GNAT

[straube]

As sick as it might sound, I think that shoving the 4441s and 5440s into a mini Roman 2D is the way to go

 

It had occurred to me that your 2D opening could be any 4441 with 4 spades. Then 1D-1S would promise five but 1D-1H would promise four. It's somewhat attractive to respond 1H with four because it doesn't use much room and functions like a relay bid.

 

1D-1H

.....1S-3 hearts?

..........1N-GF relay

.....1N-C/D

.....2C-C

.....2D-D

 

and I'm sure there's better than that.

 

In a general sense, all of these proposals (your original, others, mine) underutilize the 1D opening (compared to other openings) and you have almost too much room for these and a scarcity elsewhere.

[dake50]

Your intent with minors should be to get to 3C/3D quickly without often Major fit lost.

So make 2C: 5+C with no 4+M; 2D: similar. Further bidding need only find 5+M seeking 5-3M fit and stops.

Let 1S/1H may be canapé even on semi-bal 4M5m22.

*** Second, letting 5M332 into a 1Nt:11-14 means often partner surrenders a 4-4M (now 5-3M) try

because we get too high if we do not find that fit.

I'll accept 5Hearts 332 as that bumps their Spades to a 2-level start. But allow 5Spades 332 into 1S.

*** Forbid 1Nt with 4xS4xH 32 - way too often miss a superior 2M cheap contract.

And too much enticement for partner to hope a 4-4M is to try for -- too high.

[straube]

Your intent with minors should be to get to 3C/3D quickly without often Major fit lost.

So make 2C: 5+C with no 4+M; 2D: similar. Further bidding need only find 5+M seeking 5-3M fit and stops.

Let 1S/1H may be canapé even on semi-bal 4M5m22.

*** Second, letting 5M332 into a 1Nt:11-14 means often partner surrenders a 4-4M (now 5-3M) try

because we get too high if we do not find that fit.

I'll accept 5Hearts 332 as that bumps their Spades to a 2-level start. But allow 5Spades 332 into 1S.

*** Forbid 1Nt with 4xS4xH 32 - way too often miss a superior 2M cheap contract.

And too much enticement for partner to hope a 4-4M is to try for -- too high.

 

I think this leaves too little for the 1D opening. Not sure what it would include except 4M4M32s and possibly 4441s. What meaning would 1D-1M, 2C have?

 

If you put more hand types into 1M (canape) then it's desirable to offload some as well...like the 5332s for starters. I've seen Moscito structures that were designed to be playable in events that barred 1D=H and 1H=S. Something like...

 

1D-bal (including 5M332s) or minors or 4441s

1H-nat

1S-nat

1N-majors

2C-nat

2D-nat

 

but 1N as major isn't GCC.

 

Curious where Richard is in his thought process.

[JmBrPotter]

Partner and I use both 1♣ and 1♦ as forcing openings. Perhaps, GNAT could do something similar by making the 1♦ opening forcing and have one of the rebids show actual diamonds. For ACBL GCC compliance, some work would probably be required.

 

We use one rebid after 1♣ (1♠) and one rebid after 1♦ (2♣) to show a 3-suited hand. The 1♣-(Pass)-1♦-(Pass); 1♠ sequence shows three-suited hands with an unspecified splinter and 11-14, 18-20, or 24-26 HCP. The 1♦-(Pass)-1♥-(Pass);2♣ sequence shows three-suited hands with an unspecified splinter and 15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 HCP. In each case a cheapest step rebid by responder (1NT over 1♠ or 2♦ over 2♣) is a game invitational or stronger ask for the splinter location and strength range. The next four cheapest suit bids are attempted natural sign-off calls. With powerful hands, opener may advance constructively over a sign-off.

 

The second low-level forcing opening seems to eliminate the need for using two-level suit openings for unusual hands that need a home stolen by the forcing opening. In such a structure, one has three ways to "open" two of a suit (directly, as an honest opening bid; as an initial rebid after a 1♣ opening, and as an initial rebid after a 1♦ opening). That offers lots of flexibility for hands where a natural 1♣ or 1♦ opening might have been nice and some special bids for specific distributions (perhaps, involving one or both minors).

 

ACBL GCC compliance with 1♣ and 1♦ both forcing seems to require that the hands that may have less than 15 HCP fall under the 1♣ opening unless a 1♥ waiting response to 1♦ is always game forcing.

 

 

It had occurred to me that your 2D opening could be any 4441 with 4 spades. Then 1D-1S would promise five but 1D-1H would promise four. It's somewhat attractive to respond 1H with four because it doesn't use much room and functions like a relay bid.

 

1D-1H

.....1S-3 hearts?

..........1N-GF relay

.....1N-C/D

.....2C-C

.....2D-D

 

and I'm sure there's better than that.

 

In a general sense, all of these proposals (your original, others, mine) underutilize the 1D opening (compared to other openings) and you have almost too much room for these and a scarcity elsewhere.

[hrothgar]

Curious where Richard is in his thought process.

 

Current plan is to play something simple:

 

2C = 6+ Clubs

1N = 11+ -14 balanced (Denies 4+ hearts and 11-12 HCP. Denies 4+ major with 11+ - 12 HCPs)

1S = 4+ Spades, might have longer clubs, Denies 4+ spades and 13-14 HCPs

1H = 4+ Spades, might have longer minor, Denies 4+ Hearts and 13-14 HCPs

 

A 1N response to 1M is natural and non-forcing

2/1's are forcing to 2N, with some options for relays following opener's rebid.