A new crazy idea

[rbforster]

One thing is sure for me is that if my 1H opening is forcing and show clubs it would contain some strong hands in it.

This could be a good thing, as long as partner isn't so enamored of passing too often with weak long hearts. If you include the minimum strong club hands with clubs (say 15-18) in 1♥ as well, you'll eventually have a "free" 2♣ rebid in your 1♣-1♦ auctions which could be put to good use.

[NickRW]

I thought for a while about trying to say something sensible for this thread. I think the original idea of swapping clubs and hearts must be at least fairly playable. But I am not sure I like mixing it with essentially natural spades and diamonds - it seems neither one thing or the other to me. Why not 'go the whole hog' and make a 2 under transfer system? Say, for example:

 

1♣ = 4+ hearts

1♦ = 4+ spades, not 4 hearts

 

and, then, maybe

 

1N = 12-14, bal but no 4cM

 

which in turn, would make

 

1♥ = 4+clubs, no 4cM, 6+ clubs or 4-5 minors if 12-14

1♠ = 4+diamonds, no 4cM, 6+ diamonds or 5-4 minors if 12-14

 

1) This could be coupled with any sort of 2 openers you fancy - say SA or Acol or whatever for a relatively normal looking system.

 

2) Or, probably better, since these transfer openings are semi forcing by their very nature anyway, why not make them very sound and always forcing - which means that you can play the two level like EHAA/fantunes sort of thing.

 

3) Or you can take the same idea and use light openers and a strong 1C. Though I am not so sure about this option. Without a strong 1C option, openers played as above follows the principle of majors first and leaving max bidding room available - majors first is not a bad MP strategy and maximising bidding room is good for constructive bidding and therefore IMPs.

 

I admit I haven't figured out all the responses and rebids, especially what problem 4441 shapes throw up - also the inherently canape nature of 1♣/1♦, but it seems more coherent to me. Whether you can play any of these transfer openings anywhere - er - well I shudder to think what some NBOs would make of them.

 

Nick

[Free]

I thought for a while about trying to say something sensible for this thread. I think the original idea of swapping clubs and hearts must be at least fairly playable. But I am not sure I like mixing it with essentially natural spades and diamonds - it seems neither one thing or the other to me. Why not 'go the whole hog' and make a 2 under transfer system? Say, for example:

 

1♣ = 4+ hearts

1♦ = 4+ spades, not 4 hearts

 

and, then, maybe

 

1N = 12-14, bal but no 4cM

 

which in turn, would make

 

1♥ = 4+clubs, no 4cM, 6+ clubs or 4-5 minors if 12-14

1♠ = 4+diamonds, no 4cM, 6+ diamonds or 5-4 minors if 12-14

 

1) This could be coupled with any sort of 2 openers you fancy - say SA or Acol or whatever for a relatively normal looking system.

 

2) Or, probably better, since these transfer openings are semi forcing by their very nature anyway, why not make them very sound and always forcing - which means that you can play the two level like EHAA/fantunes sort of thing.

 

3) Or you can take the same idea and use light openers and a strong 1C. Though I am not so sure about this option. Without a strong 1C option, openers played as above follows the principle of majors first and leaving max bidding room available - majors first is not a bad MP strategy and maximising bidding room is good for constructive bidding and therefore IMPs.

 

I admit I haven't figured out all the responses and rebids, especially what problem 4441 shapes throw up - also the inherently canape nature of 1♣/1♦, but it seems more coherent to me. Whether you can play any of these transfer openings anywhere - er - well I shudder to think what some NBOs would make of them.

 

Nick

This is not a new idea actually. I've even seen it with 5-card suit openings.

[NickRW]

...Whether you can play any of these transfer openings anywhere - er - well I shudder to think what some NBOs would make of them.

 

Nick

This is not a new idea actually. I've even seen it with 5-card suit openings.

Yeah, I dare say not. Since posting, I found a system called, ominously, "Bondage" which is quite similar.

 

In reference to my comment re NBOs, actually I could play something like this in England at some of the larger clubs that have a level 4 night:

 

Allowed at Level 4 only...

 

11 C 14 Artificial openings

Any opening bid of one of a suit is permitted that shows at least four cards in a

specified suit, forcing or not.

 

Food for thought :)

 

Nick

[Apollo81]

What does responder do with a 52(24) 9 count after a 2♣ opener?

[awm]

What does responder do with a 52(24) 9 count after a 2♣ opener?

2♣ (5♥ and another suit) - 2♦ (4+ spades or 0-1♥ or various inv+ hands)

.....

 

2♥ = 5♥/4+m; responder passes. It is possible to miss a 5-3 spade fit in this way. However, it is not unlikely that the standard auction would've been 1♥-1♠-2m-2♥. And even if there is a spade fit, the standard auction will often involve a declined game try (do you have four spades? no only three? maybe we should play 3♠) and you could easily get too high if both major suit contracts produce eight tricks.

 

2♠ = 5♥/4♠: game try, or bid game, depending on honor structure I suppose

 

2NT/3♣ = 5♥/5m and max; a little ugly but your "standard precision" auction will probably have gone 1♥-1♠-3m also. Sign off somewhere.

 

.....

 

I should add that the claim here is not that this is some perfect method that fixes all problems. You will occasionally lose in constructive auctions due to having opened 2♣ showing hearts instead of a natural 1♥ bid. The idea is more that the probability of "we want to play in hearts given I have 5+♥" is substantially higher than the probability of "we want to play in clubs given I have 5+♣" and therefore that we are less likely to lose in constructive situations via this method than in the method where 1♥ is natural and 2♣ shows 6+♣ or 5+♣/4M.

[dburn]

The following may be of interest:

 

http://tinyurl.com/45rqta

 

This system is currently being played in the WMSG in Beijing. However, given the half-time score in the Italy-Poland quarter-final, this may not be the case for very much longer.

[effervesce]

Out of interest-how is Dwururka a BLUE system? I thought systems with transfer openings are categorized as RED.

[dburn]

Dwururka is certainly a RED system per the WBF Systems Policy - BLUE systems are those based on a strong 1♣ or 1♦ opening. Either the convention card refers to some other classification (perhaps one used in Poland), or Zawislak and Pazur are colour-blind, or they are hoping that the WBF Systems Administrators are colour-blind.

[mycroft]

I think I said everything necessary in this other thread, before the event; my points still stand. Until they get ejected from the tournament, or forced to play a real GREEN system until a correct, at least to a casual check, CC has been posted for sufficient time for people to digest it (say two days), it's not going to matter, and they're going to continue to do this.

[karlis_ooo]

Play Meckwell

[skjaeran]

I will reveal only 2 bids, because i doun't want my system being known and copied.

Have you ever hear about dislosure?

 

Whatever the rest of the system is, as long as you don't disclose it, it's illegal to play it.

[karlis_ooo]

If you guys doun't have anything to write... doun't write anything! I think the topic was related to systems, but you doun't examine the idea, but disgrace my post and me...

I just wonder for what. For large letters? You doun't like the idea?

 

Remember this>

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." -- Eleanor Roosevelt

 

Making a post was mistake, because of above mentioned reasons. I made it much shorter, hope you are happy now and can stop making posts related to my post.

[jdonn]

I KNOW THAT MY SYSTEM IS  BEST EVER MADE SYSTEMY FOR Non-Vulnerable...

I would include this in my signature, but it's so big it would really get annoying after a short while :( Your post certainly joins the shubi hall of fame though.

[han]

Feel free to remove JT's comment about me if that gives you extra room Josh.

[rogerclee]

I KNOW THAT MY SYSTEM IS BEST EVER MADE SYSTEMY FOR Non-Vulnerable...

 

I will reveal only 2 bids, because i doun't want my system being known and copied.

Welcome to the forums. You're going to fit right in.

[effervesce]

I KNOW THAT MY SYSTEM IS  BEST EVER MADE SYSTEMY FOR Non-Vulnerable...

 

I will reveal only 2 bids, because i doun't want my system being known and copied.

 

But i can give you the idea...

 

1N  8-11

>>>have you played it? ...no?      I lalready hear someone shouting something like ..... yes, probably it works....,but other openings are overcrowded and these hands will be really tough to bid...

 

But here is what i say >>>  :)   :)  :)  Ha, ha, ha... that's way i doun't disclose other bids and psychology of them, let alone further bidding...

 

THE other bid is  aspkoalksmns

read 3,6,9,12 letter...

Hardly someone expected it, because there is nothing new regarding to meaning - it is still the weakest bid...

But, it is limited... i guess you understand that 3rd,4th position i doun't use same openings..

 

It is not HUM. blue or red? i am not sure.

 

Vulnerable? In vul simply doesn't exsist so perfect openings... but, VUL VUL in my system you still open 8-11 bal, but with other bid and not all 8-11

Perhaps I can reveal a few more bids of your perfect system.

 

Opening bid of 7NT: Any hand which is likely to win all the tricks no matter what lead.

 

Opening bid of 7♠: Any hand likely to win all tricks with spades as trumps, excluding hands qualifying for an opening bid of 7NT.

 

(Wash rinse repeat all the way down to 7♣)

[NickRW]

Play Meckwell

I see you must have edited your original post! They're rough old devils around here and not given to anything which "rocks their boat".

 

Having said that, this is a discussion forum - if you want to discuss your system that's fine - if, as you apparently don't, then, well, you just got an unsurprising welcome :P

 

Nick

[Free]

If you guys doun't have anything to write... doun't write anything! I think the topic was related to systems, but you doun't examine the idea, but disgrace my post and me...

I just wonder for what. For large letters?  You doun't like the idea?

 

Remember this>

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."  -- Eleanor Roosevelt

 

Making a post was mistake, because of above mentioned reasons. I made it much shorter, hope you are happy now and can stop making posts related to my post.

Same counts for you my friend. It's you who doesn't have anything to write... You're just claiming you have the best system, but you don't dare to throw it in the middle for some good old analyse by experts. And afterwards you even crawl back and remove your greatest post ever. :blink:

 

Looking at your quote, I'd say with this post I have a small mind. However, you don't discuss ANYTHING, so I guess you don't even have a mind...

 

Come on, be serious. If you want to brag about something, at least do it right :P

[jdonn]

If you guys doun't have anything to write... doun't write anything! I think the topic was related to systems, but you doun't examine the idea, but disgrace my post and me...

I just wonder for what. For large letters? You doun't like the idea?

 

Remember this>

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." -- Eleanor Roosevelt

 

Making a post was mistake, because of above mentioned reasons. I made it much shorter, hope you are happy now and can stop making posts related to my post.

I HAVE THE GREATEST SYSTEM EVER BUT I REFUSE TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT HA HA HA HA.

 

YOU ARE ALL SMALL MINDED BECAUSE YOU DONT DISCUSS THE IDEAS THAT I REFUSED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE!! ALL YOU DO IS DISCUSS PEOPLE LIKE HOW I DISCUSS ALL OF YOU RIGHT NOW!

 

Boo hoo?

[Tcyk]

I heard, many years ago, that some Australians played transfers over Precision 2C but the transfer could be refused with less than 3 cards in the suit. Thus 2C-2D, 2S would show 4 spades and deny 3 hearts. I never found a write-up about this method but tried it a little with mixed results. If partner had a weak hand, he could sometimes get out in a 5-3 or 5-4 or even a 4-3 major fit and with a better hand he could make a second forcing bid. Currently, my preference is not to open 2C with only 5 cards in the suit. (4-3)=1=5 hands are handled by 2D and I pass with (4-2)=2=5 and 11 (or sometimes 12) points.

I open (4-1)=3=5 hands 1D which shows an unbalanced hand.

[PrecisionL]

I heard, many years ago, that some Australians played transfers over Precision 2C but the transfer could be refused with less than 3 cards in the suit. unbalanced hand.

I currently use tranfer responses over a Precision 2♣ opening (denies a 4-cd major):

 

Accept with xxx or Hx, sometimes with xx if min and unbalanced. Some authorities don't allow the transfer (ACBL). Works reasonably well.

[Tcyk]

I heard, many years ago, that some Australians played transfers over Precision 2C but the transfer could be refused with less than 3 cards in the suit. unbalanced hand.

I currently use tranfer responses over a Precision 2♣ opening (denies a 4-cd major):

 

Accept with xxx or Hx, sometimes with xx if min and unbalanced. Some authorities don't allow the transfer (ACBL). Works reasonably well.

Thanks. You reminded me that my original discussion about playing transfers over 2C was when I was playing Match Point Precision (no 4-card major).

[rbforster]

I currently use tranfer responses over a Precision 2♣ opening...

 

Some authorities don't allow the transfer (ACBL).

Under the GCC, you can play any conventional responses you want to a two level opening (like Precision 2♣), as long as the opening is not "weak". For "weak two bids" (which aren't defined, but I don't think anyone contends that the Precision 10-15 clubs opening is weak), you can still use any conventions as long as you 1) promise 5+ cards in the suit, and 2) your range is 7 pts or narrower.

[jtfanclub]

Thinking about strong club systems, it seems you have only three one-level suit openings to handle four suits.

Sorry for the mild snark, but you have four one-level suit openings to handle four suits.

 

Always wanted to play in a country that would allow a 1NT opening to be balanced or clubs, 11-15 hcp. IIRC, there's a Stayman variant that allows responder to show a 4 card major with 5+ clubs, a 4 card major without 5+ clubs (all without going over 2 of the major), no 4 card major, balanced, and no 4 major, and 5+ clubs (all without going over 2NT). You Garbage Stayman and some rightsiding, but that matters less for a weak NT.