[glen]

This is their system profile for the US team trials:

System Summary Form: Jim Munday - William F. Hall

Let me try a summary here:

1♣: Multi-meaning, forcing, either:
1) 18+ balanced
2) 11+ 5-4/4-5/5-5 minors
3) 14+ to 20 with any six card or longer suit
4) Rarely, 21+, 4-4-4-1 or 4-4-1-4 exactly

1♦: Two-way, either weak balanced or big unbalanced, so:
1) 12-14 balanced
2) Any unbalanced 21+ except not 4-4-4-1/4-4-1-4 exactly (and perhaps not 5-4/4-5/5-5 in minors - not certain about this)

1♥,1♠: 11-20, 4-5 cards in the major, can be just 4 in the major with a five card minor (not longer)

1NT: 15-17 balanced

2X: 10-14 (not good 14), 6 card or longer suit

2NT: Not defined on system summary

Anybody have further details on this system and/or have seen it in action?

[Gerben42]

Very interesting, never heard of it!

[Flame]

I like it very much, its very, judging it by davidc's ideas i think the one bid hands and the two bid hands both works very well.

[david_c]

I wonder what they do on 6-5 hands.

The weakness is 1♥/1♠ of course. Personally I think that having "potential canape" on a wide range of strength is not very playable. (blog post)

[Flame]

david_c, on Apr 28 2007, 08:19 AM, said:

I wonder what they do on 6-5 hands.

The weakness is 1♥/1♠ of course. Personally I think that having "potential canape" on a wide range of strength is not very playable. (blog post)

I read it and see your point, but since they took out the 1 suiter and balanced hands from the 1M keeping it for 2 suiter only it might give them some advances maybe big enough to make it work well.

[glen]

Two things I would be concerned about:

1) 1♦(forcing)-Pass(ambush)-1M-Pass--1NT-Double(Big hand)
2) 1♣(forcing)-2♠-Double(values)-Pass--? -> is there room for opener to unwind all the hand types now?

So I would want to exchange some meanings between the 1♦ and 1♣ openings, such as moving the 5-4/4-5 in the minors, and say, 11-14, to 1♦, and moving the 21+ unbalanced hand types into 1♣. If I was worried about having artificial replies to the 1♣ opening and it still being covered by the ACBL General Convention Chart (GCC), I would move the 5-5 minors 11-14 out of 1♣ and either to 1♦ or 2NT, and I would start the 6+ any suit openings at 15 for the 1♣ opening.

So a method that allowed artificial replies to the 1♣ opening, and was still covered under the GCC could be:

1♣: Multi-meaning, 15+, forcing, either:
1) 18+ balanced
2) 15+ 5-4/4-5/5-5 minors
3) 15+ any six card or longer suit
4) 21+ unbalanced

1♦: Non-forcing, either
1) 12-14 balanced
2) 5-4/4-5/5-5 in the minors, 11-14, if 5-5 some values in the majors

2NT: 11-14, 5-5 in the minors, values almost all in the minors

Rest: as before

--- ----

However their approach of parking the 5-4/4-5/5-5 minor hands into 1♣ has advantages. From their system summary, they seem to play a sequence such as 1♣-2♠(overcall)-3 of either minor as non-forcing with 4 or longer in the minor, enough values for the 18+ balanced to be able to bid 3NT. Thus the 1♣-2♠-Double is not overloaded, and they likely use the same approach as the Negative Free Bid folks - double is either traditional negative or considerable extra values. All this may make the second scenario less of a concern.

--- ----

Another idea to avoiding the ambush of the first scenario, would be to exchange the balanced ranges of 1NT and 1♦. So:

1♦: Forcing, either
1) 15-17 balanced
2) 21+ unbalanced as before

1NT: 12-14 balanced

Now one could allow 14s to freely upgrade to the 1♦ opening, especially if 4-4 in the majors. However if one keeps 1♦ strictly at 15, then one can play artificial responses to 1♦ under the GCC, such as using major suit flip-flops (1♥=♠s, 1♠=♥s), in order that the 15-17 balanced most often plays a major suit contract, as the rest of field will do.

If 1♦ was 15-17 balanced or big, I would likely want to take advantage of this by limiting the 1M openings to 18, moving the major bids with 19+ into the 1♦ opening. This is for the reasons that davidc covers well.

[jdonn]

deleted, I didn't like my post

[pclayton]

These guys are from my district. I didn't even know they played together, although they are from the same area.

Bill frequently plays 4cM systems.

[bhall]

Hi all, I didn't know this forum existed. We're flattered by the interest, and happy to answer any questions. Here are a few answers about the system:

1) 2N opening = 21-22. 1♣-1♦-2N = 23-24. 1♣-1♦-1♥(shows 18+, requests 1♠ rebid)-1N = 18-20;-2N = 25+. These uses are not optimum, just simple. 1♣-1♦-1♠ = 18+ with spades longest (may be 4441 21+, requests 2♣ rebid). Responder may transfer with 5-5 over these rebids or show 6+ M with 0-4.

2) 6-5's that are 10-13 open 2; they have yet to be passed out. They are shown by a natural jump-rebid over the next-step relay (which implies 2+ in the opened suit or 4441 and at least invitational values).

6-5's that are 14-17 used to be opened 1M (if they had a major), but they just don't come up enough, so we dumped them back into 1♣ - to be shown (e.g.) by Leaping Michaels or cue bids over interference. Stronger 6-5's may choose to open 1♦, in order to have room for locating specific features, or 1♣ with broken suit(s).

3) The potential major canape' is indeed a weak point. We play many 4-3 fits at the two level when a better fit is available, but both the 4-card hand and the 3-card hand have ruffing possibilities in those situations. 1M-1N (not forcing) is bid on balanced 3-card holdings. Knowing that there is at most a 1-card difference in length helps a lot.

4) The 1♦ opening has never been nailed for a number. We are guaranteed to find any 8-card fit if doubled or a 7-card fit if no better fit exists. The trap pass often faces an 8-card major fit at the two level if it waits to enter (1♦-1M-2M).

All questions and comments welcome.

[Flame]

Hi bhall, thanks for sharing
I have two questions How did you come up with this system and decided to play it in such a serious event ?
and how do you handle something like 1♥ -2♠ - P - P
How much does opener need to reopen and can he distiguege between 5M and 4M hands ?
Thanks in advance

[gwnn]

isnt their 1♣ a little vulnerable to preemption?

[bhall]

The system actually evolved from the opening two bids, an idea discussed between Bob Solomons and myself a few years back. Bridge historians may recall the old Blue Team 2C, which, besides the minimum club hands, contained 15-16 point 6-5's. That risked a lot of pass-outs, so we lowered the point range to its present level.

Originally, there was no canape' problem, because the 1M hands were opened 1♣ (for hearts) and 1♦ (for spades), but that was not ACBL GCC. Bob and I played it in a Spingold match with no difficulty. I worked with Irv Kolstal to devise the present arrangement. It is now a mixture of Roman and Arno ideas.

A major purpose of putting the both-minors hands in 1♣ is to provide a sound basis for competitive auctions - responder bids as though opener has both. Over 1♣-2♠-X(invitational with hearts)-P, opener rebids 2N with minimum values and a spade stop, 3♣ with other minimums, and 3♦ with bigger both-minors hands that lack 3 hearts. His 3♥ rebid shows forcing values with 3 hearts and both minors. This puts a lot of hands into his 3♠ and 3N rebids. His 4m rebids show 6m hands with 4 hearts. Over 1♣-2♠-P-P, X is takeout (both minors or big NT without a stop), 3♣, ♦, ♥ are invitational 6-card suits, and Leaping Michaels applies.

Regarding re-opening after, e.g., 1♥-2♠-P-P, opener can pass with spade length and minimum values. The double is takeout, 3m is usually 5-5, and 2N is big and balanced (and therefore hearts are 5 long). In ordinary competition, responder's negative double often contains 3 cards in opener's major.

Frankly, the opening two bids are the most fun. How often have you heard 2♦-2♠-P-P-X? Or 2♠-P-P-3♥-4♦? That last one ended in 4♠X, making when partner held only two key jacks. Believe me, we have a lot of lively auctions.

[glen]

gwnn, on Apr 30 2007, 04:16 AM, said:

isnt their 1♣ a little vulnerable to preemption?

Their 1♣ opening seems to be a double-edged sword (not sure if single-edged swords were at one time popular). Sure you can preempt it, but they can preempt right back.

For example:
1♣-1 of a major overcall-3 of a minor-?

They can play this 3 of a minor bid as 6/7-10 with 4 or longer in the minor, so it will come up a lot. So now advancer (partner of overcaller) has only one way to support partner's major below game (3M), and otherwise has to bid game (or cuebid 4m). So if the opponents use an active style over 1♣, overcalling 1 of a major on a wide range of hands, they will be faced with a considerable number of impossible guess situations. And there is the double part of the edge, where it goes 1♣-1 of a major overcall-3 of a minor-bid-double= 18+ balanced hand type.

As to how often something like 2♦-2♠-P-P-X happens, in the last regional we played, the auction on one hand went P-P-3♣-3NT-P-P-X-4♦ making 4.

[civill]

I think that it might be very good,especially on multi 1♣ opening & 1♦ respose.

This post has been edited by civill: 2007-May-16, 01:34

[glen]

Yes it would be nice to pass the 1♦ response if 5-4/4-5/5-5 in the minors and not a big hand. However if an event is not super flight, one can't pass 1♦, as the ACBL GCC defines it as:

ACBL GCC said:

ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to 1♣