Another tweak...

[wclass___]

Intended as an theoretically good opening bid structure for vulnerable, imps.

All suits are good, but ♠ are better... As tysen2k studies have shown it might be a good idea to go slow with ♠. If we have ♠ that means we are less concerned about possible opponent intervention, because we are likely to buy contract in ♠ anyway.

 

1♣ = 4♠+ 11+;never 4♠333; 4♠4♥+ any strength; 4♠4m32 probably OK, if 15+

1♦=16-19 bal; 13+/19 5m+4♥; some distributional minor hands

1♥ = 5♥+11-19, not 4♠ if minimum; not 5♥332 if minimum.

1♠ = 5♠+ 8-13

1NT = 12+/15

style: 5♥-OK, 5♠-NOT, not 4♠4♥; can be 12-13 unbalanced hands that think that 1N is reasonable

2♣ = 8-11 6♦+ or strong with ♦ or 22+bal

2♦ = weak 2 in ♥ or strong with ♥

2♥ = ♣'s either too distributional (7♣+13+) or too strong for other bids.

2♠ = weak 2, aggressive

2NT = 20/21

 

 

Suggestions?

[Free]

1♥ = 11-19, not 4♠ if minimum; not 5♥332 if minimum.

Is this some sort of catchall, or did you just forget to mention "5+♥" (or 4+♥ perhaps)?

[wclass___]

Is this some sort of catchall, or did you just forget to mention "5+♥" (or 4+♥ perhaps)?

 

yes, i forgot.

[Free]

Have you had a look at CMD (French - Canapé Majeur D'abord from Vernes)? This is based on similar principles.

[Zelandakh]

First a couple of questions: what are you opening with 22+ balanced? and also with 1=4=4=4 for all strengths. Secondly I think your 2 bid structure could be improved. Essentially you are not including more hands here than standard, probably less due to the spade suit, so you should have a more effective preempt structure than standard, whereas yours is imho less effective. I think I would want to see follow-up structures for the 1m openings, and especially how they cope with interference, before commenting on the main part of the system.

[wclass___]

Thanks for replay.

First a couple of questions: what are you opening with 22+ balanced? and also with 1=4=4=4 for all strengths.

Yes, i forgot, they were intended to go in 2♣ along with ♦. 1♠ is treated as balanced.

 

Backbone (main idea) of this system consist of 1♣;1♥;1N;2♦ openings, i haven't spent that much time around finding optimal structure for other bids.

 

Essentially you are not including more hands here than standard, probably less due to the spade suit, so you should have a more effective preempt structure than standard, whereas yours is imho less effective. I think I would want to see follow-up structures for the 1m openings, and especially how they cope with interference, before commenting on the main part of the system.

I think that hands that would normally be opened with 1♦/1♥ and now are opened with 2♣/2♦ are quite frequent comparing to hands that would bid 2♣ in standard. I don't think that preempt structure is less effective, true, it gives opponents some extra options, but transfer preempts have their advantages as well (possible intervention is reason why i don't intend 2♥ as ♠). And i suppose due to 1♠ opening, 2♠ opening can be made on weaker hands than in standard.

 

I don't have a clear idea about response structure over 1♣, but if opponents don't bid then there shouldn't be big problem. Might be something similar with dwururka. And in competition we have ♠ so it doesn't really bother me.

 

1♦ works like a stronger and more descriptive nebulous precision 1♦. 1♦-1♠ should be 5♠+

[Zelandakh]

I am not convinced that the hands in the ~20-22hcp range plus the stronger 2-suiters that get opened 1DH are "quite frequent". Your 2C opening is more frequent than a standard 2C opener but probably (slightly) less frequent than the 2C tweak that adds a weak 2 in diamonds. The 2DHS openings are definitely less frequent than Dutch 2s but do cover the constructive club hands. One option would definitely be to mnove the balanced 20-21s into 2D and free 2NT up for some other purpose. This might enable a more effective solution for these club-based hands; something worth investigating anyway.

 

The other aspect of the system design that I would spend a fair amount of time testing would be whether it is better to switch the meanings of the 1m openings. I have not counted hand types but it feels like the 1C opening is better defined than the 1D opening. Therefore it makes some sense for them to be reversed even though this goes against one of your key design themes. Having played around with such a 1D (= spades) opening myself I can assure you there is enough space to unwind everything (although I did not have 4S4m32 hands included).

 

Other than that it is largely going to be a matter of testing, testing, testing to find the system holes and make the appropriate adjustments. Having optimised you then have to make comparisons to standard systems like 2/1, precision, etc and work out where you gain and where you lose. Then decide if the overall gain (if there is) is worth the additional memory overhead from system complexity. And finally, find a willing victim guinea pig to play-test it with live. :D

[wclass___]

The other aspect of the system design that I would spend a fair amount of time testing would be whether it is better to switch the meanings of the 1m openings.

I am convinced that this way is better. Over 1♦ you can easily construct simple and effective structure like

1♥ = 4♥+F1 then 1♠ by opener=3card support

1♠ = 5♠+ F1

1NT = NF

 

there is no need for extra space here (which opponents might steal with ♠ anyway).

 

I am not convinced that the hands in the ~20-22hcp range plus the stronger 2-suiters that get opened 1DH are "quite frequent". Your 2C opening is more frequent than a standard 2C opener but probably (slightly) less frequent than the 2C tweak that adds a weak 2 in diamonds.

20HCP=0.64%;21HCP=0.38%;22HCP%=0.21%;23HCP=0.11%

Also i don't mean HCP so strictly, these are probably bids where you are more willing to upgrade into rather than downgrade to 1x...

 

And finally, find a willing victim guinea pig to play-test it with live. :D

Unfortunately that is just like mission impossible.