[helene_t]

I have sympathy for shape-first systems, such as Boring Club which I have been playing wigth Shogi for many years: 1♣ is 12-19 balanced, 1NT is 11-20 unbalanced with clubs.

I thought of taking it a bit further, getting rid of the strong artificial (or multi with strong options) openings while allowing lighter opening with 5-card majors:

1♣: 12-22 balanced
1♦: 8+, 5+ hearts
1♥: 8+, 5+ spades
1♠: 12+, unbalanced with primarily clubs
1NT: 12+, unbalanced with primarily diamonds
2♣: 12+, any 4441 and presumably 5m440

The most unplayable part of this may be the 1NT opening. The responses could for example be:
2♣: weak, to play opposite both minors. Wants to hear the second suit so will be 333+ in the non-diamond suit or some 2-suiter without diamonds.
2♦: weak, to play opposite any 12-16
2♥: 8-11 points with 3+ hearts, to play opposite a minimum with four hearts
2♠: GF relay
2NT: invitational with 5-5 majors?
3♣: invitational with 3+ diamonds
3♦: preempt
3♥/♠: invitational

This is all a bit cramped. I would like to make the 2♣ response forcing for one round by taking the (31)54, 12-16 hands out of the 1NT opening. Maybe put them into the 2♣ opening? That could lead to some 3-3 fits after the 2♣ opening but is maybe worth it.

Another issue is the 23+ balanced hands. Playing T-Walsh, we have a.o.
1♠: 4-7 or 11+ balanced w/o 4cM, and some unbalanced hands
1NT: 8-10.

I am not sure if it is playable to put the 23+ hands in the 1♣ opening (unless with switch to Polish-like responses?), and besides I like to play it as non-forcing so opps can't play pass-can-be-strong-so-direct-can-be-very-weak against it.

It's probably ok to have the 23+ hands in a multi 2♦, but I am not sure if I want to play multi when 8-counts with 6cM can open at the 1-level.

Any thoughts?

[straube]

You have some pretty wide ranges for those openings. Look at the NT ladder for Meckwell which is approximately....

1C-17-18, 21+
1D-11-13 if bal
1M-11-13 if bal
1N-14-16
2N-19-20

....so they put a lot of store in separating those ranges. Though a strong 2N is often called a slam-killer, they open 2N with 19-20 so that they don't have to worry about showing balanced hands of this range after the opponents start competing.

1C as 12-22 really is counter to this thinking. But your auction starts 1C (1S) P (2S) and now where are you when you hold 15-22?

I suppose you'll have ample room when you're dealt a 1D or 1H opening (although you're trying to accommodate 8 pt hands), but I don't know how you would continue. Is acceptance of the transfer like MOSCITO, promising inv+ ?

I would think 1S, 1N and 2C auctions are really a problem. You've no safety (Law protection) so you'll be missing your fits. Plus if opener has a goodish hand (say 15-17 or so) is he supposed to respect a sign off or take another bid?

Maybe the limited openings of MOSCITO would suit you, 1D showing 4+H, 1H showing 4+S and 1S showing D. You could use marry that with a good strong club structure.

[awm]

When I looked at something like this, I thought the big problems were finding major fits after the minor oriented openings and separating the balanced ranges after 1c (especially in competition). It seemed better to play:

1C = balanced or clubs or 4441 or perhaps some (5440)
1D = 5+H
1H = 5+S
1S = 5+D
1N = natural removing some balanced range from 1C

This leaves all the two level openings; it may make sense to use 2C to relieve some pressure on 1C and/or 1S though.

Using 1S as 5+D leaves you space to look for a major fit (for example via 1nt showing spades and 2C showing hearts) and still stop in 2D. Treating 4441 as balanced with one of a suit (where you’ll never miss a major fit) seems better than using some form of mini-Roman (ugh) and safer than opening 1nt with such hands (where missing a major is possible and expensive).

[Vampyr]

Something to keep in mind when playing transfer openings is that you may play in backwards jurisdictions (such as the EBU) that don’t allow them. So be sure to have a backup system for travel!

[helene_t]

 awm, on 2020-February-10, 03:04, said:

When I looked at something like this, I thought the big problems were finding major fits after the minor oriented openings and separating the balanced ranges after 1c (especially in competition).

Playing Boring Club, we rarely have problems with the NT ranges unless opps preempt at the 3-level. But part of the story is that our responses to 1♣ usually show 6+ points (otherwise we mostly pass make a WJS, this sometimes leads to some silly 1♣ contracts). So opener can rebid 2NT with 17-18 over a 2-level sandwich overcall. Obviously this wouldn't work if 1♣ is 12-22 so the 1♦/♥ (tranfer) responses don't promise any points.

Playing weak NT indeed makes it work better in competition. It also allows you to respond at the 2-level with more hands which takes some pressure of the 1-level responses.

Anyway, the design objective was to distinguish between balanced and unbalanced hands. Responder can make negative freebids (or transfer freebids), and wjs, on poor 5-card suits, for example. But maybe it's not worth it.

I like your suggestion that 1♠ shows diamonds, btw.

[Kungsgeten]

My first thought was to have some kind of canapé style bidding like MOSCITO, but that may defeat the idea of shape first. There's a Swedish system that I've played against a couple of times (it is banned in most tournaments) called the Säffle Spade. They use unlimited transfer openings like this:

Pass = 8+ hcp and 4+ spades.
1C = 8+ hcp and 4+ hearts.
1D = 0-7 hcp.
1H = 8+ hcp, no 4 card major. Unbalanced or 22+ hcp.
1S = 8-12 NT, no 4 card major.
1NT = 13-18, no 4 card major.
2C = 8-11, 4+C and 5+M.
2D = 8-11, 4+D and 5+M.
2H = 8-11, 4+H and 5+S.
2S = 11-14, 5-5 minors.
2NT = 19-21 NT, no 4 card major.

Another variant of the system is one where 2C and 2D are natural 13-18 without a major, while 2H and 2S are strong 19+ with clubs/diamonds.

I've seen a less artificial version of the system which looked something like:

1C = 4+S, 8+.
1D = 4+H, 8+.
1M = 5+ suit, 12-17 hcp.
1NT = 13-18, no major.
2m = Natural no major, 12-18.
2M = 19+ with clubs/diamonds, no major.
2NT = 19-21.

I can't remember what they did with 22+ balanced though... I thought it was pretty clever to use transfer openings but to exclude some hands from them. So here if opener has 5+M when opening 1C or 1D, he'll have 8-11 or 18+.

I myself toyed a bit with a "two under" transfer system, but its probably not playable:

1C = 4+H, 13+.
1D = 4+S, 13+.
1H = 13+ NT.
1S = 13+ clubs.
1NT = 13+ diamonds.
2X = 8-12.

My main idea over the suit transfers was that step 1 would be very weak or game forcing, while the other responses would be "semi-positive" transfers, about 6-11 hcp.

Over 1H:

1S = Weak or INV+ against 13-15.
..1NT = 13-18
..2C = 19-21
..2DHS = 22-24, Stayman respones.
..2NT = 25+.
1NT = NF against 13-15, INV+ against 16+.
..2C = 16-18.
..2D+ = Stayman responses with 19+.
2X = NF against 13-15, INV+ against 16+.

[helene_t]

 Kungsgeten, on 2020-February-10, 11:09, said:

I myself toyed a bit with a "two under" transfer system, but its probably not playable:

1C = 4+H, 13+.
1D = 4+S, 13+.
1H = 13+ NT.
1S = 13+ clubs.
1NT = 13+ diamonds.
2X = 8-12.

Flip Boer plays something similar with some partners:
1♣=4+hearts
1♦=4+spades
1♥=clubs or 18+ bal
1♠=12-14 bal
Hands with only diamonds (or both minors?) open either 2♣ or 2♦, I don't remember the details.

My problem with these major-first openings is that they contain too many hand types, they must be quite vulnerable to preempts. But I do realize that requiring 1♦ to show 5+ hearts leads to overloads elsewhere.

[KingCovert]

This is a pretty interesting approach. I have some observations, they're not necessarily problems, but, just things that are worthy of discussion.

1) 1♣ showing 12-22 Balanced. The odds of this type of hand are ~16%, this is rather frequent! So that's good. However, pragmatically, more than half of those hands are 12-14. The problem that I see with this is that opponents have significantly more room to establish fit, and significantly less risk of being penalized successfully. The play of the hand is also made incredibly easy once they've stolen your contract, because your balanced shape tells a lot of the story to declarer, but little to your partner. I'm not sure how big an issue this is, but, I'd think on it.

2) Kungsgeten referenced it, and I'm a big fan of Canape. It has many positive attributes, but, the one that I care about in this context is how it shows shape. When two-suited, the first suit bid is the shorter of the two when uneven length. The higher ranking suit when 5-5, and the lower ranking suit when 4-4. The value here is that when you introduce a new suit at the two level, it's at least 5 cards, and you don't have primary fit in the first suit bid, since your partner didn't agree it.

Why is this relevant? Every single one of your opening bids that are unbalanced show the longer suit first. Why is that a problem? Your point range is large and your 2nd suit is unknown. This is a lot of stress. You need to cater to forcing sequences in both hands, as well as the real dangers of trying to find a 4-card suit and being pushed to 2NT or higher when it's not the one responder was hoping for. This can be scary.

3) Technically speaking, a 1363 hand should open 1NT. What does partner do with a void in diamonds? How does partner show a minimum with spades?

I think you might be able to find some joy by encouraging a pass of 1NT with many weaker hands that you're trying to find bids for here. The auction 1NT-P-2C is not going to be passed out by competent opponents, you'd be better served just concealing information. Uncertainty can be your friend here.

[Cascade]

 helene_t, on 2020-February-10, 16:02, said:

Flip Boer plays something similar with some partners:
1♣=4+hearts
1♦=4+spades
1♥=clubs or 18+ bal
1♠=12-14 bal
Hands with only diamonds (or both minors?) open either 2♣ or 2♦, I don't remember the details.

My problem with these major-first openings is that they contain too many hand types, they must be quite vulnerable to preempts. But I do realize that requiring 1♦ to show 5+ hearts leads to overloads elsewhere.

Andy Braithwaite has been playing a similar system for a long time with 1♣ and 1♦ showing hearts and spades and only 4+ and around 8+ hcp and 1♥ and 1♠ for the minors or balanced and more standard opening bid strength.

[Kungsgeten]

Two ideas for the 1♠+ opening bids. Not sure if they add anything to the discussion, but anyway:

1♠ = Minors 12+, including 4441 with short major.
1NT = Clubs, 12-20. 15+ if having a major.
2♣ = Diamonds, 12-20. 15+ if having a major.
2♦ = Multi, including GF with a minor.
2M = 4M and 5+ minor, 10-14.


1♠ = Clubs + major, or 18+ clubs.
1NT = Diamonds + major, or 18+ diamonds.
2m = Natural 12-17 no major.

[nullve]

Italian 2/1, almost:

P: includes 0-13 BAL
1♣/1♦ = "10-21, NAT unBAL"
1M = "10-21, 5+ M, unBAL"
1N = "14-16 BAL"
2♣ = "17-20 BAL"
2♦ = "23+ BAL or any GF"
2M = Weak
2N = "21-22 BAL"
(...)

(1st/2nd seat only)


2♣-?:

P = "(4)5+ C, weak"
2♦ = "4+ H or strong"
2♥ = "4+ S"
2♠ = PUP 2N
2N = NAT INV
(...)

And maybe

2♣-[2M-1]; ?:

2M = "17-18", either 2-3 M or 4M333
...P = "(4)5+ M, weak"
...2♠(M=♥) = relay w/ slam interest, says nothing about H
...(...)
2♠(M=♥) = "17-18", 4-5 H, not 3433
...2N = GF relay, says nothing about H
...(...)
2N = "19-20", 2 M
(...)

?

[helene_t]

 awm, on 2020-February-10, 03:04, said:

I thought the big problems were [...] and separating the balanced ranges after 1c (especially in competition).

An auction that has given us bad results on (at least one) occasion is
1♣-(pass)-1♦-(2♠)
where responder has 9 points and opener 16, and neither partner is comfortable to act. Usually, if we have game values, either partner will have enough to act, but sometimes the partner who has the values (say responder with 11 points or opener with 17) has an uncomfortable hand with xxx in opps' suit.

One thing I thought of was playing these responses:
1NT=8-10 (semi)balanced with 4 hearts
2x=8-10 with 5+ in the suit (alternatively: 8+ points transfer)
Obviously you might want to use those responses for other things but I think these hands are quite frequent and could give headache if you don't show your values before LHO preempts.

With 16+7 points we sometimes sell out when the 15-17 people may compete with a negative double. It is possible that this is a significant loss at matchpoints. I really should have kept records about this. We have now been playing Boring Club for almost 20 years (although the last 10 years not so often) so we should have gained some experience with it, you might think. My impression is that the gains and losses are mostly random swings due to right-and-wrongsiding, plus some gains from the WJS and some losses from silly 1♣ contracts.

Something else: What are your thoughts about the responses to the 1♦/♥ openings? I thought something similar to standard, like (after 1♥):
1♠: 0-8 points
1NT=9-13 NF
2♣=14+ balanced or natural
etc. Or you could play 2/1 GF by stretching the 1NT and/or 1♠ response.

But maybe there's something else that is better? Game forces opposite (8)9+ is infrequent so probably we shouldn't play 2/1 GF.

[straube]

Just my opinion, but hopefully honest feedback is appreciated. I think this is a very bad set of openings. There's no fix to this. Anyone feel differently? Helene, why would you be interested in this over (say) MOSCITO? It has transfer openings, doesn't miss major suit fits, allows responder to pass with bad hands (or agree fit when found), and handles ranges better (due to strong club, etc). I'm not particularly fond of MOSCITO but it has your transfer openings and none of the issues these openings have. Or if not MOSCITO, what are you trying to accomplish? What do you like about this structure vs more standard systems? Maybe someone can give you some ideas. Hope so. Good luck.

[helene_t]

 straube, on 2020-February-11, 15:57, said:

Just my opinion, but hopefully honest feedback is appreciated. I think this is a very bad set of openings. There's no fix to this. Anyone feel differently? Helene, why would you be interested in this over (say) MOSCITO? It has transfer openings, doesn't miss major suit fits, allows responder to pass with bad hands (or agree fit when found), and handles ranges better (due to strong club, etc). I'm not particularly fond of MOSCITO but it has your transfer openings and none of the issues these openings have. Or if not MOSCITO, what are you trying to accomplish? What do you like about this structure vs more standard systems? Maybe someone can give you some ideas. Hope so. Good luck.

Probably, as Adam says, we will miss major suit fits too often after the 1NT opening and (to a lesser extent) the 1♠ opening. There's not really a fix to this, I am afraid, unless we are willing to spend several 2-level openings on it. Maybe AWM's suggestion is a good trade-off, though.

What I try to accomplish is to retain the balanced 1♣ opening (which I like) while getting a better balance between the loads on the other openings. The natural, unbalanced 1♦ opening is underloaded while everything else is overloaded.

So showing the major suits with transfer openings allows us to show major suits with a wider range of hands. Obviously this, in turn, overloads the transfers to the minors.

Probably the 2♣ opening is a bad choice as it patches a relatively small hole. So allowing transfers to majors on 4-card suits would probably be better in uncontested auctions. We could allow some hands with a 4-card major (including the 4441 hands) to start with a transfer to the major, and then patch the rest of the holes with a couple of 2-openings.

I may also be better to treat 4441 as balanced and then use the 2♣ opening for something else. In Boring Club we treat [4414] as balanced, like in Polish club.

Moscito has completely different objectives. I am not sure why Moscito has transfer openings at all. I would much rather play IMPrecision or even Auken/vonArnim club so that responder can pass the major suit openings more easily.

But yeah, at the end of the day, you and Adam are probably right, it is not a very good idea.

[helene_t]

 Kungsgeten, on 2020-February-10, 11:09, said:

I myself toyed a bit with a "two under" transfer system, but its probably not playable:

1C = 4+H, 13+.
1D = 4+S, 13+.
1H = 13+ NT.
1S = 13+ clubs.
1NT = 13+ diamonds.
2X = 8-12.

My main idea over the suit transfers was that step 1 would be very weak or game forcing, while the other responses would be "semi-positive" transfers, about 6-11 hcp.

I think that looks good, why wouldn't it be playable?

You will have some guesswork if they preempt over your 1♣/1♦ openings, but in uncontested auctions I think it would be playable.

[straube]

I don't like this suggestion but if you're trying for 1C balanced how about...

1C-15-21 or so
1D-16+ unbal or 22+ bal
1M-11-15, 5cd
1N-12-14, could be 4441s
2C-natural, 11-15, could have 4M or 4D
2D-natural. 11-15, could gave 4M or 4C
2M-weak

[helene_t]

 straube, on 2020-February-11, 19:58, said:

I don't like this suggestion but if you're trying for 1C balanced how about...

1C-15-21 or so
1D-16+ unbal or 22+ bal
1M-11-15, 5cd
1N-12-14, could be 4441s
2C-natural, 11-15, could have 4M or 4D
2D-natural. 11-15, could gave 4M or 4C
2M-weak

Ha-ha I am not sure if I wouldn't prefer just to play IMPrecision, then.

[straube]

 helene_t, on 2020-February-12, 03:31, said:

Ha-ha I am not sure if I wouldn't prefer just to play IMPrecision, then.

Good decision!

[nullve]

P: normal
1♣ = Boring
1♦ = "10+", either C 1-suiter or C+O 2-suiter
1♥ = "10+", either D 1-suiter or D+M 2-suiter
1♠ = "10+", either H 1-suiter or H+S 2-suiter
1N = "10+", 3-suiter
2♣ = "10+", S 1-suiter
(...)

1♦-?:

Spoiler

1♥ = positive relay
...1♠ = 2 suited, C longer
......1N = relay
.........2♣ = 4(+) D [1-under transfer]
.........2♦ = 4(+) H [1-under transfer]
.........2♥ = 4(+) S [1-under transfer]
......(...)
...1N = 1-suited [1-under transfer]
...2♣ = 5+ D, C not longer [1-under transfer]
...2♦ = 5+ H, C not longer [1-under transfer]
...2♥ = 5+ S, C not longer [1-under transfer]
...(...)
1♠ = semi-positive relay
...1N = 2-suited, C longer
......2♣ = to play unless Opener is very strong
......2♦ = P/C unless Opener is very strong
......(...)
...2♣ = 1-suited
...2♦ = 5+ D, C not longer
...2♥ = 5+ H, C not longer
...2♠ = 5+ S, C not longer
...(...)
(...)

1♥-?:

Spoiler

1♠ = positive relay
...1N = 2 suited, D longer
......2♣ = relay
.........2♦ = 4(+) H [1-under transfer]
.........2♥ = 4(+) S [1-under transfer]
......(...)
...2♣ = 1-suited [1-under transfer]
...2♦ = 5+ H, D not longer [1-under transfer]
...2♥ = 5+ S, D not longer [1-under transfer]
...(...)
1N = semi-positive relay
...2♣ = 2-suited, D longer
......2♦ = to play unless Opener is very strong
......2♥ = P/C unless Opener is very strong
......(...)
...2♦ = 1-suited
...2♥ = 5+ H, D not longer
...2♠ = 5+ S, D not longer
...(...)
(...)

1♠-?:

Spoiler

1N = positive relay
...2♣ = 2 suited, H longer
......2♦ = relay
.........2♥ = 4(+) S [1-under transfer]
......(...)
...2♦ = 1-suited [1-under transfer]
...2♥ = 5+ S, H not longer [1-under transfer]
...(...)
2♣ = semi-positive relay
...2♦ = 2-suited, H longer
......2♥ = to play unless Opener is very strong
......2♠ = to play unless Opener is very strong
......(...)
...2♥ = 1-suited
...2♠ = 5+ S, H not longer
...(...)
(...)

1N-?:

Spoiler

2♣ = positive relay
...2♦ = 4-5 H [1-under transfer]
...2♥ = 0-1 H [1-under transfer]
...(...)
2♦ = semi-positive relay
...2♥ = 4-5 H
......P = allowed
......2♠ = P/C
......(...)
...2♠ = 0-1 H
...(...)
(...)

2♣-?:

Spoiler

2♦= positive relay
...2♥ = 1-suited [1-under transfer]
...(...)
2♥ = semi-positive relay
...2♠ = 1-suited
...(...)
(...)

I'm not sure about the ranges yet, but for now just assume that the positive and semi-positive relays are GF opposite "16" and "19", respectively.

[helene_t]

 Kungsgeten, on 2020-February-11, 09:21, said:

1♠ = Minors 12+, including 4441 with short major.
1NT = Clubs, 12-20. 15+ if having a major.
2♣ = Diamonds, 12-20. 15+ if having a major.
2♦ = Multi, including GF with a minor.
2M = 4M and 5+ minor, 10-14.

Yeah, 2M is a solution to the major hole in the system. Maybe a price worth to pay?

My feeling is that 2♣ is overloaded while 1♠ is overloaded, though. Maybe move some of the diamond hands into 1♠?