[Rebound]

I'm sure this is not a new idea, but I am just curious about what you folks think about it. Let's say I've decided to treat club opening bids as a sort of extra notrump call.

E.g.
1 ♣ = 10-12 balanced
1NT = 13-15 "
2♣ = 16-18 "
2NT = 19-21
3NT = 22- whatever, balanced

Now, with all the balanced hands covered at the get-go so to speak, is there a viable structure for the rest? A strong 1♦ perhaps? I was also wondering whether it was possible to lower the ranges by a point or 2 each (that's where the "is this legal" part comes from.

In other words, is this even worth while bothering with? I understand the polish club is a 2-way balanced 12-14 or strong (16+ I think) so it sounds similar but that is all I know of the system. Anyway, your thoughts are welcome.

[luke warm]

i don't see the point... the 1nt or 2nt rebid can handle most of what you show... i also lean more to 1C showing a hand with clubs or a stronger (15+) hand

using 1nt as 12-14:
1C / any / 1NT shows 15-17
1C/ any / 2NT shows 18-19
2NT opening shows 21-22
2C opening shows 23+

i kinda like rosenkrantz' "rule" that 20 point hands don't exist.. either downgrade to 19 or upgrade to 21

using your 13-15 nt range, 1C can show 11+ with clubs or 16+ unbalanced... 1C/any/1NT can be 16-17 balanced, 1C/any/2NT can be 18-19 balanced, etc

[Free]

Personally, I'm not fond of sacrificing natural bids for NT ranges. As Misho told me once (and I think he has a point there) bidding 1NT (or higher) is a poor method to show your hand. Why? He told me: "You can see on the many response-schemes and overcall-methods that it's poor. To compare it with another poor opening bid: the strong 1♣ with all it's response structures and overcall-methods."

However, if you want to try it, I'll give my analyse on the subject:

- I would switch the NT ranges from 1NT and 1♣ opening. This way you use 1NT as preemptive weapon (ask Luke Warm, he loves it)
- 2NT is playable, no doubt
- is 2♣ only 16-18 or does it have some other meanings as well? And what would your response structure be? This is quite important!
- 3NT is awful imo. Many people will open these hands with 2NT (or get there through some other bidding), and they can find 5-3 or 4-4 fits in Major suits before going past 3NT. This is quite impossible after a 3NT range

So I wouldn't try to build a system around this structure at the moment, but improve this structure first.

[Free]

I forgot about the legality.

This depends on the region where you live. Here in Belgium it would certainly be allowed as cathegory "red" (allowed at most tourneys and competition), but I don't know if it's allowed in ACBL land or so...

[Rebound]

Thanks for the input. It was just a thought really.

Since it seems I may have your attention, Free, may I ask, regarding your own topic about designing a precision system: what are your thoughts about the apparent slide in the minimum value for a 1 club opening which went from 17 (Shenken) to 16 (Blue, Wei et al), and now with your proposed system, 15+?

How much lower do you think it will/can go? (No sarcasm intended.)

[Free]

If you want you can go as low as 12-13 HCP if you want. Theoreticly it would give opps some opportunity to still play a game (where the possibility is quite low with higher requirements) so they won't intervene destructive like now, but you'll still have the problems with other kinds of intervention. Playing 12+ for example, opps will just intervene with decent overcalls, so you'll still have the same problems imo. And how many negatives will you need then? 3? 4? More? The lower the range, the more difficult it becomes.

From my experience with MOSCITO, I know a strong ♣ with 15+HCP is quite playable. The advantages of the limited openings would be optimal when playing around 8-12, so a 1♣ of 13+ would be required. But then a new problem even arises: some countries (like mine) use the "rule of 18" as minimum requirements for a 1-level opener. It's best to play a system which is allowed at most tourneys in your region, so sometimes you'll just have to play an inferior system than the theory would provide us...

If strong pass would be allowed, I'd really play that I think, since strong ♣ is just an
alternative after strong pass was banned... Stupid regulations - GRRR