Light Initial Action

[glen]

Yes to Glen Ashton

 

The wide range was not much of a problem. More of a problem was the 8-10 hands. The opponents often bought the contract opposite these (1NT and 3NT being the most common contracts) and then if responder was on lead suit quality played a role. However if we had a "quality suit" (2 of top 3 etc.), we were generally better off opening on the two level and consuming space. The one exception is with both majors - here opening on the one level was better, in order to find the other major, but even better would be a two level opening showing both majors. Ultra light minor suit openings had their share of wonderful results, but also had a stream of small losses.

 

So in redesign:

 

1♣: ♣s 10 to unlimited, or balanced 10-12/15-17 (range not covered by 1NT) or 24+ balanced. When vulnerable and 10-12 balanced only with a four card major.

 

1♦: ♦s 10 to unlimited, or 13-14 balanced.

 

1♥/♠: 11+, unlimited.

 

1NT: 10-12 white, 15-17 red.

 

2♣: 18-21 balanced.

 

2♦: Both majors, 5-10 or so. I hate not being able to play this in ACBL land.

 

2♥/♠: 7/8-11, five card suit possible except red vs white. Decent suit promised, except when white vs. red.

 

2NT: 22-23 balanced

etc.

[Double !]

Yes to Glen Ashton

Thanks for clarifying.

Suspected as much when saw reference to ETM TOPS (which I still can't remember much of no matter how hard I try.)

 

These new ranges: are they for ETM Tops, Victory, or what? They don't look like what I recall for Tops.

 

I used to play that 5-5 major 2D opener for a long time years ago until someone said I couldn't. But I think you can use it by opening 2H and make 2D show something else. BTW, Have you completely scrapped ETM Tops or just refined it? I like those Goldilocks 2-bids (which actually can be very useful in an otherwise normal 2/1 or sayc system, as I'm sure you're aware). Helps address the problem of the jump suit-rebid by opener.

 

DHL

[glen]

Funny story around Goldilocks. First played them with one partner. He taught them to another. This one then put them in a new parternship formed this last season. When my wife and I played the last two this spring in an IMP league match they used Goldilocks (bid and responding structure) to get to a slam and beat us. Killed with my own sword!

 

Goldilocks bids are great when vulnerable. However when not vulnerable, Fantoni-Nunes have convinced me that putting in some five card suits works - higher frequency, can still bounce often.

 

For the system I framed just above, does anybody know if this is mid-chart:

2♦: weak two bid in ♥s (effectively 7/8-11 with 5/6♥s). or any GF.

2♥: both majors.

 

For both majors, it seems it might have to be at least 5-4 either way to fit in mid-chart methods allowed.

 

For the ETM systems, there are four in various stages:

 

ETM TOPs - matchpoint/light initial action system - will modify around the framework given above - that is start initial action at one level at 10 points instead of 8, except for 1♥/♠ not vulnerable very tempted to put in a modified Landen/Rajadhyaksha approach to majors - the 1M is the usual or 8-10 with 4 (I'm told the results of this is somewhat random, but a matchpoint system should have optional-use toys that allow the partnership to shoot for tops).

 

ETM VICTORY - weak notrump/super science system. This will get a retrofit sometime in the future (i.e. not this year!).

 

ETM GOLD - the latest and the system I'm very happy with.

 

A fun/easy canape system - hope to get this going in the near or medium term. I like the one bids starting at 10 - as can be seen from above, nobody has convinced me that 1 level 8-12 bids are right - two level bids sure.