[helene_t]

I like the idea of playing
1♣= natural or 18-20 balanced
1♦=natural or 12-14 balanced
I know PhilKing much prefers to play it the other way (why, btw?). But if 1♣ is (semi)forcing and 1♦ is nonforcing, I would think it is better if the board belongs to opps anyway whenever we play 1m in a 2-3 fit. It might depend on the vulnerability, though.

One problem I see with the follow-ups to 1♣ is that when it starts
1♣-1banana
2/3♣
opener can't rebid 2♣ with 11-17 points, if responder can have a.o. 8-9 points without club tolerance, yet 3♣ with 15-17 points is not great either if responder can have a misfitting yarb. The same problem may appear in relation to opener's reverse, depending on what a banana is and what it means.

How is this problem solved in systems like Dutch Doubleton and Strefa?

I can imagine a number of options:
- Not worry about it
- Respond 1NT/2♣/2♦ with all hands with 7-10 and no 4-card majors. Note that it is safe to raise clubs with 3-card support.
- Play a Polish-like response structure with some kind of artificial 1♥ rebid maybe?
- Play a 2-way 1NT rebid that is either some unbalanced range or 18-20 balanced.

Ideally I would like to play transfer responses but if 1♦/♥ ( --> ♥/♠) is 4+M with any strength, we would need to accept the transfers with minimum hands with long clubs. I doubt that that is worth it. So probably better to play a Polish-like structure.

Something else: It occurs to me that the auction
1♣-1NT (7-10)
pass
is a very narrow target. It is only when opener is 4414 and responder 3352 that we don't have a 7-card minor suit fit. Not sure if this insight is any useful, though. But with Ant590 I used to play 1♣-1NT as about 11 points so that we avoid playing 2nt. That was in the context of T-Walsh in which system a natural 1NT response is not really necessary, though.

Something else: Should we open 1♦ with 4-5 minors? I would think that it is necessary only with less than say 17 points. With 17-19 you can allow responder to pass your reverse if he is bust. The real monsters could be build into the 2nt rebid.

Any thoughts?

[Cyberyeti]

What is your 2♣ opener ? can't you handle some of the club hands via that and if you want a big bid use 2♦ (possibly as some form of all strong multi)?

[PhilKing]

 helene_t, on 2014-January-24, 05:55, said:

I like the idea of playing
1♣= natural or 18-20 balanced
1♦=natural or 12-14 balanced
I know PhilKing much prefers to play it the other way (why, btw?).

T-Walshe (if played correctly), is so powerful that it should be used frequently, so the fact that 12-14 is way more common makes a big difference. Also, the stronger range in 1♦ can handle the loss of room more easily.

But if 1♣ is (semi)forcing and 1♦ is nonforcing, I would think it is better if the board belongs to opps anyway whenever we play 1m in a 2-3 fit. It might depend on the vulnerability, though.

Vulnerable you are better off having opened a club with the weak NT when partner is broke, since you an extra place to run if doubled. I guess you could make a case the other way NV, though I am actually switching to weak NT.

One problem I see with the follow-ups to 1♣ is that when it starts
1♣-1banana
2/3♣
opener can't rebid 2♣ with 11-17 points, if responder can have a.o. 8-9 points without club tolerance, yet 3♣ with 15-17 points is not great either if responder can have a misfitting yarb.

In my style, partner passes 1♣ with the misfitting yarborough, since he is facing nat clubs or a weakie. So if partner does repond, we are one-suited, things are pretty normal (though with T-Walshe I have five ways of rebidding 3♣).

The same problem may appear in relation to opener's reverse, depending on what a banana is and what it means.

Well I play the sequence 1♣-1♥(showing spades)-2♦ as a HEART reverse. So we can even stop in 2♥. Opener can move again with a huge hand, but won't get carried away. Diamond reverses just complete the transfer (100% forcing) and responder gets to define his strength, leading to a similar position.

How is this problem solved in systems like Dutch Doubleton and Strefa?

I can imagine a number of options:
- Not worry about it
- Respond 1NT/2♣/2♦ with all hands with 7-10 and no 4-card majors. Note that it is safe to raise clubs with 3-card support.
- Play a Polish-like response structure with some kind of artificial 1♥ rebid maybe?
- Play a 2-way 1NT rebid that is either some unbalanced range or 18-20 balanced.

Ideally I would like to play transfer responses but if 1♦/♥ ( --> ♥/♠) is 4+M with any strength, we would need to accept the transfers with minimum hands with long clubs. I doubt that that is worth it. So probably better to play a Polish-like structure.

This problem is an illusion. After all. most people who play 1♣ on a balanced 18-19 respond on crap and can't stop in 1M, and my view is that using transfers to stop at 1M is just completely wrong.

Something else: It occurs to me that the auction
1♣-1NT (7-10)
pass
is a very narrow target. It is only when opener is 4414 and responder 3352 that we don't have a 7-card minor suit fit. Not sure if this insight is any useful, though. But with Ant590 I used to play 1♣-1NT as about 11 points so that we avoid playing 2nt. That was in the context of T-Walsh in which system a natural 1NT response is not really necessary, though.

Something else: Should we open 1♦ with 4-5 minors? I would think that it is necessary only with less than say 17 points. With 17-19 you can allow responder to pass your reverse if he is bust. The real monsters could be build into the 2nt rebid.

With T-Walshe, I play 1♣-1♦-1NT as 45m minimum. Ship it.

Any thoughts?

See above ...

[dake50]

What is your 2♣ opener ? can't you handle some of the club hands via that and if you want a big bid use 2♦ (possibly as some form of all strong multi)? -- Cyberyeti

*** And how far up? Only 1m openers? Or change higher opening bids? Eg as suggested 2C or 2D, even 1Nt?

[helene_t]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-24, 07:49, said:

What is your 2♣ opener ? can't you handle some of the club hands via that and if you want a big bid use 2♦ (possibly as some form of all strong multi)?

Actually, taking the 12-14 balanced hands out of the 1♣ opening should allow us to put more club-oriented hands into it.

[benlessard]

I agree with PK reply. Just on frequency alone its dubious to put the 12-14 in 1D, add T-Walsh and its automatic that 12-14 should be in 1C.

[fromageGB]

Agree with all that the benefits of TWalsh mean that you want to open 1♣ as often as possible, ie the weaker hands, and to me it seems silly to not put very strong hands in there as well. You have room to clarify strength later, such as with a major transfer break. Then your 1♦ open is free for whatever hands you find awkward for TWalsh, such as long diamonds or both minors with a major shortage.

Maybe we should change the forum title to "non-natural philosophical discussion" if we need to resolve what a banana is and what it means. A profound question, and I have no answer. Is it 42?

[PhilKing]

 fromageGB, on 2014-January-26, 06:22, said:

It seems silly to not put very strong hands in there as well. You have room to clarify strength later, such as with a major transfer break. Then your 1♦ open is free for whatever hands you find awkward for TWalsh, such as long diamonds or both minors with a major shortage.

Silly may be a tad strong - it is only because some of us play split ranges that we are able to put many awkward hands through a transfer completion.

Anyway, this is only number three on my list of why split ranges balanced hands within a 1♣ opening is a bad idea.

[helene_t]

 PhilKing, on 2014-January-26, 09:01, said:

Silly may be a tad strong - it is only because some of us play split ranges that we are able to put many awkward hands through a transfer completion.

Anyway, this is only number three on my list of why split ranges balanced hands within a 1♣ opening is a bad idea.

What are the two main reasons?

I was thinking of inverted minors auctions, and in auctions like
1m-(1♠)-x-(pass)
?

where opener can describe his hand more accurately if there is only a single (narrow) balanced-hand range included in the 1m opening.

[MickyB]

 helene_t, on 2014-January-26, 14:05, said:

What are the two main reasons?

I was thinking of inverted minors auctions, and in auctions like
1m-(1♠)-x-(pass)
?

where opener can describe his hand more accurately if there is only a single (narrow) balanced-hand range included in the 1m opening.

You open 1C, showing clubs or 11-13 NT or 17-19 NT. Next seat makes a WJO. Partner has to be relatively conservative, as the default assumption is that you'll have an 11-13 NT. You may struggle to express the values of your 17-19 NT without getting overboard, especially if the next hand raises.

In contract, if you open 1m showing a 17-19 NT or an unbalanced hand, partner can be very aggressive, and take a lot of pressure off your balanced 17 counts.

[PhilKing]

 helene_t, on 2014-January-26, 14:05, said:

What are the two main reasons?

I was thinking of inverted minors auctions, and in auctions like
1m-(1♠)-x-(pass)
?

where opener can describe his hand more accurately if there is only a single (narrow) balanced-hand range included in the 1m opening.

The other reason (other than that described by MickyB) is that your responding strategy varies even without competition. Over of a minor showing a minimum balanced hand or natural, our best strategy is to go quietly with balanced rubbish, but opposite the natural or strong balanced range, we can profitably look for a better spot. Playing split range spoils this.

I am slighty deranged about this one, since my partner has responded on sub-minimum balanced trash three times and we have gone for 500, 800 and 800. passing would have escaped a penalty each time.

[MickyB]

Reasons why it's better to open 1D on the weak NTs and 1C on the strong balanced hands:

- 1C:1S!, 1N and 1C:1R, 2M can show 17-19 NTs. I suspect Phil is getting higher on these hands having opened 1D
- The 17-19 NT usually gets to declare in responder's major, especially if you play transfers after 1C:1R, 1N
- You get to preempt more on your weak NTs. This may sound silly, but 1D-P-1N is much more preemptive than 1C-P-1S. Likewise 1D-P-1S rather than 1C-P-1H!. Overcalling 2C over 1D can preempt yourself out of a major fit. Oppo can choose to play (1C) 2C as natural and 1C (2D) as majors; there's no equivalent method over a 1D opening.
- You can choose to make 1C forcing, removing club hands from the 2C opener

I disagree with Phil's argument that you want to use T-Walsh as much as possible. T-Walsh exists because the most frequent responses to 1C should show [4+spades] and [4+hearts]. This is already the case over a 1D opening! Weak NTs don't need the extra space, they don't gain from declaring, and auctions like 1C-(P)-1D!-(1S); 2H are often brutally wrongsiding when you've got, say, a weak NT with three low spades.

[MickyB]

Quote

One problem I see with the follow-ups to 1♣ is that when it starts
1♣-1banana
2/3♣
opener can't rebid 2♣ with 11-17 points, if responder can have a.o. 8-9 points without club tolerance, yet 3♣ with 15-17 points is not great either if responder can have a misfitting yarb. The same problem may appear in relation to opener's reverse, depending on what a banana is and what it means.

You've lots of space to sort this out if you want to make it a priority - I don't currently.

Quote

Something else: It occurs to me that the auction
1♣-1NT (7-10)
pass
is a very narrow target. It is only when opener is 4414 and responder 3352 that we don't have a 7-card minor suit fit.

1C:1S!, 1N = 17-19
1C:1S!, 2C = unbal, can be 4414. As you say, this will find a seven-card fit unless partner is 3352.
1C:1N = 5+clubs 0+hcp, now 2C = any 17-19 NT

Quote

Something else: Should we open 1♦ with 4-5 minors? I would think that it is necessary only with less than say 17 points. With 17-19 you can allow responder to pass your reverse if he is bust. The real monsters could be build into the 2nt rebid.

No, once again, you've plenty of space over the 1C opening to show C+D and stop in 2m.

One possible scheme -

Completing the transfer = bad 2C rebid or C+D any strength
2C = good 2C bid
2D = some kind of raise

[PhilKing]

 MickyB, on 2014-January-26, 16:09, said:

Reasons why it's better to open 1D on the weak NTs and 1C on the strong balanced hands:

- 1C:1S!, 1N and 1C:1R, 2M can show 17-19 NTs. I suspect Phil is getting higher on these hands having opened 1D

This is an argument for my way, imo. Yes I get to 3M when I have 18-20 with 4-card support. This is hardly a hanging offence. In return I get many more ways to raise to 2M on hands that are not strong enough to go higher. For instance, after 1♣-1♦, I can bid 2♦ to show a sound raise to 2M with four trumps and raising via a completion to show a good 3-card raise. This means I can reserve the direct raise for total minimums. This both gets me to thin games, whilst staying low when responder would have made a doomed game try. It's not just about the F word - it's natural to put more effort in to stopping low on the minimum hands, since the strong ones are more likely to be OK at the three level.

- The 17-19 NT usually gets to declare in responder's major, especially if you play transfers after 1C:1R, 1N

This is true.

- You get to preempt more on your weak NTs. This may sound silly, but 1D-P-1N is much more preemptive than 1C-P-1S. Likewise 1D-P-1S rather than 1C-P-1H!. Overcalling 2C over 1D can preempt yourself out of a major fit. Oppo can choose to play (1C) 2C as natural and 1C (2D) as majors; there's no equivalent method over a 1D opening.
- You can choose to make 1C forcing, removing club hands from the 2C opener

This is also true, but "much" is an overbid, since a double of 1♠ is equivalent to a double of 1NT - the extra option they have is pass then double, as I have found to my cost, but that is only relevant when you respond on balanced filth. And we are the ones preempted some of the time. 1♣-1♠ can be the prelude to accurate minor auctions opposite the balanced hands in a way that 1♦-1NT by definition ends.

I disagree with Phil's argument that you want to use T-Walsh as much as possible. T-Walsh exists because the most frequent responses to 1C should show [4+spades] and [4+hearts]. This is already the case over a 1D opening! Weak NTs don't need the extra space, they don't gain from declaring, and auctions like 1C-(P)-1D!-(1S); 2H are often brutally wrongsiding when you've got, say, a weak NT with three low spades.

I like the argument, but I have not seen many hands where this has cost. It could be an argument for a different use for support doubles.

See above.