[pilowsky]

OK? DONT¹ run screaming straight away - just bear me out for a moment.
If the 1NT opening call is a 15-17 balanced hand looking for a longish but weak suit to shake hands with, so to speak, then isn't Ogust simply the opposite convention where a weak 2 opening is looking for a 15+ hand?
By extension then, one partner of mine agreed to play 2♣'s weak as well, since we transfer to the minors anyway. To cope with the loss of 2♣'s strong we simply decided to make 1♣ forcing for one round with 1♦ the alertable negative response if partner has 0-6 points. I would be very interested to hear other people's views. And yes, our 1♣ can still be 2+ ♣ and an opening hand and all the rest of 2/1 applies. We are NOT using full on Precision, although I do have Reese's book from the '70's.
1. haha

[FelicityR]

It's so much easier dealing with (overcalling) a weak 2♣ opener than a weak 2♠ opener. Most 6 card weak ♣ suits are opened at favourable vulnerability with 3♣ these days anyway.

[pescetom]

You are giving up a lot for not much here. Strong 2♣ has obvious limitations but the abilities to differentiate big NT hands or to impose trumps with a huge single suiter are important. Even the loss of 1♣ - 1♦ is a significant price, you might sacrifice it to play transfer responses but not for this.

[pilowsky]

The main 'sacrifices' are 2NT and 2♣ strong. In some ways this can be a benefit, since so often partner (especially online) does not have good agreement with coping with these bids if they are very weak, and things can go awry very quickly. We all recall our wins, but after 2NT (20-21 balanced) if your partner/CHO has very little to contribute then it is quite common to not make even eight tricks. Similar disasters can occur after 2♣ strong except that it becomes even easier for ops to interfere with lead directing calls etc.

[Vampyr]

Try Polish Club. Or look into EHAA.

[pilowsky]

I left Polish behind two generations ago (now I just speak English with a few different accents). EHAA is another way of saying IWIKWIWD

[Vampyr]

pilowsky, on 2019-October-10, 05:26, said:

I left Polish behind two generations ago (now I just speak English with a few different accents). EHAA is another way of saying IWIKWIWD

Well, whatever. I believe that EHAA has 4 weak twos and no strong opening at all.

[pilowsky]

Thank you for that - I stand corrected. My suggestion is quite different from EHAA since it is systemic with the 2/1 15+ NT range. At least as I now understand it from Wikipedia. EMBTACOL

[TylerE]

Your suggestion is basically Polish Club without the supporting bits that make Polish club playable.

[pescetom]

pilowsky, on 2019-October-10, 04:40, said:

The main 'sacrifices' are 2NT and 2♣ strong. In some ways this can be a benefit, since so often partner (especially online) does not have good agreement with coping with these bids if they are very weak, and things can go awry very quickly.

Sorry but I can't see the logic in designing an unusual system to get over problems that derive mainly from playing with online or weak partners. How/why are they going to learn your unusual system and why should they make less mistakes than they do with a usual system?

[msjennifer]

pilowsky, on 2019-October-10, 02:21, said:

OK? DONT¹ run screaming straight away - just bear me out for a moment.
If the 1NT opening call is a 15-17 balanced hand looking for a longish but weak suit to shake hands with, so to speak, then isn't Ogust simply the opposite convention where a weak 2 opening is looking for a 15+ hand?
By extension then, one partner of mine agreed to play 2♣'s weak as well, since we transfer to the minors anyway. To cope with the loss of 2♣'s strong we simply decided to make 1♣ forcing for one round with 1♦ the alertable negative response if partner has 0-6 points. I would be very interested to hear other people's views. And yes, our 1♣ can still be 2+ ♣ and an opening hand and all the rest of 2/1 applies. We are NOT using full on Precision, although I do have Reese's book from the '70's.
1. haha

Sir,Keeping a 1C opening to include strong hands and forcing is almost akin to playing a system like the Polish Club.(Since you mention that you do not play the full Precision System.) .Although the new thoughts appear different than the ones used in a standard system, the scheme will have to be defined to a tee as it appears to be based on other assumptions that do not fit into a Standard system.I wonder how many ordinary players shall accept an entirely new approach and also why.

[DozyDom]

I have played a weak 2C in a Precision-like context in the past. It was singularly useless; neither obstructive nor constructive, while taking a great amount of clarity from our 1D open which now had to include hands with long clubs. This layout seems to take far more clarity away even than that - I can't help thinking that your most common opening is 1C, and the opening your opponents most want to see from you is 1C; not a good combination.

[eagles123]

there was definitely a topic on weak 2 club on here a few years ago dunno how to find it, but I remember finding it quite enlightening

[wank]

the only strong openings i play with my regular partner are 2nt and 3nt. of course you’re hugely ev negative when you open a gf 3nt but we think we’re printing money on the much more common hands. we actually play flannery and 2c weak with the majors but 4 weak 2s is fine if that’s your preference.

in match points it’s a no brainer imo. the scoring system puts a premium on part score hands. at imps your bad boards will often be -13 or -16 for slam swings which is more painful. still, we’ll be playing it in serious events, the english trials for example.

[mikestar13]

The original Roth-Stone system featured four weak twos and sound but non-forcing one bids. EHAA added a 10-12 1NT and made the two bids less disciplined, then Fantunes restored disciple to weak twos in first and second seat and made the one bids forcing.

[Zelandakh]

Some questions:-
1. What does Responder bid after 1♣ with a natural 1♦ response?
2. How does Opener show the big (GF) hand after 1♣ - 1♦?
3. How does Opener show an invitational (18-19) hand after 1♣ - 1♦?
4. Have you looked at Nightmare, which seems to have some similarities in approach?

[pilowsky]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-16, 05:07, said:

Some questions:-
1. What does Responder bid after 1♣ with a natural 1♦ response?
2. How does Opener show the big (GF) hand after 1♣ - 1♦?
3. How does Opener show an invitational (18-19) hand after 1♣ - 1♦?
4. Have you looked at Nightmare, which seems to have some similarities in approach?

Thanks so much for that - Really useful ideas - will study carefully.