[Kungsgeten]

I recently looked into Rexford's MICS system. I haven't read the whole thing, just skimmed it. I like the ideas of canapé bidding, but some parts of the system seems wierd (to me), especially the 1D opening.

My take would be something along this line:

1C - 16+
1D - a) 4+ diamonds, 5+ major b) 5+ diamonds, 4 clubs c) 6 diamonds single suiter d) marmic with 4 diamonds
1M - 4 (and thus canapé) or 6M
1N - 12-15 bal, including 4414
2C - 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4 diamonds, no major
2D - Multi?
2M - 5M and 4C (opening values)
2N - Minors?

The downside seems to be the marmics. Another thing might be 5332-hands with a 5 card major.

Since I'm not very fond of the 12-15 NT range, I thought of converting it to Swedish Club instead. Same structure except:

1C - 17+ or 11-13 bal (inclusive all marmics)
1D - If marmic then 14-16
1N - 14-16

[gwnn]

11-13 bal (include all marmics)?? the point of swedish club is that opener as a balanced hand is happy to pass if he has a balanced hand and his partner is competing (and conversely, responder is happy to compete knowing that partner is either balnaced or very strong). if I have, say, a 5134 12 count, the first thing I wanna find out is whether my partner has 3 spades. I will never find out in time especially not in competition.

including some annoying 4441's is fine cos they don't come up that much but including a lot of hands with 5 card majors will mess up the basic idea of swedish club.

[Kungsgeten]

By all marmics I meant all 11-13 marmics (counting these as balanced). 1NT would still include 4414 and 14-16. Another way would ofcourse be to include only 4414 marmics in 1C and make 1D include the others, or leave out the multi and use 2D as precision.

[semeai]

What is marmic?

For converting to Swedish Club, 1C = 17+ or 11-13 bal or 11-13 some [or any] 4441 patterns seems fine.

I agree with gwnn that not even 11-13 hands with 5 card majors should not be in the 1C opener, if marmic means 5431 patterns or something. If marmic means just 4441 patterns, then it seems okay.

Added: It seems that maybe marmic = 4441 or 5440 after using a bit more google-fu than previously. If so, I'd separate the 5440's off from the 4441's and just have (bal or some 4441's) be grouped together.

[gwnn]

I thought it was major minor canape but now I'm confused.

[kenrexford]

Why are so so afraid of the 1♦ opening? That is the (easy) keystone to make the entire canape structure in MICS pure, with no issues for 4-4-4-1 hands (just use normal Roman 2♣).

For those not familiar with the 1♦ opening in MICS, the call shows a "normal" long diamond hand or a hand with diamonds and longer in a major (normal for canape stuff). However, to be able to have a pure Roman 2♣ (4-4-4-1 type of hand) and a consistent 2♦ opening (diamonds and clubs, parallel to Roman 2♥ and 2♠), you never open 1♦ with both minors. That makes 1♦...2♣ or 1♦...3♣ natural calls, but clubs only (will not usually have diamonds).

Thus, 1♦ shows:

1. Long diamonds, one-suited (same as the suggestion)
2. Diamonds with longer major (same as the suggestion)
3. Just long clubs (replaces both minors)

Having played that core (the 1♦ opening as either minor but not both) in both canape (MICS) and "Precision" structures, it works wonders and is very easy.

I'd suggest reading (and trying out) rather than skimming (and reinventing), as you might well be sold.

[mycroft]

"marmic" is European, especially Scandanavian, for "Roman", or 4441. There was a Marmic System that was heavily invested in handling these hands, which as we all know don't fit anywhere - and it likely developed into the "Roman" 2♦ we know today.

I first learned the word when I was trying to understand the Piranha Club system from Sweden, oh those many years ago.

[cwiggins]

A variation of the idea would be simply to only do two things: make 1NT = 14-16 and 1C into 11-13 or 16/17+.

The potential advantages are:

1) 5M332 are handled comfortably in 1NT. And I recall an article in Bridge World by Swedish Club players suggesting putting 5M332 into 1C and having success.

2) 1D and 1M are necessarily unbalanced, so 1x-1N is logically forcing. This opens up several sequences.

BTW: I loved the approach the book took of explaining the logic for the bid and then laying out the auctions. Nice work!

[kenrexford]

cwiggins, on 2012-September-26, 21:16, said:

A variation of the idea would be simply to only do two things: make 1NT = 14-16 and 1C into 11-13 or 16/17+.

The potential advantages are:

1) 5M332 are handled comfortably in 1NT. And I recall an article in Bridge World by Swedish Club players suggesting putting 5M332 into 1C and having success.

2) 1D and 1M are necessarily unbalanced, so 1x-1N is logically forcing. This opens up several sequences.

BTW: I loved the approach the book took of explaining the logic for the bid and then laying out the auctions. Nice work!

Thabks! Nice to hear.

There is something to be said for splitting the balanced hands between 1NT and 1♣. Auctions where you violate canape in MICS by opening 1M with a weak balanced hand are fun, but purifying thopse auctions at the slight cost of a somewhat overloaded Polish Club approach to the 1♣ opening is reasonably sound. This would allow for a slightly heavier 1NT opening, as you suggest, which then reduces the strain a tad when the 1♣ opener has a relatively light "strong" balanced hand. I toyed with the idea for a while, myself.

If there is great angst with the 2♣ opening as Roman, which I actually love but others may find disturbing, that also can be somewhat alleviated in a similar manner, BTW. You would replace the "weak notrump" option in the 1♣ opening with a light 4-4-4-1, making 2♣ a stronger 4-4-4-1, maybe 14-17.

That said, I never found any real problems in years of experience, so I suspect that some of the angst is (incomplete) theorectical rather than practical. But, a core is not meant to be definitive but rather inspirational. Few play any system without personal preference adjustments, amd MICS certainly allows for that.

[ulven]

cwiggins, on 2012-September-26, 21:16, said:

And I recall an article in Bridge World by Swedish Club players suggesting putting 5M332 into 1C and having success.

The Bridge World, 2009, Nov issue.

[Kungsgeten]

I also like the narrating style of the book. However, I would like to have a summary of the opening bids early on in the book, as a "quick overview". I bought the PDF version, and I'm sorry to say that the index in the PDF file isn't the best.

I'm not afraid of the flamingo diamond, but I'm not very fond of nebulous diamonds. I like being able to show a suit, and feel that MICS can not show single suited minor hands right away. 2D and 2NT as both minors might be wise, I haven't tried it. My "feel" was that 2C, 2D and 2NT seemed like "half good" bids to make the rest of the system work, and then I realized that 1D wasn't "pure" either. I'm sure the system works though, it seems well done with a lot of good theory behind it.

My take was to make sure that you could show the minors right away, by making 1D and 2C "natural". 1D guarantees at least 4 diamonds, and 2C guarantees at least 5 clubs (if exactly 5 clubs, then 4 diamonds, as played by Ahlesved-Petersson and Nyström-Bertheau). The way my suggestions seem to loose are the 4441 hands, which are handled by 2C in MICS.

In my current "pet system" I play at the club we play transfer openings to the majors which may be canapé (Magic Diamond / Carotti style). These can also include 4441. It works pretty well so far, but it is hard to find 4-4 in the minors. The full opening structure (if interested) is:

Pass: 0-7 any / 17+ unbal / 18+ bal
1C: 12-16 unbal / 15-17 bal
1D: 4+ hearts (not 4432 or 4333), 8-11 hcp, may have longer minor
1H: 4+ spades, same as above
1S: 8-11 bal, no 5 card major
1NT: 12-14
2m: 5+ unbal, no 4 card major, 8-11 hcp
2M: 5M and 5+ in a minor, 8-11 hcp
2NT: 15-17 hcp, 5-5 minors
3C: 12-14 hcp, 5-5 minors (thinking of changing this to weak, or perhaps 8-11 minors)

[kenrexford]

Kungsgeten, on 2012-September-28, 08:00, said:

I also like the narrating style of the book. However, I would like to have a summary of the opening bids early on in the book, as a "quick overview". I bought the PDF version, and I'm sorry to say that the index in the PDF file isn't the best.

I'm not afraid of the flamingo diamond, but I'm not very fond of nebulous diamonds. I like being able to show a suit, and feel that MICS can not show single suited minor hands right away. 2D and 2NT as both minors might be wise, I haven't tried it. My "feel" was that 2C, 2D and 2NT seemed like "half good" bids to make the rest of the system work, and then I realized that 1D wasn't "pure" either. I'm sure the system works though, it seems well done with a lot of good theory behind it.

My take was to make sure that you could show the minors right away, by making 1D and 2C "natural". 1D guarantees at least 4 diamonds, and 2C guarantees at least 5 clubs (if exactly 5 clubs, then 4 diamonds, as played by Ahlesved-Petersson and Nyström-Bertheau). The way my suggestions seem to loose are the 4441 hands, which are handled by 2C in MICS.

The minor-suit core of the Flamingo 1♦ and the 2♦ minors call is the frightening part, but it also is my favorite part! It is not just a fix.

For example, I have used the 2♦ opening for both minors in a standard system like 2/1 GF, because this is very powerful. Beyond finding remote minor slams, think about the pain inflicted on the opponents when you open 2♦. Sure -- bidding 2♥ or 2♠ is easy enough, but they still give up something. Everyone else opened 1♦ and enabled jump overcalls. They lose the ability to show weak hands with long majors, or to show values assuredly. It gets messy for them. So, I love 2♦ openings.

As to the Flamingo situation, not knowing one of the minors in a canape structure is not that big a loss -- the unknown MAJOR that might exist is a much greater problem. Plus, no one ever knows about real clubs, except in Neapolitan and Precision with 2♣ openings, but that is a mess (IMO). You always need two bids to show clubs. Granted, you have no assurance of diamonds, which is a loss, and some can show real diamonds, but to get to that goal you cause a lot of problems with 4-4-4-1 hands.

I mean, you could have a Precision-style 2♣, but denyiong a 4-card major if you open this, a 2♦ call for both minors, and then 1♦ promises diamonds but might be 4-4-4-1, in which case 1♦...2♣ would show some 4-4-4-1 with diamonds (and potential breaks from that in some sitiuations). That would leave precisely 4-4-1-4 unbiddable, but maybe you open those 1♥?

It just gets so messy. I tried various structures years ago, though, struggling with this concept, until I realized that the Flamingo Diamond solves everything. You obviously see that it does. It is just the fear that 1♦ start auctions will be messy in comp. That part I can only say is from experience just unjustified fear. Trust, but verify.