canape system

[mike777]

again as a nonexpert I loved playing Larry Weiss strong club system...a combo of roman and neo and others....

 

It was called Simple Club

 

 

Many loved playing his Canape strong club system

 

 

1d or 1h or 1s promised 4+..canape often but not 100%

2c= three suits

\2d=2h=2s= single suit...medium

2ntor 3c=long clubs less than strong

1c=strong;stronger with minor

 

keep in mind this was 30+ years ago in theory

[kugw]

My regular partner and I play a canape system.

 

I know that canape systems are not a new idea. However, the way we play it is that all one suit openings are natural and do not deny a longer suit. If we have two four card suits of the same rank (minors or major) we open the lower ranking and if we have a 4 card major and a 4 card minor we open the 4 card major. This opening does not deny holding a longer suit.

 

To date we have not had problems.

I should further add that we play a relay bid to the 1 suit openings and 2♣ to 1♠. We find that this works really well and allows the 0-5 hcp hand the opportunity to find partners longer suit. To date it has caused us no problems that is huge penalties as a result of being doubled by opposition.

[TomReynold]

In designing ANY system, one should have underlying principles. The principals that Mavarko (our system) is based on are:

 

1-Most match points or IMPS are won or lost on the 3 level in bid-defend-double decisions.

2-Since statistics show that 24HCP yields a 40%+ play for 3NT, we want to be in game with 24HCP.

3-Opening a forcing club improves slam bidding accuracy and competition does not change that fact.

 

If you agree with the above premises you will open a 4 card major and a weak NT because these two treatments make it more difficult for the opponents to accurately compete on the 3 level. You will also eschew wide NT ranges like 11-16 because partner is in a bind with 8-13HCP. You will design a response structure to 1 of a major to take advantage of the limited opening bid to overcome the rebid issues inherent in a 4 card major-club system. Finally you will carefully construct responses to 1C for maximum accuracy regardless if competition occurs.

 

The result is a practical not a theoretical system. You will have issues with 4-4-1-4 hands and your 2C opener sucks (as Ken said). You had better be prepared to play 4-3 major fits, thin NT games and defend doubled part scores.

 

If this sounds good to you, you’ll love Mavarako.

 

Our teammates play a more scientific system-The Quantized Club. It is logically sound. Every hand type is covered. They are very good at getting to slams and avoiding 3NT in favor of a minor suit game. However, because they play 5 card majors and 15-17NT both they and the opponents can judge competitive situations more accurately.

 

If all this sounds good to you you’ll love the Quantized Club.

 

Which is the better system? I can’t say. What I can definitely say, however, is that a normal 2/1 pair will be facing problems they are familiar with over the relatively standard, but well thought out, Quantized Club. Against Mavarako they will be facing relatively unfamiliar decisions. Against Mavarako they will need to defend against 4-3 Major fits, decide whether to bid on the 3 level without having an accurate total trick count, and bid competitively over a weak no trump or a 1Major-1NT sequence.

 

I hope I have given you something to think about designing your systems.

[glen]

1-Most match points or IMPS are won or lost on the 3 level in bid-defend-double decisions.

No, and especially no at IMPS

 

2-Since statistics show that 24HCP yields a 40%+ play for 3NT, we want to be in game with 24HCP.

You don't want to be in 40% games at MPs, and you don't want to bid 40% not vulnerable games at IMPS

 

3-Opening a forcing club improves slam bidding accuracy and competition does not change that fact.

Competition over forcing club reduces slam bidding accuracy

[TomReynold]

Glen-

 

With due respect, that is old thinking. The above points are based on watching the 2015 team trials and, to a lessor extent, the 2015 Bermuda Bowl.

 

But you make your point, and mine. Mavarako is not for you.

[glen]

With due respect, that is old thinking. The above points are based on watching the 2015 team trials and, to a lessor extent, the 2015 Bermuda Bowl.

It's not old thinking, it's current thinking. As I type this I'm watching England-USA1. First board is choice of slam, 6NT makes, 6♦ fails on an opening lead ruff, 14 IMPS. Another board 6♠ comes home and 12 IMPs. There are zero imps due to "3 level in bid-defend-double decisions". Please identify matches you've seen where "Most IMPS are won or lost on the 3 level in bid-defend-double decisions".

[TomReynold]

On 24HCP games

--------------

First, if you are watching the Bermuda Bowl, you will see that 24HCP 3NT games are the norm. With HCP splits of 12-12, 13-11 and 14-10, the theoretical percentage of making game varies in the low 40's. However, you no doubt noticed that declarer play is way ahead of defensive play. Numerous times games make when they could theoretically be beaten and rarely does a world class player go wrong as declarer. You see most Bermuda Bowl teams open very light and be very aggressive. Meckstroth opened qx, AKjxx, xx, 10xx 1H and bid 2NT over 2 Clubs. In 3NT the defense can take 5 spades and a Diamond off the top. Mecstroth, of course made it.

 

On opening a club as opposed to 1Nt or the two level and handling competition

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, if you watched the trials (much more civilized time to watch), you saw Berkowitz and Passell fight back from a bid deficit only to lose two slam swings by opening an unbalanced strong NT as opposed to 1C. Take this hand from the BB qualifying.

 

axx

x

akqx

akqxx

 

Two club openers never sniffed the 6D slam. Only two pairs found the slam, one 6 and one 7. However, if you open 1C, overcaller will overcall 1S. Now if you just use a Precision double (5-8HCP) you will never sniff the slam. Club bidders should recognize that making simple overcalls of 1C is pretty standard at the highest level and hone their understandings. In Mavarako, responder would bid 2D (transfer to Hearts, 5 Hearts)-3C (rejecting the transfer) -3D (natural 4 diamonds). The slam is now trivial to bid. Without the overcall it is more difficult. Responder holds:

jxx

Axxxx

j10xx

x

Over a 1S overcall responder has an easy 2D (transfer) call because the spade overcall increased the chances of a Heart fit. Over 1C, pass, he will need to ungrade his hand. Even if he does the auction is more difficult. 1C-1S-(4+hearts)-2C-2D (retransfer)-3D (refusing transfer). Probably responder bids 3S and opener bids 3NT.

 

On the 3 Level

--------------

This quarter final set has been swingy. Not much has happened on the three level. However USA1 did fight back from a big deficit only to lose to part score swings for 9 imps to put the match out of reach. It is true that most IMPS are lost on defense. However IMPS lost from bidding show the majority lost on part score swings as opposed to bid-no bid of games or slams. Choice of games is actually second.

 

Most tellingly, modern 2/1 5 card major bidding is very careful to reveal the extent of a fit. With 3 card support raise a 5 card major. With 4 card support bid Bergen even with 5HCP. If you can't support 1 of a major over 1 of a minor rebid 1NT. If opponents intervene, use support doubles to show 3 card support. Problem is, opponents know the extent of you fit also and almost always balance over 2 of a major. Bottom line the choices become limited. Weak opening bids and weak overcalls allow both partnerships to find their fits but the strength of the hands is relatively undefined. Mavarako reverses this. Strength is narrowly defined but fit is less defined. As Mike Laurence says in his books, 4 card majors are more difficult to balance over.

 

Obviously I can't write a book online. One needs to review the hands, many hands, in detail, and decide what one is comfortable.

[glen]

However IMPS lost from bidding show the majority lost on part score swings as opposed to bid-no bid of games or slams. Choice of games is actually second.

You are now moving the goal posts from "Most IMPS are won or lost on the 3 level in bid-defend-double decisions" to "the majority lost on part score swings", after you admit that "It is true that most IMPS are lost on defense"

[kugw]

On 24HCP games

--------------

First, if you are watching the Bermuda Bowl, you will see that 24HCP 3NT games are the norm. With HCP splits of 12-12, 13-11 and 14-10, the theoretical percentage of making game varies in the low 40's. However, you no doubt noticed that declarer play is way ahead of defensive play. Numerous times games make when they could theoretically be beaten and rarely does a world class player go wrong as declarer. You see most Bermuda Bowl teams open very light and be very aggressive. Meckstroth opened qx, AKjxx, xx, 10xx 1H and bid 2NT over 2 Clubs. In 3NT the defense can take 5 spades and a Diamond off the top. Mecstroth, of course made it.

 

On opening a club as opposed to 1Nt or the two level and handling competition

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, if you watched the trials (much more civilized time to watch), you saw Berkowitz and Passell fight back from a bid deficit only to lose two slam swings by opening an unbalanced strong NT as opposed to 1C. Take this hand from the BB qualifying.

 

axx

x

akqx

akqxx

 

Two club openers never sniffed the 6D slam. Only two pairs found the slam, one 6 and one 7. However, if you open 1C, overcaller will overcall 1S. Now if you just use a Precision double (5-8HCP) you will never sniff the slam. Club bidders should recognize that making simple overcalls of 1C is pretty standard at the highest level and hone their understandings. In Mavarako, responder would bid 2D (transfer to Hearts, 5 Hearts)-3C (rejecting the transfer) -3D (natural 4 diamonds). The slam is now trivial to bid. Without the overcall it is more difficult. Responder holds:

jxx

Axxxx

j10xx

x

Over a 1S overcall responder has an easy 2D (transfer) call because the spade overcall increased the chances of a Heart fit. Over 1C, pass, he will need to ungrade his hand. Even if he does the auction is more difficult. 1C-1S-(4+hearts)-2C-2D (retransfer)-3D (refusing transfer). Probably responder bids 3S and opener bids 3NT.

 

On the 3 Level

--------------

This quarter final set has been swingy. Not much has happened on the three level. However USA1 did fight back from a big deficit only to lose to part score swings for 9 imps to put the match out of reach. It is true that most IMPS are lost on defense. However IMPS lost from bidding show the majority lost on part score swings as opposed to bid-no bid of games or slams. Choice of games is actually second.

 

Most tellingly, modern 2/1 5 card major bidding is very careful to reveal the extent of a fit. With 3 card support raise a 5 card major. With 4 card support bid Bergen even with 5HCP. If you can't support 1 of a major over 1 of a minor rebid 1NT. If opponents intervene, use support doubles to show 3 card support. Problem is, opponents know the extent of you fit also and almost always balance over 2 of a major. Bottom line the choices become limited. Weak opening bids and weak overcalls allow both partnerships to find their fits but the strength of the hands is relatively undefined. Mavarako reverses this. Strength is narrowly defined but fit is less defined. As Mike Laurence says in his books, 4 card majors are more difficult to balance over.

 

Obviously I can't write a book online. One needs to review the hands, many hands, in detail, and decide what one is comfortable.

♠Axx..............♠Jxx

♥x........... .....♥Axxxxx

♦AKQx..........♦JTxx

♣AKQxx.........♣X

 

Us..........Them..........Us..........Them

1♦..........1♠...............3♦

 

If you just play a natural canape system you would open 1D and the bid some number of clubs. When the 1♠ overcall occurs the opener now has all sorts of options open to them and a slam should be easily reached. Even if there is no interpose slam is still easily reached if you are playing a natural canape system.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand the discussion of weak notrump openings and bidding light 3NT contracts.

 

There are two partners at the table. I don't have to open a ratty 11 to get to the 24 HCP 3NT because partner in 3rd/4th seat will surely open his 13 for me. So, the only trouble situation is 12 opposite 12, where neither partner has any four card major, and where 3rd/4th seat has exactly two spades. That's fairly rare.

 

If the idea is not the 24 count 3NT but really the preemption, then there is an easy solution for MICS pl as yets, namely light initial action MICS, with a 16 opening (upgrade 15 balanced if you want ), where 1NT is 12 to 15 and 1M if balanced 10-11. Heck, you could even 15+ the 1C and go lower.

 

But, that all seems silly.

 

I also don't get where the IMP swings are at 3-level decisions, for the opening side. I agree that IMP swings occur at that level, but this is often a function of decisions made by the non opening side, meaning that opening bid structure is not all that critical. Canape already does the damage to the opposition. Weak 1NT openings don't stop much that a pass would enable. Weak 1NT stops that which a weak 1C or 1D in standard would enable.

 

That all said, a good 1C structure is a good thing to strive to attain.

[glen]

On the 3 Level

--------------

This quarter final set has been swingy. Not much has happened on the three level. However USA1 did fight back from a big deficit only to lose to part score swings for 9 imps to put the match out of reach. It is true that most IMPS are lost on defense. However IMPS lost from bidding show the majority lost on part score swings as opposed to bid-no bid of games or slams. Choice of games is actually second.

So let's take a look at the USA1 "fight back". Here it is:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=41228

 

When one or both sides bid game it is not a part score swing. None of the 42 IMPs scored by USA1 were part score swings. Not a majority, not some, but none.

[TomReynold]

First, my original point is to build a system based on principles you like, not to debate those principles. However, since we are now into principals, I'll continue as I think this is a valuable discussion for those interested.

 

The 24HCP NT game is a function of 4 Card majors and weak NTs trumps. We open light because we ascertained, based on the 2015 team trials that the opponents bidding is less accurate after an opening bid, particularly a non descriptive opening bid like 1NT or the nebulous 1D in precision. A canapé opening (we canapé into clubs) also caused problems.

 

We open a weak NT (11-14) for preemptive value and open a 4 card major with 14-15(16)in preference to a short minor for the same reason. WE also pass a 1NT response to one of a major unless we have either 16HCP or a distributional reason to do so. All this causes problems for the opponents that most pairs are relatively unfamiliar with. So far so good.

 

The 24HCP NT game issue occurs after a major opening and 2NT or 3 level rebid. These bids show [14-15(16)HCP] in opener's hand. The 2/1 showed 10+HCP. That means Mavarako is game forced with 24HCP. Our analysis is that while a 24HCP game is not theoretically sound it is practically sound. Interestingly, in Match Points, where going all out to defeat the contract is not always the goal for the defense, you make 3NT more if you bid it than if you don't.

 

This allows Mavarako to solve many of the rebidding problems inherent in 4 card major openings. The 2/1 bidding sequence is now forcing to only 2 of the Major or a 2NT rebid by responder (or 3 of a suit). This allows Mavarako to gain back against a 5 card major, forcing NT system. Hands that would go 1S(5 cards)-1NT (forcing)-2C(ambiguous)-2S-P go 1S-2D-2S-P in Mavarako.

 

As to the 3 Level, I am speaking of system design, not overall Bridge. That should be obvious. In setting up a system, what system induced problems cost the most Match points or IMPS. It is well known to club bidders that slams with moderately strong hands facing moderately strong hand are often missed by non-club bidders. It is also well known, particularly to canapé bidders, that hands that contain a double fit often produce slams missed by standard bidders (or the wrong slam). However, our analysis says that double part score swings and phantom sacrifices are more important. This appears to be cause by the wide HCP range of standard opening bids and simple overcalls. The wide ranges are tolerated in order to find a fit. When the auction goes 1H(5)-2C(5+ o'call)-2H (3 card support)-3C (3 card support, everyone knows their trump fit and the opponents trump fit but not the HCP strength. The result is that people bid too much and double too little because, under those conditions, it is difficult and dangerous to double. People accept these results as standard not realizing the imps they give up. In Mavarako it would go 1H(4+)-2C-2H(3+[7-9HCP])-3C (3)-X! (14-16HCP 4 Hearts)-p-p-?. Responder has the option to bid 3H or to pass the doubled contract. With 3 hearts he obviously passes. With 4 he makes a decision based on shape.

[glen]

you make 3NT more if you bid it than if you don't

this is obviously true, but the question is what is the net result, how many times is 3NT down compared to making

[PrecisionL]

I have played three (3) versions of Canape with a strong club:

Current system is variable NT (11-14 / 14-16), 1♣ = 16+ unbalanced and 17+ balanced. Roman 2 bids in the majors (5M + 4 or more ♣s), 2 of a minor = 10-14 hcp and one suited, usually 6- cards. 5M332 hands are opened 1NT or 1M.

[kugw]

First, my original point is to build a system based on principles you like, not to debate those principles. However, since we are now into principals, I'll continue as I think this is a valuable discussion for those interested.

 

The 24HCP NT game is a function of 4 Card majors and weak NTs trumps. We open light because we ascertained, based on the 2015 team trials that the opponents bidding is less accurate after an opening bid, particularly a non descriptive opening bid like 1NT or the nebulous 1D in precision. A canapé opening (we canapé into clubs) also caused problems.

 

We open a weak NT (11-14) for preemptive value and open a 4 card major with 14-15(16)in preference to a short minor for the same reason. WE also pass a 1NT response to one of a major unless we have either 16HCP or a distributional reason to do so. All this causes problems for the opponents that most pairs are relatively unfamiliar with. So far so good.

 

The 24HCP NT game issue occurs after a major opening and 2NT or 3 level rebid. These bids show [14-15(16)HCP] in opener's hand. The 2/1 showed 10+HCP. That means Mavarako is game forced with 24HCP. Our analysis is that while a 24HCP game is not theoretically sound it is practically sound. Interestingly, in Match Points, where going all out to defeat the contract is not always the goal for the defense, you make 3NT more if you bid it than if you don't.

 

This allows Mavarako to solve many of the rebidding problems inherent in 4 card major openings. The 2/1 bidding sequence is now forcing to only 2 of the Major or a 2NT rebid by responder (or 3 of a suit). This allows Mavarako to gain back against a 5 card major, forcing NT system. Hands that would go 1S(5 cards)-1NT (forcing)-2C(ambiguous)-2S-P go 1S-2D-2S-P in Mavarako.

 

As to the 3 Level, I am speaking of system design, not overall Bridge. That should be obvious. In setting up a system, what system induced problems cost the most Match points or IMPS. It is well known to club bidders that slams with moderately strong hands facing moderately strong hand are often missed by non-club bidders. It is also well known, particularly to canapé bidders, that hands that contain a double fit often produce slams missed by standard bidders (or the wrong slam). However, our analysis says that double part score swings and phantom sacrifices are more important. This appears to be cause by the wide HCP range of standard opening bids and simple overcalls. The wide ranges are tolerated in order to find a fit. When the auction goes 1H(5)-2C(5+ o'call)-2H (3 card support)-3C (3 card support, everyone knows their trump fit and the opponents trump fit but not the HCP strength. The result is that people bid too much and double too little because, under those conditions, it is difficult and dangerous to double. People accept these results as standard not realizing the imps they give up. In Mavarako it would go 1H(4+)-2C-2H(3+[7-9HCP])-3C (3)-X! (14-16HCP 4 Hearts)-p-p-?. Responder has the option to bid 3H or to pass the doubled contract. With 3 hearts he obviously passes. With 4 he makes a decision based on shape.

 

The 24HCP NT game is a function of 4 Card majors and weak NTs trumps. With all due respect. You will always bid 24hcp games when your side believes that it is right. It is not merely a function of 4 card majors and/or weak NT. All systems will bid these games when one hand opens and the other hand percieves that they have an opening hand.

 

 

In Mavarako it would go 1H(4+)-2C-2H(3+[7-9HCP])-3C (3)-X! (14-16HCP 4 Hearts)-p-p-? This idea is not unique to Mavarako. In the natural canape system I play X is used as a positive forward going call and all others are merely competitive except of course systemic bids and cue bids. That is X shows extra values. This idea is used by both opener and responder.

[TomReynold]

Both of your statements are correct.

 

In fact, it appears that almost all 24HCP games were bid in the semifinals USA2-Sweden. However, in system building a weak notrump and 4 card major approach with a forcing club, it appears that bidding 24HCP NT games is a requirement. There is no other convenient way to sort out openers rebids. Playing 4 card majors, it seems a requirement to have a relatively light 2/1 structure. We looked at using 1NT as forcing on a 5 card major but that requires opener to bid on hands that belong in 1NT. We tried many structures. In Neapolitan 2/1 was level forcing to 2 NT. However, in Neapolitan we did not open 11HCP semi-balanced hands with a 5 card major that we now feel we need to open. If you do open 11HCP 5 card major hands and bid 2/1 with 10HCP, it appears that 1H/s-2C-2H/s needs to be non-forcing to equalize the 1H/s(5)-1NT(forcing)-2C-2Hs-P auction of 2/1 bidders. If 1Hs-2C-2H/s is NF, opener needs to do something else with 14HCP. That creates a game force.

 

I suspect that not much is unique to Mavarako or any other system. What I am showing is an approach that gets to the 2 level with the HCPs range reasonably defined but the trump fit not defined. Opener's double announces BOTH 14-15HCP AND 4 hearts. A pass confirms 5 hearts in opener's hand. Essentially responder knows the trump fit AFTER the balance. I agree this is not unique. This is actually from 50's Goren when 1NT was 16-18HCP and 4 card majors were opened. You didn't balance quite so often then.

[kugw]

Both of your statements are correct.

 

In fact, it appears that almost all 24HCP games were bid in the semifinals USA2-Sweden. However, in system building a weak notrump and 4 card major approach with a forcing club, it appears that bidding 24HCP NT games is a requirement. There is no other convenient way to sort out openers rebids. Playing 4 card majors, it seems a requirement to have a relatively light 2/1 structure. We looked at using 1NT as forcing on a 5 card major but that requires opener to bid on hands that belong in 1NT. We tried many structures. In Neapolitan 2/1 was level forcing to 2 NT. However, in Neapolitan we did not open 11HCP semi-balanced hands with a 5 card major that we now feel we need to open. If you do open 11HCP 5 card major hands and bid 2/1 with 10HCP, it appears that 1H/s-2C-2H/s needs to be non-forcing to equalize the 1H/s(5)-1NT(forcing)-2C-2Hs-P auction of 2/1 bidders. If 1Hs-2C-2H/s is NF, opener needs to do something else with 14HCP. That creates a game force.

 

I suspect that not much is unique to Mavarako or any other system. What I am showing is an approach that gets to the 2 level with the HCPs range reasonably defined but the trump fit not defined. Opener's double announces BOTH 14-15HCP AND 4 hearts. A pass confirms 5 hearts in opener's hand. Essentially responder knows the trump fit AFTER the balance. I agree this is not unique. This is actually from 50's Goren when 1NT was 16-18HCP and 4 card majors were opened. You didn't balance quite so often then.

Why does a pass show 5 hearts? And what does a bid of 3H show?

[TomReynold]

Mistype. Staying up too late to watch the BB. Opener's 2H rebid confirms 5 hearts and 13HCP or less. 1H-2C-2H-3H by responder would be NF. FYI Mavarako uses strong jump shifts including 2NT to show 16+ HCP hands.

[Kungsgeten]

I've seen very few systems using a "medium club" (Polish/Swedish/Unassuming) combined with a canapé system. To me this seems like a pretty neat solution to the wide/weak 1NT opening which some dislike, or the nebulous diamond.

[TomReynold]

We looked at a Polish Club with a medium NT (13-15HCP) but the problem is that statistically a 1C opener is the weak hand and the system resolves to the nebulous diamond (now nebulous club) on steroids.

 

In our current system we open a 4 card major with 14-16. This works well in competition because in competition, when responder supports on 3 card support and 10HCP, opener has the power to bid 3NT with a 4 card major or play game on the 4-3. However, with a weaker opening the 4 card major doesn't work very well. To flip-flop our NT range Vul vs NV we went to a Meckwell type approach.

[kenrexford]

Just give up and go MICS easy. 1M if you have one, pass if you don't. Everything else is too strained.

[Kungsgeten]

As I've written elsewhere: My concern about MICS is the 1♦ bid, which does not show a suit (but most of the time is diamonds), the 2♣ bid, which does not show a suit and also is a pretty rare bid, and the 2♦ bid which forces responder to 3♣ if he wants to try playing in clubs. Ken has written that these work in practice, and I am sure that they do most of the time, so its probably mostly a feeling of unsoundness. On the other hand: you should play methods you believe in and are comfortable with, right?

 

Another canapé inspired structure:

 

1C = Strong

1D = 4+ diamonds. a) 6+ diamonds b) 4+ diamonds and (4)5+ major c) 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs.

1M = 4+ major, as in MICS.

1NT = 12--15, can be 4-4-1-4 (if you do not want to open these 1H)

2C = 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4 diamonds.

2D = Whatever, multi would be my choice

2M = Roman

[kugw]

As I've written elsewhere: My concern about MICS is the 1♦ bid, which does not show a suit (but most of the time is diamonds), the 2♣ bid, which does not show a suit and also is a pretty rare bid, and the 2♦ bid which forces responder to 3♣ if he wants to try playing in clubs. Ken has written that these work in practice, and I am sure that they do most of the time, so its probably mostly a feeling of unsoundness. On the other hand: you should play methods you believe in and are comfortable with, right?

 

Another canapé inspired structure:

 

1C = Strong

1D = 4+ diamonds. a) 6+ diamonds b) 4+ diamonds and (4)5+ major c) 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs.

1M = 4+ major, as in MICS.

1NT = 12--15, can be 4-4-1-4 (if you do not want to open these 1H)

2C = 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4 diamonds.

2D = Whatever, multi would be my choice

2M = Roman

 

As I have stated before once you start playing an artificial openings you cannot cover all the permutations that exist. If instead you play simply a natural canape system at the 1 level (the opening 2 bids are another story altogether) where what you bid is what you have then the problems described above do not exist.

[Zelandakh]

As I have stated before once you start playing an artificial openings you cannot cover all the permutations that exist.

Uh, what? Why would that be? Are you suggesting that Precision, Polish Club, 5542 2/1, etc have unbiddable hand types that no one has noticed yet?

[kugw]

Uh, what? Why would that be? Are you suggesting that Precision, Polish Club, 5542 2/1, etc have unbiddable hand types that no one has noticed yet?

 

No, all I am saying is that once you introduce artificiality you the lose the inherent simplicity of a natural system. You must in some way compensate for this lose of simplicity of the natural system. As far as I am aware all systems have problem hands that are difficult to bid so why have even more problem hands through self infliction.