[Free]

relknes, on 2011-February-10, 11:03, said:

After a 1♣ opener, responder's bids are:
1♦:0-6 points
1M: 7-12 points, 4+
1NT: 7-12 points, no 4 card major, no 6 card minor
2m: 7-12 points, 6+
2M: 13+ points, 4+
2NT: 13+ points, no 4 card major
After a 1♦ opener, responder's bids are
1M: 0-12 points, 4+ (unfortunately, neither a 1♥ negative nor 3 card responses are legal here... I checked a few days ago. Like I said, hamstrung)
1NT: 0-12 points, no 4 card major, can't bid 2m
2m: 7-12 points, 6+
2M: 13+ points, 4+
2NT: 13+ points, no 4 card major

I really HATE the 13+HCP responses! You take away space while there's nothing wrong with bidding 1M with 7+HCP. 12HCP vs 12HCP usually means game, especially if one of the hands is unbalanced. Not sure what you should do with 2m, but for constructive purposes I'd rather play them stronger instead of weak and NF. 1m-2NT should be some GF balanced hand imo, but not any distribution without a 4 card M (can be 3-3-3-4 to 0-0-4-9 or worse - the difference is too great and you took away too much space).

[relknes]

Free, on 2011-February-11, 02:29, said:

About the 1M openings

I used to play MOSCITO which uses a MAFIA style. The Major openings were in transfer, but the transfers are irrelevant to make my point so I'll show the examples like it was a natural auction.

What we did was to raise on pretty much every 3 card support to 2-level, and with a 4 card support to 3-level. The only exceptions are very weak 4333s. We played in 4-3 fits at 2-level quite a lot, but that wasn't a problem (improves your declarer play skills imo). The 3-level raises were sometimes too high, but then we usually were both balanced with a 4-4 fit. With your 1M openings the "balanced"-part is pretty much gone, so you should be able to get to playable contracts at the 3-level. Perhaps it's a good idea to treat your 4M-5m-2-2 hands as balanced (except with all values in your long suits), but keep the 5M-4m-2-2 in the 1M openings. This way you definitely have ruffing value (or a runable sidesuit) when you're in a 4-4 fit at 3-level.

So what happened at the table when responder didn't support and opener rebid a minor? We agreed that 1M-1NT-2m-2M = 2 card M with 3 card m support (the fact that responder didn't raise immediately denies a 3 card fit). This way opener can safely rebid 3m with the 4M-5m hand, or pass with the 5M-4m hand pretty much playing the same like the entire field. With 2M-2m responder had a problem (= worst case), but usually it was a good idea to pass (unless you have a biddable suit of your own ofcourse). Opener can have 5M-4m which is a disaster, but he can also have 4M-5m and 5M-5m (or even 5M-6m)! With even less support, you usually have a suit of your own to bid.

So is it a high price to pay? For partscore battles it's not, but when responder is stronger you might get into trouble.
For example, with invitational hands with 3M and a good 6 card suit you can easily miss a good game (even in a 4-3 fit). That's why we also played 1M-3m and 1♠-3♥ as INV with 3M-6X (1M-2m was NF).
But auctions where responder has a GF may be more problematic. We didn't have this problem because our strong hands bid a relay. Here you need some kind of force after 1♥-1♠-2m, 4th suit or whatever, but then opener is limited in his actions. You're behind on the field because the longest suit is still unknown. This is still a reasonable situation, compare it with 1♥-2♣-2♦, what should opener bid after 4SF?
This all depends on how you're planning to respond over 1M openings. Do you play 2/1GF, do you use a GF relay,...

My initial thoughts for responding to 1M were these:
4M = either natural game bid with no slam interest, or “Weak freak” with good 5 card or any 6 card support
3M = 6-9 points, poor 5 card support or good 4 card support
2M = 6-9 points, 3 card support or poor 4 card support
Double jump shift = Splinter
Jump shift = invitational with 4 card support and a side suit
2NT = game invitational, exactly 3 card support
2/1 = GF
1NT = invitational or weaker, no 3 card support (non-forcing)
1/1 = 4+ cards, 6+ points
The thought behind this was that, given the fact that opener had limited their strength, it was much easier for responder to diferentiate between varrious invites. Therefore there are 4 ways to invite game directly, the 3 jump shifts and 2NT. 2NT is invitational to either 3NT or 4M, depending on whether opener has a 5 or 4 card major, and can be signed off by passing 2NT or by bidding 3M. The Jump shifts all promise 4 card support and a good side suit with invitational values, allowing opener to choose between 3M and 4M. Since these jump shifts are forcing, this can also be the start of a slam investigation. With slam invitational values, this bid guarentees a doubleton in both unbid suits. If opener refuses the game invite by trying to sign off at 3M, responder simply corrects to 4M, while if opener accepts the invite by bidding 4M then responder can continue on with blackwood or some other slam bidding convention. These cover the unbalanced hands with no singleton, while the splinter bids cover the unbalanced hands with a singleton, leaving the 2/1 responses to explore slam with a balanced hand.
With the game invitational and slam invitational hands taken care of, that leaves only the hands that clearly belong in game or clearly belong in a part-score.
A direct jump to 4M implies either a weak freak that is bidding on distribution, or a hand that is clearly good enough for game across from 12 points, but has no interest in slam even oposite 16 points. This uncirtainty makes it harder for opponents to make peanalty doubles and also makes it less attractive for them to try spades after bidding goes 1♥-4♥ (which can be quite tempting if it only shows a "weak freak" 10 card fit). 3NT can also be bid directly, denying 3 card support, promising 4 cards in the unbid major, and giving opener a choice of games.
For clearly part score strength hands, either 1NT or a raise of the major are the options. 1NT is non-forcing, denying 3 card support. A double raise of opener's major shows good 4 card support (or poor 5 card support), while a single raise shows 3 card support (or poor 4 card support). Opener can then decide if they want to invite game, but will usually just pass.
I orriginally designed these for the other system (the one built around the Polish Club). These sorts of responses really only make sense after a rather narrow opening bid, such as the 12-16 range in this system, and even then they only really make sense in a 4 card majors system. So although they don't have a wider aplication, they seem like they fit the bill for this system.
Now, these are bids that I designed on my own, so there are probably holes in the logic. 9 bids to start exploring slam, 6 bids that force to game, 4 bids to invite game, and 2 bids to sign off in game is a lot of attention to give to the strong hands considering there are only 3 bids to pursue a part score. I was thinking, looking at these ratios, that it might be best to do away with the 2/1 game force aspect and playing 2/1 instead as 8+ points denying 3 card support in old school ACOL style.

[relknes]

Free, on 2011-February-11, 02:36, said:

I really HATE the 13+HCP responses! You take away space while there's nothing wrong with bidding 1M with 7+HCP. 12HCP vs 12HCP usually means game, especially if one of the hands is unbalanced. Not sure what you should do with 2m, but for constructive purposes I'd rather play them stronger instead of weak and NF. 1m-2NT should be some GF balanced hand imo, but not any distribution without a 4 card M (can be 3-3-3-4 to 0-0-4-9 or worse - the difference is too great and you took away too much space).

So this is more of what you would have in mind?
After a 1♣ opener, responder's bids are:
1♦:0-6 points
1M: 7+ points, 4+
1NT: 7-11 points, balanced
2m: 7+ points, 5+
2NT: 11-12 points, balanced
After a 1♦ opener, responder's bids are
1M: 4+ cards
1NT: 0-11 points, no 4 card major, can't bid 2m
2m: 7+ points, 5+
2NT: 11-12 points, balanced

The 2M bids are free here. You don't seem to like the idea of 13+ points, 4+. What would be a better use for them? I had orriginally thought that these bids would be game force, even 13 across from an unbalanced 10

[relknes]

There is also the posability that I could use 1NT as an artificial GF after the 1m openings. Would it make more sense to have the responses as follows?

After 1♣:
1♦= 0-6 points
1M = 4+, 7-13 points
1NT = 14+ points artificial GF
2m = 4+, 7-13 points

After 1♦
1M = natural, 0-13 points
1NT = 14+ artificial GF
2m = 4+, 7-13 points

I am still trying to see if this is legal, since after 1♦ a player would have to "manufacture" a bid with 0-6 points and no 4 card major. This is legal in a lot of other systems, such as after a forcing 1NT in 2/1, but the ACBL dosn't give nearly the leeway to offbeat systems as they do to mainline ones.
However, if this does turn out to be legal, is it an appropriate way to solve the problem?

[PrecisionL]

I have 3+ years experience playing an artificial 1♦ opening bid in ACBLand with our Transfer Precision System.

1M 0-13 pts does NOT work very well. We use 0-9 pts.
1NT 14+ is not recommended. We use 8-11(12) hcp.
1♦ - 2♦ is LR or better and may contain a 4-cd major to differentiate from 1M responses.
1♦ - 2M = LR only with 5M
1♦ - 2NT is G.F. asking if any shortage. 3♣ = no shortage, otherwise 1-under.

[relknes]

PrecisionL, on 2011-February-12, 20:56, said:

I have 3+ years experience playing an artificial 1♦ opening bid in ACBLand with our Transfer Precision System.

1M 0-13 pts does NOT work very well. We use 0-9 pts.
1NT 14+ is not recommended. We use 8-11(12) hcp.
1♦ - 2♦ is LR or better and may contain a 4-cd major to differentiate from 1M responses.
1♦ - 2M = LR only with 5M
1♦ - 2NT is G.F. asking if any shortage. 3♣ = no shortage, otherwise 1-under.

The only trouble here is that a Limit Raise (which I assume is what LR was) seems impossible to define when opener's 1♦ could have represented any of the 4 suits or even a balanced hand...
However, if we change that to invitational values, then it seems workable. (You didn't define 2♣ as a response, so i will assume it would have simmilar meaning to 2♦). In that case:

After 1♣
1♦ = 0-6 points (0-9 points with no 4 card major)
1M = 7+ points, 4+
1NT = 8-11(12) balanced
2m = 10+ points, 5+, denies 4 card major
2M = invitational, 5+
2NT = GF balanced

After 1♦
1M = 0-9 points
1NT = 8-11(12) balanced
2m = 10+ points, 4+
2M = invitational, 5+
2NT = GF, balanced or 5+ major

Is this something like what you play? I realize that the 2NT followups would be different, asking for long suits rather than shortness, but I think that is a better approach given the nature of these 1♣ and 1♦ openings.

[relknes]

Alright, so I just got back word that the 1♦ responses are not legal in ACBL territory, since the 1M responses must promise 4 cards. 1NT must be used as a "trash bin" bid, or else I must allow 2/1 even on 0 points and a 4m333 ditribution.
so, after 1♦
1M = 4+, 0-11
1NT = 0-9 trash bin
2m = 4+, 10+
2M = 5+, 12-14
2NT = GF, balanced or 5+ major

[Zelandakh]

Have you considered putting your 1-suited minor hands into 1D and making a 2C opening both minors? That way you can respond 2C with 0-9hcp and no major safe in the knowledge that partner is either strong or has a long minor. If you want to get around the regulations and use 1NT for relays then this is probably the simplest solution. Note that there are already pre-made systems that use this method which you might find it helpful to look up, both because they might have done some of the work for you and because they are more likely to be viable.

[relknes]

Zelandakh, on 2011-February-15, 10:22, said:

Have you considered putting your 1-suited minor hands into 1D and making a 2C opening both minors? That way you can respond 2C with 0-9hcp and no major safe in the knowledge that partner is either strong or has a long minor. If you want to get around the regulations and use 1NT for relays then this is probably the simplest solution. Note that there are already pre-made systems that use this method which you might find it helpful to look up, both because they might have done some of the work for you and because they are more likely to be viable.

unfortunately, all non GF responses must be natural to be ACBL legal, so 2♣ has to promise 4+ clubs just like 1M has to promise a 4 card major. If 1NT is a GF, then a responder who has 0-9 points and 3-3-4-3 MUST bid 2♦ for the system to be ACBL legal, which would shoot past a weak club opener... Better to have the weak bids be the majors, so they can't be bypassed at the 2 level by a weak partner.
1♣ dosn't have this problem, since 1♦ can be used as an artificial negative.
Where are these systems that you are reffering to available from? I would like to see them.
By the way, I don't mind too much that I have to jump to 2NT with a GF hand, since opener's next bid will clarify their holdings prety narrowly without bypassing 3NT on any hand where they would want to stop there. I was hoping to get more efficiency by making it 1NT, but the compromizes I would have to make to the rest of the response structure are not worth it without artificial bids available.

[Zelandakh]

Are you sure about the 2C call? It is constructive since game is possible over the strong varieties. It is not part of a relay system nor a response to a 1NT opening of less than 10hcp. Therefore it should be legal at Mid-Chart. You can take that statement for what it is worth though, since I am not American and these charts are notorious for being interpreted differently by different authorities.

As for systems, when I am researching I usually start at ClaireBridge and work outwards. Bridge with Dan is also a top site with a great deal of useful information and also contains a link to an analysis of bridge openings for aggression, which doubles as a tool for finding systems which might contain similarities to something you are working on. A partial write-up for design goals and reasoning for a system that moved to a 2C = both minors approach can be foundhere (click on System Outline for details). That system does not use relays so keeps the 1NT response for 0-9 without a major. There are many other systems about but you will have to look since I do not have links to hand.

Finally, if your plan is to use 1NT as 0-9 without a major and 2D as most INV+ hands, is it not simpler to use 2C as your GF rather than 2NT? I think you will find your accuracy suffers catastrophically badly if you start most GF responding hands with 2NT!

[relknes]

I was going for GCC legal, but it is looking less and less possible to create a system of responses that would be remotely playable without having some sort of artificial response, so it looks like Mid Chart it is... oh well.

At Mid Chart, after 1♦, I wonder exactly how relaxed the regulations get... would it be legal to have this?
1♥ = 3+ hearts, 0-9
1♠ = 3+ spades, denies 3 hearts, 0-9 points
1NT = no 3 card major, 0-9 points
2♣ = 10+ points
This would allow opener to pass out at the 1 level with the weak variant if responder bid in a major they had 4 of (which would imply 5-4 majors), raise to the 2 level if responder hit their 5 card suit, and the 3 level if responder hit a 6 card suit, etc., or correct to their real major if they were short in partner's response suit.
The 2♣ bid may look like a funny point range, since it is not game forcing, or even necessarily game inviting oposite a weak opener, but if the bidding goes 1♦-2♣-2M they are free to pass with 10-11 points, invite with 12-14, or force with 15+. If, however, the bidding goes 1♦-2♣ and opener has a strong hand, they can use 2♦ as 17-19 minor oriented GF (responder will probably sign off at 3NT, but might bid 2M as an attempt at a major game), 3♣ and 3♦ as 20+ natural with no 4 card major (suggesting slam investigation), 2NT a balanced 20-22 and 3NT a balanced 26+.

Clearly this is not legal at the GCC level, but at the Midchart level I am not sure...
I was nearly ready to abandon the concept, since the followups to 1♦ were so unworkable, but maybe the Midchart is the answer.

[PrecisionL]

relknes, on 2011-February-13, 18:38, said:

The only trouble here is that a Limit Raise (which I assume is what LR was) seems impossible to define when opener's 1♦ could have represented any of the 4 suits or even a balanced hand...
However, if we change that to invitational values, then it seems workable. (You didn't define 2♣ as a response, so i will assume it would have simmilar meaning to 2♦). In that case:

After 1♣
1♦ = 0-6 points (0-9 points with no 4 card major)
1M = 7+ points, 4+
1NT = 8-11(12) balanced
2m = 10+ points, 5+, denies 4 card major
2M = invitational, 5+
2NT = GF balanced

After 1♦
1M = 0-9 points
1NT = 8-11(12) balanced
2m = 10+ points, 4+
2M = invitational, 5+
2NT = GF, balanced or 5+ major

Is this something like what you play? I realize that the 2NT followups would be different, asking for long suits rather than shortness, but I think that is a better approach given the nature of these 1♣ and 1♦ openings.

Close, but
1♦ - 2♣ is 0-9 hcp pass or correct to ♦, N.F.
1♦ - 3♣ is 10-12 hcp pass or correct to ♦, G.I.

If you want more details e-mail me off my profile.

[Zelandakh]

relknes, going back to your design goals I am wondering if it is not simpler to play a crazy amalgam of Swedish Club and Fantunes. 1C would be Swedish showing 11-13 balanced or 17+ any, a proven weapon; 1N 14-16; 1M can be 13-16 and 5+; and 2M as (9)10-12 Fantunes-style. That just leaves the unbalanced hands without a 5-card major in the 10-16 range to split between 1D, 2C and 2D. Personally I would do this as 2C minors, 1D everything else, and 2D multi...but obviously that is impossible over there. One alternative would be to play 2m as 1-suiters and 1D for the rest, probably better is to split by range utilising Fantunes-style 2m openings for 10-12 and 1D with 13-16.

From this base you have a system that is manageable and maintains good homogeneity within the openings. If you really cannot do without your weak 2Ms then I would suggest that you lose little in opening the 1M range a little to 10-16, something I suspect you should also do in your 2-way minor structure if you want it to be truly competitive. Indeed, if you analyse your structure with 10-12 hands moved into 1M (or 2M) you get

1♣ = 10-12 points and a 5 card minor OR 17+ points with a 5 card major
1♦ = 17+ points with no 5 card major

and immediately the system begins to look more akin to something standard. For me it makes much more sense to keep all of the 17+ hands in one place, either in 1♦, in which case look at the Magic Diamond structure, or 1♣ (Big Club), or 1♣ combined with some weak varieties (Swedish Club, et al). I suspect any of these changes would improve the performance of the system as well as making it better against competition and simpler to play.

[relknes]

Zelandakh, on 2011-February-18, 03:30, said:

relknes, going back to your design goals I am wondering if it is not simpler to play a crazy amalgam of Swedish Club and Fantunes. 1C would be Swedish showing 11-13 balanced or 17+ any, a proven weapon; 1N 14-16; 1M can be 13-16 and 5+; and 2M as (9)10-12 Fantunes-style. That just leaves the unbalanced hands without a 5-card major in the 10-16 range to split between 1D, 2C and 2D. Personally I would do this as 2C minors, 1D everything else, and 2D multi...but obviously that is impossible over there. One alternative would be to play 2m as 1-suiters and 1D for the rest, probably better is to split by range utilising Fantunes-style 2m openings for 10-12 and 1D with 13-16.

From this base you have a system that is manageable and maintains good homogeneity within the openings. If you really cannot do without your weak 2Ms then I would suggest that you lose little in opening the 1M range a little to 10-16, something I suspect you should also do in your 2-way minor structure if you want it to be truly competitive. Indeed, if you analyse your structure with 10-12 hands moved into 1M (or 2M) you get

1♣ = 10-12 points and a 5 card minor OR 17+ points with a 5 card major
1♦ = 17+ points with no 5 card major

and immediately the system begins to look more akin to something standard. For me it makes much more sense to keep all of the 17+ hands in one place, either in 1♦, in which case look at the Magic Diamond structure, or 1♣ (Big Club), or 1♣ combined with some weak varieties (Swedish Club, et al). I suspect any of these changes would improve the performance of the system as well as making it better against competition and simpler to play.

I originally wanted to use Fanturnes as part of the 1m openings not so much to preserve the weak 2 bids, but rather to protect the 1m bids from excessive preemption, which can be a problem if they are unambiguously strong, and I figured that Fanturnes 2s would be a better way than weak balanced hands since they are more likely to get in another bid if the opponents interfere at a low level.
Your suggestion of making the club bid two way and the diamond bid unambiguous makes sense, since I can use artificial responses over an unambiguosly strong 1♦.
I did, however, find a sort of loophole in the GCC, in that any artificial response is legal if it asks for aces, or if it asks for singletons or voids. What would you think of

1♣ = 10-12 Fanturnes style 2 in any suit OR 17+ with no singleton or void
1♦ = 10-13 balanced OR 17+ with a singleton or void

Then the responses to 1♣ can use a 1♦ negative, and 1♦-1♥ can be used with any hand that is less than invitational to ask for partner's singleton/void, with 1NT defined as what opener responds with if they have no singleton/void (and thus have 10-13 balanced).

The other opening bids would be:
1♥ = 12-16 points, 4+ hearts (5 if balanced)
1♠ = 12-16 points, 4+ spades (5 if balanced)
1NT = 14-16 balanced
2♣ = 12-16 points, unbalanced, 6+ clubs (or 5 clubs with 4+ diamonds)
2♦ = 12-16 points, unbalanced, 6+ diamonds (or 5 diamonds with 4 clubs)

[Mbodell]

relknes, on 2011-February-18, 11:21, said:

1♣ = 10-12 Fanturnes style 2 in any suit OR 17+ with no singleton or void
1♦ = 10-13 balanced OR 17+ with a singleton or void

Then the responses to 1♣ can use a 1♦ negative, and 1♦-1♥ can be used with any hand that is less than invitational to ask for partner's singleton/void, with 1NT defined as what opener responds with if they have no singleton/void (and thus have 10-13 balanced).

The other opening bids would be:
1♥ = 12-16 points, 4+ hearts (5 if balanced)
1♠ = 12-16 points, 4+ spades (5 if balanced)
1NT = 14-16 balanced
2♣ = 12-16 points, unbalanced, 6+ clubs (or 5 clubs with 4+ diamonds)
2♦ = 12-16 points, unbalanced, 6+ diamonds (or 5 diamonds with 4 clubs)

Sounds promising. I do wonder if you want to move 16 points in to the strong hands just so they aren't so frequently weak. 10-13 balanced OR 17+ with stiff or void is going to be like 90+% 10-13 balanced. Another way to shift the bidding percentages a little, would be to swap 1nt and 1♦ so that the stronger nt is in the diamond. Something like:


1♣ = 10-12 Fanturnes style 2 in any suit OR 16+ with no singleton or void
1♦ = 13-15 balanced OR 16+ with a singleton or void
1♥ = 12-15 points, 4+ hearts (5 if balanced)
1♠ = 12-15 points, 4+ spades (5 if balanced)
1NT = 10-12 balanced
2♣ = 12-15 points, unbalanced, 6+ clubs (or 5 clubs with 4+ diamonds)
2♦ = 12-15 points, unbalanced, 6+ diamonds (or 5 diamonds with 4 clubs)

Also, are you allowed to use 1nt as the shortness ask? It takes up more room, but if the "no shortness" answer is then pass it makes it harder for opponents in the bidding. Over 1♦ then 1M could be NF and to play opposite the balanced, 1nt could be shortness ask (pass with no shortness), and the 2 level could be for exploring (you could even use some of your nt system since like 2/3 of the time you'd have a balanced hand).

[straube]

relknes, on 2011-February-18, 11:21, said:

I originally wanted to use Fanturnes as part of the 1m openings not so much to preserve the weak 2 bids, but rather to protect the 1m bids from excessive preemption, which can be a problem if they are unambiguously strong, and I figured that Fanturnes 2s would be a better way than weak balanced hands since they are more likely to get in another bid if the opponents interfere at a low level.
Your suggestion of making the club bid two way and the diamond bid unambiguous makes sense, since I can use artificial responses over an unambiguosly strong 1♦.
I did, however, find a sort of loophole in the GCC, in that any artificial response is legal if it asks for aces, or if it asks for singletons or voids. What would you think of

1♣ = 10-12 Fanturnes style 2 in any suit OR 17+ with no singleton or void
1♦ = 10-13 balanced OR 17+ with a singleton or void

Then the responses to 1♣ can use a 1♦ negative, and 1♦-1♥ can be used with any hand that is less than invitational to ask for partner's singleton/void, with 1NT defined as what opener responds with if they have no singleton/void (and thus have 10-13 balanced).

The other opening bids would be:
1♥ = 12-16 points, 4+ hearts (5 if balanced)
1♠ = 12-16 points, 4+ spades (5 if balanced)
1NT = 14-16 balanced
2♣ = 12-16 points, unbalanced, 6+ clubs (or 5 clubs with 4+ diamonds)
2♦ = 12-16 points, unbalanced, 6+ diamonds (or 5 diamonds with 4 clubs)

Earlier in your thread you remarked that 1D-2C had to promise four clubs to be considered natural. I'm pretty sure the GCC defines a bid as natural if it shows 4 for a major or 3 for a minor. A 2/1 doesn't have to promise points. I think you could play 1D-2C as 3 clubs and a specified point range; opener is free to rebid.

I really don't like this system. Responder has to protect opener for not only 1 opening bid (as in Polish) but 2 opening bids. I think you're wasting 1D-1H when it's better used for finding a fit. I want responder to be able to pass! It adds so much more meaning to his other precious bids.

It feels like you're excessively concerned about opponent preemption for obviously strong openings, but don't then sabotage your structure (not that I think you mean to) so that they'll keep quiet. I think if I were playing against this I would just keep quiet unless I had something useful to say because I would be counting on it having difficulty. I like to organize my system to function very well in an uncontested auction so as to put pressure on the opponents to interfere when they would rather not.

I don't understand hiding the Fantunes in 1C. I've never played Fantunes but it seems like they get a lot of benefit by preempting these medium hands straight away. Also, Fantunes openings get to compete further if the hand merits but you won't get to do so until your third opportunity.

[relknes]

straube, on 2011-February-19, 06:49, said:

Earlier in your thread you remarked that 1D-2C had to promise four clubs to be considered natural. I'm pretty sure the GCC defines a bid as natural if it shows 4 for a major or 3 for a minor. A 2/1 doesn't have to promise points. I think you could play 1D-2C as 3 clubs and a specified point range; opener is free to rebid.

I really don't like this system. Responder has to protect opener for not only 1 opening bid (as in Polish) but 2 opening bids. I think you're wasting 1D-1H when it's better used for finding a fit. I want responder to be able to pass! It adds so much more meaning to his other precious bids.

It feels like you're excessively concerned about opponent preemption for obviously strong openings, but don't then sabotage your structure (not that I think you mean to) so that they'll keep quiet. I think if I were playing against this I would just keep quiet unless I had something useful to say because I would be counting on it having difficulty. I like to organize my system to function very well in an uncontested auction so as to put pressure on the opponents to interfere when they would rather not.

I don't understand hiding the Fantunes in 1C. I've never played Fantunes but it seems like they get a lot of benefit by preempting these medium hands straight away. Also, Fantunes openings get to compete further if the hand merits but you won't get to do so until your third opportunity.

Some good points, and I will try to do what I can to adress them.
You mentioned being able to bid a minor naturally on 3 cards, but that is true ONLY for opening bids on the GCC. All later bids are natural if they show 4+ cards.
As far as protecting 2 opening bids, you are right to an extent, but it should be easier to handle them than it is in Polish Club since the hand types are divided. Polish Club has most of its issues because some of its hand types are close together. For instance, minimum balanced hand has to go out of its way to differentiate itself from the strong balanced hands, and the natural club hands can be hard to handle.
When you divide the hands into distinct categories, however, you can solve some of these problems by making sure that there is a firm dividing line between the weak and strong varieties, so that opener's second bid clarifies the holding. As an example, if 1♣ shows a Fanturnes 2 in any suit or a hand without a singleton or void, then opener will rebid 2x to show the Fanturnes bids or rebid NT to show a balanced or semi-balanced hand with 17+ points, so there is no chance at confussion.
You may be right about 1♦-1♥ being better used to find a fit. I had used the reasoning that after 1♦-1♥-1NT they were slightly better off than in systems where opener simply opened with 1NT with 10-12 points, since they now know that responder dosn't have an invitational hand and they can go about finding the best part score without worrying about missing game. But perhaps Mbodell was right in suggesting 1♦-1NT as the shortness ask, where opener passes with a 10-13 balanced. This would leave 1♥ and 1♠ for weak hands to explore a fit, showing perhaps 0-11 points and 4+, and allowing opener to pass with 10-13 balanced and 3 card support, bid 1NT with 10-13 and a doubleton in that suit, or raise to the 2 level with 4 cards and 10-13 points. With a strong hand they would bid naturally, 2♣ showing 4+ with a side singleton/void and 17+, and other 2 level bids showing 5+ with a side singleton/void and 17+ points. Jump support shows 4+ card support with a side singleton/void, and a jump shift shows 6+ cards and 22+ points with a side singleton/void.
In regards to the preemptive nature of Fanturnes 2 bids, you are right that in their system that is a large part of the value of these bids, but this system focusses more on their constructive value. After 1♣-1♦, 1M shows an unbalanced hand of 10-12 points and 5+ cards, and responder can pass or raise depending on support. After 1♣-1M, 2x shows a Fanturnes 2 in that suit, but you have some advantage in that responder has already shown some of their hand. After 1♣-1NT, showing a balanced hand of 6-9 points with no 4 card major, opener can actually pass if they think NT is the best spot. All of these types of sequences are impossible with direct Fanturnes 2 bids, so they provide some compensation, in addition to protecting the strong hands from preemption, in exchange for their preemptive value.

[relknes]

Mbodell, on 2011-February-18, 23:43, said:

Sounds promising. I do wonder if you want to move 16 points in to the strong hands just so they aren't so frequently weak. 10-13 balanced OR 17+ with stiff or void is going to be like 90+% 10-13 balanced. Another way to shift the bidding percentages a little, would be to swap 1nt and 1♦ so that the stronger nt is in the diamond.

Is there a rule of thumb for this kind of thing as to how much of the time they should be strong, vs how often they should be weak?
I was somewhat concerned that if I took too much away from the 1♥, 1♠, 2♣, and 2♦ bids that they would become too infrequent. Especially with the 2m bids, they won't come up that often as it is. This makes them powerful when they do come up, but if they only show up once in a blue moon, then that power dosn't do much good... not to say that narrowing the point range by 1 would make a tremendous difference, but in an already narrow bid that small difference is accentuated.

[straube]

This states that responses of a minor require 3 cds to be natural. It is part of SA and 2/1 to respond with even a 3-cd minor. Hope it helps...




ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART

The conventions listed below must be allowed in all ACBL sanctioned tournament play (other than in events with an upper restriction of 20 or fewer masterpoints and events for which the ACBL conditions of contest state otherwise) and at club-level events with multiple-site overall masterpoint awards. Clubs have full authority to regulate conventions in games conducted solely at their clubs.

DEFINITIONS

1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

[relknes]

straube, on 2011-February-19, 11:29, said:

This states that responses of a minor require 3 cds to be natural. It is part of SA and 2/1 to respond with even a 3-cd minor. Hope it helps...

ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART

The conventions listed below must be allowed in all ACBL sanctioned tournament play (other than in events with an upper restriction of 20 or fewer masterpoints and events for which the ACBL conditions of contest state otherwise) and at club-level events with multiple-site overall masterpoint awards. Clubs have full authority to regulate conventions in games conducted solely at their clubs.

DEFINITIONS

1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

Sorry, you are absolutely right. I was looking at the overcalls, not the responses... I feel silly.