[Echognome]

This may be of interest to some of you and of no interest to others. Basically, in my system design I have chosen to play a "form of Precision" where 1♣ and 1♦ meanings are reversed. The reasons for this are:

1) Strong hands are relatively rare and we do not miss out on losing 1 step over 1♣ openings as we play control responses combined with natural 2-suited positives.
2) The gain over opening a nebulous 1♣ is that we feel it can handle more hand types as the extra step allows transfer responses.
3) By handling more hand types in 2) above, we have freed up the 2♣ bid (which is problematic in itself) as a preempt which is also more frequent.

All that being said (which you may or may not agree with), I have toyed around with responses to 1♣ and have come up with the following structure. Would appreciate anyone's opinion on these. One thing to note is that our NT range is 11-13 1/2 NV, 10(9)-14 3 NV, and 14-16 otherwise. Also all of our 4441 hand shapes and some of our 5431s can be opened 1NT.

1♣ = 10-16 either natural 5+ clubs, 5+ diamonds unbalanced, or 11-13 (14-16) balanced or semi-balanced.

Responses:
Pass = 0-5 no 5 card major. Can be dangerous vul at MPs although still a tough problem for opps. Usually costs once every few months.

1♦ = 4+ hearts. Will show 5+ if weak (intending to pass) and 5+ if invitational or better and doesn't rebid NT. (Rebid of 1NT shows 6-9, rebid of 2NT shows 10-12.)

Opener's rebids - Most hands make a simple acceptance. 1NT = super-accept top of range, 2♥ = super-accept bottom of range. 2♣, 2♦ = super-reject showing 0-1 hearts and a good 6 card minor. 3m = Good suit + super-accept.

1♥ = 4+ spades. As above with similar opener's rebids.

1♠ = Either 6-9 bal with no 4 card major OR 10-12 with minor-suit invite. Responder bids minor suit naturally at next turn to show invite. (There is perhaps some scope here to include some 45 or 46 major/minor hands.)

Opener's rebids - Most hands bid 1NT unless good 6 card minor which is bid naturally.

1NT = Artificial GF (usually 13+ bal).

Opener's rebids - 2♣ = single-suited clubs or balanced outside of NT range. 2♦ relays, then if single-suited clubs, relay for shortness, then keycard. If balanced, then relay = baron (4 card suits up the line).
2♦ = single-suited diamonds, 2♥ relays for shortness, then relay for keycards, etc.
2♥/2♠ = 4M/5+m. next step relays for shape then keycards etc.
2NT = 55 or better minor. Next step relays for shape, then 6 ace keycard.

2♣/2♦ = Inverted minor (although strange in a way since it is not actually agreeing a minor, but rather showing a 4+(usually 5+) card minor). Bidding fairly natural afterwards.

2♥/2♠ = Strong (weak if passed hand) jump shift. (I prefer to play this always as weak, but have to agree with partner).

2NT = Both minors weak.

3♣/3♦ = Weak natural

[Echognome]

By the way, I know there's an awful lot packed into my message above. I would also appreciate comments about any part of the sequences above. If you have a suggestion for improvement or see a difficulty that might arise on a particular subset of the above, then please feel free to comment on that bit alone. Also, if you feel that there are any unbiddable hands, then feel free to state those as well.

Many thanks,
Matt

[whereagles]

I've played a similar structure once (reversed, though: neb 1D, strong 1C, 2C as weak). I can tell you it was a major PAIN to deal with follow-ups to the nebulous 1D. Your scheme after the nebulous 1C seems pretty good to me. Certainly much more playable than my horrible continuations after neb 1D.

The weakest side to a nebulous 1C/D is, as usual, competition. Since you'll be opening the nebulous bid most of the time, you'll have to work out very precise gadgets to cope with 2nd player butting-in. Butt-ins from 4th player are easier to cope with because responder's 1st bid in your scheme is quite helpful. Still, stuff like good-bad 2NT and wide usage of negative doubles is almost mandatory if 4th guy gets into the bidding. But dealing with 2nd guy butting-in is much more important.

I think the structure for unoposed bidding is sound. Concentrate on dealing with competition now.

[Echognome]

Whereagles makes a good point and I feel kind of silly for not remembering to mention how to handle competition. We are "borrowing" our methods for those from another pair here that play a similar system to ours (although they play canape openings and hence have 1 less hand type in their opening). To handle competition, you simply "borrow" 6 hcps from opener and pretend that the opening on your right was a natural 1 of a suit opening. They refer to it as "Noise" - Opening - Action.

This roughly equates to negative free-bids and similar, but it makes follow-up auctions quite clear as you do not need any different methods than you are currently playing. E.g. 1♣ - (1♥) - 2♥ = michael's. 1♣ - (2♠) - 4♣ = leaping michael's, since those are the methods we normally play over a 1♥ and 2♠ bid respectively. A 1NT response by partner would show 9-11 (15-17 minus 6).

It also tells you the disadvantage of such an opening as we are basically on defensive bidding after an overcall. However, handling interference has not proved overly burdensome.

Edit: I forgot to add one bit here 1♣ - (X) - ?
Pass = Clubs
XX = 4+ Diamonds
1♦ = 4+ Hearts
1♥ = 4+ Spades
1♠ = 8-10 bal
1NT = 11-13 bal
2-level as our usual 2-level openings:
2♣ = 44 or better majors
2♦ = Either major
2♥/2♠ = 5M, 4m

[whereagles]

Well, that's an interesting concept on how to handle overcalls. Seems to be a good starting point for refining competitive bidding after neb 1C.

[Free]

Ok, so you borrow some HCP's. Works nice against natural overcalls. But what do you do if opponents start throwing their 2nd longest suit on the table, or bids without an anchor suit?

[Echognome]

That's easy enough. There are two points here. 1 is that playing a limited club opener we face very few high unusual methods against it (since they have a very good chance of preempting themselves). The second point is a simple enough one. What would we do if RHO opened with a two-suiter or some weird bid like their second best suit etc? For the two-suited bid, we would probably treat it much like a multi opener (although I haven't discussed it with partner as we haven't faced it yet!), and for second suit opened, we would just treat it as an artificial opening (so cue-bid = natural not michael's). It's easy to deal with since you merely need to ask yourself "What would I do if they had opened such and such?"

[PMetsch]

Maybe you should add a 3♥/♠ response as singleton ♥/♠ and (54)minors. It is usefull if 1♣ is balanced and it is great if 1♣ is opened with a long minor.

[bigmax]

Isn't it something similar to Magic Diamond openings: 1c - 12-16 any, 1d - 17+?

[glen]

Methods are quite playable.

1♣-1♠ can include 0-5 hands without ♣s, so only pass 1♣ with 5+♣s.

After 1♣-1red, I would bid the major with most balanced hands (in the notrump) range. That would free up the 1NT rebid by opener to show:

13-16, 4-4/5-4/4-5 in the minors, stopper(s) in OM (can be four card suit if ♥s and 1-4-4-4 exactly), 1-2 cards in responder's major.

[cf_John0]

Echognome, on Sep 7 2005, 09:41 AM, said:

This may be of interest to some of you and of no interest to others.  Basically, in my system design I have chosen to play a "form of Precision" where 1♣ and 1♦ meanings are reversed. 

A very good basic opeing structure.

[Echognome]

PMetsch - Those hands would normally be 2NT bids in the current system. However with GF strength perhaps they would be useful. On many of those hands I would normally start with 1NT and find out openers hand shape exactly. But something to consider as not sure what else would be useful.

Bigmax - It's similar to Magic Diamond in that the point range is similar and we play 1♦ as 17+. However, since MD restricts their 1♥ and 1♠ openings more than we do, they have more hand types going through 1♣, whereas in this system there are only three. Also, MD uses 2♣ and 2♦ as semi-constructive openings, whereas in this system they are both preempts. I mean this in no way as a criticism of MD, but rather a comparison. The MD 1♥ and 1♠ openings are extremely effective I am sure. Of course, I also designed a system that was legal for us to play both at the club level and in tournaments.

Glen, John - Thanks for the encouragement. I think vulnerable adding 0-5 hands without ♣s makes some sense. I do not mind at all NV passing. We usually save our "super-rejects" for hands with a long minor (and hence a place to play), but I will consider the merits of showing both minors. By the way, the only 4441 hands we can have in 1♣ are those outside the NT range.

Thanks to everyone for the inputs thus far. Keep them coming.