[snillrik13]

You open 1C and LHO interferes.What is your preference?

In Fantunes Lite www.fanfantunes@n.nu 1D, 1H and 1S are all F1 and can be strong
we bid
pass = 0-5 or 10+
transfers from 1NT and up with 6-10
vs 2M jump we use Lebensohl

[snillrik13]

Forgot X if balanced 6-10

[steve2005]

http://www.fanfantunes.n.nu/

[foobar]

snillrik13, on 2014-September-16, 14:27, said:

You open 1C and LHO interferes.What is your preference?

In Fantunes Lite www.fanfantunes@n.nu 1D, 1H and 1S are all F1 and can be strong
we bid
pass = 0-5 or 10+
transfers from 1NT and up with 6-10
vs 2M jump we use Lebensohl

Given that your 1♣ opening is 15+ any and primarily includes balanced hands with some strong ♣ hands, my inclination would be to cater the most likely NT range (16-18?).

There are several treatments possible and my preferred scheme uses transfers after 1♠+. Over lower level interference, it should be possible to remain in your existing system.

1♣ - (1♠):

Pass: 0-6 without takeout shape/suit or trap
X: Takeout, 6+ points
1N: Balanced, GF, unlimited
2♣+ -> Transfers, 6+ HCPs

Transfers are used over 2-level interference as well (with logical exceptions) and the cheapest NT is always the balanced GF hand.

Over 3-level interference, switch over 1♣ - (3♣) makes sense, but otherwise X=balanced GF and suits = natural GF.

You can even swap the the meanings of 1N/X at the right vulnerability to try and maximize the penalty potential since opener is very likely to be balanced.

[snillrik13]

foobar, on 2014-September-16, 18:38, said:

Given that your 1♣ opening is 15+ any and primarily includes balanced hands with some strong ♣ hands, my inclination would be to cater the most likely NT range (16-18?).

There are several treatments possible and my preferred scheme uses transfers after 1♠+. Over lower level interference, it should be possible to remain in your existing system.

1♣ - (1♠):

Pass: 0-6 without takeout shape/suit or trap
X: Takeout, 6+ points
1N: Balanced, GF, unlimited
2♣+ -> Transfers, 6+ HCPs

Transfers are used over 2-level interference as well (with logical exceptions) and the cheapest NT is always the balanced GF hand.

Over 3-level interference, switch over 1♣ - (3♣) makes sense, but otherwise X=balanced GF and suits = natural GF.

You can even swap the the meanings of 1N/X at the right vulnerability to try and maximize the penalty potential since opener is very likely to be balanced.

Foobar this suggestion of yours looks good. I like the idea of having X as balanced 7+ allowing opener to pass for penalty.I prefer cuebid in opps suit as GF then and still like Leb. 3-level your way to bid is fine.

[whereagles]

I remember having seen some "new" ideas in the subject in Rigal's "Precision in the 90s" book.

However, when I tried his scheme I got into a loophole in the first couple of hands, so I had to tweak it a bit. It now stands as

1♣ (1x) ??

where x is a real suit or anchor suit of a two-suited overcall (dealing with more complicated schemes like CRASH demand specialized treatments), responder bids

Pass = very weak or trap
Suit = natural GF
NT = natural GF
Dbl = 5-7 catch-all, but not 3-suited
Cue = classic take-out shape (4441ish), from 5-7 upwards, unlimited.
Jump cue = michaels-like 55 GF

This applies to the 2/3 level as well, but the higher the overcall, the shadier limits are. Scheme is very simple and can be tweaked further (e.g. jump to 2/3NT = 4441ish and GF, etc).

I selected this scheme because I think it's important to start bid suits naturally when you have a game on. I tried the scheme of "suit = 5-7, dbl = all GF" but didn't like it. The "suit = 5+" scheme (nat or xfer) I never tried.

Still, this is an area where there are a lot of options in the "market". Just generate a few hands and see which scheme you prefer.