A Christmas Present?

[kenrexford]

I've been working on what I believe to be an improvement to standard and 2/1 GF bidding, for better handling of the strong hands. I thought I'd share some of it here.

 

The problem to resolve is the unwieldy 2♣ opening. The solution I propose is to add 2♦ as a second strong opening. This has been done before, but probably not the way I do it. The short version follows.

 

The approach uses 2♦ as a strong, forcing opening with 4+ spades. If Responder also has 4+ spades, he can establish that suit as trumps immediately with a splinter (4-L), 3♥ (bust, or minimal GF), or 2NT (positive). 3minor is positive and natural. 2♥ is waiting. 2♠ is a positive with hearts.

 

After 2♥, Opener can bid 2♠ (5+ spades, natural), or he may show only four spades but a longer second suit by bidding his second suit (canape style).

 

2♣, then, usually denies 4+ spades. Response structure is familiar (2♦ GF waiting, 2♥ immediate bust). After 2♥ immediate bust, Opener's 2♠ shows hearts.

 

After 2♣-P-2♦, Opener can bid 2♥ as Kokish. 2♠ by Opener shows four hearts and either a longer minor or a 4441 with hearts; Responder can raise hearts immediately or bid 2NT to ask -- Opener bids the longer minor or shows his shortness in steps 3♥/3♠/3N.

 

2♣...3minor denies a four-card major. 2♣...3♠ shows 5-5 minors.

 

There is a lot more. But, if you think this basic structure out, it solves a lot.

 

I'm debating 2♦...2NT. It might show specifically 4-5-2-2 and be the sole exception to 2♦ promising 4+ spades and unbalanced. Or, it could show 4-1-4-4/4-0-4-5/4-0-5-4. Or, any 4-4-4-1 with spades (making 2♣...2♥ only 1-4-4-4; 2NT...3♥/♠ would be 5431 flags with spade frags).

 

The other possibility is interesting. 2♦...2NT showing balanced with 4-5 spades; 2♣...2NT balanced with 2-3 spades. This split of balanced into two hands allows space for amazing exploration below 3NT.

[hrothgar]

Hi Ken

 

Personally, I don't like the approach that you are suggesting

 

First and foremost, 2♣ opener's are a rare beast. I can't see myself sacrificing an extremely useful 2♦ opening for some possible improvement in bidding accuracy with hands that almost never come up

 

Second: You aren't going to be able to achieve much parallelism in your bidding structures over the 2♣ and 2♦ openings. There might be some superficial similarities, however, the lost step of bidding space is going to ripple across the structure. For example, you have Kokish available over 2♣ but not over 2♦. Here, once again, I am going to note how rare these openings are... I suspect that adopting this method will severly increase the likelyhood that people forget the system at a critical juncture.

 

Third: I come from a school that avoids opening 2♣ with two suited hands at (almost) all costs. If I have a 4 card Spade suit with a longer second suit I will happily reverse. If I have a bid 5-5 I am content to open 1♠. I don't worry how to show a strong hand with a 4 card spade suit and a longer minor after my 2♣ opening because I don't open 2♣ to begin with. In part, this decision might reflect weaknesses in my response structure after the 2♣ opening, however, it doesn't seem to cause trouble all that often. (Once again, my basic philosophy is that I'm not going to waste cycles worrying about rare freaky stuff)

 

Last: I think that there are better ways to accomplish the same end. I'd much rather play a well designed strong club or strong pass system rather than building yet another grand ediface atop a shakey foundation like 2/1...

[kenrexford]

A couple of responses. Keep in mind as I respond that I am looking for analysis and critique, which is why I posted it here.

 

1. Frequency. I looked through the Shanghai vugraphs for impact. About a dozen hands that yielded major swings and were difficult for the pros became easy. Other years were admittedly less fruitful. However, I have also tracked a weak 2♦ and found little benefit and not much occurrence.

 

2. Parallel structure. I'm not sure that I understand this one. Who cares about parallel structure? My structure:

 

a. With 5+ spades: 2♦...2♠. Everything that follows parallels 2♣-P-2♦ (waiting) -P-2♠, or a 2♠ opening (strong twos).

 

b. With 5+ hearts: Kokish, probably familiar

 

c. Minor two-suiter: 2♣...3♠ (artificial, but who has a solution?

 

d. Balanced (same as always, unless you want the dualist methods)

 

e. Minor one-suiter (same, being 2♣...3minor, but I eliminate the possibility of having a side major, a problem pattern.

 

f. 4441: No one has a great solution. I manage below 3NT.

 

g. Major-minor canape: This is a key problem hand. I use semi-parallel structure:

 

(I.) spade-minor: Open 2♦. If no fit for spades, bid the minor.

 

(II.) heart-minor: 2♣...2♠. If no fit for hearts, bid the minor.

 

3. Redundant frequency objection. If you do not have a problem, then do not change. I, for one, do have a problem. I noticed that many pros in Shanghai had a problem. I'm sure that others do not like 22 HCP non-forcing openings and playing catch-up either. For me and them, this works.

 

4. Strong club preference. That is a fair election. However, as a person who played Precision (and variants) for about five years, and then three versions of canape for about ten years, I have had my fill of strong club (and strong diamond) systems. Whereas I enjoyed the methods and find merit therein, I am not completely sold. Furthermore, unless you have a specific partner for long enough who is good enough and willing, the strong club or canape approach is not practical. However, taking a basic 2/1 player to the slight change of adding 2♦ is "doable."

[awm]

I think this looks better than other schemes I've seen for splitting strong hands into 2♣/2♦ (i.e. Romex). It will help when opening canape (4M, 5+minor) or three-suited hands with the artificial strong bid.

 

This is potentially a problem, to the degree that most strong players using 2♣ as their only strong bid avoid opening that bid with a canape or three-suited hand.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sold on the whole idea of using 2♦ as a strong bid. It does seem like:

 

(1) The modern style seems to involve responding to 1m on virtually nothing in any case. We are unlikely to miss games in this situation by opening 1m with canape and three-suited hands.

 

(2) Hands for a weak 2♦ outnumber the strong 2♦ by something on the order of 20:1. This is a big factor. Even if the strong 2♦ is a 10 imp swing in your favor every time it comes up (hard to believe it will be this good), you only need to lose 5 imps on 10% of the boards where opponents open 2♦ weak before the method has gained nothing. I'm pretty sure that having a weak two in diamonds gains me 5 imps at least 10% of the time over passing the same hands.

 

(3) In fact there is something of a trend towards having no strong bids (Fantoni-Nunes style, or EHAA). The idea of devoting multiple openings to hands in the 22+ hcp range seems something of a dinosaur by modern standards. Obviously some "old ideas" are better than some "new ideas" but absent really convincing arguments to the contrary I'd tend to believe that the "modern style" is better than the style it replaced.

[kenrexford]

A few interesting observations as well. A few responses, though, might help in seeing some of the merits.

 

1. Responses occur anyway to one-level minor openings. Sure, this is true. However, this does not lend itself to precise bidding. When a reverse can be wildly strong, Opener has a difficult time unwinding whether the reverse is a high-end reverse or a plain reverse.

 

2A. Weak 2♦ outweighs strong openings 20:1. Flat untrue. Review vugraphs and keep a log. You will not find hands appropriate for a weak 2♦ outpacing the strong openings, let alone by a 20:1 ratio.

 

2B. 22+ is rare. Not as rare as you think. However, it is not a 22+ that you "need" any longer. Consider a hand like ♠AQ10x ♥AKx ♦AKxxxx ♣void. Only a 20-count. You would never dream of opening this 2♣. However, if you open 2♦ to show 4+ spades, the first hurdle is crossed when partner raises or declines spades. If he declines spades, you rebid 3♦, showing nine of your cards and enabling partner's 3♥ to promise 5+ (but not appropriate for a positive). All suits can be explored below 3NT. Thus, the problem hand pattern is so well solved that you find yourself opting for a 2♦ opening (or a 2♣ opening) more frequently than you would otherwise.

 

If you convert the strong opening away from a menace into an asset, its utility increases and it becomes a useful call, an asset rather than a liability. It also better defines one-level openings.

 

I'd venture that the number of 2♣ openings in curent form are roughly one-half of the number of combined 2♣ and 2♦ openings in this new method. My rough analysis played this out.

 

3. The trend toward eliminating a strong opening. I also considered this for a while. However, I am convinced by playing this out that the "modern trend" is less useful.

 

The key to all of this is not that I am solving a problem. I am creating a method that has its own merits. I mean, consider the approach without reference to the "Two CLubs Problem."

 

How nice would it be to establish a game-force whenever opener has at least four spades and Responder has at least four spades at the 2NT level, even if the balance of points is 20+ for opener and merely two Queens or a King for Responder. How nice to do the same thing when the fit is four hearts for Opener and 4+ for responder (3♣ level)?

 

How nice would it be to show both minors and a montsre below 3NT?

 

How nice would it be to show a hand with a four-card major and 5+ in a minor at the three-level in the minor, after already eliminating a possible major fit in Opener's major, and allow Responder to know that Opener has half of the deck, or more?

 

Would you like for 4-4-4-1 hands with 20+ HCP to not be a problem?

 

If you add in the one proposal, how would you like to explore 4-4 minor fits below 3NT when Opener has 22-23 HCP? How about showing which minor you have below 3NT when mildly slammish? How about being able to easily handle all major patterns?

 

In sum, the idea is not to solve a problem but to make a radical change to structure such that hands with 20+ HCP's that once were difficult now are not only easy but wildly so.

 

The one-level opening "solution" results in jump shifts and four-level game raises and the like. I mean, a simple 1♣-P-1♠-P-? auction creates a problem for Opener who has a three-loser hand. His next call will likely be at the four-level. My approach finds that fit after 2♦-P-2NT. Now, Opener's 3♣ says the same thing as 1♣-P-1♠-P-4♦/4♥, actually more, with much more space to explore fine details.

 

Instead of 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥ setting the game-force and agreeing hearts, I agree hearts with these patterns via 2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-P-3♣. Not much of a gain, except that the latter shows VERY strong values and might be akin to a pre-Serious 3NT.

[awm]

Hands with 5-10 hcp and exactly 6♦ come up roughly 20,000 times in 1,000,000 hands (2%). Hands with 22+ hcp and any shape come up roughly 4,200 times in the same 1,000,000 hands (0.42%). So it's 5:1 ignoring that some hands with 5♦ make reasonable weak two bids, and that not every 22+ hcp hand is going to be helped by this structure (or open 2♦ in this structure).

 

If we extend to 20+ hcp and any shape, we get 14400 hands (1.44%), still less than the number of 2♦ openings with exactly six diamonds.

 

If we restrict to 20+ hcp and unbalanced, we get 5100 hands (0.51%) so roughly a 4:1 ratio. Of course, more than half of these unbalanced hands have a five-card major and the "old" 2♣ methods work perfectly fine, so once we discount these we are looking at more like an 10:1 ratio. And this still ignores potential five-card weak twos.

[kenrexford]

Hands with 5-10 hcp and exactly 6♦ come up roughly 20,000 times in 1,000,000 hands (2%). Hands with 22+ hcp and any shape come up roughly 4,200 times in the same 1,000,000 hands (0.42%). So it's 5:1 ignoring that some hands with 5♦ make reasonable weak two bids, and that not every 22+ hcp hand is going to be helped by this structure (or open 2♦ in this structure).

 

If we extend to 20+ hcp and any shape, we get 14400 hands (1.44%), still less than the number of 2♦ openings with exactly six diamonds.

 

If we restrict to 20+ hcp and unbalanced, we get 5100 hands (0.51%) so roughly a 4:1 ratio. Of course, more than half of these unbalanced hands have a five-card major and the "old" 2♣ methods work perfectly fine, so once we discount these we are looking at more like an 10:1 ratio. And this still ignores potential five-card weak twos.

I have no idea whether these numbers are accurate. However, the actual data that I have reviewed suggests that the numbers in real life are slightly different.

 

Regardless of the numbers, however, the likelihood of a hand pattern arising is not equivalent to the likelihood of the opening being available.

 

To explain. A weak 2♦ opening might occur x% of the time. However, that occurrence will be present in one of four hands at the table. If it occurs in the fourth seat, three people will have to pass first before 2♦ can be opened. That is less likely when a person has six diamonds and 5-10 HCP's. Someone usually will open. Third seat faces similar constraints. Even second seat might not often open.

 

In contrast, holding a massive number of HCP reduces the likelihood of openings, even preemptive, ahead of the strong hand. Simply put, how often do you have 22+, or 20+, and hear an opening in front of you? Compare that to the much more frequent ability to overcall a weak 2♦ or a weak 3♦.

 

These numbers play out in such a way as to reduce the number of real-world 2♦ openings on weak hands and to increase the number of strong openings.

 

Obviously, tight restrictions on side values also reduces the availability of a weak 2♦. If you eliminate out 4+ in a major, or inappropriate honor location, you have a lower percentage of weak 2♦ openings.

 

Beyond all of this, the weak 2♦ openings could be handled through a weak 3♦ opening. Plus, a weak 2♦ does not enhance any other auction. In contrast, a two-way strong opening structure enhances one-level definition and cannot as easily be replicated with alternative sequences.

 

The key question, as well, is whether the occurrence of weak 2♦ calls creates results, and the magnitude/frequency of those results, as compared to the enhanced handling of the strong patterns. That is for each to decide.

[pclayton]

I don't find a lot of issues with Ken's system, and if I couldn't play garbage multi I'd probably try it. We just get so many pickups from 2D / 2H / 2S that I doubt I could be convinced to switch.

 

The big beef we all have with opening 2C with a two suiter is that we get jammed. If we can eliminate an entire class of two-suited hands from 2C (that opens 2D) then I think we'd be more inclined to open a two-suiter with 2C.

 

Ken, please take some time and post a few hands from Shanghai. If you are trying to sell others than you need to do more than:

 

I looked through the Shanghai vugraphs for impact. About a dozen hands that yielded major swings and were difficult for the pros became easy.

[kenrexford]

A few Shanghai deals that I found again quickly:

 

Opener: ♠AKQ10 ♥AJx ♦-- ♣AQxxxx

Responder: ♠Jxxx ♥10xx ♦AKQ10x ♣x

 

On this deal, Norway lost 15 IMPs after a 2♣ opening. The spade fit was found too late to unwind the hand. For me, 2♦ allows us to find the spade fit immediately. After 2NT from Responder, a 3♦ shortness bid by Opener slows Responder down.

 

Opener: ♠AQxx ♥AK10 ♦AKJ97 ♣J

Responder: ♠J9xx ♥Q9xx ♦Qx ♣Kxx

 

Denmark had trouble with a 2♣ opening. My 2♦ opening finds the spade fit at 2NT by Responder. Lots of room to explore more.

 

Opener: ♠AKQxxx ♥KJxx ♦KJ ♣A

Responder: ♠J9xx ♥A ♦Q109xxx ♣Qx

 

The lack of a heart fit reduced the damage on this hand when 2♣ faced a 2♥ overcall. The opps missed the huge club fit. My 2♦ opening makes this hand easy, no matter how high the overcall.

 

Opener: ♠A9xx ♥AK1097 ♦AQx ♣A

Responder: ♠Q ♥QJx ♦J10xxx ♣Jxxx

 

After a 2♣ opening, Opener is stuck IF Responder had held a minimum. After 2♦, the spade fit is immediarely explored. After declined (2♥ waiing), Opener's 3♥ is easier. On the actual hand, Responder can cue the spade Queen, a card that might have mattered.

 

Opener: ♠ -- ♥ A K Q 5 ♦ A 6 5 4 3 ♣ A Q J 7

Responder: ♠AKx ♥10xxx ♦x ♣109xxx

 

Hard to describe this playing strength. For me, 2♣-P-2♦(GF)-P-2♠-P-2NT(no heart fit)-P-3NT(1-4-4-4/0-4-5-4/0-4-4-5 would work wonders had Responder held only three hearts. Instead, over 2♠ Responder can bid a 4♦ splinter.

 

Opener: ♠ A ♥ A 2 ♦ A J 7 4 2 ♣ A K J 6 3

Responder: ♠Qxxxx ♥Jxxx ♦Kxx ♣Q

 

Most who opened 1♦ played 3NT or 5♣. My auction of 2♣-P-2♦(GF)-P-3♠(5-5 minors) allows Responder to see the value of his honors and to recognize that Opener is very strong.

 

Opener: ♠KJx ♥AK10xx ♦AK ♣A10x

Responder: ♠Axxx ♥x ♦Qxxx ♣Kxxx

 

After 2♣-P-2♦(GF)-P-2NT(22-23), Opener has (in one optional version of my suggestion) denied four+ spades. That allows Responder to bid 3♥ as a club flag, suggesting clubs and slam ambition. Alternatively, he could bid 3♣, a modified version of puppet, hoping that Opener has short hearts (2-3). If Opener does, he will bid 3♦, which allows exploration of possible 4-4 minor fits via 3♥ (club flag). In either event (immediate or delayed 3♥ club flag), Opener might be able to bid 3♠ as a diamond flag. Cheaper than 4NT, which might yield a 5♥ call. Even 4NT is not safe.

[glen]

Ken's 1st example is board 21 in: BB Semi-Final Norway-Netherlands

 

In the style I play it goes 2♣-2♦--2♠(4+)-4♣(splinter)-etc.

 

Ken's 2nd example is board 16 in: Venice Cup Round Robin - Denmark-China

 

Given the other room reached 6♠ down 2, I'm not sure why Denmark reaching 4♠ after the 2♣ opening is a problem, or why this would be considered a gain (i.e. "yielded major swings and were difficult for the pros") for Ken's suggested methods.

 

The other examples do not provide country names, so I'm not going to bother finding and linking to them.

 

As to the method, I believe if you are willing to use both 2♣ and 2♦ on the big hands, then Ken's method will work well. However I remember going to the NABC in Montreal in the mid-80s, playing 2♣ and 2♦ as big (in a gadget-laiden system called Toys R' Us - 2♦ handled the 5m+4M hands and a certain two point balanced range) and getting no nice swings from the 2♣/2♦ use - this reflects some frequency comments above.

[jdonn]

I haven't gone into much deep thought. But the thing I immediately hate is when you are balanced you automatically tell the opponents whether you have four spades or not. I HATE that, that sort of every day swing seems far more important to be than the odd slam swing.

 

Anyway I will always believe the weak 2♦ opening is valuable and works quite well. Sorry but I'm not nearly sold on this idea.

 

If you really wanted to run with this idea, why not show hearts rather than spades? Hearts are more subject to preemption, harder to bid due to Kokish, and harder to bid as a second suit since partner might bid spades first.

[glen]

If you really wanted to run with this idea, why not show hearts rather than spades? Hearts are more subject to preemption, harder to bid due to Kokish, and harder to bid as a second suit since partner might bid spades first.

What I like about this is that 2♦ could be weak or strong in ♥s, allowing the 2♥ opening to be used as something else, such as weak with both majors.

 

Edit (and posted after the post below): to avoid adding another post, the scheme could be:

 

2♣-2♦-?

--2♥: GF balanced, or a minor without a four card major

----2♠: waits

------2NT: GF balanced

------3♣/♦: Natural without a four card major

------3♥/♠: Shortness with 5-5+ in the minors

--2♠: 5+♠s

--2NT: 22-24 balanced

--3♣/♦: Natural with 4♠s

--3♥: 4-1-4-4 GF

--3♠: 9 tricks, long ♠s

 

2♣-2♥ would show a bust, but would only be passed by 22-23 balanced with 5♥s - thus responder will be able to show support if opener's rebid hits a fit

 

2♦-2♥-?

--2♠: 5+♥s

--2NT: 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-4-1

--3♣/♦: Natural with 4♥s

--3♥: 9 tricks, long ♥s

--3♠: 1-4-4-4 GF

 

Not exactly a parallel structure but close enuff

[kenrexford]

I haven't gone into much deep thought. But the thing I immediately hate is when you are balanced you automatically tell the opponents whether you have four spades or not. I HATE that, that sort of every day swing seems far more important to be than the odd slam swing.

 

Anyway I will always believe the weak 2♦ opening is valuable and works quite well. Sorry but I'm not nearly sold on this idea.

 

If you really wanted to run with this idea, why not show hearts rather than spades? Hearts are more subject to preemption, harder to bid due to Kokish, and harder to bid as a second suit since partner might bid spades first.

The reason for the 2♦ bid showing spades was structural simplicity.

 

2♣-2♦-2♥ shows 5+ hearts (unless power balanced).

2♦-2♥-2♠ shows 5+ spades.

 

2♣-2♦-2♠...3♣ shows a heart-club canape

2♣-2♦-2♠...3♦ shows a heart-diamond canape

2♦-2♥-3♣ shows a spade-club canape

2♦-2♥-3♦ shows a spade-diamond canape

 

Not exactly parallel structure, but close. Trying to change it around is difficult. You will notice that by "zooming" to show the hearts first when a heart-minor canape (2♣...2♠), you are solving the problem of Responder bidding spades first (unless he is positive, which is good news anyway).

 

As to the non-revelation on balanced hands. I also am distressed by that idea. I am still in the development stage on this, as I mentioned. My partner and I are considering keeping 2♣...2NT for all balanced hands and:

 

1. 2♦...2NT as precisely 4♠/5♥ (passable; 3♥ now stronger canape)

2. 2♦...2NT as precisely 4♠/5♥/2-2 minors (all other calls promise a stiff/void somewhere)

3. 2♦...2NT as a 4-4-4-1 with spades; would make 2♣...2♠ shows 4♥+longer minor(3♣/3♦ after 2NT), or 3415/3451 (3♥/3♠ over 2NT to flag minor), or 1-4-4-4/0-4-5-4/0-4-4-5 (3NT after 2NT, or longer minor if too strong, or 4♥ if BIG 1-4-4-4).

 

If you were to pick one, which seems best?

[mycroft]

The thing I have an issue with is that on the hands where we want to play in something other than spades, responder bids diamonds or hearts. Taking the primary spade hands out of the 2C opener means that responder is going to peg opener's suit more often.

 

It should be reasonably safe to make 2S the bust hand; yes, it stops 2C-2H; 2S "you can pass 3H if you want, partner", but you should be able to bring that back (perhaps 2C-2S; 3S "Show me a Q if you have heart support, 3NT with no support, 4H with no Q").

 

I know that people say the same thing about our transfer positives to a strong club, but we rightside the contract (we want to play in responder's suit) more often than we wrongside it (the transfer pegs opener's long suit). I don't worry about partner hitting my suit; I worry about partner bidding 2D and taking away all our investigation room. Here, you're just asking to have the quack hand playing all your 4H games.

 

Michael.

[kenrexford]

The thing I have an issue with is that on the hands where we want to play in something other than spades, responder bids diamonds or hearts. Taking the primary spade hands out of the 2C opener means that responder is going to peg opener's suit more often.

 

It should be reasonably safe to make 2S the bust hand; yes, it stops 2C-2H; 2S "you can pass 3H if you want, partner", but you should be able to bring that back (perhaps 2C-2S; 3S "Show me a Q if you have heart support, 3NT with no support, 4H with no Q").

 

I know that people say the same thing about our transfer positives to a strong club, but we rightside the contract (we want to play in responder's suit) more often than we wrongside it (the transfer pegs opener's long suit). I don't worry about partner hitting my suit; I worry about partner bidding 2D and taking away all our investigation room. Here, you're just asking to have the quack hand playing all your 4H games.

 

Michael.

That's a good observation.

 

My personal thought is that I am OK with this acknowledged problem. In reaching this conclusion, I weigh my auction with those of others (the field).

 

Using standard methods, a 2♥ response (negative) will be used by everyone who uses that technique (fairly mainstream now), creating the same wrong-siding of the contract when a heart contract will result. However, at least I have the advantage of a cheaper method of exploring the right level and strain. In other words, whereas the field might be in 4♥ with a non-fit and wrong-sided, I might play in 3♥, 2NT, or another strain.

 

Against that is the idea of using 2♠ for the double negative, which does allow right-siding of heart contract but suffers from level complicatons.

 

Given the options, I'd rather protect level rather than lead.

 

Further, I am considering (and have used in the past) what I believe to be a beter positives structure for Responder:

 

2♠ = Positive with one or both minors. Opener can bid 2NT to ask. Responder bids his minor OR his short major if both minors (might reverse meanings of 3♣/3♦)

2NT = both majors (5-5), positive

3♣ = heart positive

3♦ = spade positive

3M = "preemptive" type of hand (7-card suit, otherwise weak)

[mikeh]

I found this to be an interesting idea, but I share many of the reservations expressed by others. Part of this is my predilection for opening at the one-level with some very strong hands.

 

Your first BB hand was AKQ10 AJx void AQxxxx. I would open that 1♣, although I recognize that many fine players would disagree. So I don't face the perceived problem that you are dealing with as frequently as I would if I opened a little lighter. And the minimum 2♣ opening range is by far the most common: we have more 20 counts than 21s, more 21s than 22's and so on.

 

I also feel that other uses for 2♦ are likely to afford more frequent opportunity for gain, whether that be by way of some form of multi or even the under-valued, oft-despised weak two bid.

 

As for frequency, in one partnership, we systemically cater to opening 2♦ with a side 4 card major (we use 2♥ as an asking response, and a direct 2N as forcing in hearts) so in that partnership, we have a relatively high frequency of opening weak 2♦. But even in more traditional methods, where the 2♦ bidder will not hold a decent 4 card major (or maybe never hold a 4 card major of any texture), my perception is that the bid will come up far more frequently than a 2♣ opener containing 4♠....ie the suggested use.

 

So if we adopt this method, we are often going to be passing when we could open a weak two, or we are going to have to open at the 3-level. The first problem means enhancing the constructive bidding of the opps, who rate to own the hand when we are weak and long in a minor, and the second makes our 3-level preempts both more dangerous (to us) and more difficult to handle when partner surprises us by having a good hand.

 

I also endorse the concern that we are giving away a significant amount of information. Now, having said that, I suspect that the additional information will often be at least inferentially available in many 'standard' 2♣ auctions, and on many occasions will be irrelevant anyway: the opps may know more than we like, but the information may not affect the viability of our contract... and if we reach a cold contract unreachable otherwise, I don't care if the opps look at my entire hand B)

 

Finally, while I don't think that the method so far described is a huge amount of memory work, I suspect that actual play would lead us to significant tweaks and late-round agreements, adding to the memory load. That is fine IF the frequency is sufficient that both partners can internalize the method AND if the gain is proportionate to the effort. I happen to think that there are probably other areas where a comparable amount of work would generate equal or better, and certainly more frequent, gain. Maybe not for a truly sophisticated partnership with a real book of system notes, but certainly for most partnerships.

 

So, in summary.... an interesting idea with some promise, but I'd need to be a card-rack to benefit from it... :)

[kenrexford]

OK. So, I'm thinking this this through, and something has occurred to me.

 

The basic structure that I had tossed out as a re-working theory had a two-way structure, right?

 

In other words, Opener usually described his hand via one of two normal routes:

 

Open 2♦. If a spade fit is found, great. If not, complete various patterns.

 

OR

 

Open 2♣. After the usual 2♦ waiting, complete various patterns.

 

So, with some tweaking (I have thought through some already, but I'll leave that unmentioned for now), what if you reversed who describes primary pattern and skip the waiting bids?

 

In other words, after a 2♣ opening, Responder, in a sense, "opens" 2♦ with 4+ spades. If Responder lacks 4+ spades, he "pretends" that he opened 2♣, heard a 2♦ response, and then Responder, as the imaginary "Opener," completes his pattern the same basic way that Opener would explain his pattern.

 

Responder's calls might be transfers or shuffled somewhat, as would Opener's. Opener could make "positive responses" to 2♦ if he wished. Opener would show a "negative" on occasion, when he would have resigned after a negative from Responder. Stuff like that.

 

The major problem with a 2♣ opening is that, after 2♣-P-2♦-P-?, Opener essentially describes his hand with calls that start at 2♥ and higher. That single step of the 2♦ call, if used effectively by reversing who describes pattern, allows a world of greater description. Plus, as a side benefit, there will be a tendency for the eventual dummy to describe pattern, which seems ideal.

 

This also saves 2♦ as weak.

 

Any thoughts on this?

[kenrexford]

Maybe:

 

2♣ = Strong, forcing, artificial

-2♦ = 4+ spades, unbalanced, non-minimum

--2♥ = Waiting, denies four spades

---2♠ = double negative with 4-5 spades

---2NT = 4 spades, longer second suit or 4-1-4-4

----3♣ asks for second suit:

-----3♦ = heart-spade canapé

-----3♥ = club-spade canapé flag

-----3♠ = diamond-spade canapé flag

-----3NT = 4-1-4-4

---3♣ = 5+ spades, 4+ diamonds

---3♦ = 5+ spades, 4+ hearts

---3♥ = 6+ spades

---3♠ = 5 spades, 4+ clubs

--2♠ = Agrees spades.

--2NT = Balanced, 2-3 hearts, 24+ HCP

---Special sequences enabled.

--3♣+ = Over-ride

--3♠ = Minors, 5-5

-2♥ = Double negative OR balanced.

--If GF, will not have 5+ spades.

--If bust, will have 0-3 spades

--Opener shows hand as if immediate positives after 2♣:

---2♠ = Minor(s); 2NT asks

---3♣/♦ = Flag major. Responder can transfer to suit.

---3M = Semi-preemptive (long suit, but passable)

---2NT = balanced

-2♠ = 5+ hearts, unbalanced

-2NT = 4♥, longer minor OR some 4-4-4-1 with hearts

--3♣ asks:

---3♦ = 4-4 majors

----3♥ = asking for stiff minor (3♠ = club; 3NT = diamond)

----3♠ = agrees spades, asking for stiff minor (bid it)

----3NT = agrees hearts, asking for stiff minor (bid it)

---3♥ = club flag canapé

---3♠ = diamond flag canapé

---3NT = 1-4-4-4

-3♣ = club positive, no 4-card major

-3♦ = diamond positive, no 4-card major

-3♥ = 5332 with five spades, positive

-3♠ = 5332 with five hearts, positive

[benlessard]

IMHO the problems are not the GF hands the problems are the 19-22 pts range where opening at 1 is dangerous but you are not really well placed if you open 2C.

 

So playing like the french. 2C = a strong2 not GF & 2D full GF make more sense to me.

 

But i think a weak 2♦ will wield more profits.

[ulven]

The approach uses 2♦ as a strong, forcing opening with 4+ spades.  If Responder also has 4+ spades, he can establish that suit as trumps immediately with a splinter (4-L), 3♥ (bust, or minimal GF), or 2NT (positive).  3minor is positive and natural.  2♥ is waiting.  2♠ is a positive with hearts.

 

2♣, then, usually denies 4+ spades.  Response structure is familiar (2♦ GF waiting, 2♥ immediate bust).  After 2♥ immediate bust, Opener's 2♠ shows hearts.

Yes, this is an improvement. It's also old news in this part of the world. Anders Wirgren - Mats Nilsland used that in Rosenblum 1986 in Miami (bronze) and Wirgren still uses it today in his partnership with Johan Bennet. They played it notably in Bermuda Bowl in Beijing 1995 (lost semi to Canada).

 

It's been published in book form (Super Standard, named after system) in Swedish and is available in English as ebook from Wirgren's site (http://web.telia.com/~u40906024/eng/index.html) for ca $20-25.

 

Super Standard evolved to Pioneer as it's called today.

[kenrexford]

Interesting.

 

The write-ups I see through google all talk of a multi 2♦, but I have seen some cryptic reference to an "alternative" 2-level opening structure, without specifics.

[glen]

Pioneer (undated notes), thumbnail summary:

 

2♣:

a) 21+ balanced at most 3♠s

b ) GF, unbalanced, at most 3♠s

--2♦: 4+♥s

----2♥: 21-23/24 balanced

----2♠: both minors, 5-4/4-5 (notes dont say 5-5 but only place for it)

----2NT: GF balanced

----3♣/♦: six card suit

----Rest: support

--2♥: 0-3 no 4cM OR GF 5+♠s no side suit * OR GF 4-1-4-4

----2♠: 21-23/24 balanced

----2NT: GF balanced or 5-4 hand

--2♠: GF, at most 3♥s, at most 4♠s

--2NT: GF, 5+♠s, 4+♥s

--3♣/♦: GF 5+♠s and 4+ in m

--3♥: GF 3-2-4-4 6-8 or 11+

--3♠: GF 2-3-4-4 6-8 or 11+

 

* I believe 5+♠s without 5+♥s weak (less than GF) has to respond 2♥ regardless of side suit or not - notes do not provide a place for this

 

2♦:

a) 11-13 5+♠s, 4♥s

b ) 21+, balanced, 4-5♠s

c) GF, unbalanced, 4+♠s

--2♥/2♠: preference

---- Bidding now shows the big hand types

--2NT+: GI or GF opposite the a) hand type

 

You would need the full notes to play it as is

[kenrexford]

Wow.

 

I feel rather weird knowing that I stumbled into the same concept. Thanks for the input.

[mikeh]

Wow.

 

I feel rather weird knowing that I stumbled into the same concept.  Thanks for the input.

There is little new under the sun. Heck, back in my university days, when we were playing a form of Schenken, I 'invented' the splinter bid! Then one of us bought a real bridge book and discovered that someone else had thought of it a few years (decades) earlier B)

 

But don't feel bad: Leibnitz and Newton, Darwin and Wallace...... you are in good company :)

[kenrexford]

I just found a swedish-language write-up of a lot of this stuff, and I was truly amazed.

 

I decided that 2♦ should show an unbalanced hand with 4+ spades. Same with the Swedish system.

 

I decided that specifically 4-1-4-4 was a problem hand, and to rebid 3NT with that hand. Same problem for the Swedes; same solution.

 

I had 2♦-P-3♥ show a weak hand with 4+ spades. Same solution for the Swedes.

 

I had 2♦-2♠ as a heart positive; they went with 2NT to make 2♠ a bust without spades (I had considered that idea but did not develop it enough).

 

I had 2♥ waiting, same for the Swedes (expected).

 

I had 2♦...2NT show hearts -- same for the Swedes.

 

I had 3minor as a canape -- same.

 

I had not caught the idea of 3M as 5-5 minor-spades, because I did not think to put ALL heart hands into 2NT.

 

As to the 2♣ version that they have. Their version seems a bit complicated, when it seems a lot easier, but they want to handle heart strains in a parallel manner (3-minor is canape; 3M is 5-5). I'm a bit lost in the 2♥ and 2♠ rebids right now, but I am fascinated by the similarities in approach.

 

I suppose that I feel particularly good to have come up with something over the last two weeks of thinking that is nearly identical to that by Bennet-Wirgren after years of thinking about it. On the other hand, this idea does not seem to have caught on globally. Might be xenophobia here in the USA, to a degree.