akhare

Few comments: 1) It appears that that the structure offloads all the 6♦-4M hands to the 2♦ / 2N openings. If so, this is a step in the right direction and will greatly simplify relays. 2) It appears that the revised post no longer uses the the 1♦ - 1♠ - 1N and 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ sequences no longer split the hands along the basis of HCP strength (once again a good improvement). 3) It seems that we are intriguingly close to making the 1♦ - 1♥ and 1♦ - 1♠ sequences almost identical. In fact, it may even be possible, by defining 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ as 4+♣ 4+♦ (unbalanced with with short ♥s) and 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ as 4+ ♣, 4+♦s unbalanced with short ♠ (a la IMPrecision). It also paves the way for 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ to be precisely 1=4=5=3. 4) It's possible to eliminate the weak / invitational 5♠ - 4♥ from the initial 1♥ response by using two reverse-Flannery bids (2♥ / 2♠, a la Meckwell) and completely giving up on the WJS.

Sorry if I came across as too harsh, but I have been plastered to the wall @ work over the past few weeks and some of the frustration likely seeped through. That said, the critique does reflect what I see as a significant amount of artificiality and complexity (the follow ups after 1N being a case in point) in the proposed structure and my own inclination towards natural methods. Specifically, virtually 2-level bids in the proposed structure expect for 1M - 2M are artificial. While this is a perfectly legitimate approach, my personal preference is towards a much more natural approach for 1M openings (a la awm).

What does the 1M structure of forum posters who play light openings (defined as lighter than the typical 11-15 range) look like? Specifically: 1) What is your opening range? What is the minimum strength for balanced hands? 2) What does your 1N response promise? Is it forcing, semi-forcing or something else? 3) What do your 2♣ / 2♦ / 2♥ (over 1♠) responses promise? Are they natural GF, natural non-GF, or something else? 4) What does your 1M - 2M raise show? 5) What are your 1M - 3x responses? 6) What's your 2-level preempt structure? 7) What is your opening 1N range and do you systemically open 5M332 if in range? 8) Is "putting on the brakes if opener is light" a significant concern and what mechanisms to do you have in place to handle it? FWIW, here's my preferred take on above: 1) 9-15 with 11+ HCPs for 5M332 hands 2) Semi-forcing, with up to 11 HCPs or so 3) Natural, a good 12+ or any 13. A 2♣ GF relay is a "nice to have", but not at the cost of complicating everything else. I have played both GF and non-GF responses. 4) 3-card support, 5-10ish. I have played constructive as well (7-10(11)) and weaker hands with 3-card support respond 1N 5) Various, including invitational hands with good suits that can't make a 2/1 response 6) Five-card suits possible at the right vulnerability and 5-9ish range. Hands with 10+ HCPs typically open at the 1-level unless they are downright awful 7) 14-16 (15-17 in some) and yes 8) No, light openings don't need any special handling with kid gloves. Yes, we may get too high on occasion, but the problem isn't big enough to warrant any special fixes TIA...

It would be interesting to get the perspective of Adam and others who play light openings. Based on my experience in several partnerships, I am not convinced that there's something inherently unwieldy about light openings that warrants serious fixes. As I see it, the structure is trying to conflate two orthogonal objectives. The first is the information conveyed by the 1M - 1N - 2M rebid and it does it at the cost of crippling preempts. The second is trying to shoehorn a range of constructive raises into 1♠ - 2♥. IMO, the first design objective comes at too high a cost (sorry, I really dislike a constructive preempt style). The second might have more merit as long as it's decoupled from the other goal. In this regard, it interesting to note that Adam and others still manage to retain classic preempts while playing light openings. Sure, the question is whether the magnitude of the problem is big enough to warrant the added complexity and whether the gains are sufficient to offset the drawbacks. IMO, playing 2/1 non-GF responses of 2♦ / 2♥ responses that promise 12+ HCPs is much simpler than stuffing 12/13 HCPs responses into 1N and then dealing with heady concepts like "light invite" and "heavy invite". The 2♣ as GF relay is a "nice to have", but not if it ends up having a cascading effect on the remaining bids.

Without going into the merits of the structure itself, it appears that the OP designed it with the following in mind: It's OK to forego preempts in the 4-6 HCP range at any vulnerability to accommodate the 7-11 range The 1M - 1N - 2M rebid in a limited bidding system is a big enough problem to warrant a fix It's important to distinguish between simple raises and constructive raises IMO, losing the ability to open KJTxxx xxx xxx xx at the right vulnerability is a significant loss. #2 seems to be be focused on narrow range of hands that opener couldn't open with 1♣ or rebid 3M. Also, I am not completely sold on the need to differentiate a 5-7 HCP raise from a 8-10 HCP raise.

Good catch -- will fix the auction.

+1. It's interesting to note how the 19-20- 2N opening really narrows down the range of the 1N bid. Given the 14-16 NT, 1N is strictly limited to 16-18.

Assuming opener doesn't upgrade hand (append a 1♣ - 1♦ sequence before the 2N if opener chooses to upgrade): 2N - 3♣ (19-20; Puppet Stayman) 3♦ - 3♠ (Denies 5CM; 4♥) 3N / 4♥ (Opener needs to make a judgement call) Note that responder's decision to move on over an initial 19-20 point 2N opening is marginal given the vulnerability and Pass could very well be right.

1♣ - 1♠ (16+; balanced or reds) 1N - 2♣ (relay; reds) 2♦ - 2♠ (relay; LL) 2N - 3♥ (relay; 3=5=5=0) 3♠ - 3N (QP ask; 5-7) 4♣ - 4♦ (QP ask; 5 QPs) 4♥ - 4N (DCB, ♥, not ♦) 6♦ Almost any 5 QP combination in responder's hand gives us a decent shot at slam.

1♣ - 1♦ (16+; 0-7) 1♥ - 2♣ (4+, F1; 5-7, denies 3♥, 4♠) 2♠ - 2N (Natural reverse; waiting) 3♠ - 4♥ (6♥-5♠) -> corrected

The annotation was on the wrong line. 4♠ showed ♠, ♦ and denied ♣. Now, 5♥ denies the singleton ♥ honour and shows second ♠.

TOSR: 1♣ - 1♥ (16+; GF 4+♠) 1♠ - 2♣ (relay; 4+ ♦) 2♦ - 2N (relay; high short) 3♣ - 3♦ (relay; 5=1=4=3) 3♥ - 3♠ (QP ask; 5 QPs) 4♣ - 4♠ (DCB; ♠, ♦, not ♣) -> fixed 4N - 5♥ (DCB; not ♥ honour, Q♠) 6♠

The notes say that the 1♣ - 1♦ - 3N is to play and is based on a running minor with some side stops. Is this hand too strong to qualify opposite a PH? Possibly, but unless a passed partner can produce a miracle holding, including a couple of Aces, slam seems remote. If one considers the hand as too strong, the other choices are: 1♣ - 1♦ - 2N, showing a balanced hand with 22-23 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♥ (Kokish) - 2♠ (forced) - 2N (23+ balanced, GF)

It is important to state the exact parameters for the 1♦ opening. It can be weaker than than the standard Precision 1♦ opening and can often include nondescript hands with 10 HCPs, especially favourable. FWIW, this is appealing to authority, but I believe that Meckwell use DONT in this situation.

1♣ - 1♦ (16+; 0-7) 1♠ - 4♥ (4+ F1; 4-card support, splinter) 4N - 5♣ (RKC; 0/4 key cards) 5♠ Opener can bid the slam if looking for a swing, but Kxx opposite likely ♦ length seems like 50% at best.