[Phil]

Playing around with this structure:

1C (forcing - weak nt, good with clubs or any GF or big bal)

1D negative or bal
1H spades
1S hearts

The rationale is that we were putting our necks out with 1C 1S (0+, no 4cM) 1N.

1D allows us to weasel out at the one level like in PC.

Switching 1D and 1S doesn't seem like a big loss. Responder has full values so we can rebid 1N in comfort.

Heard of this? What do you think?

[nullve]

Phil, on 2016-May-16, 13:52, said:

The rationale is that we were putting our necks out with 1C 1S (0+, no 4cM) 1N.

helene_t, on 2014-March-08, 14:46, said:

You could also play 1♠ as 2-way, 0-5(6) or (10)11+. Then opener accepts with 12-14 or 18-20

With (6)7-9(10) you respond 1NT.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-May-17, 06:48

[WGF_Flame]

I agree that Twalsh is not good vs forcing 1 club.
regarding the switch, i know a pair that used to play this switch on a 1D opening, I think its the same thing here.
I think you get a very small gain of by the switch, in price of more complex system.

[fromageGB]

You don't have a problem if you are not trying to combine twalsh with an unlimited 1♣. I don't think the two are compatible. If 1♣ can be unlimited I reckon you need 1♦ as negative, but while 1♥ = spades is of course a good feature, I am not keen on 1♠ = hearts. Is it 4? 5? If either, what does a weak NT opener do with 3 hearts?

[glen]

In the 90s I was playing PC (with a Polish pd, go figure). I said I wanted to implement the switch (major flip). He said he would as soon as a few hands came up that showed it was necessary. That made me happy, as I knew it would not take long for a few hands to prove its usefulness.

For some reason, there was never a single hand where it would have been useful, and we didn't implement the switch.

I had been particularly annoyed with the PC sequence 1♣-1M;-2♦-responder describes hand, since if the contract is M, then responder's strength and M length is known.

[Kungsgeten]

The main downside, to me, seems to be finding 4-4 fits in the "other major" when opener is weak and responder has 4-4 majors but not enough values to invite game. In standard Polish/Swedish club the bidding then goes 1♣-1♥; 1♠. Perhaps 1♣-1♥ (transfer); 1♠ could show 4+ hearts in the switch version, I'm not sure.

Anyway: Fredin-Lindkvist used to switch 1♥ and 1♠ in their relay based Swedish Club system: http://bridgefiles.n...redin+notes.pdf

Their 1♥ response is 4+ spades or 12+ balanced, while 1♠ is 4+ hearts unbalanced.

[Zelandakh]

How about:
1♦ = weak without a 5 card major or INV+ with a 4+ card major, or any GF
1M = to play opposite a weak NT
1NT, 2m = nat INV without a 4 card major
2♥ = weak, 5-5 majors

I have not gone through it but I would think that could be unravelled and you still get to stop in 1M when it is right. If 2m as an invite is too restrictive, change it to either INV+ or weak according to taste.

[mgoetze]

The beauty of simple polish club (1♦ negative, 1♥ hearts, 1♠ spades) is that, while it's easy to poke theoretical holes in the structure, somehow the problems end up never appearing in practice.

[Phil]

So a few notes:

A lot of this is a work in progress.

1. 1C only contains strong balanced hands and strong 2's in clubs. Big diamond hands are being considered as a 1D opening which is almost a force, or thrown into the multi bucket. We've gone back and forth on big hands in the majors and considering fantunes for 1M and 2M. We aren't interested in putting semi strong hands (18-21) into 1C.

2. 2C is the same as polish.

3. Therefore 1C is going to be a weak NT a lot, and it doesn't make sense to overload 1D as purely negative since it's not that likely and lho is probably getting in anyway. PC already stretches a 1D response to neg or a diamond hand type (others?)

[Phil]

Kungsgeten, on 2016-May-17, 04:22, said:

The main downside, to me, seems to be finding 4-4 fits in the "other major" when opener is weak and responder has 4-4 majors but not enough values to invite game.

This system will be used primarily for IMPS so playing the,wrong partial isn't critical. Besides, many don't have qualms about bypassing spades after 1m 1H to indicate a balanced hand?

[nullve]

fromageGB, on 2016-May-16, 18:45, said:

I don't think the two are compatible.

Why?

[fromageGB]

nullve, on 2016-May-17, 16:06, said:

Why?

Transfer responses are not compatible with an absolutely forcing and possibly GF 1♣ (in my view) because the usual requirement is that 1♦ is a negative of some sort, rather than show hearts. Without this negative I am sure it would get awkward differentiating continuations, on both sides.

With regard to the OP structure, this is not Twalsh but a major inversion. This is of course possible, but not a good idea in my view. Twalsh provides advantages over natural responses, and while inversion may help spade hands, depending on continuations, it seems to destroy description of heart holdings, or both major holdings. If the part score is of no concern, then I am sure you could devise better ideas.

[nullve]

fromageGB, on 2016-May-19, 08:06, said:

Transfer responses are not compatible with an absolutely forcing and possibly GF 1♣ (in my view) because the usual requirement is that 1♦ is a negative of some sort, rather than show hearts. Without this negative I am sure it would get awkward differentiating continuations, on both sides.

Systems like Fantunes, Nightmare and Millennium Club, don't they use a forcing club in your sense?

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2016-May-19, 08:06, said:

Transfer responses are not compatible with an absolutely forcing and possibly GF 1♣ (in my view) because the usual requirement is that 1♦ is a negative of some sort, rather than show hearts. Without this negative I am sure it would get awkward differentiating continuations, on both sides.

It is also possible to play a mixture, such as 1♦ showing either a negative or a game force with hearts. I have even been playing with this idea for my strong club system. The suggestion I made for 1♦ earlier in the thread was also such a mixed response, ranging from a bust to a slam force. Such responses are often more efficient than a pure negative but sometimes require a little more effort to make sure everything is working over them.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-19, 10:27, said:

It is also possible to play a mixture, such as 1♦ showing either a negative or a game force with hearts. I have even been playing with this idea for my strong club system.

I know jinksy-phoenix214 do that in their Fantunes-like system. I used to do that in a Swedish Club-inspired system, but I ended up removing all mini-club hands with 4 H from 1♣ to make it work.

[PrecisionL]

Phil,
I have been playing the following 1-level responses to a 15+ hcp forcing club for 10 years and am quite satisfied with the results:

1♦ response: 0-7 hcp and 4+♥

1♥ response: 0-7 hcp and 4+♠

1♠ response: 0-7 hcp and NO 4-cd major

1NT response: G.F. and Majors, 4-5 or 6-4, or any 5-5 hand

2♣ response: All other hands, usually balanced.

[straube]

PrecisionL, on 2016-May-19, 16:40, said:

Phil,
I have been playing the following 1-level responses to a 15+ hcp forcing club for 10 years and am quite satisfied with the results:

1♦ response: 0-7 hcp and 4+♥

1♥ response: 0-7 hcp and 4+♠

1♠ response: 0-7 hcp and NO 4-cd major

1NT response: G.F. and Majors, 4-5 or 6-4, or any 5-5 hand

2♣ response: All other hands, usually balanced.

You're using about 80% of your response structure to 0-7 which seems really high to me. They're maybe half your responding hands? And their auctions tend to be abridged since they often stop in part scores.

[Phil]

PrecisionL, on 2016-May-19, 16:40, said:

Phil,
I have been playing the following 1-level responses to a 15+ hcp forcing club for 10 years and am quite satisfied with the results:

1♦ response: 0-7 hcp and 4+♥

1♥ response: 0-7 hcp and 4+♠

1♠ response: 0-7 hcp and NO 4-cd major

1NT response: G.F. and Majors, 4-5 or 6-4, or any 5-5 hand

2♣ response: All other hands, usually balanced.

Thanks Larry but I think we are keeping 1C as 10+

[Kungsgeten]

This may be a variant where 1C is natural 14+ or 12--14 NT or 18+ NT or any GF.

1C---
1D = 0--4 / GF.
  1H = 12--14 NT.
    Pass = Any 0--4.
    Bid = Natural GF.
  1S = 19+ clubs or balanced GF.
    1NT = GF.
    2C = Most 0--4.
    2DHS = Natural 3--4.
    3C = Negative but good clubs support.
  1NT = 18--20.
  2C = 14--18.
  2DHS = Nat GF.
  2NT = 21--23 NT.
1HS = 4+M, 5--11 hcp. You could switch them if you like.
1NT = 5--10 NT, no major.
2CD = 5+m, 5--11 hcp, no major.
2H = 11--14 NT.
2S = INV both minors.
2N = INV 6+!d.
3C = INV 6+!c.

[nige1]

Phil, on 2016-May-16, 13:52, said:

Playing around with this structure:
1C (forcing - weak nt, good with clubs or any GF or big bal)
1D negative or bal
1H spades
1S hearts
The rationale is that we were putting our necks out with 1C 1S (0+, no 4cM) 1N.
1D allows us to weasel out at the one level like in PC.
Switching 1D and 1S doesn't seem like a big loss. Responder has full values so we can rebid 1N in comfort.
Heard of this? What do you think?

Jasmine ♣ inverts the 1♥ and 1♠ responses to a minor opener; also, over 1♣, 1N = both Ms.

I agree with Phil that such methods are especially efficacious in systems where 1♣ is usually strong because they help to right-side contracts, at the cost of some artificiality.

For us, the 1♦ reply is negative -- but in systems where 1♣ is a portmanteau bid, it makes sense to use 1♦ as an economical catch-all response for other limited hands.