[Phil]

In Martian Standard, this is our current raise structure after a 1C opening:

1C 1D (4+H, 0+ hcp)

1H = weak MY, 2-3 H
1N = 17-19 bal
2D = many strong options including awkward shapes and 3H, or very large balanced hands
2H = 4 card, 11-13
2N = 4 card, 14+
A few 3 level bids are more standard type raises.
Note: a classic c/d reverse 18-20 is impossible to show.

We are considering telegraphimg a lot of the raises into 2D. The advantages is it frees up 2N to be something else. The disadvantage is,that we are wrong siding when responder is weak, so we are back with standard pairs bidding 1c 1h 2h (which also lowers variance).

My question is, is it worth it? The full method (Where bids are unchanged they aren't mentioned)
1c 1d

2D wide ranging raise. Responder assumes 11 13.
2H 20 21 balanced. (2N opener is 22 23)
2N is good hand with clubs but unlimited.
3C is c/d reverse but limited (Responder can pass)

[nullve]

Why doesn't Opener's 1♥ rebid include more hand types?

[Phil]

 nullve, on 2017-March-28, 12:58, said:

Why doesn't Opener's 1♥ rebid include more hand types?

Yeah, there's two schools of thought here. Gnasher thinks that acceptance of the transfer should be forcing, and encompass many hands with three card support. But for us, 1C is an absolute force, so responder is bidding with a zero count (because he has to), and landing in 1H with 12 opposite 0 seems like a good solution. yes, the opponents rate to be bidding int his case, but we've found it advantage to stay low on hands.

I don't know, we might be accepting on more hand types, but we really like the 1N rebid to be the range above 1N, which is valuable, and do not want to change that. A big bang 2C opening (18-19) also does not fit our methods either.

[PrecisionL]

I play something a little similar, and we accept the transfer to an opening bid of 1♣ with 3-cds (or more) and most minimums. Therefore, it is not forcing unless responder has enough for a 2nd bid, 8+ hcp? (depends on the strength of 1♣)

[rbforster]

 Phil, on 2017-March-28, 16:09, said:

Yeah, there's two schools of thought here. Gnasher thinks that acceptance of the transfer should be forcing, and encompass many hands with three card support. But for us, 1C is an absolute force, so responder is bidding with a zero count (because he has to), and landing in 1H with 12 opposite 0 seems like a good solution. yes, the opponents rate to be bidding int his case, but we've found it advantage to stay low on hands.

When was the last time your opponents let you play at the one level when they had 28 highs? I think you might do better with more sequences in 1H by opener if accepting the transfer was forcing, and have the jump acceptance of 2H promise the worst hand and be typically passed. Yes, it might be a 2-4 "fit", but maybe that's not too likely and if responder is unbalanced and often with 5+ hearts, it could be ok. Side question - does 1D deny a balanced hand, ie would you transfer to 1N with 1S and pass or retransfer as a weak and balanced responder?

If that's too pushy for you, consider having a 1S rebid be forcing and fold in some stronger problem hands, ie strong minors as well as unbalanced C+S. Responder assumes the natural spade hand and bids cheaply 1N or 2C most of the time with a weak hand, leaving space for opener to further describe. If responder makes a more forward going bid instead, ie 2D+, there will be plenty of strength and you can untangle things.

You didn't say how you respond to 1C with both majors, but maybe if you didn't have hearts with 4S hands bidding 1C-1D (those were in 1C-1H instead, showing spades first), then it makes less sense for openers 1C-1D-1S rebid to be natural since even with a 4S/4+C opening hand, you won't miss a spade fit. Then that 1S rebid could be forcing and all the "strong 2D" type hands, only cheaper and with lots more space.

[Phil]

1c 1s just denies a 4cM.
1c 1N is game forcing relay
2m is inv+
2M is rev flan
2N is mm
3x is natural and weak.

All other 1 and 2 level suit bids are natural and unbalanced.

1c 1d has no implications of balanced or unbalanced. We bid up the line with 44.

[nullve]

 Phil, on 2017-March-28, 16:09, said:

Yeah, there's two schools of thought here. Gnasher thinks that acceptance of the transfer should be forcing, and encompass many hands with three card support. But for us, 1C is an absolute force, so responder is bidding with a zero count (because he has to), and landing in 1H with 12 opposite 0 seems like a good solution. yes, the opponents rate to be bidding int his case, but we've found it advantage to stay low on hands.

I don't know, we might be accepting on more hand types, but we really like the 1N rebid to be the range above 1N, which is valuable, and do not want to change that. A big bang 2C opening (18-19) also does not fit our methods either.

In a couple of partnerships I've played something close to

1♣-[1M-1] = "0+, 4+ M"

1♣-[1M-1]; ?:

1M = a) 11-13 BAL, either 2-3 M or 4M333¹ b) "10-18" (rules of 19-27), 3 M, unBAL c) "13-18" (rules of 22-27), 4+ M d) 17-19 BAL, 4-5 M
...P = "0-4"
...1♠ = "5-12, 4+ S"
......P = 11-13, either 4333 or (optional with) 3S2H
......1N = a) with 3-S3-H or b) w/ "10-12", 3- S
......2♣ = "13-15", 3-S3H5+C
......2♦ = "16-18", 3H4D5+C
......2♥ = 11-13, 3433
......2♠ = a) w/ 4(432) or 5(332) b) w/ "10-12", 4 S
......2N = 17-19, 3433
......3♣ = "16-18", 3H6+C, 1-suited
......3♦/3♥/4♣/4♦/♥: "same as over 1♣-1♥ in standard 2/1"
......3♠ = "13-15", 4S3H5+C (I think)
......3N = ?
......4♠ = "16-18", 4S3H5+C (I think)
...1N = "5-12, 4 M, NF"
......P = a) w/ 2-3 M or b) w/ "10-12"
......2♣ = "13-15", 3M5+C
......2♦ = "16-18", 3M4D5+C
......2M = 11-13, 4M333
......2OM = "16-18", 3M4OM5+C
......2N = 17-19, 4M333
......3♣ = "16-18", 3M6+C, 1-suited
......3♦/♥/♠/4♣+ = "same as over 1♣-1M in standard 2/1"
......3N = ?
...2♣+ = XYZ stuff
(...)
1N = 17-19 BAL, 2-3 M
(...)
2M = a) "10-12" (rules of 19-21), 4+ M b) 11-13 BAL, not 4M333¹
(...),

which is really just Swedish T-Walsh (i.e. handtypes a) and b) in 1M, except 4M333) with some obvious twists. (E.g. why play 3M/4M instead of 1M with 17-19 BAL, 4-5 M opposite subpositive values ("0-4")?)

¹ The idea was (is) that hands with 11-13, 4M333 will sometimes be a huge disappointment if in 2M over 1♣-[1M-1].

[Zelandakh]

Just to provoke thought and discussion, here's a completely different approach:-

1♣ - 1♦
==
1♥ = min, 0-2 hearts
1♠ = 4 spades, forcing, if min then exactly 3 hearts
1NT = 3 hearts, (semi-) bal, min
2♣ = 3 hearts, nat, min (bucket for min hands of 3 hearts not qualifying for 1♠ or 1NT)
2♦ = extras, <4 spades, <4 hearts (after 2♥, 2NT and 3♣ are nat with <3 hearts and other bids show a normal reverse
2♥ = 4 hearts, min
2♠ = 4 hearts, extras, side shortage
2NT = nat (extras), 3 hearts
3♣ = nat (extras), 3 hearts
3♦ = 4 hearts, GF (anything you like can go here really)
3♥ = 4 hearts, extras, no shortage
==

The theory behind this approach is that it allows 1♥ to be non-forcing without reducing the number of hands it holds to unreasonable levels. If Opener bids something else then (s)he either has extras or we have something of a heart fit. The 2♦ reverse is a trick that can be used in standard systems if desired; it can also be removed here with the same trade-offs (the 2NT and 3♣ rebids become less defined).

Of course Opener is by contrast extremely undefined after 1♥ but here there is enough space to unwind. As with everything, there are pros and cons as well as a multitude of possibilities for fine-tuning once you accept the basic premise of staying low without a fit or extras. Probably a step too far but it is a system that fits quite well to 1♦ being 0+, so perhaps it will help to provide some ideas for advancement.

[phoenix214]

Out of curiuosity, what do you play as your 2♣ opening?

As for the current spot, if you go with 1♥ being min-bal/5C-3H hands.

I think having a difference between the 3card and 4card raise makes a bit of sense, although you should probably have the 3D bid open for some hand types as well, as I have no idea what to use that for? Minisplinters?
Also which hands you have in 2D? Just strong looking flat hands with 3 card support, and if so that means that 1N never has 3 card H?

[Phil]

 phoenix214, on 2017-April-02, 04:45, said:

Out of curiuosity, what do you play as your 2♣ opening?

As for the current spot, if you go with 1♥ being min-bal/5C-3H hands.

I think having a difference between the 3card and 4card raise makes a bit of sense, although you should probably have the 3D bid open for some hand types as well, as I have no idea what to use that for? Minisplinters?
Also which hands you have in 2D? Just strong looking flat hands with 3 card support, and if so that means that 1N never has 3 card H?

2C is 10-13, 5+clubs not 4S. We've thought about making 2C big bang style, but really like 1C 1x 2C as the 14-16 hand.

For the rebid, after 1c 1d we've settled o n

1s forcing
1n 17 19
2c 14 16
2d 4 card raise, multiple ranges
2h string natural but limited
2s clubs
2n 20 21
3c clubs and diamonds passable

[phoenix214]

So it sees you can distribute some of the unbal raises to 3.
I assume 2S is 17+ with primary clubs and no other suit.
So you can have 2D as odwrotka/bubwrotka t.i. Strong hand with 3 + hearts or willing to ask about p shape.

Responses for that as per here:
http://www.bridgebas...post__p__325535


And leave 3D as strong unbalanced hand with 4, where you want to splinter.

[Phil]

 phoenix214, on 2017-April-02, 13:36, said:

So it sees you can distribute some of the unbal raises to 3.
I assume 2S is 17+ with primary clubs and no other suit.
So you can have 2D as odwrotka/bubwrotka t.i. Strong hand with 3 + hearts or willing to ask about p shape.

Responses for that as per here:
http://www.bridgebas...post__p__325535


And leave 3D as strong unbalanced hand with 4, where you want to splinter.

No 2S can include diamonds or the other major if it's a moose since other calls are passable. I'll look at oderwanka or whatever it's called.

[nullve]

 phoenix214, on 2017-April-02, 13:36, said:

So you can have 2D as odwrotka/bubwrotka t.i. Strong hand with 3 + hearts or willing to ask about p shape.

The problem is that 1♦ response is 0+, not 7+ like the 1♥ response in Polish Club.

[phoenix214]

 nullve, on 2017-April-03, 06:41, said:

The problem is that 1♦ response is 0+, not 7+ like the 1♥ response in Polish Club.

Yeah, I started thinking about that, so probably need to make the responses a bit custom, but I think it is still a workable idea.
I figure, if need to bid them out and see how it develops, 4 and weak should likely want to play in 2M/2N
3 and weak in 3M? or maybe merger 4 weak/5 weak, and play moyesian on level 2, otherwise same as Bubwrokta?

[Phil]

 phoenix214, on 2017-April-03, 13:09, said:

Yeah, I started thinking about that, so probably need to make the responses a bit custom, but I think it is still a workable idea.
I figure, if need to bid them out and see how it develops, 4 and weak should likely want to play in 2M/2N
3 and weak in 3M? or maybe merger 4 weak/5 weak, and play moyesian on level 2, otherwise same as Bubwrokta?

Makes sense to use 2D as a strong, flexible hand type after 1C 1S however.

[phoenix214]

 Phil, on 2017-April-03, 15:02, said:

Makes sense to use 2D as a strong, flexible hand type after 1C 1S however.

Yeah, that makes some sense, although, is not 1C-1S, a different beast all together?
I know in my regular partneship we just have swaped the 2D and 2N responses. Although now that im thinking about it, there might be a hand type lost somewhere.
Anyhow, option a) is to use the same scheme as before, but with two tweaks: a) 2D is 17-19 bal( obviously we do not need fit reverse) and 2H is 5C-4 in any major. This is something you see in strong club relays, although as partner can be weak, this is less desriable.
Other option would be just to keep both bal hands together, and us the fact that we have enough space over 2D to find partners range or maybe 2D as 17-19 bal/one of the strong minor hands can be simple enough as well.

Over 1C-1S, 2D:
2H - minors
2S* retransfer

[gnasher]

 Phil, on 2017-March-28, 16:09, said:

Gnasher thinks that acceptance of the transfer should be forcing

When did I say that?

I'm not denying having said it; I just don't remember doing so. But if I did say it I'd quite like to remind myself of what arguments I advanced

[Zelandakh]

 Phil, on 2017-April-03, 15:02, said:

Makes sense to use 2D as a strong, flexible hand type after 1C 1S however.

It is certainly interesting that both styles of structure do this. It is suggestive that standard system bidders should probably more formally address this sequence and include additional hand types here. 1♣ - 1M; 2♦ is simply underutilised in most systems.

[fromageGB]

 rbforster, on 2017-March-28, 23:00, said:

When was the last time your opponents let you play at the one level when they had 28 highs?

Your point count is the extreme case, and with this the opponents are sure to speak. But I play a non-forcing 1M to a 1-red, and it is not unfrequently passed out.

[fromageGB]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-April-04, 04:40, said:

It is certainly interesting that both styles of structure do this. It is suggestive that standard system bidders should probably more formally address this sequence and include additional hand types here. 1♣ - 1M; 2♦ is simply underutilised in most systems.

But for me it is a weak hand with only 4 cards in the major and 5 or more in diamonds. Playing better than 1NT when the points are balanced or adverse. 2C responder rebid to play as well.