[ahydra]

So my partner and I have been developing a system (in the context of weak NT, 4cM) that uses 2C and 2D as strong bids. My first draft has the ability to show the following (all GF, or Strong Two+ in the case of 6+-card suit):
any 5-4,
or any 4441,
or any hand with a 6-card suit (can determine what the suit is, and whether or not there is another suit of 4+ cards),
or any hand with a (can-be-determined) 7+ suit,

with the basic idea as 2C has longest suit hearts/clubs and 2D = longest suit spades/diamonds.

My partner's not convinced I've taken the right approach, thinking more that handling strong bids in minors is better done using 1C forcing and having a dedicated bid or two after the response to 1C. He's also not too worried about showing specifically 7+ - I went with this because it can be used to set trumps instantly, but he thinks 6-card suits generally find fits most of the time.

The point of this post, therefore, is to gather some opinions from you system-designers on whether you find it useful to have dedicated bids for showing Strong Two and/or GF in minors, and the same for 7+ suits as opposed to 6+. Then I'll take another look at my proposed system in light of the comments.

Many thanks

ahydra

[kenrexford]

If you somehow have worked out a means of distiunguishing 7+ minor suits from 6-card minor suits, GF, without giving up something more useful, then why not? The dubious part, however, is the thought that this could somehow be accomplished without truly giving something up.

That said, I obviously like the idea of using 2♣ and 2♦ as two means of opening very strong hands. I also like the general principle of having the majors split between these two, and specifically spades into 2♦, as this is the core principle behind my "New Frontiers for Strong Forcing Openings" book. My personal feeling is that splitting the diamonds and clubs is probably unnecessary and counter-productive, largely because I know what can be done simply by spinning out spade hands (with the caveat that spade canape hands are also spun out, which might seem like predominant in the longer suit). You might want to take a look at my approach or a very similar approach that Mats Nilsland & Anders Wirgren used in their "Super Standard" approach. I also obviously prefer my own spin on the concept to that of Nilsland and Wirgren, but their version is very good also.

[ahydra]

Edited the OP to clarify the different showable hand types.

In the meantime, the idea of separating spades out (using canape-type structure if necessary) is an interesting one for sure.

ahydra

[ahydra]

Any other views on this? Indeed I've already had one major flaw in the system pointed out, and discovered another when watching vugraph and one guy had a GF 4522 and the other a nice 3163 or so. 7D was you want to play, but currently I've no way for responder to set diamonds as trumps after opener shows his hand with both majors. Perhaps a 3D positive after 2C?

ahydra

[antonylee]

I guess this depends on your actual response structure over 2♣ but I favour transfer positives, not so much for right-siding as for the space it gains.

[PrecisionL]

Although I am a Strong Club advocate, I play a 2/1 system with several partners where 2♣ and 2♦ are strong openers.

In those partnerships I use Bob Crosby's Pit Bulls approach: http://www.pitbulls....Strong%202D.htm

2♣ Strong & Artificial hand without 5+♦ or 4441 distribution.

Responder always responds 2♦ and opener bids naturally thereafter, but responder relays over 2M for further description of opener's hand.

2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ (Relay to 2♠)

(a) Balanced 25-27 (Kokish), or (b) 1-suited ♥s, or {c} 2-suited with ♥s primary

2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 2NT (relay) - 3X = 1 or 2-suited with ♠s primary

2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT = 23-24 hcp

2♣ - 2♦ - 3NT = Balanced hand with 5+♣s, 23+ hcp

2♦ Strong & Artificial

(a) Balanced and 21+ hcp and 5+♦

(b) 4441 and 4 losers or less. Responder always responds 2♥, now 2♠ is the 4441 and 2NT asks for singleton

{c} 6+♦ with or without a 2nd suit

2♦ - 2♥ - ?

2NT = Balanced with 5322 & 23-24 hcp

3♣ = 6+♦ & 4♣

3♦ = 6+♦ & unbalanced

3♥ = 6+♦ & 4♥

3♠ = 6+♦ & 4♠

3NT = 5+322 & 25-26 hcp

4♣ = 6+♦ & 5♣

4♦ = 7+♦

4♥ = 6+♦ & 5♥

4♠ = 6+♦ & 5♠

I have tested and used these and find them an improvement, but the frequency is low and the memory load somewhat higher.

Added 4/4/12: Suit Showing over 2 Clubs is another approach: http://rfrick.info/bridge/twoclubs.htm

This post has been edited by PrecisionL: 2012-April-04, 07:01

[wclass___]

--- using some of 2 level bids to deal with strong hands makes a lot of sense if you are vulnerable and playing IMPs.

--- don't preempt yourself when you have ♠ and strong hand

--- specific GF are rare, do it with like 19++ but specify suits early.

1♣ = 4♠+ forcing no upper limit
2♣ = strong with 5♦ or weak with ♦ or really strong NT
2♦ = strong 19/20+ or w2 with ♥
2♥ = strong 19/20+ w/ ♣ or 7♣+ 13+ (was no other way to deal with this)

Haven't tested in real life, but these ideas should work really well.