[WesleyC]

Hi Everyone,

I'm looking to improve a home-grown Mini-Notrump/Strong Club based system called MINSK.

At the moment we open 2C with 11-15 HCP, 5+C (good clubs if only 5), and possibly a weak 4C major. With a good 4c majors we will usually choose to open 1M. For example, Kxxx x Jxx AKJxx is 2C but KJTx x Jxx AQxxx is 1S.

If someone could link/provide their preferred continuation structure I would be grateful

Mike

ps I've attached our current structure below:

System said:

We're both system junkies and have a lot of agreements but tend to avoid complex relays in favour of a primarily natural base.

Our responses to 2C at the moment are:

2D - Inv+ relay (majors orientated, also the only way to invite in Clubs or NT)
2H/2S - Natural, Constructive but non forcing (Good 5+c suit & 8-11 HCP)
2NT - G/F Shortness ask (3C = balanced min, 3D/3H/3S = shortness, 3NT=Balanced max)
3C/4C - Preemptive
3X - Natural G/F (6+C suit)
4D - keycard

Openers rebids after 2C - 2D:

2H/2S show a 3+c major
2NT no major in a minimum
3C no major in a maximum
3D/3H/3S shortness in maximum (with a good 6/7+ card club suit)
3NT solid clubs.

After openers 2 level response, responders 2NT/3C invitational, other bids (including raising the major) are natural and (mostly) forcing to game.

[NickRW]

I believe some have used transfer responses, rather than the 2D relay with some success. There are good (old) posts in this section of the forums about that I'm sure.

However, my main queries would be:

1) If you're opening 1M on 4, why open 2C on 6+ or (a strong) 5 with 4M? This seems to be catering to a not very common hand type, but weaking your 2C bid. (Certainly at matchpoints, a 2C opener that can have a 4M will lose you a lot when responder is not strong enough to look for the major fit. This is less of a concern at IMPs though).

2) Also, if an immediate 2M response shows 5, why do you use 2M after the 2D relay to show 3+, when it is surely 4 that responder is interested in.

Nick

[rbforster]

If 2♦ asks about majors, I prefer 2N to show the maximum without and 3♣ to show the minimum without. This has a tendency to get NT played from the stronger side, assuming you end up in 3N.

[PrecisionL]

I have used transfers to the majors and acceptance if xx or better with satisfying results. I would not go back to 5♣ and a 4-card major, always promise 6♣ or 5 good clubs and 4 diamonds.

Direct 2NT reply = G.I. or better, opener rebids 3♣ with all minimums and finds another bid with a maximum.

Larry

[WesleyC]

NickRW said:

There are good (old) posts in this section of the forums about that I'm sure.

1) If you're opening 1M on 4, why open 2C on 6+ or (a strong) 5 with 4M?  This seems to be catering to a not very common hand type, but weaking your 2C bid.  (Certainly at matchpoints, a 2C opener that can have a 4M will lose you a lot when responder is not strong enough to look for the major fit.  This is less of a concern at IMPs though).

2) Also, if an immediate 2M response shows 5, why do you use 2M after the 2D relay to show 3+, when it is surely 4 that responder is interested in.

Thanks Nick. I did search the (old) forums and found some useful stuff. I realize now that by default it only searches the past month.

In response to your questions:

1) We play a primarily at IMPs - at matchpoints we do open 2C less often (the system gives us the flexibility to open 1D, 1M or 1NT instead).

There are a couple of reasons we've decided to keep some 4M hands in the 2C opening. 1M is ONLY 4 when canape with a longer minor (and some appropriate 4441s) so we can raise it aggressively. And although 2C is constructively poor, it does put the opponents under pressure and also has good lead directional value (particularly when compared to the lead direction of a weak 4c Major).

The other issue opening 1M is the difficulty of untangling the clubs. Specifically, after 1M - 1NT(up to 12-13 and semi-forcing) openers 2C rebid is artificial (Gazzilli-ish) , showing either a weak hand with diamonds OR any maximum (14-15 HCP) with 5+M. 1M 1NT 2D* shows clubs in a minimum hand (9-13) but it forces the partnership to the 3 level in clubs.

2) The 2M responses to 2C usually show a 6c suit (only 5 when a very good suit or perhaps 2H with 5/5 in the majors) but it is also limited (maybe a great 7 to a bad 11). With a 5c major and 3 card club support its nice to be able to search for the major fit and fall back on 3C.

----

After a little searching, I came across the Fantunes system (who open 2C on 10-13 5+C). They use 2D as initially asking for 3c majors, but use a couple of extra relays after that to give opener the chance to pattern out their hand. Most interesting is that they use 2C - 2NT to show an invitational hand with 5S 4H which is a definite problem hand.

[WesleyC]

RobF said:

If 2♦ asks about majors, I prefer 2N to show the maximum without and 3♣ to show the minimum without.  This has a tendency to get NT played from the stronger side, assuming you end up in 3N.

You have a good point. We had them reversed is to give responder the chance to bail in 2NT rather than 3C when they've got a speculative invite (possibly 4/5 in the majors and short clubs). Right-siding NT is probably a more important.

[benlessard]

Our 2C can easily have a 4M (even a good one) and 11 to 16. The trend today is to have 6 clubs and a nebulous Diamonds (mostly because the old 2C structure is obsolete) . But I have a strong preference to 5+4M is possible and 1D always show 4.


I play that 2D is a multi INV with pass or correct responses.

2C----2D (show all kind of INV except those with 4M or with a non-rebiddable 5M)
???

2H i refuse an H inv
2S i accept a H inv but refuse a S inv.
2Nt accept both M but minimum (stiff D)
rest is GF value

2C-----2H = inv with 4 H or with 5H but a club tolerance (prefer to play 3C instead of a 5-1 fit).
???

pass i have at least 3 in you M but minimum
2S i dont have 3H but have 4S and minimum
2Nt no majors but minimum
3C minimum 7 clubs or 6 clubs and a void
rest is GF

2C-----2S (similar to 2H)

2C-----2NT GF without a 6 card suit

2C-----3C to play not inv

2C-----3d and + GF


Im pretty sure its better to have more INV sequence than to bid 2M just to correct the contract. Our system doesnt do to well for slam but at least we can make game try and stop at 2M.

[andy_h]

Welcome to the forums Mike =)

[PrecisionL]

NickRW said:

1) If you're opening 1M on 4, why open 2C on 6+ or (a strong) 5 with 4M?  This seems to be catering to a not very common hand type, but weaking your 2C bid.  (Certainly at matchpoints, a 2C opener that can have a 4M will lose you a lot when responder is not strong enough to look for the major fit.  This is less of a concern at IMPs though).

In response to your questions:

1) We play a primarily at IMPs - at matchpoints we do open 2C less often (the system gives us the flexibility to open 1D, 1M or 1NT instead).

There are a couple of reasons we've decided to keep some 4M hands in the 2C opening. 1M is ONLY 4 when canape with a longer minor (and some appropriate 4441s) so we can raise it aggressively.  And although 2C is constructively poor, it does put the opponents under pressure and also has good lead directional value (particularly when compared to the lead direction of a weak 4c Major).

The other issue opening 1M is the difficulty of untangling the clubs. Specifically, after  1M - 1NT(up to 12-13 and semi-forcing) openers 2C rebid is artificial (Gazzilli-ish) , showing either a weak hand with diamonds OR any maximum (14-15 HCP) with 5+M. 1M 1NT 2D* shows clubs in a minimum hand (9-13) but it forces the partnership to the 3 level in clubs.

I wonder how effective Gazzilli is for an opening range of 11-15 hcp? I think the use of Gazzilli here is not optimal and it precludes playing in 2♣ (after a Major - minor canape).

We (Keylime and I) have four years experience keeping the 4-cd major (usually Qxxx or JTxx or better) out of our opening of 2♣ and find it works fine for both MP Pairs and IMPs.

Larry

[WesleyC]

PrecisionL said:

I wonder how effective Gazzilli is for an opening range of 11-15 hcp? I think the use of Gazzilli here is not optimal and it precludes playing in 2♣ (after a Major - minor canape).

To be honest Larry, I often think that myself too! There are some advantages though.

1) Our opening range for 1M is more like 9-15 so there is a little more to sort out.

2) You gain a lot of bids by going via through the puppet that can be used to describe unusual hand types. After 1H 1NT 2C* 2D, 2H is a maximum with 5+H, and 2S/2NT/3C/3D show (usually strongish) distributional 2 suited hands with a longer Major. 1M 1NT then 2S/2NT/... directly show either weak but highly distributional hands or stronger canapes.

3) You still get to play in 2C sometimes (when responder is weak with long clubs) after 1M 1NT 2C* P!. Similarly 1M 1NT 2D* P! has come up a handful of times, usually getting us to a decent spot.

Just out of interest how what would you rebid after 1S 1NT on these hands?:

1) AKxxxx xx x AQJx,
2) KJTxxx Kx x Axxx
3) KJTxx Kxx x Axxx
4) KJTx Kxx x Axxxx

If you're interested in trading system notes I'd love to check out how you deal with some of the other situations. Us 4cM canapers need to stick together

Mike

[Apollo81]

Another (small!) minority opinion -- perhaps you should drop the possibility of 2♣ containing a 4-card major altogether. Not only would this simplify your system over it, it would also allow responder to jump to 3NT with one or both 4-card majors, with no possibility of missing a superior major fit. You could also play penalty doubles by responder in competition.

[Phil]

One thing I used to play but have not seen in other structures is to use the 2♦ inquiry as less than invitational if responder has a four card major and 3 clubs, especially at MPs where getting the 4-4 partial is very important.

We also used a 2N relay after 2C - 2D - 2M to sign off in clubs, or to show a strong raise of the major.

[jdonn]

I have long played 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ as 4 in either major, and am very happy with it. That gives you an extra bid to deal with the single suited hands which is very nice. Over 2♥, 2♠ is asking and you can just go in steps

Min with hearts
Min with spades
Max with hearts
Max with spades
4-7 with hearts
4-7 with spades

and continue asking over that if you want.

The way I have played the other rebids are
2♠: Unbalanced max
2NT: Balanced max
3♣: Min (3♦ shortness ask)
3♦: 5 hearts, min (open 1♥ with max, too likely to miss game over 2♣)
3♥: 5 spades, min
3♠: 5 diamonds

Over 2♠, 2NT asks and the rebids can be pretty much natural if you want to keep it simple
3♣: 7+ clubs (3♦ shortness ask)
3♦: 4 diamonds (3♥ shortness ask)
3♥/3♠/3NT: 1336 short in hearts/spades/diamonds.

[awm]

I use the opposite approach to Josh for 2♣-2♦ with many of the same advantages:

... 2♥ = one-suited club (here 2♠ GF relay, 2N/3♣ are invitational hands)
... 2♠ = clubs and diamonds (2N GF relay, 3♣/3♦ invitational NF)
... 2N = clubs and hearts (3♣ NF invite, 3♦ GF relay)
... 3♣ = clubs and spades, minimum (NF) (3♦ GF relay)
... 3♦+ = clubs and spades and max

This gives space for a fairly complete relaying of opener's hand (okay it is hard to distinguish between 0346 and 0247 in my methods, but we get full shape out of the one-suited hands and we get shortness and whether it's a singleton or void on the ones with a four-card side suit).

I also use 2♣-2M as natural and forcing one round. I haven't been that impressed with stopping on a dime in 2M opposite an invitational responder. While 2M "correcting the partial" is okay at matchpoints, playing 2♣ as 6+ reduces the need for this and it really does help for responder to be able to bid naturally (instead of relay) on some hands (especially 5-5 ones).

I've tried a transfer-based approach and believe it is possible for this to work well... but if the goal is to find all fits and be careful about bidding bad 3NTs the method needs quite a bit of complexity.

[jdonn]

Btw I also play the 2NT response is a relay to 3♣, either to show a weak raise or a game forcing 5-5 hand in any suits but clubs. I think that has worked well too.

[fred]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

Btw I also play the 2NT response is a relay to 3♣, either to show a weak raise or a game forcing 5-5 hand in any suits but clubs. I think that has worked well too.

I hope you do a better job of explaining this bid than some of the pairs I have encountered who use it (including some A-1 pairs).

What unfortunately seem "normal" is to offer nothing more than "Relay to 3C". That really sucks IMO. Would be better to either explain it as you did or say something like "Relay to 3C - 90%+ of the time he has a bad hand with club support".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

That would be a lousy explanation. It wasn't the reason I think that method works well.

[Jlall]

Jdonn you should reconsider your responses to 2C 2D 2H 2S imo. min/min/max/max doesn't work well.

[jmc]

Jlall can you explain why it doesn't work well? I believe the jdonn description is very similiar to the Berkowitz-Cohen response structure given in Precision Today. Do they still play that?

[benlessard]

Quote

Btw I also play the 2NT response is a relay to 3♣, either to show a weak raise or a game forcing 5-5 hand in any suits but clubs. I think that has worked well too.

At first we were using 2Nt as a raise to play or GF and 3C as art. The problem is that you allow a double of 2Nt for take-out, pass and X of 3C for light take out(or penalty) and a 3C cue for both majors or whatever. These take a big bite off the effiency of the preemptive 3C wich is a good imps winner.