2nd phase of Martian

[Phil]

Gumperz and I have been playing Martian Standard for a few years and I really like it.

 

The summary goes like this:

 

- 1♣ is all balanced hands outside of range for 1N or 2N including a 5 card Major or 14+ with clubs. Responses are transfer walsh style although we have some widgets that let us play the hand from either side if we think its advantageous positionally.

- 1♦/1♥/1♠ are unbalanced and 14+ (11+ for 1M with the other major)

- 1N is 14-16

- 2 bids are all 10-13 Fantunes style.

 

We play a lot of artificial responses including a game forcing relay to all not NT openings.

 

Here's where we think we are going.

 

The relays work great from a concealment standpoint EXCEPT when opener opens in the strain we end up playing. All we do is end up describing declarer's hand to the opponents.

 

So why not transfer openings?

 

We are considering this:

 

1♣ remains the same

1♦/1♥ are 1M openings as above - 14+. Responder can "accept" the transfer with 0-7 which slows down the auction for opener.

1N and 2 bids are the same.

 

1♠ shows DIAMONDS but here is the problem. Assuming 1N is the waiting bid, we cannot figure out a good way to show a canape pattern hand (do not suggest we switch to canape openings please). We've experimented with using 1♠ - 1N - 2♣ as something artificial.

 

Ideas? TIA.

[awm]

Perhaps something like:

 

1NT = spades

... 2♣ = hearts

... 2♦ = min, no major

... 2♠ = min, with spades

.... others = extras

2♣ = hearts

... 2♦ = min, not hearts

... 2♥ = min, with hearts

... 2♠+ = extras

2♦ = no major, 0-7

[Phil]

Thanks Adam. I'll try this in a bidding room over the weekend.

[Kungsgeten]

I'd guess that a downside to transfer openings, where opener can be this strong, is that the weaker hand often ends up declaring. This could probably be fixed by having a weak transfer raise.

[foobar]

Is there a link to the complete system?

[Phil]

Is there a link to the complete system?

 

Link to an overview.

[Phil]

I'd guess that a downside to transfer openings, where opener can be this strong, is that the weaker hand often ends up declaring. This could probably be fixed by having a weak transfer raise.

 

We haven't tried it out too much, but the use case you reference is when responder is weak and opener is very strong, otherwise it's quite possible it is a competitive auction and opener would get to declare anyway.

 

But you gave me an interesting idea for a tweak:

 

We currently play 1M - 2M as 4-6 and 2M-1 as 7 to about 11. It seems like we could reverse these with transfer openings.

[nullve]

The relays work great from a concealment standpoint EXCEPT when opener opens in the strain we end up playing. All we do is end up describing declarer's hand to the opponents.

 

So why not transfer openings?

 

We are considering this:

 

1♣ remains the same

1♦/1♥ are 1M openings as above - 14+. Responder can "accept" the transfer with 0-7 which slows down the auction for opener.

1N and 2 bids are the same.

 

1♠ shows DIAMONDS but here is the problem. Assuming 1N is the waiting bid, we cannot figure out a good way to show a canape pattern hand (do not suggest we switch to canape openings please). We've experimented with using 1♠ - 1N - 2♣ as something artificial.

 

Ideas? TIA.

Have you considered

 

1♣ = "♦ or BAL"

1♦ = "♣"

1♥ = "♠"

1♠ = "♥"

 

?

[Phil]

Have you considered

 

1♣ = "♦ or BAL"

1♦ = "♣"

1♥ = "♠"

1♠ = "♥"

 

?

 

No we haven't but other than obfuscating the openings (good) I can't see the benefits.

 

The 1♣ opening works great the way it is.

 

I wouldn't want to use a low level call like 1♦ to show an unusual hand type (long clubs) that we are likely getting outbid on.

[Kungsgeten]

If you want relays over 1S, perhaps you can use awm's idea, but make the 1S response two-way:

 

1S-1NT = Spades, or GF relay.

 

Now:

2C = Both minors, F1.

...2D = NF.

...2H = GF relay.

......2S = 6+D.

......2NT = 5-5 minors.

......3C+ = 5D and 4C.

...2S = NF.

...2NT+ = ??

2D = Hearts, NF. 2NT is the relay.

2H = Hearts, strong. 2NT is the relay.

2S = Spades, NF. 2NT relays.

2NT = Three-suited, short clubs.

3C+ = Spades, GF.

[etha]

We played 1nt as non forcing and 2♣ as the relay over 1♠. We were playing the transfer openers were canape though. And it was a strong club system so the openers were limited.

 

 

I'm never keen to not have a natural ish 1nt bid available to responder, but I haven't got any solid data to say its bad.

[Phil]

I'm never keen to not have a natural ish 1nt bid available to responder, but I haven't got any solid data to say its bad.

 

Same here, but since Opener is unbalanced there is little utility in stopping in exactly 1N.

[Phil]

Currently working with Echognome on this.

 

***Openings

 

1♣ = balanced or diamonds (I see Nullve suggested this above)

1 red = ♥ / ♠

1♠ = ♣, 10-13

1N = as before

2♣ = clubs and a 4cM, 10-13

2♦ = diamonds and a 4CM, 10-13

2♥ = 10-13

2♠ = 10-13

 

***Responses

 

Over 1 red, "accepting" the transfer is a GF relay

Much of the rest is as it is currently.

[nige1]

Martian Mosquito! Phil corroborates Dr Romosa's findings Bug Scientist claims there are insects on Mars.

Lots of cunning ideas. I might plagiarise some of them for the next version of Tsetse :)

Do the innovations (especially transfer openers) comply with System Regulations?

Where?

At what level?

[nullve]

1♣ = balanced or diamonds (I see Nullve suggested this above)

1 red = ♥ / ♠

1♠ = ♣, 10-13

1N = as before

2♣ = clubs and a 4cM, 10-13

2♦ = diamonds and a 4CM, 10-13

2♥ = 10-13

2♠ = 10-13

Some hand types with clubs are missing.

[nige1]

2♣ = clubs and a 4cM, 10-13

2♦ = diamonds and a 4CM, 10-13

More fun might be

• 2♣ = ART 4+ ♥ and 5+ m.
• 2♦ = ART 4+ ♠ and 5+ any other.

[Phil]

Some hand types with clubs are missing.

 

Actually 1♠ should be unlimited with long ♣.

[Phil]

More fun might be

• 2♣ = ART 4+ ♥ and 5+ m.
• 2♦ = ART 4+ ♠ and 5+ any other.

 

More fun, but it's nice to pass 2m sometimes.

 

Had considered 2M to be 4M and the longer minor.

[nullve]

Actually 1♠ should be unlimited with long ♣.

Including all unbalanced 10-13 hands with primarily clubs and no major?

[Zelandakh]

Many years ago I looked quite heavily into the theory of unlimited transfer openings and came to the conclusion that the optimal way of organising these was as 2-under transfers. This obviously means canapé but now there is a twist, as 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ and 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ now in effect become your standard 5 card major openings. To offset these the system used 1♥ to show "clubs or balanced" and 1♠ as 5+ diamonds, both denying a 4 card major if unbalanced. It worked out to be quite a nice system but as I was finishing it up I also started work on my strong club system and decided that that was more fun, not to mention that I found a partner that wanted to play it.

 

So if you can stomach canapé in a context where you still have 1M available to distinguish hand types then I would certainly recommend that approach. If not then the easiest solution is probably to make your 1♣ opening fully artificial and include some 4M5+♦ hands there to take pressure off of the 1♠ opening. You do have spare capacity there so it should not be too difficult to adjust some things to accommodate them.

[Phil]

Including all unbalanced 10-13 hands with primarily clubs and no major?

 

Yes, but stretching the range too much of long club hands can represent a problem.