[olien]

Hi all,

I apologise in advance for the length of this post.

It's been a while since I've posted on here; however, I've been a frequent reader and the recent post regarding TWalsh/Switch over a 1♣ opener which is very similar to one I play with a partner piqued my interests. Our current opening bids which are relevant to this post are as follows:

1♣ - a) 11+-14 Balanced (may have 5♦, but not 5 Major) or b) 11 - <GF, natural
1NT - 14+-17 Balanced - may have 5M
2♣ - a) 18-19 or 24/25+ Balanced (may have 5 Major) or b) Game Force, Primary (5+) major, unbalanced
2♦ - a) 20-21 Balanced (may have 5 Major) or b) Game Force, Primary (5+) minor, unbalanced
2NT - 22-23/24 balanced, may have 5 Major

This structure has been working well for us except for the combination of:

a) opening 2♦ bid when strong with clubs coupled with
b) a 3♣ response showing 6+♦, may be weak

--For reference below, 2M responses to 2♦ are:
--2♥ = 5+♠, any strength
---> 2♠=20-21 BAL
-2NT=??
-3♣=natural strong, may have side ♦ or ♥
-3♦=natural strong, may have side ♣
-3♥=strong with 5+♦ 4+♥
-3♠=20-21 BAL, super accept
-3NT+ = strong, unbal hands with ♠ fit
--2♠ = waiting or 5+♥

For example, an auction such as 2♦ - 3♣ // 3NT is unclear as to whether opener is strong with clubs or has a super accept of diamonds (i.e. Kxx AQx AKxx Axx). Also, 2♦ - 2M // 3♣ showing strong with ♣, may have a second suit isn't great.

Based on this, we want to shift our openers a little bit around and have:

1♣ - as above, but may be unlimited with primary clubs (therefore forcing)
2♦ - as above, but strong unbalanced option is just with primary diamonds

This should make bidding strong hands with primary minors easier - i.e. 2♦ - 2M // 3♣ would now show 5+♦ 4+♣, etc. However, we're unsure of how to adjust responses to our 1♣ opener. We are in ACBL-land - and worse, our district does not allow mid-chart at any level (except district GNT finals) preventing our use of transfer responses. So, I'm wondering if we should go: a) polish style; b) reduce minimum HCP responses to 0 or c) something else (other than move to somewhere more civlised).

If we go the polish route, what should opener's re-bids over a 1♦ response be? Should 1M possibly be 3 cards in a weak NT? If so, what should opener's 1NT and 2NT re-bids be?

If we go option b), how does responder show a super-weak (0-5ish) hand with 5+♣ - preferably without modifying our current response structure too much, which looks like:

1♦ - 4(3)+♦, no 4M unless GF (only 3 if 3=3=3=4)
1M - 4+M, F1, may have longer ♦ if <GF
1NT - 10-12 BAL, may have one or both 4-card majors
2♣ - 5+-9 HCP, 5+♣
2♦ - GF 5+♣ (one-suiter without shortness or any side 4+ card suit, clubs are primary)
2♥ - 5♠ 4-5♥, 5-9 HCP
2♠ - a) INV ♣ raise or b) any splinter raise, 6+♣ 1-suiter
2NT - both minors: a) weak or b) 5+/5+ game force
3♣ - mixed raise
3♦/M - Natural, weakish - typically 7+ suit, 4-7ish HCP

I welcome ideas and opinions - not just on the responses to 1♣ but on the limited overview of the system as presented.

Thank You
Owen Lien

[mike777]

IF i UNDERSTAND YOUR POST AND FEEL FREE TO CORRECT, YOUR SYSTEM HAS A HOLE:

ROUGHLY 20-21 WITH LONG STRONG CLUBS?

Is this your basic question regarding weakness in your ENTIRE system?

[olien]

2D opening is either: a) 20-21 balanced (I.e. Standard 2NT opener) or b)game forcing with a primary minor.

What I'm trying to do is move the game forcing hands with primary clubs out of the 2D opener and into the 1C opener

[straube]

If I understand your problem, it's extremely silly to consider changing your club opening for the situation of opener having GF clubs and responder having diamonds.

Even if the following suggestion is bad for you, there must be a fix that will require far less drastic action. Now if you prefer a forcing club for its own sake, that's another matter.

2D-2H as 5+ spades feels all wrong. Try

2H-waiting, possibly 5+ spades, possibly 5+ diamonds, etc
.....2S-20-21 bal
..........P-weak spades
.....2N-20-21 bal super-accepting spades if pd has them
2S-5+ hearts

If you require 4 spades for your super-accept, you will also pick up 4-4 spade fits...not something you likely do now

[olien]

Thank You David. We are considering the change not just for the case where responder has diamonds and opener has clubs. It would also have the added benefit of tidying game-forcing sequences where opener is unbalanced with a primary minor (either one). However, these are very rare, and the probability of the disaster combination of opener clubs and responder diamonds will make it even more rare - or the added complexity of changing our 1♣ opener may very well negate any potential advantages.

I agree that 2♦ - 2♥ showing 5+♠ looks/feels wrong; however, we use it this way so that we can use the same transfer/transfer scheme that occurs after 1NT-2♥ or 2♣-2♥ with only a few minor tweaks for NT siding purposes. I think it may be best to play 2♥ showing 4+♠, potentially canapé with a minor is best (à la scanian), but our methods haven't advanced to that yet and the initial responses are set up over either 2m opener so as to preempt opener's strong options as little as possible unless there will be a guaranteed fit with the exception of opener's ♣ opposite responder's ♦. Our initial responses to 2m look like:

Over 2♣:
2♦ --- waiting or 5+H
2♥ --- 5+S
2♠ --- minors, can be weak
2N/3♣ --- 6+C/D, can be weak
3♦ --- 5+/5+ majors, GF
3M --- currently undefined

Over 2♦:
2♥ --- 5+♠
2♠ --- waiting or 5+♥ (over 2NT, 3♣=stayman, 3♦=transfer, 3M=4M-short OM)
2N/3♣ --- 6+C/D, can be weak
3♦ --- 5+/5+ minors, GF
3♥ --- 3=1=(5/4)
3♠ --- 1=3=(5/4)

Your suggestion of changing the 2♥ response to 2♦ looks good but we would impact the structure we have set up. Do you think there's some way of putting diamonds into the 2♠ response and using a 3♣ response for something else? Maybe 3♦ (after 2♠-2NT) could be like a transfer/stayman promising 4+♥? Would have to work out the details on that. Do you think I'm investing too much time/energy in trying to solve a problem that will be extremely rare? I do that not infrequently as I seem to always be trying to find the 'ideal' solution.

[Phil]

Hey Owen. Nice to see you posting here again. Some random comments:

Yes in Polish opener sometimes has to fudge a 3 card major, but it's not a huge loss because the opponents have a lot of points.

Would you consider throwing your 20-21 into the 1C basket? We do this now since the very strong 2N is nice to have, but you have to adjust your rebids. You can play 1C 1x 2D as various strong hands but you need a way to unwind them.

There's a lot of very awkward patterns in T-Walsh which is why we added the 2C Polish/Precision opener. We didn't like having to rebid responders major with, say, 1M-(345).

Send me a PM and tell me why you moved to MI please.

[olien]

Phil, on 2016-May-20, 08:32, said:

Hey Owen. Nice to see you posting here again. Some random comments:

Yes in Polish opener sometimes has to fudge a 3 card major, but it's not a huge loss because the opponents have a lot of points.

Would you consider throwing your 20-21 into the 1C basket? We do this now since the very strong 2N is nice to have, but you have to adjust your rebids. You can play 1C 1x 2D as various strong hands but you need a way to unwind them.

There's a lot of very awkward patterns in T-Walsh which is why we added the 2C Polish/Precision opener. We didn't like having to rebid responders major with, say, 1M-(345).

Send me a PM and tell me why you moved to MI please.

With regards to re-bidding a potentially 3-card major, I have a few questions:

a) how does one differentiate between a weak NT type hand and possibly 11-17/18 with 5+C 4+M?
b) Since the 1NT re-bid would now be free, what are some potential uses for it? I was thinking something like:
--- i) minimum C re-bid (maybe 5C-4D) or
--- ii) some GF
This would allow 1C - 1D // 2D+ to be natural and 18-21ish and 2NT/3C could show 18-21 with 6+C with 2NT being more NT oriented

I don't think we would want to include 20-21 BAL in 1C because we like playing 1x - 1M // 2NT as jacoby style (full value 3M bid or better) and a direct raise to 3M as like a 2.5 bid.

With Marius Agica, we also played a precision style 2C opener as you mentioned showing 11-14 with 6+C or 5+C 4+R (not 4S and not 2=2=4=5 which was treated as balanced)
2D was our strong opener. It was nice having 1C - 1X // 2C as 15-17ish natural and 3C as natural GF. We did this for the reason you stated.

[straube]

olien, on 2016-May-20, 07:41, said:

Your suggestion of changing the 2♥ response to 2♦ looks good but we would impact the structure we have set up. Do you think there's some way of putting diamonds into the 2♠ response and using a 3♣ response for something else? Maybe 3♦ (after 2♠-2NT) could be like a transfer/stayman promising 4+♥? Would have to work out the details on that. Do you think I'm investing too much time/energy in trying to solve a problem that will be extremely rare? I do that not infrequently as I seem to always be trying to find the 'ideal' solution.

It seems that responder only takes up space when something good is promised by it. For example, 2D-3D and opener will be happy with either a 20-21 or primary minor hand. Same thing for 2C-3D only now we have a major suit fit instead of a minor. In that vein, maybe you can use 2D-3C as GF diamonds and stuff the weak diamonds into your 2S response. That's simple though I'm sure you want to be able to sign off in diamonds.

Or maybe...

2S-possibly strong diamonds
.....2N-20-21
..........3C-stayman
..........3D-hearts
..........3H-strong diamonds
3C-weak diamonds

[nullve]

olien, on 2016-May-19, 22:29, said:

We are in ACBL-land - and worse, our district does not allow mid-chart at any level (except district GNT finals) preventing our use of transfer responses.

The GCC allows you to play a T-Walsh substitute involving

1♣-?:

1♦ = 4+ S [allowing in your case e.g. 1♥ = 3 S or 11+-14 bal. w/ 2-3 S; 1♠ = 2-S4+H, unbal.; 1N = Gazzilli]
1♥ = 4+ H, denies 4+ S unless GF [allowing in your case e.g. 1♠ = 3 H or 11+-14 bal. w/ 2-3 H; 1N = Gazzilli]
1♠ = ART GF
1N = NAT NF,

as awm pointed out in this thread,

http://bridgewinners...ses-to-1c-gcc/.

For such a T-Walsh substitute to work when 1♣ is F1, it seems necessary to play the (NAT) 1N response either as "0-10(11), less than INV" or as "0-11, would have passed an 11+-14 NT rather than bashed 3N"¹, but I think it's playable, especially when 1♣ doesn't include any strong balanced hands.

¹ this counterfactual pass-or-bash style is not so attractive unless the "11+-14" is to be understood as a 3-point (12-14) rather than a 4-point (11-14) range

[PrecisionL]

I like your 2♣ 18-20 balanced or GF with other distributions (similar to Big Bang by Bocchi, the Italian).

Here is a suggestion for your 2♦ Opening:

(a) Balanced, 20-21 with 5+♦, or
(b) 4441 and 4-5 losers, 17+ hcp, or
© 20+ hcp with♦ primary, may have a 2nd 4-cd suit

Responses to 2♦:

2♥ Forced, then

2♠ Any 4441 hand, 2NT asks singleton, other bids are signoffs
2NT 21-22 hcp with 5 or 6♦
3♣ 20+ hcp 6♦ and 4♣
3♦ 20+ One suited ♦, unbalanced
3♥ 20+ 6♦ and 4,5♥
3♠ 20+ 6♦ and 4,5♠
3NT 24-25 5,6♦

[Kungsgeten]

I'm thinking that 2C would be better as clubs/hearts and 2D as diamonds/spades, if unbalanced. Unlimited with clubs in 1C could work too though. I'm thinking something along the lines of (where the relay bid is the most common bid):

2C--2D;
2H = 18-19 NT
2S = GF with clubs?
2NT = GF bal?
3C+ = GF with hearts?

2D--2H;
2S = GF spades
2NT = 20-21
3C+ = GF with diamonds.


A benefit (to me) with 1C as natural or weak NT is that it can be passed by responder with really weak hands which doesn't really want to make a tactical bid. This seems to be lost if 1C is forcing.

If 1C is forcing I would want a Gazzilli-like low level forcing rebid, and probably make reverses limited and non-forcing (perhaps 15-17). A really weak responder without a four card major will also be a problem if playing transfers. Fake a three-card suit as responder?

[nullve]

I already play 1♣ as nat. or bal., F1, but in order to handle the 0+ responses I play two "Gazzillis" over 1♣-[1M-1](=0+, 4+ M),

1N = rules of 19-21 (~10-12 hcp), 3-S2-M6+C / rules of 25-27 (~16-18 hcp), 3-S2-M / 17-19 bal., 2-3 M [NF, hence "NF Gazzilli"]
2♦ = rules of 28-30 (~19-21 hcp), any unbal. [also known as a "Multireverse", I know],

as well as

1♣-[1M-1]; 2N+ = rule of 31+ (~22+ hcp), relay structure.

Edit: Deleted nonsense about 1♦ also being nat. or bal., F1. (I play 1♦ as nat., unbal., F1. and play two "Gazzilis" (1N and 2♣) also over 1♦-1M.)

[Phil]

We play 2C opener as min with clubs, so this allows us to rebid 2C with 5+clubs and 16-20 or so. Still massaging the hand types included within rebid.