[luke warm]

Free, on Sep 5 2004, 11:29 PM, said:

1) I want a natural 1♦ opening, that's why I sacrifice the 'always' 5+♥ and I use the 2♣ this way.
2) I want to play 5-card Majors (at least 90% of the time being 5+ cards)
3) I DON'T want a 2-way or more 1♣ opening!
4) I want 2♦+ free for preemptive openings   
5) If there was a possibility to free up the 2♣ opening without violating any of the above points mentioned, feel free to show it    Then I'd find 1♦ showing 3+♦ acceptable, but I still want to be able to ask entire shape as well!
6) I want FULL relaystructure after every opening

And how would you play this 2♦ opening??

ok, it seems you have 2 firm rules: 1D must show a real suit and 1C must have only one meaning

i only see one way to free up 2C given the 1D restriction... so you have to decide which is more important (and i think you already have)... if you don't dislike 2 way bids, can 2C be either 1) 10-14 roman OR 2) 4+ diamonds and 5+ clubs? if this is the case, 1D can still be 'natural' while not promising more than 3 clubs... that means you probably need 2NT to show the minors with more diamonds than clubs (5/4 or 6/5(4) or something)

the 2C responses could be something like, 2D is "if you're 4+/5+, i prefer diamonds," 2H asks what you have... 2S says "weak roman, minor shortness;" 2NT says "weak roman, major shortness;" 3C says 4+D/5+C... since you presently use 2C as 6+, why not just bite the bullet and open 3C with that?

using 2D as weak 2 in major OR 15+ roman OR 20-21 balanced means pard bids as he does now over multi... with weakness, he bids as if you have a weak 2... if he bids 2NT, 3C can show strong roman, black suit shortness; 3D strong roman, red suit shortness; 3H heart preempt, 3S spade preempt, 3NT as 20-21 balanced.. you can even reverse some of these if you want partner to declare.... he'd not bid 2NT unless he thought there was some play for game, imo

i haven't really thought about the 2C/D response structure too much, but maybe variations on the above can work

on the major side, bergen only makes sense if your 1M bids are at least 11 points... otherwise you have to tinker with 'what is a limit raise? a constructive raise?' too much... and 1M/2NT, instead of splinter, can either be flat 13-15 or regular jacoby... you can use the under jumpshift to show weak splinter (7/8-11) and over j/s to show stronger splinter.. this doesn't affect bergen, the bids can easily be tweaked

the truth is, you're much better prepared than most to design this (you and richard) since you two already play strong club with relay bids...

i'm sure there are holes in there in a lot of places, but remember you've been toying with this longer than me... i do like the concept tho, so pls keep me posted...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Sep 6 2004, 01:41 AM, said:

the truth is, you're much better prepared than most to design this (you and richard) since you two already play strong club with relay bids...

Methinks that this is for use with another partner. I'm pretty satisfied with the current state of MOSCITO and really dislike combining Strong Club with 5 card majors.

[luke warm]

if moscito didn't make my mind seize up like an unlubricated pump, i'd give it a shot... but since i do have a little experience with precison, for some reason it seems different

[Free]

Yes, it's to play at my local club, and to avoid people complaining and whining all the time about the transfer openings and stuff... I know it's inferior to MOSCITO, but this uses lots of stuff from MOSCITO, so it might be a stage between playing natural and the real artificial system, who knows... The guy is young, we have time

[mikestar]

pbleighton, on Sep 5 2004, 09:49 PM, said:

... Do you open 4-4-1-4 hands 1H then?

Absolutely--this hand type occurrs only 3/4 of 1% of the time. Also you can reduce the frequency further by passing any doubtful minimums. This is so much less frequent than a nebulous 1D that it doesn't cause problems to any great degree. Partner assumes 1H shows 5 and bids accordingly. Once in a great while you end up playing in 2H on a 4-3 fit after 1H-2H when responder had four spades. In a regular partnership, 1H-1N-2C-2H-2S can show 4-4-1-4 allowing us to avoid the 4-2 heart fit. (This sequecne has no natural meaning--with 4-5 majors and a good hand I'd bid 2S directly over 1N, with a minimum I'm content to pass 2H.

A good book illustrationg this type of Precision is Rick Brown's Natural Precision.

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Sep 5 2004, 08:28 PM, said:

1) make 1C=10-12 balanced OR any 15+

Hi Luke !

According to this, how do you diffrentiate between a opener min balanced hand and a opener strong bal hand , in the 2 cases (opps silent) ?
1- responder bids a negative 1D
2- responder is positive (8+)

[Free]

pbleighton, on Sep 5 2004, 10:49 PM, said:

"I am a strong advocate of "Real Diamond Precision". I believe that the losses on 5C-4M hands are substantitally less than the losses from the nebulous 2D.

Precison 2D uses up a valuable bid for your preemptive sysatem and is very infrequent."

Do you open 4-4-1-4 hands 1H then?

Peter

Yes, it's imo the easiest way to keep that 2♦ bid free & keep the 1♦ opening natural. The frequency is so low that you can consider the opening as a 5 card.

I'm thinking of using Bergen raises after 1M openings. But I don't know if it would be a disaster when opener has his 4-4-1-4. He has a singleton so he should be able to ruff some losing ♦s.
Also, I would rather bid 1♠ (forcing for 1 round) over a 1♥ opening to avoid the 4-3's with a 4-4 available. Opener will clarify his ♠ holding and with less than 3 card support he will show his own hand. This would really reduce the possible problems imo.

Does anybody know what the best use of 3-level bids is after a 1M opening promissing 5+ cards with such HCP ranges?

[luke warm]

Chamaco, on Sep 6 2004, 10:40 AM, said:

luke warm, on Sep 5 2004, 08:28 PM, said:

1) make 1C=10-12 balanced OR any 15+

Hi Luke !

According to this, how do you diffrentiate between a opener min balanced hand and a opener strong bal hand , in the 2 cases (opps silent) ?
1- responder bids a negative 1D
2- responder is positive (8+)

after 1C, responder bids as in f/n
1D=0-9, 4 hearts
1H=0-9, 4 spades
1S=0-9, no 4M
1N=10+

the response structure is up to free to determine... i'm not saying 10-12 should be a part of 1C, just looking for ways to free up 2C

[Free]

Did you ever test this at a table Jimmy? I think it's extremely vulnerable for intervention, but not sure...

[luke warm]

Free, on Sep 6 2004, 11:28 AM, said:

Does anybody know what the best use of 3-level bids is after a 1M opening promissing 5+ cards with such HCP ranges?

very few people posting here know what's "best" on anything (though some of us think we do heheh)

i do like the under j/s showing 8/9-11 splinter (game force) and over j/s showing 12-15 splinter (coupled with the swiss raise showing 12-15 no stiff: 4C shows 2 honors 4D shows none - jacoby 2NT shows 16+)... i like that using reverse bergen and jacoby 2nt... so 1H : 3S would show 4+ trumps, 12+ points, undisclosed splinter... 1H : 3D is under j/s OR bergen constructive... slam is not out of the question if it shows a stiff, even if both opener and responder are near minimum (12, 13 each).. 3S by opener is the ask

after 1H : 3D, showing 8/9-11 and undisclosed splinter (or constructive w/out splinter), i play this as a game force if it's the splinter bid... can construct hands that don't have a good play for game, but they're hard to imagine...

bergen using the above:
1S : 3C=bergen limit
1S : 3D=bergen constructive
1S : 3H=under j/s
1S : 3NT=over j/s (4C asks, 4S shows club stiff)
1S : 4C=12-15 with 2 of 3 top spade honors if 4 trumps, A or K if 5
1S : 4D=same but without the honor promises

1H : 3C = bergen limit
1H : 3D = bergen constructive else under j/s... 3S by opener says "i want to be in game vs. a constructive raise, and slam isn't unlikely if you have a stiff... do you?" ... 3NT says 'yes, spade stiff'... other bids show the stiff... 4H shows bergen constructive, no stiff... after 1H : 3D : 3H by opener says "i don't want to be in game vs. a bergen constructive raise"... 3S by responder says he has a spade stiff, etc... on this sequence, opener usually signs off
1H : 3S=over j/s
1H : 4C/D=same swiss bids

[luke warm]

Free, on Sep 6 2004, 05:15 PM, said:

Did you ever test this at a table Jimmy? I think it's extremely vulnerable for intervention, but not sure...

nah, i've never played it

it comes from the fantoni/nunes inverted polish club response system.. my understanding is, they pass rather quickly with weakness.. i don't know how susceptible it is to intervention, i do know they've had a bit of success with it... i think zar has some notes on this at his site

in addition the the 1 level responses, 2any shows 5+ and GF, 2NT shows 10+ with 5M332

[MickyB]

I am looking at playing a system quite similar to the one that Free suggested. My only worry is the relays including invitational hands. The alternative would seem to be making 1M:1N GF and new suits constructive. Any comments? Would it be better for new suits at the 2 level to be forcing or non-forcing? What about continuations? If 2/1s were NF, it would seem to make sense for all opener's rebids to be natural apart from 2N = good raise.

Free - I wouldn't bother with Bergen raises opposite a limited opener, you only really need a constructive raise and a preemptive raise. Don't worry about the 4-4-1-4s, they are very rare, and it might be worth considering a 1NT opener. I would make 1M:3m a mini-splinter unless you think that invitational hands with 6-7 cards in the minor aren't dealt with well by the rest of your structure.

[Chamaco]

MickyB, on Sep 13 2004, 12:54 PM, said:

I am looking at playing a system quite similar to the one that Free suggested. My only worry is the relays including invitational hands. The alternative would seem to be making 1M:1N GF and new suits constructive. Any comments?

That is the Viking Club approach.

Viking club uses
1M:1NT = GF
1M:2C = invitational,
1M:2D/H/S = nonforcing (negative free bids)

[flytoox]

hrothgar, on Sep 5 2004, 10:27 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2004, 12:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Sep 5 2004, 03:28 PM, said:

it does free up 2C (which is almost as hated in precision as 1D)...

Really? 2C openings are my second favorite opening in Precision, right behind 1NT. When we have game, it's easy to find. When we don't, it's usually very difficult for opponents. It's a perfect pre-empt when responder is weak, because opponents usually don't have the tools to explore game properly, while the clubs are long enough to sit after an X.

Do most people find otherwise?

Conventional wisdom among system designers holds that 2♣ = 6+ Clubs OR 5 Clubs and a 4 card major is a big loser. As I recall, most studies show that this is one of the worst performing bids in both Precision and Polish club.

Richard, can you show where the study you quote comes from? I am curious about this. My humble opinion is 2c opening bid as 5c+4M isnt that bad as most ppl thought.

Thanks in advance.

Hongjun

[hrothgar]

flytoox, on Sep 14 2004, 01:36 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Sep 5 2004, 10:27 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2004, 12:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Sep 5 2004, 03:28 PM, said:

it does free up 2C (which is almost as hated in precision as 1D)...

Really? 2C openings are my second favorite opening in Precision, right behind 1NT. When we have game, it's easy to find. When we don't, it's usually very difficult for opponents. It's a perfect pre-empt when responder is weak, because opponents usually don't have the tools to explore game properly, while the clubs are long enough to sit after an X.

Do most people find otherwise?

Conventional wisdom among system designers holds that 2♣ = 6+ Clubs OR 5 Clubs and a 4 card major is a big loser. As I recall, most studies show that this is one of the worst performing bids in both Precision and Polish club.

Richard, can you show where the study you quote comes from? I am curious about this. My humble opinion is 2c opening bid as 5c+4M isnt that bad as most ppl thought.

Thanks in advance.

Hongjun

Hi Hongjun

I must admit that I don't have firect access to any data. I've discussed the matter with Paul Marston regarding hwy he chose to adopt a 2C opening showing 6+ clubs. I've also seen quotes from Alan Sontag explaining why Power Precision uses a 6+ card 2C opening.

Most system books that I have including The Polish club by Matula and Precision in the 90s by Rigal indictate that the 2C opening is a mixed blessing at best...

[pbleighton]

Berkowitz/Manley, in "Precision Today" (recent), also strongly recommend 2C as 6. They feel that it's a pretty good opening if it guarantees 6, but has lots of problems if it doesn't.

Peter

[gregsolomon]

I once read an interview with Eric Rodwell where he said exactly the same thing.

The other day I saw Prakash Paranjape playing something like:

1C 16+
1D 11-15 and a biddable 4 card major
1H/S 11-15 5+cards
1NT 12-15 balanced, no biddable 4 card major
2C/D 9-15 6+cards, no biddable 4 card major
2H/S weak

Not sure how big a following this has, but it looks sound enough to me. They mentioned that they often do quite well after opening 2m, because overcalling is mildly hazardous. And when opps double for takeout it goes e.g. 2C-Dbl-3C compared to the rest of the room where it has gone 1C-Dbl-SlowPass

[mikestar]

I still think it is better to accept the losses from opening 2C on 4M-5C than to deal wiht a nebulous diamond.

However, I have been experimenting with a 4-card major Big Club method:

(Point ranges approximate)

1C= 17+, 19+ if balanced

1D/1H/1S = one of these hand types:
(a) 11-16 single-suited 6+ cards
( 11-16 two-suited, 5+ cards
© 11-16 four cards and 5+ clubs
(d) 11-16 4-4-4-1
(e) 15-18 balanced (might be only 3 diamonds)

1N = 11-14 balanced, may have 5 card major

2C = 11-16, 6+ clubs no second suit. (you can use judgement and ignore a moderate d4-card diamond suit or a worthless 4 card major. (Might be 15-18 3=3=2=5).

2N = 21-22 balanced, may have 5 card major.

All other 2D+ bids per taste. (I rather like aggressive weak twos on five card suits.)

In general, a three card raise of a major opening should be given, though there will be more exceptions than if playing 5 card majors. For example, responding to 1H with 4 spades and 3 hearts, I would bid 1S in this system rather than 2H.

Our LOTT decisons after 1M-2M will be less accurate, but so will theirs.

[hrothgar]

mikestar, on Sep 17 2004, 08:35 PM, said:

In general, a three card raise of a major opening should be given, though there will be more exceptions than if playing 5 card majors. For example, responding to 1H with 4 spades and 3 hearts, I would bid 1S in this system rather than 2H.

I think that you might want to reconsider this idea:

Playing 4 card majors, its often best to treat consider your 1♥ opening analagously to a 1♥ advance of a 1m opening playing "standard" methods.

Playing standard, expert treatment

1. Prefers to raise 1H to 2H holding minimum hands with 4 sapdes
2. Prefers to rebid 1NT holding a balanced hand

By inference, the 1♠ rebid promises either

1. Any strong hand willing to show Spades and then support Hearts
2. An unbalanced minimum without Heart tolerance

I find it best to apply these same principles when deciding whether or not to raise a MOSCITO type "Heart: opening. Indeed, MOSCITO's 2M raise explictly denies 4 card trump support. Please note: Many of our best results occur when the opponent's decide to get frisky after a 1M - 2M auciton.

[mikestar]

hrothgar, on Sep 17 2004, 06:07 PM, said:

mikestar, on Sep 17 2004, 08:35 PM, said:

In general, a three card raise of a major opening should be given, though there will be more exceptions than if playing 5 card majors. For example, responding to 1H with 4 spades and 3 hearts, I would bid 1S in this system rather than 2H.

I think that you might want to reconsider this idea:

Playing 4 card majors, its often best to treat consider your 1♥ opening analagously to a 1♥ advance of a 1m opening playing "standard" methods.

Playing standard, expert treatment

1. Prefers to raise 1H to 2H holding minimum hands with 4 sapdes
2. Prefers to rebid 1NT holding a balanced hand

By inference, the 1♠ rebid promises either

1. Any strong hand willing to show Spades and then support Hearts
2. An unbalanced minimum without Heart tolerance

I find it best to apply these same principles when deciding whether or not to raise a MOSCITO type "Heart: opening. Indeed, MOSCITO's 2M raise explictly denies 4 card trump support. Please note: Many of our best results occur when the opponent's decide to get frisky after a 1M - 2M auciton.

Certainly worth considering--I'm definitely still in the design stages. I suspect similar frequency statistics apply as in the 1m-1H-2H case--patner may have 4 spades but he woun't have them that often when he has only 4 hearts. In fact, the only possibilities are a 4=4=1=4 or 4=4-3-2 15-18. The former is very rare, the latter is only a problem at the low end, 17-18 will take another bid.

How is the 4 card raise handled in MOSCITO?