[mikestar13]

The opening bids:

1♣=17+, art. and forcing
1♦ 11-16, natural with no 4-card major OR balanced 15-17 (may have 5-card major)
1♥/1[♠=11-16, 4 or more cards, unbalanced. Open longer major, open 1♥ with 4-4, open 1♠ with 5-5 or 6-6. Only open 1♥ with 4-5 majors if reversing values are held, otherwise Flannery (see below)
1NT=12-14 balanced (may have 5-card major)
2♣=11-16, 6 or more clubs
2♦=11-16, exactly 4-5 in majors, denies reversing values or a 3-suiter.
2NT=21-22, balanced (may have 5-card major)
Other openings to taste...

in 1♣ sequences, we use a major first structure in responses and rebids at the one level.

Comments?

[straube]

1. I think 16 works better than 17.
2. The 1D seems under-utilized. When you open 1D you will be well-positioned (excepting opening with a 5cd major), but at what cost? Do a frequency plot for your openings and hopefully it will illustrate my concern.
3. Where are you putting your 12-14 with 5M332? I'd rather not conceal a 5M in a 12-14 NT.
4. Why do you need 2D for Flannery? Does your 1S response to 1H promise 5 spades? But you need responder to be able to show 4 spades opposite 4/4 majors.
5. Opening 2N with big balanced as some merit for Precision-style 1C structures, but it is a slam killer and is nice to avoid if possible.
6. Think strong NTs better than weak, but obviously there's a difference of opinion out there on that.
7. Your 1M openings are overloaded but that's typical for 4-cd canape-style systems. You're opening too high (like your 12-14 NT) and gambling that this preemption hurts you less than the opponents.
I think this is a bad gamble but others will disagree.

[mikestar13]

The lower limit for 1♣ could be 16 without adverse effects. 12-14 balanced w/ 5cM is opened 1NT. Flannery is needed because a 4-5 hand lacking reversing values has no rebid over 1NT. I don't agree with you about preemption, but think your opinion is perfectly reasonable. What I like about the majors first approach is the fast finding of major fits and the highly natural way the bidding evolves--the 1♦ opening with strong balanced is the only time you have to bid a less than 4-card suit.

[wank]

mikestar13, on 2010-October-29, 15:27, said:

Flannery is needed because a 4-5 hand lacking reversing values has no rebid over 1NT.

don't make a rebid

[dake50]

Clearly no pressure on opponents shown. Was that your intent?
EG. no light openers, no mini-NT, no 2-bids to obstruct.
Responses then, I assume are dedicated also to pure constructive bidding.

Not my cup of tea. Let's see you develop this.

[mikestar13]

dake50, on 2010-October-29, 18:04, said:

Clearly no pressure on opponents shown. Was that your intent?
EG. no light openers, no mini-NT, no 2-bids to obstruct.
Responses then, I assume are dedicated also to pure constructive bidding.

Not my cup of tea. Let's see you develop this.

The pressure comes in the responses, for example weak jump shifts and 1M-3M preemptive. Weak twos in the majors are used and may be played to taste--
if ♠KQxxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xx is a weak two in your partnership, have at it.

[mtvesuvius]

mikestar13, on 2010-October-29, 18:20, said:

The pressure comes in the responses, for example weak jump shifts and 1M-3M preemptive. Weak twos in the majors are used and may be played to taste--
if ♠KQxxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xx is a weak two in your partnership, have at it.

That's called 2/1.

[mikestar13]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-October-29, 18:24, said:

That's called 2/1.

You are kidding, right?

[mtvesuvius]

mikestar13, on 2010-October-29, 19:45, said:

You are kidding, right?

Nope. Every single thing you mentioned in the previous post can be played and is usually played in a 2/1 context.

Not a single thing that you mentioned requires playing a system with 4 card majors and ambigous diamond. If I am playing a system because oooooh, I can play weak jump raises... There is something seriously wrong.

Guess what? I can open a weak two bid in 2/1 as well.

[straube]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-October-29, 19:51, said:

Nope. Every single thing you mentioned in the previous post can be played and is usually played in a 2/1 context.

Not a single thing that you mentioned requires playing a system with 4 card majors and ambigous diamond. If I am playing a system because oooooh, I can play weak jump raises... There is something seriously wrong.

Guess what? I can open a weak two bid in 2/1 as well.

There was the criticism that this system didn't apply pressure to the opponents and mikestar13 gave an example of 1M-3M as where pressure is applied.

I think he's right about that. Four-cd majors are more preemptive than 5-cd majors and opening an 11 ct with a 4-cd major is more preemptive than say a 12 ct with a 5-cd major. In addition to 1M-3M, there is the more common 1M-2M. Other pairs playing 2/1 will start off with 1m and lose a tempo before they can discover a 4-4 major suit fit. Not only that, but I imagine that sometimes Mike's partner is raising with 3-cd support and the opponents have to decide whether or not to balance against a potential Moysian fit.

[mtvesuvius]

straube, on 2010-October-29, 20:41, said:

There was the criticism that this system didn't apply pressure to the opponents and mikestar13 gave an example of 1M-3M as where pressure is applied.

I think he's right. Four-cd majors are more preemptive than 5-cd majors and opening an 11 ct with a 4-cd major is more preemptive than say a 12 ct with a 5-cd major. In addition to 1M-3M, there is the more common 1M-2M. Other pairs playing 2/1 will start off with 1m and lose a tempo before they can discover a 4-4 major suit fit. Not only that, but I imagine that sometimes Mike's partner is raising with 3-cd support and the opponents have to decide whether or not to balance against a potential Moysian fit.

True, 2/1 players may lose some tempo in these auctions, however I think that designing a system based on principles that usually apply to 2/1 is not good.

[olien]

Agree with Adam

It is just 2/1. All you need to do to 2/1 to get to a "identical" system is to play a system similar to one I played against not that long ago:

1m 3+m, no 4M unless reversing values or 18-19 BAL
1M 4+M, may have longer minor if less than reversing values
1N 15-17

The rest of the system can be whatever you want. But you can play 1M-3M as preemptive, and weak 2's

[foobar]

mikestar13, on 2010-October-29, 15:27, said:

The lower limit for 1♣ could be 16 without adverse effects. 12-14 balanced w/ 5cM is opened 1NT. Flannery is needed because a 4-5 hand lacking reversing values has no rebid over 1NT. I don't agree with you about preemption, but think your opinion is perfectly reasonable. What I like about the majors first approach is the fast finding of major fits and the highly natural way the bidding evolves--the 1♦ opening with strong balanced is the only time you have to bid a less than 4-card suit.

Are reverses really relevant in the context of a strong ♣ system? Assuming your 1♣ is 16+, does the ability to differentiate between 14/15 and say 11-13 really matter?

Also, opener can always P the the 1♥ - 1N response with a non-maximum hand and that shape. Hopefully, the 1N response is semi-forcing...

[mikestar13]

foobar, on 2010-October-29, 21:36, said:

Are reverses really relevant in the context of a strong ♣ system? Assuming your 1♣ is 16+, does the ability to differentiate between 14/15 and say 11-13 really matter?

Also, opener can always P the the 1♥ - 1N response with a non-maximum hand and that shape. Hopefully, the 1N response is semi-forcing...

Correct. If opener is willing to pass a shape like 4-5-1-3, he can pass 1NT. Then you can drop Flannery and use 2♦ for whatever preempt you like. The fundamental idea of the system is major first, strong club. (No, I won't call it MOSCITO, the name is already taken.) And you can use the exact same preemptive bids as in 2/1--but this system is fundamentally different than 2/1.

[straube]

Reverses are very important though for a strong club canape system.

For example, Blue Team used....

1S-1N, 2H as a weak 5S/4H hand while

1H-1N, 2S showed a strong 5S/4H hand.

They used this sort of thing over and over. They even made canapes into the 3-level with mere 5/4 patterns to show maximal values.

They also used 2M openings to show 5M/4m.

Mike's structure is fundamentally flawed in that it has no way to distinguish such patterns as 5M/4m from 4M/5m, let alone differentiate the strength of the hand.

It assigns 2C as 6 clubs (which is usually something that only a 5-cd major system can afford). It unnecessarily uses 2D as Flannery and it assigns 2M as weak twos...which is needed for opening hands.

I haven't studied many canape systems (and I don't care for them), but the Blue Team book was a good read.

[mgoetze]

straube, on 2010-October-29, 20:41, said:

There was the criticism that this system didn't apply pressure to the opponents and mikestar13 gave an example of 1M-3M as where pressure is applied.

I think he's right about that. Four-cd majors are more preemptive than 5-cd majors and opening an 11 ct with a 4-cd major is more preemptive than say a 12 ct with a 5-cd major.

However, when you open 1M on four+ cards, raising to 3M with a 4-card fit is quite a bit more dangerous for your own side.

[straube]

mgoetze, on 2010-October-30, 09:26, said:

However, when you open 1M on four+ cards, raising to 3M with a 4-card fit is quite a bit more dangerous for your own side.

Which is why responder would raise preemptively with 5-cd support.

[foobar]

It might be interesting to look at another strong ♣ system with canape that doesn't use an ambiguous ♦:

http://bridgewithdan...stems/Ultra.pdf

Apparently, there's an update coming up soon -- Keylime can chime in if he's around..

[mgoetze]

straube, on 2010-October-30, 10:14, said:

Which is why responder would raise preemptively with 5-cd support.

Good, so, now you can preemptively raise to the 3-level on a lower percentage of the hands where you have a 9+ card fit (because a significant amount of your 1M openings will contain a 5+ major even if they promise only 4), and you're calling this an advantage??

[straube]

mgoetze, on 2010-October-30, 12:46, said:

Good, so, now you can preemptively raise to the 3-level on a lower percentage of the hands where you have a 9+ card fit (because a significant amount of your 1M openings will contain a 5+ major even if they promise only 4), and you're calling this an advantage??

I've been pretty critical all along of this system. I recognize, however, that there are tradeoffs here and that there are many instances where a canape system will win. If they get to 3M slower when opener has 5 and responder has 4, they get there faster when opener has 4 and responder has 5. They get to 2M faster when opener has 4 and responder has 4 (or even 3). Lots of wins and losses.

Generally speaking, canape systems are more aggressive and preemptive than 5-cd major systems. Preemption is a 2-edged sword that works against the opening side as well as the defending side. I've read strong opinions by such as Hamman or Wolff who think that 5-cd majors are not a natural fit with strong club systems, but someone like Rodwell would probably say that 5-cd majors are best.