[EarlPurple]

A few years ago I created this system though it's never been tested in real play, because I've never found anyone willing to try it out. So I don't know exactly how it would stand up in real play. But the basis is:

opening bids:

1♦: 17+
1♥, 1♠: 5 card majors.
1NT: 11-13 nv, 12-14 vul
1♣ is therefore used on all other regular opening hands, as 2-openings are all weak bids

The 2 bids I proposed are:
2♣ is hearts and another suit
2♦ is spades and another suit.
2♥ and 2♠ are weak single-suited hands.
2[nt] should be minors (I guess).

the 2♣ and 2♦ bids work like asptro. With both majors you anchor in the shorter one. Partner supports the anchor major only with 4 card support, or 3 cards with a side-suit singleton. 2NT is used as the response with stronger hands.

In response to 1♣:
1♥ and 1♠ promise 5 card suits and are forcing.
1♦ asks for 4 card majors. I haven't yet decided whether it should promise one. If it does, then you'd have to use 2♦ for a weak hand with diamonds. You'd pass with a weak hand holding just clubs.
1NT response is forward going but not forcing, probably about 8-11 points.
2♣ should be used as a general force with stronger balanced or minor-suited hands.

In response to 1♥ and 1♠ you'd continue a bit like in precision. That should include a forcing 1NT response.

In response to 1♦ my preference is to use 1♥ as a negative (0-6) and 1NT as a big positive (11+). All other bids show 7-10 points, with 1♠ showing a balanced or minor-orientated hand (no 4 card major), 2♣ promises at least one 4-card major, 2♦ and 2♥ both showing 5+ in hearts and spades respectively.
After interference of 1♠ or below there is no need to change the system. After higher interference, you can use Dbl to show 4-7 points (generally willingness to compete but not promising game-going values), and otherwise you'd probably play your system a level higher, though obviously it depends on how high they have come in.

I'd be interested to read:
- comments about the system
- would anyone like to try it?

[Flame]

EarlPurple, on Jul 3 2004, 07:59 PM, said:

1♣ is therefore used on all other regular opening hands

What is that exactly ? 14-16 balanced nv or 15-16 balanced vulnarable ?
Not even close to enough for the lowest suit bid, which could and should include more then any other bid in the system.

[EarlPurple]

1♣ is either:

* 14-16 balanced non-vulnerable or only 15-16 balanced vulnerable
* 11-16 unbalanced, no 5 card major.

The worry is what to bid opposite 1♣ holding a hand like

Kxx xx Axxx xxxx. That's why I said that 1♦ response won't necessarily guarantee a 4-card major. With this I'll pass any response by partner except 1♥ over which I'd bid 1NT and I'd expect partner to pass that, though with both majors he might bid 2♠ now. Still I can pass that too.

With a good 16 unbalanced partner can upgrade to a 1♦ opening. And partner may downgrade some 11-point unbalanced hands to a 2♣ or 2♦ opening should he have the right distribution.

Don't worry too much about responding 2♣ with 11+: If partner has only 11 he is unbalanced without a 5-card major so presumably has a minor, and I don't have a 4-card major so I have minors. Chances are therefore that the opps have the majors and we would expect to be competing to the 3-level.

[MickyB]

A friend of mine has been playing a very similar system, I will point out this thread to him. He has been very enthusiastic about the 1♣ opener.

On the subject of your main system: I have considered a similar system with a 16+ club and a good 12-15 NT, then the 1♦ opener is guaranteeing an unbalanced hand with a primary minor. This leaves the opps still looking for a fit in all four suits, but allows you to compete most of the time that it is right. You will also benefit from opening 1♣ instead of 1♦ on strong hands, leaving room for symmetric relay responses.

I see you live in London - if you are intending to play this f2f in the EBU, watch out for the Orange Book. Neither 1♣:1♦ as 'have you got a 4 card major?' nor a 2♣ response as 'pass or correct for your minor' are permitted at any level, although a 1NT response can be used as 'bid your minor' under the description 'natural and forcing'. Hopefully that will change when the next Orange Book is released, it is due out in early 2003.

I dislike your suggested preempts - Asptro is a very good defence to 1NT, it works well constructively. However when you preempt it is primarily for destructive purposes, these bids will give the opps far too much room - they have a general purpose double and a cuebid available, and you won't be able to pass the opening bid very often, so you will often give them a chance for balancing actions. This is a problem for a defence against 1NT as well, but as opener has already described his hand so well the extra options it gives to the opps are less valuable.

Here are my suggestions for 2♣ openers:

1: 6♦ or 5-4 majors - this takes the cuebid away. Could also include a weak 2 in spades as well if you so desire.
2: 5♣4other - can be passed out often and no low level cuebid.
3: 4-5♣4 major - very frequent, and not as risky as it sounds.
4: Either 4+/4+ minors (not 4♦5♣) or 6♥ - it is known as 'Inverted Psycho Suction' for a reason!

No.4 isn't legal in any EBU comp, Asptro openings and my first suggestion are level 4, while no.2 and no.3 are legal at level 2, and are simple and effective. If you are curious about follow-ups to any of these then ask!

[EarlPurple]

On simulations, the 2♣ and 2♦ bids appear to have been the strongest part of the system.

I think I had a look at the orange book and I can't remember whether the 1♦ response to the 1♣ bid was licensed. I thought there was nothing illegal in this system (unlike the magic diamond where quite a few of hte bids are). I guess the issue has come up before though. The 2♣ response is not "pass or correct to your minor" but is a general forward-going bid, too strong to respond 1NT. It's intended, of course, to be more pre-emptive in nature than 1♦, the latter of which allows 4th seat to bid his presumed major at the 1-level. Of course the 1♣ bidder could have a 4-4-3-2 16-count so it's not guaranteed that the opps have a major.

I don't play f2f bridge anymore, by the way. Don't like paying table money.

[EarlPurple]

I have consulted the orange book on the EBU site and it appears that the 1♦ response to my 1♣ opening is covered for level 4, by 14.2.2:

14.2.2 Relays
Any relay response is permitted. A relay response is:
• A call that is forcing, asks for information about partner’s hand, is constructive, but does not show any other feature.

The 1♦ response to 1♣ is forcing in my system. If it were game-forcing it would be covered at level 2, but it is not.

[MickyB]

Hmm, interesting. What sims did you do?

I realise your 2!C wasn't pass or correct, was just adding in a general comment about a 1m opener showing either minor.

I forgot to add before - 2N showing both minors again gives them lots of options (eg Unusual over Unusual). 3♣ showing both minors, or even better, 5-5 in ♣ and another, is a great improvement. I then use 2N as a preempt in ♣ or a bad preempt in ♦, and 3♦ as a good 3♦ opener (max with two top honours). This 2N opener is again level 4, but as you don't play f2f you probably aren't too worried about this!

[EarlPurple]

Just went through random hands seeing how they'd be bid using my system. I've also tested it out playing with a computer program.

The 2♣ and 2♦ openings come up fairly often. In 1st and 2nd seat you have to be strict, and play them as 7-10 (you might decide 8-11, especially vulnerable, which takes away the 11-point one-level opener).
In 3rd seat at green of course you can afford to take liberties.

[whereagles]

My suggestion for 2-level: play all the openings as weak twos, starting with 5 cards NV, 6 cards V. After 2m, next step relays to ask for side 4-card major.

This structure is very simple to play, comes up very often and is quite effective.

I should also say I used to play a similar system, but using 1♣ as strong and 1♦ as catch-all. The 1♦ gathers the classical precision 1♦ and 2♣ openings. My experience is that playing 5-card majors, such a 1♦ opening gets horribly overcrowded and is hard to handle, even with relay bids. Playing 4-card majors, the 1♦ gets much more bareable and playable.

Swapping 1♦ to strong and 1♣ to catch-all may make the catch-all much easier to handle, but there's a big problem to it: find a reasonable strong diamond response/rebid structure. That little extra step makes a lot of a difference!

[scoob]

my partner and I have been playing a home-made strong 1♦ system for just over two years now; it's been serving us rather well, so far.

we played a strong ♣ system originally, but we didn't like the way the 1♦ openings ended up for us, so we switched them.

the full system is here we like to keep it as thin as possible so that it's easy to remember and allows for a lot of judgement

we've just recently modified the responses to the 1♦ open; originally the step responses were 1♥=0-5hcp and 1♠6-9hcp; we may go back to these if the new steps don't work out for us.

this system is playable at the ACBL GCC level; I'm not sure what the equates to in the EBU

[EarlPurple]

The advantages of swapping the 1♣ and 1♦ openings (i.e. making the 1♦ the strong one) are:

- You must expect them to intervene over a strong 1♣ anyway. If they are going to do so, you may as well open 1♦. Are they likely to use the same defence but one bid up? Maybe but the higher they come in the more risk they take. Most likely not though, in my opinion.

- Over 1♣ they may intervene as well but here we are better placed. Firstly, the hand may belong to them, so they will probably only come in when they really have their bid (or they may be pre-empting themselves).

I've had a look at scoob's system. Nicely laid out, easy to pick up. I used to play a strong club system by the way, which is available at http://www.frogwump....ge/strclub.html - it worked well but decided to change some of the bids.

Playing 2♣ as weak could work well when it turns up, though I don't know how partner can then go and ask for a 4-card major you probably won't hold. You could play 2♣ and 2♦ as promising 5 cards in that suit and a 4-card major - that has the advantage that partner can pass and they don't get a "free" double. You will have a problem though with 5-4 in the majors distinguishing between the 5 and 4 card suit. Also, if partner bids 2♥ over my 2♦ opening, is that showing or simply "pass or correct" ? I guess it must be the latter. And it's too likely that partner won't know whether to seek the major fit holding only one of them.

All-in-all though the 2♣ and 2♦ openings are semi-constructive, and not purely destructive. The next hand is not guaranteed to be able to double freely, and even then "double" is going to cover many hands. (Do you bid the anchor suit as a stronger take-out?). I'd be interested to see what defence you will come up with against it - note also that bids like this are supposed to make you do the wrong thing some of the time - more of the time than if I hadn't made the bid.

[whereagles]

Well... it seems to me it is irrelevant what structure you use when they overcall. The problem lies exclusively in solo bidding and there you have to weight carefully where the extra step of opening 1♣ is going to be more useful: in 16+ auctions or 11-15 ones. Probably it is more important to use it for 16+ hands because that hand can have just about anything, so the more space the better. But you can also make a case for using it on 11-15 auctions with no 5-card majors, because that hand rates to be more frequent than a 16+ hand (I think).

As for the 2-level bids, it's all a matter of taste. 5-cards weak twos are my favourite because they are very, very likely to show up. The relay to look for 4-card majors is there to avoid playing 3NT with a major suit fit, and to provide an alternative contract, with, say, Axxx KQxx xx xxx, opposite a weak 2C opening. Of course, when vuln you'll require 6 cards.

[MickyB]

Not only is the described 1♣ opener much more common than the 1♦ opener, but the opps will bid more often over the strong bid.

I'm not sure that saying '5 cards NV, 6 cards vul' for a weak 2 is a good idea. My preempts are much sounder 2nd seat neither vul than 1st seat both vul. My opinion is that bidding like this should be saved for 1st NV.

[whereagles]

Well, the suggestion is to be taken with a grain of salt. One should not disregard common sense when choosing a preemptive action, but it is my opinion that it is profitable to open 5-card weak twos, even in 2nd seat, as long as the hand justifies it. For instance, I believe it is correct to open 2C in 2nd seat NV on

x
xxx
xxxx
KQJTx

However, if instead you have

xxxx
xxx
x
KQJTx

then pass is probably better. You now have good support for the major suits, so it's better not to make it too hard for partner to bid them.

[EarlPurple]

I wonder how it would work at matchpoints to have no strong bids at all, except perhaps the 2NT opener. You'd certainly be able to pre-empt more hands.

I guess that's why many systems use 1♣ to be either a strong hand or one of various weak options.

[MickyB]

A GF 2♣ opening isn't worth too much - on some hands a natural auction can work out better, and you can leave the opps with some nasty guesses in passout seat if your 1 bids are unlimited. Preempts in minors are much more destructive than in majors because it leaves the opps with two major suits to look for a fit in. This more than overcomes the opps having a couple more bidding steps. So I think that in the right conditions, 2♣ and 2♦ openings should be some sort of preempt.

I don't think the scoring matters too much. At IMPs, keeping the opponents out of game/slam is worth as much as missing a game yourself, you may even push them into the wrong game. I think the vul+position matters more - 1st NV anything goes, while 2nd vul a preempt is worth much less and a GF opening is worth much more.