[awm]

Thinking about strong club systems, it seems you have only three one-level suit openings to handle four suits. So you either have to open constructive hands with some suit at the two level, or have a one-level opening that is potentially very ambiguous about which suit is held.

In the poll about precision, people seemed to think that having an ambiguous one-level opening is really bad, one of the worst things about the system. And while you can instead choose to open all hands with primary ♣ at the two-level (for example) hands with 4M/5♣ were also one of the worst things about the system.

So is there another approach? Suppose we like our openings to show length in a particular suit. Which suit should get opened at the two-level? My suggestion is that it should be hearts.

Why? Opening at the two-level leaves us less room for investigation. It makes sense that when we open at the two-level, we'd like the suit we show to be the best suit for us to play in. Obviously we can't always be right here, but a hand with 5+ cards in a major very frequently ends up playing in that suit. The same is not true of minors.

Why hearts and not spades? Opening 1♥ has the unfortunate effect of making it relatively easy for opponents to get spades into the auction. And a lot of times opponents can find a good sacrifice in 4♠ over 4♥. So opening hands with hearts at the two-level might prevent opponents from finding some of these spade sacrifices (or might allow us to collect some penalties if they bid their one-level overcalls at the two-level).

Here's a possible opening structure:

1♣ = 15+ artificial
1♦ = 4+♦, unbalanced, 10-14
1♥ = 5+♣, unbalanced, 10-14
1♠ = 5+♠, unbalanced, 10-14
1NT = 11-14 balanced, including hands with 5♥
2♣ = 5+♥ and a 4+ card side suit, 10-14
2♦ = multi, weak two in hearts or bad weak two in spades
2♥ = intermediate, 6+♥ and 10-14
2♠ = sound weak two in spades

Responses to the weirder things:

1♥ showing 5+♣ and:
..... Pass = weak with 5+♥
..... 1♠ = natural 4+♠
............ 1N = 4♥ and longer clubs
............ 2♣ = 6+♣ or a good 5♣ with 4♦, no 4M
............ 2♦ = 4+♦ and 5+♣ with very concentrated values
............ 2♥ = good spade raise
............ 2♠ = natural, could be 3
..... 1N = artificial, showing 4+♥
............ 2♣ = minimum no heart fit
............ 2♦ = good heart raise
............ 2♥ = natural, could be 3
..... 2♣ = NF 2+♣ can be very weak
..... 2♦ = natural forcing one round, 5+♦
..... 2♥/♠ = natural invitational, 6-card suit
..... 2N = invitational or better club raise (3+♣) if GF then semi-balanced
........... 3♣ = minimum
........... Else = shortness
..... 3♣ = preemptive
..... 3X = GF splinter for clubs

2♣ showing 5+♥ and a side suit and:
..... 2♦ = asking, less than 3♥ unless inv+ values
........... 2♥ = 5+♥ and a 4cm, or a very poor 5-5
........... 2♠ = 4♠ and 5+♥
........... 3m = 5/5 or better, reasonable hand
..... 2♥ = signoff, usually 3♥ but can be 2♥ if 0-2♠, less than invite
..... 2♠ = natural, 5+♠ and forcing one round
..... 2NT = limit raise or better with 4+♥
..... 3m = natural and invitational (NF)
..... 3♥ = constructive but less than invitational

[mike777]

Is not meckwell system good enough to win for most of us if we are going to play strong club?

It seems even Hamman 4 card major system is good enough to win based on system?


"It makes sense that when we open at the two-level, we'd like the suit we show to be the best suit for us to play in."

Even in Simple Club 2 level bids are tightly defined.

[rbforster]

Here's another more "normal" approach along the same lines -

1♣ strong 15+ (others are 10-14 typically)
1♦ 5+♣s unbal
1M 5+
1N 11-14 bal
2♣ 5+♦ primary, with 4+M
2♦ 6+ no 4M
2M weak two

This pretty well covers all the unbalanced shapes. 4441's treated as balanced or 2-suited to taste (1♦/1N).

1♦-1♥:
......1♠ 4♠, longer clubs
......1N 6+ clubs, no major
......2♣ minors 5/4+ either longer
......2♦ good ♥ raise
......2♥ bad ♥ raise

1♦-1♠:
......1N 6+ clubs, or x4x5 with short spades
......2♣ both minors either longer
......2♦ good ♠ raise
......2♥ 3415 NF ♠ raise
......2♠ bad ♠ raise

2♣ ♦+M
......2♦ preference
......2M pass/correct
......2N invitational ask
......3♣ GF ask
......3♦ preemptive
......3M GF nat

I suppose you could swap the original 2m bids if you wanted too. Playing 2♣ as long diamonds and 2♦ as diamond+major. I don't have a strong opinion on either.

[awm]

Rob: you misplaced the 4441 patterns.

Also: you retain the weakness of precision being unable to distinguish which minor is longer in a 5/4 minors hand. There is still a problem finding 4-4 fits over 2♣ (what if responder has only one four-card major and less than invitational values) and it's also hard to find 5-3 fits effectively (I'd much rather play the occasional 4-3 with shortness in the 3 hand than miss frequent 5-3 with shortness in the 3 hand).

And you've "burned" both 2m openings to show constructive hands.

[akhare]

Seems very interesting:

I am guessing paradox responses over 2♦, i.e., 2♥ = not forward going in ♥ and 2♠ = not forward going in ♠, but invite+ in ♥s.

[helene_t]

Looks interesting.

[Flame]

always believed that ♥ hands should be opened at the 2 level and all systems i tried to costruct and post were based on bidding the ♥s at the 2 level, im glad more ppl (especially ppl who i believe understand bidding) start working on the same idea
I dont really like bidding this 2♣ with 5♥4♠. i think there could better solution to this maybe
2H=5♥4♠
This will take off the need to bid 2♦ with not strong enough hands trying not to lose a spade game, and then the responses to 2♦ could be
2♥ - 6 ♥s
2♠ - 4♣s
2NT - 4♦s
3♣ - 5♣s
3♦ - 5♦s

[glen]

I liked his 2♣ if the number of ♥s is exactly 5 - responder can pass with ♣s, since not 6+♥s, can ask for ♠s with 2♦, and has the sequence 2♣-2♦;-2♥-2♠ presumably asking for a 4 card minor, 2NT reply shows 0=5=4=4.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I didn't answer your poll, but it seems to me that the worse in Precision is a tossup between the amorphous 1♣ and the nearly as amorphous 1♦. Besides, there is also a useful space principle frequency paradox (which you hinted at, and which affects Standard to a lesser extent). 1♣ is less frequent than 1♦, 1♥ doesn't occur often enough, and 1N is too frequent, which implies that responder has too many hand types to show for a frequent four-point range. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings, but no real distate, for the original 2♣ opening, which Polish Club has kept (in its WJ version). So I think you are right to revamp the 1♥ opening, but replacing hearts with clubs doesn't do the job IMO. I would prefer:

1♣ 15(16)+
1♦ 10-15 unbal with 4+ diamonds
1♥ 11-14(15) bal or (semi?)three-suiter short in diamonds
1♠ 10-14(15)
1N 10-14(15) with 5 hearts and a 4 card minor or 6 hearts
2♣ 11-14(15) with 6 clubs or 5 clubs and a 4 card major
2♦ weak two in hearts (7-11) or weak two-suiter with spades (8-10)
2♥ Flannery
2♠ weak two in spades (6-10)
2N 10-14 with 5 hearts and a 5 card minor or 7 hearts

Over 1♥, it could go
pass to play, either 5 hearts or various very weak hand types
1♠ transfer to notrump, not caring about opener's range for game purposes
1N 0-(bad)11 with 4 spades, retrieving the 4-4 spade fits.
2♣ invitational stayman
2♦ 5 spades
2♥ invitational with 5 hearts
2♠ game forcing with 5 hearts

After 1♥ 1♠ 1N, it could go
2♣ balanced, no slam interest, intending to show exact pattern
2♦ balanced, slam interest, asking about range and shape
2♥+ shortness

After the Majeure d'Abord 1N showing hearts, responder
- could pass with a heart shortness
- could ask about range with 2♣ and stop in 2♥

After the (too wide) 2N opening, 3♣ would be pass or correct and 3♦ a GF relay.

[OleBerg]

mike777, on Sep 27 2008, 04:26 AM, said:

Is not meckwell system good enough to win for most of us if we are going to play strong club?

It seems even Hamman 4 card major system is good enough to win based on system?

If everybody thought like that, we'd all still be playing Culbertson. (Maybe Goren, if you were very advanced.)

[gwnn]

I'd miss the

1♥-2♥-4♥ auctions, since these hands may end up in 2♥+2 or if opener keeps bidding on aggressively, end up too high on misfits.

Also 1♥-p-2♣ sounds a little fuzzy.

Other than these, I think it's a good idea and could definitely beat classical or almost classical Precision. I'd definitely like to try it!

[akhare]

In places that perpetuate spoilsport regulations (aka ACBLland), you can likely adapt this by using 1♥ = 5+♥ and another (you can always claim you are playing reverse canape , i.e., ♥s are at least longer than or equal to the second suit).

Of course, such a scheme still allows the opps a cheap 1♠ bid, such c'est-la-bridge (in ACBL):

1♥: 5+♥ and another
1N: 11-14 with 5♥322 possible
2♣ = Precisionish
2♦ = Weak 2 in a major
2♥: Intermediate with 6+♥

[benlessard]

Quote

2♣ = 5+H and a 4+ card side suit, 10-14

This is worse than the classic 2C precision since its allow them an easy penalty X and a type of multi defense.

Imo the problem with 2C in precision is not the 5C+4M hands its that the responses and follow up after 2C are obsolete. At one point my partner who never played classic precision told me that our 2C opening was a strenght more than a weakness, I dont think i agree but for me opening 2C is a bit like opening a weak or a mini NT you lose some fit and some slams but you bury opponent fits and slams. With a proper responses structures 2C shouldnt be a big weakness of the precision setup.

[awm]

gwnn, on Sep 28 2008, 05:22 AM, said:

I'd miss the

1♥-2♥-4♥ auctions, since these hands may end up in 2♥+2 or if opener keeps bidding on aggressively, end up too high on misfits.

Also 1♥-p-2♣ sounds a little fuzzy.

Other than these, I think it's a good idea and could definitely beat classical or almost classical Precision. I'd definitely like to try it!

The intent is that 2♣ (hearts) - 2♥ basically shows a single raise.

There is one awkward hand type with 2-2 or 1-2 in the majors when you might bid 2♥ without three-card support. But there are a few things to say about this:

(1) It is not that frequent to have game opposite a single raise when you are in the 10-14 hcp range and do not have a 5-5 hand or a 6-card major.

(2) If you do have some nice 5♥-4m or 5♥-5m hand where you feel compelled to make a game try opposite a single raise, and partner has only doubleton heart, then you have a big minor suit fit and can potentially play there (supposing natural game tries).

(3) You potentially lose a bit in competition if the auction goes 2♣-P-2♥-2♠ and you need to decide whether to compete. But if partner has only two hearts, he also has spade shortness. So if opener would bid over 2♠ normally opposite three hearts, probably the opponents have a big spade fit (i.e. opener wouldn't normally bid with 5♥-4♠ or the like) and you're not really over-competing the hand.

While 1♥-P-2♣ is a little fuzzy, it basically just says you have no four-card major and don't have game opposite a normal limited opening, and don't have enough clubs to raise preemptively. This is actually pretty descriptive -- typically it's a balanced hand with 3352 or 3343 or (32)53 or something like this. The point range is sort of wide but since we've denied game interest opposite the opening range should be not big deal.

[suokko]

What if ...
1♣ 16+
1♦ 11-15 is 4 card major and longer minor (possible to add 11-13 NT)
1M 11-15 5+
1NT 12.5-15 (possible to play 14-16)
2m 11-15 5+, 6+m or 5+m4om

after 1♦ if you bid minor you show bid suit and unbid major (even in low level competition your partner knows what you hold)

2m continues can be looked from magic diamond.

But in end it is most important that you and our partner are playing same system and you remember it well.

[rbforster]

awm, on Sep 27 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

Rob: you misplaced the 4441 patterns.

I did allude to using 1♦ as (441)4 and 1N for specifically 4441, so I didn't completely overlook these. Your methods could also use a home for 4414 (1N presumably?).

Quote

And you've "burned" both 2m openings to show constructive hands.

True, but my using 2♣ and 2♦ and your using 2♣ and 2♥ seem about the same on that front .

Quote

Also: you retain the weakness of precision being unable to distinguish which minor is longer in a 5/4 minors hand.

Also true, but that isn't uniquely a precision weakness - in standard most people I know anyway are of the school of opening 1♦ with xx45 shape and insufficient values to reverse, intending to rebid clubs next. In a precision context, this is the same as (my version of) standard since hands strong enough to reverse are usually opening 1♣ anyway.

To the extent there's a loss from the precision 1♦ opener, I think it's that it typically promises only 2+ diamonds and partner can't raise as safely to 2♦ in competition. This is much less of an issue if you promise 4+♦ for your 1♦ (by having only 1 NT range for example). Certainly you can't hope to find all your minor fits prior to opener's rebid unless you're willing to assign openings to each minor separately, as well as one for both!

Quote

There is still a problem finding 4-4 fits over 2♣ (what if responder has only one four-card major and less than invitational values)

True, but whenever responder has diamond tolerance you can still recover these by bidding a NF 2♥ as pass/correct and returning to diamonds if a fit isn't found.

Quote

it's also hard to find 5-3 fits effectively (I'd much rather play the occasional 4-3 with shortness in the 3 hand than miss frequent 5-3 with shortness in the 3 hand).

Maybe I should consider making my ♦+M bid into a 3-suited bid with short clubs instead, promising (43)51 or the like. I'm not sure adding the (41)53's to 1♦ would work out well or if another scheme might be better.

[pclayton]

I think this is innovative. A few comments from an ex-gearhead:

1. Where do you stash 4=4=1=4's?

2. I've believed that the rationale for the lower limit of your 1♣ opener is relevant to your preference for light openings. Are you opening all 15 point hands 1♣? or only the balanced ones?

3. I know you are trying to stuff all of the 'catchall' openings into a 1N opening. A four point 1N opening is very unpalatable, and you might the need for a relay (or artificial 1♥) to sort out some of the higher NT ranges. Maybe this is a casualty of the system.

[rbforster]

In precision, we face the difficulty of having only 3 potentially natural suit-showing bids at the 1 level, having lost 1♣. The big question then is "What suit(s) do we exile to the 2 level?" Traditional precision gives the shaft to clubs.

Adam's proposal swaps clubs and hearts. There are about as many hand types with primary hearts as primary clubs (slightly fewer if you count 5♣332 as balanced but not 5♥332, maybe depends a little on the treatment of 5♥/5♣). While I'm not sure this is the best option (my proposal above basically swaps diamonds and clubs instead), there are some reasons to think moving clubs down to the 1 level and moving something else up to the 2 level might be more effective:

1. Finding major fits - since clubs is a minor, it's likely you'll want more bidding space to look for fits in both majors (this is the main criticism of precision 2♣). In contrast, a major-showing 2 level bid might be less costly since it's more likely you'll want to play in that major (and need less space to explore for the other major fit than for both majors).

2. More safety at the 2 level - suppose you decide to exile one suit to the 2 level. If that suit is clubs, there's only one "safe" bid at or below 2 of your suit. This makes it hard to use additional 2-level openings constructively to help separate different hand types with that suit. In contrast, if you use are trying to show diamonds, both 2♣ and 2♦ are "safely" able to show different hands with diamonds without getting past 2♦. The flip side of this argument is that only clubs were forced to be played at the 2 level, while if you open other suits naturally at the 1 level you can pass those more readily. I think this is less of an issue when we're talking about unbalanced hands since getting passed out at the 1 level is quite rare.

In conclusion, I think it's a good idea to question the original precision 2♣ bid, and we should consider different ideas of maybe showing a different (or several different) suits constructively at the 2 level. This seems like it might fit in well with a light opening style, since whatever two-level openings are chosen, it might be reasonable to extend those to slightly wider-ranging and more preemptive style openings.

[Mbodell]

pclayton, on Sep 29 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

3. I know you are trying to stuff all of the 'catchall' openings into a 1N opening. A four point 1N opening is very unpalatable, and you might the need for a relay (or artificial 1♥) to sort out some of the higher NT ranges. Maybe this is a casualty of the system.

I haven't played 11-14, but I find 12-15 to be a pretty palatable bid when you have good systems. 11-14 has the advantage/disadvantage that you have less system swings for overlapping ranges with the 15-17. But the center of the 11-14 range might be more than one point less than the 12-15 that may make it more difficult to deal with.

But getting to open 1NT and be in a comfortable NT system, and have confidence in penalizing opponents who misstep into the auction, and preempting the 1 level is quite effective IMHO and having a 4 point range means you do this more often.

[jdonn]

It's an interesting idea. I feel however there are a lot of downsides
- I am certain, from experience, that a four point range for 1NT is too wide. I don't expect to convince anyone who believes otherwise, but to me it is simply true. I would expect to do pretty badly when 1NT is opened with 11 and partner has 11 or 12 and makes the wrong decision.
- I don't like being forced by system to open 1NT all the time with a five card major, but only when I think it's best.
- I really dislike the rebids after 1♥ 1♠. Ditto with rebids after 1♥ 1NT. I think your auctions in general after 1♥ need a LOT more work.
- You utilize two 2 level openings to get all unbalanced 10-14 hands with 5+ hearts. I find this pretty wasteful.
- I don't see any place to open with 4414?
- I just see limited benefit. I haven't been saying to myself, gee I wish I could open this 3514 hand on the two level and risk partner not being able to bid spades or find out I have clubs. Or gee I have to open 2♣ with six clubs, maybe we belong in 1NT. This all strikes me as creating an expensive and elaborate Rube Goldberg style machine that might break at any moment to twist off my beer cap, when it never hurt that badly to twist it off myself.