[Kungsgeten]

I've toyed with a system structure inspired by Phil's post and some thoughts I've had before that, in part inspired of Zelandakh's system. The base is natural with a weak NT, five card majors and natural unbalanced 1♦. The twist is that 2♣ is used as Fantunes (10-13 with clubs), and 1♣ is also like Fantunes but with all 20+ hcp hands tossed into the mix. This makes for the following opening structure:

1♣ = Natural 14+ or 15+ NT or 20+ any.
1♦♥♠ = Natural, 11--19.
1NT = 12--14
2♣ = Natural unbalanced, 10--13.
Higher = Not part of core structure.

Here's a link with some continuations after the club opening: http://snortingmarad...em/bigclub.html

I'll also try to construct a "Polish" version where 1♣ is 12--14 NT, 14+ with clubs or 20+ any, 1NT is 15--17 and 2♦ 18--19 NT.

[straube]

I think the club is under-powered; you'll have difficult auctions. At least make 2C 10-15 so 1C will promise 15. Then (I think) it will look a little more like Zelandakh's structure. Is your preference to open 1M with as wide as 11-19? I think most strong clubbers prefer a narrow range, but some PCers seem to like to get the major in the picture.

[Phil]

Hi - I haven't convinced my partner to make the 1D/1S switch, but we are playing Fantunes 1 and two bids in the majors. Here's where we currently stand:

1C = weak NT, clubs 16-20, balanced 17-19 or 24+
1D = unbalanced, virtually forcing
1M = 14+, forcing (1H is 12+ if it contains 4S)
1N = 14-16
2C = 5+, 10-15, but denies 4S
2D = multi + 22-24 bal + giant 4x1
2M = 9/10 - 13
2N = 20-21

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2016-May-26, 07:54, said:

I think the club is under-powered; you'll have difficult auctions. At least make 2C 10-15 so 1C will promise 15. Then (I think) it will look a little more like Zelandakh's structure. Is your preference to open 1M with as wide as 11-19? I think most strong clubbers prefer a narrow range, but some PCers seem to like to get the major in the picture.

I am not fond of a 10-15 range for 2♣ if it can include 5♣4M hands as it becomes difficult to handle. My system uses 10-14. In fact the difference here is quite small, Kungsgeten's 1♣ includes 14 point hands with clubs and removes the 18-19 point hands. In addition, the minimum 4414 hands are opened 2♣ whereas by me these are included in 1NT. So I do not think 10-15 would be more like my system at all!

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-27, 03:39, said:

I am not fond of a 10-15 range for 2♣ if it can include 5♣4M hands as it becomes difficult to handle. My system uses 10-14. In fact the difference here is quite small, Kungsgeten's 1♣ includes 14 point hands with clubs and removes the 18-19 point hands. In addition, the minimum 4414 hands are opened 2♣ whereas by me these are included in 1NT. So I do not think 10-15 would be more like my system at all!

I stand corrected. But you don't use 10-13 and your club promises 15?...which were my larger points. Kungsgeten states that his 1C would handle balanced of 14+ or 15+ (which by definition includes 18-19 bal). He mentions putting 18-19 balanced in with 2D in an alternate Polish Club version, not this strong club version. When he says that 2D is not part of the core structure, I take that to mean that as further evidence that he groups 18-19 bal with 1C. I don't see mention of 4414 and I hope 2C would not handle 4414 as well as clubs. For all I know, he opens 4414 1N same as you and uses 2D as a weak two.

So I've always liked your system and have in past recommended Kungsgeten take a look at it. I qualified my comparison to your system with "I think" and it still reminds me of your system, but ok if it shouldn't.

[Kungsgeten]

Zel and straube: In the suggested structure 2♣ promise 5+♣, identic to Fantunes. It could be modified to deny 4 diamonds, as in Polish (and open 1♦ with those instead). 4441 hands are opened 1♦, except 4-4-1-4 which is treated as balanced. 2♦ and higher are undefined, and not part of the base structure. Could be used for preempts or perhaps tightening the major openings somewhat. Regarding strong balanced hands the idea is to open 1♣ with all 15+ NT hands. I am not very fond of this idea, so I'm working on a Polish version at the moment.

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2016-May-27, 05:11, said:

I stand corrected. But you don't use 10-13 and your club promises 15? Also, not clear to me what Kungsgeten has in mind for 18-19 bal and 4414. He has the idea of a 2D opening for a Polish Club version but doesn't say how he'd use 2D for his strong club version. In fact if anything, he implies opening 1C with all stronger NTs including 18-19. Also, for all I know he tosses 4414 into his weak NT opening though perhaps he means to use 2D or 2H for that.

I use 10-14 for 2♣ and 1♣ promises 15+. The 1♦♥♠ openers are limited to 17 so 1♣ also holds all of the 18-19 point hands. It looks to me that Kungsgeten's structure keeps the balanced and club-based 18-19 point hands in 1♣ but moves the ♦, ♥ and ♠-based 18-19 hands into the respective openings. As it is written, I think the 4414 hands are in 2♣ for 10-13 or 1♣ for 14+. Quite likely, the 10-11 point hands are not opened, thus reducing the frequency of 2♣ having only 4. Moving the 12-13 point hands down to 1NT is definitely something worth considering if not already done.

In fact, looking at the link provided, 2♣ is described as 5+ clubs and 1NT is not described as balanced, so I guess that is already what is done. The other part of the link that I notice is that the 1NT rebid (after 1♣ - 1♦) is 15-19, which strikes me as rather ungainly given the amount of bidding space available. I wonder if including part of the range within the 1♥ rebid might not work better, even if it means being a little higher on occasion with the 20+ hands. I also wonder about not using the same response structure for the 2♣ opening as for 1♣ - 1♦; 2♣ and perhaps even something similar after 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠. Consistency here is helpful in terms of keeping memory strain in check, something of concern in relay systems. The rest seems ok and uses the same trick as my system with relay breaks covering the weaker hands. here it is even more so though, as relays are practically 30+hcp. That means the system will relay less than most similar systems but that the relay auctions will be very easy to handle when they come up. So my prediction is that the system will work or fail depending on the natural auctions. The danger is in getting the worst of both worlds (wide-ranging 1 level openings, cramped strong auctions with frequent interference). If however these natural auctions are comfortable, everything else should fall into place to make the system easily playable.

[Zelandakh]

I cross-posted with Kungsgeten. Just to add on that reply, I think this structure would match fairly well with a Mexican 2♦ opening. Removing the 18-19 balanced hands from 1♣ would make it considerably easier to handle in competition.