[rogerclee]

karlis_ooo, on Oct 16 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

I KNOW THAT MY SYSTEM IS BEST EVER MADE SYSTEMY FOR Non-Vulnerable...

I will reveal only 2 bids, because i doun't want my system being known and copied.

Welcome to the forums. You're going to fit right in.

[effervesce]

karlis_ooo, on Oct 16 2008, 10:07 AM, said:

I KNOW THAT MY SYSTEM IS  BEST EVER MADE SYSTEMY FOR Non-Vulnerable...

I will reveal only 2 bids, because i doun't want my system being known and copied.

But i can give you the idea...

1N  8-11
>>>have you played it? ...no?      I lalready hear someone shouting something like ..... yes, probably it works....,but other openings are overcrowded and these hands will be really tough to bid...

But here is what i say >>>         Ha, ha, ha... that's way i doun't disclose other bids and psychology of them, let alone further bidding...

THE other bid is  aspkoalksmns
read 3,6,9,12 letter...
Hardly someone expected it, because there is nothing new regarding to meaning - it is still the weakest bid...
But, it is limited... i guess you understand that 3rd,4th position i doun't use same openings..

It is not HUM. blue or red? i am not sure.

Vulnerable? In vul simply doesn't exsist so perfect openings... but, VUL VUL in my system you still open 8-11 bal, but with other bid and not all 8-11

Perhaps I can reveal a few more bids of your perfect system.

Opening bid of 7NT: Any hand which is likely to win all the tricks no matter what lead.

Opening bid of 7♠: Any hand likely to win all tricks with spades as trumps, excluding hands qualifying for an opening bid of 7NT.

(Wash rinse repeat all the way down to 7♣)

[NickRW]

karlis_ooo, on Oct 16 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Play Meckwell

I see you must have edited your original post! They're rough old devils around here and not given to anything which "rocks their boat".

Having said that, this is a discussion forum - if you want to discuss your system that's fine - if, as you apparently don't, then, well, you just got an unsurprising welcome

Nick

[Free]

karlis_ooo, on Oct 16 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

If you guys doun't have anything to write... doun't write anything! I think the topic was related to systems, but you doun't examine the idea, but disgrace my post and me...
I just wonder for what. For large letters?  You doun't like the idea?

Remember this>
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."  -- Eleanor Roosevelt

Making a post was mistake, because of above mentioned reasons. I made it much shorter, hope you are happy now and can stop making posts related to my post.

Same counts for you my friend. It's you who doesn't have anything to write... You're just claiming you have the best system, but you don't dare to throw it in the middle for some good old analyse by experts. And afterwards you even crawl back and remove your greatest post ever.

Looking at your quote, I'd say with this post I have a small mind. However, you don't discuss ANYTHING, so I guess you don't even have a mind...

Come on, be serious. If you want to brag about something, at least do it right

[jdonn]

karlis_ooo, on Oct 16 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

If you guys doun't have anything to write... doun't write anything! I think the topic was related to systems, but you doun't examine the idea, but disgrace my post and me...
I just wonder for what. For large letters? You doun't like the idea?

Remember this>
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." -- Eleanor Roosevelt

Making a post was mistake, because of above mentioned reasons. I made it much shorter, hope you are happy now and can stop making posts related to my post.

I HAVE THE GREATEST SYSTEM EVER BUT I REFUSE TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT HA HA HA HA.

YOU ARE ALL SMALL MINDED BECAUSE YOU DONT DISCUSS THE IDEAS THAT I REFUSED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE!! ALL YOU DO IS DISCUSS PEOPLE LIKE HOW I DISCUSS ALL OF YOU RIGHT NOW!

Boo hoo?

[Tcyk]

I heard, many years ago, that some Australians played transfers over Precision 2C but the transfer could be refused with less than 3 cards in the suit. Thus 2C-2D, 2S would show 4 spades and deny 3 hearts. I never found a write-up about this method but tried it a little with mixed results. If partner had a weak hand, he could sometimes get out in a 5-3 or 5-4 or even a 4-3 major fit and with a better hand he could make a second forcing bid. Currently, my preference is not to open 2C with only 5 cards in the suit. (4-3)=1=5 hands are handled by 2D and I pass with (4-2)=2=5 and 11 (or sometimes 12) points.
I open (4-1)=3=5 hands 1D which shows an unbalanced hand.

[PrecisionL]

Tcyk, on Oct 27 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

I heard, many years ago, that some Australians played transfers over Precision 2C but the transfer could be refused with less than 3 cards in the suit. unbalanced hand.

I currently use tranfer responses over a Precision 2♣ opening (denies a 4-cd major):

Accept with xxx or Hx, sometimes with xx if min and unbalanced. Some authorities don't allow the transfer (ACBL). Works reasonably well.

[Tcyk]

PrecisionL, on Oct 27 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

Tcyk, on Oct 27 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

I heard, many years ago, that some Australians played transfers over Precision 2C but the transfer could be refused with less than 3 cards in the suit. unbalanced hand.

I currently use tranfer responses over a Precision 2♣ opening (denies a 4-cd major):

Accept with xxx or Hx, sometimes with xx if min and unbalanced. Some authorities don't allow the transfer (ACBL). Works reasonably well.

Thanks. You reminded me that my original discussion about playing transfers over 2C was when I was playing Match Point Precision (no 4-card major).

[rbforster]

PrecisionL, on Oct 27 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

I currently use tranfer responses over a Precision 2♣ opening...

Some authorities don't allow the transfer (ACBL).

Under the GCC, you can play any conventional responses you want to a two level opening (like Precision 2♣), as long as the opening is not "weak". For "weak two bids" (which aren't defined, but I don't think anyone contends that the Precision 10-15 clubs opening is weak), you can still use any conventions as long as you 1) promise 5+ cards in the suit, and 2) your range is 7 pts or narrower.

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Sep 26 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

Thinking about strong club systems, it seems you have only three one-level suit openings to handle four suits.

Sorry for the mild snark, but you have four one-level suit openings to handle four suits.

Always wanted to play in a country that would allow a 1NT opening to be balanced or clubs, 11-15 hcp. IIRC, there's a Stayman variant that allows responder to show a 4 card major with 5+ clubs, a 4 card major without 5+ clubs (all without going over 2 of the major), no 4 card major, balanced, and no 4 major, and 5+ clubs (all without going over 2NT). You Garbage Stayman and some rightsiding, but that matters less for a weak NT.

[PrecisionL]

Rob F, on Nov 10 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

PrecisionL, on Oct 27 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

I currently use tranfer responses over a Precision 2♣ opening...

Some authorities don't allow the transfer (ACBL).

Under the GCC, you can play any conventional responses you want to a two level opening (like Precision 2♣), as long as the opening is not "weak".

As discussed in previous posts, I have an e-mail from ACBL stating that transfer responses to a Precision 2♣ opening is not GCC.

Perhaps if I ask again, I might get a different ruling?

Larry

[glen]

When asking a question of the ACBL, first frame the question with a quote from the GCC etc., and then ask it, such as:

Letter to ACBL said:

The GCC says: "7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher."

Thus, according to the GCC, we can play transfers over our 2♣ 11-15 natural opening.  Is that correct, or if not, why not?

[helene_t]

Csaba and I played the system in Brasov.

We were both quite happy with it. Not that we had any system gains that I noticed (other than once when opps screwed up after Csaba raised my 1♥ opening to 3♣ which he wouldn't have found in most other systems) but not system losses either I think.

[gwnn]

One thing that I didn't expect to be a problem but does in fact cause some headaches:

1♣-1♦, 1NT is 15-17
so
1♣-1♦, 1♥ must show some balanced 18 counts.
so you'll 2nd negative on almost all 5 counts and indeed some 6 counts.

That makes that range quite big... The natural 1♣-1♦, 1♥-1♠, 1NT range is 19-21 but it just can't seem to be doable here.