[Kungsgeten]

We recently updated our responses to our 2♣ opening. 2♣ is 12--16 with 6+♣ or 5♣ and 4M.

We play:

2♣---
2♦ = Forcing to 3♣. INV+ with 4M or both majors / Bal INV / INV+ with club support / GF with 5M.
2M = Non-forcing, INV and usually exactly 5M.
2NT = Weak club raise / INV with any 6(+) suit / Bal SI. Opener usually bids 3♣.
3♣ = Transfer to diamonds. Weak with ♦ / GF with 5♦ and 5M / SI with 6+♦. Opener bids 3♦.
3♦♥ = Transfers. GF+ with 6+M. Accept of transfer denies support.
3♠ = GF 5-5 majors.

We do not have a way to show INV with diamonds, nor a way to show GF with diamonds unless also being SI. Having an invitational hand with 5-4 majors is also a bit awkward.

I have suggested Zelandakh's transfer method over 2♣, but partner thought it was too complicated.

Should we shift our focus somewhere, in case we missed something important?

[nullve]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-November-22, 08:50, said:

I have suggested Zelandakh's transfer method over 2♣, but partner thought it was too complicated.

If he cares about partscore bidding, tell him to reconsider. Personally, I find the bulk of Zelandakh's transfer method easy to remember, because most bids are what they have to be given what I think his design goals are, or should be.

[Zelandakh]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-November-22, 08:50, said:

We do not have a way to show INV with diamonds, nor a way to show GF with diamonds unless also being SI. Having an invitational hand with 5-4 majors is also a bit awkward.

2♣ - 2NT; 3♣ - 3♦ appears to be available for INV with diamonds so you can scrub that one off. Non-slammy GF with diamonds is not an important hand type so do not worry much about that - it is 2-suited M+♦ that can cause headaches. INV 5-4 majors were awkward for me too, hence the 2NT response showing an invitational 5♠4♥ hand in my structure. It seems to me that you are accepting missing the 5-3 fit whenever Opener has a minimum without a 4 card major but otherwise it works out. That is probably a workable trade off for the time being if your partner finds this structure easier, particularly if you have other system areas that you would like to improve.

[straube]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-24, 18:40, said:

2♣ - 2NT; 3♣ - 3♦ appears to be available for INV with diamonds so you can scrub that one off. Non-slammy GF with diamonds is not an important hand type so do not worry much about that - it is 2-suited M+♦ that can cause headaches. INV 5-4 majors were awkward for me too, hence the 2NT response showing an invitational 5♠4♥ hand in my structure. It seems to me that you are accepting missing the 5-3 fit whenever Opener has a minimum without a 4 card major but otherwise it works out. That is probably a workable trade off for the time being if your partner finds this structure easier, particularly if you have other system areas that you would like to improve.

What's your opening structure? I keep thinking it might be more in line with Kungsgeten's desire for a natural 1D.

I was thinking of suggesting

1C-15+
1D-unbalanced 4+ diamonds or (41)35
1M-5+
1N-12-14
2C-6C
2D-bal 18-19
2H-3-suited short D
2N-20-21

or

1C-16+
1D-unbalanced 4+ diamonds or (41)35
1M-5+
1N-12-15
2C-6C
2D-3-suited short D
2N-19-20

[WesleyC]

I've got a few years experience opening a natural 2C (11-14(15) HCP (5)6+C, *sometimes* 4M) in the context of a 10-12 1NT system. A lot of the marginal hands (e.g. super max 14-15 hands with extra shape, weak 5c club suits, hands with both minors, 4135 hands with a strong 4cM and weak clubs etc) get lumped into either 1C(16+*), 1D, 1M or 1NT as appropriate. As a result the 2C opening is fairly tight and low frequency so we've kept the system simple.

Our philosophy when you do open 2C is to accept that you're going to miss some major suit games and focus on the upsides (preemption, lead direction and aggressive 3NT contracts). Although we did play 2NT as a puppet for a couple of years, we found it gave opponents a low risk entry into the auction in the direct seat and then ANOTHER chance in the pass-out seat without gaining significantly.

The method I like is:

2D/2H = Transfers (5+M). Opener can super-reject with significantly extra shape and no tolerance.
2S = Range probe, with 2NT/3C responses. A subsequent 3D bid asks for a 4cM.
2NT = GF shortage/shape ask in clubs.
3C = Preemptive.
3D = GF diamonds.

Not sure this was very helpful, but I thought I'd share in any case.

[Kungsgeten]

Zel: Yes, the original post is wrong. 2♣-2NT; 3♣-3♦ is actually INV with diamonds, so I missed that one The total ammount of system notes are getting high (60 A4 pages with two columns), so I think we need to slow down a bit regarding new methods.

Straube: We're not currently thinking of changing the core of our opening structure, but I'm always open to new ideas. I've thought about using a Precision 3-suiter and having 1♦ show 3+ cards, but even though its rare that 1♦ has exactly 3 cards I think the opening would do much worse in a contested auction. Right now our 1♦ most often show 5+ cards (about 75% of the time), so we often support on 3 cards. If 1♦ could be 3 it would have 5+ about 70%, 4 in 24% and 3 in 6% of the openings (the math is a bit off, but estimates). Now supporting on 3 is probably the right thing to do, but it just seems more awkward doing so.

If I remember correctly Zelandakh play "Polish club" but with unbalanced 1M and the 12-14 NT and 15-17 NT swapped. This is similar to the "Martens system" by Krzysztof Martens, but his 1M openings may be balanced.

1♣ = 15+ NT, 15+ with clubs, 18+ any
1♦♥♠ = Unbalanced, 11--17. 1♦ may be four and and may have longer clubs.
1NT = (11)12-14
2♣ = 6+♣ or 5♣ and 4M. 11--14
2♦+ = Preemptive?

I actually think this is a nice structure and would not mind trying it out (though my partner would never agree on playing 1M as unbalanced, he doesn't even like the idea of opening a strong 1NT with a 5 card major). An idea I've had is to play Swedish Club when vulnerable and this kind of strong club when non-vulnerable (since the weak NT is more preemptive and a Mexican 2♦ is of less use with a strong club).

[Zelandakh]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-November-25, 02:09, said:

If I remember correctly Zelandakh play "Polish club" but with unbalanced 1M and the 12-14 NT and 15-17 NT swapped.

Yes, this is essentially correct except that in the "up to 17" range I treat 4=4=1=4 as balanced and 4=4=0=5 goes into the club structure, thus avoiding a Precision 2♦ opening. Although it looks a lot like PC in terms of openings it plays more like a strong club system so the similarities are less than they might appear. Also, it is worth remembering that the 1NT responses include 2♣ as Puppet Stayman, which might at least go some of the way to appeasing partner. In the end though, the unbalanced nature is only necessary when playing relay responses; it is simple to play a Lite version with natural bidding over 1♦♥♠.

And FWiiW I also think that Swedish Club is a good system and the basis is flexible enough to incorporate a fair amount of customisation. That said, playing 2 different cards is potentially a lot of work and while I am sure there are advantages to be had from it I am not so sure they are enough to be worth the effort for non-expert players.

[straube]

So 4414 and (43)15 12-14 open 1N? And 2C=6C unless 4405 specific? I think I like that. What are your 1D and 2D openings?

[Zelandakh]

 straube, on 2015-November-25, 11:04, said:

So 4414 and (43)15 12-14 open 1N? And 2C=6C unless 4405 specific? I think I like that. What are your 1D and 2D openings?

I am not desperately keen to hijack K's thread but the 2♣ opening from my system is more traditional than that and also includes 5♣4M hands. I know you are not a fan of that approach and coping with it was the reason I went to the effort of coming up with a new response structure. 2♦ is mini-multi but could just as easily be a weak 2 if preferred. My 1♦ opening is natural (4+) and unbalanced. That makes it a little underloaded and the 2♣ opening somewhat overloaded but gives both good homogeneity, which is a trade-off I have chosen.

[straube]

Well hopefully he doesn't mind the hijacking, but I've thought that a system like yours would have some appeal to him and avoid the 2-way meaning of his 1C bid. I mean I'm a fan of the nebulous diamond but I understand that showing your suits has a lot of merit and Kungsgeten likes that, likes the unbalanced 1D opening and wants to get the weak NT out of the way...which opening 1N does.

Kungsgeten, I know you're not looking for a change, but a lot of your posts have to do with problems created by your multi club. For instance your thread whether to balance or not after 1C is overcalled and passed back around to you. Or now you're considering a major tweak offloading some strong heart hands into your 1H opening.

I think you feel that opening 1C is good in competition because responder can introduce a suit and know that opener will have tolerance for it. But consider how you are placed after...

1C (2H) when responder has KJxxxx x Jx xxxx

vs how well you would be placed after

1N (2H) with that same hand.

In the first instance, you are fine bidding 2S when opener has the weak NT, but will be overboard sometimes when he has a strong hand.

You're also apparently requiring 8+ hcps for your 1C-1M responses so as to get easily into a gf when opener has the big hand, but this really slows down the program when opener just has the weak NT hand. If you'd opened it 1N your partner could transfer or pass. Plus 1C strong and 1D weak answer leaves your strong hands so much better off. They don't have to make ambiguous 1M rebids or jump or whatever. You've practically doubled the room for them since they don't have to share with the weak NT hands.

I think a lot of the sticky points that you post about would vanish if you switched to a system like Zelandakh's. You need not copy everything and I'm sure you could open 1M with 5332s. You'd just have different continuations than Zelandakh.

[Kungsgeten]

I think it is natural that a lot of my posts is about the 1♣ opening, since that is the most frequent opening in my system and also the one which is farthest from a natural system. When I played transferclub (5542) then 1♣ also was the most problematic bid. When I play natural with strong NT and four card majors 1M are the most problematic bids. When I played Moscito 1♣ was most problematic (but also the transfer openings to some extent). When I played two-way pass the catch-all 1♣ was most problematic, but also the pass sometimes. When I played strong club the nebulous diamond was most problematic.

I also think that my posts would change if I swapped the NT ranges, but I am sure we would still have sticky situations Hopefully I'll get to test a system like that in the future, but not at the moment.