Best way

[glen]

I'll abstract this question/poll to this:

 

Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs. Which way is best:

 

1) Big club style: 1C covers all 15+, 1D is a weak NT

2) Modified Polish style: 1C covers weak NT and all 18+, 1D is any 15-17

3) Both good (this includes both okay)

4) Both bad (both approaches have flaws)

5) Other: you have a better solution, which you provide below (update: 1 vote for other, but nothing given on what it is)

 

Thanks in advance for your answers!

[straube]

For choice 1, do you mean that 1D includes a weak NT? You'd have a very hard time if 1D didn't handle other hands, too.

 

For choice 2, is 1D diamonds or 15-17 balanced? What do you mean by any 15-17

[glen]

For choice 1, do you mean that 1D includes a weak NT? You'd have a very hard time if 1D didn't handle other hands, too.

No, I mean that 1♦=weak NT

 

If you would like an example system:

1♣: 15+ any

1♦: 12-14 bal

1♥/1♠: 8/9-14, 5 or longer

1NT: 9-11 bal (10-11 in ACBL)

2♣/2♦: 9/10-14, 5 or longer

2♥: 12-14, any 4-4-4-1 with 4♥s

2♠: 12-14, 4-1-4-4 exactly

 

For choice 2, is 1D diamonds or 15-17 balanced? What do you mean by any 15-17

No, 1♦ is any 15-17, can be balanced or unbalanced. Any hand that has 15, 16, or 17 points opens 1♦, and if fewer than 15 or more than 17 opens something else, or sadly passes.

[straube]

I voted 1), but I think I would change now to 4). I think that reserving 1D for weak NT is too restrictive. Obviously, one will do well with the 1D opening, but you're preempting yourself quite a bit when 2C can be 4315 or 2137. Also, you're giving up weak 2s and opening the 4441s uncomfortably high.

[glen]

I voted 1), but I think I would change now to 4). I think that reserving 1D for weak NT is too restrictive. Obviously, one will do well with the 1D opening, but you're preempting yourself quite a bit when 2C can be 4315 or 2137. Also, you're giving up weak 2s and opening the 4441s uncomfortably high.

I'm not asking you to judge the complete system, just the 1♣/♦ openings, and the example was just an example for context. Here's another example:

 

1♣: 15+ any (or if choice 2, 12-14 bal or 18+ any)

1♦: 12-14 bal (or if choice 2, 15-17 any)

1♥/1♠: 8-14, 4 or 5 card suit if 10-14

1NT: 9-11 bal (10-11 in ACBL)

2♣/2♦: 10-14, 5 or longer, no four card major

2♥/2♠: 10-14, 6 or longer

[straube]

I don't think one can separate 1C or 1D from the rest of the system. If one of these bids is underloaded, then the other bids are overloaded no matter how they are sliced and diced.

 

There are about 28 hand patterns for the weak NT...and balanced hand patterns matter less than unbalanced ones. There are probably over 40 hand patterns for the 1H opening of your last straw man. So 1H has less room than 1D but handles more hand patterns and it is more important to show these hand patterns.

 

I've seen some experimentation with a 1S opening promising a weak NT. That feels better as far as space allocation goes, but I don't think even that was found to be winning.

[awm]

In general openings that are "artificial, any hand of some strength" are pretty bad. They work a little better as you raise the minimum strength requirement though, and they can give you wins elsewhere in your system by removing certain hand types.

 

For this reason I'm not a fan of either 1♣ "15+ any" or 1♦ "15-17 any." They both have the same issue, and the upper limit is only a very marginal help. If I had to divide these hand types I'd do it more based on shape. For example:

 

1♣ = 12+ points balanced, or 15+ with some three-suited type pattern (i.e. 4441, 5431, 5440).

1♦ = 15+ either a 6+ card suit or 5/5 in two suits.

[straube]

In general openings that are "artificial, any hand of some strength" are pretty bad. They work a little better as you raise the minimum strength requirement though, and they can give you wins elsewhere in your system by removing certain hand types.

 

For this reason I'm not a fan of either 1♣ "15+ any" or 1♦ "15-17 any." They both have the same issue, and the upper limit is only a very marginal help. If I had to divide these hand types I'd do it more based on shape. For example:

 

1♣ = 12+ points balanced, or 15+ with some three-suited type pattern (i.e. 4441, 5431, 5440).

1♦ = 15+ either a 6+ card suit or 5/5 in two suits.

 

I think it's at least a small downside to have 2 forcing bids. Plus partner can't preempt against either one of these.

 

I think I get it though. You don't really care if opponents compete over 1C because opener doesn't have much preference for trump. OTOH, the 1D opening is much more restricted and opener has more room to describe his hand than he would have had if he'd opened a strong 15+ club.

[mgoetze]

I don't really like the question :P but how about

 

1♣ 12-14 NT or 15-17 with a major or 18+ any

1♦ 15-17 NT or minor-oriented hand

 

Or even (envisioning a Polish-style response structure to 1♣)

 

1♣ 12-14 NT or 15-17 with spades or 18+ any

1♦ 15-17 without spades

 

1♣-1♦(negative)-1♥ = almost always weak NT

1♣-1♦(negative)-1♠ = 12-17(19)

1♣-1♥-1♠ = 12-17

1♣-1♠-1NT = Weak NT without 4 spades

1♣-1♠-2♠ = Weak NT with 4 spades

1♣-1♠-2♣ = 15-17 with spades

1♣-1♠-2♦ = 18+, Odwrotka or whatever

 

And then on the other hand you get

 

1♦-1♠ = INV+ relay

 

Something like that...

[glen]

In general openings that are "artificial, any hand of some strength" are pretty bad ...

That's a strong statement to make in the "non-natural" systems forum! Big club, polish club, big diamond, 2D any GF, standard two clubs are all "pretty bad"?

[mycroft]

Yep, that's exactly what he means. Of course, the advantage gained by the rest of the system outweighs the "pretty bad" call you have to make on some hands; and sometimes, with enough work, you can get to the point where there's actually an advantage on some hands to starting with the strong call.

 

Please note, both awm (hello - played against you in the open BAM in Seattle), and I play a strong club, so we both think that we can get advantage out of having that one "hope to break even" call limit the rest of our calls better.

[benlessard]

I think that if you like to open weak balanced hands than you probably like to open very light 1M, in wich case a strong club is better. If you willing to play 11+ openings than polish club structure is probably better.

 

Im voting other, play a 11-14 weak NT even a 10-14 & a strong clubs at 15+ and 1D as unbalanced 11-22.

[glen]

Thanks for all the replies, and does anybody want me to post background on the associated system?

[wclass___]

If you want to play mini-NT then precision type system is your best choice.

 

Still, your 2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ openings are terrible.

[akhare]

Thanks for all the replies, and does anybody want me to post background on the associated system?

 

That might be interesting. I am guessing 2♥ / 2♠ openings make it easier to sort out the relative length of major/minor suits after 1M opening...

[antonylee]

I play 2M = 4 card exactly, 8-12, unbalanced (in a Polish club context), so similar to your definition but much more frequent I guess (and even then it's fairly rare). It seems to work decently well (i.e. the losses due to not opening a weak 2 are more or lesscounterbalanced with the gains of the bid).

[glen]

That might be interesting. I am guessing 2♥ / 2♠ openings make it easier to sort out the relative length of major/minor suits after 1M opening...

The actual system is more complex than my examples, but I provided the examples to not focus on the system but the question.

 

The system is a plug n' play, much like the smaller systems at:

 

www.bridgematters.com/bidding.htm

 

This was the Polish club style design:

 

1♣: Two-Way, modified Polish club style, most often weak balanced

--- two modes:

1) Little, balanced or close to it, either:

1a) Balanced 10-15 outside the range and type for a 1NT opening at the vulnerable and position. Usually 11-13 V, 13-15 1-2NV, 11-15 3-4NV with a four card major.

1b) 10-14, three suiter with no five card major, shortness in a minor, and at least one four card major.

1c) 1-4-4-4 or 4-1-4-4 exactly, 12-14.

--- OR ---

2) Big, and either unbalanced or extras, either:

2a) 17+ any unbalanced, 17 exactly requires a seven card suit or at least 10 cards in two suits.

2b) 21+ balanced.

 

1♦: Semi-Strong, 15-17 with a three suiter or 16-18 balanced, can have a five card major, or 15-17 exactly 6 card minor with no second suit.

 

1♥, 1♠: Natural, five card or longer major, 10-17, can have a longer minor. If 15-16 must be 6+ major or a 5-5, and 17 is exactly 6 in the major with no second suit. Never a 5-3-3-2.

 

1NT: Variable, 10-12 balanced 1-2NV, 11-15 balanced rest, with these tendencies:

--- Usually 14-15 when vulnerable

--- Rarely a four card major if 13-15 3-4NV

 

2♣: Natural, 5+♣s, 10-16, no five card major. If just 5♣s must be 10-14 and a 5-4-3-1 or a 5-4-4-0 shape with shortness in a major. If 15-16 must be 6-4+ or a 7+♣s.

 

2♦: Natural, 5+♦s, 10-16, no five card major. If just 5♦s must be 5-5 minors, or, only if 10-14 a 5-4-3-1 or a 5-4-4-0 shape with shortness in a major, If 15-16 must be 6-4+ or a 7+♦s or -5-5+ minors.

 

2♥, 2♠: Weak, 6 or longer major, 5/6-10, not 4+ in other major.

 

2NT: 19-20, balanced

 

etc.

 

However I believe that weak balanced should open 1♦ to reduce the space available to the opponents, and since it does not need that much space to unwind. I decided to post the question here, and here's the result:

 

1♣: Big Club, three modes:

1) Semi-Strong, 15-17 with a three suiter or 16-18 balanced, can have a five card major, or 15-17 exactly 6 card minor with no second suit.

2) 18+ any unbalanced, or 17 exactly and a seven card suit or at least 10 cards in two suits.

3) 21+ balanced.

 

1♦: 10-15, balanced or close to it, if balanced not the range for opening 1NT, either:

1) Balanced 10-15 outside the range and type for a 1NT opening at the vulnerable and position. Usually 11-13 V, 13-15 1-2NV, 11-15 3-4NV with a four card major.

2) 10-14, three suiter with no five card major, shortness in a minor, and at least one four card major.

3) 1-4-4-4 or 4-1-4-4 exactly, 12-14.

 

Rest as above.

[Zelandakh]

You could take all the hands with a 4 card major out of the 2♦ opening and move them into the 1♦ opening. The latter is then natural or a weak NT which seems like a better mix between these 2 calls. You could do this with the club hands with a 4 card major too but that would be more complex.

[dcrc2]

I voted other. I don't think it's right to split your unbalanced hands on the basis of HCP as in option 2. I prefer option 1, but the 1D opening seems underloaded and it seems this is best exploited by pulling one suit out of 1♣ into 1♦. I'm not sure which suit it should be as all four seem to have something to recommend them here, but I'll go for

 

1♣ = 15+, not unbal with ♥

1♦ = min bal or 15+ with ♥

[JmBrPotter]

I like a weak 1NT opening (10–14 by my current preference). The combination of weakness and a wide range provides partner with a useful limit bid while giving the defenders headaches. If your 1NT opening is 10, a mediocre 11, or a bad 12 (not unlikely); the opponents need to get in the auction before they get stolen blind. BUT when (as may happen) your 1NT opening is 13-14, a mediocre or better 12, or a stout 11 (e.g., AT8x, KT9x, Ax, Txx) entering the auction at the two-level may prove unwise. Failure to enter with useful shape/values puts huge pressure on a partner in fourth seat at ...

 

(1NT [10-14])-Pass-(Pass [0-10])-¿?

 

Passing in fourth could miss a game. Bidding could get you hammered to a pulp at the two-level by opponents who correctly judged that they have no game. Thus, in the direct seat—to save partner, you often must act with useful hands that may have insufficient values for any safe action.

 

Given those prejudices, I'd suggest an opening structure like the following:

 

1♣: 15+ (includes balanced 20+) or any minimum range one-suited hand (shown by a 2-suit rebid)

1♦: 11-15 Naturalish, 11-15 Fert, 11-15 4-4=1-4s, balanced 15-19, or Limited Big (15-20) with clubs as the primary suit

1♥/♠: 11-5 Naturalish—possible canapé into longer ♣/♦

1NT: 10-14 Balanced—may conceal a 5-card major when 5-3-3-2

2♣/♦/♥/♠: Weak 6-3-2-2, 6-3-3-1, 5-4-3-1, 5-4-2-2, or some crummy 6-4s or 6-5s where you're willing to suppress the second suit.

 

3-suit: preemptive—Denies holding AKQ of opened suit with seven-card length (see 3NT)

3NT: AKQ5432 or more solid in any suit with no side suit entry.

 

Higher openings: Whatever strikes your fancy—I like preempts

[dake50]

Your NT ladder is constraining you.

Put the hands that have one message:

bal 10-13 into 1NT opener.

Put your second NT: 15-17 into one minor.

Put your third into the other minor.

These strong NT's are expectably our hand.

Save space.

Whichever is the second NT, put some strong

hand types otherwise opener's rebid is wasted.

[blackshoe]

OP made the comment that there was one vote for "other", but no post explaining what. I note there are now nine votes for "other". I haven't read the thread though, so I don't know how many were explained. IAC, here's mine:

 

Balanced hands ('natural' context):

 

12-16: open 1X (usually 1m) and rebid 1NT (two way check back may follow)

17-18: open 1X, rebid 2NT

19+: various artificial openings, followed by 2NT or 3NT or Kokish relay.

 

Alternate (forcing club context):

 

10-12: open 1NT

13-16: open 1♦, rebid 1NT (two way check back may follow)

17-20: open 1♣, rebid 1NT

higher: open 1♣ or 2♦, followed by 2NT or 3NT or Kokish relay.

 

2nd alternate ('natural' context):

 

10-12: open 1NT

13-16: open 1X, rebid 1NT

17-18: open 1X, rebid 2NT

19-20: open 2NT

higher: as in the first option above.

 

I like option 1 when vul, option 2 when not vul (MPs) or (at IMPs) option two only at favorable vulnerability.

[glen]

OP made the comment that there was one vote for "other", but no post explaining what. I note there are now nine votes for "other". I haven't read the thread ...

Part of the problem is that I stated "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ..."

 

Some posters who voted "other" took that to mean they are going to ignore that requirement, or in other terms ignore the question. While I do appreciate the alternatives suggested, it would be best to answer the question as given first.

[blackshoe]

Part of the problem is that I stated "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ..."

 

Then you play either a strong club system or a strong diamond system, and a mini NT or an artificial NT. Or, I suppose, a Polish type system. If those are the choices, I'd opt for strong club and mini-NT, but I don't have much experience of Polish-style systems, so I might be missing something.

[dake50]

Part of the problem is that I stated "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ..."

 

Some posters who voted "other" took that to mean they are going to ignore that requirement, or in other terms ignore the question. While I do appreciate the alternatives suggested, it would be best to answer the question as given first.

 

*** So you took your 'other' to mean the 'same'?