MALEX - last try

[kes]

MALEX - Major's Length Exact

 

1C : Up from 14 P (3rd / 4th Hand from 16 P) , any distribution

 

Rule of 18 , too weak for 1C :

1D with 4=H (& 0-4 S) - 1H with 4=S (& 0-3 H) - 1S with 5=S (& 0-3 H)

- 2C with 45+ Majors - 2D with 5=H (& 0-3 S) - 2M with 6+L (& 0-4 oM)

If not allowed , turn to : 1D 44+ Majors - 1M with 4=L (& 0-3 oM)

- 2C with 5=H (& 0-3 S) - 2D with 5=S (0-3 H) - 2M as above

 

Rule of 20 , too weak for 1C - no 4+ M :

1N semi-balanced - 2S with 54+ Minors (avoid 3154) - 3m with 6+L

 

Comments ?

(I know , that a system does not consist only of openings - please take it , as it is)

[Echognome]

MALEX - Major's Length Exact

 

1C : Up from 14 P (3rd / 4th Hand from 16 P) , any distribution

 

Rule of 18 , too weak for 1C :

1D with 4=H (& 0-4 S) - 1H with 4=S (& 0-3 H) - 1S with 5=S (& 0-3 H)

- 2C with 45+ Majors - 2D with 5=H (& 0-3 S) - 2M with 6+L (& 0-4 oM)

If not allowed , turn to : 1D 44+ Majors - 1M with 4=L (& 0-3 oM)

- 2C with 5=H (& 0-3 S) - 2D with 5=S (0-3 H) - 2M as above

 

Rule of 20 , too weak for 1C - no 4+ M :

1N semi-balanced - 2S with 54+ Minors (avoid 3154) - 3m with 6+L

 

Comments ?

(I know , that a system does not consist only of openings - please take it , as it is)

So let's go through this:

 

1♣ Strong, presumably standardish. No need to comment here.

 

Now let's go through the limited opening bids.

 

1♦/1♥ Seem fine. You have a description of the hand and some distributional information about the other major. Presumably this helps responder make lawful bids, etc etc. Seems the main context here is how to sort out balanced vs unbalanced hands and canape. Although many of the balanced hands will go through 1NT, so we're looking here are 4441s, and 45s with a longer minor.

 

1♠ Also fine, just a normal limited 5 card major without hearts.

 

2♣ 45+ majors. (What happens with 44 majors in version A?) Probably playable, but you are getting near Flannery territory. (oops the F word) 2♣ is a bit better when either major can be longer, but you still have to sort out your 64s and that is not easily done with weak responder hands. E.g. if opener is 4=6 and responder is 3=1, you will often play in 2♠, getting forced in the long trump hand.

 

2♦ Yuck. So I'm up to 2♦ and all partner knows is that I have a limited opening hand. My bid is practically forcing (giving opps two chances to bid). I'd rather be bidding this with 2♥ Fantunes style.

 

2♥/2♠ These are more or less intermediate 2 bids. I played them for awhile. They can be quite good, but I dropped them due to frequency. (See point on preemptive bidding below.)

 

1NT It wasn't quite clear what your 54 and 55 minor hands bid. If 1NT, then you have an awful lot of hands in your 1NT opening. Tough to sort those out. If 2♠ as it seems was mentioned, then you have an overlap with your 2♠ bid. If 2NT, then it's normally pretty awful to have to bid 2NT on a (31)(54) hand. So not quite sure what to comment here until I have a better description. 2NT as 55 minors intermediate is ok.

 

3♣/3♦ As intermediate minor suit hands. These have some preemptive value, but when it's your hand, you're a level above the room in bidding these.

 

Now on to preempting. So thus far you have used all bids from 1♦ up to 3♦ for semi-constructive openings. Sure with the limited nature, they will often have their preemptive value. But you will also have to pass many routine preempts the rest of the room are making or have to bid one level higher than the rest of the room. On a frequency basis, I think this is a big loss with the system.

[kes]

Correction :

Rule of 20 , too weak for 1C - no 4+ M :

1N semi-balanced - 2N :( with 54+ Minors (avoid 3154) - 3m with 6+L

[kes]

Thank You , Echoqnome , for Your interest !

 

Some supplements :

 

With 4=M & 5+m open the M (canape) - with 44= Ms open 1D in version A (showing at first only 4=H , you rarely miss a 4:4 S-Fit) .

 

With 6=4= Ms open 2M , you rarely miss a 4:4 Fit (there must be no support for the 6=M / a 4 :4 Fit in the oM must exist / pd must be weak) - I cannot remember a hand , when with 4=6 & 3=1 the 4:3 Fit was better , but it may happen of course .

 

The 2D with 5=H is a successful preempt - you have at least 5:2 in about 85 % and a weak pd may pass with misfit in H and 5+D .

 

1N does not contain a 4card M , the distributions are

(33)(43) / (32)(44) / (32)(53) / (32)(52) / (22)(54) / (32)(62) / (22)(63) .

 

2N with 54+ minors (misprint in the original) - with 5=C open 2N (pd will choose clubs with equal lengths) , with 5=D you may lie (pass with 11 P / 1C a little to weak / 1N with singleton / 3D with very good 5cards ; you are in pole-position with this distribution only in 1 : 700 boards) .

 

You are right , with unbalanced minor-hands we are most a level above the room - this is the price for showing the exact length of the major (and is not bad in each case) .

 

Everybody plays Weak Two Majors - I really have no good feeling standing against the crowd , but I don't like it - it is good only if you have no better idea and separating 5=M and 6+M is better - just my opinion . In another post I tried to discuss this problem , but there was no interest at all .

 

With kind regards - kes .

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I built a 'simple' system based around 1M being and 'even' number(4+) in the suit bid and 'odd' numbered holdings opening 1m(better minor) and rebidding a major showed an 'odd' number 'starting with 5 cards.

 

If opener bid 1M and rebid the same major, he held 6 cards. With 'only' five cards, you open your 'better minor' and rebid in your 5 card major suit.

 

Reese built the 'Little Major' system which used 1C=4+Hs, 1D=4+Ss, 1H*=strong

@20+(I think) 1S=minors, weak 1NT, 2m natural and limited(no 4M?)

 

Reese used the step 'in between' to ask over a 1m bid and bid the major with no future in sight. I liked the genral approach, however, living in ACBL land 'you cannot play it here. B)

 

Have you considered a relay method here? You could get the exact information by using relays.

 

Regards,

Robert

[kes]

Hi Robert !

 

"Little Major" in not allowed here too , as 1H "strong" does not show a 4+ suit (only allowed for minors) .

 

Your system , serperating 5= and 4= / 6= in majors , has the advantage to stay low with your major-opening . (Besides what do You do with 54= in majors ?) Going one step on seperating 4= , 5= , 54+ and 6+ in majors needs more (at least 7) steps of course ; there must be payed the price somewhere .

 

There are many possibilities of relay-structures . I prefer a very simple (major-fit oriented) one and I don't think , that anybody is interested in it .

 

With kind regards - kes .

[Robert]

Hi kes

 

I was not so concerned 'with' staying low as finding my major fits. I had played a lot of Blue Team Club and getting a 'xxx' raise of a Q10xx major opening was not something that I looked forward to playing.

 

I built a pure Canape system using a Forcing Pass for 13-15NT/16+ type hands.

Since I had already played quite a bit of Roman Club(almost a pure Canape system), playing Canape was not a big leap of faith.

 

With 4-5 majors, I opened the 4 card major and made a Canape bid in the 5 card major. The search for a 4-4 fit was started by opener bidding his 4 card major.

 

Reese 'used' the in between step to 'gain' information. The system started out as a protest against 'strange' systems, however, he found that the system seemed to have some advantages.

 

Reese used an Acol background so that the bidding tended to be more direct than standard type approach bidding.

 

I did not use the 'between' step that way(more of a waiting bid) We normally found our fit/non fit with little trouble and I think gave away less information in the process. Responder did not need to 'show' his 4M because partner would have opened a 4 card major.

 

I am not a big fan of pure relay systems. I do like the Power structure and several of their bidding methods. The Viking Precision Club is mostly relays, however, I found that the symetric relays in Power were much easier to learn for me.

 

Bidding out my shape is a habit from many years ago. I do tend to use some 'relay' type bidding to show 'assorted' hand types.

 

Just suggesting a few different methods for your enjoyment. I am a systems nut and so I like to find out 'how' a system works.

 

Regards,

Robert