A number of systemic weaknesses showed up in Chilli One over the years, and it was these that led to me rebuild the system as Chilli Two:
It could be difficult to stop bidding
Affectionately known as Keable's Syndrome, a classic case was a weak hand with a long suit. Partner opened 1
, and you responded 1
, and partner rebid 2
. With a long spade suit and not much else, you would have liked to bid 2 to play, but you couldn't. Another case was when responder bid a minimum two-over-one, and would then have liked to stop in 2NT. In general it was difficult to stop below game with invitational-strength hands opposite a minimum.
It could be difficult for opener to show strength after a limited opening
The opposite problem to Keable's Syndrome: if the auction went 1 - 1NT; 2, opener could be anything from an anaemic ten-count with a six-card suit to a beefy five-loser hand with plenty of playing power.
1NT was used on a wide variety of hand distributions
The 1NT barrier is semi-effective at controlling upwards drift, but suffers as a result. This is in common with other systems opposite an opening one of a major, but it is particularly uncomfortable in sequences like 1
- 1; 1NT, where minimum opener may have chosen 1 over 1 because of strong distributional values.
There was friction and mismatch between neutral layers and fit zones
The recurring example was the meaning of spade bids when hearts are agreed: 3 was not a splinter (as it might sound) but values for five. This continued to catch us out at moments of tired stress. And there was a technical flaw: either you switch spade and no-trump bids (complicated) or you cannot splinter in spades after partner raises 1 to 2NT (inefficient). This is a specific example of …
The differences between the auction types created operator errors
I'd always thought that it was best to make the auction types as different as possible, and rely on knowing in which type of auction we currently were. But we all kept making elementary mistakes where one song was sung to the tune of another.You couldn't suggest an alternative game contract after a suit agreement
For instance, after the auction 1 - 2; 3, responder might have wanted to opt for 4. This complicated the business of deciding whether to raise a minor or not.
There was no way to suggest playing a 4-3 fit
I used to think this was a very minor issue, but it can often be the right thing to do in a number of circumstances: when the hands are a semi-misfit, or when there is insufficient poke for a minor game, for instance.You cannot find all 5-3 minor fits
This was particularly noticeable when partner bid 3 before you had the chance to show your five-card club suit. This could lead to unsuitable 3NT contracts.
Impossibilities could do your head in
While impossibility sequences such as 1 - 2; 2 - 3 were technically ingenious, they could do your head in while playing under pressure.
Was it forcing
Forcing rules based on limiting were perfectly logical, but not always intuitive. An obvious case was 1 - 1; 1NT - 2. Didn't sound forcing too me, and still doesn't after all these years. A more subtle version of the same thing: 1 - 1NT; 2 was simply a scramble, but 1 - 1; 1NT - 2 was 100% forcing. We were still tripping over these things, so they were clearly not right.