akhare

Meckwell-Lite: 1♣ - 1♦ (16+; 0-7) 1♥ - 2♦ (Natural F1; 5-7 with 3 card support) 4♥ Note that responder can bid 2♠ over a 2♥ rebid to show 4♠ - 3♥. Edit: Corrected auction as per chasetb's feedback. The correct auction would go: 1♣ - 1♦ (16+; 0-7) 1♥ - 1♠ (Natural F1; natural F1) 1N - 2♥ (Natural; 3 ♥, max) 4♥

Pretty boring 1N auction (or longer 1♣ - 2♣ (5+ diamonds) - 2♥ relay auction if you must). 1N - 3♣ (14-16; Puppet Stayman) 3♠ - 4♠

Has anyone studied the results from hands on which one pair had the methods to make a classic preempt at one table and the other did not (for example: Fantunes)? Granted, the parameters for the Woolsey-Stewart preempts might be looser, but such a study might provide some interesting insights.

Oh yeah...much better format. TOSR with QPs: 1♣ - 2♦ (16+; GF 5+ ♣) 2♥ - 3♣ (relay; 3226 or 7222) 3♦ - 3♥ (relay; 3226) 3♠ - 3N (QP ask; 5-7 QPs) 4♣ - 4♦ (second QP ask; 5 QPs) 4♠ Note that over 3♥, South had the option of bidding 4♣...4♦..4♠ to show a natural slam try in ♠ (responder would bid RKC responses if accepting).

Meckwell-Lite: 1♣ - 1♦ (16; 0-7) 1N - 3♣ (17+ - 18; Puppet Stayman) 3N Note that this system uses a 19-20 2N and 1N is 15-17- in third seat. At this vulnerability, better 17 counts routinely open 1C (same for better 16 balanced in first and second, playing a 14-16 range).

1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ would have shown (5)6-7 and denied 4♠ or 3♥. The emphasis in this structure is to find fits first and define strength later.

Meckwell-Lite: 1♣ - 1♦ (16; 0-7) 1♥ - 1♠ (Natural 4+, F1; Natural 4+ F1) 2♥ - ?♠ (6+♥, min; ) At this point responder needs to decide whether to take the low road with 2♠ or push with 3♠. The void argues for the low road, but the prospect of a vul. game and the 7-card suit seem to suggest the latter option.

IMPs (7 board matches), vul. vs. NV. RHO dealer: [hv=pc=n&s=sa98742h74dat4cj3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2h(Weak%202)pp2sp3h4cpp4s5cpp]133|200[/hv] The opponents don't have any special agreements on 4♣ and it's natural without any inference on ♥ support. On a side note, do you agree with 3♥ or would you have simply bid game in spades? Would you bid differently if you were playing a longer match?

Meckwell-Lite: 1♣ (16) - 1♦ (0-7) 1♠ (4+; F1) - 2♥ (6+♥, 5-7) 3♥ (GF, setting ♥) - 4♣ (non serious cue) 4♥

It's quite easy to find using Meckwell-Lite too: 1♣ (16+) - 1♦ (0-7) 2♠ (5+, GF) - 2N (waiting; not double negative) 3♣ (natural) - 4♦ (RKC) ...

Having briefly browsed through the document, my initial impression is that it's virtually unplayable, especially in competition. Specifically, given that the 1♣ opening has a range of 11 - 30 HCPs (sic) and a variety of balanced and unbalanced hands, I don't see any way to sensibly unwind all possible hand types after say 1♣ - (2♠). The 1♦ opening will fare better in competition since it promises 15+ HCPs and appears to have fewer hand types. Perhaps there are some non-obvious nuances to the system that make it more viable and compelling, but in the interim, it's difficult to overlook the concerns voiced by awm and straube.

I don't think anyone doubts your intentions, but a more concise query might be more representative (items in italics represent assumptions on my part and are subject to verification): "Does the GCC permit a systemic response 1H to a 1D opening with any balanced game forcing hand containing two or more hearts? Note that the 1♦ opening shows 10+ HCPs with 0+♦ and that in most cases responder will have a hand with 4+♥."

What are the their agreements regarding the maximum HCPs in the 2N "sign off" bid? Can responder bid 2N with the above hand? Can 2N be followed by 3N to show the above?

I would bid 4♣ over the X, but can live with 3♣. Having bid 3♣ initially, my choice would be 4♣ (or 5♣ if that isn't forcing), but 3N could be right.

Two Aces, nice texture to the boss suit and as per the OP, a system that can handle light openings (hopefully with a sensible approach like semi-forcing 1N), all point to a 1♠ opening.

One possibility that preserves your original design goals is to tweak the transfer structure as follows: X: 3-4♠ 1N: Transfer to ♦ 2♣: Takeout with 3+♣ 2♦: Transfer to ♥ 2♥: Transfer to ♠ -> ostensibly exposing psyche 2♠: Invite+ with ♣ OR balanced GF 2N: Transfer with ♣, < invite, etc. This gives an extra 2♣ step over 1N and gives some flexibility on declaring NT. It does give up the ability to play in 1N when responder has a takeout shape, but assuming that they really have ♠, it hurts only when opener has ♠ length and we can always play in 2N.

The other thing to consider might be a Pyscho-Suction type 1♠ interference, i.e., RHO has 5+ ♠ unless they run to something else in subsequent bidding. NV. vs. V., it isn't a stretch to throw out 1♠ on say four good ♠ and penalizing them in 1♠ might not be sufficient. Other factors to consider might be the semantic differences between 2♠ showing 5+♣ vs. 2♣ showing 2+ GF, 1N for takeout occasionally wrong siding NT, etc. Also, the 1N natural GF doesn't necessarily have to show a stopper since one can always check back for it later if desired.

How about using transfers starting with 2♣ and X as takeout? In other words: X: Takeout 1N: Balanced, GF 2♦: Transfer to ♦ 2♦: Transfer to ♥ 2♥: Transfer to ♠ -> ostensibly exposing psyche or natural if 1♠ is artificial 2♠: Transfer with ♣, at least invite+ or GF 2N: Transfer with ♣, < invite, etc. This method gives up the possibility of penalizing 1♠, but has the advantage of not having to distinguish between various meanings of 1♠ (including psyches). If 1♠ is artificial, the X becomes more nebulous, but opener knows that responder has a semi-balanced hand not fit for any other bid. Also, this is a meta-scheme for dealing all interference through 2♠.

Low ♠ for me in both cases. The T/9 might be right on some layouts, but it depends on the spot cards and leading low might cater better to Hx in pard's hand. A ♦ could work, but the lack of a X over 2♦ makes it less attractive and we might solve a two way guess for declarer. Yet another possibility is leading a high ♥, but it might lose the tempo.

+1 for 4♥.

My personal recommendation (somewhat orthogonal to what you intend to play) would be use a 14-16 NT (1st and 2nd) and 15-17 (3rd and 4th). Among other things: 1) It allows the balanced 11-13 hands to be opened with 1♦ 2) The balanced hands in the 1♣ opening are now 17+ 3) Balanced 5M332 (5M4m22, 5m4m22) hands in the 14-16 range can be opened with 1N Also, IMO 2♣works best if it shows 6+♣ and sidesteps many pitfalls with the classic 5+♣ opening. Finally, my preference is to play semi-forcing NT over 1M.

Icer, Can you elaborate more on "endless problems" in this context? Note that opener is limited to 15 HCPs and both opener and responder can easily establish a cheap GF. For example, unlike SAYC, the 1♠ - 2♦ (natural) - 2♥ (natural) - 2♠ sequence establishes a GF. Also, the 2♣ response can be used to relay out opener's complete pattern, with QP ask, DCB, etc. (if desired) and AFAIK, there's nothing SAYC-like about it.

Opener's rebid of the major, raise of responder's suit, and responder's rebid of suit are NF. The 1M - 2♦ / 2♥ auctions are largely natural (basically Adam's structure).

5♣, assuming it's a what's your call question.

Here's an outline, but there are two schools of thought here, viz., "Bidding solutions must ideally revolve around relays" and "Natural bidding is best for games" and never shall the twain meet :D. 1N: Semi-forcing, denies 3+M and < 12 except in rare cases 2♣: Nominally 12+ with 3+♣; could be 2+ ♣ in big balanced hand 2♦: GI+, 5+♦, rarely 4♦, 5♣ with minimum hand and shortness in major 2♥: GI+, 5+♥ 2M: 5-10, 3+ raise 2N: 4+M, may include mixed raise when NV 3♣: Balanced LR with 3+M 3♦ / 3♥: TBD, probably GI and not sufficient for 2x when vulnerable and WJS NV 3M: Weak NV, mixed raise vulnerable The idea behind the 2♣ GI+ relay / response is that minimal GI hands with ♣ can often bail in a reasonable part score if needed. Pathological minimum hands with 5♣ and shortness in the major can decide whether they want to bid 1N / 2♣ / 2♦. Over 1M - 2♣ (there may be different ways to optimize the below): 2♦: 5M332 or 4+♦. Relay break to 3♣ suggests 6+ minimum with misfit (NF) 2♥: 4+OM. Relay break to 3♣ suggests 6+ minimum misfit (NF) 2♠: 6+ M. Relay break to 3♣ suggests 6+ minimum misfit (NF) 2N: High short, M+♣ 3♣: LL, M+♣ 3♦: 5M4♣22/5M4♣31 (low short) 3♥: 6M4♣21♦ (low short) Over 1M - 2N: 3♣: Accepts game, asks for shortness 3♦: Counter try, respond with shortness if accepting 3M: Awful hand Other: Showing void (high to low)