[Cyberyeti]

Quote

2NT = I really hate 2NT 19-21 or 20-21. For standard players I believe 2C for 20-21 or any GF and 2NT for 22-23 is a lot better. For the PC & prc I believe almost anything is better than 2NT 20-21. Yes I know that Meckwell keep 2nt for 19-21.

One reason not to play 2♣ then 2N 20-21 and 2N 22-23 is that you can do what we do and treat 2♣-positive as F4N unless you're sure a suit is open, this allows opener to get some hands off his chest without fear of responder passing 3N or 4M.

[karlson]

awm, on 2015-February-13, 10:12, said:

(snip)
1. Major versus minor. Hands like ♠xx ♥AKxxxx ♦AKQx ♣x make game pretty easily opposite a yarb with a 4-card fit, or a very modest hand with a 3-card fit. This makes passing a 1♥ bid which could fairly frequently be such a hand dangerous (with a fit). If you switch the rounded suits to make this a standard american 1♣ opening, you are not all that likely to miss a game because you need an eleventh trick. In fact it's hard to construct standard 1m openings which can make game opposite a balanced nothing hand, and the ones you can build generally have so much minor suit length that it's hard to believe the opponents are passing. In fact I have never missed a good game by passing a standard 1m opening.
(snip)

I don't play polish club (and probably won't in the foreseeable future) but I still found this thread interesting. I'm a little confused here though: surely polish club players can bid 1♣-1♦-2♥ with this kind of hand? If not, that does seem very strange.

[straube]

Found this...

http://dcrcbridge.bl...olish-club.html

I don't think he gives this as a reason, but the net effect would be 1C-1D, 1H would be 12-14 bal or perhaps some intermediate 4H/5C hands.

This being at the cost of 1H=11-20 or thereabouts.

I'm assuming here that with 6 hearts one would open 1H or rebid 2H after a club start depending on strength.

[rhm]

awm, on 2015-February-13, 10:12, said:

The situations here are really not the same. I'll give reasons in order of relevance to your system:

1. Major versus minor. Hands like ♠xx ♥AKxxxx ♦AKQx ♣x make game pretty easily opposite a yarb with a 4-card fit, or a very modest hand with a 3-card fit. This makes passing a 1♥ bid which could fairly frequently be such a hand dangerous (with a fit). If you switch the rounded suits to make this a standard american 1♣ opening, you are not all that likely to miss a game because you need an eleventh trick. In fact it's hard to construct standard 1m openings which can make game opposite a balanced nothing hand, and the ones you can build generally have so much minor suit length that it's hard to believe the opponents are passing. In fact I have never missed a good game by passing a standard 1m opening.

straube, on 2015-February-14, 15:40, said:

Found this...

http://dcrcbridge.bl...olish-club.html

I don't think he gives this as a reason, but the net effect would be 1C-1D, 1H would be 12-14 bal or perhaps some intermediate 4H/5C hands.

This being at the cost of 1H=11-20 or thereabouts.

I'm assuming here that with 6 hearts one would open 1H or rebid 2H after a club start depending on strength.

If you have a good hand with a reasonable six card heart suit and 18+ you should not rebid 1♥ over 1♣-1♦.
With AWM's hand I either open 1♣ and rebid 2♥ over 1♦, which is only "semi-forcing" or simply open 1♥.
I guess I would go the first route.

I also guess it is possible missing game or slam after 1♣-1♦-1♥, but the issue seems to me exaggerated.
Strong distributional hands, where you have a fit, but not in the major bid over 1♣-1♦, come to mind.
If holding the strong variant opener should be quite limited how strong he can be including distribution if he bids 1M over 1♣-1♦.
DavidC is good in analyzing strength and weaknesses, but his "improvements" would not be my choice.
He underrates the advantage of limited opening bids.

Rainer Herrmann

[benlessard]

Quote

What I don't understand about this 1♥ 3+ business, is that I don't really see that you can pass. After all, if you pass with short hearts you could be in a terrible partial

I should have made this clearer but in my system transfers are weak or GF and all the inv hands are in 1D.

So with 0-5 3343,3352,3325,3145 etc we bid 1C-1S (transfer to NT) 0-5 hands with 4S and witouth 4H will be in 1C-1H(spades) 6 cards single suiter 0-5 are in 1C--(1NT to 2H)

So 1C-1D is 4H or 6pts+.

1C-1D-2H is 18-20 with 4H (so that facing inv we are GF and facing H we are ok). 1C-1D-1H is either just 3 cards or its weaker than 18.

After 1C-1D-1H we use transfers that are INV or GF H+suit. The only non forcing bid is 1C-1D-1H-1NT wich is inv 4 or 5S (denies 4H)


1C-1D-1H is a great start in my system because

1- its frequent.
2-if responder is weak we have at least a 4-3 fit so he can pass 1H.
3 if responder is inv he has many bids available.
4- if responder is GF he can transfer and bid again to show H+another suit.

1C-1D-1H doesnt work so well in polish club because responder can have a wide range of weak hands and those hand need bids that cannot be used for other things.

[perko90]

Fun thread! I too have theory-crafted a similar hybrid system that uses weak NT, an unbalanced 1♦, and a 1♣ that either shows 18+ any dist, 15-17 bal, or 15-17 unbal w/ 4(5)+ clubs. 2♣ and 2♦ are 10-14 w/ 6. It solves many issues that I find w/ Std, Precision, and PC. For ex. after 1♣-1♦, opener can rebid 1NT w/ 15-19 safely without the awkward 1♥ bids of PC (although bidding 1♥ w/ 4 seems fine).
Anyway, the unbal 1♦ can be short in diamonds as well - as inspired my M. Miles. However, my 1♦ which is 11-17, may only have short diamonds when 11-14, so at least it will be their hand if it goes 1♦-swish. And unlike Miles' system, the 1♦ isn't over-burdened w/ the 1-suited minors, which allows for some nice 1♦-1M sequences. Rebids are: 1NT = 0-2 M, 2M raise is always 4, and - the key innovation - a 2m rebid is a natural 5c suit + 3 card support.
There's also room to bump up the strength of the 1NT opening in 3rd and 4th seat to 13-15 or 14-16. The only modification needed is that 1♦ includes the bare minimum balanced hands in 3rd and 4th seat and then passes a 1M response with 3 pcs and the 1NT rebid would still be 0-2 support, but may actually be balanced.
Food for thought.

[Kungsgeten]

I'm quite intrigued by perko's nebulous Miles-inspired diamond in a Polish context. Perhaps something like this would solve some issues with PC (opening 2C on five and the 15-17 club hand in contested auctions)?

1C = 12-14 bal or 18+
1D = Unbalanced, no five card major. 11-17. If holding a 6 card minor then 15-17.
1M = 11-17, 5+ suit
1NT = 15-17
2m = (10)11-14, 6+ suit

[straube]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-February-19, 18:40, said:

I'm quite intrigued by perko's nebulous Miles-inspired diamond in a Polish context. Perhaps something like this would solve some issues with PC (opening 2C on five and the 15-17 club hand in contested auctions)?

1C = 12-14 bal or 18+
1D = Unbalanced, no five card major. 11-17. If holding a 6 card minor then 15-17.
1M = 11-17, 5+ suit
1NT = 15-17
2m = (10)11-14, 6+ suit

You could move the 12-14 bal into that artificial 1D opening. Maybe something like...

1C=16+ (17+ bal)
1D=11-13 bal or 10-15 unbal, no five card major
1M=10-15, 5+ suit
1N=14-16
2m=(10)11-15, 6+ suit

But on a more serious note, 1D natural is arguably the most advantageous part of PC and this proposal gives that up. If you're willing to entertain
an artificial 1D, why not lump the 11-13 balanced in with the unbalanced of similar range? If you don't like mixing bal and unbal, well you're doing
that anyway with your 1C opening...plus you're mixing (in 1C) very different ranges.

[benlessard]

I think that 1D unbal but could be short D is odd. It make relaying the full shape impossible and your not able to raise diamonds on T1. For me these are the 2 main advantages of 1D 4+ unb. Opening 1H 1NT with a 4414 is a lesser evil. IMO the penalty of opening 2C with (4315) is just not high enough.

[straube]

Not sure about Miles' 1D, but an 1D opening that can be bal 12-14 or unbal 10-15 and no 5-cd major or 6-cd minor can be relayed pretty comfortably.

For me, the tradeoff between PC and strong club/nebulous diamond is whether you want to show diamonds or 16+. I think when partner opens a natural 1D that the diamond information is not as important as knowing he has opening values. I read that Benlessard likes to raise diamonds instead of responding hearts when weak and trying to preempt a spade fit, but I think most folks don't react positively to diamond information if they have a major suit except on occasion (yes, I have done). I.e. I bet a lot of PC 1D and strong club nebulous 1D auctions start off the same way....1D-1M.

OTOH, whenever responder has a good 8 or so hcps, he can react positively to the 16+ information of a strong club. That information is more often useful by quite a lot.

[perko90]

I hope the evaluation of an unbalanced 1♦ doesn't begin and end with "can't be raised T1, so can't be good."
You have to balance that with the many advantages. Whether you think the penalty is reasonable for opening the various 5431 and 4441 hands 2♣ or 2♦ like you do in many PC / Precision auctions or open some of them 1♦ but with no unbalanced guarantee, you still are paying a penalty. Besides adding clarity to auctions that are NOT opened with an unbalanced 1♦, one of the biggest strengths of the unbalanced 1♦ is that you often wind up ahead in pattern recognition than if you had started with either a natural or nebulous 1♦.
Don't you hate these:
1) a 1444 hand after 1♦-1♠; ?
2) having 2-2 minors when the auction goes 1♦-1M; 2♣ (5-4 either way) - ?
3) having a 3-3-5-2 hand facing a Precision 2♦ - ?
These are all handled better when starting with an unbalanced 1♦.
1) 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT (with a misfit warning!)
2) 1♦ - 1M; 1NT - Pass
3) 1♦ - 1NT; Pass
Or let's say you start with a 3451 shape and the auction goes 1♦ - 1♠; 2♠. I'd rather have my auction of 1♦ - 1♠; 2♦ (showing 5 D's and exactly 3 S's).
There's also times where the shortness in D's turns to a strength. Imagine LHO with a nice 4441 hand with a perfect TO double of a normal 1♣ opening, but instead hears 1♦. Or maybe he has a nice D overcall. Either way, the uncertainty can make the opponents' choices harder, too.
And who says you can't raise D's T1? Not as often for sure, but you still can. 1♦ - 3♣ = a pass or correct preempt. Sure, you need at least 4-4 in the minors, but if that bidding normally denies a 4CM, it will be the case many times anyway. Similarly, 1♦ - 2♦ = natural forcing, no 4CM. Unwinding the shape of the 1♦ bidder isn't that hard from here and you'll reach 3NT when it's right about as often as any other normal inverted minor auction.

[perko90]

straube, on 2015-February-19, 20:10, said:

But on a more serious note, 1D natural is arguably the most advantageous part of PC and this proposal gives that up. If you're willing to entertain
an artificial 1D, why not lump the 11-13 balanced in with the unbalanced of similar range?

A big part of the reason is that the 1NT rebid (unbalanced, misfit) after 1♦ - 1M is so useful. Another is that you lose a lot of inferences in other rebids/sequences when it's polluted with balanced hands too. See my above post for more examples.

straube, on 2015-February-19, 20:10, said:

If you don't like mixing bal and unbal, well you're doing
that anyway with your 1C opening...plus you're mixing (in 1C) very different ranges.

The key difference here is that there's more room to sort things out. I'm not just talking about the extra step between 1♣ and 1♦; I'm also referring to the strength of the 1♣ bid allows you to safely go to the 2 and 3 level to figure things out. Or if perhaps you're referring to the classic PC where the weak NT is included in 1♣ and you sometimes have to start 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ with a weak hand and only 2 of 'em, you'll have to have someone else defend that, because I don't like that either.

[straube]

perko90, on 2015-February-21, 00:14, said:

A big part of the reason is that the 1NT rebid (unbalanced, misfit) after 1♦ - 1M is so useful. Another is that you lose a lot of inferences in other rebids/sequences when it's polluted with balanced hands too. See my above post for more examples.

ok, I was comparing a nebulous diamond to a straw man that placed balanced 12-14 in with 1C. I was suggesting that putting these in 1D was preferable to mixing a weak NT with strong (18+) meanings. So I understand you want to move these to 1N and have a weaker (but still strong) 1C and that may or may not be better (I think it isn't) but that's really a separate discussion. Start a new thread on your system and maybe I'll reply. I'd like to know more about it anyway. But what we've really been debating in this and a couple of other threads here is whether strong club or little club is better and not whether nebulous or unbalanced diamond is better.

perko90, on 2015-February-21, 00:14, said:

The key difference here is that there's more room to sort things out. I'm not just talking about the extra step between 1♣ and 1♦; I'm also referring to the strength of the 1♣ bid allows you to safely go to the 2 and 3 level to figure things out. Or if perhaps you're referring to the classic PC where the weak NT is included in 1♣ and you sometimes have to start 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ with a weak hand and only 2 of 'em, you'll have to have someone else defend that, because I don't like that either.

Yes, I was referring to the classic PC where 1C contained 12-14 balanced.

[awm]

For perko's system, my questions would be:

1. What are your options with 15-17 hands after 1d-1x; with many such hands it seems like you are behind standard bidding (I.e 14(35) after 1d-1s)?
2. Are you really better off opening 1d on these hands rather than 1c, given 15-17 bal is in 1c already?
3. What do you bid with 5+/5+ minors hands? Rebidding 1nt with 1165 for example seems unlikely to be right.
4. How do you force after 1d-1M-1nt? It seems like there are some hands where you want to play 2m and this might be hard if some 2m is forcing, whereas more standard bidders are starting 1d-1M-2c and have 2OM to force.
5. 1d seems underloaded relative to the other one level openings. Even 1M might be more frequent, since it can include 6M 11-14 and 5M332 and 5M-5m hands, when many of the analogous hands are not in 1d.

[perko90]

awm, on 2015-February-21, 11:21, said:

For perko's system, my questions would be:

1. What are your options with 15-17 hands after 1d-1x; with many such hands it seems like you are behind standard bidding (I.e 14(35) after 1d-1s)?
2. Are you really better off opening 1d on these hands rather than 1c, given 15-17 bal is in 1c already?
3. What do you bid with 5+/5+ minors hands? Rebidding 1nt with 1165 for example seems unlikely to be right.
4. How do you force after 1d-1M-1nt? It seems like there are some hands where you want to play 2m and this might be hard if some 2m is forcing, whereas more standard bidders are starting 1d-1M-2c and have 2OM to force.
5. 1d seems underloaded relative to the other one level openings. Even 1M might be more frequent, since it can include 6M 11-14 and 5M332 and 5M-5m hands, when many of the analogous hands are not in 1d.

I'll take Straube's suggestion and start a new thread for my unbalanced D system. But before I do, I'll answer Adam's Q's here (out of order on purpose):

2. Except for 4144 and 4441 shape, all 15-17 1♦ hands have 5+ D's. The other unbalanced hands w/ 4(5)+ C's are indeed opened 1♣
1. The 2 (4441) hands tend to have easy 1♠ rebid or 3M raise to a 1M response. After 1♦-1M, many 15 counts (facing a misfit) should be downgraded to a 1NT rebid. There's also:
3♣ = 15-17 5+ D's & 4+ C's and denies 3 pc raise
2NT = 15-17 5+ D's with a 3 pc M raise
3♦ = 6+ D's and denies 3 pc raise (avoiding the "Bridge World Death Hand" problem of Std)
2♥ (reverse over 1♠) = 15(16)-17 5+ D's & 4 H's (may still have 3 pc raise) NF
3. 2 options here: rebid 3♣ on the stronger hands or, yes, 1NT with the weaker ones. I know the 1NT seems odd at 1st, but responder will often take it to 2♣ (pass or correct) or the opponents will help w/ a 2M balance, where you can bid 3♣ easily. And if it swishes at 1NT, you may not end in the best contract, but the Opps have a good chance they missed an 8-card major fit.
4. 2♣ = pass or correct and 2♦ is an artificial NMF of sorts
5. I've done the math on it and was rather pleased with the spread. Unfortunately, I can't find my calculations, so I'll have to defer the complete answer to my new thread.