Two-way club alternate structures for other bids

[Kungsgeten]

When playing that a forcing 1♣ also includes some balanced range, so that 1♦ (or other bids beside 1NT) does not need to cover a balanced option, from what I've seen it is most common to play the other opening bids as natural. Take Swedish club:

 

1♣ = 11-13 bal or 17+ any

1♦ = 11-16, 4+ suit unbalanced

2M = 11-16, 5+ suit

1NT = 14-16

2♣ = 6+ suit or 5♣ and 4M, 12-16

 

Would it make sense to use the other bids, beside 1♣, for something else? Examples:

 

Precision without the balanced hand in 1♦

 

1♦ = Unbalanced, 3+ suit. If <4♦ then 5♣. 11-16.

2♣ = 6+ clubs, 11-16

2♦ = "Precision", 0-1♦, 4-5♣ and 3-4 in both majors

 

IMPrecision without the balanced hand in 1♦

 

1♦ = 11-16 unbal, no 5 card major and no 6 card minor.

2m = 6+ suit, 11-16

 

A major showing 1♦, similar to IMPrecision

 

1♦ = 11-16 unbal with 4 card major and 4+ minor, 11-16

2m = 5-4 minors or 6+ minor, 11-16

 

Moscito

 

1♦ = 4+ hearts, 11-16

1♥ = 4+ spades, 11-16

1♠ = 4+ diamonds, 11-16

2♣ = 6+ clubs, 11-16

 

Something wierd

 

1♦ = 14-16 NT or clubs

1NT = Diamonds and hearts

2♣ = Diamonds and spades

2♦ = 5♦ and 4♣ or 6+♦, no major

[whereagles]

When playing that a forcing 1♣ also includes some balanced range, so that 1♦ (or other bids beside 1NT) does not need to cover a balanced option (...) Would it make sense to use the other bids, beside 1♣, for something else? Examples:

 

1. Precision without the balanced hand in 1♦

1♦ = Unbalanced, 3+ suit. If <4♦ then 5♣. 11-16.

2♣ = 6+ clubs, 11-16

2♦ = "Precision", 0-1♦, 4-5♣ and 3-4 in both majors

 

2. IMPrecision without the balanced hand in 1♦

1♦ = 11-16 unbal, no 5 card major and no 6 card minor.

2m = 6+ suit, 11-16

 

3. A major showing 1♦, similar to IMPrecision

1♦ = 11-16 unbal with 4 card major and 4+ minor, 11-16

2m = 5-4 minors or 6+ minor, 11-16

 

4. Moscito

1♦ = 4+ hearts, 11-16

1♥ = 4+ spades, 11-16

1♠ = 4+ diamonds, 11-16

2♣ = 6+ clubs, 11-16

 

5. Something wierd

1♦ = 14-16 NT or clubs

1NT = Diamonds and hearts

2♣ = Diamonds and spades

2♦ = 5♦ and 4♣ or 6+♦, no major

 

1. It doesn't clear up the nebulous nature of 1♦ much. I think the plusses don't compensate the minuses of obfuscating the 1♣ opening with a weak bal variant.

 

2. Here it makes more sense, and I would even go as far as removing 4 card majors from the 2m openers and dump those hands into the 1♦ opening.

 

3. As #1. Too nebulous anyway to make a difference.

 

4. Not familiar with moscito, but a priori it seems to me that removing the balanced hand doesn't do much to clarify the other openings.

 

5. Not applicable? This scheme only seems to work with the bal 11-13 put into the 1♣ opening.

 

In short, if I were to do the 11-13 dumping, I would go for a structure like 2.

[Cyberyeti]

The simplest way to do this is to play a wide range no trump with precision and a natural diamond, this is a very natural way to play and works fine, particularly if you have a really good structure over the wide range NT.

[Zelandakh]

Am I the only one that read the OP as comparing

1♣ = 11-13 bal or 17+ any

1♦ = 11-16, 4+ suit unbalanced

2M = 11-16, 5+ suit

1NT = 14-16

2♣ = 6+ suit or 5♣ and 4M, 12-16

 

with:-

 

1♣ = 11-13 bal or 17+ any

1♦ = Unbalanced, 3+ suit. If <4♦ then 5♣. 11-16.

1NT = 14-16

2♣ = 6+ clubs, 11-16

2♦ = "Precision", 0-1♦, 4-5♣ and 3-4 in both majors

 

and

 

1♣ = 11-13 bal or 17+ any

1♦ = 11-16 unbal, no 5 card major and no 6 card minor.

1NT = 14-16

2m = 6+ suit, 11-16

 

and

 

1♣ = 11-13 bal or 17+ any

1♦ = 11-16 unbal with 4 card major and 4+ minor, 11-16

1NT = 14-16

2m = 5-4 minors or 6+ minor, 11-16

 

and

 

1♣ = 11-13 bal or 17+ any

1♦ = 4+ hearts, 11-16

1♥ = 4+ spades, 11-16

1♠ = 4+ diamonds, 11-16

1NT = 14-16

2♣ = 6+ clubs, 11-16

 

and

 

1♣ = 11-13 bal or 17+ any

1♦ = 14-16 NT or clubs

1NT = Diamonds and hearts

2♣ = Diamonds and spades

2♦ = 5♦ and 4♣ or 6+♦, no major

 

as opposed to comparisons with Precision, Moscito, etc? In any case you might want to throw Ken's minor suit structure (2♣ Roman, 2♦ both minors) into the mix for comparison.

[foobar]

The simplest way to do this is to play a wide range no trump with precision and a natural diamond, this is a very natural way to play and works fine, particularly if you have a really good structure over the wide range NT.

 

+1.

 

This is orthogonal to the OP's stated objective, but with this approach also allows an unbalanced 4+ 1♦ opening (with 2♣ = 6+ and 2♦ = short ♦).

[glen]

One problem with Swedish club systems is the 2m openings have too wide of a range, most often 11-16. Moving to a more artificial approach, one could play:

 

1♦: 13-16, unbal, no five card major

2m: 9/10-12, 5+m, unbal

[Kungsgeten]

Am I the only one that read the OP as comparing [...] as opposed to comparisons with Precision, Moscito, etc?

 

Yes, that was kind of the intent. But not only Swedish club really, but most systems where you only "need" one bid as balanced. Could be:

 

1C = 15+

1NT = (11)12-14

 

1C = Polish

1NT = 15-17

 

1C = 16+

1NT = 12-15 or 13-15

 

1C = 15+ bal or 18+ unbal

1NT = (11)12-14

 

And various others I guess. From what I've seen, most use 1♦ as natural and 2♣ as natural with 5+♣ (Precision/Polish). This thread was mostly a way to explore alternatives, in order to see if there may be better alternatives than natural.

[Kungsgeten]

One problem with Swedish club systems is the 2m openings have too wide of a range, most often 11-16. Moving to a more artificial approach, one could play:

 

1♦: 13-16, unbal, no five card major

2m: 9/10-12, 5+m, unbal

 

I've seen some systems use a 1♦ opening like this, but with a wider range. I've seen it as awkward, but perhaps it could work if 1♥ was some kind of Stayman/relay. I know a pair who play 1♦ as any 10-14 unbal without a 4+ major (they open 1♣ 15+, 1M 10-14 4+ suit possibly canapé and 2♣+ are all weak).

 

When skimming through the system notes on Silent Club I thought it would be interesting to try passing some of the 2♣ openers. Perhaps something like:

 

pass = Natural or 14-16 with 6+ clubs and no side suit

1C = 11-13 bal or 17+

1red = Moscito, 11-16, if longer clubs then 14-16

1S = Moscito, 11-16, if longer clubs then 14-16

1NT = 14-16

2C = Fantunes, 10-13

[Siegmund]

I've been exploring the same question for awhile. My comment in your other thread about transfers was because of a time when I tried

 

1C = weak with 4 spades, or any strong hand;

1D = 11-18ish with 4 hearts;

1M = 5+;

1NT = 11-14 bal no 4CM

2m = 6+

 

instead of a more simple fine-tuning of Polish. I think it is hard to find a 1C/1D combination that is actually better than a Polish style club and a natural (5+ or 4441, or something like that) 1D.

 

Having run into the ruling that GCC doesn't allow 1D-promising-4-hearts, I was forced to try something more nebulous:

 

1C = 11-14 balanced with 4CM, or 15+ bal or minor 1-suiter, or 19+ any;

1D = 11-18 unbalanced with either or both 4CMs

1M = 5+

1NT = 11-14 no 4CM

2m = (9-10-)11-14(-15), 6+, no 4CM

 

This system actually feels more comfortable than the C=S, D=H version did in competition; opposite the balanced hand, responder can compete to 2 of any 5-card suit or 3 of any 6-card suit fairly safely, opposite the unbalanced hand, you can be confident opener has 2 or 3 places to play, so responder can compete easily with most 2-suited hands.

It does, however, make the frequency of the 1D opening very low - something like 4-5% vs. the 6-7% of the 1M and 1NT openings. That "feels wrong" -- but ruining 1D by making it so nebulous that the first round of the auction is wasted "feels even wronger" to me.

 

Of course I am not sure that it's better than a super-natural Polish diamond; it's just more fun, if you like to play with systems.

[steve2005]

All this talk about putting 11-13 balanced into 1♣) made me think.

 

Would it be helpful (as in making 1♦ less nebulous and decreasing burden on 1♣) to only put the balanced hands with 2-3 ♦ into 1♣ and leave the hands with 4-5♦ balanced 11-13 in 1♦?

[helene_t]

What about

1♦: 5+ hearts or spades

1M: Canape or 5-5 majors

2m: natural

[MickyB]

Would it be helpful (as in making 1♦ less nebulous and decreasing burden on 1♣) to only put the balanced hands with 2-3 ♦ into 1♣ and leave the hands with 4-5♦ balanced 11-13 in 1♦?

 

Wouldn't this make 1♦ *more* nebulous?

 

Polish Club can be played either way, I think most believe it's superior to play 1♦ as unbalanced.

[WellSpyder]

All this talk about putting 11-13 balanced into 1♣) made me think.

 

Would it be helpful (as in making 1♦ less nebulous and decreasing burden on 1♣) to only put the balanced hands with 2-3 ♦ into 1♣ and leave the hands with 4-5♦ balanced 11-13 in 1♦?

This is more or less what I do. 11-3 balanced hands with 4M are included in the 1♣ opening, while other 11-3 balanced hands are still opened 1♦. This ensures that 1♦ openings are unbalanced if the rebid is in a new suit (eg 1♦ 1♥; 1♠ will show at least 5♦ and 4♠ or 4144), but also means that it is not necessary on occasion to rebid a major after 1♣ - 1♦ on a 3-card suit, which I believe is normally a requirement when playing a Swedish-style 1♣. I admit I have never tried playing a possible 3-card M here, so I don't know how much of a problem it might cause in practice, but it doesn't feel like a particularly comfortable thing to do....

[Kungsgeten]

What about

1♦: 5+ hearts or spades

1M: Canape or 5-5 majors

2m: natural

 

This remind me of the Turnip Diamond system. However I think (though not sure) that the following might be better:

 

1♦ = 5 card major, either 5332 or 4+ minor.

1M = Canape, 5-5 majors or natural single suiter

2m = nat

[antonylee]

This is more or less what I do. 11-3 balanced hands with 4M are included in the 1♣ opening, while other 11-3 balanced hands are still opened 1♦. This ensures that 1♦ openings are unbalanced if the rebid is in a new suit (eg 1♦ 1♥; 1♠ will show at least 5♦ and 4♠ or 4144), but also means that it is not necessary on occasion to rebid a major after 1♣ - 1♦ on a 3-card suit, which I believe is normally a requirement when playing a Swedish-style 1♣. I admit I have never tried playing a possible 3-card M here, so I don't know how much of a problem it might cause in practice, but it doesn't feel like a particularly comfortable thing to do....

That 1D is unbalanced after a rebid in a new suit is not (IMO) the main advantage of unbalanced 1D (many "standard" players do that anyways), instead it's the fact that the now freed-up 1NT rebid opens up a lot of possibilities for opener (e.g. showing 5D4H less than reverse strength).

Rebidding 1M with 3 cards works pretty well, although to be honest it works even better when your opponents are not used to it and do not know how to penalize you (... which is often the case in the US).

[rhm]

That 1D is unbalanced after a rebid in a new suit is not (IMO) the main advantage of unbalanced 1D (many "standard" players do that anyways), instead it's the fact that the now freed-up 1NT rebid opens up a lot of possibilities for opener (e.g. showing 5D4H less than reverse strength).

Rebidding 1M with 3 cards works pretty well, although to be honest it works even better when your opponents are not used to it and do not know how to penalize you (... which is often the case in the US).

I do not see the point.

I play that way even though 1♦ need not be unbalanced.

I will rebid a three card spade suit holding specifically 3♠-1♥-5♦-4♣.

If I hold 4 cards in hearts I will either rebid 1NT or 2♥. 1NT can be bid with a three suiter and a singleton spade, 2♥ shows a more unbalanced hand.

Rebidding a minor denies 4 cards in hearts, which is useful.

In a club systems, which limits other openings, reverses should be more distribution than strength oriented.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[borag]

Did anybody mention ?

 

1♣ = 11-13 hp bal / 17+ hp any

1♦ = 10-16 hp 4♠

1♥ = 10-16 hp 4+♥

1♠ = 10-16 hp 5+♠

1N = 14-16 hp bal

2m = 10-16 hp 5+m, M<4

2M = weak

[borag]

Stolen from awm,

 

1♣ = 11-13 hp bal / 17+ hp any

1♦ = 10-16 hp 4+♦

1♥ = 10-16 hp 4+♣

1♠ = 10-16 hp 5+♠

1N = 14-16 hp bal

2♣ = 10-16 hp 5+♥, ♠<4

2♦ = 10-16 hp 5+♥-4♠ (or 2♥ and 2♦ multi)

[Kungsgeten]

I think your first version could work borag. I guess 1♦ is unbalanced with 4 spades, so contains a longer minor (or even longer hearts)? Over 1♥ one could use the Magic Diamond structure.

 

I do not quite understand the second version. The 2♣ opening seems a bit awkward.

 

A canapé-like version could look something like this:

 

1♦ = 4+ diamonds, either: a) 6+ diamonds b) longer major c) 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs d) Perhaps 4441 with 4♦?

1♥/♠ = 6+ suit or canapé (could perhaps include 5332 too if you want to exclude them from 1♣/1NT)

1NT = Natural, but may contain 4441

2♣ = 6+♣ or 5♣ and 4♦

2♦ = Multi

2♥/♠ = 5 card suit, 4+♣

[whereagles]

Kungesten: just curious about one thing. Do you know the frequencies of 1♣ hand types, i.e. how often it's weak/strong?

 

I ask because in my pet "two-way pass" system, odds are 25/75 for 0-8/15+ and, as "responder", I have NEVER failed to guess pard's hand type.

[Kungsgeten]

Unless my calculations are wrong (and they might be) it is the weak version in about 56.5% of the cases.

 

I've played a weak/strong pass system too (though 0-7 or 17+) and in our case the weak variant was much more frequent than the strong. But I guess you mean that the weak variant is more common? In our case the two versions were even more separated than yours, but I agree that it was pretty easy to handle overall. The main problem would probably be if both hands are strong (17+ in our case), but that never happend to us.

[borag]

Hi Kungsten,

 

I actually want give first version a try. I liked it :) Btw thanks for the very good response scheme of 1♣.

A few new ideas (just for fun)

 

1) put 14-16 hp 5m4m(31) hands into 1N

2) put 14-16 hp 6+m hands into 2N (3c=pas or correct, 3d=pas or bid 3 card major)

 

then 2m=10-13 hp 5+m, M<4.

I guess 1N is acceptable with a good response scheme and can foresee that 2N may hide some 5-3 major fits (when responder has hp<9.

 

But it is hard for opponents to compete :)

[whereagles]

Unless my calculations are wrong (and they might be) it is the weak version in about 56.5% of the cases.

 

I've played a weak/strong pass system too (though 0-7 or 17+) and in our case the weak variant was much more frequent than the strong. But I guess you mean that the weak variant is more common? In our case the two versions were even more separated than yours, but I agree that it was pretty easy to handle overall. The main problem would probably be if both hands are strong (17+ in our case), but that never happend to us.

 

56.5% means it's basically 50-50 weak/strong. Did that ever give you trouble guessing what partner has?

 

In my two-way pass I've had some cases of 15-15. But the system is well geared towards fishing up those situations, so it was easy to sort it out when they came up.

[borag]

Hi Kungsten,

 

How do you continue with transfer openings ?

 

1♦ = 10-16 hp 4+♥

..1♥ = 3 card fit or no fit ?

[glen]

Stolen from awm,

 

1♣ = 11-13 hp bal / 17+ hp any

1♦ = 10-16 hp 4+♦

1♥ = 10-16 hp 4+♣

1♠ = 10-16 hp 5+♠

1N = 14-16 hp bal

2♣ = 10-16 hp 5+♥, ♠<4

2♦ = 10-16 hp 5+♥-4♠ (or 2♥ and 2♦ multi)

I like this, would tweak it to have:

2♣ = 13/14-16 hp 5+♥, 2♦ asks

2♦ = 9/10-13 hp 5+♥-4♠

2♥ = 9/10-13 hp 5+♥, ♠<4 (fantunes style)