[mike777]

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2005, 06:52 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 18 2005, 04:43 AM, said:

all 1 level openings, not just 1M, are 2 suited and usually canape, 11-16.. the only time the opening doesn't have to be canape is when clubs is the 2nd suit... with 2 equal length suits, open the lower ranking (again, unless clubs is in there somewhere)... with 2 unequal length suits, open the shorter

Silly question...

Can you explain why you adopted this method? Case in point, MOSCITO conciosuly adopts a major's first opening style because went we prioritize finding major suit fits. However, its hard to reconcile this explanation with a canape style that forces a 1♦ opening shapes like 1=5=4=3 or 3=4=1=5 shape...

Also, I'm curious about implications this style has regarding rebid strength. Suppose that you have a minimum strength 5=3=4=1 hand. You open 1♦ as your style suggests and partner responds 1NT or some such. Does the 2♠ rebid show strength or merely shape?

Larry Weiss/and Ralph Clark along with others including Truscott and Kleinman wanted to:
1) Defined the hand pattern by the opening bid
2) play limit raises and fast actions (arrival)
3) 4 card majors ( in fact opening one of suit will be exactly 4 cards around 80% or so)
4) You find major fit very often faster then with sayc or 2/1 I think but others would disagree. You open major with exactly 4, when one suited, both majors or other suit is clubs. The 2 exceptions would be with exactly 4 card D and longer major or equal length in D and major. Balanced opens 1nt.
5) Do this by combining Roman and Neopolitan.
6)3 card canape did not appeal.
7) This was 1965
8) System thinks playing 3nt with 5-3 HIDDEN fits and balanced hands will often be a plus in the play compared to playing in 4 of major. Many disagree..
9) you can open many hands lite compared to sayc but not as many as in Moscito.
10) There are relays in system but in general your bids are more often natural and many fewer relays compared to Moscito and more natural bidding.

*3=4=1=5 is again opening 1 Heart, the 4 card suit, not 1D .
**1nt="strongish relay", really strongish probe for opener's promised second suit
*** next higher suit ="weakish relay", really weakish probe for opener's promised second suit.
**** 1d=1nt=2s(11-16 hcp, 4+d and 5+s) so to answer your question shows shape but not strength.( no strong club).

[Echognome]

To answer David's original question, I vote for making your 1♦ bid more nebulous. The reason for this is that it's 3 bids LOWER than 1NT and 4 bids LOWER than 2♣. Yes, this does have its own problems, but you have more room to define your hand.

Second reason to do this is the laws. You cannot play 1NT with any singleton (it must be an honour if 5431 shape) at Level 3 (in EBU land). I find that if you're going to play a system seriously, then you need to practice it. Yes you can practice any system online, but it is nice to be able to play the same system in competitions.

[david_c]

Echognome, on Jun 18 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

To answer David's original question, I vote for making your 1♦ bid more nebulous.  The reason for this is that it's 3 bids LOWER than 1NT and 4 bids LOWER than 2♣.  Yes, this does have its own problems, but you have more room to define your hand.

"Thanks, Your vote has been added"

Quote

Second reason to do this is the laws.  You cannot play 1NT with any singleton (it must be an honour if 5431 shape) at Level 3 (in EBU land).

True, but it will become legal on 1st Jan 2006, and the chances of me being able to find a partner for this system in the next six months are fairly slim ...

[MickyB]

My feeling is that you are best off as you are. Just doesn't seem right to clean up your 2♣ opener when the resulting clean bid will be many times less frequent than your dirty 1NT opener.

I'd much sooner open (43)15s 1♥ and 1♠ than chuck them randomly into an otherwise natural 1♦ opener. It could work to make 1♦ 3+ cards and have 2♥ as a Precision 2♦ opener - with 4M5♣, you open 1♦ with three of them, 1NT with two, 2♥ with one or zero. Haven't thought at all about the continuations after the 1♦ opening, could get a bit messy working out which minor opener really has.

I do have one problem with a 2♣ opener promising 6 cards. If you have to open 2♣ on 4M6♣ hands there is a fair chance of missing a game in your major suit, whereas if you opened these hands with a standard Precision 2♣ then responder will be more inclined to look for a major fit.

[Chamaco]

david_c, on Jun 17 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

Playing SAYC or 2/1, I've seen some people opening 1NT with hands such as

♠ x
♥ AKTx
♦ KQx
♣ Kxxxx

in order to avoid possible rebid problems after opening 1♣.

Hands of this shape (but perhaps a little lighter in HCP) are also a problem in Precision, because a 5-card 2♣ opening is so difficult to handle. So I'm wondering whether it might be advisable to open a weak no-trump on these sorts of hands.

More specifically - I like to play a system where 1NT is 12-14HCP, and all stronger balanced hands are opened 1♣. (Hence, a 1♦ opening will not be balanced.) Hands with a club suit are currently treated in much the same way as in the Fantoni/Nunes system: 2♣ shows about 10-14HCP with 5+ clubs; stronger hands open 1♣. The 1NT opening already includes 4=4=1=4 hands (because I don't want to bother with a precision 2♦), as well as most 2=4=2=5 and 4=2=2=5 hands. So this leaves the following shapes with 5 clubs in the 2♣ opening bid:

• 1=4=3=5
  
  
• 4=1=3=5
  
  
• 3=4=1=5
  
  
• 4=3=1=5
  
  
• 4=4=0=5

The method I'm considering is to open all of these except the last one with 1NT. The 4=4=0=5's never come up. This would mean that 2♣ promises a 6-card suit.

What's the rest of your 2-level openers ?

One solution is to use

2D = Multi
2H, 2S= canapè opening ,(10)11-15, 4 cards in the suit opened and a longer minor

There is a strong club-based system in italy that uses such a structure.
4441 short in D is treated as balanced.

However, I like this better than opening 1 NT a suit-oriented 5431 such as this one.
I might open 1NT some 5431 but this one really does not qualify, I'd much prefer to "steal" one card in hearts and open 1H, *even playing 5card majors", in view of the suit quality.

[Antoine Fourrière]

Your idea of having 2♣ show a six-card suit is shared by no less than Rodwell (see his interview on BridgeMatters), Sontag (see Power Precision) or Marston (see Moscito). But I do disagree. The higher a bid, the lower its frequency IMO, and I don't like the six-card 2♣ opening much more than the strong 2♣.

Opening 2♣ to show a six-card suit is also different from opening 2♠ to show a six-card suit from a total trick point of view. You need 14 total tricks to be (theoretically) safe at 2♣, 15 total tricks to be safe at 2♠, and 16 total tricks to be safe at 3♣. So, I am much more prone to open 3♣ with six cards than to open two of a major with five cards (unless I have a second five-card suit, or unless I know a second four-card suit). That sixth club already gives you one more trick, but it may also give your opponents one less honor trick in clubs and/or one more trick in their best suit. It is true you may burrow your major fit, but you may also burrow their major fit, and the odds should be definitely in favor of that strategy if you have a major singleton or a seventh card.

Hence, in a Precision frame, I would suggest to use 2♣ to show five clubs and a four-card major without three cards in the other major, 2♦ to cover the short diamond types (including 3=3=1=6, since you can rebid 3♣) and 2N and 3♣ to show 9-11 or 12-14 HCP with six cards and a major shortness or seven cards.
It should be also possible to open 1N with 3=3=1=6 with about 10-13 HCP, since in this case you won't lose a major fit.
If you don't include the 3=3=1=6 in the takeout of diamonds type, 2♥ might be a better opening than 2♦.
If you also open 2♣ with five clubs and a four-card major regardless of whether you hold three cards in the other major, you can have 2♦ multi and 2♥ as simply showing 12-15 with exactly four cards in both majors (and at least two clubs), which retrieves many partials and may not be easy to defend.

I also find 2♥ and 2♠ showing four cards and a five card club suit reasonable, but I don't like 2♥ and 2♠ showing four cards and an undisclosed five-card minor. It crosses the delicate balance between wimpiness and savagery to the latter direction. (One five-four type is fine for 2♥ or 2♠, two are fine for 2♣, and presumably neither choice would really fit 2♦.)

I don't think the main flaw with canapé is the 2♥ and 2♠ openings. What I find really bothering is its vulnerability to high preempts. And maybe standard is good at narrowing your hand in two bids (true, there are variations, but 1♣ 1♥ 1♠, 1♣ 1♠ 2♣, 1♦ 1♠ 2♣, 1♦ 1♠ 2♠, 1♦ 2♣ 2N, 1♥ 1♠ 2♣, 1♠ 1N 2♣, 1♠ 2♦ 2♠..., while 1♦ 1♥ 1N is too good), but it is often the first round of bidding which makes the difference.

[Chamaco]

Antoine Fourrière, on Jun 19 2005, 02:32 AM, said:

I also find 2♥ and 2♠ showing four cards and a five card club suit reasonable, but I don't like 2♥ and 2♠ showing four cards and an undisclosed five-card minor. It crosses the delicate balance between wimpiness and savagery to the latter direction.

Tradeoffs tradeoffs

Using a canapè 2♥/2♠ only with longer clubs reduces dramatically the frequency of using this bid, which is somewhat a waste.

Inserting hands with longer diamonds helps "cleaning" the nebulous 1D opener too.

Sure enough, sometimes you get too high, but other times, it's the opps who are "preempted".

Moreover, being a Raptor 1NT overcall fan, I found that these 4M5+m hands often offer a safe place, even if the longer minor is initially undisclosed, and even at the 3-level ....