So be it

[borag]

Upto now I got nice comments about the system I posted earlier.

It is not easy to do everything at same time as [awm] mentioned.

 

So let me start from scratch

1) Balanced hand ladder 11-14, 15+

2) Limited 9-14, 15+

3) Strong 1c system

 

Is there a way to segment 15+ hp 5-5, 6-4, 7+ (needed ? thinking about it[ASkolnick])

hands within the problem of telling 3 other suits having 9-14 hp

 

1♣=15+ bal, 4441, 54(22/31/40), 63(22/31), 6c-4x, 7+c

1♦=9-14 unbal 4+s or 15+ 5s-5x, 6s-4x, 7+s

1♥=9-14 unbal 4+h or 15+ 5h-5m, 6h-4x, 7+h (h=6 if s=4)

1♠=9-14 unbal 5m4m or 6+d or 15+ 5d-5c, 6d-4x, 7+d (d=6 if M=4)

1n=11-14 bal 5M ok

2♣=9-14 unbal 6+c

2♦=5-8 unbal 5+M

2♥=5-8 unbal 4+M-4+M

2♠=8-12 unbal 5+s

2n=19-20 bal 5M ok

 

What do you think ?

1) Maybe it is not a good idea to add these hands into 1d/h/s but the ones I added are hands which wants to talk 2 times

2) I know that I lost the effective 1s opening. Maybe 2♠=9-14 6s is better

3)1N contains 5M

 

But just trying B)

 

Or maybe

 

1♣=15+ bal, 4441, 54(22/31/40), 63(22/31), 6c-4x, 6+c

1♦=9-14 unbal 4+d or 15+ unbal 5d-5c, 6d-4x, 6+d F1+

1♥=9-14 unbal 5+h or 15+ unbal 5h-5x, 6h-4x, 6+h F1+

1♠=9-14 unbal 5+s or 15+ unbal 5s-5x, 6s-4x, 6+s F1+

1n=11-14 bal 5M ok

2♣=9-14 unbal 5+c

2♦=5-8 unbal 5+M

2♥=5-8 unbal 4+M-4+M

2♠=5-8 unbal 5s-4+m

2n=19-20 bal 5M ok

 

Thinking loudly (2c is bad rest is ok with me :))

[Free]

My idea: it looks like MOSCITO with the meanings of 1♦ and 1♥ reversed. I don't think the switch improves the system (on the other hand, I think the transfer openings are superior)...

 

2nd system has a problem: 4-4-1-4 hands. Either you need to open them 1♥ or 1NT. I prefer to just use a 3-suited 2♦ opening.

 

My conclusion: nothing really new to me, so why try to reinvent the wheel?

[jdonn]

Regarding the first structure, I would put all the 15+ hands from the other openings into 1♣, and reverse 1♦ and 1♥ so they are both transfers. Not as inovative, but now you are dealing with established system elements that the tests of time have proved to be workable...

 

Also I don't understand that in the world you are doing with your 2♥ and 2♠ openings. The 2♠ opening hands can be put into 1♥ (1♦ as you have it now) and the 2♥ opening hands should just be passing.

[awm]

There is an interesting idea here. One point is that it is really nice to open shapely strong hands with a bid that shows one of the suits. This helps you a lot in competitive sequences. The standard "strong club" approach in which all big hands are opened 1♣ loses out in these situations.

 

However a "natural wide-ranging" approach also has issues on these hands, because it is very easy to miss game when responder is very weak but there is a big fit in the second suit. Also at some point you get to hands that are just "too strong" and start opening a strong 2♣ which is potentially even worse than a strong 1♣ (you have space issues even in unobstructed auctions, especially if a minor is longest).

 

The Fantoni-Nunes approach is very helpful on these hands. But it has a number of issues on other hand types, for example you have no "weak preempts" available below the three-level, you can't play in one of opener's major when opener is minimum and responder is really weak, and your super-wide follow-up ranges create some issues in constructive auctions (I think they solve this by jump-shifting on a lot of minimum game forces, which is potentially ugly).

 

So it seems a reasonable idea to try to create a system with the advantages of Fantoni-Nunes without all the sacrifices. This structure is a step in that direction. There are a few reasonable questions to ask still:

 

(1) You have a forcing, natural 1♥ opening in the system. Is it really better to open the (strong but nebulous) 1♣ with strong 2632 hands rather than open a (forcing, natural, unlimited) 1♥?

 

(2) What are the follow-up sequences, especially to the 1♠ opening (diamonds) where you have lost quite a bit of space compared to standard methods?

 

(3) It seems like you are forced to take a "majors first always" approach in the first of these systems. How big are the losses from this? Even Moscito has given up on opening transfer-to-1M with four small and a good six-card minor.

 

(4) The second set of openings is very fantoni-nunes-ish. But it gives the one-level openings a huge range, and all of them will be forcing. How much does this lose you?

 

My personal preference (suggested a long time back) for combining these approaches was:

 

1♦ = 5+♥, unlimited, forcing one round but responder's 1♥ reply is passable

1♥ = 5+♠, unlimited, forcing one round but responder's 1♠ reply is passable

1♠ = 6+♦ if minimum, or 5+♦ if 16+, no 5M

1NT = strong, I like 14-16 or 15-17

2♣ = minimum with 6+♣ (could put this in 1♣, but putting it here helps w/ rebids)

 

1♣ = the complicated part, any of:

 

(1) A minimum-strength balanced or three-suited hand with no 5M (4441, 4414, (43)(15), etc)

(2) A minimum-strength hand with both minors (overlaps somewhat with 1)

(3) Extras without any five-card suit other than clubs (so includes 4441, or long clubs)

(4) Significant extras with a balanced hand

 

This frees 2♦ and above for preempts. The idea over the 1♣ opening is to treat it like a weak notrump -- usually it is this or a three-suited hand just one card off (like 4441 hands). In non competitive sequences transfer responses can help sort things out. Note that while the 1♣ opening is "complicated" there are actually not that many hand types which open 1♣ in this system and not in "1♣ natural or balanced" methods.

[borag]

Thanks awm for getting the point about what I'm trying to do and nice ideas.

I dont like transfer openings most of the time because they also give an extra

place for competition.

 

And I'm just sharing my ideas not trying to reinvent wheel. [Free]

I guess that is one of why we take time to read/write on forum; interaction for better :)

 

1d=4+s was better cause it might be canape with 3suits beneath. That was my idea

And right 2h/s might be waste just replace with something weak.

 

Anyway I still believe it is an asset to seperate 15+ unbal 5M-5x, 6M-4x, 6+M hands from strong 1c.(6+ if only 6331 nice suit or 7+)

 

So a few more questions

 

Version_1

-----------

1c=15+ bal/qbal, 6m, 5m-5m some 6M331 most 6M322

1d=9-14 unbal 5+m, 4441

1h=9-14 5+h

1s=9-14 5+s

1n=11-14 bal no 5M

2c=15+ unbal 5M-5x, 6M-4x, 6+M (Maybe some other context might be added 5m-5m ?)

2x=Weak of your choice

2n=19-20 bal 5M possible

 

What do you gain or loose with putting club hands in 1d ?

Or what about

 

Version_2

------------

1c=Same

1d=9-14 unbal 4+d (only if 4441, (41)44 or 4d-5+c)

1h=9-14 unbal 4+h (only if 4414 or 4h-5+c )

1s=9-14 unbal 4+s (only if 4s-5+c)

1n=11-14 bal 5M possible, 6c331,7c222,7c321 possible

2c=15+ unbal 5M-5x, 6M-4x, 6+M

2x=Weak of your choice

2n=11-14(15) unbal 6+m very good suit (Good club or diamond hands ARD or ARV or ADV)

7c330 always

 

Now what happens with

1)1N and 2N ?

2) rest is fine,just cant open 6c-4x and club is your best suit. Open 2N ?

3) 1d can be F1+ to put 5m-5m, 6d-4x, 6+d hands into it cause we have space.

 

Need more comments (awm ?)

[glen]

Version_2

------------

...

1n=11-14 bal 5M possible, 6c331,7c222,7c321 possible

What I've liked about this before is you can play non-forcing Stayman, and really non-forcing:

 

1NT-2♣(non-forcing Stayman);-Pass(6+♣s, no 4cM)

 

ACBL would not consider 1NT bal, and thus is not allowed there

[blackshoe]

Version_2

------------

...

1n=11-14 bal 5M possible, 6c331,7c222,7c321 possible

What I've liked about this before is you can play non-forcing Stayman, and really non-forcing:

 

1NT-2♣(non-forcing Stayman);-Pass(6+♣s, no 4cM)

 

ACBL would not consider 1NT bal, and thus is not allowed there

Huh? From the General Convention Chart:

A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

 

6-3-2-2 is not unbalanced. Therefore, opening 1NT on this distribution is natural, and is certainly allowed.

 

Occasionally opening 1NT with a singleton is not disallowed either. From the ACBLScore Tech Files:

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any regulation which prohibits a player from opening (or overcalling) a natural NT with a singleton if sound bridge judgment dictates doing so.  What IS prohibited is any agreement that such bids do not promise balanced hands.

 

OTOH, the agreement Borag proposes does include possibly unbalanced hands, so is illegal at the GCC level on that basis. On the gripping hand, and just to be clear, if the minimum strength of the unbalanced 1NT opening were at least 15 HCP, that would be legal.

[glen]

1n=11-14 bal 5M possible, 6c331,7c222,7c321 possible ... What IS prohibited is any agreement that such bids do not promise balanced hands.

I'm not sure why connecting the dots was a problem here ("Huh?, OTOH etc.) - seems straightforward that 1NT as defined is not bal

[awm]

Well, I have to say that what I liked about the original idea was:

 

(1) When you have a strong hand with a lot of shape, you open with a bid that shows one of your long suits.

 

(2) Your "constructive" hands in the 9-14 range generally open with a bid showing length in a suit.

 

(3) You have a lot of two-level bids available for preempts

 

The new version seems to lose a lot of these advantages. Now your hands with lots of shape open 2♣ which just says "I have a big hand with lots of shape." It's not clear how much that really helps you if opponents are in the auction. Much better to actually start describing which suits you have before your space starts being taken away.

 

You're also opening some constructive hands with a nebulous bid (i.e. 1♦ showing either minor) losing some of the advantage there.

 

And your intermediate 2♣ (some preemptive value) and weak 2NT (some preemptive value) have been replaced with a pair of strong bids.