Welland-Fallenius/"Siege"

[MickyB]

My system, which was based upon the responses to 1♣ used by Welland-Fallenius, is now sufficiently different to deserve its own name - I have christened it "Siege". You can find the notes at http://sieged.blogspot.com. At heart it is a natural, dialogue based system but it uses a lot of transfer bids. The notes are still under construction, but hopefully they will be of interest - any comments (either here or on the site) are welcome.

 

Here is a summary of the system:

 

1♣ - 2+cards, natural or balanced. If balanced, it may have 4-5♦; If unbalanced, it won't have 4♦. Transfer responses allow you to show various three card raises and to show 17-19 balanced with a 1NT rebid, while ♦ rebid is a good/bad raise of partner's major.

1♦ - 4+cards, unbalanced, may have longer ♣. The free 1NT rebid is used to show any 2 suiter without distorting the relative lengths.

1♥ - 5+cards, 2/1 GF except rebid. A 1NT rebid is used to show any 15+hand without 5-5 shape.

1♠ - 5+cards, with light 2/1 responses. After 1♠:2X, opener can show a GF single suiter with 2NT or a GF raise with 3X+1.

1NT - 10-13 1st seat NV, 14-16 others.

2♣ - "Trebuchet" - Either GF, 23-24 bal, an Acol 2 in a major or a weak 2 in ♦. 2M responses are two-way - either an escape from 2♦ or to play opposite an Acol two in that suit.

 

Some form of transfers apply after most direct seat overcalls, with non-forcing 2 level bids and transfers from 2NT over any 2 level overcall.

[kenrexford]

I am laughing a rich bellow finally!

 

For YEARS, I have "required" my partners to have this minor structure. 1C is the default on balanced hands (or unbalanced with clubs, as usual); 1D shows 4+ and promises a stiff or void (unbalanced, rare exception). Probably 15 years. You know the reasons.

 

I was scoffed at as being insane and weird. Then, these gentlemen started bidding this way. At Pittsburgh this year, in the Vanderbilts, I heard a top pro's comment that he prefers our style also.

 

A funny hand from the past. About 14 years ago, I convinced my Dad that this made sense. It catered to his love of Montreal Relay responses to 1C. "Fine, I'll play that, but how about this neat minor opening structure I came up with." He agreed, but thought it was nuts. Until, that is, 1C-P-1S-2D-P-P-X-P-P-P. You ever get to defend 2DX holding AKQxxx behind Declarer's Jxxxxx? Granted, 2362, with AKQxxx of diamonds, was perhaps grounds to open 1D anyway, but the story would not have been as good, and Dad would not have been hooked as well. LOL

 

For that matter, ever get a 6-0 split in diamonds, six behind, as Declarer after this auction??? LOLOL Talk about a bad day!!!

[paulg]

How do you cope with strong hands with 5+♣ and 4+♦? (Or is 1♦-1♥-1NT forcing?)

 

p

[MickyB]

How do you cope with strong hands with 5+♣ and 4+♦? (Or is 1♦-1♥-1NT forcing?)

 

p

Yes, it is forcing. It is probably possibly to put the GFs somewhere else so it can be passed on a sub-min, but that would gain very rarely.

 

An alternative scheme that I've just thought of - have 1♦:1♥, 1♠ show both minors (leaving open the possibility of playing 1NT) with a 1NT rebid showing ♠. 2♣ could either show both minors with ♦ longer as at present, or it could be used to show a ♠ reverse, limiting 1NT.

[Chamaco]

How do you cope with strong hands with 5+♣ and 4+♦?  (Or is 1♦-1♥-1NT forcing?)

 

p

One solution for strong hands is to use the "cheapest" reverse as artificial reverse.

 

In that case,

 

1D-1M-1NT could be used as nonforcing to show a non-reverse hand with a second suit not biddable because that would promise extras or distort shape (e.g. canapèhands diam+ clubs, or hands with 5D and 4H when responder bids spades)

 

1D-1M-2oM is artificial, and responder relays to verify opener's hand type.

 

1D-1M-2NT might have various meaning according to how the strong balanced hands are dealt with by the system.

One solution i like for the NT ladder is:

- direct 2NT opening = balanced 18-19 (or 19-20, whatever fits with the rest)

- the 20-21 (21-22) ncan be shown either via the 2D multi, or in the 1D opening (making the 1D opener 2-way), in which case the 2NT rebid would show that.

 

 

I prefer this to using 1NT rebid as 1RF

[dougbennion]

I used a similar system with pard for several months. I liked it a lot, but he didn't.

 

We use a 12-14 NT, so to our 1C opener we simply announced "could be short and could be any strong NT". Our responses to 1C were slightly different. 1D and 1H were M transfers, 1N was 5+ GF clubs, 2C was 5+ GF diamonds, and 1S was a minor-heavy basket containing everything else, often 5+ diamonds.

 

This 'rightsided' our major suit contracts when we had a strong NT.

 

Pard had a fetish about being able to distinguish between a minimum unbalanced raise with 4 trumps, and the strong NT with four trumps, so we used a 1M 'raise' to show the strong NT, and the 2M raise to show the minimum unbalanced hand. The 1M raise left us lots of room to explore.

 

Over the 1D opener we used a 2C response as a general game force (LOVED that), so a 1M response was non-forcing.

 

Maybe if I tell him the system has a 'name' he'll reconsider it. Yeahhhhhh!