[jgillispie]

Looking for a way to improve the following framework in a strong ♣ context for GCC level tournament. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Considering modifications for IMPS vs. MP as well.

1♠-P-
1N SF; Includes bal 3cd INV
2♣ 2+ FG (bal or ♣) -- Schuler Shift afterwards
2♦ 5+ FG
2♥ 5+ FG
2♠ 3-4!S <INV
2N 11-12 bal
3♣ 3♠ u/b INV
3♦ 4♠ FG
3♥ 4♠ LIM
3♠ 4♠ PRE-MIX
3N 15-17 bal

[straube]

You could tweak this by placing your balance LR in 2N and your 11-12 bal in with 1N. My guess is that you're trying to offload some invitational hands from the semiforcing NT and if so you might as well offload those with a fit.

Responding 2N with 11-12 bal makes it difficult to find your fits...including 4-4 heart fits as well as better minor suit fits. 1S-2N and how does opener force with clubs vs suggest clubs as a final contract? Responder is known to have tolerance for every suit, but opener still needs to let responder choose 3N vs 4H or 5m.

Your scheme also has trouble with GI with a long suit. For example, after 1S you can't show GI with long hearts unless opener bids again. Also 1S-1N, 2H-3C is weak or invitational?
Unless playing that 2/1s are not GF, I've come to think that 1S-3C/3D/3H need to be GI natural.

I'd suggest looking at Adam and Sieong's 2/1 structure http://web.cs.ucla.e...IMprecision.pdf
Their 2/1s aren't GF and they allow for very light but distributional openings. I think their 1N response is a bad 11 or less.

If you want your 2/1s to be GF and you want a semiforcing NT, I think you need to accept that you'll occasionally play 1N when you have a better part score or even game. Maybe play over 1S...

1N-semiforcing, could have bal 3-cd LR
2C-3+ clubs (this is to be GCC compliant)
.....responder relays his shape
2D-5+ diamonds or 4+ diamonds and 3-fit for spades
2H-5 hearts
2S-raise
2N-LR+, 4+ trump or sometimes 3 if unbal
3C-GI
3D-GI
3H-GI
3S-mixed raise

[Kungsgeten]

I would put the 3NT bid into 2C instead. My guess is that a 15-17 hand wanta to find out what opener has, since we might have slam if opener has the right distribution. 3NT could instead be "pudding raise" or you could play two-tiered splinters.

I like constructive raises, but I know many people don't. Playing 2S as perhaps 9-12 with three card support, or somewhat weaker if four card support. Now 1NT would only have support if weak, and you could change your 3C response if you like.

Don't know if its GCC legal, but swapping 2D and 2H would probably be a good idea.

Perhaps something like this:

1NT = Non-forcing. Could have support if less than 9.
2D = Hearts, weak (then 6+H) or INV with 5H or GF with 5+H.
2H = GF with 5+D, unbalanced
2S = Constructive raise, about 9-12
3C = 6+ hearts, INV
3NT = 4333 with 3S, 13-15 NF

Others as your original post.

[nullve]

Since 2C as "natural or Drury" is not GCC legal, I've been thinking about alternative ways to get out in 2S when Responder has an invitational hand with 3c support and Opener would not be able to accept an invitation.

One possibility:

1S-?:

(...)
1N = NAT NF. If 3+ S, then insufficient values for a constructive or mixed raise
2x(x<S) = NAT and either INV with 3 S or GF
2S = 3 S, constructive (< INV)
2N = INV+, 4+ S
3x(x<S) = IJS
3S = mixed
(...)

Then e.g.

1S-2x; 2S = to play opposite INV

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2016-July-21, 05:45, said:

I've been thinking about alternative ways to get out in 2S when Responder has an invitational hand with 3c support and Opener would not be able to accept an invitation.

My solution is:

1NT = INV+ relay
... - 2♣ = min without 4 hearts
... - ... - 2♦ = any GF (responses as for max hands directly over 1NT)
... - ... - 2♥, 2NT, 3♣♦ = nat, INV
... - ... - 2♠ = 3 spades, INV
... - 2♦ = 4+ hearts
... - ... - 2♥ = any GF
... - ... - 2♠ = 3 spades, INV
... - ... - 2NT, 3♣♦♥ = nat, INV
... - 2♥ = max, 4+ clubs, GF
... - 2♠ = max, 6+ spades, one-suited, GF
... - 2NT+ = max, 4+ diamonds, GF
2♣♦♥ = weak, natural, NF
2♠ = weak raise
2NT+ = various raises with 4+ card support

I would not recommend it for the OP though and would not be surprised if a good portion of TDs declared it not to be GCC-compliant.