[firmit]

In a strong club context, 4+ card majors, with a possible canape. 2♦ is multi.

(1) 1♥-1♠-2♣ states 9 cards in the suits bid.
(2) 1♦-1x-2♣ as 5-4/4-5 i the minors normally 5431, 1NT allows 2254 with the minors.

The question is, what should the 2♣ opening be? Should this be used to handle 5-4 in the minors to free up (2) or should it be 5m+4♥ or alike so that I can free up the canape in (1).

Or should I keep it this way - and use 2♣ as 6c 9-14hp.

Or am I putting the wrong leg on the floor getting up in the morning (don't know if this has the same meaning in english...).... meaning - my system is flawed from the get-go.

edit: my quote has never been more relevant!

[kenrexford]

I have for years strongly believed that a strong club system, whether natural or canape, would benefit from a slight change as to minor opening structure. I tested my belief and found it much more workable, in both contexts.

The idea is for 2♣ to show a 3-suited hand (2♦ as an asking bid), 2♦ to show a minor two-suiter (2♥ as an asking bid), and 1♦ to show the remaining pattern (depending upon system).

1♦, in a canape structure, would then show a diamond-major canape (longer major) or a one-suited hand with clubs or diamonds. Thus, 1♦...2♣ shows clubs and says nothing about diamonds (might be void). This wild "either or" is easier to read and handle in contested auctions.

1♦, in a natural system, shows a balanced hand not suitable for 1♣ or 1NT, or a minor-based hand (either minor, but never both). In a natural system, this might include 5431's with 5♦/4M or 5♣/4M, which is a little more difficult than canape. When the holding is 5min/4maj/3min/1maj, you might like to toss these into 2♣ openings -- play around with that for your own preference.

[awm]

I think it is important to have an opening bid for each 13 hcp hand. In principle you could mess around with having some 13-counts pass and then have some different opening structure in 3rd/4th, but this is kind of a mess.

Your current structure gives an opening bid to all hands with a four-card major (1M possible canape). You're also opening 1♦ with balanced ranges outside 1NT/1♣, and 1♣ with all strong hands. So you need an opening bid for: one suited diamonds, one suited clubs, both minors. There is also some question whether you really want to open 1M with a weak 4cM and a strong 6-minor (Moscito for example has given up doing this despite a generally canape style, because it's too likely the minor will play better than a 4-3 major fit).

I'd suggest that playing 1♦ = diamonds or both minors and 2♣ = natural is more standard precision, whereas there is also some merit to 1♦ = diamonds or clubs and 2♣ = both minors as well. I don't really suggest opening 1♦ with all these patterns, since after 1♦-1M you need your 2♣ rebid for both "clubs" and "both minors" hand types and you may reach a lot of inferior partials if you can't distinguish these hands. In any case you should also decide whether to open canape with 4-6 hands or just with 4-5.

[kenrexford]

I'm missing the handling of 4441 hands. How are these bid?

[Robert]

Hi everyone

I would go with the 2C bid showing clubs, unless the system needed the bid for something else. When I played a pure canape type system, the 2C bid was needed to show 4441 type hands.

A couple of comments/suggestions. The Hacketts(?) used a canape type system and one of their toys was to reverse the meaning of 2NT and 3C* after one non
club-2D(or 2 level higher) reply. 2NT was a canape into clubs(with opener taking another bid with extra values) and 3C* showed a strong NT type hand.

If your NT ranges do not require the 3C bid to show extra values, you could still use it to show an extra club with goodish minimum values.

I played a lot of Blue Team Club in the 70s. The 5-4 either way suits after 1 non club-1any-2z was playable. If partner makes a 2/1 bid, the system required you to rebid a five card before showing another suit unless you were showing a canape type hand. The fact that partner does not raise your first suit is a slight hint that your fit might well be in your second suit. On a bad day, misfits happen.

Blue Team also used another toy to limit the opening bid. A 2C opening showed 15-16HCP if 4M and long clubs. With 14 or less HCP you opened the major and bid along canape type lines.

I believe that it is putting too much pressure on the 1D opening 'if' it can be used to show a club one suiter. You are going to feel like bidding 3Cs in competition(after opening 1D) and how is poor partner to work out that you have 6+ clubs and you do not have a diamond suit?

Regards,
Robert

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Jun 8 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

since after 1♦-1M you need your 2♣ rebid for both "clubs" and "both minors" hand types

After 1♦-1M, 1NT= both minors, 2♣= clubs, 2♦=diamonds.

Always raise with 3 card support, and 1NT doesn't promise 1 card support, let alone 2.

The trick comes in with 1NT, 2♣, and 2♦, each of which end up meaning 'please pass with both minors'. Makes it tough to find a forcing bid over 1♦ if you don't have a 4 card major. I don't know the solution, maybe 1♠ ends up being 'spades or game forcing' or the like.

[keylime]

I play true canape, so 2♣ is six clubs no side major.

I can live with some ambigious overtones with both minors 5-4, since 5-5 we open 2NT normally.

[kenrexford]

Robert, on Jun 8 2007, 10:20 AM, said:

I believe that it is putting too much pressure on the 1D opening 'if' it can be used to show a club one suiter.  You are going to feel like bidding 3Cs in competition(after opening 1D) and how is poor partner to work out that you have 6+ clubs and you do not have a diamond suit?

If 1♦...3♣ shows clubs and says nothing about diamonds, because a 1♦ opening features either clubs or diamond but not both, then this is rather simple to work out, actually.

The problem is when 1♦ could show just clubs, just diamonds, or both minors. The solution to the both minors problem, when 2♣ shows 4441 (a good tool), is for 2♦ to be opened with both minors.

The problem, IMO, with the Neapolitan 2♣, even if limited to never having a major, is as Keylime put it -- the minor two-suiter (that is insufficient for a 2NT opening), as well as the 4441 for which there is no good solution. The solution of 2♦ is often used. However, that Mini-Roman solution is terrible, as the self-preemption is miserably incapable of satisfactory resolution, whereas 2♣ solves that problem extremely well when 2♦ is the asking bid.

The objection might be that 2♦ as minors causes some problems, when 45/54 and not sufficient for a 2NT opening. However, my actual experience with this approach (in a canape structure, in a natural club structure, and even as part of a simple 2/1 GF structure) is that this problem is rarely real. When it is actually difficult, standard folks will often have a 1♦...2♣ auction with a courtesy correct and thus a similar problem, but with less chance of the opponents exchanging or learning information. Thus, the problem situations often resolve themselves out. You also gain some relief opening 1NT with 2245 and an occasional tactical 1345/3145 fudge of 2♣.

[firmit]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

I'm missing the handling of 4441 hands.  How are these bid?

4441 3% of all hands - but of course, should not be left out. The weak hands are handled as a normal 1M opening - rebidding or supporting the cheapest way (10-15hp).

As Inquiry - I like the Chris Ryall way of showing 16-20hp strong 4441; opening 2♣ in a strong 2♣ system, rebidding 2NT to show strong 16-20hp 4441 hands. So - I was thinking about a sequence which would allow me to rebid 2NT and getting the same structure.

1♣-1♦/♥/♠ - 2NT is free in my system - it is not in use to show any NT range and is therefor available to show 4441 (and maybe even 5440?). Given that partner is unlimited with his positiv response, I guess I should show him my hand as good as possible.

For the stronger 20-23hp: 1♣-1♦-1♥*-1♠-2NT would show this.

At least that's what I am currently considering, and which fits best in my system.

[kenrexford]

Out of curiosity, what is a 2♦ used for? What about 2M?

[firmit]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2007, 06:25 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, what is a 2♦ used for?  What about 2M?

2♦ 3-way multi, weak 6c major, 22-24hp balanced, and 16-20hp 4-5 LTC onesuiter 6+card
2♥/2♠ Muiderberg
2NT Minors

[dake50]

2m openings must show minimal Major interest (maybe a 3-support to 5cM).
Minor fit plays at least 3m vs any reasonable reopening structure of oppts. Ie we won't play our minor fit below 3-level anyway. 2-minor opening shows source of tricks; asks Major stops.
To expect the general exploring 1D opening to be simplified by exchanging distribution cases to 2-minor is counter productive. It clouds a 2nd(3rd)= 2C(2D) opening for what? Leave the ambiguity in 1D! Keep clarity for all other openings.

[kenrexford]

WARNING!!! DO NOT READ ANYTHING THAT FOLLOWS UNLESS YOUR BONG IS IN HAND!!!
OK, so without 2♦ as an available option, it seems that the problem you are trying to avert is somewhat 4441 (not so much), somewhat ambiguous minor(s) auctions, and tendency canape rather than pure canape.

I tried using 1♦ as wildly disparate a while back. 1♦ showed unsuitable for 1NT, or a minor-major canape (longer major), or a one-suited minor hand. Thus, for simplicity sake, assume 1♦-P-1M-P-?

Opener would bid:

1NT = gap range balanced
2♣ = club one-suiter
2♦ = diamond one-suiter
2M = that major and an unknown minor, longer or equal in the minor. 1♠, instead, when 1♥ was the response.

This purifies 1M (except 4441), but the obvious "UGH!" is the unknown minor. You also have the problem of wanting to raise the major with a gap 1NT. Of course, the solution to that might be when there is no gap, such that the balanced option goes away.

That allows a change, with 1NT showing the heart-based canape after a 1♠ response, or ability to define the minor after a 1♥ response (e.g., 1♠ is a club-spade canape, 1NT is a diamond-spade canape).

This approach was the second version of a strong "club" system, using a strong 1♣. The original version was a strong 1♦ system, but we decided that 1♣ gained more space and that using 1♣ for the wildly nebulous meaning was not necessary, especially if we reduced the balanced-hand minimum for a 1♣ opening.

If interested, you might also consider replacing the "gap" NT calls with the 4441's, or adding the 4441's into the gap holding. That would further purify 1M.

It may seem that a 1♦ (or 1♣) opening that could be wildly distributional in any two non-matching-rank suits might be a tad unwieldy. I mean, when 1♦ could feature 5♣/5♥, or 5♣/5♠, or 4♣/6♥, or 4♣/6♠, or 5♦/5♥, or 5♦/5♠, or 4♦/6♥, or 4♦/6♠, or any of the parallel 5-4 options, or just long clubs or just long diamonds, then 1♦-3♣-? seems like a brain-crushing problem (plus, add in gap balanced LOLOL). This approach takes some serious work to master, but it can be done, from experience. You of course have an occasional insane auction and result, but those are somehow rare.

I hated playing this, though, favoring a purified canape, which seems to require a simpler 1♦ (thankfully), 2♦-->2♠ as that suit plus clubs, and 2♣ as three-suited.

Actually, I believe we also played a technique, for a minute, where 2♣ was three-suited and where 1♣ (this was during the strong diamond phase) could be any of the above (including the gap balanced), or even a minor two-suiter. The only two-suiter not possible, then, was "majors." The only positive side to that idea was the delightful pain I developed in my stomach after the extreme hilarity of constantly alerting the most bizarre 1♣ opening I'd ever played.

BTW, when 1♣ showed (a.) any two-suiter except the majors with longer or equal in the major (or whatever in the minors), or (b.) one minor, or (c.) gap balanced, our 1NT opening was "16-18." That was the best part of the whole system. 1♦ as a strong, forcing opening, 1♣ as psychotically nebulous, canape major openings, 2♣ as a 10-34 4441/5440 hand, 2♦ as both majors (either could be longer if the LTC range was right), 2M as that major and clubs (specific LTC count), 2NT for the minors, 3♣ for a different range minors, 3NT as a minor preempt, NAMYATS, but 1NT was 1950's 16-18!!!

I also remember there being an auction where 1♣...2NT was alerted as showing "15 HCP's." The opponents would ask, "a maximum of 15, or a minimum of 15?" The answer was, "No -- he has exactly 15 HCP's." That cracked me up also.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

I tried using 1♦ as wildly disparate a while back.  1♦ showed unsuitable for 1NT, or a minor-major canape (longer major), or a one-suited minor hand.  Thus, for simplicity sake, assume 1♦-P-1M-P-?

Opener would bid:

1NT = gap range balanced
2♣ = club one-suiter
2♦ = diamond one-suiter
2M = that major and an unknown minor, longer or equal in the minor.  1♠, instead, when 1♥ was the response.

I never completely understand your posts, though the bong helps...

It's unsuitable for NT, and yet 1NT=gap range balanced? Why is gap range balanced in there? That just seems to ruin it for me.

Seems like, after 1♦-1♠
1NT=Hearts and an unknown minor or 3-suiter without spades.
2♣ = club one-suiter
2♦ = diamond one-suiter
2♥= 3 spades, either 3-suited or one-suited*.
2♠= 5+ spades, two-suiter, unknown minor.

*After 1♦-1♠-2♥-2♠, opener passes with 3 suited, bids the minor with one-suited.

[kenrexford]

Blub blub blub

(breath held) It was not "unsuitable for NT," it was "unsuitable for 1NT." As the 1NT range was 16-18 initially (1♦ if balanced promising at least 19), then 1♦ could be 12-15 balanced. If the 1NT opening is, say, 13-15, and 1♣ 16+, then the only possible "gap" is 11-12, which may or may not be a problem. If 1NT is 11-15, that's a big range (good 15's 1♣, bad 11's pass), but better than adding in gap to 1♦, IMO. (breath out)