Some random thoughts

[awm]

It's becoming a trend to reply to 1m openings on lighter and lighter hands. We had a thread recently where Justin indicated that he pretty much always responds with a five card major. We have had numerous threads where the consensus was to avoid opening 2♣ with a shapely hand where the long suit is a minor.

 

With this in mind, perhaps it makes sense to let natural minor openings be forcing. Since the set of hands where responder passes seems very narrow anyway, and the upper limit for opener seems quite high as well, such an approach might lose very little. This has the advantage of removing minor-oriented hands from the 2♣ opening, potentially cleaning up the follow-ups.

 

Now, there is a modern system (Fantoni and Nunes methods and variants thereof) which uses all one-level openings as forcing. But it's becoming the trend to open 1M with lighter and lighter hands. It's also the case that there is less space after a 1M opening to sort out exactly what responder has. It seems like a forcing 1M approach is not very playable unless the 1M opening is defined to be quite sound (which is in fact what F-N do). This means you're not opening 1M very much, and that you have to do something with all the light 1M opening bids (most likely pushing them into 2M, which in turn loses you the pure 2M preempts and hurts your constructive bidding).

 

So my suggestion is something like this:

 

1♣ = Natural or balanced; forcing. Use a 1♦ negative/semi-negative to help clarify range. Followups are somewhat "polish club like" except that there are no strong unbalanced hands without primary clubs.

 

1♦ = Natural and unbalanced; forcing. Over 1♦-1M, use transfer rebids by opener to help describe the strong possibilities.

 

1M = Natural and not forcing. Can be very light. Maybe a four-card major if less than a normal opening bid. Responses include a non-forcing 1NT, possible raise on three cards, and two-level bids showing "GF opposite a real opener" with 2♣ being something of a catch-all. The range for this is something like 8-15.

 

2♣ = Strong hand with a five-card major. Only requires something like 16+ hcp, not always as strong as a "normal" 2♣ opening. Responder's 2♦ is semi-positive or better (guarantees a rebid) whereas 2M is paradox-style response on 0-5 hcp.

 

The argument here is that the openings normally show particular suits, which helps a lot in competitive sequences. We have super-light major suit openings and a low upper-limit without being forced to play a lot of nebulous minor-suit bids or a "catch-all" strong bid on any hand with moderate strength.

 

The potential negatives seem to be the 2♣ opening, which could simply get us too high (although it's not clear how bad this really is, a lot of strong 1♣ systems don't let you play 1M either) or could cramp our slam bidding (although again, in standard you often bid 1M-1N-jump with these hands, putting you at roughly the same level). There's also potential for problems with the "forcing" 1m openings, but since a lot of people almost play this way anyway it seems like having specific methods for it can only help.

 

Am I completely nuts here? Have people seen any methods which combine a natural and forcing 1m opening with a natural and NF 1M opening before?

[hrothgar]

Check out the American Forcing Minor by Lutz and Fink

[david_c]

It's a perfectly respectable system IMO. I used to think about things like this back in the days that Polish Club wasn't allowed in England. (Technically it always was allowed, but in so few competitions that it wasn't worth learning.) I was considering 2♣ showing hearts and 2♦ showing spades - it seemed more comfortable lowering the strength requirements if a specific suit was shown - but maybe you can get away with just using 2♣.

 

The key is the 1♦ opening. If you can get this to work I'd love to see how it's done. (Not least because there are some other systems I'd want to transplant it to, e.g. Fantunes, freeing up 2♦ for a multi.) I've always ended up with the feeling that while you can play transfers to give opener a third bid, this doesn't really make up for not knowing anything about responder's strength.

[Gerben42]

Yes, very similar to what is actually played here in Nuremberg by the in-crowd, except that 1♦ isn't 100% forcing. If 1♦ is unbalanced you can use the 1N-rebid as "forcing and waiting", as Fantunes do.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

since the thread is titeld "some random thoughts"

here are some of mine:

 

a) if you require, that the 1D opening is based on a

5 carder, the forcing NT can help you in a similar

way as the forcing NT can help you after a opening

in a mayor.

It should also be possible to play something like

Kaplan Inversion after the 1D opening

:P Play transfer respones after a 1C opener,

somewhere I heard that the completion of

the transfer does need to be forcing

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

RESPONDING TO A FORCING 1♦

 

1♥: 0+, 4+♥ --> 1NT: 17+, rest 11 - 16

1♠: 0+, 4+♠ --> 1NT: 17+, rest 11 - 16

1NT: 0 - 9, no 4-card major

2♣♦: Invite or better, natural

 

After 1♦ - 1NT:

* Pass with short-♣ 3-suiter 11 - 16, otherwise always bid.

[PrecisionL]

It's a perfectly respectable system IMO. [snip] I was considering 2♣ showing hearts and 2♦ showing spades - it seemed more comfortable lowering the strength requirements if a specific suit was shown - but maybe you can get away with just using 2♣.

 

Yes, Marshall Miles (2007) in his MY SYSTEM, The Unbalanced Diamond and George Coffin (1969) in his NATURAL BIG CLUB have ideas for doing something similar. Miles uses 2♣ with a 5-card Major and 17+ pts. Coffin used 2♣ as a transfer to 2♥ with 5 or 6-cards and 2♦ as a transfer to 2♠ with 5, 6-cards and no singleton or side 4-card suit and 11-14 hcp or 20+ pts.

Details upon request.

 

Larry

[PrecisionL]

It's a perfectly respectable system IMO. [snip]

 

The key is the 1♦ opening. If you can get this to work I'd love to see how it's done.

Others have thought about using an opening bid of 1♦ as an unbalanced hand and published it. Miles (MY SYSTEM, 2007) promises a void or singleton when he opens 1♦ and the short suit could be diamonds. If the Diamond opener rebids NT, then responder just bid his singleton!

 

Also, Carl Samuleson (1997) has published a little pamplet, "A New Approach to MATCHPOINTED PAIRS." 1♣ promised a balanced hand and 15-19 hcp (includes 5422 hands). The only positive response to 1♣ is 1♦ = 9+ hcp and GF. Other responses are weak and show distribution. A 1♦ opening promises a 3-suited hand (4441, 5431, and 5440 without a 5M). 1NT response to 1♦ is 8+ hcp and asks for opener to bid the suit below his shortage. 2NT is a slam invitation and also asks for opener to bid the suit below his shortage.

 

And Peter Oakley, 1998 has published a booklet called the Diamond Major with an artificial club opening. An opening bid of 1♦ promised at least one 4-card Major. If responder responds in a major that opener does NOT have 4-cards, opener rebids NT with a balanced hand or shows a minor implying 5-cards and shortage somewhere. This works rather well as I have used it in several of my Precision partnerships. It is available on the internet (3rd edition, 2000).  http://www.bridgeclublive.com/Include/Diamond.htm

 

Larry

[MickyB]

A few points -

 

I think the 2♣ opening would be a big loss. While you may, in most cases, be able to stop at the same level as standard systems, it is likely that you won't have been able to describe your hand so well in that time, especially in terms of showing a second suit. Using paradox responses may well be best, but how do you expect to explore for a fit in responder's major, when he has one?

 

I think you'll have more range issues with 1♦ and 1M than you'd expect - having opened 1♦, opener will be making a move past 1NT/2 of a suit with a 16-count opposite a potential yarborough, while having opened a major the "light 2/1s" will get you too high too quickly opposite a balanced minimum opening hand.

 

I play 1♥:1♠, 1NT as strong and artificial in a standardish system, I agree with Gerben that that is the best way to resolve many of the range issues. Without this, 1♥:1♠, 2♣ would be difficult too - surely responder can't invite on an 11/12-count opposite an 8-15 opening, so opener would have to make a move on a maximum after responder gives mere preference - suicide if you want to respond on KQTxx xx xxxx xx or similar.

 

When I play Polish/Swedish club, I use limited 1M openings but a wide-ranging 1♦ opening - an interesting similarity.

 

A little while ago, a modification of the Hackett system occurred to me -

1m = 17-19 bal (3+cards) or natural, 1NT rebid shows 17-19

1M = 4+cards, if only four then will be 11-13

1NT = 13-16, if 13 then no four-card major

Pass with flat 11-12 counts with no 4cM

 

Playing "minors forcing, majors non-forcing" would probably work quite well with this opening structure, particularly as I think the Hacketts play that sequences like 1♣:1♦, 1M tend to be 14+ (4M5m would have opening in the major if minimum - I don't know what they do with 4=6 shape).

Edited January 8, 2008 by MickyB

[benlessard]

It's becoming a trend to reply to 1m openings on lighter and lighter hands. We had a thread recently where Justin indicated that he pretty much always responds with a five card major. We have had numerous threads where the consensus was to avoid opening 2♣ with a shapely hand where the long suit is a minor.

 

With this in mind, perhaps it makes sense to let natural minor openings be forcing.

 

Its the opposite i think if the tendency is to respond lighter then the need for strong forcing opening goes down.

 

However what we could say is that since responding lighter pose no problem then maybe we should play forcing opening for multi purpose bids. But my feeling is that you have to make a choice between responding lighter or opening lighter you cant have both.

 

Also we could say that responding lighter make the 2C a bit obsolete so in that view we could say that a forcing 1C make more sense then a forcing 2C.