Jinksy

This is a system of responses I put together over the Fantunes opening 2 bids. I take it as read the stuff on bridgewithdan (the actual Fantunes system) is better, but I wanted something that a mortal could learn, and let’s face it, toying with system is fun. Constructive criticism very welcome (both on the bidding itself and my explanations of it/clear errors I haven't noticed), ‘rewrite your entire system’ comments less so. It might be true, but I've spent too long on this to be willing to undo it all just yet... (to explain the chatty style, it was orginally a Google doc shared with at a few semi-regular Ps) I tried to juggle a few general principles: 1) keep the structure over all the 2 (suit) openings quite regular, if not natural, so that you don’t need to memorise every single bid to play it. 2) allow responder to ask about most of the common hand types where compatible with 1. 3) where compatible with 1, and 2, have responder playing the contract assuming it’s not in the opening denomination. 4) where compatible with 1, 2 and 3, have a 5) finding the right game strain > finding the right part score strain. (that said, I think one of the current weaknesses that might be possible to fix without extensive changes is knowing when to play in 5m – at the moment you have a lot of ways to look for 4M, but on failing to find it, you have to punt 3N or 5m) 6) There's plenty of room to show balanced 21-22 counts when your 1 level bids are forcing, so the 2N opening was effectively a free bid, which I've made conventional (described below in section 0.1), showing a hand type that would otherwise have opened 2a, to help disambiguate. Known weaknesses: What I said about punting 5m/3N More complicated than I would like it to be, or at least maximally complicated, so I’ve had to leave out a few obvious improvements for the sake of getting it this simple (the idea is to have something that I could persuade a semi-regular partner to learn) In the interest of constructive auctions, with a 55 shape and a max (11-13ish, although you’ll prob be upgrading on quite a few of those hands), you open the cheaper of the two suits. With a min you open the higher. So on slightly stronger hands it’s harder for you when the bidding takes off. So: Optional parts of system (and headers) bolded After intervention to opener’s left (looking for thoughts on how to handle this best - esp after X, should pass and new suit bids be unaffected?): As a test for now, P over suit is forcing if opener is second in, over any level of suit bid, or in the auction 2C 2D P (ie we don’t sell out to 2D/give them a cheap no-risk chance to disrupt our auction) New suits ignore their X X is takeout up to 3S (not inclusive) XX is points and no fit (or rescue when protecting) 2N over X points and fit Fit jumps on (F1), showing 8+ cards total, 3+ in opener’s suit, 4+ in other, though with only three also a ruffing value. No point range. opener shows support if he has it, responder can start cuebidding with slam interest 2N-3S are Leb (FASS)? S0: 1N openings Open 1N, on any 12-14 hand (11-14 NV) with any of the following distributions: 4333 4432 5332 4441 5422 (except with 5S 4H) Also open on precisely 3226 and 3262 unless the hand looks particularly unsuitable for NT play (opening 2m means P will be unable to find a 5-3 S fit) S0.1: decision tree for 2N openings The continuations here are just the first that occurred to me. Would it be better to have response to multi style ones showing the cheapest suit you’re willing to play in, or similar? (or does that not work over an effectively 3 level opening?) 2N = 4+S 6+ other, at least two card differece (with 5S 6 other, open 2 of the lower suit), 9-13 3C = pass or correct (opener’s rebid can be corrected to 3S to play) 3D = show suit 3H = Cs 3S to play 3N to play 4C to play 4S to play 3S = Ds 3N to play 4D to play 4S to play 3N = HsAfter 3HSN, 4C sets cheaper suit, seeking cues (do we bother with shortage/singletons?), suit indicated is signoff, other bids cues for S (bid above suit kickback?) 3H = show range (prob hoping to steal a cheeky 3N?) 3S = any max 3N/4CD show min with CDH respectively Xfer accepts are signoff New suits cues for long suit 4S to play 3S to play 3N to play 4CD = ? 4H to play 4S to play In 3rd and 4th, not much point in this bid, so 2N natural showing 25+ balanced, GF (can it contain 5 card major?). Actually, could it be a 2-way bid in 1st and second? Either 25+ balanced or this. With the former, he makes the cheapest non-system rebid over whatever partner calls. S1: Responder’s first bid after 2a 1) Direct raises are preemptive 2) 2a+1 is feature ask 3) New suits between 2a+1 and 2N are natural, non inv, attempt to correct part score - opener can only pull with a much more extreme distribution than expected, though can raise on 4+ (via 2N or 3b with strength – 3b shortage) 4) Responses between 2N and 3H either indicate a long major (see section 6.1) or a minor (see all of section 6) - exceptions are a direct raise of suit a (preemptive), and 2S 2N - feature ask. 6) 3S has an optional use (section 7) that isn’t essential to the system – unusual NTesque (both minors or unbid minor and a major, GF+) otherwise it doesn’t exist (except as a raise for 2S, where 3H is the equivalent bid). 7) 3N is to play 8) 4 level suits (apart from 4a) are currently EKCB, but I can be persuaded there’s a better use for them. 9) 4 and 5N are quantitative (although a bit pointless unless you’re hoping to get the slam on the lead - otherwise you can feature ask for range. Maybe this is looking for a finer range - a real max, probably, not just slightly featurey junk that can’t bear to bid any min). With something extra to say about his distribution opener can say it (naturally) at whatever level seems appropriate. S2: Opener’s rebid 1) Over a feature ask, rebid 2a+2 with any min (see section 3 for continuations) 1.1) With a max, 2a + 3 shows 3-4 Hs, 2a+4 shows 3-4Ds, 2a+5 (ie 3a), +6 and +7 shows 5 cards in the suit immediately above, up to 3H (eg 2H 2S 3H shows 5S). 3S (or 3H where S was the initial suit) shows either 6322 (where the 3 are either a minor or S) or 7222 dist (2S openers can’t show a D fragment). 3N shows a more distributional hand – 7 cards in the initial suit, fewer than 3DH, fewer than 4S (over 2S openings you have to condense these bids into 3N, or with a max and 7 unbalanced you might just rebid 4S - alternative here might be to go via ‘any min). See section 4 for continuations to these positive responses. 2) Over a direct raise or part score correction, normally pass, though with extreme distribution might bid again (might depend on opps’ reactions!) 4) Over xfer to major, accept the xfer with no tolerance (J stiff or worse); 3S if available is natural, max, no fit; 3N is tolerance+ but unenthusiastic; 4 level bids accept the suit, show cues 5) Over 2S 3H, bid 3S without tolerance and nothing much extra in Ss (cues by responder now insist on Hs), 3N with no tolerance and longer Ss than indicated (decent 6+) - now 4C & D had better be setting Hs and Ss respectively as the trump suit, 4HS just to play - 4 of a suit accepting Hs and cueing. S3: Continuations over negative response to feature ask Responder’s options: 1) 2a+3 asks about Hs and Ss (promising Hs) 2) 2a+4 asks about Ss only 3) 2a+5 (3a) is a signoff 4) 3 of unbid M is natural, prob 5 or mediocre 6, GF, looking for secondary support (Hx, xxx) or better. 3M+1 is negative, other bids cues 5) 3N is to play 6) 4a is to play when a is a major, seeks cues when a minor. 4a+1 is kickback for a. (In 1 & 2), where the major in question wasn’t opener’s initial suit, the ask is for 4 cards. Where it was, opener should apply judgement – with a decent 6+, respond affirmatively, with a mediocre 6, respond affirmatively iff your hand has useful looking features (ideally Axxx elsewhere and a top-end minimum) Opener’s responses to 1): 2a+4 denies Hs, shows S. Responder’s non-signoff bids now cues for S. 3a is a signoff 3a +n (excluding 3H) shows shortage 4 level bids are fit showing (4a showing a passable 7+ in original suit) 3N shows H’s but with no features to show in space available. Cues agree Hs. Opener’s responses to 2): Signoff denies S Other bids are analogous to positive responses to 1) S4: Continuations after positive responses to feature ask 3N to play over any response After 2a+3 response to minor openings (showing 3-4 Hs) 2a+4 = further major ask (section 5) 3a is a signoff, but must imply S interest. Opener should bid on with 3+S. (System here not essential - just don’t bid S - since your destination is almost always 4S, but just in case on marginal hands, could play <3S with exactly 3S (in case it’s still not enough - responder can sign off in 3S), 3N with 4S, 4a with a particularly long opening suit and values (might be singleton) in S, and 4om with 5350/5305.) 3H = natural, setting Hs, seeking cues (though 3S by opener prob best as natural showing 4 or 5S) 3S = natural, GF 5S, looking for xxx or Hx support) 3a+n (under 3N, excluding 3H) show stops for NT (without anything in other suit, bid 4a, which opener can pass) 4H = to play After 2H 2S 3C/D (showing C/D) [Current bid]+1 = H/S ask, with analogous continuations as over negative response+1: next step denies extra Hs (decent 6) shows 4Ss, step above denies either, 2 steps above or higher show Hs (though ideally over 2H 2S 3D 3H, we shoudl invert 3S/3N to keep opener from playing 3N) [Current bid]+2 = S ask only, again with analgous continuations: 1 step denies S, 2 or steps are cues showing them 4C/D GF raise in the minor in question (other 4 level bids cues agreeing Hs) After 2S 2N 3D (showing Hs) Analogous to ‘any min’ continuations (section 3) 3H asks Hs & Ss (opener bids 3S with extra Ss and only 3Hs, 3N with neither, cues with 4Hs) 3S asks S (3N with no extras) – or sets Ss, intending to bid on over 3N 4 level cues set Hs After 2a+4 response to minor openings (showing other minor, denying 3Hs) 3a signoff. Opener can bid on, but needs to be more circumspect than if he’d shown Hs – he might well have denied anything in the suit responder was after, so should probably have values in H and a real max. (as after signoff over 2a+3, system inessential, but prob more useful here, since we might be heading for either 3N or 4S, but would still like opener not to play. Decent and fairly simple setup would be 3H to show 4S, 3S to deny them) 3D (if available) natural, 5D GF 3H asking for 4S (3N = yes, 3S = no) 3S natural, 5S GF Bidding either minor at the cheapest level sets the suit (for cues or minorwood?) 4HS to play After 2S 2N 3H/S (showing C/D) Over 3H, 3S +1 asks for extra S length (decent 6+ as elsewhere). 3N by opener denies, new bids besides 3N cues for S, except bid of indicated minor now shows preference 4 level bids of the indicated minor set it, other suits are cues for S After xfer to new 5 card suit 3a can conceivably be passed, all other sequences GF Accepting the xfer sets the suit, solicits cues 3M is natural, good 5 or mediocre 6, looking for xxx/Hx support (3N denies) Other bids (inc 4a) cues for the new suit After 3S (/2S P 3H) All bids natural, 4 level suits all setting suit, forcing (with weaker hands, responder would have xferred over 2a), 3N to play After 3N 4a where a is m sets suit (denominationwood?) 4m (m /= a) =? 4HS to play S5: Further continuations after 2m, then H showing response to feature ask followed by major ask 3a shows one or both 4 card majors. Continuations resemble promissory Stayman: responder bids his 4cM (opener bids 3N or sets suit a naturally with the other one, or cues on a fit). 3D when free = ? 3H shows 3H 3S exactly (next bid sets trumps, cue = H) 3S shows no further length (ideally this would be 3C if opener’s 1st suit were Cs, allowing responder to pass, leaving 3S as a free bid. No room for that after 2D opening though, so for simplicity’s sake the default will 3D as a free bid after 2C opening), ie 3H, <3S. Responder can cue for Hs or rebid to set suit a (or would suits be better asking/showing stops?). 3N shows 5S (4CDH should prob just set the suit now as a, H, S, respectively, opener forced to complete xfer and responder can cue on if he likes (seems better to have H and suit a reversed so opener can bid the step up without stealing the contract – responder can sign off in 4H or cue on. Even if opener has to sign off later, having the other hand on display will be less risky at a higher level when the opps have fewer decisions to make in defence). If 4a happens to be 4C, obv it’s forcing.) (one possibly important major combination that this system can’t find - 4H and 3S. Could make the system asymmetric to make this easy to find over 2C opening, not sure it’s an option after 2D, though swapping it for another omission wouldn't be too hard). S6.1: Minor/major suit indications Over 2a, 2N, 3C, 3D & 3H, where they’re not 3a and therefore preemptive (ie 2H 3H), are an xfer to the nearest unbid suit above them (eg 2D 3C is an xfer to 3H). The exception is over 2S, where 2N is feature ask, so everything is scaled up a step, ie natural. So for eg these are your xfer options over 2C: 2C 2N = Ds 2C 3D = Hs 2C 3D = Ss Indications of (which I’ll just call xfers to to save effort, even though it’s inaccurate over 2S) the majors are simple, and dealt with in section 1, #s 4 & 5. S6.2: Minor suit indications continued Xfers to the minors (I’ll call the indicated minor suit b) show one of two hand types - either 4 or 6+ in suit b. Either way they’re GF, happy to play in at least 5b opposite a 4 card fit. If they have only 4 cards, responder will normally have another 4 card suit (outside suit a), so they initiate a Baron-esque sequence. Where 2a was a major, an indication of D eschews a 4-4 fit in Cs, so either responder doesn’t have them or he’s got a much better D suit. Because they show several hand types, the continuations here are probably the most complicated part of the system. I’ve made them as uniform as possible. Suit rebids at the three level are step responses below 3N. Specifically: Step 1 shows the cheaper of the suits p might have an interest in outside suit b, possibly also the other. (if if responder has already denied interest in clubs, this and step two are equivalent, so move step three up accordingly). Step 2 shows the higher of the 4 card suits , and denies the other (if there’s only 1 other suit responder could be interested in - ie after a 2M opening followed by diamond indication - this is equivalent to 3.1 and ignored as a step). Step 3 denies 4 cards in any of the suits. By inference, it must show at least 6 in suit a. [see footnote 1 for examples of the step response sequences] 3N shows 4+ of suit b (this bid has priority over step responses) – don’t bother looking for a major fit given responder’s strength), forcing, setting the suit. 4C is now Roman Kickback Gerber (hooray!), everything else is a cue for suit b (5b signoff, obv). 4C shows secondary support (Hx or Hxx) including the Q for suit b, no 4 card suit of interest to p, a control in the other minor, a good hand contextually for P’s response. Except after 2M 3C, this implies opener has 6 cards in suit a. Responder can bid 4N, 5b to play, 4D to set suit a as trumps, or cue. After any of the step responses, a direct bid of 4b shows a self-supporting trump suit seeking cues. Otherwise the continuations to the step bids are also step responses, though the top ‘step’ and beyond are positive cues. Continuations to Step 1: (Step 1)+1 denies both interest in the suit indicated and extra length in suit b - seeking a 4-4 fit in the unindicated suit. Responder signs off in 3N without, or cuebids with (in this case and many of those below this risks wrongsiding the contract - it might be better to have step responses again, but there’s enough here to digest for now). If responder has already denied interest in clubs, this step doesn’t exist - move the next two up accordingly. (Step 1)+2 denies interest in the suit indicated or any other - confirming the single-suited hand looking for support for its 6+ minor. Opener cues with support/good tolerance or signs off in 3N without. (Step 1)+3 or more - accepting the suit indicated, seeking (/offering) cues. 4b solid suit Continuations to Step 2: These are the same as over 3.1, but with the first and second steps reversed: (Step 2)+1 Denies interest in any 4 card suit - confirming the single-suited hand looking for support for its 6+ minor. As above, responder signs off in 3N without or cuebids with. (Step 2)+2 or more (bypassing 3N if 3.2 was a bid of 3H), found a fit in the more expensive suit, now cuebidding. 3N/4N/5N/6N natural - this was the type of hand looking for a 4-4 fit, didn’t find one. 4N 5N quantitative. 4b solid suit Continuations to Step 3: (Step3)+1 Shows single suited hand type still looking for tolerance (cheapest NT bid by opener is a second denial) 3N to play, 45N quantitative 4b solid suit Other bids cue for suit a [1] Examples: After 2C 2N 3C shows Hs, possibly Ss (not Ds) 3D shows S, not Hs (nor Ds) 3H shows tolerance for Ds and no Hs or Ss. 3S shows a misfit for p – not as much as H or xx in Ds, nor 4H or S. (3N shows Ds, 4C diamond fragment, extra Cs by implication and a good enough hand in context to bypass 3N - leaving 4N as an option) But after 2S 3D 3H shows Hs (not Ds, Cs irrelevant since responder bypassed them) 3S denies Hs or Ds (3N shows Ds, 4C as above, but here it doesn’t quite promise 6S, since opener might be 5314 (perhaps it should do?)) Section 7: very strong two-suiters Ignore this section altogether until you’re comfortable with the previous ones. This is just a way to make use of the free 3S response on a rare hand type that will struggle going via any other route – slam seeking 5-5s. It’s basically detached from the rest of the system, so if anyone has a better use for it I’m game: This only applies to auctions beginning 2CDH atm – there’s no room over 2S, though something similar might be achieved via a 4C/D response. I won’t bother trying to work anything out until I get some feedback on this sequence. Over 2m, 3S shows a hand with 5om (suit b from hereon), 5H, GF to the degree that it’s willing to play in 4N without a fit, or 5 of the denomination with one. Because it conveys so much info and takes up so much space, a) we no longer care who plays the contract, and b) it makes the auction more conversational than normal – opener assumes some control over the proceedings Responses: 1) 3N shows no support for any of the three suits (or possibly a 6322 min, with the 3 in a major – though p might then shout at you for missing your 5-3 slam). This implies extra length in the first suit, so new bids must be cues for that. 2) 4C = support for one or both of the majors (denies support for suit b – you’re too strong to be chasing a major fit when you have a minor one). P bids 4D/Hs to indicate H/S. Accepting the xfer shows fit and extras – good hand in context (singleton diamond honour might go a long way on marginal hands), bidding the suit directly at the 5 level shows a fit but wanting to shut the auction down if he needs more from you than you’ve shown. Bypassing shows a negative – bid 4S if you have room and might prefer to play in 4N P’s way if he has tenaces and no Cs, otherwise just bid whichever of 4N and 5a seems likely to go best. 3) 4D = shows 3+ card support for b. Responder now just shows his 5 major, and you continue on the assumption that suit b is trumps, using both hand’s judgement, Thor help you. 4) 4H/S shows upper range for your opening and primary support if that’s responder’s suit – either 5 cards, or 4 and some values in suit b (the latter may well be singleton, though). Next step up is negative bid – if it’s 4N, it’s passable (with a real monster despite your misfit p will have to punt or make up a bid at the 5 level despite your misfit). Over 2H, 3S shows both minors GF. Responses should be bleedin’ obvious.

Seems like a biased data set - you'll only find relatively experienced pairs playing Fantunes.

Why? Clearly when you do have a GFing hand, the sooner you GF the better, but it seems equally as clear that when you don't, the more available bids you have to describe your hand, the better. How can we be confident the first consideration outweighs the second? In general any 2/1 GF system seems to suffer to me on hands where you have around a 12-13 count (or whatever's equivalent to take you to 24/25 points opposite P's min) and most of your length in 1 or both of the minors. Now when you GF and find that you have a misfit and a wide open suit in NTs it seems like a disaster.

Why? Clearly when you do have a GFing hand, the sooner you GF the better, but it seems equally as clear that when you don't, the more available bids you have to describe your hand, the better. How can we be confident the first consideration outweighs the second? In general any 2/1 GF system seems to suffer to me on hands where you have around a 12-13 count (or whatever's equivalent to take you to 24/25 points opposite P's min) and most of your length in 1 or both of the minors. Now when you GF and find that you have a misfit and a wide open suit in NTs it seems like a disaster.

At the moment with 15-17(18) we open 1C, only opening the major with stronger hands, for precisely this kind of reason.

1) If you need to know about the trump Q to make 6 a good slam, what are your options? 2) If P bypasses a cue/shows something that thoroughly puts you off slam, and you want to sign off, but now have to bypass 4N to do so (and have an even number of keycards_, how do you do so without potentially misleading p? Do you just have to bid 4N regardless, and trust him to treat it as not necessarily encouraging?

Has anyone tried/got a strong view on whether a non-2/1GF Fantunes system would work, esp as an easier to pick up version for people new to the system? It seems like one of the most painful aspects of the system is after 1M and to a lesser degree 1D, the 1N bid is almost devoid of information, putting you at the two level without any sense of whether you’re already too high or whether game is on. And since it’s forcing, your rebid is going to contain very little info for p. Learning Gazzilli seems like it would help a lot, but a simpler approach – that might even be more effective? – is just to let responder bid 2/1 on hands analogous to those that would in 2/1GF, but with a K or so subtracted from the upper point range (I like to play 1 level bids as slightly stronger than in Gerben’s version, more in line with the 14+ on the online Fantoni Nunes card). So 1S P 1N would show 0-6 or so, and opener could pass it with clean conscience (thoroughly wrongsiding the contract, but making the defence’s life very hard with such an obscure hand hidden). 1C P 1N might stay the same, since (at least in the simplified version I'm learning), it’s already got a lower upper limit (0-7 IIRC). Thoughts?

How do I get BBO to show descriptions to the opps of complex bidding sequences? Is it possible to display them to the partnership if we're in a bidding room? And is this site related to any of it? http://bridge.downagain.be/FD/public.php I tried to sign up, but it's just ignoring my login - not sure if the 'downagain' in the url is a clue to that...

Ok, I've added you both on BBO - will give you a shout if I see you on there.

Is your email one of the two on your FB page?

1) What sort of hand do you expect from a competent doubler after the auction 1a P 1b X 1a) Does it make any difference if the b suit is spades? 2) How do most people play XX by opener? I’m a fan of mirroring responders XX bid after 1a X XX – ie extra points and no fit – but maybe that’s too infrequent on this sequence to be worthwhile?

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8752hkt82dcqt87&w=s9hj543dakt765ck9&n=s643hq76dqj32cj64&e=skqjtha9d984ca532]399|300[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8752hkt82dcqt87&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1dp1sp2dp3n]133|200[/hv] I slightly miskeyed this - W should have been dealer, so ignore S's first pass (vul is correct). E/W playing natural methods, reasonably competent club players but not star level. This hand is from the Whitelaw Cup VuGraph, where one of the commentators was friendly enough to chat with me about the lead. I'll just repost the conversation: I've seen this kind of reasoning in books before (they 'look ready' for lead A, so make lead B instead), but I've always had this problem with it. (I'll post the other hands in the first reply since I'll lose them otherwise - obviously don't look at it before picking a lead if you want to treat this as a lead problem)

In any case, anyone up for a BBO game using it sometime?

What does this actually mean? I had a discussion with MickyB about a similar claim last night, and while in a few narrow cases it seems like you can say 'convention x is probably better than convention y' (or ditto for convention combinations) and no-one will really disagree with you, but I don't see any way that you conclusively demonstrate that one system is better than another, especially given that the paucity of decent rating systems for players in the bridge world means you can't even effectively gather data on how well pairs of equivalent ability do with different systems.

Going to be playing this system for the first time tomorrow, which will be entertaining, and probably lead to several more posts in this thread. Meanwhile, Q1 (which is based on the recklessly optimistic assumption that there's a standard basic Fantunes and it's the one I'm playing - unfortunately, I don't know the origin of the card I was given to learn from...): What do you bid with a 14-17 count, 5C and 4D (or 6C and 5D) after an uninterrupted 1C 1D sequence? Is this where you're supposed to have opened 1D?

I decided it would be fun to learn, but suspect I'll struggle to find many partners to practice it with...

What are they?

I was thinking about this. Seems like it shouldn't be too hard to develop a more intricate feature ask system featuring a couple of multi-way bids, that allow you to ask partner things like 'are you 5-4 or single-suited?' (agreeing to define 6-4 etc as one or the other) at the same time as finding out if he's max/min. If you have a lot of points but no definite fit for p, you don't expect the opps to get involved in the auction. I guess you don't want to have takeout Xes though...

So what kind of a holding at the various vuls would you advocate overcalling/jumping on?

Thanks to all repliers. To everyone - what about Blue Club/derived systems? No-one's really mentioned them. Are they basically merged with Precision systems now, or have they died off? (Wikipedia is certainly dismissive of them) Or are they still alive, well and distinct from the Precision club somewhere? Can you give me a couple of keywords? Primarily EBU, though if there's anything that includes that I might be banned from abroad it would be worth knowing. How high can they get before they at serious risk of getting axed for monkeying around? And how much damage can it do to the auction if they do? It seems like if they have a very low risk intervention available that can take them to the two level, you're surely losing most of the advantage from a low level strong opening anyway. Perhaps all of it and more, if you're now not even sure whether their suit is actually your suit. Do you have any sense of whether Swedish club makes this less of a problem? Seems like you only need one weak bid in there to restrain the competition, and that thereafter it's easier to describe.

Also is there any way of finding out (or does anyone claim to know) what systems are most favoured by today's experts? I get the feeling that strong NT 5cM variants of 2/1 are dominant, with a minority playing Acol-like systems and many others playing hyperconventional systems they’ve designed virtually from scratch. Is that roughly accurate?

Apologies if this is the wrong forum. None of the others seem to cover everything here. I'm interesting in learning a new bidding system (at the moment I can do Acol, SAYC, 2/1 and Bacon Torpedo semi-competently), partly because I'm inherently suspicious that evolved systems are better than designed ones, partly because learning things makes them easier to play against, and partly because it's fun. I'd prefer it to be something legal for club/minor tourney play, or at least something that could be with minor modifications (in order that I’d actually get to play it on occasion), so MOSCITO et al are out. The main options seem to be strong club systems, of which I know three that anyone actually seems to recommend: Precision Swedish Club Polish Club The way it’s been described to me is that as the club bid gains more meanings, it makes it harder to compete against, but decreases its value for constructive auctions, especially on the strong hands. I don’t really have much experience of this, though – can someone explain why 1S over a precision 1C is supposed to be such an unpleasant overcall? And to anyone familiar with the system, how often is it really a problem? Seems like vulnerable opps are risking a lot if they start bidding to the two level on their 3-3 fit when you’ve already advertised a lot of playing strength. Also, does ambiguity over your opening disadvantage you or the opps more? While the Precision club seems to invite silly competition if it’s as vulnerable as its critics say, it seems like over genuine competition you’ll have a much clearer action than someone playing Swedish or Polish – especially on the intermediate long club hands. To anyone who’s played/simmed both Precision and one of the others, did you find the ambiguity made it harder for the opps to screw up your auction? If so, did you find the trade-off worth it? To anyone who’s played/simmed these and a natural system, how do they compare? Are they as clearly superior as their advocates tend to claim, or do the losses match/outweigh the gains? My impression so far is that for all the three systems above, you gain a lot in constructive auctions, but possibly lose a lot in competitive ones. People mainly talk about the 1C auctions, in my fairly limited experience of playing against them, the 1D opening seems to be even worse for this – it encourages the opps to compete on marginal hands esp when NV, since they know you’ll struggle to penalise them or to even get your own suit in. Are there any other systems that might be worth considering besides those three? (I know MickyB’s invented one that he thinks is the best thing ever which I might test run sometime, but I’d prefer to play something I can play with more than 1 person for now) And, whichever option you recommend, what’s the best (and/or most easily accessible useful) resource for learning to play it?

Sorry, that should have been ♥4. The idea was to paint it as a singleton, so bottom seemed more appropriate. Edited post above to correct

As the cards lie, S lets it through, A and another ♣ sets it, ♥ gives you chances, so does ♦ but unsurprisingly carves your potential trump trick: [hv=pc=n&s=saqj6hkqt8dk83c98&w=skt8432h7532d95c6&n=shaj9dajt764ckj73&e=s975h64dq2caqt542]399|300[/hv] At the table, I lead ♥4. Declarer won in dummy and quickly played ♠Q. My partner (who I should add had otherwise played better than me through most of the tourney) covered in a dozy moment. Had he ducked smoothly, declarer said he intended to ruff the Q.