[DavidKok]

nullve, on 2023-January-04, 04:38, said:

In my version the bidding would go

1♣-1♠*
1N**-P***

* helene_t's trick: does not include an invite opposite the split range 11-13(min)-or-17-19(max)
* includes both 11-13 BAL and 17-19 BAL!
*** 0-6

on the hands you mention, and Responder would have little incentive to pass 1♣ even if the opening didn't include 23+ BAL or GF hands.

I'm trying to understand how this works. Are the basic ranges similar to:

• 1♠: 0-5 any (no major) or 12+ BAL or 7-10 unbal no major (you may split some of this last hand type out to 2♣/2♦ immediately, if you prefer).
  
• 1NT: 6-11 (semi)BAL.

The idea being that the 0-5 hands can pass 1NT, the 12+ hands can make a GF bid and the 7-10 unbal hands can make a 'to play opposite 11-13, GF opposite 17-19' runout from 1NT, while over 1NT opener can pass with 11-13 and bid game with 17-19? There are some rough edges (12 opposite 11-13 is not a great game, though you could play 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2NT as 'invitational opposite 11-13' or something) and this wrongsides 3NT opposite 17-19 quite often. Is there a more refined approach to splitting the no-major hands?

[helene_t]

Yes that's the basic idea. I haven't worked out all the follow ups with semipositive hands with one or both minors but that should be doable.

In one partnership I play that 1♠ contains all balanced hands without a 4-card major, and that creates problems with 4414 hands with 15-17 points. I suppose it's a too small a problem to design the system around. But we do play the 1♠ as promising 6 points - with 0-5 points we just pass the 1♣ opening. Even in a standard system I don't like that, and obviously you can't do it in the Polish/Dutch system. So you need a way to stop in 1NT with 18-20 opposite nothing.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-10, 03:42, said:

I'm trying to understand how this works. Are the basic ranges similar to:

• 1♠: 0-5 any (no major) or 12+ BAL or 7-10 unbal no major (you may split some of this last hand type out to 2♣/2♦ immediately, if you prefer).
  
• 1NT: 6-11 (semi)BAL.

The idea being that the 0-5 hands can pass 1NT, the 12+ hands can make a GF bid and the 7-10 unbal hands can make a 'to play opposite 11-13, GF opposite 17-19' runout from 1NT, while over 1NT opener can pass with 11-13 and bid game with 17-19? There are some rough edges (12 opposite 11-13 is not a great game, though you could play 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2NT as 'invitational opposite 11-13' or something) and this wrongsides 3NT opposite 17-19 quite often. Is there a more refined approach to splitting the no-major hands?

The exact ranges may depend on how you like 2N as a contract.

For example, it makes sense for 1♣-1N to have a lower limit of 6 hcp if you want to be able to reach game with 6 BAL opposite 19 BAL but are fine with stopping in 2N opposite 17-18 BAL, say after 1♣-1N; 2N(INV (typically with 17-18 BAL?))-P.

Similarly, it makes for sense for 1♣-1N to have an upper limit of 11 hcp if you want to be able to reach game with 12 BAL opposite 13 BAL but are fine with stopping in 2N opposite 11-13 hcp, say after 1♣-1♠; 1N-2N(NAT INV opposite 11-13); P.

Personally I like to design my system so that I can quite comfortably "pass or blast" instead of having to play 2N after a declined invite. Then the only BAL 1♣-1N range that makes sense is 7-12, I think. (I "pass" (respond 1♠, then pass 1N) with 6 and "blast" (respond 1♠, then force to game) with 13.)

Yes, the wrong-siding is annyoing.

[DavidKok]

That makes sense. I don't love this tradeoff - I hate 2NT as a contract, but I also hate missing 25HCP games. Including 12 BAL in 1NT means missing 13-opposite-12, excluding 6 BAl (or committing to passing 6 any after 1♣-1♠*; 1NT) means missing 19-opposite-6. Inverted minors can take some of these hands but not most.

The unbal range in 1♠ should probably be 7-11, maybe even 6-11?

If you lean more on "blast or pass", what do 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2M/2NT/3m show?

As an aside I've been interested in using 1♣-2♦/♥/♠ as intermediate with a long suit, NF. This seems superfluous with this tool (at least in diamonds). How would you use these bids? Do you make 1♣-2♣ GF, since the hands that don't want to be in game opposite 11-13 BAL can bid via 1♠?

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-10, 06:54, said:

That makes sense. I don't love this tradeoff - I hate 2NT as a contract, but I also hate missing 25HCP games. Including 12 BAL in 1NT means missing 13-opposite-12, excluding 6 BAl (or committing to passing 6 any after 1♣-1♠*; 1NT) means missing 19-opposite-6. Inverted minors can take some of these hands but not most.

With 12 hcp you could use a similar philosophy as when responding to 1M in a 2/1 system with 14-16 NT and 1M-1N SF or NF.

For example, if you have a normally sound (rule of 20-ish) opening style on unbalanced hands, then probably the only thing that would stop you from forcing to game is fear that Opener has 11 BAL. So you might decide to require 12 hcp for a 1M opening on BAL hands. Similarly, you could, like you already do, require 12 hcp for a 1♣ opening on BAL hands and force to game with 12 hcp as Responder. 1♣-1N would then be INV opposite the split BAL range 12-13 OR 17-19, and would itself have a range from (6)7 to 11.

Or, if you have a quite light (rule of 19-ish) opening style like I have, you will generally not want to force to game with 12 but could be a more aggressive if VUL at IMPs, when it's ok to be in a 35 % game. So 1M-1N now risks missing game with 13 BAL opposite 12. A popular (but IMO dubious) solution is to "upgrade" the 13 hcp in a 5M(332) hand to 14 and open 1N instead. My solution is to try to make the 3-point ranges in my system (like 11-13, 14-16 and 17-19) narrower and less overlapping by using good hand valuation. The basic idea is as follows: Suppose we have two hcp valuation methods A and B, A being more accurate than B, that both have the property that the value of an ace, a king, a queen and a jack are worth a total of 10 hcp, as in Milton Work. Then by using A on the hands lying in the 3-point ranges of B, new ranges appear that are wider and overlapping. In particular, 11-13/14-16/17-19 using B could become (say) 10-14/13-17/16-20 using A. Hence the ranges using A (which we have assumed is the more accurate method) are narrower and less overlapping, so pass-or-blast opposite a 3-point range becomes a more comfortable strategy.

DavidKok, on 2023-February-10, 06:54, said:

The unbal range in 1♠ should probably be 7-11, maybe even 6-11?

Do you mean the unbalanced range in 1♣-1N?

This post has been edited by nullve: 2023-February-13, 17:05

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-10, 06:54, said:

If you lean more on "blast or pass", what do 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2M/2NT/3m show?

In a system with just a NAT or BAL 1♣ opening, it could be something as simple as

2M = normal non-jump reverse (~ 16-21 in your system?)
3♣ = normal single jump rebid of Opener's suit (~ 16-18 in your system?)
2N = like 3♣, only stronger (~ 19-21 in your system?),

although reversing or jump rebidding with as little as 16-17 doesn't seem optimal now that Responder has either 0-6 or (12)13+ hcp.

What I do in my T-Walsh system, where 1♣ unlimited but always NAT(ish) or BAL, is to rebid 1N over 1♣-1♠ also on unbalanced ~ 16-18 hands, i.e. hands with roughly (or hopefully) the same playing strength in NT as a 17-19 NT. This turns the 1N rebid into a kind of limited Gazzilli although it's still NF. Reverses and the single jump rebid of Opener's suit can then be about a king stronger than normal, as in

2M = ~ 19+, M reverse
2N = ~ 19+, D reverse
3♣ = ~ 19-21, one-suited,

which is actually not what I play but very similar to scheme used in the Nightmare system, where, in addition,

2♦ = any GF.

In a system like yours the obvious tweak would be:

2♦ = any 22+
2M = ~ 19-21, M reverse
2N = ~ 19-21, D reverse
3♣ = ~ 19-21, one-suited