[awm]

I'm looking at designing a system where the 2♣ and 2♦ openings need to handle the following four hand types:

1. Weak (like 3-8 HCP) with 6♠ or occasionally 5♠ if NV
2. Weak (like 3-8 HCP) with 6♥ or occasionally 5♥ if NV
3. Strong (19+ HCP or similar) with 5+♠
4. Strong (19+ HCP) or similar with 5+♥

The question is how to best assign these to the two openings. It seems like showing the long suit directly will work better when partner has a raise, whereas splitting between weak and strong hands might make things tougher on opponents when opener has the more common weak range. Which do people think is better?

BTW the rest of the system:

1♣ = clubs or balanced, unlimited and forcing
1♦ = diamonds, unbalanced, unlimited and forcing
1M = 10-18 or so with 5M, if single-suited then not 10-13
1NT = 15-17 balanced
2M = 9-13 and 6M
2NT = 21-23 balanced

[mikestar13]

Nice looking system, awm! For me I would go with the flag bids (♣=♥, ♦=♠). Allows better preepmtion when partner has a fit, as against not allowing a qbid in the multi case. I go with Benito Garazzo on this, he wouldn't play multi as he considered 2♠(weak)-3♠ to be the best bid in the game. The decision is close, it could pay to run some sims. Have you considered 2♥/2♠=3-8 2♣/2♦=9-13 or strong as an alternative?

[PrecisionL]

Interesting design Adam.

I have been playing 2♥ or 2♠ 10-14 hcp and no void or singleton with a good 5-cd suit or not-so-good 6-cd suit for over 10 years in a strong club system with reasonable results. This 2M design allows responder to get out in his 5-cd or 6-cd suit with a void or singleton in opener's major. Plus: opportunities for penalty doubles of overcalls abound. Minus: a weak 2-bid in a major is lost, but could be in the 2♦ opening.

[straube]

awm, on 2018-April-07, 05:44, said:

1♣ = clubs or balanced, unlimited and forcing
1♦ = diamonds, unbalanced, unlimited and forcing
1M = 10-18 or so with 5M, if single-suited then not 10-13
1NT = 15-17 balanced
2M = 9-13 and 6M
2NT = 21-23 balanced

Fantunes is something like...
1♣ = clubs or balanced, 14+ and forcing
1♦ = diamonds, unbalanced, 14+ and forcing
1M= 14+ and forcing or minimum with 4 OM
1N = 12-14 balanced or 4441s
2L=10-13 natural

So you're getting your weak 2Ms in and your 1m has to handle the Fantunes' 2m openings....minimum natural.

Are you pretty far along with this? Very curious about the 1m continuations.

[foobar]

straube, on 2018-April-07, 12:04, said:

Are you pretty far along with this? Very curious about the 1m continuations.

+1...also, any idea on how it'll fit in the new ACBL charts?

[awm]

1♦ continuations are pretty simple:

1M = natural, 4+ suit, any strength
... 1NT = one-suited diamond rebid, or 5♦/4♥ min over 1♠, or any 17+
... 2♣ = natural 11-16
... 2♦ = three-card raise 11-16 (and 5+♦)
... 2M = four-card raise, min
... 2N+ = can use for various distributional hands

1N = various inv+ hands, usually without a major (F1)
... 2m = natural, F1
... 2M = GF reverse with 4M
... 2N = min 4441 in that order (NF if partner has an invitational balanced hand without fit)
2♣ = less than invitational, 3325 or 6+♣
2♦ = less than invitational, 3+♦
2M,3♣ = 6+ suit INV
2NT = four-plus card diamond raise, mixed or invite
3♦ = preemptive, 3M = splinter

1♣ continuations are a little like Polish Club:

1♦ = 0-6 any, or natural diamonds
... 1M = 4-card suit, or 3-card suit with 12-14 balanced, at most around 18 high
... 1NT = 18-20 balanced
... 2♣ = 11-17 natural
... 2♦ = artificial GF
... 2M = 4M and longer clubs, like 19-21 (in principle passable, 2NT is lebensohl)
... 2N = 4♦ and 5+♣, 19-21 or so
... 3♣ = 18-21 or so long clubs
1M = natural 7+ hcp
... mostly natural continuations, reverses and 2NT rebid are GF and potentially unlimited
1NT = balanced with decent values
2♣ = 5+♣ inv+, no major
2♦, 2M = 6+ suit INV
2NT = GF natural

[straube]

Have you looked at using just one of the 2m openings for those four hands? Maybe 2C?

I haven't mapped it out but your 19+ M hands have to "announce" themselves pretty high anyway. Plus I wonder if you having a natural 2D opening would help your 1D auctions. Maybe there isn't a need.

[foobar]

straube, on 2018-April-07, 16:16, said:

Have you looked at using just one of the 2m openings for those four hands? Maybe 2C?

I haven't mapped it out but your 19+ M hands have to "announce" themselves pretty high anyway. Plus I wonder if you having a natural 2D opening would help your 1D auctions. Maybe there isn't a need.

Mikestar13 already alluded to it, but another option is to use 2♦ as multi (weak major only). Granted, this doesn't permit an immediate raise, but on the plus side removes the cue bid, and might make unwinding the 19+ hands easier.

[awm]

The problem is that the strong major hands are not necessarily game forcing (in fact they are weaker than in a "standard" 2♣ opening) and I'd like to be able to get out in 2M occasionally when responder has a really bad hand. At the same time, they are unlimited so opener has to be able to force. This creates a lot of problems if trying to compress the four hand types all into one 2m bid; for example suppose we get:

2♣ = all four hand types
... 2♦ = too weak for game opposite the minimum strong type

But now 2M is certainly NF, so opener with a game force needs to bid 2NT+ which is awkward without having identified a major.

Similarly:
... 2♥ = GF opposite strong hand, but to play opposite weak two in hearts

Since 2♠ is presumably weak two in spades, again we're in this situation where the strong hands need to bid 2NT+ without identifying a major.

These problems pretty much go away if 2♦=spades (for example); you can use:

... 2♥ = too weak for game opposite minimum strong with spades (now 2♠ to play, 2NT+ GF and natural with spades and showing shape)
... 2♠ = sign off opposite weak two in spades, but values for game opposite strong hand type (2NT+ GF and natural with spades)
... 2NT+ = basically normal responses to a weak 2♠; always GF opposite the strong hand (if only due to fit)

If the 2♣ opening is always strong, you can do something like:
... 2♦ = GF values
... 2♥ = really bad hand but GF fit for spades
... 2♠ = really bad hand but GF fit for hearts
... 2NT = really bad hand with 5+/5+ minors, no 3M
... 3m = really long suit, really bad hand, no fit for either major
... 3♥ = not a very good hand, but fit for both majors (GF)

The idea is that if responder bids 2M, opener can pass (with that major and min) or bid the other major (GF natural) or bid 2NT+ (GF values with the major responder bid).

In any case I am not very worried about the 1♦ auctions; compared to a "standard" 1♦ I've gained 1NT and 2NT artificial rebids to handle the strong hands, so there's a good bit of space available.

[awm]

foobar, on 2018-April-07, 14:13, said:

+1...also, any idea on how it'll fit in the new ACBL charts?

As I am living in Switzerland, I do not care so much about the new ACBL charts. However, it looks to me like both versions above are on the open+ chart but should not need any new suggested defenses (multi already has a defense, transfer preempts may not require one in the new charts but anyway already have a defense).

The version which mikestar13 suggested (2♣ = hearts intermediate or strong) would be allowed on the open chart if we bump the range a little to 10-13.

[awm]

mikestar13, on 2018-April-07, 06:55, said:

Nice looking system, awm! For me I would go with the flag bids (♣=♥, ♦=♠). Allows better preepmtion when partner has a fit, as against not allowing a qbid in the multi case. I go with Benito Garazzo on this, he wouldn't play multi as he considered 2♠(weak)-3♠ to be the best bid in the game. The decision is close, it could pay to run some sims. Have you considered 2♥/2♠=3-8 2♣/2♦=9-13 or strong as an alternative?

I'm not sure how sims would help me much. People seem to think that:

2M = 9-13
2♦ = 3-8 either major

is better than

2M = 3-8
2♦ = 9-13 either major

considering that the former structure is pretty commonly played where multi is allowed and I've never seen the latter. There were also some claims to this effect on a discussion on bridgewinners, with the problem being that we might need to look for slam opposite the 9-13 hand and this is easier when you know the major right off (especially if the slam strain is responder's suit). And the 9-13 range is probably more common, especially in 2nd seat after a pass.

I agree that when playing "flag bids" it's even less clear. Is there a particular reason combining the strong+intermediate would be better (besides ACBL charts)?

[straube]

I didn't understand that you would have two asks. It makes a lot of sense.

Something that would bother me, however, is that...

2C-hearts
2D-some support for a big hand
2H-weak two

is inefficient. The 2D has to cater to a possibility that in this instance doesn't exist and doesn't have a pay off. There's always an opportunity cost
for that sort of thing.

Another thing that would concern me is

1D P 1M (2C)

Now opener has a super wide range and responder even wider.

I've noticed that the unbalanced natural 1D opening is infrequent, whether we're talking Fantunes or Polish or this structure. I did a small sample with this structure and it was the least common 1-level opening. And I don't see a huge advantage for announcing an unbalanced diamond when you consider the cost of doing so. I know everyone says that they do well when they open an unbalanced diamond.

Huge fan of IMprecision and don't think any of these structures remotely compare. Maybe you have a partnership in mind for this or it's a thought experiment. I've occasionally tried to "solve" the problem of wanting to announce some suit information when holding a strong hand and haven't seen anything I like yet.

Didn't you have some interest in Rob's Silent Club idea? I think maybe it was your idea that he borrowed.

[awm]

straube, on 2018-April-08, 10:58, said:

I didn't understand that you would have two asks. It makes a lot of sense.

Something that would bother me, however, is that...

2C-hearts
2D-some support for a big hand
2H-weak two

is inefficient. The 2D has to cater to a possibility that in this instance doesn't exist and doesn't have a pay off. There's always an opportunity cost
for that sort of thing.

Another thing that would concern me is

1D P 1M (2C)

Now opener has a super wide range and responder even wider.

The bids over 2♣ opening are the other way -- it's quite rare for responder to have less than GF opposite a strong hand (it's like 0-4 after all), and it's ridiculously rare for responder to have this hand when opener has a weak two (and opener's LHO didn't bid). So 2♥ is GF opposite the strong hand and to play opposite the weak hand, and 2♦ is the negative. The auction you gave would basically never happen.

I'm not really that worried about opener having 22+ in an auction like 1♦-P-1M-(2♣). The issue is that opponents can't just overcall on nothing because this is not at all a strong auction and could easily be their hand. So the odds of a two-level overcall when opener has such a huge hand are pretty low. Further, a lot of the sorts of strong hands that open 1♦ would open 1♦ in standard also (even with 22 hcp, shapes like 4135 are really awkward for a 2♣ opening)... and a lot of people respond to a 1m opening on a five-card major with basically no points. So I'm basically formalizing the way a lot of people play anyway!

As for the rationale behind this system, methods like IMPrecision are great but they are also super-complicated. It's hard to find strong partners (who live in Switzerland) and want to memorize this stuff. So I'm looking for a system that's relatively simple/natural, but still has some advantages over regular 2/1. Of course I'm also not forced to follow ACBL regulations, so Multi and such are possibilities if I want them.

[foobar]

awm, on 2018-April-08, 12:26, said:

As for the rationale behind this system, methods like IMPrecision are great but they are also super-complicated. It's hard to find strong partners (who live in Switzerland) and want to memorize this stuff. So I'm looking for a system that's relatively simple/natural, but still has some advantages over regular 2/1. Of course I'm also not forced to follow ACBL regulations, so Multi and such are possibilities if I want them.

Did you have any plans to for the 2♦ opening (if not playing multi)? One possibility might be use it with some balanced hand in say the 18-19 range? You likely don't need it, but might be useful to remove the 5M332 hand in the 18-19 range from the 1♣ opening.

[awm]

foobar, on 2018-April-08, 14:20, said:

Did you have any plans to for the 2♦ opening (if not playing multi)? One possibility might be use it with some balanced hand in say the 18-19 range?

One suggestion is in this thread? I think intermediate twos are very effective, so would tend to play those with a weak (only) multi if playing standard openings. Using 2♦ to show 18-19 balanced seems like a very bad method to me (yes, I know some good players use it).

[foobar]

awm, on 2018-April-08, 14:41, said:

One suggestion is in this thread? I think intermediate twos are very effective, so would tend to play those with a weak (only) multi if playing standard openings. Using 2♦ to show 18-19 balanced seems like a very bad method to me (yes, I know some good players use it).

Yup -- got the various responses mixed up and thought that 2♦ was free, but clearly the proposed treatment of 2♦ as ♠ is much superior.

[straube]

I like this better than Fantunes or Polish Club.

Like Fantunes, you get to name your anchor suit when strong, but you use the 2-level effectively for weak and intermediate hands long a major and you don't have to preempt minimum opening hands that are potentially two-suited or have a bad suit. That aspect of Fantunes always seemed bizarre to me, but I know some feel differently.

I guess it's more similar to Polish Club. You could modify Polish Club pretty easily to be...

1C-weak NT or 3-suited short diamond or intermediate clubs or 19+ with clubs or a major as a primary suit
1D-unbalanced natural and forcing, unlimited
1M-natural, up to 18
1N-15-17
2C-11-15, clubs
2D-multi
2M-9-13 natural

and then you're just basically rearranging the 2m and 1C openings.

I think using machinery to split ranges for long majors (into 3-8, 9-13, and so on) is a winner.

I guess some would argue that unlike Polish, it won't be safe to make a NFB in a major as opener may just have a minimum hand with clubs?

[nullve]

awm, on 2018-April-07, 05:44, said:

BTW the rest of the system:

1♣ = clubs or balanced, unlimited and forcing
1♦ = diamonds, unbalanced, unlimited and forcing
1M = 10-18 or so with 5M, if single-suited then not 10-13
1NT = 15-17 balanced
2M = 9-13 and 6M
2NT = 21-23 balanced

Have you considered freeing up 2♠ by using 2♥ as an intermediate-strength (10+ hcp / non-BSC) version of Major Flash?

EDIT:

E.g. you could play

2♣ = a) weak, either 6(+)M3-OM or 5M3-OM4+m b) "22+" (GF), 5+ S, unBAL
2♦ = "19+", 5+ H, unBAL
2♥ = Intermediate Major Flash
2♠ = "19-21", 5+ S, unBAL.

I already play the 2♣ the opening, except with H instead of S if "22+".

[awm]

I dont think that Major Flash is a generally good method. The problem is that when I have a hand with hearts, I want to be able to play in 2♥, and when I have a hand with spades I want to be able to play in 2♠. This may seem rather obvious, but you actually can’t do this with Major Flash.

Where it does succeed is when you are NV (so down a bunch in the wrong major undoubted might be okay) and/or where opponents have game (so down a bunch undoubted is okay). This combination makes the convention somewhat appealing as a way to handle weak hands when NV, and not at all appealing with intermediate hands at Vul.

[nullve]

awm, on 2018-April-09, 04:05, said:

I dont think that Major Flash is a generally good method. The problem is that when I have a hand with hearts, I want to be able to play in 2♥, and when I have a hand with spades I want to be able to play in 2♠. This may seem rather obvious, but you actually can’t do this with Major Flash.

Isn't the important thing whether it's possible to stop in 2M when it's right? It's true that Responder will often not be able "see" right away which major Opener has, but then he will usually be able to make a Law-ful P/C-type response or at least invite.