[glen]

Say you have a system where both 1♣ and 1♦ will handle all the 15+ hands (only), and both openings need to be forcing.

How do you split the hand types? Here are a few starting options, but there are lots more to consider:

1a) 1♣=18+, 1♦=15-17
1b) 1♣=15-17, 1♦=18+
1c) 1♣=15-17 or 21+, 1♦=18-20
2a) 1♣=15+ bal/semi, 1♦=15+ unbal
2b) 1♣=15+ unbal, 1♦=15+ bal/semi
3) 1♣=15+ bal or a five card major, 1♦=15+ not balanced, no five card major
4a) 1♣=15-17 bal/semi or 18+ unbal, 1♦=18+ bal/semi or 15-17 unbal
4b) 1♣=18+ bal/semi or 15-17 unbal, 1♦=15-17 bal/semi or 18+ unbal
5a) 1♣=15-17 bal or 15+ with a four card major, 1♦=18+ bal or no four card major
5b) 1♣=18+ bal or no four card major, 1♦=15-17 bal or 15+ with a four card major

[gwnn]

I would like to play 2 a or b most, but I wouldn't really like to play any of these systems, to be honest, it just doesn't seem effective to me to put all minor oriented hands under 15 hcp in 2C+.

[jtfanclub]

How about....

1♣= promises a major of *exactly* 4 cards, 15+
1♦= denies a major of *exactly* four cards, 15+

[helene_t]

2a) is ok with me.

I don't like to distinguish between 15-17 unbal and 18+ unbal. Points Schmoints except for balanced hands. It is already questionable whether 16+ unbal should be separated from 10-15.

[dake50]

Go farther. Partition S1,H1,D1,C1 (strong 1-suiters);
and SH,SD,SC,HD,HC,DC(strong 2-suiters);
and -S,-H,-D,-C(3-suiter, short in - suit);
let bal +super strong subset of each partition relay.
Eg. S1,C1, SH,SD,SC, -H,-D,-C bal 19+ in 1C opener.
So H1,D1, HD,HC,DC, -S, bal 15-18 in 1D.
Now, a dbl to competing/obstruction suggest misfit to likely suit.
Bid IN likely suit eagerly; bid OUT suit only with good values.
Easy read of 'right' stuff and quite reliable.

[MickyB]

Separating purely by strength is beneficial, as is something like (3), enabling a 4M5+m hand to rebid its major in competition, promising a canapé. Can't see much to commend the other options.

If you could manage to open 1M with 15-17 and a 5+card suit, you could combine these two - 1♦ showing 18+, balanced or 5+card major, with 1♣ showing 15+, either 15-17 balanced or unbalanced without a five-card major.

As it is, though, I'd probably just go for a boring option 1b). You can have some nice auctions after opening 1♣ - any later action is clearly based on shape, not strength.

[MickyB]

dake50, on Jun 24 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

Go farther. Partition S1,H1,D1,C1 (strong 1-suiters);
and SH,SD,SC,HD,HC,DC(strong 2-suiters);
and -S,-H,-D,-C(3-suiter, short in - suit);
let bal +super strong subset of each partition relay.
Eg. S1,C1, SH,SD,SC, -H,-D,-C bal 19+ in 1C opener.
So H1,D1, HD,HC,DC, -S, bal 15-18 in 1D.
Now, a dbl to competing/obstruction suggest misfit to likely suit.
Bid IN likely suit eagerly; bid OUT suit only with good values.
Easy read of 'right' stuff and quite reliable.

I think I see where you're coming from, but how is that better than, say, 1♦ promises 4♥, 1♣ denies 4♥?

[dake50]

MickyB,
I think you encapsulate the idea more concisely than I. Thanks.

Some partition by other than just hcp seems explorable.
Advantages where? Dings where? Inferences different in comp?

[Gerben42]

1b) is a bit like Magic ♦ except that it's a bit stronger. I'll go for that.

[glen]

Thanks for everybody's comments. I've been wondering about a Big Multi approach, a change to 3):

1♣: 15+ no five card major, if balanced 15-18 or 22+
1♦: 15+ and at least one five card major, or 19-21 balanced

I like the 1♣-1♦;-1M sequences showing exactly 4, and if the opps compete over 1♣ opener's M bids still showing exactly 4.