[cloa513]

Basics 1♣ shows 4♥ (can be canape with longer minor)
1 ♦ shows 4♠ (can be canape with longer minor)
1 ♥ (solid non-heart suit or strong balanced)
1 ♠ (minors,12-14 NT,solid hearts suit)
1 NT 115-17
2C (majors)
2D (4H+long minor)
2H( 4S+long minor)
2S (minors)
2NT (strong balanced)
2C,2D,3H,3S transfer to next suit.

https://www.dropbox....cuxh12s18j&dl=0

[DavidKok]

This seems somewhat similar to Groove. I like the two-under possibly canapé openings for major suits. As Roy Hughes wrote, majors are most important, so we should use the lowest possible bids to clarify them. 1♥ and 1♠ seem less pleasant, to the point of being a serious weakness. I wonder how you're going to deal with interference having opened those.

What is the range of your two-level openings? I would detach the constructive system from the preemptive system. Or are these 2-level openings needed for certain constructive hands?

[helene_t]

What do you do with a non-solid one-suited hand with a minor? I suppose 1♥ should include those also. Or does it go in 1♠?

I don't like the preempts, artificial preempts make it easier for opps as they can double for free, make a cuebid, or sometimes wait and take action in next round (if they can afford the risk that the preempt is passed out).

With respect to the 1♣/♦ openings I think it's interesting, I have come across it a few times by opps and would like to try it myself. It obviously has merits but I wonder if they are robust enough against enemy preempts.

[cloa513]

helene_t, on 2023-November-15, 06:45, said:

What do you do with a non-solid one-suited hand with a minor? I suppose 1♥ should include those also. Or does it go in 1♠?

I don't like the preempts, artificial preempts make it easier for opps as they can double for free, make a cuebid, or sometimes wait and take action in next round (if they can afford the risk that the preempt is passed out).

With respect to the 1♣/♦ openings I think it's interesting, I have come across it a few times by opps and would like to try it myself. It obviously has merits but I wonder if they are robust enough against enemy preempts.

1♠ or preempt or NT depends on the quality.

It would be more robust because you show a suit that is worth bidding- showing a maybe minor isn't going to help against an opponent preempt.

[cloa513]

helene_t, on 2023-November-15, 06:45, said:

What do you do with a non-solid one-suited hand with a minor? I suppose 1♥ should include those also. Or does it go in 1♠?

I don't like the preempts, artificial preempts make it easier for opps as they can double for free, make a cuebid, or sometimes wait and take action in next round (if they can afford the risk that the preempt is passed out).

With respect to the 1♣/♦ openings I think it's interesting, I have come across it a few times by opps and would like to try it myself. It obviously has merits but I wonder if they are robust enough against enemy preempts.

In regards to the preempt transfers, I say I leave it wide ranging so it is unclear what they need for penalty and the strong hand is hidden so attacking it is less clear.

[cloa513]

Here are my responses to 1 ♣,1♦ (which respectively show hearts and spades. All contained in the linked worksheet above.
The responses are in parallel for the two openings:
1♣: (a) 1♦ hands not otherwise covered
(b) 1 ♥ short hearts and 10+HCP usually containing own suit
© 1 ♠ short spades 8+MP
(d) 1 NT short clubs 8+MP
(e) 2C short diamons 8+MP
(f) 2♦ transfer to hearts
The rest is more optaional
(g) 2♥ transfer to spades.


MP is modified HCP +1 for singleon, +3 for void, A in shortage suit 3, K in shortage suit 1, QJ:0, A outside shortage suit:5,King:4,Q:3,J:1,+1 per card over 3 of major.

[DavidKok]

I think this system borders on the unplayable. The 1♠ opening in particular but also the 1♣ and 1♦ openings are vulnerable to interference, and I don't like the frequency of 1♥ (18+ balanced is 2.31% of all hands, or 2.07% if we only include traditionally balanced hand types and not 6m332's, 4M5m22's and hands with a singleton ace/king/queen. You have 2NT as 'strong balanced', are you taking out even more hands from the 1♥ opening? The solid suit doesn't contribute all that much either, though I don't have the numbers on this). Personally I also think transfer preempts are a poor idea, but as I mentioned earlier that choice is independent of the constructive system and can be swapped out without issues.

I would be very concerned with handling, say, 1m-(2♣)-?. The two-under transfers at the 1-level give lots of constructive options, you have all the bidding space in the world. But the openings have a very wide range, and need ways to deal with competition. These days bidding is something like 70% competitive auctions, 15% we pass throughout, 15% they pass throughout. You can't rely on getting to play your constructive system.

[cloa513]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-19, 03:00, said:

I think this system borders on the unplayable. The 1♠ opening in particular but also the 1♣ and 1♦ openings are vulnerable to interference, and I don't like the frequency of 1♥ (18+ balanced is 2.31% of all hands, or 2.07% if we only include traditionally balanced hand types and not 6m332's, 4M5m22's and hands with a singleton ace/king/queen. You have 2NT as 'strong balanced', are you taking out even more hands from the 1♥ opening? The solid suit doesn't contribute all that much either, though I don't have the numbers on this). Personally I also think transfer preempts are a poor idea, but as I mentioned earlier that choice is independent of the constructive system and can be swapped out without issues.

I would be very concerned with handling, say, 1m-(2♣)-?. The two-under transfers at the 1-level give lots of constructive options, you have all the bidding space in the world. But the openings have a very wide range, and need ways to deal with competition. These days bidding is something like 70% competitive auctions, 15% we pass throughout, 15% they pass throughout. You can't rely on getting to play your constructive system.

How is 1♣ and 1♦ openings any more vulnerable than other 1♣ and 1♦ openings which so vague and meaningless that no distribution information is given?

[helene_t]

cloa513, on 2023-November-19, 04:55, said:

How is 1♣ and 1♦ openings any more vulnerable than other 1♣ and 1♦ openings which so vague and meaningless that no distribution information is given?

Suppose it goes
1♣-(2♠)-x-(p)
3♣

You don't know which of the two suits is longer.

I suppose you could play that 3♣ shows five hearts because hands with a longer minor would bid 2NT. But you also want 2NT as Lebensohl.

That said, Standard American minor suit openings are unplayable, too, in my opinion. Your minor suit openings may be better for constructive bidding and not (much) worse for contested auctions.

I agree with David that 1♥ is underloaded, though.

[DavidKok]

With 12-14 balanced and a four card major, do you open the transfer opening or 1♠? I think both approaches have some upsides and some downsides, but it changes the complete character of your system as this is the hand type you will be dealt most of the time.

[DavidKok]

helene_t, on 2023-November-19, 05:09, said:

That said, Standard American minor suit openings are unplayable, too, in my opinion. Your minor suit openings may be better for constructive bidding and not (much) worse for contested auctions.

I think this is not nearly as bad. There's plenty of downsides, but the standard 3+ 1m openings can at least be raised (and are often fine being raised on a 4-card suit in competition), limit major suit length and, if balanced, have a pretty well defined range. Most of the time the rebid is clear about relative suit length both in and out of competition. The openings are certainly not great, and more generally standard systems 1m openings tend to be a weak spot, but in competitive auctions I think they have an advantage over the STOMP 1m openings. By contrast I fully expect STOMP to do better constructively.

I'm also not sure whether the jab by cloa about openings not conveying any distribution information was hyperbole or lack of insight. Either way it doesn't tell me what your response and rebid scheme is over 1♦*-(2♣)-?.

[cloa513]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-19, 05:30, said:

I think this is not nearly as bad. There's plenty of downsides, but the standard 3+ 1m openings can at least be raised (and are often fine being raised on a 4-card suit in competition), limit major suit length and, if balanced, have a pretty well defined range. Most of the time the rebid is clear about relative suit length both in and out of competition. The openings are certainly not great, and more generally standard systems 1m openings tend to be a weak spot, but in competitive auctions I think they have an advantage over the STOMP 1m openings. By contrast I fully expect STOMP to do better constructively.

I'm also not sure whether the jab by cloa about openings not conveying any distribution information was hyperbole or lack of insight. Either way it doesn't tell me what your response and rebid scheme is over 1♦*-(2♣)-?.

Minor show so many possibilities that they don't show anything at all.