[MickyB]

If you open all weak nts with 1D (or 1C), the worst hands for your system are minima with primary diamonds (clubs); even if your uncontested methods are good, you will be a long way behind in contested auctions.

My existing opening structure is -

1c = nat/17-19nt
1d = nat/11-13nt
1M = 5 cards
1n = 14-16
2c strong
2d+ preempts

How about this instead?

1d = 11-13 NT or 14+ with diamonds
2c = strong, or 10-13 with 5+d, unbal, no major
2d = 5+d,4M 10-13

Edit: It would also be quite easy to make 1c unlimited, removing gf club hands from the 2c opening.

[TylerE]

I spent some time playing a sort of similar range-split minor system recently. My conclusion was that ultimately it's NOT worth freeing up 1m-1X-2NT. Basically you have all the downsides of Precision, without many of the benefits.

[MickyB]

Strongly disagree, Tyler. Freeing up 1m-1x-2nt is by no means the main advantage of the method. Compared with Precision, we are behind on 17-18 no-trumps and 1M-4M auctions, but ahead when dealt 11-15 with 5 clubs or 5d4c, and ahead with 16+ unbalanced hands when the auction is about to get competitive.

[Kungsgeten]

Taking it even further would be to include 18-20 bal into 2C and play an unbalanced club opening

I like your idea but I think 2C could promise 6D and with less than 14 and 4C and 5D you open 1C.

[benlessard]

Your suggested solution look weak compare to what I play

1C 15+ (bal, with clubs, or 15-17 with 5M)

1D = 11-22 unb with at least 4D can be 4D+5C or (4441)

1M =11-14 or 18-21

1NT 12-14

2C = 5C+4M 11-14 or 6C


Balanced hands ----IMO all 16+ bal hands are better under a strong clubs, the 15 count do better under a strong NT than under a strong clubs but the 14 do almost equally well under weak NT/strong nt. VUL its a bit annoying to open 1NT with 12-13 but its somewhat compensated by when we are not vul. Opening bal 11 count in 1D is pointless imo. So i think its a draw here. Im under for the 12,13,15 slighty under for the 14 but im significantly better placed for 16+ and my 2NT is free.

real clubs ---- Im at a big disadvantage here. Not only 2C opening lead to some problems but when your opening 1C in your methods its real clubs very often if not its a big bal hand so good edge for you here.

Real diamonds ---- Big edge for me here. Having diamonds in 3 different bid is a bit annoying for me. Also I have my weak 2D.

Majors ---- again big edge for me, Ive got many of the advantages of a limited opening style.

unbalanced powerhouse ---- again decent edge for me because of the strong clubs structure.

IMO its a no brainer that you should switch your nt ranges 1C (11-13) and 1D (17-19).

If you want to maximize your 2C opening, use 2NT for 22-23 and 2C is 21+ unb, 24+ bal or 20-21 bal with some ways to stop in 2M.

[Cyberyeti]

Another variant is to put 1♣ as a split range, and with 11-13 bal you rebid a 3 card major if you have to, the 1N rebid shows the stronger one over 1red. Your only issue is how you handle 2(443) or similar over 1♣-1♠ (or 1♣-1♥ if you play transfers).

I played this a long time ago with the middle range in 1♦, the club unlimited if balanced and forcing with a negative or balanced 1♦, and a big unbalanced 1N.

[MickyB]

benlessard, on 2014-September-06, 16:18, said:

Your suggested solution look weak compare to what I play

No

Quote

1C 15+ (bal, with clubs, or 15-17 with 5M)

1D = 11-22 unb with at least 4D can be 4D+5C or (4441)

1M =11-14 or 18-21

1NT 12-14

2C = 5C+4M 11-14 or 6C


Balanced hands ----IMO all 16+ bal hands are better under a strong clubs, the 15 count do better under a strong NT than under a strong clubs but the 14 do almost equally well under weak NT/strong nt. VUL its a bit annoying to open 1NT with 12-13 but its somewhat compensated by when we are not vul. Opening bal 11 count in 1D is pointless imo. So i think its a draw here. Im under for the 12,13,15 slighty under for the 14 but im significantly better placed for 16+ and my 2NT is free.

I disagree with most of this - there's a reason Meckwell play 2NT = 19-20, and a reason that most Precision pairs open 1D on bal 11s - but I don't disagree that we are roughly even on balanced hands overall.

Quote

real clubs ---- Im at a big disadvantage here. Not only 2C opening lead to some problems but when your opening 1C in your methods its real clubs very often if not its a big bal hand so good edge for you here.

Yes

Quote

Real diamonds ---- Big edge for me here. Having diamonds in 3 different bid is a bit annoying for me. Also I have my weak 2D.

No. I think you have an edge but it's tiny compared with my edge on club hands. I'll frequently have gains from the 2C/2D openings.

Quote

Majors ---- again big edge for me, Ive got many of the advantages of a limited opening style.

No, you'll lose plenty on the 15-17 hands to counteract the gains on the 11-14 hands.

Quote

unbalanced powerhouse ---- again decent edge for me because of the strong clubs structure.

Probably, but I'd need to see your continuations.

Quote

IMO its a no brainer that you should switch your nt ranges 1C (11-13) and 1D (17-19).

No. This screws you over on the 17-19 no-trumps for very little gain. It also leads to frequent and hideous wrongsiding after transfer responses on auctions like 1C-P-1H!-2H; 2S, which I explained to you in a thread you started on transfer responses to 1D.

Quote

If you want to maximize your 2C opening, use 2NT for 22-23 and 2C is 21+ unb, 24+ bal or 20-21 bal with some ways to stop in 2M.

Yeah I've tried putting 20-21 bal through 2C, it gained me a grand total of 2 imps, and cost me an (unlucky) NV game swing; the problems it caused us in contested auctions were hideous in comparison, although maybe that was down to lack of discussion/practice with the method on our part.

If future responses could be on topic, i.e. comparing the two suggested systems, rather than some alternative nutjob method, that'd be appreciated, thanks.

[Cyberyeti]

Have you worked out your response structure to the new 2♣ ?

Are you intending to treat hands with 6 diamonds 322 and 22(45)s as balanced ?

Difficult to assess without knowing these things.

And I'm sure Hanlon/McGann are amazed you think rebidding a 3 card major with 11-13 is a nutjob method, IIRC they've done this for years.

[MickyB]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-06, 17:53, said:

Have you worked out your response structure to the new 2♣ ?

Not precisely, I was thinking maybe those with experience playing 2C as gf/weak 2D might weigh in.

Quote

Are you intending to treat hands with 6 diamonds 322 and 22(45)s as balanced ?

2245 is handled very well through 1C, no reason to open 1D on it.

6D322 10-13 would be happy to open 2C IMO.

2254 10-13 would tend to be treated as balanced I think.

Quote

Difficult to assess without knowing these things.

And I'm sure Hanlon/McGann are amazed you think rebidding a 3 card major with 11-13 is a nutjob method, IIRC they've done this for years.

Sure, but in a different context. Transfer responses have largely superseded alternative methods over a nat/bal club.

[benlessard]

Quote

No. This screws you over on the 17-19 no-trumps for very little gain. It also leads to frequent and hideous wrongsiding after transfer responses on auctions like 1C-P-1H!-2H; 2S, which I explained to you in a thread you started on transfer responses to 1D.

Transfers over 1C are very powerful and its not just for rightsiding its also to give you more sequences. 1C-1D (hearts) & 1C-1H (spades) is gaining a huge step over the equivalent 1C-1H & 1D-1H (hearts) 1C-1S,1D-1S (spades) So its really obvious that you would gain on transfer sequence with the more probable hands 11-13 vs 17-19 hands, the frequency difference is huge. It will be hard to find an experienced system designer that will agree with your switch. If you really want to rightside your 17-19 hands do like me and play a strong club with transfers. We accept the transfers with 3 so

1C-1D(H or pts)--1H (show 3)
1C-1H(S w or GF)--1S are our most common start so we rightside 95% of the case were have a M fit and opener is 15+. Even hand where we dont accept the transfers.

1C-1D-1Nt (17-18 withouth 4H)
1C-1H-1NT (15-20, 0-2 S)

we have a good chance to retransfer later.

I don't really agree with the rest of your post also but its irrelevant in compared to this.

Do you at least know the frequency difference between 11-13 and 17-19 ?

[MickyB]

benlessard, on 2014-September-06, 19:20, said:

Transfers over 1C are very powerful and its not just for rightsiding its also to give you more sequences. 1C-1D (hearts) & 1C-1H (spades) is gaining a huge step over the equivalent 1C-1H & 1D-1H (hearts) 1C-1S,1D-1S (spades) So its really obvious that you would gain on transfer sequence with the more probable hands 11-13 vs 17-19 hands, the frequency difference is huge. It will be hard to find an experienced system designer that will agree with your switch. If you really want to rightside your 17-19 hands do like me and play a strong club with transfers. We accept the transfers with 3 so

1C-1D(H or pts)--1H (show 3)
1C-1H(S w or GF)--1S are our most common start so we rightside 95% of the case were have a M fit and opener is 15+. Even hand where we dont accept the transfers.

1C-1D-1Nt (17-18 withouth 4H)
1C-1H-1NT (15-20, 0-2 S)

we have a good chance to retransfer later.

I don't really agree with the rest of your post also but its irrelevant in compared to this.

Do you at least know the frequency difference between 11-13 and 17-19 ?

The frequency is irrelevant unless you are actually gaining something on the hands. The best continuations over 1c (nat/weak NT) gain a lot more on the club hands than the weak no-trumps.

Does Glen Ashton count as an experienced system designer?

[MickyB]

Kungsgeten, on 2014-September-06, 01:27, said:

Taking it even further would be to include 18-20 bal into 2C and play an unbalanced club opening

Haha. Tempting to do it just to troll Benoit.

Quote

I like your idea but I think 2C could promise 6D and with less than 14 and 4C and 5D you open 1C.

Yes that occurred to me, as did opening 1M on 4M5D to leave the 2D opening free. I kinda like that, as it stands, if they take advantage of being able to double our 2C opening, they are giving up something significant, i.e. letting us out in 2C X when opener has 5D4C.

[gnasher]

benlessard said:

It will be hard to find an experienced system designer that will agree with your switch.

MickyB said:

Does Glen Ashton count as an experienced system designer?

I think many bridge players are experienced system designers. MickyB and Benlessard both clearly qualify. I was a vastly experienced system designer by my early 20s*. If we're doing appeals to authority, it would be more relevant to consider whether they're successful system designers.


*I found some of the results recently. They're now performing a useful function in my compost bin.

[mgoetze]

MickyB, on 2014-September-05, 10:14, said:

How about this instead?

1d = 11-13 NT or 14+ with diamonds
2c = strong, or 10-13 with 5+d, unbal, no major
2d = 5+d,4M 10-13

If you're so worried about diamond hands, why don't you just come back into the fold of T-Walsh orthodoxy and put both 11-13 and 17-19 into 1♣, making your 1♦ opening all about diamonds? Or does that count as a nutjob alternative as well?

[MickyB]

mgoetze, on 2014-September-07, 05:35, said:

If you're so worried about diamond hands, why don't you just come back into the fold of T-Walsh orthodoxy and put both 11-13 and 17-19 into 1♣, making your 1♦ opening all about diamonds?

Well, then I'd worry about club hands and 17-19 no-trumps instead, both of which benefit greatly from not making the same opening bid as 11-13 no-trumps.

Quote

Or does that count as a nutjob alternative as well?

Meh. Semi-nutjob :-p

[gnasher]

mgoetze, on 2014-September-07, 05:35, said:

If you're so worried about diamond hands, why don't you just come back into the fold of T-Walsh orthodoxy and put both 11-13 and 17-19 into 1♣, making your 1♦ opening all about diamonds? Or does that count as a nutjob alternative as well?

Mike doesn't want any minimum unbalanced hands to open the same thing as the minimum balanced hands.

Actually, that suggests a new way to hijack this thread:one way to solve this problem is to get the opponents to open 1♦ in front of you, so that you can pass with the minimum balanced hands.

[Zelandakh]

MickyB, on 2014-September-05, 10:14, said:

How about this instead?

1d = 11-13 NT or 14+ with diamonds
2c = strong, or 10-13 with 5+d, unbal, no major
2d = 5+d,4M 10-13

I think you would be better off playing a weak NT and making the balanced range within 1♦ 14-16. That way the bottom end of the range is more consistent, which helps with homogeneity. You could of course just go with a Mexican 2♣ or 2♦ opening and just have the 1♣ opening as nebulous, using transfer responses to sort that out at a low level.

[glen]

It's amusing that my credentials as a system designer would be questioned in a post/thread that mentions transfers over 1C, as Transfer Walsh stems from my article in The Bridge World (the naming of the convention and all the details on the follow ups were done by Henk Uijterwaal who gets zero credit nowadays for his great work, and the Swedish 1C transfer method that pre-dates Transfer Walsh is now far more popular: 1C-1red-1M all 11-13 bal instead of showing 3M or a strong hand, and they get no credit either). Such is success as a system designer where the only thing named after Walsh was not invented by him, and most 2/1 players have no clue about him.

As to the question of this thread it's a good one, and while the current short club/unbal 1D is better than standard, I don't think it is best, and I much prefer Italian methods that park 18-19 or 18-20 bal into 2C, and it turns out it is quite safe moving standard 2C hand types into a 1C opening, given how both light responses and the Polish Club are proven.

[awm]

This 2♣ method doesn't seem very good to me. Suppose I pick up a hand like ♠x ♥Qxx ♦Kxxxx ♣xxxx; this is exactly the sort of hand where having an opening that shows 5+♦ with limited values is a huge winner, because I can really put the screws to the opposition. But this is also exactly the hand where I'd be afraid that partner holds a "strong 2♣" opening and any aggressive raise of diamonds limits our ability to find the right strain and level.

I'd also be worried about finding major suit fits over the 2♦ opening, especially on non-GF hands. Just because I know opener has a major doesn't mean I have the same major; for example say I hold ♠AQxxx ♥Kx ♦xx ♣xxxx; I might make game opposite ♠Kxxx ♥Qxx ♦AQxxx ♣x but don't really want to get higher opposite the more likely ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦AQxxx ♣Kxx.

Given the general system I'd go with 2♦ showing 6+♦ and intermediate, and let the 4M-5♦ hands open 1♦ where at least I can consistently find my major suit fits. These 1453-type patterns are not that different from balanced hands in most situations anyway (except playing strength when partner responds your 4M).

I do think putting both balanced ranges into 1♣ is better; it's easy to clarify in a non-competitive auction, and when opponents are going to bid I'd rather have one nebulous "usually just a balanced hand" opening than two.

[MickyB]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-07, 06:49, said:

I think you would be better off playing a weak NT and making the balanced range within 1♦ 14-16. That way the bottom end of the range is more consistent, which helps with homogeneity.

Yeah I'd probably do that when NV or 1st NV with some partners but didn't want to over-complicate the OP. Going this route does have downsides, you have a lot more tricky decisions on the diamond hands, playing my suggested method the diamond hands are normally happy to show extras over a NFB/transfer. This is pretty much a rehash of the Polish Club vs Millennium Club/Nightmare/Fantunes 1C argument.

Quote

You could of course just go with a Mexican 2♣ or 2♦ opening and just have the 1♣ opening as nebulous, using transfer responses to sort that out at a low level.

While I think 2m as 18-19 bal is a decent idea, I prefer opening 1D rather than 1C with weak NTs. Besides the right-siding issues already mentioned [1C-P-1H!-2H; 2S], allowing 1C-P-1H!-X isn't great - I'm not convinced the gains outweigh these losses.