Back at the drawing board...

[relknes]

So, funny thing... after all the advice I got for the Polish Club varriant, I discovered that the rest of the system that I had devised (which was the reason for choosing the Polish Club to begin with) was illegal in the USA. I designed it for the WBF rules rather than the ACBL, trying to avoid the "Brown sticker" and "Yellow sticker" designations, and now I have a system that I would love to try out, but apparently I have to move to Europe first...

So its back to the drawing board.

I am still interested in a two way 1♣, and was currious about using a two way 1♦ in addition as a way of breaking up the possible shapes of the strong and weak hands. I like the idea of having a firm seperation between the strong and weak hands, so I thought it would be interesting to try:

 

1♣ = 10-12 points and a 5 card minor OR 17+ points with a 5 card major

1♦ = 10-12 points and a 5 card major OR 17+ points with no 5 card major

 

This would make it easy for partner to seperate the two varriants, even in competition. The drawback is having to open 13-16 point hands with long minors at the 2 level, playing 2♣ and 2♦ as constructive rather than preemptive.

So, two questions...

1. Is it workable? It seems like it could work fine, but I might be overlooking something glaringly wrong.

2. Is it legal? I would hate to go through developing another system only to find out that I still have to move to Europe...

[blackshoe]

Not legal on the GCC, as I read it.

 

Edit: since you changed the ranges, I'll revise my answer: legal so long as it's forcing.

Edited February 8, 2011 by blackshoe

[glen]

Legal, but you would not be able to play artificial responses over these bids, except for:

1) any GF

2) 1D (over 1C) if forcing

3) jumps that show 5+ in a known suit and 4+ in another know suit

[rbforster]

I agree with Glen. I think your fine with these openings as "all purpose" openings with 10+ points. However, you're going to have a harder time with non-GF artificial responses aside from 1C-1D or 1m-1N

[blackshoe]

How is a bid that could be on 9 HCP "10+ HCP"?

[mtvesuvius]

How is a bid that could be on 9 HCP "10+ HCP"?

Huh? I don't see where the OP ever mentioned possibly having 9 HCP. Perhaps the regulations might not allow you to psych a 1♣ or 1♦, but I would think this system is GCC legal...

[blackshoe]

It would appear he edited the original post after I posted my first reply. :(

[glen]

Not legal on the GCC, as I read it.

 

Edit: since you changed the ranges, I'll revise my answer: legal so long as it's forcing.

Charts:

One Club or One Diamond may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

Nothing there about forcing. Note that since pass-or-correct responses are disallowed, the sequences available to the system will be far less than optimal.

[Free]

1♣ = 10-12 points and a 5 card minor OR 17+ points with a 5 card major

1♦ = 10-12 points and a 5 card major OR 17+ points with no 5 card major

 

This would make it easy for partner to seperate the two varriants, even in competition. The drawback is having to open 13-16 point hands with long minors at the 2 level, playing 2♣ and 2♦ as constructive rather than preemptive.

So, two questions...

1. Is it workable? It seems like it could work fine, but I might be overlooking something glaringly wrong.

2. Is it legal? I would hate to go through developing another system only to find out that I still have to move to Europe...

1. First of all, you didn't mention what you do with balanced hands, which ranges you use,... I suppose you open 1NT with 12-16HCP with balanced or 4441. What do you do with 5m332 and 5M332?

Second, what responses are you going to use? for example, what is 1♦-1♠?

Third, what are opener's rebids? Suppose 1♦-1♠ is natural, the what is 1♦-1♠-2♥? Is it 10-12 with 5+♥, or is it rather a hand where every normal being reverses, say 17+ with 1-4-5-3? Basic reverse hands which are very easily bid in every other system are a big problem for this system.

Fourth, I think you should reverse the meanings of 1♣ and 1♦. The way you describe it now, the 1♦ opening contains more hand types than your 1♣ opening, which is against basic principles of bidding theory.

 

It's impossible to look at the description of 2 openings and evaluate if it's workable or not. A bidding system isn't 1 or 2 openings, it's a combination of everything. In this case one might consider these 2 openings seperately because all hands in the ranges 10-12 and 17+ are included, but the drawbacks for the rest of your system are not negligible imo.

 

2. No idea, I live in a free country where pretty much everything is allowed ;)

[mtvesuvius]

It would appear he edited the original post after I posted my first reply. :(

lol I was wondering which one of us was going crazy

[relknes]

1. First of all, you didn't mention what you do with balanced hands, which ranges you use,... I suppose you open 1NT with 12-16HCP with balanced or 4441. What do you do with 5m332 and 5M332?

Second, what responses are you going to use? for example, what is 1♦-1♠?

Third, what are opener's rebids? Suppose 1♦-1♠ is natural, the what is 1♦-1♠-2♥? Is it 10-12 with 5+♥, or is it rather a hand where every normal being reverses, say 17+ with 1-4-5-3? Basic reverse hands which are very easily bid in every other system are a big problem for this system.

Fourth, I think you should reverse the meanings of 1♣ and 1♦. The way you describe it now, the 1♦ opening contains more hand types than your 1♣ opening, which is against basic principles of bidding theory.

 

It's impossible to look at the description of 2 openings and evaluate if it's workable or not. A bidding system isn't 1 or 2 openings, it's a combination of everything. In this case one might consider these 2 openings seperately because all hands in the ranges 10-12 and 17+ are included, but the drawbacks for the rest of your system are not negligible imo.

 

2. No idea, I live in a free country where pretty much everything is allowed ;)

I am still working through the followups. I wanted to get some feedback on the concept and the legality before sinking too much time into it, since all the time I spent developing the last bidding system went to waste. However, if more info is needed to give accurate feedback, then I will post my current thought, with the understanding that this is still in the "rough" stages and there will probably be minor (or possibly even major) changes if people think that it is "workable" but not yet ideal.

I was envisioning that in this system 1NT would be 13-16. I would be content to pass with 10-12 point hands which have a 4441, 4333, or 4432 shape. Balanced 10-12 point hands with a 5 card suit open 1♣ with a 5 card minor or 1♦ with a 5 card major. 17+ balanced hands would open 1♣ or 1♦ depending on whether they had a 5 card major or not, and then re-bid the appropriate number of NT. I have not yet decided if 2NT will be 20-22 balanced or a preempt in both minors.

The followups are relatively simple. Responder bids naturally, with the cheepest suit bids all showing a 4+ card suit, 1NT showing 9-11 balanced. A jump in the other minor is artifical GF with slam interest across from the 17+ hands. As for the sequence you mentioned, 1♦-1♠-2♥, the rebid shows 10-12 points with 5+ hearts. 1♦-1♠-2♦ would show 17+ points with 5 diamonds (also denying 4 spades) which, while not quite as descriptive as a traditional reverse would be, is a reasonable aproximation of the hand you mentioned. In exchange for this less descriptive sequence, hands with "reverseable" strength but not the right shape for a traditional reverse become much easier to describe. 1♣-1♦-1♠, for instance, would show 17+ points with 5+ spades. 1♦-1♥-2♣ would show 17+ points, unbalanced, and 5+ clubs. 1♣-1♥-1NT would show a balanced hand with 17-19 points and 5 spades.

If responder happens to bid opener's 5 card major, that is shown by a jump response (a single raise being reserved for weak hands where they hit your secondary suit). So 1♣-1♥-3♥ shows 17-20 points and 5+ hearts, for a 9+ card fit. a jump-shift by opener, such as 1♣-1♥-2♠, shows 21+ points, 5+ support for responder's major, and first round control of the bid suit.

It is true that the 1♦ opening bid in this system has a few more hands than the 1♣ opening bid. How concerned should I be about this? It isn't that much more, and very few systems contain anything close to the "Ideal" measure of each opening bid containing twice as many hands as the bid above it, so I was't really that troubled. Is it something that I should be worried about?

The reason that I did it that way was to lessen the frequency of responder bidding opener's long suit when opener has a strong hand. Since you bid 4 card suits "up the line", having 1♦ available when opener has a strong major hand but not when opener has a strong minor hand seemed prudent. Is that less of a problem than I am giving it credit for?

[blackshoe]

Charts:

 

Nothing there about forcing. Note that since pass-or-correct responses are disallowed, the sequences available to the system will be far less than optimal.

 

Sorry, you're right about the forcing bit. Not required.

[Free]

It is true that the 1♦ opening bid in this system has a few more hands than the 1♣ opening bid. How concerned should I be about this? It isn't that much more, and very few systems contain anything close to the "Ideal" measure of each opening bid containing twice as many hands as the bid above it, so I was't really that troubled. Is it something that I should be worried about?

The reason that I did it that way was to lessen the frequency of responder bidding opener's long suit when opener has a strong hand. Since you bid 4 card suits "up the line", having 1♦ available when opener has a strong major hand but not when opener has a strong minor hand seemed prudent. Is that less of a problem than I am giving it credit for?

Imo it's more logical to be able to let opener play 1M or 2m when he has 10-12 with a 5 card suit. It's easy to play 1♣-1♦ as a general relay (which can be weak) in which case opener can describe his hand at a very low level. Consider the following rebids:

1M = 10-12, 5+M

1NT = 17-19 (just some range) without 5 card suit

2m = 17+ with 5+m

Simple, and everything is covered. Now responder can pass the 1M bid like in other light opening systems. When you have 17+ you don't mind to play at least 2M (like in real polish club), so open 1♦ and rebid 2M. This way, you can always play in your 5 card suit at the lowest possible level when you have 10-12.

(Note: if 1♣-1♦ as general purpose bid is not allowed, then you can combine with playing 1♣-1M as 3+M.)

 

With your method, you open 1♦, partner responds 1NT, you rebid 2M with 10-12... This really sucks imo.

 

Another case I forgot to mention: you have 10-12 with 5-4M. You open 1m (your or my description, doesn't matter) and partner responds 1M in your 4-card. What are you supposed to do? Do you raise suggesting a 5 card suit, or do you rebid your own 5 card suit and ignore the fit for now?

 

I still don't like it. It looks to me like there aren't much problems when you have a 5-3 fit, but still the 4-4 fits are completely lost when both players are relatively weak. A simple 4-4M fit can be impossible to find: 4-1-3-5 vs 4-4-3-2 => 1m-1♥-2♣ showing 10-12 with 5+♣. Responder passes, everyone else comfortably plays 2♠ while you may be stugling in 2♣.

Also note that you can't find a simple 4M contract with 12 vs 12 when both players have a 4441.But note that you can't find a simple 4M contract with 12 vs 12 when both players have a 4441.

You didn't mention how you're planning on handling very weak and very strong hands. You force responder to bid with 0HCP after a 1m opening, but how do you continue when opener shows 17+? How will opener show the difference between 17HCP and 23HCP? How will responder show the difference between 0HCP, 5HCP and 8+HCP? Etc. The auction is already pretty high, you haven't found a fit, and you still don't know the limit of the hand. And what do you plan on doing with strong hands after opener shows a 10-12 hand?

 

You'll be behind on the field in pretty much every situation! And what do you gain in return? Perhaps you gain on hands with 13-16HCP, perhaps... I guess you might win on the 1M openings, but the 2m openings won't give you a big edge imo. Imo it will never be a performant system.

[gwnn]

It will not lose 2 imps a board or anything like that. It is very hard to imagine a system that would.

[Free]

It is very hard to imagine a system that would.

No it's not... :rolleyes:

[gwnn]

fair enough, if you always bid 7NT and redouble, it will probably yield less than -2 imps per board :) it is up for debate whether passing on every board would do so, though.

[relknes]

Imo it's more logical to be able to let opener play 1M or 2m when he has 10-12 with a 5 card suit. It's easy to play 1♣-1♦ as a general relay (which can be weak) in which case opener can describe his hand at a very low level. Consider the following rebids:

1M = 10-12, 5+M

1NT = 17-19 (just some range) without 5 card suit

2m = 17+ with 5+m

Simple, and everything is covered. Now responder can pass the 1M bid like in other light opening systems. When you have 17+ you don't mind to play at least 2M (like in real polish club), so open 1♦ and rebid 2M. This way, you can always play in your 5 card suit at the lowest possible level when you have 10-12.

(Note: if 1♣-1♦ as general purpose bid is not allowed, then you can combine with playing 1♣-1M as 3+M.)

 

With your method, you open 1♦, partner responds 1NT, you rebid 2M with 10-12... This really sucks imo.

 

Another case I forgot to mention: you have 10-12 with 5-4M. You open 1m (your or my description, doesn't matter) and partner responds 1M in your 4-card. What are you supposed to do? Do you raise suggesting a 5 card suit, or do you rebid your own 5 card suit and ignore the fit for now?

 

I still don't like it. It looks to me like there aren't much problems when you have a 5-3 fit, but still the 4-4 fits are completely lost when both players are relatively weak. A simple 4-4M fit can be impossible to find: 4-1-3-5 vs 4-4-3-2 => 1m-1♥-2♣ showing 10-12 with 5+♣. Responder passes, everyone else comfortably plays 2♠ while you may be stugling in 2♣.

Also note that you can't find a simple 4M contract with 12 vs 12 when both players have a 4441.But note that you can't find a simple 4M contract with 12 vs 12 when both players have a 4441.

You didn't mention how you're planning on handling very weak and very strong hands. You force responder to bid with 0HCP after a 1m opening, but how do you continue when opener shows 17+? How will opener show the difference between 17HCP and 23HCP? How will responder show the difference between 0HCP, 5HCP and 8+HCP? Etc. The auction is already pretty high, you haven't found a fit, and you still don't know the limit of the hand. And what do you plan on doing with strong hands after opener shows a 10-12 hand?

 

You'll be behind on the field in pretty much every situation! And what do you gain in return? Perhaps you gain on hands with 13-16HCP, perhaps... I guess you might win on the 1M openings, but the 2m openings won't give you a big edge imo. Imo it will never be a performant system.

In developing the idea for this system, I had the following goals:

 

When opener has 0-9 points, the system is the same as Standard American, with the exception of giving up the 2♦ preempt.

When opener has 10-12 points, the system performs simmilarly to Fanturnes

When opener has 13-16 points, the system performs better than standard American

When opener has 17+ points, the system performs similarly to Precision

 

Most of your objections seem to focus on the 10-12 range and the very strong (roughly 22+) range. Hopefully I can clarify a few things, and then maybe I can improve it somewhat.

My goal with the 10-12 hands was to never leave myself in a worse place than I would have playing Fantunes, which opens with 2 of a suit with 9-13 points and 5+. My system is less preemptive than that one, but it does give you the oportunity to find 4-4 fits that Fanturnes would miss, for instance, with 10-12 points and 4-5 in the majors you open 1♦ (1♣ if I eventually decide to switch), and partner responds in your 4 card major. A single raise shows a fit with 10-12 points. Partner will then pass unless they have invitational values.

The situation you mentioned where you end up missing an 8 card spade fit to play in a 7 card club fit, will happen if your partner has less than invitational values. Then again, this is exactly where Fanturnes would put you, and at least you had the oportunity to find a heart 4-4 fit where Fanturnes would miss either a 4-4 heart fit or a 4-4 spade fit.

I honestly didn't worry at all about the case where opener had 10-12 and responder had 0-4, since if the opponents actually let you play that hand out at the 2 level, then they have missed game at least.

A 12 point 4441 facing a 12 point 4441 would indeed be missed, unless one or the other of these hands was a "Very good 12 points". Is this situation common enough to warrent expanding my 2m bids to include them? I had immagined that these hands were better defensive hands than offensive ones, hence passing the borderline 4441 openers, but if that is a mistreatment, then I can change that.

Currently, my 1M bids are 13-16 with 5+ and my 2m bids are 13-16 technically 4+ but almost always 5+ (4 only if 4441 shape), and 1NT is 13-16 balanced. The 1NT looses out a tiny bit to Standard American because of the 1 extra width on the point range, but it's frequency is much higher than a 15-17 range. So i feel safe in saying that I think this system performs better than SAYC when opener has 13-16 points.

In my original concept, the range was 12-16. This was accompanied by a 9-11 point weak option on the 1m bids. I quickly realized that this is illegal in GCC teritory since it didn't guarentee 10 points, and so altered the post about 2 minutes after posting (hence blackshoe's confusion). Would it be better for me to stick to the original 12-16 point range for the 1M and 2m bids, and restrict the weak option on the 1m bids to 10-11?

Finally, for the strong hands I wanted something that would perform simmilarly to Precision.

With a 5 card major, this can be accomplished by making the 1♣-1♦ response either natural or negative. Then the only difference between 1♣-1♦-1M in my system vs Precision would be that my system promises an extra point and an extra card. The 1♣-1♦-2M would be the same as Precision, promising 22+ points and 5+ length. The other difference is between the systems is that 1♣-1♦ followed by a NT rebid promises a balanced had with a 5 card major.

With no 5 card major, this can be accomplished by prohibiting 1♦-2x on fewer than 7 points. Then 1♦-1M-xNT would be almost exactly the same as the 1♣-1♦-xNT in Precision. 1♦-1M-2m would also have a close cousin from Precision, being almost identical to 1♣-1♦-2m in that system.

This analogy with Precision is one main reason that I had 1♣ as major oriented with the strong varriant and 1♦ as no 5 card major with the strong variant.

Would these adjustments make the system more workable? I know that you hate some of the results in the 10-12 point range, but I do think that the system makes gains over SAYC in the 13+ range as compensation.

Are there other adjustments that still need to be made that haven't occured to me yet?

Thanks for your input, by the way. I don't want to seem obstinate, which I realize I might since I am still posting about a method that you think will never be playable. You may well be right, but I have a lot of fun trying to solve the problems that people put out there, and you have a keen eye for spotting problems, both those I have considered and those I need to consider. So thank you again for taking the time to post.

 

PS. you brought up 3+ major responses, but I believe those are illegal here in GCC land... they kind of hamstring you if you play anything but the most popular systems.

[Free]

Interesting that you mention the design goals, this actually explains a lot of things!

 

1 important thing about Fantunes 2-openings is that they are all unbalanced (5422 is considered balanced, so they basically show 6322/7222/some singleton or void). This improves the playing strength of the hands significantly. As far as I read your descriptions of 1m openings, you also open 10-12HCP with 5332 or 5422. Unless you're willing to pass these hands (or upgrade the 12-pointers) you'll be worse off than Fantunes.

 

Perhaps an interesting idea: you can probably use the same system after 1m-1NT-2m (10-12) like after 2m openings.

 

When opener has 13-16 points, the system performs better than standard American

I partly disagree with this. While the 1M openings should indeed perform better, the 2m openings won't imo. Again the dreaded 4-4 M fits. ;)

- when responder has 5-8HCP he'll just pass, while standard systems will respond their suit and find the "best" partscore

- when responder has 9-10HCP he'll have to invite, in which case you might end up too high while the rest plays 1NT or 2M.

- when responder has 11+HCP there's not a big problem, but you lost bidding space for a little bit of accuracy.

 

When opener has 17+ points, the system performs similarly to Precision

While it is true that the level of bidding is similar to precision, the information responder has given is not the same at all. If we consider some standard form of precision, responder will have limited his hand already. With your system he can have 0-23HCP.

Recently I started playing some sort of precision again. I used to play 1♣-1♦-1♥ as showing extra's, but now we've switched to 1♣-1♦-1M as 4+M and forcing (the way Meckwell play). In my limited experience with it, this is a very good treatment! Responder will now show if he's very weak or max, and also show something about fit. This is something you can't do, because responder may have a very weak, intermediate, normal GF or slam invite (or even stronger) hand.

 

Perhaps a suggestion if you don't want to swap the minor openings:

1♣ = 10-12 with 5+m UNBAL / 17+ with 4+M / 17+ BAL

1♦ = 10-12 with 5+M UNBAL / 17+ UNBAL without 4M (you can also include some strong BAL range)

This way you can play 1♣-1♦ as a negative (0-6HCP), 1♣-1♥+ as 7+HCP (lets you easily setup a GF opposite 17+ hands), and you can play 1♣-1♦-1M as 4+M F1. Imo this would improve your bidding with Majors significantly.

I would also play 1♦-1♥ as 0-6HCP if that's allowed.

Since 1♦-...-NT doesn't have a meaning, you might want to include some strong balanced ranges in the 1♦ opening as well. I prefer 3 point ranges at 1-level and 2-point ranges at 2-level, so you can play for example 1♣ including 17-19 or 23-24 and 1♦ including 20-22 or 25+.

 

Just some ideas ;)

[relknes]

Interesting that you mention the design goals, this actually explains a lot of things!

 

1 important thing about Fantunes 2-openings is that they are all unbalanced (5422 is considered balanced, so they basically show 6322/7222/some singleton or void). This improves the playing strength of the hands significantly. As far as I read your descriptions of 1m openings, you also open 10-12HCP with 5332 or 5422. Unless you're willing to pass these hands (or upgrade the 12-pointers) you'll be worse off than Fantunes.

 

Perhaps an interesting idea: you can probably use the same system after 1m-1NT-2m (10-12) like after 2m openings.

 

While the 1M openings should indeed perform better, the 2m openings won't imo. Again the dreaded 4-4 M fits. ;)

- when responder has 5-8HCP he'll just pass, while standard systems will respond their suit and find the "best" partscore

- when responder has 9-10HCP he'll have to invite, in which case you might end up too high while the rest plays 1NT or 2M.

- when responder has 11+HCP there's not a big problem, but you lost bidding space for a little bit of accuracy.

 

While it is true that the level of bidding is similar to precision, the information responder has given is not the same at all. If we consider some standard form of precision, responder will have limited his hand already. With your system he can have 0-23HCP.

Recently I started playing some sort of precision again. I used to play 1♣-1♦-1♥ as showing extra's, but now we've switched to 1♣-1♦-1M as 4+M and forcing (the way Meckwell play). In my limited experience with it, this is a very good treatment! Responder will now show if he's very weak or max, and also show something about fit. This is something you can't do, because responder may have a very weak, intermediate, normal GF or slam invite (or even stronger) hand.

 

Perhaps a suggestion if you don't want to swap the minor openings:

1♣ = 10-12 with 5+m UNBAL / 17+ with 4+M / 17+ BAL

1♦ = 10-12 with 5+M UNBAL / 17+ UNBAL without 4M (you can also include some strong BAL range)

This way you can play 1♣-1♦ as a negative (0-6HCP), 1♣-1♥+ as 7+HCP (lets you easily setup a GF opposite 17+ hands), and you can play 1♣-1♦-1M as 4+M F1. Imo this would improve your bidding with Majors significantly.

I would also play 1♦-1♥ as 0-6HCP if that's allowed.

Since 1♦-...-NT doesn't have a meaning, you might want to include some strong balanced ranges in the 1♦ opening as well. I prefer 3 point ranges at 1-level and 2-point ranges at 2-level, so you can play for example 1♣ including 17-19 or 23-24 and 1♦ including 20-22 or 25+.

 

Just some ideas ;)

Interesting. This helps a lot.

It occurs to me, also, that it might make sense for me to make this a 4 card major system, in order to relieve some of the pressure on the 2m bids. 1M would show 4+ unbalanced or 5 balanced with 12-16 points, 1NT would show 13-16 balanced, and 2m would show 5+ 12-16 with no 4 card major (unless 6-4). This solves two problems and introduces one. It solves the concrete problem of missing 4-4 major fits, and the theoretical problem of having too many hands in the 2m bids. However, it introduces the problem of making 1M-1NT-2m sequences ambiguous as to the relative length of the suits, since you would bid this way with 5M 4m or with 4M 5m.

Is this an improvement, or is the ambiguity introduced into the 1M openings too high a price to pay?

Now, the only 12 point hands I would pass are 4432 and 4333 hand paterns, though I might still open a 4432 1NT if it were a "Good" 12 points.

1♣ would now show either a 17+ with the shape of a 1M opening, a balanced hand with 17-19 or 23-24 points, or a 10-12 point unbalanced hand with a 5 card minor. I would still open this with a 5422 shape since there is the additional chance that partner and i will stumble into a 4-4 fit.

1♦ would show either 17+ with the shape of a 2m opening, a balanced hand with 20-22 or 25+, or a 10-12 unbalanced hand with a 5 card major.

After a 1♣ opener, responder's bids are:

1♦:0-6 points

1M: 7-12 points, 4+

1NT: 7-12 points, no 4 card major, no 6 card minor

2m: 7-12 points, 6+

2M: 13+ points, 4+

2NT: 13+ points, no 4 card major

After a 1♦ opener, responder's bids are

1M: 0-12 points, 4+ (unfortunately, neither a 1♥ negative nor 3 card responses are legal here... I checked a few days ago. Like I said, hamstrung)

1NT: 0-12 points, no 4 card major, can't bid 2m

2m: 7-12 points, 6+

2M: 13+ points, 4+

2NT: 13+ points, no 4 card major

After which bidding would proceed simmilarly to a Precision auction if opener had a strong hand, and simmilarly to a Fanturnes two bid when opener had a weakish hand.

As a side note, an objection that you raised in your first post is also now resolved, since the 1♣ opening now has more hands than the 1♦ opening, and the more serious (but related) problem of the 2m openings having more frequency than the 1M bids is also resolved. Putting more hands into 1M of course makes them more ambiguous, however, and it is no longer clear that this 1M is better than SAYC 1M. Opening a 4 card suit at the 1 level while a bid in a 5 card suit is available at the 2 level seems ok in terms of the general rule that an extra trump is worth 1 extra level of bidding, but I am a little worried about later in the auction.

Also, 1♦-...NT always had a meaning. It used to be 17+ balanced with no 5 card major (so actually the majority of strong balanced hands were opened 1♦), where 1♣-...NT was 17+ balanced with a 5 card major. However, I like your idea of dividing the ranges much better, partially to find more major fits oposite a weak responder and partially to create a paralell with the 12-16 point hands which will make memorizing easier. It will also leave my 2NT free for a preempt.

[Free]

About the 1M openings

 

I used to play MOSCITO which uses a MAFIA style. The Major openings were in transfer, but the transfers are irrelevant to make my point so I'll show the examples like it was a natural auction.

 

What we did was to raise on pretty much every 3 card support to 2-level, and with a 4 card support to 3-level. The only exceptions are very weak 4333s. We played in 4-3 fits at 2-level quite a lot, but that wasn't a problem (improves your declarer play skills imo). The 3-level raises were sometimes too high, but then we usually were both balanced with a 4-4 fit. With your 1M openings the "balanced"-part is pretty much gone, so you should be able to get to playable contracts at the 3-level. Perhaps it's a good idea to treat your 4M-5m-2-2 hands as balanced (except with all values in your long suits), but keep the 5M-4m-2-2 in the 1M openings. This way you definitely have ruffing value (or a runable sidesuit) when you're in a 4-4 fit at 3-level.

 

So what happened at the table when responder didn't support and opener rebid a minor? We agreed that 1M-1NT-2m-2M = 2 card M with 3 card m support (the fact that responder didn't raise immediately denies a 3 card fit). This way opener can safely rebid 3m with the 4M-5m hand, or pass with the 5M-4m hand pretty much playing the same like the entire field. With 2M-2m responder had a problem (= worst case), but usually it was a good idea to pass (unless you have a biddable suit of your own ofcourse). Opener can have 5M-4m which is a disaster, but he can also have 4M-5m and 5M-5m (or even 5M-6m)! With even less support, you usually have a suit of your own to bid.

 

So is it a high price to pay? For partscore battles it's not, but when responder is stronger you might get into trouble.

For example, with invitational hands with 3M and a good 6 card suit you can easily miss a good game (even in a 4-3 fit). That's why we also played 1M-3m and 1♠-3♥ as INV with 3M-6X (1M-2m was NF).

But auctions where responder has a GF may be more problematic. We didn't have this problem because our strong hands bid a relay. Here you need some kind of force after 1♥-1♠-2m, 4th suit or whatever, but then opener is limited in his actions. You're behind on the field because the longest suit is still unknown. This is still a reasonable situation, compare it with 1♥-2♣-2♦, what should opener bid after 4SF?

This all depends on how you're planning to respond over 1M openings. Do you play 2/1GF, do you use a GF relay,...

[Free]

After a 1♣ opener, responder's bids are:

1♦:0-6 points

1M: 7-12 points, 4+

1NT: 7-12 points, no 4 card major, no 6 card minor

2m: 7-12 points, 6+

2M: 13+ points, 4+

2NT: 13+ points, no 4 card major

After a 1♦ opener, responder's bids are

1M: 0-12 points, 4+ (unfortunately, neither a 1♥ negative nor 3 card responses are legal here... I checked a few days ago. Like I said, hamstrung)

1NT: 0-12 points, no 4 card major, can't bid 2m

2m: 7-12 points, 6+

2M: 13+ points, 4+

2NT: 13+ points, no 4 card major

I really HATE the 13+HCP responses! You take away space while there's nothing wrong with bidding 1M with 7+HCP. 12HCP vs 12HCP usually means game, especially if one of the hands is unbalanced. Not sure what you should do with 2m, but for constructive purposes I'd rather play them stronger instead of weak and NF. 1m-2NT should be some GF balanced hand imo, but not any distribution without a 4 card M (can be 3-3-3-4 to 0-0-4-9 or worse - the difference is too great and you took away too much space).

[relknes]

About the 1M openings

 

I used to play MOSCITO which uses a MAFIA style. The Major openings were in transfer, but the transfers are irrelevant to make my point so I'll show the examples like it was a natural auction.

 

What we did was to raise on pretty much every 3 card support to 2-level, and with a 4 card support to 3-level. The only exceptions are very weak 4333s. We played in 4-3 fits at 2-level quite a lot, but that wasn't a problem (improves your declarer play skills imo). The 3-level raises were sometimes too high, but then we usually were both balanced with a 4-4 fit. With your 1M openings the "balanced"-part is pretty much gone, so you should be able to get to playable contracts at the 3-level. Perhaps it's a good idea to treat your 4M-5m-2-2 hands as balanced (except with all values in your long suits), but keep the 5M-4m-2-2 in the 1M openings. This way you definitely have ruffing value (or a runable sidesuit) when you're in a 4-4 fit at 3-level.

 

So what happened at the table when responder didn't support and opener rebid a minor? We agreed that 1M-1NT-2m-2M = 2 card M with 3 card m support (the fact that responder didn't raise immediately denies a 3 card fit). This way opener can safely rebid 3m with the 4M-5m hand, or pass with the 5M-4m hand pretty much playing the same like the entire field. With 2M-2m responder had a problem (= worst case), but usually it was a good idea to pass (unless you have a biddable suit of your own ofcourse). Opener can have 5M-4m which is a disaster, but he can also have 4M-5m and 5M-5m (or even 5M-6m)! With even less support, you usually have a suit of your own to bid.

 

So is it a high price to pay? For partscore battles it's not, but when responder is stronger you might get into trouble.

For example, with invitational hands with 3M and a good 6 card suit you can easily miss a good game (even in a 4-3 fit). That's why we also played 1M-3m and 1♠-3♥ as INV with 3M-6X (1M-2m was NF).

But auctions where responder has a GF may be more problematic. We didn't have this problem because our strong hands bid a relay. Here you need some kind of force after 1♥-1♠-2m, 4th suit or whatever, but then opener is limited in his actions. You're behind on the field because the longest suit is still unknown. This is still a reasonable situation, compare it with 1♥-2♣-2♦, what should opener bid after 4SF?

This all depends on how you're planning to respond over 1M openings. Do you play 2/1GF, do you use a GF relay,...

My initial thoughts for responding to 1M were these:

4M = either natural game bid with no slam interest, or “Weak freak” with good 5 card or any 6 card support

3M = 6-9 points, poor 5 card support or good 4 card support

2M = 6-9 points, 3 card support or poor 4 card support

Double jump shift = Splinter

Jump shift = invitational with 4 card support and a side suit

2NT = game invitational, exactly 3 card support

2/1 = GF

1NT = invitational or weaker, no 3 card support (non-forcing)

1/1 = 4+ cards, 6+ points

The thought behind this was that, given the fact that opener had limited their strength, it was much easier for responder to diferentiate between varrious invites. Therefore there are 4 ways to invite game directly, the 3 jump shifts and 2NT. 2NT is invitational to either 3NT or 4M, depending on whether opener has a 5 or 4 card major, and can be signed off by passing 2NT or by bidding 3M. The Jump shifts all promise 4 card support and a good side suit with invitational values, allowing opener to choose between 3M and 4M. Since these jump shifts are forcing, this can also be the start of a slam investigation. With slam invitational values, this bid guarentees a doubleton in both unbid suits. If opener refuses the game invite by trying to sign off at 3M, responder simply corrects to 4M, while if opener accepts the invite by bidding 4M then responder can continue on with blackwood or some other slam bidding convention. These cover the unbalanced hands with no singleton, while the splinter bids cover the unbalanced hands with a singleton, leaving the 2/1 responses to explore slam with a balanced hand.

With the game invitational and slam invitational hands taken care of, that leaves only the hands that clearly belong in game or clearly belong in a part-score.

A direct jump to 4M implies either a weak freak that is bidding on distribution, or a hand that is clearly good enough for game across from 12 points, but has no interest in slam even oposite 16 points. This uncirtainty makes it harder for opponents to make peanalty doubles and also makes it less attractive for them to try spades after bidding goes 1♥-4♥ (which can be quite tempting if it only shows a "weak freak" 10 card fit). 3NT can also be bid directly, denying 3 card support, promising 4 cards in the unbid major, and giving opener a choice of games.

For clearly part score strength hands, either 1NT or a raise of the major are the options. 1NT is non-forcing, denying 3 card support. A double raise of opener's major shows good 4 card support (or poor 5 card support), while a single raise shows 3 card support (or poor 4 card support). Opener can then decide if they want to invite game, but will usually just pass.

I orriginally designed these for the other system (the one built around the Polish Club). These sorts of responses really only make sense after a rather narrow opening bid, such as the 12-16 range in this system, and even then they only really make sense in a 4 card majors system. So although they don't have a wider aplication, they seem like they fit the bill for this system.

Now, these are bids that I designed on my own, so there are probably holes in the logic. 9 bids to start exploring slam, 6 bids that force to game, 4 bids to invite game, and 2 bids to sign off in game is a lot of attention to give to the strong hands considering there are only 3 bids to pursue a part score. I was thinking, looking at these ratios, that it might be best to do away with the 2/1 game force aspect and playing 2/1 instead as 8+ points denying 3 card support in old school ACOL style.

[relknes]

I really HATE the 13+HCP responses! You take away space while there's nothing wrong with bidding 1M with 7+HCP. 12HCP vs 12HCP usually means game, especially if one of the hands is unbalanced. Not sure what you should do with 2m, but for constructive purposes I'd rather play them stronger instead of weak and NF. 1m-2NT should be some GF balanced hand imo, but not any distribution without a 4 card M (can be 3-3-3-4 to 0-0-4-9 or worse - the difference is too great and you took away too much space).

So this is more of what you would have in mind?

After a 1♣ opener, responder's bids are:

1♦:0-6 points

1M: 7+ points, 4+

1NT: 7-11 points, balanced

2m: 7+ points, 5+

2NT: 11-12 points, balanced

After a 1♦ opener, responder's bids are

1M: 4+ cards

1NT: 0-11 points, no 4 card major, can't bid 2m

2m: 7+ points, 5+

2NT: 11-12 points, balanced

 

The 2M bids are free here. You don't seem to like the idea of 13+ points, 4+. What would be a better use for them? I had orriginally thought that these bids would be game force, even 13 across from an unbalanced 10

[relknes]

There is also the posability that I could use 1NT as an artificial GF after the 1m openings. Would it make more sense to have the responses as follows?

 

After 1♣:

1♦= 0-6 points

1M = 4+, 7-13 points

1NT = 14+ points artificial GF

2m = 4+, 7-13 points

 

After 1♦

1M = natural, 0-13 points

1NT = 14+ artificial GF

2m = 4+, 7-13 points

 

I am still trying to see if this is legal, since after 1♦ a player would have to "manufacture" a bid with 0-6 points and no 4 card major. This is legal in a lot of other systems, such as after a forcing 1NT in 2/1, but the ACBL dosn't give nearly the leeway to offbeat systems as they do to mainline ones.

However, if this does turn out to be legal, is it an appropriate way to solve the problem?

[PrecisionL]

I have 3+ years experience playing an artificial 1♦ opening bid in ACBLand with our Transfer Precision System.

 

1M 0-13 pts does NOT work very well. We use 0-9 pts.

1NT 14+ is not recommended. We use 8-11(12) hcp.

1♦ - 2♦ is LR or better and may contain a 4-cd major to differentiate from 1M responses.

1♦ - 2M = LR only with 5M

1♦ - 2NT is G.F. asking if any shortage. 3♣ = no shortage, otherwise 1-under.