Is this similar to any known system

[Wackojack]

Idling in my thinking after playing against a number of artificial club and diamond systems, I thought I would try and construct one myself. I have gone some wayinto this, but since there is nothing new under the sun, I thought I should find out if this is similar to any known sytem. Could anyone tell me if this is a close relative of any known system?

 

These are the opening bids:

 

1club Strong 17+, or 11-13 with a 4 card major (balanced or any 11-13 4441)

1diamond 11-13 with no 4-card major

1heart/spade 11-16 >= 5cards

1NT 14-16 balanced

2clubs/diamonds 11-16 >=5 cards

2hearts/spades Weak

2NT 20-21 balanced

 

Normal response to 1c is 1d ask this covers all balanced hands and 7-10 single suited hands with one exception which is 13-15 balanced with no 4 card major.

[glen]

A couple of questions?

1) Are the 4-4-4-1s 14-16 in 1NT?

2) 2♦ can be 5♦+4M 11-16?

[gwnn]

I think 2m openers work much better if they promise 6+, making the system "5 card majors and 6 card minors". The problem with opening on 2 level on a 5 card suit is that there will be some awkward situations. You'd like to support partner on only 4 cards, but you're forced to bid on 3 cards also. Now you're on 3 level with a good 9 count opposite a potentially 4315 11 hcp "monster". Overall I really think the 2m bids are very wide-ranging without being particularly preemptive. The 1♣ is not bad if you really want to use a weak option. Nice solution to the polish "could be 3cM" problem. A solution to the 2m wide-ranging-ness is to cram them into the 1♦ bids. That will transfer some of the former bid's yuckiness into the latter.

[glen]

... Nice solution to the polish "could be 3cM" problem. A solution to the 2m wide-ranging-ness is to cram them into the 1♦ bids. That will transfer some of the former bid's yuckiness into the latter.

This week I put up a 1/2 solution, using 1♣ with 4♠s (but could be unbalanced):

 

Spades Or Big Club - click here to see

 

Certainly no matter what one does, one has the where-2-put-yuckiness problem in system design, hence my questions above. Some mornings I park the problems into four card major openings, such as this from my blog:

 

1♣: 17+ any or 11-13 ♦s & no four card major

-- 1♦: 0-7 Negative - now 11-13 ♦s passes, rest shows 17+

-- 2♦: 8-11 Balanced, now 11-13 ♦s passes, rest shows 17+

-- Over 1M positive, 2♦ is 11-13 ♦s with no fit, raise is 11-13 ♦s with fit

-- Over 1M positive, 1NT 17+ and balanced or ♦s or fit, 2♣ asks which

-- 1NT positive is 12+ balanced or 8+ with ♣s.

-- Over 1NT 2♣ is 11-13 ♦s, 2NT 11-13 5+♦s&♣s, 2♦ 17+ asking, rest 17+ natural

-- 2♣ positive shows ♦s, 8+. Now 3♦ is 11-13 with ♦s, and 2♦ 17+ asks.

1♦: 14-16 balanced/semi-balanced or with ♦s

1♥/♠: 4 or longer major, 10-16, not balanced if 4M, not hand for 2♥/♠ opening

1NT: 11/12-13 balanced (reason for tight range is to have less invite sequences)

2♣: 5+♣s, no 4cM, 10-16

2♦: Multi

2♥/♠: 5+ in major 9-12, not 4 in other major

2NT: 11-13 5-5+ in minors

[helene_t]

The idea of playing 1♣ as a fourcard in a major or strong is appealing, I'm not sure why so little has been written about it. Maybe it would be baned in some jurisdictions. WBF HUM definitions include a suit opening which promises length in either of two know suits, if not part of a strong-club or strong-diamond system. The definition is a little vague and also it seems to me that many standard systems should be HUM (in particular, any short-club system) so I'm not sure.

 

M.A.F. also uses the principle of opening 12-14 balanced hands with 1♣ if they contain a four-card major and 1♦ otherwise. One pair at my local club play a home-grown system similar to M.A.F.

 

What you describe might go for a variant of Polish Club.

[Wackojack]

A couple of questions?

1) Are the 4-4-4-1s 14-16 in 1NT?

2) 2♦ can be 5♦+4M 11-16?

 

1 Good question.

2. 5422 hands can be treated as balanced. However, as the system is envisaged at present you have to open 2d with 5 diamonds and a singleton 11-16

 

To Helene: What is M.A.F?

[hrothgar]

This looks vaguely similar to Carrot Club which used

 

1♣ = 11-13 (balanced or 4=4=1=4)

Strong (16+ unbalanced, 17+ balanced)

1♦ = Unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds

1♥ = 5+ Hearts

1♠ = 5+ Spades

1N = 14-16

2♣ = 6+ Clubs or 5+ Clubs and a 4 card major

2♦ = Ekrens (or some other preempt)

 

The main difference is that you're playing some odd games with certain (weak) openings promising/denying a 4 card major.

 

From my perspective, I prefer the original Carrot formulation. Playing traditional Carrot, the 1♦ opening promises and unbalanced hand with 4+ Diamonds. This is an effective opening which is very easy to raise. In your variant, a 1♦ opening could (conceivably) be bid on 3=3=2=5 / 3=3=3=4 shapes which really impacts one's ability to aggressively raise Diamonds.

 

Personally, I don't see the gains from ensuring that your weak 1♣ variants include a 4 card major. Its unclear how this would help in constructive or competitive bidding.

[Kaapo]

There used to be a description of the Piranha Club by Christer Enkvist online but the link is dead now. However, there's left a Swedish PDF file on the Syskon site at http://www.syskon.nu/system/002_piranha_01.pdf .

Here is the opening structure:

 

1♣ = 16+ (17+ if unbal) or 10-12 bal with a 4-card major (or marmic)

1♦ = 10-16, 4-5-card major, maybe both, possibly with a longer minor

1♥♠ = 8-12, 5+ cards

1NT = 13-16

2♣♦ = 11-16, 5+ cards, no 4c major

2♥♠ = 13-16, 6+ cards.

 

They likely pass all balanced 10-12 hands with no 4-card major.

[glen]

Here's a structure using the two-way ♣ opening:

 

1♣: 17+ any or 11-13 balanced/semi-balanced (or 4-4-1-4 exactly) with a four card major but not with a good 4 or longer ♦ suit

1♦: 4 or longer ♦s, 10/11-16, can be balanced if 11-13

1♥: 5 or longer ♥s, 10-16, OR 4♥s unbalanced & 14-16 & 4+♣s

1♠: 5 or longer ♠s, 10-16, OR 4♠s unbalanced & 14-16 & 4+♣s

1NT: 13/14-16 balanced, or 13 with 5♣s

2♣: 5 or longer ♣s, 10/11-16, no four card major if 14-16

 

3-3-3-4 exactly with 13 has to pass. 5♣s balanced with 12 has to pass.

 

Later edit: For details on this system click here

 

Also note a system I posted last year had a weak with a four card major or big one club opening:

 

Savage - click here

 

This system explored the idea of grouping quasi-balanced hands together.