glen

on the first, I like ♣ A, ♦ A, ♦ 5 to the T, ♥ to the King

excellent structure!

Not true, if you hold instead ♠ KQ3 ♥ A54 ♦ 1053 ♣ KJ32 on the preempts I gave, you will see there are no problems in selecting a rebid after the preempts. If you have a hand close to the expected strength and shape, you don't have a problem. However in these Italian systems, when opener does take action after 1m-preempt, since the 18-19 balanced are excluded as a possible hand type, responder knows opener is big, unbalanced, with a natural opening.

You hold: ♠ KQ3 ♥ A94 ♦ AJ ♣ KJ954 It goes 1♣(you)-2♠-P-P-? Your bid? Same hand, it goes 1♣(you)-1♠-P-3♠*-? * Preemptive Your bid? Same hand, it goes 1♣(you)-3♦-P-P-? Your bid?

One of the more interesting systems ever played in the US will be in the US Open knockouts today. Dinkin-Tunçok call if "Modified Fantunes" but it really is unique. Here is the 1-2 second opening structure that they used in the Round Robin to get into the KOs today: 1♣: 10-14 all purpose, either: - 13-14 balanced, can have 5cM - 10-14 unbalanced with a minor - 10-14 three suited - 10-14 5-4+/4-5+ majors - 10-14 7M (7321) 1♦: artificial, 15+, no 5cM except in 1-2 can be 5440/5332/5422 1♥: 8-10, 4+♥s, may have longer second suit 1♠: 8-10, 4+♠s, may have longer minor 1NT: 10-12 2♣: 15+, 5+♥s 2♦: 15+, 5+♠s 2♥: 10-14, 5+♥s, fewer than 4♠s 2♠: 10-14, 5+♠s, fewer than 4♥s 2NT: 20-21 balanced Now that they are in the KOs the system mutates so all two bids are closer to Fantunes. Here is the 1-2 seat structure: 1♣: 8-13, either 8-10 all shapes, or 11-13 and: - three suited - 5-5+ any two suits - 5-4+/4-5+ majors - 7 card suits 1♦: artificial, 14+, 14-21 no 5 card card or longer major or 22+ any 1♥: 14-21, 4+♥s (5+♥s if minimum), may have longer second suit 1♠: 14-21, 5+♠s, may have longer minor 1NT: 11-13, includes all 5332s/5422s even if both majors 2♣: 10+ to 14-, 5+♣s 2♦: 10+ to 14-, 5+♦s 2♥: 10+ to 14-, 5+♥s, fewer than 4♠s 2♠: 10+ to 14-, 5+♠s, fewer than 4♥s 2NT: 19-20 balanced They will be using their big diamond system today and tomorrow to try to upset the #1 Diamond team

Opener has one of two hands: ♠ K ♥ KQ54 ♦ K32 ♣ J6543 or ♠ AKT43 ♥ 543 ♦ KJ32 ♣ J See the level that the first hand should reach compared to the second hand. It is impossible for responder to know what that level is without knowing the degree of suit fit.

You hold: ♠: 98765 ♥: 2 ♦: AQ65 ♣: A82 Partner opens 1♣ 12-13 any shape. How is it that responder "immediately knows level of bidding"?

Define your overcalls of this 1♣ as "0-37 points, may or may not have the suit bid, intended as forcing but can be passed". If they ask you questions about this, say that the precise meaning of your bid depends on the specific meaning of 1[CL, such as when it can 0-5 points and when it has clubs. After a bunch of fun, perhaps everybody could return to playing bridge.

fun thread, thanks assuming that when you open 1NT 15-17 or 12-14, you pass most 11s balanced 1st/2nd hand: NV 9-11 1st hand, 4th hand: V 12-14 2nd hand, 3rd hand: V 15-17 4th hand: NV 15-17 (this is interesting as in 4th you open weak notrump V, and strong notrump NV!) 3th hand: NV ?-14 ?-14 means there is no lower range, it is just up to 14. Since 1NT is 9-11, there are no balanced invites opposite 12-14, so might as well open ?-14 Ideally, adding another range: 3rd hand: NV ?-15 4th hand: NV 13-15

yes, lowering prices would make more people buy it however the total revenue (price of book times number of people buying) would go down, as there is not a lot of demand for bridge books in general (the number of copies of a bridge bestseller is pathetic), and for systems stuff really bad At the moment Dan loses money on his website, since it's free to use and he has to pay money for hosting etc. For his books, if you consider the number of hours it takes to write them, he is making far less than $1 per hour of work. Given this, he is actually mostly donating his effort to us. To have him donate even more effort, by taking even less revenue, would seem to be asking too much. When I buy his books, which I do, it is to support him, both for the books themselves and his website, and to encourage him to keep donating to bridge.

given weak two's are in the 1NT opening, 2♣: 4M + longer m weak 2♦: 5M + 5m weak (like Wilkosz) 2♥: Majors weak 2♠: Awful ♠ preempt

It would be interesting to play 2D as: - 11-14 - three-suited - exactly 5 clubs - 0, 1, or 3 Ds - 1, 3, or 4 in each major

I prefer: Pass = can be 11-13 with 5-6♣s, major suit singleton, and not 6-4+ 1♣ = 11-13 NT/4-4-1-4/4-3-1-5/3-4-1-5/3-3-1-6/4-2-2-5/2-4-2-5 (no 5 card major) or 11-13 6♣s no singleton or void, or 17+ any 2♣ = 14-16, 6+♣s or 5♣s and 4♥/♠, may be 4-4-0-5, or 11-13 6+♣s shapely 6-4+ or 7+♣s, or 11-13 4-4-0-5

one thing to track is how many -200 you get vulnerable

1M can be 9, 2m forcing can be 12, that means one can have combined 21 and no fit, and often end up at 2NT, where the field is lower

I like redouble on the max hands with doubleton M support In that context, 2NT here would 5/4 either way in the minors

I like this, would tweak it to have: 2♣ = 13/14-16 hp 5+♥, 2♦ asks 2♦ = 9/10-13 hp 5+♥-4♠ 2♥ = 9/10-13 hp 5+♥, ♠<4 (fantunes style)

the scheme doesn't use a Precision type 2♣ opening I've worked on designs like this before (the minor flip), it is playable

yes, that is VERY simple what do you rebid after 1C-1S, with 6Cs, no spade fit, and minimum values?

that would require them to connect the dots, too hard

then I don't downgrade. I don't have enough information to make a clear decision to have a swing here

My Spry looks somewhat like this, it was last used this year, not-vul only, by a Greek pair in Euro 2014 http://info.ecatsbridge.com/Systems/2014EuropeanTeamChampionships-Opatija/OpenTeams/Greece/Delimpaltadakis_Papakyriakopoulos.pdf

One problem with Swedish club systems is the 2m openings have too wide of a range, most often 11-16. Moving to a more artificial approach, one could play: 1♦: 13-16, unbal, no five card major 2m: 9/10-12, 5+m, unbal

All things being equal (and never are) my research shows it is better to put the weak NT in 1D and 17-19 in 1C. When one tries to design a strong 1D system one realizes how much better a big club approach is. There are a bunch of reasons for weak NT in 1D related to space and declarer position, but a key is to compare the short club now dominating top European play with the Meckwell Lite strong presence in top US play and realize that the Meckwell Lite 1D doesn't need transfers (or major flips) to be just as effective and the extra space of the short club allows better counter measures. My current toy system (unpublished), the one I bid most hands I see against, is: 1♣: 14+ 4+♥s unbal, 15+ any unbal, 17+ bal 1♦: 11-13 bal, or 10-14 3 suiter with 3♠s and minor singleton (not void) or 13 1-4-4-4 1♥: 10-14 4♠s unbal 1♠: 9-14 5+♠s 1NT: 14-16 bal 2m: 10/11-14, 5+m, singleton or void if just 5m, not 4♠s, not 4♥s if 14 or 3-4-(5-1) 2♥: 9/10-13, 5+♥s, unbal, not 4♠s, not 3-5-(4-1) 2♠: 0-8, 5/6♠s A lot of this is based on spades (or the lack of them), but another key is to give the weak NT an opening that is mostly to its own. I agree that the more the weak NT is paired with other minimum hand types that are not quasi balanced it results in increased mess in the contested auction.

It's amusing that my credentials as a system designer would be questioned in a post/thread that mentions transfers over 1C, as Transfer Walsh stems from my article in The Bridge World (the naming of the convention and all the details on the follow ups were done by Henk Uijterwaal who gets zero credit nowadays for his great work, and the Swedish 1C transfer method that pre-dates Transfer Walsh is now far more popular: 1C-1red-1M all 11-13 bal instead of showing 3M or a strong hand, and they get no credit either). Such is success as a system designer where the only thing named after Walsh was not invented by him, and most 2/1 players have no clue about him. As to the question of this thread it's a good one, and while the current short club/unbal 1D is better than standard, I don't think it is best, and I much prefer Italian methods that park 18-19 or 18-20 bal into 2C, and it turns out it is quite safe moving standard 2C hand types into a 1C opening, given how both light responses and the Polish Club are proven.