[nige1]

Under construction.
For your amusement, we hope to edit and add to this topic, as we plagiarise more ideas:

Our Balminnoch system now incorporates the following simple consistent protocol.

• 1♣ = BAL, 17-19 or NAT 8-19, shapely with ♣s (and transfer responses).
• 1♦ = BAL,10-13 or NAT, 8-19, shapely with ♦s.
• 1M = NAT, 8-19, 5+ cards.
• 1N = BAL, 14-16.
• 2♣ = BAL, 20-21 or BAL 24-25 or ART GF.
• 2♦ = BAL 26+ or 5-9, 6+ M.
• 2M =
• 2N =
• 3B =
• 3N =
• 4B =

***
A possible 4-card raise response structure after 1♥ - ??

• 2♠ = BAL or m SPL. Then 2N = ASK: 3♣/♦ = That singleton. 3♥+ = BAL.
• 2N = SPL Short ♠s. Then 3♣ = ASK: 3♦ = ♠ singleton. 3♥+ = ♠ void.
• 3♣/3♦ = SPL. That void.
• 3♥ = PRE.

Similarly, after 1♠ - ??

• 2N = BAL or red SPL. Then 3♣ = ASK: 3♦/♥ = That singleton. 3♠+ = BAL.
• 3♣ = SPL. Short ♣s. Then 3♦ = ASK: 3♥ = ♣ singleton. 3♠+ = ♣ void.
• 3♦/♥ = SPL. That void.
• 3♠ = PRE.

The intent is to show a 4-card raise, a shortage, and the nature of the shortage (with minimal leakage when opener does not want to know). If you don't like forcing 1N (or you are playing 4-card major openings) then consider the following kind of response structure:

1♥ - ??

• 1♠ = NAT.
• 1N = NAT. NF.
• 2♣ = REL. Then 2♦ = ART. Sound. Others = NAT. Weak.
• 2♦ = TRF. 8+ HCP. Sound 3-card raise to at least 2♥.
• 2♥ = NAT. 0-7 HCP.

Similarly over 1♠

• 1N = NAT. NF.
• 2♣ = REL. Then 2♦ = ART. Sound. Others = NAT. Weak.
• 2♦ = TRF. 5+♥s.
• 2♥ = TRF. 8+ HCP. Sound 3-card raise to at least 2♠.
• 2♠ = NAT. 0-7 HCP.

***
And after any 1-opener, a 2♣ rebid is modified Gazzilli (ART 16+ or 6+ cards in opening suit).

e.g. after 1♣ - 1♥ (showing ♠s) -; ??

• 1♠ = ART 10-15. (Bucket - hand unsuitable for another bid).
• 1N = BAL 17-19.
• 2♣ = NAT 16+ or 6+ ♣s (Gazzilli).
• 2♦ = NAT 3-card support for ♠s (e.g. 3145).
• 2♥ = NAT 3-card support for ♠s (e.g. 3415).
• Other = 4+ ♠s.

.

[The_Badger]

Nige1. Is Balminnoch a whisky that lubricates the brain cells which enables one to develop new and wonderful bridge systems?

If so, mine's a case

[mikestar13]

I'd be interested in seeing how this stacks up vs. 1♣=clubs or balanced 10-13 or 17-19 with a1♦=diamonds unbalanced.

With this system, responder is using transfers after 1♣=17-19 but not after 1♦=10-13. This seems like a sound idea. (Compare using transfers
opposite an over-strength strong NT vs. using transfers opposite a mini NT.) The 1♦ opening would be handled as in Precision, but allowing for opener's wider range (this might be a downside).

[mikestar13]

[double post deleted]

[awm]

For a while I played on a team with a pair that used both 1m openings as "balanced or natural" with different ranges. This seemed to cost them quite a lot in competitive auctions, because they were unable to raise either minor effectively. Most systems there is at least one minor you can rely on in competition (even strong club, unbalanced hands with clubs are usually opening 2♣ or 2♦). It can be hard to analyze this if you look only at unobstructed sequences, because you can always sort it out at opener's rebid, but people do intervene a lot these days.

The follow-ups after 1♣-1♥ also seem somewhat non-optimal -- your 2♦ and 2♥ rebids are extremely narrow (basically a specific hand pattern and strength) whereas your 1♠ and 2♣ are quite overloaded. Seems like it might be better to do something like:

1♠ = 0-2♠ unbal min exactly 5♣, or extras without 4♦
1N = 17-19
2♣ = 6+♣ min
2♦ = 4♦, 5+♣, extras
2♥ = 3♠ unbalanced min, 5+♣
2♠ = 4♠ unbalanced min

Then over 1♣-1♥-1♠:

1NT = NF
2♣ = NF preference, usually 3+♣
2♦ = relay, either 4♥ INV+, or GF any
... 2♥ = 4♥, creates a GF, basically unlimited
... 2♠ = very min, not 4♥, 1345 or 2245
... 2N = GF, 1345 or 2245
... 3♣+ = various particular hands with 6+♣ and extras
2♥ = 5+♠ 4+♥, NF opposite the weaker hand
2♠ = NF long spades
2NT = INV natural
3♣ = 3+♣ INV
3-red = 5/5 INV

[nullve]

 nige1, on 2017-July-09, 08:47, said:

• 1♣ = BAL 17-19 or NAT shapely with ♣s (and transfer responses).
• 1♦ = BAL10-13 or NAT, shapely with ♦s.
• 1N = BAL 14-16

I think this "TriBal" scheme, at least when modified so that

1♦ = NAT or 11-13 BAL,

is better than standard, but I fail to see how it can be as good constructively as the more common

1♣ = NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL
1♦ = NAT unBAL
1N = 14-16 BAL,

where some of Opener's rebid problems over 1♦-1M can be solved by using 1N as ART.

But opening 1♦ instead of 1♣ with 11-13 BAL is more preemptive, so maybe that's the main attraction?

(Before I googled 'Balminnoch' I thought it might a portmanteau, e.g. of 'BALanced', 'MINimum', 'Or', 'Club' and 'Hand'. But then I realised there was an 'n' too many, and the system just didn't fit.)

[Zelandakh]

 awm, on 2017-July-09, 12:00, said:

1♠ = 0-2♠ unbal min exactly 5♣, or extras without 4♦
1N = 17-19
2♣ = 6+♣ min
2♦ = 4♦, 5+♣, extras
2♥ = 3♠ unbalanced min, 5+♣
2♠ = 4♠ unbalanced min

I agree with this absolutely and it fits roughly with the same logic as I use for my 2♣(nat) - 2♥(♠) auctions. Having the first step immediately deny a fit just makes everything else flow so much more easily here. Where I would ask the question is with the suggested follow-ups- My own experimentation found that it was better to start the 5♠4♥ hand by showing hearts, which frees up the 2♥ rebid here. You would have to compare with a similar structure over the 1♦ response to see if the same applies at the one level. Whatever the details, I would heartily recommend this approach above that of the OP.

[nige1]

 nullve, on 2017-July-10, 07:09, said:

I think this "TriBal" scheme, at least when modified so that
1♦ = NAT or 11-13 BAL,
is better than standard, but I fail to see how it can be as good constructively as the more common
1♣ = NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL
1♦ = NAT unBAL
1N = 14-16 BAL,
where some of Opener's rebid problems over 1♦-1M can be solved by using 1N as ART.
But opening 1♦ instead of 1♣ with 11-13 BAL is more preemptive, so maybe that's the main attraction?

Nullve might well be right. I think David Gould and Mike Bell play similar methods to us, although Charles Outred independently arrived at the scheme. We tried including all balanced hands in the 1♣ opener but it seemed to work less well. We're still open to persuasion.

 nullve, on 2017-July-10, 07:09, said:

(Before I googled 'Balminnoch' I thought it might a portmanteau, e.g. of 'BALanced', 'MINimum', 'Or', 'Club' and 'Hand'. But then I realised there was an 'n' too many, and the system just didn't fit.)

Balminnoch is a vain attempt at a name with a vaguely Scottish flavour. Perhaps:
BAL = balanced.
MIN = minor.
But we need some more help with NOCH

[Zelandakh]

 nige1, on 2017-July-10, 09:23, said:

But we need some more help with NOCH

NO CHeating!

[nullve]

Transfer rebids (similar to what I've used over 1♣ = "NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL"):

1♣-[1M-1]; ?:

1♥(M=♥) = "4+ S, unBAL"
1♠ = "5+ C, unBAL"
1N = 17-19 BAL, 2-3 M
2♣ = "D reverse" (=> e.g. 2♦ = ART NEG (=> 2M = 3 M, NF))
2♦(M=♠) = "H reverse" (=> e.g. 2♥ = ART NEG (=> 2♠ = 3 S, NF))
2M-1 = bad MIN, 3 M OR INV, 3M6+C, 1-suited (=> 2M = to play opposite MIN; 2N = GF relay)
2M+ = 4+ M raise structure

Worth mentioning, perhaps:

1♣-[1M-1]; 1♠-?:

1N = usually 5-M2-C and, if M=♠, 3- H. NF.
...P/2♣+ = NAT, so maybe
...P = bad MIN
...2♣ = good MIN, 2-M6+C
...2♦ = good MIN, 2-M4D5C (well, maybe not 2245)
...2♥(M=♠) = good MIN, 1435
...2M = good MIN, 3 M
...2♠(M=♥) = ?
...2N = INV, 2-M6C, 1-suited
...3♣ = INV, 2-M7+C, 1-suited
...3♦+ = GF, 6+ C, 1-suited
(...)

[nige1]

 awm, on 2017-July-09, 12:00, said:

For a while I played on a team with a pair that used both 1m openings as "balanced or natural" with different ranges. This seemed to cost them quite a lot in competitive auctions, because they were unable to raise either minor effectively. Most systems there is at least one minor you can rely on in competition (even strong club, unbalanced hands with clubs are usually opening 2♣ or 2♦). It can be hard to analyze this if you look only at unobstructed sequences, because you can always sort it out at opener's rebid, but people do intervene a lot these days.

The follow-ups after 1♣-1♥ also seem somewhat non-optimal -- your 2♦ and 2♥ rebids are extremely narrow (basically a specific hand pattern and strength) whereas your 1♠ and 2♣ are quite overloaded. Seems like it might be better to do something like:

1♠ = 0-2♠ unbal min exactly 5♣, or extras without 4♦
1N = 17-19
2♣ = 6+♣ min
2♦ = 4♦, 5+♣, extras
2♥ = 3♠ unbalanced min, 5+♣
2♠ = 4♠ unbalanced min

Then over 1♣-1♥-1♠:

1NT = NF
2♣ = NF preference, usually 3+♣
2♦ = relay, either 4♥ INV+, or GF any
... 2♥ = 4♥, creates a GF, basically unlimited
... 2♠ = very min, not 4♥, 1345 or 2245
... 2N = GF, 1345 or 2245
... 3♣+ = various particular hands with 6+♣ and extras
2♥ = 5+♠ 4+♥, NF opposite the weaker hand
2♠ = NF long spades
2NT = INV natural
3♣ = 3+♣ INV
3-red = 5/5 INV

That looks good. Modified Gazzilli everywhere was my idea, however, and I'm reluctant to drop it without trial. We don't play often and two of our principles are simplicity and consistency.

[Zelandakh]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-10, 09:26, said:

NO CHeating!

Or perhaps NOrmal CHoices, meaning that the rest of the structure is the same as for a standard system.

[Kungsgeten]

Ok I just wrote a long response, but forgot to copy it before posting and apparently it was lost because some connection hiccup

Anyway, one alternative could be to play 1S as Gazzilli, which allows you to play in 2C etc.

1C-1H;
1S = 6+C 11-15 or 16+ unbal or 17-19 NT with 4S.
1NT = 17-19, 2-3S.
2C = 5C, 4D/H, 11-15.
2D = 1-4-4-4, 11-15. Or perhaps you open this something else?
2H = 3S unbal.
2S = 4S unbal min.
2NT = 4S, 16+ unbal.
3C = Could be "hand of death", or perhaps 7 clubs?
3DH = Splinter, 13-15 or 19+.
3S = Perhaps 15-16 with 5422?

1C-1D same principle, but:
1H = 4S. Could be 4-1-4-4. Could probably also include 4S 17-19 NT if you want.
2C = 5C and 4D, 11-15.
2D = 3H.

[nige1]

I googled "TRIBAL" and, as Nullve pointed out, Balminnoch is very similar to Mike Bell's system.

Balminnoch opening bids

• 1♣ = BAL 17-19 or NAT 4♣(441) or shapely 5+ ♣s.
• 1♦ = BAL 10-13 or NAT 4441 or shapely 5+ ♦s.
• 1M = NAT 5+ cards.
• 1N = BAL 14-16.
• 2♣ = ART GF or BAL 20-21 or BAL 24-25.
• 2♦ = ART Multi. 5-9 6 M or BAL 26-27.
• 2M = NAT. 5-9. 5+ cards. 4+ m.
• 2N = BAL 22-23.
• 3B = PRE.
• 3N = ART. Good suit.
• 4B = PRE.

[nullve]

What's your rebid structure over 1♦-1M?

[nige1]

 nullve, on 2017-July-11, 15:29, said:

What's your rebid structure over 1♦-1M?

Fairly natural. After 1♦ - 1♥ -; ??

• 1♠ = NAT 5+♦s 4+ ♠s.
• 1N = BAL 10-13 or ♥ shortage.
• 2♣ = NAT 16+ or 6+ ♦s.
• 2♦ = NAT 5+ ♦s 4+ ♣s.
• 2♥ + = FIT.

I want to swap the meanings of major responses; but I'm unsure how that works.

[nullve]

 nige1, on 2017-July-11, 15:42, said:

Fairly natural. After 1♦ - 1♥ -; ??

• 1♠ = NAT 5+♦s 4+ ♠s.
• 1N = BAL 10-13 or ♥ shortage.
• 2♣ = NAT 16+ or 6+ ♦s.
• 2♦ = NAT 5+ ♦s 4+ ♣s.
• 2♥ + = FIT.

I want to swap the meanings of major responses; but I'm unsure how that works.

Balminnoch with "swapped" 1M responses and my usual idea (in red and blue):

1♣ = "NAT unBAL (5+ C or 4S4C(41)), 17-19 BAL or 10-15, 3154/4153/4054"¹
...1♦ = "4+ H"
......1♥ (or 1♠) = "4+ S or 10-15, 31(54)"
...1♥ = "4+ S"
...(...)
1♦ = "NAT unBAL (5+ D or 4H4D(41)), 10-13 BAL or 10-15, 0445/1345/1435"¹
...1♥ = "4+ S. may have longer H unless GF"
......1♠ = "4+ H or 10-15, 13(54)"
......1N = 10-13 BAL, 2-3 S / bad MIN, 3 S, unBAL
......2♣ = your modified Gazzilli (but also with MIN, 6+D4C)
......2♦ = MIN, 5+D5+C²
......2♥ = good MIN, 3 S, unBAL / ?²
......2♠ = bad MIN (incl. 10-13 BAL), 4+ S
...1♠ = "4+ H. 3- S unless GF."
......1N = 10-13 BAL, 2-3 H / bad MIN, 3 H, unBAL
......2♣ = your modified Gazzilli (but also with MIN, 6+D4C)
......2♦ = good MIN, 3 H, unBAL / ?
......2♥ = bad MIN (incl. 10-13 BAL), 4+ H
......2♠ = MIN, 5+D5+C"
...(...)

¹ I suppose the 1♣ and 1♦ openings can alternatively be described as "NAT unBAL, 17-19 BAL or MIN with 4154 minus 1 card" and "NAT unBAL, 11-13 BAL or MIN with 1445 minus 1 card", respectively.
² Swapping 2♦ and 2♥ might be better, because then a superior H fit can be found after 1♦-1♥; 2♦(good MIN, 3 S)-2♥(NAT); P.