An idea for a system

[EricK]

Very early days yet, but what do you think of this (it's a sort of cross between Fantunes and Little Major)?

 

1♣ 14+unbalanced ♥>=4>=♠ or 15+ balanced ♥>=♠ or 11/12-13 with 5+♥ & 4♠

1♦ 14+ unbalanced ♠>=4>♥ or 15+ balanced ♠>♥ or 11/12-13 with 5+♠ & 4♥

1♥ 14+ unbalanced ♣>=5>♦

1♠ 14+ unbalanced ♦>=5>=♣

1NT 12-14 fairly balanced

2♣-2♠ 9-12/13 5+ (as in Fantunes)

 

So the 1♣ bid promises ♥ if unbalanced but might only be 3 in a balanced hand with 2 or 3 ♠. And the 1♦ promises ♠ if unbalanced but might be 3 if balanced with only 2♥.

All the 1 level bids are forcing.

In response to 1m openings, the cheapest bid is a relay and shows at least invitational strength opposite a strong NT (so about 8+) other low level bids are natural and weak (5 cards in a suit not suggested by opener, 4 or at a push 3 in the major suggested by opener).

 

After eg 1♣ 1♦ something like

1♥ 5+ unlimited

1♠ 4♠ 5♥ 12-13

1NT balanced, forcing

2♣ minimum (i.e. not GF over responder's minimum) 4♥ 5+♣

2♦ minimum hand 4♥ 5+♦

higher bids various GF hands

 

Something similar after 1♦ 1♥.

 

After the 1♥ opening, 1♠ is a relay after which

1NT shows 4♦ 5+♣ minimum

2♣ shows 6+♣ 3-♦ minimum

2♦ shows 4♦ 5+♣ extras

2♥/♠ shows extras and a good 3 card major

 

Something similar after 1♠ and a 1NT relay.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I am curious about mixing the light opening bids into the 'unlimited' style of Fantunes type bidding? I believed that the 14+ requirement for a one bid allowed for 2/1 replies on 10+ to be game forcing. If lighter bids are mixed in, you must raise the standard for 2/1 bids.

 

I live in ACBL land so the Little Major cannot be played. Fantunes would likely be legal since it is natural bidding(mostly)

 

That 'maybe 3 cards' in the opened major 'might' be a serious weakness 'if' the other pair tried to 'push you around' in the bidding. I used to play Roman Club with some three card major opening bids required by the system. I changed the system to only allow 4+ for a major opening after a couple of jump raises on 4 trumps 'still' had us playing in a 4-3 trump fit.

 

Reese used the step in between to ask and used the 1C-1H or 1D-1S to warn of weakness and show a possible place to play(it has been several decades since I last read the system so I might be a bit fuzzy here)

 

I have played Roth Stone solid type openers(just 'not quite' as strong as

Roth-Stone opening bids) and I often play light openings bids using my current Big Club framework.

 

Mixing the light openings in with the 14+ standard seems to lose some of the advantages of both methods. A decent pair will certainly try to bid 'somewhat' more aggressively vs a 'multiple meaning' opening bid.

 

I tend to shade my values a bit, 'if' it appears to steal bidding room from a system that needs bidding room to 'sort out' the assorted shapes/ranges. Against a decent forcing Pass pair, I would trot out the Phantom Club to reduce their bidding space.

 

Regards,

Robert

[helene_t]

I've thought of something similar, but:

- Balanced hands without a 4-card major open 1♥. This means that responder to 1♥, with a weak hand with less than 4 (3?) clubs must start with a relay, planning to pass the rebid whether it's 1NT or 2♣.

- The two-openings are Fantunes shape but 0-7 HCPs. Unbalanced 8+ open at the 1-level. So pass in 1st or 2nd seat becomes 0-12 balanced (assuming a 13-15 1NT).

 

(Actually I would go one step further and define 1NT as 4+♥+4+♠ so that 1♣ denies 4 spades and 1♦ denies 4 hearts, and pass=0-15 bal. But that may be too crazy).

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

Have you read about the Roman system? 1C tends to be 12-16 balanced or an 'unbalanced' strong hand. They use Canape bidding so that 'if' responder bids the relay suit, a 1NT rebid shows 5+ card raise with @ 12-14 and a single raise shows @ 15-16 dummy with 5+ trumps.

 

I slightly modified the system to 'promise' 4 cards in the opened major(delayed jump raises with four trumps sometimes still left opener playing a 4-3 fit). They also play a 17-20 1NT opening(they rarely go down in their opening 1NT bid)

 

In competittive auctions, you can count on opener holding 2+ cards in any given suit 'or' he will bid to show a 'strong' hand type.

 

I liked the idea from Helene_t about the 1H* opening, however, in the Little Major that showed 'some' 20HCP+ hand type(I think) I suspect that the two bidding ideas conflict. Passing the relay might be very bad 'if' opener held a strong two type hand.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Gerben42]

This sounds worth looking into. I'll think about it in some spare moments :P

[awm]

What are the major goals when designing a bidding system? It seems to me the objectives are:

 

(1) Good uncontested game and slam bidding.

(2) Ability to find reasonable partscores.

(3) Find fits quickly in competitive situations.

(4) Open at a high level when reasonably safe to disrupt opponents bidding, while minimizing the disruption to our own side's game and slam bidding.

 

I'd argue that pretty much any reasonable opening structure that opens strong hands at the one level will not have too much trouble with (1). There's an argument that opening strong hands with very high-level bids might be problematic (for example the natural 2NT opening), but any strong club or fantoni-nunes style thing shouldn't have too much issue with (1) assuming reasonable followups (especially if you're willing to play relays).

 

With this in mind, I think the big issues are (2) through (4). A big part of this is the "colours-first" principle -- show your long suits as soon as possible! If your own hand isn't suitable to easily determine the best strain, give partner the information to do this as quickly as you can. This is the fundamental issue with methods which open a lot of nebulous bids, like "1♣ showing any 12-16" or opening three-card major suits in preference to longer minors. Sure they do okay in constructive auctions where you have most of the values, but they're big losers in competitive situations.

 

Anyways I see three major issues with the methods described:

 

(1) The 1♣/♦ openings will be tough in a competitive situation. For example say the auction goes 1♣-2♠. You have four hearts and a moderate hand (say 6-8 hcp). Partner could have five hearts and some 14-16 point hand, where you definitely want to compete to 3♥, or partner could have four hearts and 15-17 balanced (competing to 3♥ may or may not be right), or partner could have 15-17 balanced with 2-3 or 3-3 in the majors (competing almost certainly wrong). In principle you could play some kind of support-showing double, but this gives you issues with minor-oriented hands.

 

(2) The 1♥/1♠ openings will make it hard to find our major suit fit. How do we proceed over 1♠ when responder has a weakish hand with five spades? Is there any chance to find the 5-3 spade partial?

 

(3) You've eliminated all two-level weak bids. Sure Fantoni and Nunes do this, and it wins them some and loses them some. But ideally you'd like to have ]both weak and intermediate preemptive calls.

 

Anyways it seems like this method has all of the weaknesses of Fantoni-Nunes methods (no weak two bids of any type, weak NTs at all colors) while lacking many of the strengths (showing suits and strength immediately on strong hands, immediately guaranteeing length in any suit but clubs, transfer responses to the 1♣ opening which is usually a strong balanced hand).

[borag]

Hi,

 

I'm also working on very similar stuff.

What I dont like is to open 15-17 without 4cardM in 1C/1D.

 

What about moving that to 1H like;

 

1♣ 10+ unbal 5+H-4S

13+ unbal 4H-5+m, 44(41) or 1444

13+ unbal 5+H-4+m, 6+H

15-17 bal 4/5H (4S possible if 4H)

21+ bal 4/5H (4S possible if 4H)

 

1♦ 10+ unbal 5+S-4+H

13+ unbal 4S-5+m, 4144

13+ unbal 5+S-4+m, 6+S

15-17 bal 4/5S

21+ bal 4/5S

 

1♥ 13+ unbal 5+C-4D, 6+C

15-17 bal no card 4M

 

1♠ 13+ unbal 5+D-4+C, 6+D

 

1N 11-14 balanced (5M332, 5M4m22, 54m22(31),6m322,4441 possible)

 

2x 8-12 unbal 5+x

 

2N 19-20 balanced any