Did anyone try this opening scheme ?

[borag]

Did anyone try this opening scheme ? I need some information about pros / cons ?

1♣ = 11-13 bal 2+♣ (Migth have 5♦)

10-21 unbal 5+♣, 4414

22+ any

1♦ = 10-21 unbal 5+♦, 4441, (41)44 and some 4♦-5♣

 

1♥ = 11-13 / 17-19 bal 5♥

10-21 unbal 5+♥

 

1♠ = 11-13 / 17-19 bal 5♠

10-21 unbal 5+♠

 

1N = 14-16 bal 5M possible

 

2♣ = 17-19 bal no 5M

 

2x = 7-10 unbal 5+card

 

2N = 20-21 bal 5M possible

[Rossoneri]

Followups? How do you differentiate between various hand types especially for the 1♣ opener?

[TylerE]

Seems rather like Polish Club to me, but distinctly inferior. In particular:

 

Your 1 bids aren't as limited as in polish club.

The 2♣ bid seems almost guaranteed to lose whenever it comes up.

Your 1♣-1x-2♣ auctions are more ambiguous.

 

TBH this basically seems like a short club standard american system with the strong 2♣ opening folded into 1♣ and replaced with a gadget of very dubious merit. What exactly is it that your're trying to accomplish here?

[aguahombre]

I never figured out why anyone would want to open a 2-bid (2C or 2D) with a balanced hand in the 17-19 range, when the rest of the world is opening one of a minor. Guaranteed to get too high when pard would have passed your opening at the one-level or passed your precision 1NT rebid. you are preempting whom, when you have a balanced nice hand?

[marcD]

I never figured out why anyone would want to open a 2-bid (2C or 2D) with a balanced hand in the 17-19 range, when the rest of the world is opening one of a minor. Guaranteed to get too high when pard would have passed your opening at the one-level or passed your precision 1NT rebid. you are preempting whom, when you have a balanced nice hand?

Because handling these hands in competition is difficult (often you face the choice of passing or committing the partnership to the 3 level) ? (1m - 1S - P - 2S - ?, 1m - P - 1S - 2H - ?) especially if partner insists on playing support doubles. getting rid of these hands provides much better definition of your hand in competitive auctions.

 

So I do see some merit to this treatment even though the problem hands when opening 1m do not appear all to often

[gnasher]

I play approximately this, except that we play 1NT as (nominally) 15-17, use 2♦ (rather than 2♣) for 18-20 balanced, and use 2♣ for something else.

 

Pros:

- In competition, if opener shows a strong hand he's known to be unbalanced. For example, 1♣-(1♠)-dbl-(3♠)-dbl is known not to be a balanced 18-count, so it's easier to judge what to do.

- When opener raises a major-suit response to the three level and responder is considering a slam try, it helps to know that he's unbalanced.

- You can use 1m-1x-2NT for something else. We use it to show various strong 3- and 4-card raises. The 3-card raises make your auctions after a reverse better defined, and the 4-card raise keeps the bidding lower on slam sequences.

- Your 2♣ opening has some right-siding benefits, assuming that you play transfer responses. (But you'd also get these by opening 1♣ and playing transfer responses.)

- Your 2♣ opening reveals less about opener's hand.

- Opposite 2♣, you can play in 2M, whereas in a natural system it will go 1m-1M;2NT

- Sometimes you gain space by opening 2♣. There are more sequences available after 2♣-2♦ (transfer)-2♥ than after 1m-1♥;2NT

- You sometimes exchange more information on the game-forces, eg we might have the sequence

  1♣-1red (transfer);

  2♦ (art FG)-2♥ (art semi-positive)

where in standard methods it goes 2♣-2♦-something and responder hasn't yet said anything about his shape.

 

Cons:

- Opening 2♣ sometimes gets you too high.

- Opening 2♣ gives you less space when responder has a good hand with a minor.

- It takes a lot of system to make the 1♣ opening work, and you still end up with some compromises. For example, after 1♣-1♥ (transfer), using 2♦ as an original game-force means that we have to compress the diamond and heart reverses into 2♥.

- The 1♣ opening is vulnerable to competition. eg After 1♣ (2♠) pass (3♠) you have to cater both for good hands with clubs and original game-forces.

- Playing the 1♣ opening as forcing means that you sometimes get too high when opener has a strong natural 1♣ opener and responder is very weak. For example, we play 1♣-1x;3♣ the same strength as in standard methods, but it might be opposite a very weak hand. This problem is worse if 4th-hand intervenes with some high-level preempt and opener bids, hoping that he's opposite normal responding values.

 

I think it's unwise to include 17-counts in your 2♣ opening, because there will be too many hands where you're at the two-level and the rest of the world is in 1NT. Playing it as 18-20 removes this risk - now the only variance is that occasionally you're at the two-level when others are in 1m.

That also means that you can play 2NT as 21-22, so the very strong hands in 1♣ start a point higher.

[borag]

hi TylerE,

 

what I had in mind was to play nightmare at the beginning but now just wondering if a better scheme exist if I move 2c (std forcing) hands into 1c (cause I have a few solutions for the followups)

 

for example the first idea was to play

1c = 11-13 bal 2+c, 10-21 unbal 5+c/4414, 22+ any

1d = 10-21 unbal 5+d/4441/(41)44, 17-19 bal 2+d

1h = 10-21 unbal 5+h, 11-13/17-19 bal 5h

1s = 10-21 unbal 5+s, 11-13/17-19 bal 5s

1n = 14-16 bal 5M ok

2x = 7-10 unbal 5+card

2n = 20-21 bal 5M ok

 

and the one I posted just moves 17-19 into 2c

 

and thanks alot gnasher for sharing experience

I will double check the 1n/2c/2d openings

 

and by the way what was your 2c opening ?

[gnasher]

and by the way what was your 2c opening ?

8-13 with both majors. This is partly because of our artificial two-over-one structure can't cope easily with minimum hands with 54/45 in the majors, and partly for preemptive reasons. It seems to me that the preemptive benefits ought to be fairly minimal, but in practice it does seem to cause the opponents problems.

 

I started off being fairly lukewarm about all of this, but am gradually becoming convinced that there's merit in it.

[borag]

thanks :) my second option was similar

2c = 10-14 unbal 4+M-4+M