[serapuff]

Hi,

I was wondering what people thought is best after opener bids 1C (14+ any) - pass -? with a non game force hand.

I'm considering 2 options:

1) 0-9 = 1D, 10+ = 1h and up, some kind of relays
2) Some kind of semi positive responses (1D = GF, 1H = 6-9 bal/C+D/etc., 1S = 0-5, 1N and up shows some sort of shape)

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

[hrothgar]

go with option 2

If you play option 1, your 1♦ response gets horribly overloaded. Its bad enough when the opponents crash your 1♣ opening, without inviting them do do the same after 1♣ - (P) - 1♦...

[kes]

1C with 14+ P any
and then
1D 0-7 P any --- 1H 8-10 P any --- 1S and beyond Game-forcing
has proved its worth in the system Malex --- have look at the topic
Malex - complete in this (Non-Natural System) Discussion area

[Free]

I'd also go for 1♦ GF, 1♠ double negative, and descriptive semi positive calls. It's important to describe your semi positives immediately, after a 1♦ GF you can handle interference a lot easier. Using (for example) 1♥ as any semi positive is imo asking for trouble: you have most HCP, but you don't know anything about distribution. You'll be poorly placed for a competitive auction.

[kes]

If you open 1C as weak as with 14 P and partner shows weakness with 1D ,
it is important that opener can stop with natural 1H / 1S - in our experience .

[akhare]

I have been singing the 1♦ GF / SP choir to the OP for a few days now....hopefully the chorus of voices will finally convince him .

[Gerben42]

How about a Martens-like scheme?

1♦ = 0 - 6 or 7 - 9 unbal. without 4M
1M = 7+, 4+M
1N = 7 - 9 balanced
Rest = 10+

BTW can I say I don't like the idea of a 14+ 1♣ opening?

[nigel_k]

I'd play relays, but if you go with option 2 I strongly recommend you have a way to bid your suit immediately when you have an unbalanced positive. So don't use 1D as any GF. That is too vulnerable to preemption. Same applies if they overcall.

[awm]

What Sam and I play should work here with some adjustments to the point ranges, but is very complicated. A fairly recent version is on my webpage. The features of this method:

(1) Most direct bids show a hand in the semi-positive to minimum game-force range, often transfer oriented to let opener declare. Opener can relay with a game-going hand to get exact shape and location of values, or can break relays immediately to show a minimum strong opening. Normally when opener breaks relays slam is out of the picture, so we can often blast game contracts (or bid naturally to investigate the best game, or pass with a semi-positive to get out). Opener also has the opportunity to upgrade and force game when a big fit is discovered early in the bidding.

(2) The 1♦ response encompasses both double-negative hands and very strong game-forcing hands. Opponents bidding destructively over this is often risky, because it may be their hand (double negative) or they may go for more than the value of our game (super-positive). In any case the two hand types are so opposite that distinguishing in competition is rarely difficult. Opener's rebid after 1♣-1♦ is typically natural, after which responder can relay opener's exact shape and location of values when holding the super-positive hand (reverse relay). This approach is especially beneficial when responder's hand is balanced (allowing the shapely hand to describe); thus we also reply 1♦ with some weaker game forces with balanced shape.

For something simpler, I second Gerben's suggestion.

[serapuff]

Thanks all for the responses! I guess it'll be SP responses than.

[shevek]

A 14+ 1♣ fits between 2 system stools -- strong club & weak opening systems. Either you open decent hands with 1♣ as a smallish subset of these, or you try the effect of opening the 45% of hands with 8-12 HCP and make do with a nebulous 1♣ on the rest.

If you go the latter route, it's sensible to make 1♣ 13+ with 8-12 for limit openings. This suggests 4-card majors since you don't want to open 1NT with 9-12 bal at all vuls. This sort of system is strategically different; you budget for a small loss with a 13+ 1♣ and make up for it with limit openings that are both descripive and obstructiive.

Don't throw too much science at 1♣. For one thing, most auctions starting with a 13+ 1♣ will be competitive. Marston-style 1♠ as second negative, 1♦ GFR and the rest 6-10 is pretty complicated, though better than 1♦ 0-10.

A simple improvement on tradition is to split the negative, though it pushes the positives up and conceals shape on the rest. Really it's all bad.

A very, very minor change is to swap 1♣ and Pass. This regains the lost step but is deemed a threat to civilisation as we know it.

[kes]

In our experience
1C with 14+ P any is better than 13+ P any
and
1C 1D with 0-7 P any , 1C 1H with 8-10 P any is best.

[shevek]

kes, on Sep 21 2009, 04:09 AM, said:

In our experience
1C with 14+ P any is better than 13+ P any
and
1C 1D with 0-7 P any , 1C 1H with 8-10 P any is best.

Interesting. When and where have you played strong pass in serious teams events?

[akhare]

shevek, on Sep 21 2009, 12:32 AM, said:

A 14+ 1♣ fits between 2 system stools -- strong club & weak opening systems. Either you open decent hands with 1♣ as a smallish subset of these, or you try the effect of opening the 45% of hands with 8-12 HCP and make do with a nebulous 1♣ on the rest.

I think this makes a lot of sense (in context of the system).

How would you define the other openings? Should the 1♣ be a canonical 13+ hand or would you asssign say 13-15 balanced to say 1♦ (in conjunction with some other hands types).

BTW, this isn't my creation -- I am just curious about ideas ...

[dake50]

Yup, yup semi-positives by a passed hand since that's where the majority is.

But an unpassed hand has too many upside possibles to use up space with semi-positives (or catering to may be semi).

[kes]

shevek, on Sep 21 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

When and where have you played strong pass in serious teams events?

I never and nowhere played Strong Pass .

[mtvesuvius]

kes, on Sep 21 2009, 04:09 AM, said:

In our experience
1C with 14+ P any is better than 13+ P any
and
1C 1D with 0-7 P any , 1C 1H with 8-10 P any is best.

P = Points I believe here.

[shevek]

mtvesuvius, on Sep 22 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

kes, on Sep 21 2009, 04:09 AM, said:

In our experience
1C with 14+ P any is better than 13+ P any
and
1C 1D with 0-7 P any , 1C 1H with 8-10 P any is best.

P = Points I believe here.

Yes. My bad.

[Flameous]

Ok, somewhat same theme. 1♣ 15+ and I have relay structure I want to use. So far I have played 1♦ as 0-8, game forcing all total 24 counts. I'd sort of like however to have semipositives possible. Now I think two realistic possibilities is to put 1♦ as GF+ (Actually 10 or 11+) or double negative (0-5 or so) or include all balanced hands in 1♦ GF and have double negative right away.

Good thing about putting double negative and GF in one is that I get the hand type across asap on most hands. Bad side is that some of relay breaks won't work like in GF sequence.

Good thing about GF+bal is that I make better use of relay reversals over 1♦ response (weak balanced hand can get to be the relayer and sign off)

Any new ideas?

[wclass___]

Flameous, on Sep 28 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

I'd sort of like however to have semipositives possible.

Exactly, normally you need something more than points to make games in misfits. You need some bidding room for this though, but 1♣-1♥ (as 5+ ♠; 2+controls; GF unless misfit) could be good for this.