1♣ - 1♦ (0-9, playing 15+ 1♣).

In your experience, was there significant interference by fourth hand over 1♣ - 1♦? IME with 16+ ♣, second hand tends to be active over 1♣, but fourth hand less so after 1♣ - 1♦.

[effervesce]

Like you said, if the opps will interfere over 1C its a wash.

The comparison in performance is in the uncontested auctions.

You need to compare the performance of traditional precision with the new responses.

The whole point of 1C - 1S as neg is give you extra space to have better pos and semipos auctions, with worse negative auctions.

If you have 1C - 1D as GF then neither of you have described any shape. In my experience, the better the opponents, the more likely they are to bid.

That said, many of them actually make unproductive interference bids like 1H where space is a wash, or even 1D over 1C where you actually have extra space.

The 1C - 1D auctions are extremely good except for the cases where the unbalanced hand is asking the balanced hand.

It would be much better to have a 1C - 1D system where the balanced hand asks the unbalanced hand's shape and strength imho.