One Level Switch in T Walsh/PC
#1
Posted 2016-May-16, 13:52
1C (forcing - weak nt, good with clubs or any GF or big bal)
1D negative or bal
1H spades
1S hearts
The rationale is that we were putting our necks out with 1C 1S (0+, no 4cM) 1N.
1D allows us to weasel out at the one level like in PC.
Switching 1D and 1S doesn't seem like a big loss. Responder has full values so we can rebid 1N in comfort.
Heard of this? What do you think?
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#2
Posted 2016-May-16, 15:02
Phil, on 2016-May-16, 13:52, said:
helene_t, on 2014-March-08, 14:46, said:
With (6)7-9(10) you respond 1NT.
This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-May-17, 06:48
#3
Posted 2016-May-16, 15:19
regarding the switch, i know a pair that used to play this switch on a 1D opening, I think its the same thing here.
I think you get a very small gain of by the switch, in price of more complex system.
#4
Posted 2016-May-16, 18:45
#5
Posted 2016-May-16, 18:49
For some reason, there was never a single hand where it would have been useful, and we didn't implement the switch.
I had been particularly annoyed with the PC sequence 1♣-1M;-2♦-responder describes hand, since if the contract is M, then responder's strength and M length is known.
#6
Posted 2016-May-17, 04:22
Anyway: Fredin-Lindkvist used to switch 1♥ and 1♠ in their relay based Swedish Club system: http://bridgefiles.n...redin+notes.pdf
Their 1♥ response is 4+ spades or 12+ balanced, while 1♠ is 4+ hearts unbalanced.
#7
Posted 2016-May-17, 07:36
1♦ = weak without a 5 card major or INV+ with a 4+ card major, or any GF
1M = to play opposite a weak NT
1NT, 2m = nat INV without a 4 card major
2♥ = weak, 5-5 majors
I have not gone through it but I would think that could be unravelled and you still get to stop in 1M when it is right. If 2m as an invite is too restrictive, change it to either INV+ or weak according to taste.
#8
Posted 2016-May-17, 08:12
-- Bertrand Russell
#9
Posted 2016-May-17, 08:52
A lot of this is a work in progress.
1. 1C only contains strong balanced hands and strong 2's in clubs. Big diamond hands are being considered as a 1D opening which is almost a force, or thrown into the multi bucket. We've gone back and forth on big hands in the majors and considering fantunes for 1M and 2M. We aren't interested in putting semi strong hands (18-21) into 1C.
2. 2C is the same as polish.
3. Therefore 1C is going to be a weak NT a lot, and it doesn't make sense to overload 1D as purely negative since it's not that likely and lho is probably getting in anyway. PC already stretches a 1D response to neg or a diamond hand type (others?)
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#10
Posted 2016-May-17, 08:55
Kungsgeten, on 2016-May-17, 04:22, said:
This system will be used primarily for IMPS so playing the,wrong partial isn't critical. Besides, many don't have qualms about bypassing spades after 1m 1H to indicate a balanced hand?
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#12
Posted 2016-May-19, 08:06
nullve, on 2016-May-17, 16:06, said:
Transfer responses are not compatible with an absolutely forcing and possibly GF 1♣ (in my view) because the usual requirement is that 1♦ is a negative of some sort, rather than show hearts. Without this negative I am sure it would get awkward differentiating continuations, on both sides.
With regard to the OP structure, this is not Twalsh but a major inversion. This is of course possible, but not a good idea in my view. Twalsh provides advantages over natural responses, and while inversion may help spade hands, depending on continuations, it seems to destroy description of heart holdings, or both major holdings. If the part score is of no concern, then I am sure you could devise better ideas.
#13
Posted 2016-May-19, 08:23
fromageGB, on 2016-May-19, 08:06, said:
Systems like Fantunes, Nightmare and Millennium Club, don't they use a forcing club in your sense?
#14
Posted 2016-May-19, 10:27
fromageGB, on 2016-May-19, 08:06, said:
It is also possible to play a mixture, such as 1♦ showing either a negative or a game force with hearts. I have even been playing with this idea for my strong club system. The suggestion I made for 1♦ earlier in the thread was also such a mixed response, ranging from a bust to a slam force. Such responses are often more efficient than a pure negative but sometimes require a little more effort to make sure everything is working over them.
#15
Posted 2016-May-19, 16:33
Zelandakh, on 2016-May-19, 10:27, said:
I know jinksy-phoenix214 do that in their Fantunes-like system. I used to do that in a Swedish Club-inspired system, but I ended up removing all mini-club hands with 4 H from 1♣ to make it work.
#16
Posted 2016-May-19, 16:40
I have been playing the following 1-level responses to a 15+ hcp forcing club for 10 years and am quite satisfied with the results:
C3: Copious Canape Club is still my favorite system. (Ultra upgraded, PM for notes)
Santa Fe Precision ♣ published 8/19. TOP3 published 11/20. Magic experiment (Science Modernized) with Lenzo. 2020: Jan Eric Larsson's Cottontail ♣. 2020. BFUN (Bridge For the UNbalanced) 2021: Weiss Simplified ♣ (Canape & Relay). 2022: Canary ♣ Modernized, 2023-4: KOK Canape.
#17
Posted 2016-May-19, 19:44
PrecisionL, on 2016-May-19, 16:40, said:
I have been playing the following 1-level responses to a 15+ hcp forcing club for 10 years and am quite satisfied with the results:
You're using about 80% of your response structure to 0-7 which seems really high to me. They're maybe half your responding hands? And their auctions tend to be abridged since they often stop in part scores.
#18
Posted 2016-May-19, 19:50
PrecisionL, on 2016-May-19, 16:40, said:
I have been playing the following 1-level responses to a 15+ hcp forcing club for 10 years and am quite satisfied with the results:
Thanks Larry but I think we are keeping 1C as 10+
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#19
Posted 2016-May-26, 08:20
1C--- 1D = 0--4 / GF. 1H = 12--14 NT. Pass = Any 0--4. Bid = Natural GF. 1S = 19+ clubs or balanced GF. 1NT = GF. 2C = Most 0--4. 2DHS = Natural 3--4. 3C = Negative but good clubs support. 1NT = 18--20. 2C = 14--18. 2DHS = Nat GF. 2NT = 21--23 NT. 1HS = 4+M, 5--11 hcp. You could switch them if you like. 1NT = 5--10 NT, no major. 2CD = 5+m, 5--11 hcp, no major. 2H = 11--14 NT. 2S = INV both minors. 2N = INV 6+!d. 3C = INV 6+!c.
#20
Posted 2016-May-27, 06:31
Phil, on 2016-May-16, 13:52, said:
1C (forcing - weak nt, good with clubs or any GF or big bal)
1D negative or bal
1H spades
1S hearts
The rationale is that we were putting our necks out with 1C 1S (0+, no 4cM) 1N.
1D allows us to weasel out at the one level like in PC.
Switching 1D and 1S doesn't seem like a big loss. Responder has full values so we can rebid 1N in comfort.
Heard of this? What do you think?
I agree with Phil that such methods are especially efficacious in systems where 1♣ is usually strong because they help to right-side contracts, at the cost of some artificiality.
For us, the 1♦ reply is negative -- but in systems where 1♣ is a portmanteau bid, it makes sense to use 1♦ as an economical catch-all response for other limited hands.