[kenrexford]

Interesting.

The write-ups I see through google all talk of a multi 2♦, but I have seen some cryptic reference to an "alternative" 2-level opening structure, without specifics.

[glen]

Pioneer (undated notes), thumbnail summary:

2♣:
a) 21+ balanced at most 3♠s
b ) GF, unbalanced, at most 3♠s
--2♦: 4+♥s
----2♥: 21-23/24 balanced
----2♠: both minors, 5-4/4-5 (notes dont say 5-5 but only place for it)
----2NT: GF balanced
----3♣/♦: six card suit
----Rest: support
--2♥: 0-3 no 4cM OR GF 5+♠s no side suit * OR GF 4-1-4-4
----2♠: 21-23/24 balanced
----2NT: GF balanced or 5-4 hand
--2♠: GF, at most 3♥s, at most 4♠s
--2NT: GF, 5+♠s, 4+♥s
--3♣/♦: GF 5+♠s and 4+ in m
--3♥: GF 3-2-4-4 6-8 or 11+
--3♠: GF 2-3-4-4 6-8 or 11+

* I believe 5+♠s without 5+♥s weak (less than GF) has to respond 2♥ regardless of side suit or not - notes do not provide a place for this

2♦:
a) 11-13 5+♠s, 4♥s
b ) 21+, balanced, 4-5♠s
c) GF, unbalanced, 4+♠s
--2♥/2♠: preference
---- Bidding now shows the big hand types
--2NT+: GI or GF opposite the a) hand type

You would need the full notes to play it as is

[kenrexford]

Wow.

I feel rather weird knowing that I stumbled into the same concept. Thanks for the input.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 28 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

Wow.

I feel rather weird knowing that I stumbled into the same concept.  Thanks for the input.

There is little new under the sun. Heck, back in my university days, when we were playing a form of Schenken, I 'invented' the splinter bid! Then one of us bought a real bridge book and discovered that someone else had thought of it a few years (decades) earlier

But don't feel bad: Leibnitz and Newton, Darwin and Wallace...... you are in good company

[kenrexford]

I just found a swedish-language write-up of a lot of this stuff, and I was truly amazed.

I decided that 2♦ should show an unbalanced hand with 4+ spades. Same with the Swedish system.

I decided that specifically 4-1-4-4 was a problem hand, and to rebid 3NT with that hand. Same problem for the Swedes; same solution.

I had 2♦-P-3♥ show a weak hand with 4+ spades. Same solution for the Swedes.

I had 2♦-2♠ as a heart positive; they went with 2NT to make 2♠ a bust without spades (I had considered that idea but did not develop it enough).

I had 2♥ waiting, same for the Swedes (expected).

I had 2♦...2NT show hearts -- same for the Swedes.

I had 3minor as a canape -- same.

I had not caught the idea of 3M as 5-5 minor-spades, because I did not think to put ALL heart hands into 2NT.

As to the 2♣ version that they have. Their version seems a bit complicated, when it seems a lot easier, but they want to handle heart strains in a parallel manner (3-minor is canape; 3M is 5-5). I'm a bit lost in the 2♥ and 2♠ rebids right now, but I am fascinated by the similarities in approach.

I suppose that I feel particularly good to have come up with something over the last two weeks of thinking that is nearly identical to that by Bennet-Wirgren after years of thinking about it. On the other hand, this idea does not seem to have caught on globally. Might be xenophobia here in the USA, to a degree.

[dake50]

I too have pondered another partition of hands than Precision by 16+hcp.
Try 1C force with 4+S; 1D not 4cS unless in the NT ladder for 1D. Essentially 1C has 18+bal or S-force. 1D has 15-17 bal or H-/D-/C-/H+D/H+C/D+C force.

My intent is to have a minimum to unscramble after 1m (3-suit) ?? Thus little to gain by opponent's barrage. Surely, SOME other partitions of hand categories need to be considered.

Have you considered paradox responses(C. Ryall) ??

[ASkolnick]

For precision, to take care of the 4 card major suit issue, we use a canape style, so 1C-1D-1M promises only 4 of a major and you may have a longer minor. We have follow ups as well, so by the two level we will know if we have a major suit fit.

As for shapely hands, a system I am coming up with uses the following:

1C - Intermediate two suiters. 15-20 HCP
1D - 17+ HCP. One bid type hands (1 suit or 2NT)or REALLY strong 2 suiters)

My biggest problem is that 2C takes up too much room to find a fit, and 2D takes up even more room. I also feel that a 2D bid as weak, makes competing more difficult especially if 4th hand had all the values 2D-P-3D, now first bid is on the three level.