[RunemPard]

Hi!

Before you read my ideas...I just want to add that bidding theory is not my strong point, but I feel like trying from time to time anyways. I greatly appreciate that all posters be respectful towards my ideas or any other posters opinions. I am looking for things I can do to improve on the system, not insults about my random ideas.

I am working on putting together a system using a standard/strong 1♣ opening with transfer responses. I am open to using a 12-14, 14-16, or 15-17 NT, although my experience with a weak NT is limited. I have spent roughly an hour on the system so far, and have run into some bidding problems that need solutions. I will be posting new threads with different opening bids that I think need some suggestions.

The first bid I want to get some opinions on is using a precision like 2♣ opening (MP/Teams). Using the 1♣ bid as unlimited and forcing, there needs to be a way to show hands with long clubs. The strong hands are shown by 1♣-1x-2♣.

So, my idea for now is to use 2♣ as an (11)12-15 HCP hand with 6 ♣. The responses I had in mind are...

2♣: (11)12-15 (6♣)
-2♦: Asking for 3cM - Possible WK 6+♦ or GF w/ ♣s
-2♥: To play
-2♠: To play
-2N: Invite to 3NT
-3♣: Preemptive
-3♦: Splinter
-3♥: Splinter
-3♠: Splinter
-3N: To play
-4♣: Preemptive (or maybe just an invite)
-4♦: RKC (not sure what else would fit here)
-4♥: To play
-4♠: To play
-4N: Invite to 6NT
-5♣: To play


Other than using this bid to help with system bidding problems, I like the preemptive nature of the bid.

Thoughts?

[mgoetze]

RunemPard, on 2012-October-16, 06:58, said:

a standard/strong 1♣ opening with transfer responses.

I don't understand this part, could you be more precise?

[RunemPard]

mgoetze, on 2012-October-16, 07:14, said:

I don't understand this part, could you be more precise?

2+♣ 11-19 (Balanced, range depending on 1NT range)
5+♣ 11-19 (Unbalanced normally, 16+ if 6 ♣s)
0+♣ Any typical 2♣ opening

Bids of 1♣-1♦/1♥ show next higher. 1♠ relay to 1N. The others I am not certain yet.

[Zelandakh]

Runem, rather than reinventing things for you I strongly recommend you read up on notes for the An Unassuming Club (AUC) system which incorporates precisely this 2♣ opening. The summary answer is that the best options are transfers (2♦ = hearts, 2♥ = spades) as used in AUC or a relay system. I would strongly recommend the transfer approach which is why I am pointing you towards AUC. It is different if the 2♣ opening can include a 4 card major (although transfers still work) and I am assuming that this is not the case here.

[mgoetze]

RunemPard, on 2012-October-16, 07:23, said:

2+♣ 11-19 (Balanced, range depending on 1NT range)
5+♣ 11-19 (Unbalanced normally, 16+ if 6 ♣s)
0+♣ Any typical 2♣ opening

So basically you want to do Polish Club, but some of the hands which are in 2♣ in Polish club you'd rather open 1♣. Obviously this improves the 2♣ opening but it will put even more pressure on the 1♣ opening. Now apparently you think you can handle that by playing an entirely different response structure than Polish club - basically Fantunes style, and people question the theoretical merit of the Fantunes structure even for their 15+ 1♣ opening - I doubt it's going to be any better with an 11+ 1♣.

Well, you have set yourself a huge task, good luck.

[antonylee]

I would suggest you google for Smirnov-Piekarek or Gotard-Piekarek's CC -- basically Polish club but putting all club-based hands in 1♣ as well, thus freeing 2♣ for another preempt. I have read that some Polish juniors are playing something similar.
I have played (nonvul) 1♣=12+ 5+♣ unbal (not 4♦5♣ 12-15) or strong NT or 18+, i.e. as above but also swapping the weak and strong notrump range as well. It is sometimes unwieldy but the gains from the extra preempt makes it worth it IMO.

[kenrexford]

Neopolitan 2♣ is a lousy solution for not being able to open 1♣, IMO. Structural solutions after making that call part of the core opening bid structure are less successful, IMO, than the alternative of correcting the opening bids structure. If you need 2♦+ for other purposes, it is much better, IMO, to open 2♣ with both minors and then to have 1♦ clubs or diamonds but not both, as that is much more workable in the long run. You can do even better, but this is at least better than Neopolitan 2♣.

[awm]

The main problem with transfer responses to 1♣ is the hand where responder has no four-card major. This problem gets a lot worse when your 1♣ opening is forcing, because you end up having to respond 1♣-1♠ on some pretty bad hands. This means opener's 1NT rebid is extremely risky (you're having a slow auction to 1NT on what's often two balanced hands with substantially less than half the strength). It also forces opener to make some other call on stronger balanced hands, which is okay if 1♠ promised values (i.e. 1♣ was NF, so you would pass with 0-4 no major) but not so okay if 1♠ is routinely bid on a flat zero-count. Similarly, you may run into some trouble if opener has extras and decides to reverse (which again would've been okay if 1♠ promised some values).

The only really workable solution I've seen to this is what Fantoni-Nunes do, which is to treat 1♣ as always strong, removing both the weak notrump and the minimum-with-clubs hand from the 1♣ opening. This lets you use some follow-ups where 1♣-1NT promises intermediate values (like say 6-8) and 1♣-1♠-1NT has a wide range (say 15-19) which is okay because you've removed the really troublesome hands from 1♠ while also giving opener a bit more safety because he has enough that you won't be vastly outgunned.

Of course, you will have some issues regarding where to put the minimum opening club hands, in particular the 4414 and (43)15 varieties are annoying to locate. My impression is that Fantoni-Nunes mix these between 2♣ and 1NT in some way (which has evolved a bit over time), but this doesn't seem to be the best part of their structure.

Anyway, I don't see it as much more difficult to play 1♣ as "15+ balanced or 15+ clubs or 20+ any" rather than the Fantoni-Nunes way; the 20+ any hands will be rare anyway. This is not really the same as Polish club, in the sense that Polish club has weaker and much more frequent artificial strong options in the 1♣ opening (i.e. all 18-counts).

[Zelandakh]

awm, on 2012-October-17, 18:52, said:

Anyway, I don't see it as much more difficult to play 1♣ as "15+ balanced or 15+ clubs or 20+ any" rather than the Fantoni-Nunes way; the 20+ any hands will be rare anyway. This is not really the same as Polish club, in the sense that Polish club has weaker and much more frequent artificial strong options in the 1♣ opening (i.e. all 18-counts).

I play a 1♣ opening as "15+ balanced or 15+ clubs or 18+ any" and it works just fine. That does not seem to be particularly relevant to the OP though, who wants to play 1♣ as "some balanced ranges or clubs and a major or some very strong hands". This approach seems much more akin to AUC or perhaps Nightmare.

[dake50]

Common to try a system without any attempt from the system
publisher to either state the system's intent-to-gain
(partials, better game decisions, clear slam info),
nor that systems frequency of those intended gains.
I've seen pattern relays out to 7-6-0-0?!! -
that should occur this century.
Let alone any attempt to compare to a similar system -
No "we do this better".
Since the bidding theory wasn't published with the system,
how does that theory get discussed?

[snillrik13]

awm, on 2012-October-17, 18:52, said:

The main problem with transfer responses to 1♣ is the hand where responder has no four-card major. This problem gets a lot worse when your 1♣ opening is forcing, because you end up having to respond 1♣-1♠ on some pretty bad hands. This means opener's 1NT rebid is extremely risky (you're having a slow auction to 1NT on what's often two balanced hands with substantially less than half the strength). It also forces opener to make some other call on stronger balanced hands, which is okay if 1♠ promised values (i.e. 1♣ was NF, so you would pass with 0-4 no major) but not so okay if 1♠ is routinely bid on a flat zero-count. Similarly, you may run into some trouble if opener has extras and decides to reverse (which again would've been okay if 1♠ promised some values).

The only really workable solution I've seen to this is what Fantoni-Nunes do, which is to treat 1♣ as always strong, removing both the weak notrump and the minimum-with-clubs hand from the 1♣ opening. This lets you use some follow-ups where 1♣-1NT promises intermediate values (like say 6-8) and 1♣-1♠-1NT has a wide range (say 15-19) which is okay because you've removed the really troublesome hands from 1♠ while also giving opener a bit more safety because he has enough that you won't be vastly outgunned.

Of course, you will have some issues regarding where to put the minimum opening club hands, in particular the 4414 and (43)15 varieties are annoying to locate. My impression is that Fantoni-Nunes mix these between 2♣ and 1NT in some way (which has evolved a bit over time), but this doesn't seem to be the best part of their structure.

Anyway, I don't see it as much more difficult to play 1♣ as "15+ balanced or 15+ clubs or 20+ any" rather than the Fantoni-Nunes way; the 20+ any hands will be rare anyway. This is not really the same as Polish club, in the sense that Polish club has weaker and much more frequent artificial strong options in the 1♣ opening (i.e. all 18-counts).

[snillrik13]

I think you are right about transfers. Opener should have 15+ and balanced or 17+ unbalanced. 2club opening 12-16 and very strong balanced hands via 1club - 1X > 2clubs = 22+ balanced. If you like I can mail my system notes. my own mail is snillrik@telia.com

[snillrik13]

Sorry should comment on your 2 club opening also. I think lyou have a big system problem if you do not allow 5clubs 4M and 6clubs 4M openings as well.

[steve2005]

snillrik13, on 2013-November-30, 08:18, said:

Sorry should comment on your 2 club opening also. I think lyou have a big system problem if you do not allow 5clubs 4M and 6clubs 4M openings as well.

disagree - unassuming club uses 1♣ for these hands. a reasonable solution.

[benlessard]

Quote

The only really workable solution I've seen to this is what Fantoni-Nunes do, which is to treat 1♣ as always strong, removing both the weak notrump and the minimum-with-clubs hand from the 1♣ opening. This lets you use some follow-ups where 1♣-1NT promises intermediate values (like say 6-8) and 1♣-1♠-1NT has a wide range (say 15-19) which is okay because you've removed the really troublesome hands from 1♠ while also giving opener a bit more safety because he has enough that you won't be vastly outgunned.

This is the idea behind my system.

1C= 15+
1D 11-22 at least 4D unbal
1M = 11-14 or 18-21 UNB
1nt = 12-14 (5M332 are there)

So after a strong club responder bid 1D with any SP and trasnfer with GF or weak.

So opener can rebid 1M/1NT with 15-20 knowing you will rarely miss game.

1C--1S(no4M)--1NT (15-20) is really hard to defend.
1C--1D(H or pts)--1H--P & 1C--1H(S)--1S pass are huge winners.

1C--1D--1NT (17-18)
1C--1D--1H--1S--1Nt (15-16) are avoiding 2nt so often.

We are playing 2C may be 5C+4M and its small potatoes compared to the gain of 1D showing always 4 unb (a la PC)