[MickyB]

I've been putting some thought into opening structures along the lines of -

1C = natural/11-13 balanced
1D = natural/17-19 balanced
1NT = 14-16

Probably with all ranges moved up one point in 3rd/4th.

I've played a fair amount with both balanced ranges going through 1C, and thought that obviously superior at the time, but this seems to have some benefits that weren't immediately apparent to me. For example, if partner opens 1D and there is an overcall on your right, it is much easier to act light if partner has denied holding a weak no-trump - which will make life much easier when partner turns out to hold 17-19 balanced.

Any thoughts, or resources to suggest? I am sure there are existing threads on BBF but I couldn't think how to search for them. I know this is the preferred system of Phil King (coach of the pair generally considered to be the best in the UK), if anyone knows how he plays it I'd be delighted to hear. All I can remember is that 1D:2D is forcing but doesn't promise a good hand, on the basis that you can safely play in 3D or game.

Thanks

[rogerclee]

IMO, it seems better to put the strong balanced hands into 1C and then play transfers in response to 1C. 3145 and 1345 minimums can be ugly opposite transfers to hearts or spades respectively, but thats always been a problem, and a possible bandaid might be to just open 1D on 3145/1345 minimums. I think it would be good to play that breaking the transfer to 1N shows 17-19 balanced.

Also with regard to inverted minors, I would definitely want to play a method that allows me to stop in 2N opposite a 1D opener (or whichever one can be weak and balanced). After 1C-2C I would play 2D shows 4+D and responder can keep bidding the cheapest step to ask, which actually seems to be able to time out pretty well unless I'm missing something.

[shevek]

This is a good method & as is played just as you present by a number of strong Australian pairs.

[MickyB]

rogerclee, on Dec 26 2009, 06:17 AM, said:

IMO, it seems better to put the strong balanced hands into 1C and then play transfers in response to 1C. 3145 and 1345 minimums can be ugly opposite transfers to hearts or spades respectively, but thats always been a problem, and a possible bandaid might be to just open 1D on 3145/1345 minimums. I think it would be good to play that breaking the transfer to 1N shows 17-19 balanced.

Also with regard to inverted minors, I would definitely want to play a method that allows me to stop in 2N opposite a 1D opener (or whichever one can be weak and balanced). After 1C-2C I would play 2D shows 4+D and responder can keep bidding the cheapest step to ask, which actually seems to be able to time out pretty well unless I'm missing something.

Are you meaning that both balanced ranges go through 1C? Or that there is some reason that you think it would be better to have 11-13 go through 1D and 17-19 through 1C? I was intending to use transfers, but I was going to wait for initial thoughts before launching into my own ideas.

And yes, I was only suggesting that the Inv Minor should be forcing to 3m/game for the minor that is natural/17-19 balanced.

[rogerclee]

MickyB, on Dec 26 2009, 05:08 AM, said:

Are you meaning that both balanced ranges go through 1C? Or that there is some reason that you think it would be better to have 11-13 go through 1D and 17-19 through 1C? I was intending to use transfers, but I was going to wait for initial thoughts before launching into my own ideas.

And yes, I was only suggesting that the Inv Minor should be forcing to 3m/game for the minor that is natural/17-19 balanced.

I meant that 1C should be clubs or 17-19 bal and 1D should be diamonds or 11-13 bal, rather than the other way around. The main reasons for this are your transfers in response to 1C as well as the extra step you have over inverted minor auctions.

I'm not sure about the impact on 1D-2C auctions that playing this will have, and in general if it has any effect on how you should play 1C-2D, etc.

Of course you could play that you open 1C with all balanced hands, but then you wouldn't be doing anything weird.

[MickyB]

Ok, well...

I am going to try this with transfers over 1C and the majors swapped over 1D. Completing the transfer at the one-level shows the suit partner just bid - e.g. 1C:1D, 1H = unbalanced with C+D.

- Over 1C, this greatly reduces the frequency/potential issues with having to rebid 5-card minors/off-shape no-trumps
- Over 1D, you save a step with 5-5, finding a 5-4 fit in either major without using Responder's (Reverse) Flannery, although there seems some logic in now playing 1D:2H as 5-6H4S
- Rates to be good for right-siding overall

Wondering if it would be better to have the responses to 1C as 1D = S, 1H = natural, 1S = D. Rebidding 1S would show clubs and diamonds and again we could use Responder's Flannery As well as finding nearly all fits when opener is unbalanced, this would also solve 5H4S weak opposite a weak NT rebid without sticking it through the checkback structure. The 1C:1D, 1H auction would be nice too - it could be passed on occasion, a 1S rebid could be natural and weak, and a 2S rebid natural and constructive.

I guess this doesn't have *that* much relevance to the initial opening structure - just that, if you only have one balanced range to show, you are more likely to appreciate the transfer completions, rather than playing complete = 11-13, 1NT = 17-19.

I have more thoughts on taking this further, but they are perhaps a little "out there". Yes, that's right, I consider what I have written so far to be "in there"

[Mud Reelo]

Hi

I've played exactly those openings for a couple of years. I find it's working rather fine. I have toyed with the thought of swapping so 1C contains 17-19 without doing something about it. The transfers after 1C is one reason, another is that you have a much greater chance of right-siding 3N after a 1C opening than after a 1D opening. 1D-1N-3N is an ugly sequence.

After the transfer, we have two ways of showing 11-13 balanced: Completing the transfer denies 4c support, while 1N shows 4c support.

I play inverted minors as GF, even after 1C.

I like the idea of swapping the majors over 1D. Only trying it out will tell whether it gets too messy when opener has diamonds with a spade side suit.

Cheers,
Mud

[gwnn]

please tell us how well inverted majors worked out over 1♦. I always wanted to add one more crazy gadget to my repertoire.

[MickyB]

gwnn, on Dec 29 2009, 03:01 AM, said:

please tell us how well inverted majors worked out over 1♦. I always wanted to add one more crazy gadget to my repertoire.

Sadly I seemed to pick up diamonds+spades more often than diamonds and hearts

Advantages of major inversion -
5-5 majors misses neither fit without using responder's (reverse) flannery
Right-siding
If you decide to use Responder's Normal Flannery, you also solve the issue of 5H4S opposite a no-trump rebid that could contain four spades.

Disadvantages -
You can't really pass after 1D:1H, 1S
You can't pass after P:1D, 1M. This will be more important if you are opening 1D on weak no-trumps.

Suspect it is best to play them only by an unpassed hand.

[MickyB]

MickyB, on Dec 27 2009, 03:26 AM, said:

I have more thoughts on taking this further, but they are perhaps a little "out there". Yes, that's right, I consider what I have written so far to be "in there"

Today, I'll be playing

1C = Natural/17-19 balanced
1D = 11-13 balanced/14+natural
1M = 4M5D or 4-4-4-1 11-13, or 5+cards
1NT = 14-16
2C = Strong
2D = 9-13, 6 cards or 5♦4♣

All point ranges up one in 3rd/4th

Basically this is to make non-forcing free bids work opposite the 11-13 balanced type. Transfers over 1C as before, but not over 1D as I don't want to have to change it by a passed hand. 2254 would be treated as balanced rather than opening 2D unless the diamonds are strong.

1M:3D shows a 3-card limit raise. The 4M5D 11-13 is to pass this

[whereagles]

That's a very normal structure. It allows you to support diamonds with 3 cards for if pard hasn't got 5 diamonds, he's got 17-19.

And if you swap to
1NT = 11-13
1♣ = 14-16
1♦ = 17-19

you could also support clubs with 3 (and a bit more cards) for the same reason.

[FrancesHinden]

I've scored up with something similar quite a lot, and to be honest it seems to generate more bad results than good ones. I've not gone into the problems at great length, but making both minor suit openings potentially dodgy seems to generate significant problems in competition.

Possibly the problems also came because they hadn't worked out how to deal with uncontested auctions properly when opener may have length in the minor not opened.