[JmBrPotter]

The post appended below arrived in my weekly abstract, but I could not find it to respond normally in the thread.

Partner and I use both 1♣ and 1♦ as forcing openings. Precision partnerships could do something similar by making the 1♦ opening forcing, too. For ACBL GCC compliance, some work would probably be required.

We use one rebid after 1♣ (1♠) and one rebid after 1♦ (2♣) to show a 3-suited hand. The 1♣-(Pass)-1♦-(Pass); 1♠ sequence shows three-suited hands with an unspecified splinter and 11-14, 18-20, or 24-26 HCP. The 1♦-(Pass)-1♥-(Pass);2♣ sequence shows three-suited hands with an unspecified splinter and 15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 HCP. In each case a cheapest step rebid by responder (1NT over 1♠ or 2♦ over 2♣) is a game invitational or stronger ask for the splinter location and strength range. The next four cheapest suit bids are attempted natural sign-off calls. With powerful hands, opener may advance constructively over a sign-off.

The second low-level forcing opening seems to eliminate the need for using two-level suit openings for unusual hands that need a home stolen by the forcing opening. In such a structure, one has three ways to "open" two of a suit (directly, as an honest opening bid; as an initial rebid after a 1♣ opening, and as an initial rebid after a 1♦ opening). That offers lots of flexibility for hands where a natural 1♣ or 1♦ opening might have been nice and some special bids for specific distributions (perhaps, involving one or both minors).

ACBL GCC compliance with 1♣ and 1♦ both forcing seems to require that the hands that may have less than 15 HCP fall under the 1♣ opening unless a waiting response to 1♦ is always game forcing.

{{Begin Post from Abstract}}
Forum: Non-Natural System Discussion
=====================================

-------------------------------------------
Topic: FANTUNES REVEALED by Bill Jacobs (johnu -- 2013-Oct-02, 12:52)
http://www.bridgebas...by-bill-jacobs/
...........................................


------------ QUOTE ----------

As sick as it might sound, I think that shoving the 4441s and 5440s into a mini Roman 2D is the way to go

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



It had occurred to me that your 2D opening could be any 4441 with 4 spades. Then 1D-1S would promise five but 1D-1H would promise four. It's somewhat attractive to respond 1H with four because it doesn't use much room and functions like a relay bid.

1D-1H
....1S-3 hearts?
.........1N-GF relay
....1N-C/D
....2C-C
....2D-D

and I'm sure there's better than that.

In a general sense, all of these proposals (your original, others, mine) underutilize the 1D opening (compared to other openings) and you have almost too much room for these and a scarcity elsewhere.


=====================================

{{End Post from Abstract}}