[TomReynold]

Both of your statements are correct.

In fact, it appears that almost all 24HCP games were bid in the semifinals USA2-Sweden. However, in system building a weak notrump and 4 card major approach with a forcing club, it appears that bidding 24HCP NT games is a requirement. There is no other convenient way to sort out openers rebids. Playing 4 card majors, it seems a requirement to have a relatively light 2/1 structure. We looked at using 1NT as forcing on a 5 card major but that requires opener to bid on hands that belong in 1NT. We tried many structures. In Neapolitan 2/1 was level forcing to 2 NT. However, in Neapolitan we did not open 11HCP semi-balanced hands with a 5 card major that we now feel we need to open. If you do open 11HCP 5 card major hands and bid 2/1 with 10HCP, it appears that 1H/s-2C-2H/s needs to be non-forcing to equalize the 1H/s(5)-1NT(forcing)-2C-2Hs-P auction of 2/1 bidders. If 1Hs-2C-2H/s is NF, opener needs to do something else with 14HCP. That creates a game force.

I suspect that not much is unique to Mavarako or any other system. What I am showing is an approach that gets to the 2 level with the HCPs range reasonably defined but the trump fit not defined. Opener's double announces BOTH 14-15HCP AND 4 hearts. A pass confirms 5 hearts in opener's hand. Essentially responder knows the trump fit AFTER the balance. I agree this is not unique. This is actually from 50's Goren when 1NT was 16-18HCP and 4 card majors were opened. You didn't balance quite so often then.

[kugw]

 TomReynold, on 2015-October-08, 09:37, said:

Both of your statements are correct.

In fact, it appears that almost all 24HCP games were bid in the semifinals USA2-Sweden. However, in system building a weak notrump and 4 card major approach with a forcing club, it appears that bidding 24HCP NT games is a requirement. There is no other convenient way to sort out openers rebids. Playing 4 card majors, it seems a requirement to have a relatively light 2/1 structure. We looked at using 1NT as forcing on a 5 card major but that requires opener to bid on hands that belong in 1NT. We tried many structures. In Neapolitan 2/1 was level forcing to 2 NT. However, in Neapolitan we did not open 11HCP semi-balanced hands with a 5 card major that we now feel we need to open. If you do open 11HCP 5 card major hands and bid 2/1 with 10HCP, it appears that 1H/s-2C-2H/s needs to be non-forcing to equalize the 1H/s(5)-1NT(forcing)-2C-2Hs-P auction of 2/1 bidders. If 1Hs-2C-2H/s is NF, opener needs to do something else with 14HCP. That creates a game force.

I suspect that not much is unique to Mavarako or any other system. What I am showing is an approach that gets to the 2 level with the HCPs range reasonably defined but the trump fit not defined. Opener's double announces BOTH 14-15HCP AND 4 hearts. A pass confirms 5 hearts in opener's hand. Essentially responder knows the trump fit AFTER the balance. I agree this is not unique. This is actually from 50's Goren when 1NT was 16-18HCP and 4 card majors were opened. You didn't balance quite so often then.

Why does a pass show 5 hearts? And what does a bid of 3H show?

[TomReynold]

Mistype. Staying up too late to watch the BB. Opener's 2H rebid confirms 5 hearts and 13HCP or less. 1H-2C-2H-3H by responder would be NF. FYI Mavarako uses strong jump shifts including 2NT to show 16+ HCP hands.

[Kungsgeten]

I've seen very few systems using a "medium club" (Polish/Swedish/Unassuming) combined with a canapé system. To me this seems like a pretty neat solution to the wide/weak 1NT opening which some dislike, or the nebulous diamond.

[TomReynold]

We looked at a Polish Club with a medium NT (13-15HCP) but the problem is that statistically a 1C opener is the weak hand and the system resolves to the nebulous diamond (now nebulous club) on steroids.

In our current system we open a 4 card major with 14-16. This works well in competition because in competition, when responder supports on 3 card support and 10HCP, opener has the power to bid 3NT with a 4 card major or play game on the 4-3. However, with a weaker opening the 4 card major doesn't work very well. To flip-flop our NT range Vul vs NV we went to a Meckwell type approach.

[kenrexford]

Just give up and go MICS easy. 1M if you have one, pass if you don't. Everything else is too strained.

[Kungsgeten]

As I've written elsewhere: My concern about MICS is the 1♦ bid, which does not show a suit (but most of the time is diamonds), the 2♣ bid, which does not show a suit and also is a pretty rare bid, and the 2♦ bid which forces responder to 3♣ if he wants to try playing in clubs. Ken has written that these work in practice, and I am sure that they do most of the time, so its probably mostly a feeling of unsoundness. On the other hand: you should play methods you believe in and are comfortable with, right?

Another canapé inspired structure:

1C = Strong
1D = 4+ diamonds. a) 6+ diamonds b) 4+ diamonds and (4)5+ major c) 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs.
1M = 4+ major, as in MICS.
1NT = 12--15, can be 4-4-1-4 (if you do not want to open these 1H)
2C = 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4 diamonds.
2D = Whatever, multi would be my choice
2M = Roman

[kugw]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-November-10, 09:30, said:

As I've written elsewhere: My concern about MICS is the 1♦ bid, which does not show a suit (but most of the time is diamonds), the 2♣ bid, which does not show a suit and also is a pretty rare bid, and the 2♦ bid which forces responder to 3♣ if he wants to try playing in clubs. Ken has written that these work in practice, and I am sure that they do most of the time, so its probably mostly a feeling of unsoundness. On the other hand: you should play methods you believe in and are comfortable with, right?

Another canapé inspired structure:

1C = Strong
1D = 4+ diamonds. a) 6+ diamonds b) 4+ diamonds and (4)5+ major c) 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs.
1M = 4+ major, as in MICS.
1NT = 12--15, can be 4-4-1-4 (if you do not want to open these 1H)
2C = 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4 diamonds.
2D = Whatever, multi would be my choice
2M = Roman

As I have stated before once you start playing an artificial openings you cannot cover all the permutations that exist. If instead you play simply a natural canape system at the 1 level (the opening 2 bids are another story altogether) where what you bid is what you have then the problems described above do not exist.

[Zelandakh]

 kugw, on 2015-November-10, 16:30, said:

As I have stated before once you start playing an artificial openings you cannot cover all the permutations that exist.

Uh, what? Why would that be? Are you suggesting that Precision, Polish Club, 5542 2/1, etc have unbiddable hand types that no one has noticed yet?

[kugw]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-11, 04:22, said:

Uh, what? Why would that be? Are you suggesting that Precision, Polish Club, 5542 2/1, etc have unbiddable hand types that no one has noticed yet?

No, all I am saying is that once you introduce artificiality you the lose the inherent simplicity of a natural system. You must in some way compensate for this lose of simplicity of the natural system. As far as I am aware all systems have problem hands that are difficult to bid so why have even more problem hands through self infliction.

[Zelandakh]

Are natural systems so simple? They have overlapping cases and often no call that accurately describes what we hold. Many artificial systems divide hands so that each hand has only one possibility, which actually simplifies matters enormously. It is also possible to create an artificial system using rules that are not really any more complicated than natural other than because of familiarity. I am completely on the opposite of this argument from you - I would regard a system without artificial calls as handicapping a pair enormously through self-affliction.

What you do need from your system, particularly on opening bid, is good homogeneity. Natural is one way of achieving this but not at all the only one. If you look around the internet you can find some excellent articles on the theory of building a system. I would recommend you familiarise yourself with this concept before you write off artificial opening bids completely.

[kugw]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-11, 07:12, said:

Are natural systems so simple? They have overlapping cases and often no call that accurately describes what we hold. Many artificial systems divide hands so that each hand has only one possibility, which actually simplifies matters enormously. It is also possible to create an artificial system using rules that are not really any more complicated than natural other than because of familiarity. I am completely on the opposite of this argument from you - I would regard a system without artificial calls as handicapping a pair enormously through self-affliction.

What you do need from your system, particularly on opening bid, is good homogeneity. Natural is one way of achieving this but not at all the only one. If you look around the internet you can find some excellent articles on the theory of building a system. I would recommend you familiarize yourself with this concept before you write off artificial opening bids completely.

Why have you assumed I have written off artificial opening bids completely? I think I said that all the one bids are natural and that the two calls are a different story. In my case all the 2 openings are artificial with weak and strong options attached to all of them showing all manner of hand types.

[kenrexford]

A "natural" opening bid is illusory. As a simple example, I could design a system where a 1H opening shows 11-20 HCP with at least 5 spades. That would be called artificial. I then change my 1H opening to 1S, and it is natural. Either call shows the same thing, so the "natural" option is just a choice.

If what you mean is that all opening bids should have an anchor, a known suit, ok. But, that is the real point, with the fact that the anchor is the suit named being arbitrary coincidence.

In MICS, one of the benefits, however, is the increase in anchors. 1H and 1S openings have the same anchor as in a natural system, coincidentally the suit named. But, the MICS 2-bids of 2D, 2H, 2S, and 2NT have two anchors, generally the suit named (coincidentally) and clubs. Hence, up to this point, MICS, and Roman Club for that matter, is "superior" if you desire anchors. In fact, these calls are powerful for that very reason.

The sacrifice, if you will, are the 1D and 2C openings. Continuing with the thinking, these openings, in a sense, are tadically anti-anchor, by intent. It is the very fact of the divergent hand types that makes these openings safe and effective. Similarity would cause problems. Dissimilar options are easier to manage.

These calls end up replacing 1 or even 2 anchors with a different type of "anchor", that of dissimilarity. The dissimilarity can be thought of geometrically, or at least that is how I envision it. The 2C opening is like a three leaf clover, with the stiff being a stem. The 1D opening is more obscure. I envision two balls on a table, one with Mickey Mouse ears partially emergong. That is a little surreal, but the idea is a vision of pattern dissimilarity. Anti-anchor.

The interplay of these is seen in a strange place, the double. A one-suit anchor call, like standard, has a tough double. A negative double might mot seem tough, but it really is. Think about how many bridge problems, and mistakes, involve the negative double. Think about negative free bids. One suit anchors have a strain at the double.

Two siit anchor openings have an easy double, because it leans easy penalty.

What about the "anti-anchor?" Divergent openings have a strange, non obvious tendency. The antianchor opening is at the other end of the spectrum. No where near penalty. No need for an anchor itself. Values, suitable. You double with holdings like, say, 3-2-2 in the remaining suits. That is easy.

This may be obscure to most. MICS players may not have thought along these lines, but they will agree. The combination of two anchor openings and anti-anchor openimgs is ideal. A "natiral canape" approach, which would increase the number of one anchor openings, is not all that ideal.

[kenrexford]

I thought about this more, and I realized something else. The double after a teo anchor opening is penalty. The double after a one anchor opening shows an anchor. The inability to double after an anti anchor opening will be an anti anchor pattern, and anti anchor patterns are easier to bid than hands that lack a single, specific anchor. Hence, in a very strange way, the anti anchor opening can be seen as safer and effective because it moves the "problem hands" for Responder away from generally balanced or semi balanced messes to dovergent holdings, where there is no problem.

Thus, while a "natural" approach might seem easier from opener's perspective, it leaves Responder with trouble. Most trouble in bidding is on Responder's side. Think about how many bidding problems incolve what the heck Responder does.Think about the complexity of solutions, like forcing 1NT, xyz, Bart, and the like.

Now, consider the anti-anchor, divergent opening, creating ease for balanced or senibalanced junk, easy calls for complimentary divergent holdings.

The MICS approach, played, proves this. Responder almost never has a problem. Responder has a problem learning to let go of trained insanity from "natural" systems like standard, but once that is past, all is easy.

[kugw]

 kenrexford, on 2015-November-11, 21:30, said:

A "natural" opening bid is illusory. As a simple example, I could design a system where a 1H opening shows 11-20 HCP with at least 5 spades. That would be called artificial. I then change my 1H opening to 1S, and it is natural. Either call shows the same thing, so the "natural" option is just a choice.

If what you mean is that all opening bids should have an anchor, a known suit, ok. But, that is the real point, with the fact that the anchor is the suit named being arbitrary coincidence.

In MICS, one of the benefits, however, is the increase in anchors. 1H and 1S openings have the same anchor as in a natural system, coincidentally the suit named. But, the MICS 2-bids of 2D, 2H, 2S, and 2NT have two anchors, generally the suit named (coincidentally) and clubs. Hence, up to this point, MICS, and Roman Club for that matter, is "superior" if you desire anchors. In fact, these calls are powerful for that very reason.

The sacrifice, if you will, are the 1D and 2C openings. Continuing with the thinking, these openings, in a sense, are tadically anti-anchor, by intent. It is the very fact of the divergent hand types that makes these openings safe and effective. Similarity would cause problems. Dissimilar options are easier to manage.

These calls end up replacing 1 or even 2 anchors with a different type of "anchor", that of dissimilarity. The dissimilarity can be thought of geometrically, or at least that is how I envision it. The 2C opening is like a three leaf clover, with the stiff being a stem. The 1D opening is more obscure. I envision two balls on a table, one with Mickey Mouse ears partially emergong. That is a little surreal, but the idea is a vision of pattern dissimilarity. Anti-anchor.

The interplay of these is seen in a strange place, the double. A one-suit anchor call, like standard, has a tough double. A negative double might mot seem tough, but it really is. Think about how many bridge problems, and mistakes, involve the negative double. Think about negative free bids. One suit anchors have a strain at the double.

Two siit anchor openings have an easy double, because it leans easy penalty.

What about the "anti-anchor?" Divergent openings have a strange, non obvious tendency. The antianchor opening is at the other end of the spectrum. No where near penalty. No need for an anchor itself. Values, suitable. You double with holdings like, say, 3-2-2 in the remaining suits. That is easy.

This may be obscure to most. MICS players may not have thought along these lines, but they will agree. The combination of two anchor openings and anti-anchor openimgs is ideal. A "natiral canape" approach, which would increase the number of one anchor openings, is not all that ideal.

[SteelWheel]

All this discussion of canape and MICS..yet it still seems hard to find someone willing to give it a go. I have one local pard with whom I'm messing about with it; unfortunately he's a little travel-restricted, so not really able to blaze the tournament trail with him/it.

Anyone interested in trying some MICS with an eye toward hitting some Regional or NABC competition? I spend half my time in the Northeast, other half west coast-ish...

[kugw]

 SteelWheel, on 2015-November-26, 19:13, said:

All this discussion of canape and MICS..yet it still seems hard to find someone willing to give it a go. I have one local pard with whom I'm messing about with it; unfortunately he's a little travel-restricted, so not really able to blaze the tournament trail with him/it.

Anyone interested in trying some MICS with an eye toward hitting some Regional or NABC competition? I spend half my time in the Northeast, other half west coast-ish...

Am willing to play canape system but not MICS and can only do so online.

[SteelWheel]

 kenrexford, on 2015-September-13, 20:40, said:

With a light balanced hand (11-12) and no 4 card major, you don't open in MICS.

With a light balanced hand and a 4 card major, you open the major.

With a 5 card major and 5332, MICS offers three options, depending on strength and card location. If light, 1M is an option. If concentration of values in the major and diamonds, opening 1D as a canape works. Or, open 1NT.

Hey Ken:

I don't mind slightly sounder opening bid requirements than you. What do you think of 12-15 HCP for all 1 NT opens (including 5cM, and eventual thoughts of playing Keri to sort out min/max and other issues quickly), maybe along with a meta-understanding that any hand with an A and an AK (AQJx, other similar) looks like a 12 count when NV.

The immediate suggestion that opening a one bid (other than 1♣ = "shape will be found here" is a very compelling part of the approach, for me,

[kenrexford]

 SteelWheel, on 2015-November-27, 06:16, said:

Hey Ken:

I don't mind slightly sounder opening bid requirements than you. What do you think of 12-15 HCP for all 1 NT opens (including 5cM, and eventual thoughts of playing Keri to sort out min/max and other issues quickly), maybe along with a meta-understanding that any hand with an A and an AK (AQJx, other similar) looks like a 12 count when NV.

The immediate suggestion that opening a one bid (other than 1♣ = "shape will be found here" is a very compelling part of the approach, for me,

I don't see a problem with 12 to 15.

[PrecisionL]

I see a problem with 12-15 NT, the range is too wide. I have converted to 11+ to 14, better constructive bidding. Put 15 hcp hands somewhere else. I like Keri, new improved with 2♣ being puppet stayman for a 5cd major only.

Steel Wheel: How about canapé in a strong club system? Looking for 2nd tournament partner.