[WGF_Flame]

Most big club systems looks something like this:
1C - K+ hcp (normal is 16+ sometimes 15)
1M - natural up to K-1
1D - diamonds or other things that doesn't fit elsewhere up to K-1.

Now I'm sure when you play such a system you feel great when you bid 1M, and feel much less good when you bid 1C. (feel strange when u bid 1D...)
So doesn't it just natural to leave everything as it is and stretch the 1M opening until the feeling of 1M and 1C will even up ?
I cant say what is the border line, but lets say if you play normal 1C 16, i would guess that plating 1M as up to 19 will gain more then it loses (especially in 5M).
This make the system closer to polish like systems but with the big difference that polish have better defined 1D while you will have better defined 1C.
I prefer the better 1C.

[Zelandakh]

My club system looks like:
1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any
1♦ = up to 17, 4+, unbal
1M = up to 17, 5+, unbal
1N = 12-14 bal (or 4414)
2♣ = up to 14, 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4 in a major

I feel pretty good about all of these except 2♣ and prefer to live with the downside of that to get the upside of 1♦, in good part because that just fits my relay structure better. I do not feel strange about any of them. All of the bids in any system are a trade-off. You get an upside here and a downside there. It sounds like what you are suggesting is something like:

1♣ = 16+ nat or 20+ any
1♦ = nat up to 19 or 11-13 bal or 17-19 bal
1M = 5+, up to 19
1N = 14-16 bal
2♣ = nat up to 15

I think this simply makes your 1♣ opening too rare. It might be ok as the basis for a forcing diamond system. To be honest though it seems like you are gradually progressing towards a "natural or big" style of system - perhaps you should check out Nightmare and related systems and go from there.

[WGF_Flame]

I do not suggest to load more on the 1D, only the 1 major.
I dont think its good to load 1D anymore, but also i prefer to improve systems slowly, its easier to "prove"
so the only thing i suggest is that someone who play the "normal"
1C - 16+
1D - 11-15
1M - 11-15
2C - 11-15
would change only the 1M to 11-19.

[wclass___]

huh. Sorry, but this is a terrible idea.

You should be asking why playing don't change their e.g. polish club ranges to something like...

1♦ = 11-21
1♥ = 11-19
1♠ = 11-17

[hrothgar]

 WGF_Flame, on 2012-March-13, 05:14, said:

Now I'm sure when you play such a system you feel great when you bid 1M, and feel much less good when you bid 1C. (feel strange when u bid 1D...)
So doesn't it just natural to leave everything as it is and stretch the 1M opening until the feeling of 1M and 1C will even up ?

My design goal is to maximize my expected score.
This does not equate to "Achieve equivalent utility any time I open 1C and one major"

At the most basic level, your argument falls apart because you aren't weighting utility based on the frequency of the opening bid...

[bluecalm]

I agree with this sentiment. 1H/1S openings could easily be up to 18hcp. There is so much unused space in standard precision.
Now with full 11-21 range you have to compromise due to crowded bidding space but with 11-18 you could still be very precise and have comp benefits too.

[PrecisionL]

At least two published books (that I know of) used the idea of other bids other than 1♣ in a STRONG CLUB System being stronger than 16 hcp.

The Millennium Club by Lyle Poe, 2002.

1♣ = 15+ hcp

(a) Balanced

(b) 5+ clubs, maybe a side 4-cd suit

{c} 4-loser hand or better, any distribution

Thus, an opening bid of 1♦ or 1♥/1♠ could be up to 19 hcp.

The American Forcing Minor System, Fink & Lutz, 1995

1♣ = ?

{a) 16+ hcp Club hand

{b} 17+ hcp Major Suit hand

{c} 18+ hcp Balanced

{d} 21+ hcp Diamond hand

1♦ = 15-20 hcp, 4+♦ or NT hand, 98% forcing

[Phil]

In a version of a strong club I played about 20 years ago. Hands with patterns for a reverse, (4M/5D or 4♠/5♥) and up to about 20 points were opened with their longer suit.

This worked well in practice, and it also cured a headache for rebids after a 1♣ opening, since responder didn't need to worry about finding a 4-4 fit in a higher ranking suit.

[Free]

One of the main strengths of precision is that you're able to place the contract very fast in many cases. 1M-4M can virtually be anything: from a destructive preempt to a GF hand without slam interest. 1♦-3NT is another fine example. Widening your 1M range no longer enables you to do this. While from a constructive point of view it may be a good idea, strong ♣ players are usually aggressive, so they don't want to give this up.

[awm]

This would make sense if I was very unhappy with my results on some opening, especially if that opening were frequent and/or the losses are expensive. Fortunately I am happy with all the openings in my current system!

The 1c is a mixed bag. If opponents don't intervene we are way ahead of the field. If they bid at a low level, we are still ahead. If they bid at a high level and they more or less have their bids, we are certainly behind the field. But if they bid like jokers we can extract penalties and so are ahead again. My feeling is that we are actually a bit ahead of the field even on the 1c hands, but it is close enough that I am not sure this would be true of a "15+ any" club so much as for 16+/17+ if balanced like we play.

My strong club philosophy seems very different than Free by the way, we don't blast many games.

[WGF_Flame]

 bluecalm, on 2012-March-13, 07:42, said:

I agree with this sentiment. 1H/1S openings could easily be up to 18hcp. There is so much unused space in standard precision.
Now with full 11-21 range you have to compromise due to crowded bidding space but with 11-18 you could still be very precise and have comp benefits too.

yes exactly what i mean.
I played two over one or syac for long time, and we manage with the huge range, I'm sure some medium range can be handled effectively with no much trouble.

and yes its nice to know exact hcp quickly and maybe blast, but this seems so minor in our shape first world, the world of support and total tricks. when you have 17 hcp with 5S dont you feel you want to open 1S ?

[hrothgar]

 WGF_Flame, on 2012-March-13, 12:16, said:

when you have 17 hcp with 5S dont you feel you want to open 1S ?

No

[mycroft]

Hrothgar, when you have 17 HCP with 5 spades, don't you feel you want to open 1♥?

But seriously, no, I don't either. I'm much more likely to feel like I don't want to open 1♣ when I have a crappy 17 15(43). When I have the spades, I'm in control of the auction. When they have spades, I'm not.

But given that I am "crippling" 4 bids to beef up my 1Major auctions, and think it's worth it, no, I don't feel like giving up any of that advantage to help out only one call which may be break-even at best, but is still basically break-even.

The Polish Club pairs out there may have a different feeling about it, of course.

[PrecisionL]

Quote

when you have 17 hcp with 5S dont you feel you want to open 1S ?

Quote

No

No (me three)!

I believe that one of the main reasons Precision became popular and is still among system 'geeks' is that the 16-17 hcp hands with a 5-cd major are difficult to handle in non Strong 1♣ systems. [i.e., gazzilli]

[akhare]

 PrecisionL, on 2012-March-13, 19:47, said:

No (me three)!

I believe that one of the main reasons Precision became popular and is still among system 'geeks' is that the 16-17 hcp hands with a 5-cd major are difficult to handle in non Strong 1♣ systems. [i.e., gazzilli]

+4 .

I too don't see the need to raise the limit on the 1M opening.

On occasions at unfavourable, I have opened marginal unbalanced hands with a 5+CM as 1M, but it's typically in anticipation of a contested auction (especially with short ♠).

[benlessard]

You should look at my system, the idea is that hands with 5S should be opened 1S as often as possible without having a too wide continous range. If you play a 11-14/18-21 range like we do you will noticed that you rarely need invitationnal bids and dont need Gazilli (a convention I strongly hate even if it very popular among the best) In short 18-21 hands do not pose problems like 16-17 pts hands because you have GF in your hands. Having a better defined 1C and most importantly having a better defined 1D are worth more than being to open super light or having 2C as always showing 6, IMO its not close at all.

Otherwise i would suggest playing what Zel play (except that i would keep 1D up to 21 pts.)

1C=15+
1D=11-22 at least 4D unbalanced
1M=11-17
2C may have 5C+4M

[shevek]

In original Precision with 1M 11-15, a 1NT response & raise were 8-10 (okay, maybe 7-10 for the raise). 2/1 were 11+
It was good to pass 1♠ with a bad 8 count, or 7-count with a stiff spade etc.
If you widen, you give up that.
Also, you might have to have 1♥ - 1♠ - 2NT = 15-17, 3NT = 18-19. Might as well be playing Goren.

[chasetb]

There have been one or two where I opened 1♥ on a 16 or even bad 17 HCP in 1st or 2nd seat with 15(43) distribution, expecting interference (and receiving it). I've even discussed raising 1♦ to be up to 18 HCP, but haven't instituted it. The one thing I think NEVER should be done is downgrade when you have the boss suit in 1st or 2nd. 3rd or 4th seat, my partnership forces 1♣ to be 18+ (less with distribution and Spades), so those 3 bids go up in range as well.

[TaoGaming]

 mycroft, on 2012-March-13, 16:23, said:

The Polish Club pairs out there may have a different feeling about it, of course.

After playing Polish for about 6 months (in the US, using Matula, Dan Niel's site, and the book by Krystof Jassem) my partner and I decided to allow our 1D opening to include hands of 18-20 (or even 21) that were a) minor two suiters or b) long diamonds (possibly with a 4 card major).

That's because Polish (at least our version) incorporates a 2D "Fit Reverse" (where 1C-1M;2D shows 18+ with 3+ card support). So now we'd have to jump to 3D. Heaven help us if the auction was contested.

Stretching the 1D opening range wasn't a big deal, because responder tends to keep the auction alive with a 6 count to hunt for a major or 1N. In contrast with 1M where responder will often just pass with any weak hand. In theory having 1D be capped at 17 (or 18) meant we could do a lot of clever things with 1D-1H;2S or 2N, but those never came up, so we just removed the cap and play that opener's jump rebids (except 3D) showed a hand that didn't open 1C because the shape was wrong.

We also decided to switch 2N from a preemptive "unusual" to a strong (we upped it a point, to take advantage of being able to get out in 1N with a 20 count, but that's a quibble). We did that because we got killed a few times (it's so much easier to interfere over 1C instead of 2N), but it ended up making our rebids after 1C much cleaner, especially in competition, because the balanced 2N opener wasn't a hand responder had to worry about.

The reason for stretching our 1D (and, in a way, 2N) bid is to remove some of the burden from a nebulous 1C. So now our rebids are clearer. If you just allow 1M to be larger, then it doesn't clear up your rebid structure, just makes the point ranges different. If you allow you 1M range to be larger for "specific problem hands" that may be different, but we don't tend to have many problem hands that open 1M that can be solved by ranges-shifting. IMO.

[antonylee]

I see the advantage of stretching the 1♦ opener to help with the ♦ based two-suiters though Matula proposes some other solutions (1♣-1M-3N=18-21ish 5+♦4♣, 1♣-1♠-3♥=strong 5+♦4♥); also odwyrtka may be a solution.
On the other hand I really think using a strong 2N opener is throwing away a lot of good stuff the forcing (not necessarily Polish) club structure is giving you. Uncontested auctions are much easier after a 1♣ opener of course, but even if they intervene, playing NFBs (as mandated by WJ05) or Rubensohl (as we do) mostly solves the problem IMHO. 1♣-(noise)-NFB-P, now a weak or weak-intermediate opener can only pass or raise (only raise if 4th seat raises, only complete or jump-complete the transfer if playing Rubensohl; most other actions by opener is strong, 2N does not promise a stopper (though you're not obliged to use it on a bad 18 of course) -- responder must check for it).