jmc Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 I play a precision club system where we open all 11 counts and rule of 20 hands. We have recently decided to play 1M-2NT as forcing and balanced so that our 2/1s are 5-card suits. We are planning to play 1M-3C as our forcing M raise. What do you think of the following system loosely based on a Jacoby 2NT structure I saw recommended by Larry Cohen. 1M-3C Forcing Major raise ala Jacoby 2NT1M-3D limit raise ala Bergen1M-3M 4-card weak raise ala Bergen (alternatively a 7-9 4-card mixed raise?) 1M-3C the responses are a bit different than Jacoby 2NT4 of our Major = the complete worst dreck imaginable.3D- minimum3H- non-minimum with singleton or void3S- non-minimum, 6+ trumps no shortness3NT- non-minimum, 5422 or 53324 level bids- non-minimum with a 5-card side suit similar to Jacoby 2NT auction of 1S-2NT-4x After any of the above the cheapest bid is a re-ask: 1M-3C-3D-minimum 3H asks3S- I have shortness somewhere. Re-ask as below to find out more, CANT SHOW VOIDS.3NT- I have balanced 5422 or 53324C, D, 4OM- a 5-card side suit like similar to Jacoby 2NT auction of 1S-2NT-4x4 of our Major- 6+cards in our Major 1M-3C-3H-non-minimum with shortness somewhere 3S asks3NT- void smwhere, re-ask 4C. 4D=low void,4H=mid v,4S=hi v 4C- singleton in lowest side suit (clubs)4D- singleton in middle side suit (diamonds)4H- singleton in other Major 1M-3C-3S-extra trump length 3NT asks4C- 3 card suit holding 63224D- 3 card suit holding 63224OM- 3 card suit holding 63224 of our Major- 7222 Over interference after 1M-3C Opener's double shows = Shortness in suit doubledOpener's new suits = control cue3NT = Balanced Maximum (Ace or King in their suit)Opener's Pass = Nothing special--flat hand, could be 5x3x2 awful after which, responder's X=penaltyOpener's jump to 4M = dead minimum, but 6x3x2If they double Asks or re-asks : XX = business, Pass=S1, etc.If they bid after Ask or re-ask : X=Penalty, Pass=S1, etc. (except when double = short as above) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Check out Fred's improving 2/1 GF structure, I kinda like it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 I play this identical structure in 2-3 partnerships. In one we play 1M - 3M as mixed and in the other its weak. I tried Fred's methods for awhile. It involved a a lot of memorization. Gnome showed me the 8-step structure which is surprisingly easy to remember. Remember min/bal/lmh/lmh After 1♠ - 3♣ (or 1♥ - 2♠) 1st step - minimum2nd step, non minimum, balanced (at leas a K more than a minimum)3/4/5th steps, non minimum, low / middle / high shortage. 6/7/8th step, non-minimum, low / middle / high 2nd suit (KJTxx or better). After 1♠ - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♥ asks again and steps 2 through 8 repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dake50 Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Put in some upper tier for 3D, eg. particular splinter + control + trump tops like spl-Bergen. Or other special slam tries with fit, whichever take space or confound 3C follow-ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmc Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Phil, What did you find you preferred for 1M-3M? I think the weak option has more to gain against poor players, as they fail to compete. They are also more likely to let you play 2M after 1M-2M holding the hand that would have gotten to 3 playing a mixed raise. I think the 1M-3M 7-9 with 4-card support would work better vs. decent players as it makes it much riskier for them to enter the auction. What'ya think? jmc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Phil, What did you find you preferred for 1M-3M? I think the weak option has more to gain against poor players, as they fail to compete. They are also more likely to let you play 2M after 1M-2M holding the hand that would have gotten to 3 playing a mixed raise. I think the 1M-3M 7-9 with 4-card support would work better vs. decent players as it makes it much riskier for them to enter the auction. What'ya think? jmc I agree with this and this is my experience. Meckwell plays 1M - 3M as a mixed raise in a precision setting, so you can't go wrong there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 What did you find you preferred for 1M-3M? Mixed is way better imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I like to play 1♠ - 3♣ as a GF raise (prefer 2NT over 1♥ though) but with slightly different follow-ups. I should also note that this is designed for 10-17 openings rather than 11-15 - the 4X (max) rebids would probably be better reassigned to 2-suiters when opener is more limited:- 3♦ = min with shortage3♥ = mid with shortage3♠ = min without shortage3N = mid without shortage4X = denial cue bid with slam interest (suggest as 2-suiters in 11-15 structure)4♠ = garbage hand4N = RKCB As with your method the next step after the shortage-showing bids is an ask, while 3NT over 3♠ is a slam try (frivolous 3NT). This is (I think) slightly easier to memorise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 It should be easy to come up with a decent scheme. The fact that you're playing precision helps considerably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 jmc, I know it wasn't your question, but I want to argue against 1M-2N as balanced and forcing. I think most players don't use the bid that way because it interferes with opener showing his pattern. For instance, opener can't even show whether he is 5/4 or 5/5 before passing 3N. In a club system, it's even more advantageous for a limited opener to show his pattern than for a non-club system and it's even less important for responder to show his pattern than for a non-club system. As an example, if I have a strong opener and partner shows me a GF hand which is balanced, I'll know we have a fit whenever I'm 6/4 or 5/5 and I might be able to actually use that information to bid slam. With a limited opener, I'll seldom be able to do that. Basically, your structure is organized for the wrong partner to be captain. You're trying to show responder's hand when you should be trying to complete the description of opener's hand. Using 2C as balanced or clubs might do that. Using 2C as a relay is even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 jmc, I know it wasn't your question, but I want to argue against 1M-2N as balanced and forcing. I think most players don't use the bid that way because it interferes with opener showing his pattern. For instance, opener can't even show whether he is 5/4 or 5/5 before passing 3N. In my experience, getting opener's strength across takes precedence over whether or not opener has 4 or 5 cards in a side suit. Here's what I play with a few partners: 1♠ - 2N = 13+ and balanced (2-3 cards in pard's suit), then: 3♣ = minimum with 4 cards in a side suit....3♦ asks then 3♥/3♠/3N - LMU. 3♦ = non-min with 4+ cards in a minor....3♥ asks then 3♠/3N = ♣/♦3♥ = 4+ ♥, non-min3♠ = 6+ ♠, non-min3N = weak NT type hand with 5M4♣/4♦/4♥ = minimum 5-54♠ = minimum, 6+. This works very well in practice, although I've never directly compared it to 1M - 2♣ as balanced or clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexOgan Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Check out Fred's improving 2/1 GF structure, I kinda like it! Seconding this recommendation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbforster Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 1♠ - 2N = 13+ and balanced (2-3 cards in pard's suit), then: 3♣ = minimum with 4 cards in a side suit....3♦ asks then 3♥/3♠/3N - LMU. 3♦ = non-min with 4+ cards in a minor....3♥ asks then 3♠/3N = ♣/♦4♣/4♦/4♥ = minimum 5-5 Are you sure you want to go past 3N when opener's got a minimum 5/5 hand and no guaranteed fit? I'd suggest adding your 5/5 minimums to your cheapest step so opener can break to 3N if he doesn't see a fit and without slam interest. Have the direct 4m bids be extras with 5/5, and have the delayed ones (3♣ min, 3♦ ask, 4m) show the minimum's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 In my experience, getting opener's strength across takes precedence over whether or not opener has 4 or 5 cards in a side suit. Here's what I play with a few partners: 1♠ - 2N = 13+ and balanced (2-3 cards in pard's suit), then: 3♣ = minimum with 4 cards in a side suit....3♦ asks then 3♥/3♠/3N - LMU. 3♦ = non-min with 4+ cards in a minor....3♥ asks then 3♠/3N = ♣/♦3♥ = 4+ ♥, non-min3♠ = 6+ ♠, non-min3N = weak NT type hand with 5M4♣/4♦/4♥ = minimum 5-54♠ = minimum, 6+. This works very well in practice, although I've never directly compared it to 1M - 2♣ as balanced or clubs. 1S-2C (bal or clubs).....2D-side 4D or side 4+ clubs..........2H-relay...............2S-side 4D...............2N-5 clubs...............3C-side 4C, higher shortness...............3D-5-2-2-4...............etc......2H-six spades, single-suited.....2S-5332 or five diamonds..........2N-relay...............3C-5332....................3D-relay..........................3H-5233..........................3S-5323..........................3N-5332...............3D etc unwinds 5D.....2N-five hearts.....3C-four hearts, higher shortness.....3D-5-4-2-2.....etc I'd rather know opener's pattern before strength, but there are some advantages to subdividing strength first. If a minimum, one can abort relaying his pattern. One could try something like... 1S-2C,..........2D-minimumetc. ...but you won't be able to ascertain opener's pattern before 3N has been reached. 1M-2N just uses too much room. It looks like you have a nice structure to cope with the situation, but I think it's better not to create it in the first place. Sometimes, you'll get unnecessarily high. For instance, it looks like both minimum and maximum 5/5s require opener to bid past 3N. That may work out a lot, but responder may have the wrong cards and 3N may be the garden spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrecisionL Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 On the other hand, I prefer that the first step be a non-minimum (maybe 11+ hcp and 4+ Controls?) and pattern out all minimums. The lost step won't hurt when you know partner has a non-minimum. Using 2NT with 4+ trump support works OK, there are various schemes. You need the extra space when you don't know what the fit is (2♣ G.F. over 1M). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwiggins Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Here's one more possibility. I have an old email that Adam Wildavsky posted somwhere. He said that Goldway used a jump to 3C to show a balanced game-forcing raise. He said the responses were: 3D = 11-13 HCP splinter or 13-14 bal Responder may ask opener to clarify by bidding next step3H = 14-16 HCP unbalanced Splinter-ask may follow3S = 17+ HCP unbalanced Splinter-ask may follow4 trump suit = (min bal hand) 11-12 HCP3NT = (Med bal. hand) (15-16 HCP)4C/4D strong bal hand (17+ HCP) cuebid A or K Wildavsky's email says "This is a wonderful structure and deserves wider recognition than it now enjoys." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.