[awm]

There are many problems with very weak (i.e. 10-12) notrumps. Some of the issues:

(1) You help the opponents locate your side's values if they end up declaring.
(2) You can easily go down two or three tricks undoubled opposite no game for the opponents.
(3) Sometimes you have two balanced hands and 15 or so hcp between you, and get doubled for down three or so.

There are certainly some advantages to "preempting" the auction. But no sane person would say "I'll just open 2NT with all 0-5 hcp balanced hands to get in their way" right? So the point is, you want to balance preemption against safety. My opinion (and the opinion of most experienced players) is that a 10-12 1NT opening at vulnerable preempts substantially past the level of safety. Note that problems (2) and (3) above are much more serious when you are vulnerable.

[mikestar]

PrecisionL, on Jan 19 2008, 01:33 AM, said:

I play a 4-card Major system with a Strong Club and canape. 5M332 hands are an enigma!

We have played 2M as (1) 5M332 & 10-14 hcp, or (2) 5M + 4♣ & 10-14 hcp. I like the intermediate 2M, have had good results with them at both pairs and teams. But, the problem hands are then the 5M & 4♣ hands. We will be trying (2) at the next tournament in Feb.

Our 1NT is 11-13 nV and 14-16 V. Only xxxxx (no honor) would be opened 1NT.

This seems to be a good method. I doubt the 5M332 and the 5M4♣ can both fit into the rebid structure, so you are forced to choose.

If your are playing at a high enough level for Mid Chart events, I would suggest 2♦ and 2♥ as transfers to the 5 card major. Here you should have the space to distinguish the hand types. This also has the advantage of retaining 2♠ (the most effective 2-level preempt) as a weak 2.

[keylime]

Larry and I wanted in Nashville, to play 2D as a 5+M, 4+C, intermediate hand to have the balanced 5M332's left untouched. Problem is, we're still waiting on approval or even the acknowledgment of action.

[rbforster]

keylime, on Jan 20 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

...I wanted to play 2D as a 5+M, 4+C intermediate hand

This is clearly Midchart legal in my opinion. Regardless of your definition of "intermediate," your strength range should qualify as either "weak" or "intermediate" per the Midchart (not that these terms are actually defined). If weak, your bid would be legal as a restricted type of Multi (5+ weak 2 bid in unknown M); if intermediate, your 4+ known suit of clubs should be sufficient.

Quote

Problem is, we're still waiting on approval or even the acknowledgment of action.

Another unsurprising example of the Conventions Committee not doing their job. I'd probably just have interpreted your convention as nominally legal pending any response and given the Multi defense to your opponents. If your bid couldn't be reasonably described as weak (say 12-15, vs 8-13), I suppose you'd need to get an approved defense which means you'd actually need to hear back from the committee.

[awm]

My preference is five-card majors.

A four-card major style will be worse when you open 1M. Partner will have trouble gauging how high to compete (say it goes 1M-(3m) and partner has 3-card support). There will be more issues scrambling to the right partial if you play canape, and there are some issues with game tries after single raises (more common than many people think, despite the strong club system) since you have to be able to scramble into alternative strains. In fact I think most people agree that when both styles open 1M you are better off playing five-card majors.

So the question is what do you gain from playing four-card majors? The three main problems with most strong club opening structures are:

(1) The 2♣ opening missing major fits, especially if it can be five cards.
(2) The nebulous 1♦ opening, especially in competition.
(3) The "wasted" 2♦ bid to show 4414 type patterns, when it could be a preempt.

Playing four-card majors with canape lets you take those hands out of 2♣, which basically "fixes" that opening. But you'll still have some issues with 1♦, since you have to open something with 3-3-2-5 out of the notrump range, unless you choose to open only one balanced range (i.e. 1N 12-14 with 1♣ 15+) in which case you can play 1♦ as 4+ regardless of your major suit opening style. The four-card major style does save you from the 2♦ opening. So basically four-card majors help with (1) and (3) while hurting you on the hands that open 1M in both styles.

My preferred style is to play 2♣ and 2♦ both as intermediate and 6+ cards. This also solves problem (1) above. The 1♦ opening becomes a nebulous bid, denying a five card major or six card minor. This means the 1♦ call is very often balanced (some 2/3 of the time) and virtually always three-suited the rest of the time. This call seems quite easy to deal with in competition (transfers work great, you can almost assume opener has the balanced not-1NT range since a 4441 is only one card off from that in any case). In fact it may even be more effective in competitive auctions than a "natural" 1♦ bid since it excludes true one- and two- suited hands (which tend to spoil a transfer-based approach). My experience has been that this style virtually solves (2) without requiring that we play only one notrump range in addition to solving (1). The 2♦ opening is more frequent and much more often passed than a "precision 2♦" and seems to be a very effective preemptive weapon (admittedly we lose the use of 2♦ on truly weak hands of some variety, but many pairs are doing quite well these days with intermediate two bids).

[whereagles]

I prefer 4-card majors because I want to keep 2♣ free for a weak 2.

[keylime]

Rob,

We definitely know it's mid-chart; we even submitted all the documentation. Unfortunately, the wheels of change revolve slowly...

[mikestar]

awm, on Jan 22 2008, 09:00 PM, said:

<snip>

My preferred style is to play 2♣ and 2♦ both as intermediate and 6+ cards. The 1♦ opening becomes a nebulous bid, denying a five card major or six card minor. This means the 1♦ call is very often balanced (some 2/3 of the time) and virtually always three-suited the rest of the time. This call seems quite easy to deal with in competition (transfers work great, you can almost assume opener has the balanced not-1NT range since a 4441 is only one card off from that in any case). In fact it may even be more effective in competitive auctions than a "natural" 1♦ bid since it excludes true one- and two- suited hands (which tend to spoil a transfer-based approach). My experience has been that this style virtually solves (2) without requiring that we play only one notrump range in addition to solving (1). The 2♦ opening is more frequent and much more often passed than a "precision 2♦" and seems to be a very effective preemptive weapon (admittedly we lose the use of 2♦ on truly weak hands of some variety, but many pairs are doing quite well these days with intermediate two bids).

This sounds interesting, but I have some questions:
1) What do you open with a four card major, a five card minor, and 2-2 or 3-1 in the other suits?
2) Do you open 2♦ on 6♦ with a four-card major? If so, how do you find your major fit if there is one? (Good structures exist for 2♣.)
3) How do you handle minor 2-suiters?

[awm]

mikestar, on Jan 23 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

This sounds interesting, but I have some questions:
1) What do you open with a four card major, a five card minor, and 2-2 or 3-1 in the other suits?
2) Do you open 2♦ on 6♦ with a four-card major? If so, how do you find your major fit if there is one? (Good structures exist for 2♣.)
3) How do you handle minor 2-suiters?

(5431) patterns with no five-card major open 1♦. This is considered a "three suited hand" in my world.

(5422) patterns with no five-card major open either 1♦ or 1NT. These are considered "balanced hands."

I do open 2♦ with 6♦+4M. The follow-up structure is fairly simple:

2M = natural, 4+M, one-round force and inv+
-----> 3♣ = artificial three-card raise
-----> 2NT/3♦ used to distinguish max/min
2NT = diamond raise, constructive or better
3♣ = natural GF
3♦ = natural, not forward-going
3M = 6+M and GF

This seems to work about as well as most structures over 2♣. Obviously we can still miss a fit when responder is too weak to bid over the opening.

Minor two-suiters open 1♦ if 5+/5+ (4-5 minors is balanced or three-suited and can also open 1♦ of course). 6-4 minors hands open the 6cm. This is the only potentially "problematic" hand in competition over 1♦, but frequency wise 5-5 in the minors is very rare relative to the balanced or three-suited hand patterns. I think it's about 65% balanced, 30% three suited (includes 5431 no major), 5% 5-5 minors.

While Sam and I like this opening structure a lot and came to it independently (by way of a strong diamond system) we are definitely not the only ones using it. Amusingly, we came up against the Wolperts (Gavin and Jenny) in the national swiss last summer and found that they were using the same opening structure.

[mikestar]

Adam,

Thanks for the prompt, detailed reply. I will definitely give this a try.

[glen]

As I noted in a 2006 thread this is what we were playing in the early 80s:

In the early 80s my first system off-the-blocks (i.e. in play in regular partnerships) was Arctic Power Precision, partly named after a laundry detergent and meant to show some "Power Precision" ideas blended with Canuck stuff.

1♣: 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced
1♦: 15-16 balanced or 11-15 multi-suited (5-4-3-1/5-4-2-2/4-4-4-1/5-4-4-0/5-5-3-0) with no minor void and no five card major.
1♥/♠: 10/11-15, Five+ majors.
1NT: 11/12-14 balanced/semi-balanced, no five card major, no singleton/void.
2♣/♦: 11-15, Six+ minors.
2♥: 11-15, Flannery (omg!) or 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=5=0.
2♠: weak-two

At the time I had not heard of "The System" (Dick Reed and Stormy Horn) and had only subscribed to Bridge World from 80 on. When I later ordered a whole bunch of BW back issues I was thrilled to see "A Disciplined Diamond" (75) and a few other articles about attempts to restructure the big club systems.

[blahonga]

I really don't like opening 2m with a four card major. My preferred opening structure is

1♣ 16+
1♦ 11-13 bal/11-15 4 card major and longer minor/12-16 4441
1♥/♠ 5+
1NT 14-16
2♣/♦ 11-15 6cards or 12-15 54 in minors. Denies a four card major
2♥/♠ weak
2NT 12-15 55 minors

After the 1♦ opening there is plenty of room to sort out the various hands, at least if you are undisturbed.

[glen]

A Disciplined Diamond (L.S. Torkelson, Bridge World Oct 75):

1♣: Big, if bal then 18+
1♦: 15-17 Bal OR 4cM + longer minor OR 3 4-card suits
1♥/♠: Five card majors
1NT: 12-14 Bal
2♣/♦: No 4cM, Six+ minor, or 5-4 in minors

[Apollo81]

awm, on Jan 22 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

My preference is five-card majors.

A four-card major style will be worse when you open 1M. Partner will have trouble gauging how high to compete (say it goes 1M-(3m) and partner has 3-card support). There will be more issues scrambling to the right partial if you play canape, and there are some issues with game tries after single raises (more common than many people think, despite the strong club system) since you have to be able to scramble into alternative strains. In fact I think most people agree that when both styles open 1M you are better off playing five-card majors.

So the question is what do you gain from playing four-card majors? The three main problems with most strong club opening structures are:

(1) The 2♣ opening missing major fits, especially if it can be five cards.
(2) The nebulous 1♦ opening, especially in competition.
(3) The "wasted" 2♦ bid to show 4414 type patterns, when it could be a preempt.

Playing four-card majors with canape lets you take those hands out of 2♣, which basically "fixes" that opening. But you'll still have some issues with 1♦, since you have to open something with 3-3-2-5 out of the notrump range, unless you choose to open only one balanced range (i.e. 1N 12-14 with 1♣ 15+) in which case you can play 1♦ as 4+ regardless of your major suit opening style. The four-card major style does save you from the 2♦ opening. So basically four-card majors help with (1) and (3) while hurting you on the hands that open 1M in both styles.

My preferred style is to play 2♣ and 2♦ both as intermediate and 6+ cards. This also solves problem (1) above. The 1♦ opening becomes a nebulous bid, denying a five card major or six card minor. This means the 1♦ call is very often balanced (some 2/3 of the time) and virtually always three-suited the rest of the time. This call seems quite easy to deal with in competition (transfers work great, you can almost assume opener has the balanced not-1NT range since a 4441 is only one card off from that in any case). In fact it may even be more effective in competitive auctions than a "natural" 1♦ bid since it excludes true one- and two- suited hands (which tend to spoil a transfer-based approach). My experience has been that this style virtually solves (2) without requiring that we play only one notrump range in addition to solving (1). The 2♦ opening is more frequent and much more often passed than a "precision 2♦" and seems to be a very effective preemptive weapon (admittedly we lose the use of 2♦ on truly weak hands of some variety, but many pairs are doing quite well these days with intermediate two bids).

I play a similar structure:

1♣: strong/artificial
1M: 5+ cards, limited
1NT: 14-16
2♣: 11-15-, 6+♣ or xx45 with strong clubs. No 4-card major.
2♦: 11-15-, 5+♦, 4+♣. No 4-card major.
2M: weak two
2NT: 10-13 HCP, 4♥, 6+♣.
---
1♦: everything else

This structure is designed to avoid the problems that Adam points out, plus fix a few of the problems in his structure (admittedly creating a few others). The strengths, compared to what Adam uses, are:

(1) There is no chance of missing a 4-4 major fit after 2♣/2♦.♦
(2) After a 2m opening, responder does not need to look for a major fit if his longest major is 4 cards. Thus when responder declares notrump after one of these openings, the opening leader has a harder time.
(3) Negative doubles after the 2m openings are unnecessary, so you can play penalty doubles at all levels.
(4) Much more accurate auctions when responder has a strong hand after 2♦ opening.

Some neutral factors:
(1) The 2NT opener often generates a large swing when it comes up. So far I have found these to be overwhelmingly positive, though this opener has the potential for a large negative swing as well. Even if this bid generates an expected positive swing, the inherent swinginess of the bid makes it somewhat undesirable.
(2) The 2♦ opener above is, at the same time, more and less well defined than Adam's 2♦ opener. His 2♦ opener has a smaller playing strength range than this one does, because a 5-5 14 count is quite a bit better than a 5-4 11 count, whereas his opener is usually a single suited 13 count +/- a Queen. However, more of opener's cards are known (9 compared to 6) after this 2NT opener, making it easier for responder to get maximum preemptive effect on the first round.

The weaknesses are:
(1) 1♦ opening is a wider range of patterns. Difficult to design system to accomodate all hand types in all auctions.
(2) We play 2♦-2♥ as an artificial inv+ bid. Thus 2♦ opener can potentially miss a heart fit when responder is too weak to invite. Solve this by opening many 1354 hands 1♦, which reduces the frequency of the 2♦ opener and increases the frequency of the 1♦ opener, which is itself a potential weakness.

[mikestar]

I'm trying my hand at this variation of the "Disciplined Diamond":

1♣: Big, if balanced then 18+.
1♦: 12-14 balanced OR
Four card major with longer minor OR
Three suited, no five card major.
1♥/♠: Five card major.
1NT: 15-17 balanced.
2♣/♦: Six card minor or five-four in minors. No four card major.


I'm working on the 1♦ sequences.


1♥ response: four hearts. Opener's rebids:

• 1♠: four spades balanced 12-14 or three suited short in hearts.
  
• 1NT: balanced 12-14, may have four spades if hand is very NT oriented.
  
• 2♣/2♦: five plus cards with four spades.
  
• 2♥: four card support, minimum hand.
  
• 3♥: four card support, strong hand.

1♠ response: four spades. Opener's rebids:

• 1NT: Balanced 12-14.
  
• 2♣: five plus clubs with four hearts or 1-4-4-4
  
• 2♦: five plus diamonds with four hearts
  
• 2♠:four card support, minimum hand.
  
• 3♠: four card support, strong hand.

There a a lot of possibilities for using opener's 2/3 of the other major and 2NT artificially to handle problem hands. I am interested in suggestions.

1NT response: minimum, no four card major, balanced or both minors. Opener will pass with strength in the majors or bid his longer minor.

2♣/2♦, single suited or both minors, invitational or better, denies four card major. Rebid structure is under development.

2♥/2♠: ???

2NT: balanced invitation, no interest in majors. Perhaps this would be better as a balanced force, with the balanced invitation shown artificially.

3♣/3♦: six card suit, less than invitational values. This has good preemptive value.

[blahonga]

mikestar, on Jan 28 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

I'm trying my hand at this variation of the "Disciplined Diamond":

1♣: Big, if balanced then 18+.
1♦: 12-14 balanced OR
      Four card major with longer minor OR
      Three suited, no five card major.
1♥/♠: Five card major.
1NT: 15-17 balanced.
2♣/♦: Six card minor or five-four in minors. No four card major.


I'm working on the 1♦ sequences.

After 1♦ - 1♥ we play

1♠ 4♠ and longer minor or 11-13 4144
1NT 12-14 bal, no four hearts
2♣/♦ 11-15 nat unbal with 4 hearts
2♥ 12-14 bal with four hearts
2♠ 14-16 4144
3♣/♦ 14-15 4 spades, 6+ minor

After 2 ♣/♦ opener always continues with 14-15 after a sign off.

After 1♦ - 1♠ we play

1NT 12-14 bal no four spades
2♣/♦ 11-15 nat unbal with 4 hearts
2♥ 11-15 four spades, opener continues with 14-15 after a sign off
2♠ 11-13 3 spades, four hearts, 51 or 60 in minors
2NT 14-15 3 spades, four hearts, 51 or 60 in minors
3♣/♦ 14-15 4 hearts, 6+ minor

This works very well since with support and a strong hand you get to make a more despriptive invitation (showing shortness for example) than just jumping to 3 major. We also have more detailed sequences after 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠.

The other responses we use are

1NT min no major
2♣/♦ gameforcing, may contain a four card major opener rebids a four card major if he has one.
2♥/♠ 4-8 6+
2NT nat invite
3♣/♦ invite with 6+

[mikestar]

blahonga, on Jan 29 2008, 07:19 AM, said:

After 1♦ - 1♥ we play

1♠ 4♠ and longer minor or 11-13 4144
1NT 12-14 bal, no four hearts
2♣/♦ 11-15 nat unbal with 4 hearts
2♥ 12-14 bal with four hearts
2♠ 14-16 4144
3♣/♦ 14-15 4 spades, 6+ minor

After 2 ♣/♦ opener always continues with 14-15 after a sign off.


<snip>

I really, really like this response structure--it seems very well thought out. Thank you.