relknes

The only trouble here is that a Limit Raise (which I assume is what LR was) seems impossible to define when opener's 1♦ could have represented any of the 4 suits or even a balanced hand... However, if we change that to invitational values, then it seems workable. (You didn't define 2♣ as a response, so i will assume it would have simmilar meaning to 2♦). In that case: After 1♣ 1♦ = 0-6 points (0-9 points with no 4 card major) 1M = 7+ points, 4+ 1NT = 8-11(12) balanced 2m = 10+ points, 5+, denies 4 card major 2M = invitational, 5+ 2NT = GF balanced After 1♦ 1M = 0-9 points 1NT = 8-11(12) balanced 2m = 10+ points, 4+ 2M = invitational, 5+ 2NT = GF, balanced or 5+ major Is this something like what you play? I realize that the 2NT followups would be different, asking for long suits rather than shortness, but I think that is a better approach given the nature of these 1♣ and 1♦ openings.

In some systems, after a forcing bid by partner, you are forced to "manufacture" a bid because you don't technically have the requirements to bid naturally. This is frequent in 2/1, for instance, when a forcing 1NT by partner can leave you a choice between rebidding that 5 card heart suit, or bidding 2m on a 3 card suit. When is this sort of thing legal and when is it not legal? (I live in ACBL land, by the way) For instance, I have been currious about a forcing 1♦ opening, where a 1NT response is an artificial game force asking for clarification. Would I have to allow responder to bid 2/1 with 0 points and a hand like 3-3-4-3 to make this legal, or can I allow responder to "manufacture" a bid on a 3 card major in that case? Are there other cases when bids like this are legal?

There is also the posability that I could use 1NT as an artificial GF after the 1m openings. Would it make more sense to have the responses as follows? After 1♣: 1♦= 0-6 points 1M = 4+, 7-13 points 1NT = 14+ points artificial GF 2m = 4+, 7-13 points After 1♦ 1M = natural, 0-13 points 1NT = 14+ artificial GF 2m = 4+, 7-13 points I am still trying to see if this is legal, since after 1♦ a player would have to "manufacture" a bid with 0-6 points and no 4 card major. This is legal in a lot of other systems, such as after a forcing 1NT in 2/1, but the ACBL dosn't give nearly the leeway to offbeat systems as they do to mainline ones. However, if this does turn out to be legal, is it an appropriate way to solve the problem?

My understanding is that there are bidding systems and there are families of bidding systems. Acol is a family of bidding systems, the main ones being Benji and English Standard, but including other less popular systems as well. The Strong Club family is a different family, containing several systems, of which Precision is one. The system that these people are playing is clearly in the strong club family, but that alone does not make it Precision. Blue Team Club, or even Moscito are also strong club systems. They are related, but to call them Precision would be misleading. You encounter simmilar confusion over the Polish Club family of bidding systems. There is a range of systems that fall into this family, but some people restrict Polish Club to WJ (Polish Standard). This is another case of confusing the family of systems with a particular system. Not all Polish Club systems are WJ, and not all Strong Club systems are Precision.

Since 1♥ cannot be a negative response to an artificial 1♦, is it legal to require game forcing values to jump to the 2 level and invitational values to respond 1NT? This would require a person to bid 1M with 0-9 points, which might not be technically "natural" if both majors are less than 4 cards. Then again, these sorts of manufactured bids are common in other systems, like "forcing 1NT" when opener dosn't have enough values to reverse and dosn't have enough length to rebid their suit. Also, if these are legal, would they have to be forcing?

So this is more of what you would have in mind? After a 1♣ opener, responder's bids are: 1♦:0-6 points 1M: 7+ points, 4+ 1NT: 7-11 points, balanced 2m: 7+ points, 5+ 2NT: 11-12 points, balanced After a 1♦ opener, responder's bids are 1M: 4+ cards 1NT: 0-11 points, no 4 card major, can't bid 2m 2m: 7+ points, 5+ 2NT: 11-12 points, balanced The 2M bids are free here. You don't seem to like the idea of 13+ points, 4+. What would be a better use for them? I had orriginally thought that these bids would be game force, even 13 across from an unbalanced 10

My initial thoughts for responding to 1M were these: 4M = either natural game bid with no slam interest, or “Weak freak” with good 5 card or any 6 card support 3M = 6-9 points, poor 5 card support or good 4 card support 2M = 6-9 points, 3 card support or poor 4 card support Double jump shift = Splinter Jump shift = invitational with 4 card support and a side suit 2NT = game invitational, exactly 3 card support 2/1 = GF 1NT = invitational or weaker, no 3 card support (non-forcing) 1/1 = 4+ cards, 6+ points The thought behind this was that, given the fact that opener had limited their strength, it was much easier for responder to diferentiate between varrious invites. Therefore there are 4 ways to invite game directly, the 3 jump shifts and 2NT. 2NT is invitational to either 3NT or 4M, depending on whether opener has a 5 or 4 card major, and can be signed off by passing 2NT or by bidding 3M. The Jump shifts all promise 4 card support and a good side suit with invitational values, allowing opener to choose between 3M and 4M. Since these jump shifts are forcing, this can also be the start of a slam investigation. With slam invitational values, this bid guarentees a doubleton in both unbid suits. If opener refuses the game invite by trying to sign off at 3M, responder simply corrects to 4M, while if opener accepts the invite by bidding 4M then responder can continue on with blackwood or some other slam bidding convention. These cover the unbalanced hands with no singleton, while the splinter bids cover the unbalanced hands with a singleton, leaving the 2/1 responses to explore slam with a balanced hand. With the game invitational and slam invitational hands taken care of, that leaves only the hands that clearly belong in game or clearly belong in a part-score. A direct jump to 4M implies either a weak freak that is bidding on distribution, or a hand that is clearly good enough for game across from 12 points, but has no interest in slam even oposite 16 points. This uncirtainty makes it harder for opponents to make peanalty doubles and also makes it less attractive for them to try spades after bidding goes 1♥-4♥ (which can be quite tempting if it only shows a "weak freak" 10 card fit). 3NT can also be bid directly, denying 3 card support, promising 4 cards in the unbid major, and giving opener a choice of games. For clearly part score strength hands, either 1NT or a raise of the major are the options. 1NT is non-forcing, denying 3 card support. A double raise of opener's major shows good 4 card support (or poor 5 card support), while a single raise shows 3 card support (or poor 4 card support). Opener can then decide if they want to invite game, but will usually just pass. I orriginally designed these for the other system (the one built around the Polish Club). These sorts of responses really only make sense after a rather narrow opening bid, such as the 12-16 range in this system, and even then they only really make sense in a 4 card majors system. So although they don't have a wider aplication, they seem like they fit the bill for this system. Now, these are bids that I designed on my own, so there are probably holes in the logic. 9 bids to start exploring slam, 6 bids that force to game, 4 bids to invite game, and 2 bids to sign off in game is a lot of attention to give to the strong hands considering there are only 3 bids to pursue a part score. I was thinking, looking at these ratios, that it might be best to do away with the 2/1 game force aspect and playing 2/1 instead as 8+ points denying 3 card support in old school ACOL style.

Interesting. This helps a lot. It occurs to me, also, that it might make sense for me to make this a 4 card major system, in order to relieve some of the pressure on the 2m bids. 1M would show 4+ unbalanced or 5 balanced with 12-16 points, 1NT would show 13-16 balanced, and 2m would show 5+ 12-16 with no 4 card major (unless 6-4). This solves two problems and introduces one. It solves the concrete problem of missing 4-4 major fits, and the theoretical problem of having too many hands in the 2m bids. However, it introduces the problem of making 1M-1NT-2m sequences ambiguous as to the relative length of the suits, since you would bid this way with 5M 4m or with 4M 5m. Is this an improvement, or is the ambiguity introduced into the 1M openings too high a price to pay? Now, the only 12 point hands I would pass are 4432 and 4333 hand paterns, though I might still open a 4432 1NT if it were a "Good" 12 points. 1♣ would now show either a 17+ with the shape of a 1M opening, a balanced hand with 17-19 or 23-24 points, or a 10-12 point unbalanced hand with a 5 card minor. I would still open this with a 5422 shape since there is the additional chance that partner and i will stumble into a 4-4 fit. 1♦ would show either 17+ with the shape of a 2m opening, a balanced hand with 20-22 or 25+, or a 10-12 unbalanced hand with a 5 card major. After a 1♣ opener, responder's bids are: 1♦:0-6 points 1M: 7-12 points, 4+ 1NT: 7-12 points, no 4 card major, no 6 card minor 2m: 7-12 points, 6+ 2M: 13+ points, 4+ 2NT: 13+ points, no 4 card major After a 1♦ opener, responder's bids are 1M: 0-12 points, 4+ (unfortunately, neither a 1♥ negative nor 3 card responses are legal here... I checked a few days ago. Like I said, hamstrung) 1NT: 0-12 points, no 4 card major, can't bid 2m 2m: 7-12 points, 6+ 2M: 13+ points, 4+ 2NT: 13+ points, no 4 card major After which bidding would proceed simmilarly to a Precision auction if opener had a strong hand, and simmilarly to a Fanturnes two bid when opener had a weakish hand. As a side note, an objection that you raised in your first post is also now resolved, since the 1♣ opening now has more hands than the 1♦ opening, and the more serious (but related) problem of the 2m openings having more frequency than the 1M bids is also resolved. Putting more hands into 1M of course makes them more ambiguous, however, and it is no longer clear that this 1M is better than SAYC 1M. Opening a 4 card suit at the 1 level while a bid in a 5 card suit is available at the 2 level seems ok in terms of the general rule that an extra trump is worth 1 extra level of bidding, but I am a little worried about later in the auction. Also, 1♦-...NT always had a meaning. It used to be 17+ balanced with no 5 card major (so actually the majority of strong balanced hands were opened 1♦), where 1♣-...NT was 17+ balanced with a 5 card major. However, I like your idea of dividing the ranges much better, partially to find more major fits oposite a weak responder and partially to create a paralell with the 12-16 point hands which will make memorizing easier. It will also leave my 2NT free for a preempt.

Two questions about artificial 1m openings in ACBL regulations. 1. After an artificial 1♦ opening bid, can 1♥ be used as a negative response, similar to a 1♣-1♦ sequence? 2. After an artificial 1m opening, can a response be defined as "negative or natural", for instance after 1♣ can 1♦ be either negative or natural diamonds?

In developing the idea for this system, I had the following goals: When opener has 0-9 points, the system is the same as Standard American, with the exception of giving up the 2♦ preempt. When opener has 10-12 points, the system performs simmilarly to Fanturnes When opener has 13-16 points, the system performs better than standard American When opener has 17+ points, the system performs similarly to Precision Most of your objections seem to focus on the 10-12 range and the very strong (roughly 22+) range. Hopefully I can clarify a few things, and then maybe I can improve it somewhat. My goal with the 10-12 hands was to never leave myself in a worse place than I would have playing Fantunes, which opens with 2 of a suit with 9-13 points and 5+. My system is less preemptive than that one, but it does give you the oportunity to find 4-4 fits that Fanturnes would miss, for instance, with 10-12 points and 4-5 in the majors you open 1♦ (1♣ if I eventually decide to switch), and partner responds in your 4 card major. A single raise shows a fit with 10-12 points. Partner will then pass unless they have invitational values. The situation you mentioned where you end up missing an 8 card spade fit to play in a 7 card club fit, will happen if your partner has less than invitational values. Then again, this is exactly where Fanturnes would put you, and at least you had the oportunity to find a heart 4-4 fit where Fanturnes would miss either a 4-4 heart fit or a 4-4 spade fit. I honestly didn't worry at all about the case where opener had 10-12 and responder had 0-4, since if the opponents actually let you play that hand out at the 2 level, then they have missed game at least. A 12 point 4441 facing a 12 point 4441 would indeed be missed, unless one or the other of these hands was a "Very good 12 points". Is this situation common enough to warrent expanding my 2m bids to include them? I had immagined that these hands were better defensive hands than offensive ones, hence passing the borderline 4441 openers, but if that is a mistreatment, then I can change that. Currently, my 1M bids are 13-16 with 5+ and my 2m bids are 13-16 technically 4+ but almost always 5+ (4 only if 4441 shape), and 1NT is 13-16 balanced. The 1NT looses out a tiny bit to Standard American because of the 1 extra width on the point range, but it's frequency is much higher than a 15-17 range. So i feel safe in saying that I think this system performs better than SAYC when opener has 13-16 points. In my original concept, the range was 12-16. This was accompanied by a 9-11 point weak option on the 1m bids. I quickly realized that this is illegal in GCC teritory since it didn't guarentee 10 points, and so altered the post about 2 minutes after posting (hence blackshoe's confusion). Would it be better for me to stick to the original 12-16 point range for the 1M and 2m bids, and restrict the weak option on the 1m bids to 10-11? Finally, for the strong hands I wanted something that would perform simmilarly to Precision. With a 5 card major, this can be accomplished by making the 1♣-1♦ response either natural or negative. Then the only difference between 1♣-1♦-1M in my system vs Precision would be that my system promises an extra point and an extra card. The 1♣-1♦-2M would be the same as Precision, promising 22+ points and 5+ length. The other difference is between the systems is that 1♣-1♦ followed by a NT rebid promises a balanced had with a 5 card major. With no 5 card major, this can be accomplished by prohibiting 1♦-2x on fewer than 7 points. Then 1♦-1M-xNT would be almost exactly the same as the 1♣-1♦-xNT in Precision. 1♦-1M-2m would also have a close cousin from Precision, being almost identical to 1♣-1♦-2m in that system. This analogy with Precision is one main reason that I had 1♣ as major oriented with the strong varriant and 1♦ as no 5 card major with the strong variant. Would these adjustments make the system more workable? I know that you hate some of the results in the 10-12 point range, but I do think that the system makes gains over SAYC in the 13+ range as compensation. Are there other adjustments that still need to be made that haven't occured to me yet? Thanks for your input, by the way. I don't want to seem obstinate, which I realize I might since I am still posting about a method that you think will never be playable. You may well be right, but I have a lot of fun trying to solve the problems that people put out there, and you have a keen eye for spotting problems, both those I have considered and those I need to consider. So thank you again for taking the time to post. PS. you brought up 3+ major responses, but I believe those are illegal here in GCC land... they kind of hamstring you if you play anything but the most popular systems.

I am still working through the followups. I wanted to get some feedback on the concept and the legality before sinking too much time into it, since all the time I spent developing the last bidding system went to waste. However, if more info is needed to give accurate feedback, then I will post my current thought, with the understanding that this is still in the "rough" stages and there will probably be minor (or possibly even major) changes if people think that it is "workable" but not yet ideal. I was envisioning that in this system 1NT would be 13-16. I would be content to pass with 10-12 point hands which have a 4441, 4333, or 4432 shape. Balanced 10-12 point hands with a 5 card suit open 1♣ with a 5 card minor or 1♦ with a 5 card major. 17+ balanced hands would open 1♣ or 1♦ depending on whether they had a 5 card major or not, and then re-bid the appropriate number of NT. I have not yet decided if 2NT will be 20-22 balanced or a preempt in both minors. The followups are relatively simple. Responder bids naturally, with the cheepest suit bids all showing a 4+ card suit, 1NT showing 9-11 balanced. A jump in the other minor is artifical GF with slam interest across from the 17+ hands. As for the sequence you mentioned, 1♦-1♠-2♥, the rebid shows 10-12 points with 5+ hearts. 1♦-1♠-2♦ would show 17+ points with 5 diamonds (also denying 4 spades) which, while not quite as descriptive as a traditional reverse would be, is a reasonable aproximation of the hand you mentioned. In exchange for this less descriptive sequence, hands with "reverseable" strength but not the right shape for a traditional reverse become much easier to describe. 1♣-1♦-1♠, for instance, would show 17+ points with 5+ spades. 1♦-1♥-2♣ would show 17+ points, unbalanced, and 5+ clubs. 1♣-1♥-1NT would show a balanced hand with 17-19 points and 5 spades. If responder happens to bid opener's 5 card major, that is shown by a jump response (a single raise being reserved for weak hands where they hit your secondary suit). So 1♣-1♥-3♥ shows 17-20 points and 5+ hearts, for a 9+ card fit. a jump-shift by opener, such as 1♣-1♥-2♠, shows 21+ points, 5+ support for responder's major, and first round control of the bid suit. It is true that the 1♦ opening bid in this system has a few more hands than the 1♣ opening bid. How concerned should I be about this? It isn't that much more, and very few systems contain anything close to the "Ideal" measure of each opening bid containing twice as many hands as the bid above it, so I was't really that troubled. Is it something that I should be worried about? The reason that I did it that way was to lessen the frequency of responder bidding opener's long suit when opener has a strong hand. Since you bid 4 card suits "up the line", having 1♦ available when opener has a strong major hand but not when opener has a strong minor hand seemed prudent. Is that less of a problem than I am giving it credit for?

So, funny thing... after all the advice I got for the Polish Club varriant, I discovered that the rest of the system that I had devised (which was the reason for choosing the Polish Club to begin with) was illegal in the USA. I designed it for the WBF rules rather than the ACBL, trying to avoid the "Brown sticker" and "Yellow sticker" designations, and now I have a system that I would love to try out, but apparently I have to move to Europe first... So its back to the drawing board. I am still interested in a two way 1♣, and was currious about using a two way 1♦ in addition as a way of breaking up the possible shapes of the strong and weak hands. I like the idea of having a firm seperation between the strong and weak hands, so I thought it would be interesting to try: 1♣ = 10-12 points and a 5 card minor OR 17+ points with a 5 card major 1♦ = 10-12 points and a 5 card major OR 17+ points with no 5 card major This would make it easy for partner to seperate the two varriants, even in competition. The drawback is having to open 13-16 point hands with long minors at the 2 level, playing 2♣ and 2♦ as constructive rather than preemptive. So, two questions... 1. Is it workable? It seems like it could work fine, but I might be overlooking something glaringly wrong. 2. Is it legal? I would hate to go through developing another system only to find out that I still have to move to Europe...

The average points per hand is easy to calculate, because the total points in every deal is the same. There are 40 points and 4 players, so 10 points each... easy. It is much more difficult, however, to calculate the average number of "Playing tricks" per hand, because a deal dosn't always (in fact dosn't usually) add to 13. The more distributional the hands, the more playing tricks there tend to be. The most extreeme example would of course be where everyone is dealt a 13 card suit... each player has 13 playing tricks, for 52 total. Likewise, the "Loosing trick count" dosn't have a cirtain number that it always adds to. The LTC tends to drop as the hands become more distributional. In the above (extreeme) example, none of the players would have a single loosing trick, while each player having AKQJ of one suit and xxx of all the others would lead to a total LTC of 36. Now, these three hand evaluations are not independant of each other. It is impossible to have 12 playing tricks with only 4 points, for instance. So my first question is, what is the average number of playing tricks for a hand, and what is the average losing trick count for a hand? My intuition tells me that the average playing tricks should be greater than 3.25 and the average losing trick count should be less than 9.75, since both evaluations seem to assume that you are playing in your best suit, but I could be wrong. My second question is, how related are these three evaluations? Clearly there is not a direct dependance, but nor are they totally independant variables.

Alright, so the general concensus seems to be that the planned responses are terrible, and I should stick with the responses from Polish Standard. My last question, then, is will there be any problem with the fact that the single suited club hands with 11-16 points are thrown in? It is necessary for those hads to go there for the rest of the opening system to work, so i need a set of responses that take them into consideration (hence this whole exercise). In a lot of what I read about Polish Standard, they seem to draw some inferences from the fact that such hands would not be included, and I was worried that it would lead to some problems.

I orriginally posted this question in "General Bridge Discussion" and was told to ask it here instead. I am still not sure how to delete the original post... Is it legal, in the US, to have a 1NT bid that means "14 to 16 points and either balanced with no 5 card major or unbalanced with no 4 card major"? It is clearly not a destructive bid, and it is making a serious recomendation to play in NT (since 3NT is by far the most likely game when there is no major fit), though it is not "natural" in the GCC sense of the word.

I have another question about legality (USA). Is it legal for a player to open 1NT with 14-16 points and either a balanced hand or a monor-oriented hand, if you alert your opponents to the posability? It is a "Natural" bid in the sense that it is making a real suggestion that the partnership play in NT, but not in the more common sense of identifying your distribution most accurately. After all, most games without a major fit end up in NT... I know that some partnership allow for a 1NT bid on cirtain "semi-balanced" hands, but I am talking about hands with 5-4 in the minors or a hand with 7 diamonds, etc. My guess is that it would be illegal if it were a "Weak" bid, but with 14-16 points it isn't at all destructive in nature or intent. It is a contract you would expect to make easilly across from partner's average of about 8 points, and if partner tries stayman showing better than average values, then 2♦, 2♥, and 2♠ would have their traditional meanings, while 2NT could show both minors, 3♣ a single suiter in clubs, and 3♦ a single suiter in diamonds. A simmilar structure could be played over an attempted transfer.

Pass? The bid of 3NT tells your partner that you have shown your hand already, and he still continues to explore a diamond slam, so passing would be a terrible breach of captaincy.

I count 9 1/2 playing tricks, so it's a 2♣ opener for me. 3NT seems clear. You have shown your hand, and if partner has enough to explore slam then it's on him to go on.

You brought up the question of whether it makes it easier for the opponents to defend. I was currious if anyone uses them who has tried using them as a psych to get/discourage a particular lead when you know that you belong in game but not in slam? Seems like it would be a lot more common in a limited system than in SAYC, but just currious.

Well, I gues that answers that... so basically I'll never be able to use it. I am currious, then, what the "Brown Sticker" and "HUM" designations are for. This dosn't fit into either of those categories, but is still disallowed, so are those designations only for international tournaments or what?

Is this system of preempts legal? I tried to design it so that it was, but a friend told me "No... it can't be." without being able to explain exactly why. They are "transfer preempts", so partner bids the next step unless he has a very strong hand, in which case he can refuse the transfer, or unless he has length in the suit indicated and so can add to the preempt. These bids are made with unbalanced hands of 6-10 points. 1NT = promises 4+ clubs (will pass after transfer if 6, bid longer suit with a 2 suited hand, or bid 2NT with 4+ each of ♣/♦/♥) 2♣ = promises 4+ diamonds(will pass after transfer if 6, bid longer suit with a 2 suited hand, or bid 2NT with 4+ each of ♦/♥/♠) 2♦ = promises 4+ hearts(will pass after transfer if 6, bid longer suit with a 2 suited hand, or bid 2NT with 4+ each of ♣/♥/♠) 2♥ = promises 4+ spades(will pass after transfer if 6, bid longer suit with a 2 suited hand, or bid 2NT with 4+ each of ♣/♦/♠) So, for example, with 4 spades and 5 diamonds, the bidding would go 2♥-2♠-3♦. This would allow you to open ANY unbalanced hand in the 6-10 point range. The drawback is that it is harder for partner to add to your preempt when you have exactly 6, and you have to give up the 1NT bid (our system treats strong NT hands the same way a weak NT system treats them, and opens a Polish 1♣ with a balanced minimum). So is this system legal or not? If not, why, and can it be tweaked to become legal?

Ok, so I think I am finally prety happy with the responses to 1♣. Thanks to everyone who contributed. For those who are currious, I ended up sticking the strong minor oriented hands into the 1D response. The responses are now: 1♦ = 0-7 points, any shape . . . OR 8-11 with a 4 card major . . . OR 10-11 very distributional (ie. planning to invite game opposite 11-13 balanced) . . . OR 12+ that cannot bid 1H/1S/2N 1♥ = 12+, 4+ hearts 1♠ = 12+, 4+ spades 1NT = 8-11, no 4 card major, no decent 5 card minor 2♣ = 8-11, 5+ clubs, no 4+ major 2♦ = 8-11, 5+ diamonds, no 4+ major 2♥ = 8-11, 5+ hearts, but not 4+ spades 2♠ = 8-11, 5+ spades, but not 4+ hearts 2NT = 12+ balanced, no 4 card major 3♣/♦/♥/♠ = 0-7 points, 6+ length This make the 1♣-1♦ sequence the most ambiguous sequence I have ever played... but it seems like it should work ok. The followup sequences make it clear prety quickly which category of hand each player has. Thanks again to everyone who provided guidance, and especially to free who pointed out some serious flaws in the initial design.

I forgot to add the + after the 1M bids in my chart...sorry about that. It has been fixed. The strong 1M responses are not only because of game contracts, but to avoid the posability of playing in a major suit slam with the 8-11 point hand declaring. I don't mind as much if an opening strenght hand is declaring, even if partner is stronger. My thinking was that having the option of showing your 4+ major 2 ways would make game bidding easier across from a balanced min, and slam bidding easier across from a strong hand. After 1♣-1♦-1NT for instance, responder's possible bids all seem prety well defined, and knowing that a game invite would have 10-11 points AND distributional considerations seemed helpful. After 1♣-1M-1NT, a 2M response shows 5+ and invitational values, a 2NT response shows that you only had 4 with invitational values, and anything else shows game forcing strength. So basically, across from a balanced 11-13, I thought that the responder's invitational hands could be more well defined by making an immediate 1♣-1M require a cirtain strength, thus making it easier to find good games and avoid bad ones. It also seemed to make slam bidding easier across from a strong hand, since 1♣-1M-2M can now be played as strong and suit agreeing. If 1♣-1M could be bid on weaker counts, then you can't bid 1NT despite a fit with a balanced min and risk partner passing it with 8-10 points, so the raise to 2M is needed for supporting partner's suit with the weak varriant (possibly with only 3 card support). So, by forcing responder to bid 1♦ with a 4 card major and 8-11 points, you can avoid playing in a lot of moysian fits that you would otherwise be stuck in, and start slam exploration at a very low level when it is warented. The other consideration that you brought up, the 1♣-2NT-3M auction when opener has a strong major and responder a strong minor, this is a concern. It guarentees 29 combined points, but on what is possibly a total misfit. Opener has promised 5+ in his major; without 3 card support, responder might bid his minor at the 4 level, and the partnership could end up playing 4NT on a 29 point misfit. In the worst case, you go down in 4NT when 3NT would have made, which is the sort of thing that keeps bridge players up at night. Now, I do have a free bid elsewhere in my system that I could use for any major single suiter with 17+ points or 9+ playing tricks. It is the 2♠ opening bid (why this bid is free is a whole other story, but I have been trying to figure out the best use for it). If I put the strong major single suiters there, then 1♣-2NT-3M would promise 5+ in that major and 4+ in the other major, allowing partner to sign off at 3NT with no fit and 12-14 points. With a 4+ minor and 5 card major, you would bid the minor first, since partner has already strongly discouraged the majors. Every once in a while you will end up playing in 3NT with a 5-3 major fit, but with 29+ points between the hands, it will have no trouble making. The other method would be to put the strong unbalanced minor hands into the 1♦ bid, signaling with a jump bid after partner's next turn. Is it worth it to do something like this, or are there good enough ways to deal with 1♣-2m as unlimited that I shouldn't worry about it? I was concerned that an 11 point hand having to rebid over 2m might bring the partnership too high, and since 11 point balanced hands are not at all infrequent, I gave more weight to that scenario than I perhaps should have. What are your recomendations on the subject?

Here is the reworked idea, trying to incorperate the feedback I got on the original set of replies. 1♦ = 0-7 OR 8-11 with a 4 card major 1♥ = 12+, 4+ hearts 1♠ = 12+, 4+ spades 1NT = 8-11, no 4 card major, no 5 card minor 2♣ = 8-11, 5+ clubs 2♦ = 8-11, 5+ diamonds 2♥ = 8-11, 5+ hearts 2♠ = 8-11, 5+ spades 2NT = 12+, no 4 card major 3♣ = 0-7, 6+ clubs 3♦ = 0-7, 6+ diamonds This should catch the 4-4 fits, and dosn't risk a severe wrong siding even across from a strong hand since the direct 1M responses require fairly strong hands themselves. I also adjusted the point spreads by a touch to adress the concern of missing a close game. Is this a more reasonable set of responses?

Interesting. I see your point about the 4-4 major fits. Do you think it would be profitable to play a reversed major response, with 1♥ showing 4+ spades while denying 4 hearts, and 1♠ showing 4+ hearts, or would that have too many drawbacks elsewhere to make it worth the effort? Perhaps a better solution would be to respond with all 8+ point hands without a 5 card major as 1♦, or maybe I am just way too concerned about the whole "wrong siding" thing and need to forget it... sorry, now I'm just rambling... A second question I have been currious about for a while now is how much worse is it to play in 1NT when a major fit exists, but you have a balanced hand facing a balanced hand? I know it is often important at the game level, but is it equally important when considering 1NT vs say 2♥? The other point you raised confused me a little. I have always avoided game on 24 combined points without some compensating shape considerations. My basic assumption has been that 26 points, including distribution, are needed for a good chance at game. Have I been operating under a false premise? The 2NT bid is taken directly from WJ2005, adjusted 1 point because my weak balanced is 1 point different than theirs. Same with the point ranges on the 1NT bid, the difference being the issue of a 4 card major. Thanks for your response. I hope that this discussion is as fun for you as it is for me. I am one who has always had just as much fun with the theory as I have actually playing.