[MickyB]

1♣ - (13)/14-16 any
1♦ - 17+ any
1♥ - 8-13, usually 4 or 6 card suit, if 4 could be canape or (8-10?) bal
1♠ - As 1♥
1N - 10/11-13
2♣ - 9-13, unbal, no 4cM
2♦ - 9-13, unbal, no 4cM
2♥ - 9-12, 5♥ 4-5 minor
2♠ - 9-12, 5♠ 4-5 minor

This is quite similar to the Burgay Diamond - if anyone has played it, what did you think?

As some of you know, I've been looking to design a system around these 1M openers for a while. Previously I disliked strong diamond and intermediate club, but I've decided now that the 1♣ opener should do quite well - any further bids by opener can be just competing for the part-score, so if you have 4 cards in the opponent's suit then you don't need to compete in your own 5 card suit, if pard has nothing to say you are happy where you are. This is in contrast to the intermediate clubs of Magic Diamond and Burgay Diamond - Magic's 1♣ opener is 12-16 so IMO most 16 point hands still feel like they have something to say, and Burgay's system, which is otherwise very similar to mine, uses strong NT, leaving 1♣ as 12-14 bal or 15-17 unbal. The 1♦ opener isn't as good as a 16+ club in uncontested auctions, but nowadays there aren't many of them. The 1♥ and 1♠ openers place responder in the driving seat - he can happily make a single raise with 3 or 4 trumps, without leaving our side unsure as to the size of the fit, and doesn't have to guess which of opener's suits is longer. They are also *very* frequent, which IMO they have to be to make up for the loss of a 5 card major opening. The exceptions to the 4 or 6 rule are 5332s, 5M6m and possibly 55majors. The 2m bids are much better than a Precision 2♣ as they deny a 4 card major, and the 2M bids describe the hand quite nicely in one go. The preemptive nature of the 2 level bids is a double edged sword - responder may be unhappy on some hands with a 5 card major that may make game opposite 3 card support or make nothing opposite a singleton.

I haven't put too much thought into follow-ups (just enough to know that it is good ) and I probably won't unless I find someone keen on it. I just thought I'd share my thoughts so far

[Echognome]

You know my responses to the strong diamond. An alternative response structure (played by a pair that you know) is:

1♥ = 0-4, then 1♠ = strong hand (Like an Acol 2♣)
1♠ = 5-7, forcing to 2NT
1NT = 8-10 or 13+ bal
2x = Natural 8+, GF (may be canape)
2NT = 11-12 bal

Over the mini-ish NT, you may want to play as this same pair do:

2♣ = 5 card stayman (1)
2♦ = 4 card stayman (2)
2♥/2♠ = NF

(1) Either (a) weak looking for a better spot, (b ) invitational with 5♥ or 5♠, (c ) invitational or better looking for a 5-3 fit, or (d) big major 2 suiter (rebids 4♦)

(2) Invitational or better, could be a big 2 suiter

[Free]

1. You know what I think of strong ♦ systems - dislike them since they waste another bid for strong hands.
2. You know what I think of any intermediate bid that doesn't show any particular suit (since I've played that for a while, I have some experience with intervention over these types of bids)

I suppose over 1♣, you use 1♦ as relay, and opener shows the exact same handtypes as normal openings, but with 14-16? This might be pretty nice, but still, don't really like it

Only the 1NT opener is great, but dangerous when V at imps.

2m openings, do they show a 6 card m? Since you explain them both as '9-13, unbal, no 4cM'...

[Flame]

The idea of 6 or 4 canape is very intresting and i like it.
I never playered strong diamond and have bad feelings about it.
The points im considering are, changin g the 8-13 to more wither one, chaging the 2 bids to be more specific suited, changing the 1c,1d.
Anyway would like to hear about the system results.

[Chamaco]

MickyB, on Jul 4 2005, 01:28 AM, said:

1♣ - (13)/14-16 any
1♦ - 17+ any
1♥ - 8-13, usually 4 or 6 card suit, if 4 could be canape or (8-10?) bal
1♠ - As 1♥
1N - 10/11-13
2♣ - 9-13, unbal, no 4cM
2♦ - 9-13, unbal, no 4cM
2♥ - 9-12, 5♥ 4-5 minor
2♠ - 9-12, 5♠ 4-5 minor

I think this scheme fits better with 12-14 NT (any 5332, 6m332 and 5422 without 54M, occasionally even 4441 hands).

12-14 balanced are "halfway" between a 1-level opener and a 2 level opener, and opening 1NT with such hand discriminates better the other hand types, especially those starting with a catchall 1 clubs.
The reasons are the same to those which led Fantoni Nunes to adopt 1NT 12-14 (Fantunes 2-level openers are (9)-10-13 and 1 level openers are (13)14+ )

[MickyB]

'Gnome - Nice strong diamond response structure there!

Free - I have no doubt that this system will handle 15+ hands better than MOSCITO does. Yes, it uses up two bids for strong hands, and that is why the 2 level has to be used for constructive hands rather than preempts - but when you can open at the 1 level on 8 counts you are less worried about pure preempting. I presume you refer to the Petit Carreau 1♦ opener, which has a 10-15 range. IMO the narrower range of the 1♣ opener will make a huge difference, because you now don't need to worry about showing your strength, just your shape.

Nice idea to use the opening structure after 1♣:1♦!

2m openings are either 6 cards or 5 cards with 4 in the other minor.

Flame - glad you like the idea. One option I considered before 1♣ strong, 1♦ shows a 5 card major - kinda like Matchpoint Precision but with the 4 card major and 5 card major hands reversed. Maybe that would be more to your liking. I discarded that idea because it is only allowed in a couple of events in this country, but then again, so is a 14-16 1♣ opener!

Chamaco - I don't really understand your point about a 12-14 NT. I think 14-16 bal is quite happy in the 1♣ opener. I know that some people like to require a point more for balanced hands (not putting flat 16s in a strong club, flat 17s in a strong diamond) but I don't think this is particularly useful - the worst hand that an "any 14-16" hand can have is not a balanced 14 count but an unbalanced, misfitting 14 count.

[Echognome]

Free, on Jul 4 2005, 10:09 AM, said:

1. You know what I think of strong ♦ systems - dislike them since they waste another bid for strong hands.

That's funny because I prefer my strong diamond system because I have more room over my nebulous 1♣ opening. You tell me which is more frequent.

Also we only have one minor suit opening bid whereas in precision you have two (1♦ and 2♣). Having the whole of the two level available for preempts is at least a MPs winner.

[glen]

The system in this thread is definitely viable.

Here’s what I’m been considering (“working on” would be too strong at this point) and my thoughts relatively to this and the system above.

1♣: 14+ with at least one 4 or longer major, or 17/18+ balanced. Forcing.
- Adding the four card major requirement if not strong & balanced makes the opening less susceptible to interference, and the rebid structure easy.

1♦: No four card major, either 10/11-13 balanced or unbalanced with one or both minors up to just below a game force. Non-forcing.
- Here if responder bids 1♥/1♠ or 1NT, this is to be passed with 10/11-13 balanced.
- The “no four card major” specification helps with knowing what to do if interference, and allowing opener’s major suit bids to show stoppers moving towards notrump.

1♥/1♠: Four to six in major, 8 to 13. Only exactly 5 if balanced/semi-balanced (5-3-3-2/5-4-2-2). Only 6 in major if not a very good/great suit. If balanced 10/11-13 (pass if less & balanced).
- High frequency and tightly defined, so responder can rapidly place contract, or investigate to find best spot.
- I love having the 10/11-13 balanced with a four card major in this opening – the opponents now have to worry about having game in the major opened!

1NT: 13/14-16 balanced.

2♣: Both majors, at least 5-4 either way, 8 to 13.
- So one doesn’t have to open 2♥/♠ with length in other major.
- 2♦ asks, so best major fit can be found.

2♦: Multi, weak with a major, maximum of poor 10, or both majors 5-5+ 12-13.
- This keeps the range of 2♥/♠ up.
- Having both majors 12-13 allows the 2♣ opening not to have great playing strength, and the paradox replies (e.g. 2♠ if likes ♥s) will get to right strain, albeit sometimes a level too high.

2♥/♠: 10-13, five or longer in suit. If five, then a singleton/void somewhere and a four card or longer minor. If six then very good/ great suit.
- This specification allows responder to bid 2NT to ask for minor or very good/great major, to find best spot to play.

2NT: GF with ♦s and/or ♣s, and no four card major, unbalanced.

[MickyB]

Thanks for the support Glen. Yes I considered a 2♣ opener like that in the context of a 1♦ opener showing a hand with no 4 card major, those 5-4 major hands don't quite fit in anywhere else. Not sure about splitting the 6 card major hands, I don't see much benefit and leaving 1444/13(45)s, etc unsure what to do over 2M openings could cost. I need to think more about your 1m openings before I can comment!

[scoob]

we've been putting both our 5/4 and 5/5 major hands in the nebulous 1♣ opening. an unusual rebid of 2♥ outs the 5/5 and a direct bid of either major after a major denial by responder shows the 5/4. i guess this depends on your response structure to the neb. 1♣ though. we respond directly only with 5card majors, using 1♦ response for all 4-card major holdings and bust hands.

[MickyB]

What else is in your 1♣ opener, Scoob?

[scoob]

probably too much lol

11-15hcp
- any 4-card major holding
- good minor
- two suited in majors as above
- also handles 13-15 hcp balanced when non vuln (our 1nt rotates to 8-10)

easily reduced if you give up the rotating NT and don't reserver 2♣/♦ for transfer acol opens.

[glen]

A couple of sub-points:

1) GCC

If you live in ACBL land and want to herd goats, you have to follow the Goat Convention Chart (GCC). Under the GCC, a good approach to the two-bids are:

2♣: 5-4+ either way in the majors, 10-14. 2♦ asks for better major.

2♦: 4+♦s and 5+♥s, 10-14.

2♥: 4+♣s and 5+♥s, 10-14.

2♠: 5+♠s, 8-12, not 4+♥s, and decent playing value if 8-9.

It would be better to play the 2♦ and 2♥ openings as both showing ♥s and a minor, with the distinction being point range/playing value (e.g. one 8-12, the other 12-14) but this is not allowed. 2♠ can be played as given above, but cannot promise a four card or longer minor.

The 1♣ opening is always 15+, so artificial responses can be used. Moving to 14+ 1♣ gives up the artificial responses under GCC. The 1♥/♠ openings go up to 14.

The 1♠ opening includes 13-14 with 5+♠s and a minor. If responder bids 1NT, 2♥ by opener shows this hand (and now 2NT can ask for minor).

Ideally one would want to play a 2♣ response to the 1♥/♠ openings as artificial, game invite or better. However this is not allowed under GCC. In my opinion, the next best option is to play 2♣ and 2♦ as natural & forcing, but freely responding with 3 card suits, even if longer in the other major when game forcing values held.

2) Notrump ranges

As per Chris Ryall’s excellent article (http://www.cavendish...omplex.htm#opps ) there are various considerations for notrump ranges, including the vulnerability.

One might want to try this

When not vulnerable and balanced
10-12 1NT, but no four card major if 12.
Open 1♥/1♠ if 12-14 and 4/5 in M.
Open minor allocated to this if 13-16 and no 4cM.
Open strong 1♣/♦ opening if 15-16 with 4cM, or if 17+ any balanced.

Opening a 10-12 NT with a major might lose the major fit if responder cannot act over 1NT; however since only 10-11 are opened with 1NT when holding a major, the opponents playing standard with this hand type are often passing instead, so will often not find a major fit either when their partner doesn’t have much in values.

When vulnerable and balanced
14+ to 17 1NT.
Open 1♥/1♠ if 11-14 and 4/5 in M.
Open minor allocated to this if 11-14 and no 4cM.
Open strong 1♣/♦ opening if 17/18+ balanced

Here a lot of the 15-17 balanced hands are moved out of the strong opening, so the opening is less exposed to interference when vulnerable. Also the 10 and poor 11 point balanced hands should not open when vulnerable, as these frequently just create minus positions.