[Chamaco]

Hi all,
I'd love feedback on this idea (pros-cons etc etc).

In Fantoni-Nunes scheme, all balanced hands 15+ go via 1C.
The 1D opener is always 5+D (occasionaly 4-4-4-1 with C singleton), 1R forcing.

What I do not like of their 1C opener is the contiguous range of balanced hands.
1C, if bal, can be 15-17, 18-20 or 23+ (21-22 opens 2NT right away).

In my opinion, this creates 2 problems:

1) opener, over a negative response (0+), in absence of fit with responder's suit, has to jump to 2NT to show the 18-20 bal. It is not pleasant to play 2NT 18-20 opposite a yarborough;

2) if there is competition by opps, it does not seems straightforward to discriminate between the 15-17 and the 18-20 hand.
----------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, the NIGHTMARE system by Buratti Lanzarotti has some similarities (and some differences).
1) they do include 18-20 hands into 1D pener, which becomes either natural or 18-20 bal;
However, the 1D opener is limited to about 20 hcp in Nightmare, since ALL the GF hands open 1C, which is different from the Fantunes system.

As a consequence, in Nightmare, responder can pass with a yarborough over 1D; this does not apply in F-N system (1D is 1R forcing).

In Nightmare, over 1D, responder bids

1M = natural 0+
1NT=GF
2C = GF
2D and higher = various single-suiter/2-suiter bids
NEGATIVE responder without major can simply pass

In Fantunes, the negative response is 2D (since 1D does not include 18-20 bal, and 99% has 5 diamonds):

1M = 8-9 hcp, natural
1NT = 10+ bal GF
2X = natural GF, except 2D = signoff without majors
----------------------------------------------------------------

THE BEST OF BOTH WORLD ? (OR WORSE? )


Now, I would love to be able to keep the Fantunes style (GF hands open their own suit rather than 1C as in Nightmare) , but moving the 18-20 into 1D, while still having a negative bid that cannot be 2D (because we do not know yet whether opener has 18-20 bal).
This implies changing the response structure, though.

What do you think of "Paradox responses" at the 1-level ?

1D-?
....1H = 0+ hand, MIGHT have spades.
........1S = 14-17 range, usually 4 spades (may be 3 in 5431 with minors)
........1NT = 18-20 bal
........2m= natural, 14-17 nonforcing
........2H= reverse, 18+
........2S=4+ spades, reverse, 18+
....1S = 0+ hand, guarantees hearts.
........1NT = 18-20 bal
........2m= natural, 14-17, nonforcing
........2H= good support, 14-17, nonforcing
........2S=reverse, 18+
........2NT= good heart support, 18+
....1NT = GF balanced
....2m= GF with the minor bid
....2M= to be defined (majors 2-suiters, flannery/rev flannery?)

With such a scheme, responder has always a negative available at the 1-level, to allow opener to show the 18-20 bal hand.

[mike777]

The other 2 Italian pairs play versions Mexican 2D. This means if partner has balanced zero they also play in 2nt. I notice many other pairs starting to play this style and so can only assume that at the table this is of little concern and advantages outweigh the potential drawback compared to other system gains.

Note with 18 across from zero in 2nt you can still win board, this is not automatic loser board. Also tough for opp with 21 or 22 hcp to not bid over 1c=1d most of the time.

[awm]

Fantoni-Nunes play transfer responses over 1♣. I'm not sure exactly how they treat these, but certainly this can be used to clear up a lot of the problems with the consecutive ranges.

My recommendation over 1♣ is to play:

1♦ = hearts, 0-9
--- 1♥ = 15-17 hand, not necessarily balanced but always 2-3 heart
--- 1NT = 18-20 balanced, 2-3 heart
--- Others basically natural, 2♦ as artificial force, etc.
1♥ = spades, 0-9, similar continuations
1♠ = balanced 0-5 or 10+, or 0-9 unbalanced with no major
--- 1NT = 15-20 balanced (partner passes with 0-5 bal)
--- Others basically natural
1NT = 6-9 balanced, no major, opener can pass with 15-16, 2NT with 17-18, 3NT with 19-20
2♣+ = 5+ cards 10+ points GF

I believe this is not exactly what Fantoni-Nunes play; would be interested to see their actual structure (what does accept of transfer mean, how does auction continue, etc).

[david_c]

awm, on May 3 2005, 03:41 PM, said:

Fantoni-Nunes play transfer responses over 1♣. I'm not sure exactly how they treat these, but certainly this can be used to clear up a lot of the problems with the consecutive ranges.

Time to plug my own system I suppose, which is fairly similar:

1♣ = 15+ clubs/balanced [or a near-GF hand]
... 1♦ = any 0-5(6) without 5+ spades, or 6+ with at least 4 hearts
... ... 1♥ = [nearly] any 18+
... ... ... 1♠ = 0-5(6) without 5-card major, or any 4-4 in the majors
... ... ... 1NT = 0-5 with 5+ hearts
... ... ... 2♣+ = 6+ with 4+ hearts, GF relay system
... ... 1♠ = 15-17 balanced with 4 hearts, or unbalanced with 3+ hearts
... ... 1NT = 15-17 balanced without 4 hearts
... ... 2♣ = 15-17 with 5+ clubs, not 3 hearts
... ... 2♦+ = various strong hands
... 1♥ = 0-5 with 5+ spades, or 6+ with 4+ spades
... ... 1♠ = 18+
... ... ... 1NT+ = same relay system as 1♣:1♦,1♥:1NT+
... ... 1NT = 15-17 without 4 spades
... ... 2♣ = 15-17 with 5+ clubs, not 3 spades
... ... 2♦ = unbalanced with 3-card spade support
... 1♠ = 6+ with no 4-card major
... ... 1NT = 15-17, could be 4414
... ... 2♣ = clubs, forcing
... ... 2♦ = 18+ balanced
... 1NT = GF unbalanced with diamonds
... 2♣ = GF unbalanced with clubs
... 2♦ = invitational, 6+ diamonds
... 2M = weak
... 2NT = invitational, 5-5 minors
... 3♣ = invitational, 6+ clubs

This doesn't always find 4-4 major fits when responder is weak. The other problem is that you respond 1♦ about half the time. Apart from that ... well, I like it anyway.

As for the original question about the 1♦ opening - I don't think this opening bid is very nice, but the suggested responses seem about as good as you can get.

[Aside: If someone wanted me to play the F-N system, I'd try and persuade them to play 1♦ and 2♦ the normal way round (with 2♦ being a multi). The F-N 2♦ is a horrible thing to respond to, and 1♦ is less useful as a forcing bid than the other one-level openers.]

[Chamaco]

Quote

  The F-N 2♦ is a horrible thing to respond to

David, could you elaborate with some detail this ?
I would be interested in analyzing potential pitfalls.

Quote

and 1♦ is less useful as a forcing bid than the other one-level openers.

If playing a NON-forcing 1D opener, the scheme of 1-level opening tends to resemble VERY closely the Nightmare system (nothing wrong with that : )

[Chamaco]

awm, on May 3 2005, 08:41 PM, said:

Fantoni-Nunes play transfer responses over 1♣. I'm not sure exactly how they treat these, but certainly this can be used to clear up a lot of the problems with the consecutive ranges.

The problem of consective ranges is NON-existent in uncontested auctions:
F-N use minimum acceptance of the xfer with 3+ cards and 14-17 range, more or les, and various superaccept schemes with stronger hands.

What worries me of contiguous range is opps intereference: if opps jumpovercall 2S, either in direct or sandwich seats, opener mani times will have trouble to show:
- bal 15-17
- bal 18-20
- bal 23+
- 14-17 with clubs WITH takeout shape (spade shortness, 4H)
- 14-17 with clubs WITHOUT takeout shape (spade length)
- 18-21 with clubs WITH takeout shape (spade shortness, 4H)
- 18-21 with clubs WITHOUT takeout shape (spade length)
- GF hands


I want to remove from 1C opener at least one of the hand-types that would double, thereby reducing the indetermination of the meaning of double

[david_c]

Chamaco, on May 4 2005, 02:35 AM, said:

Quote

   The F-N 2♦ is a horrible thing to respond to

David, could you elaborate with some detail this ?
I would be interested in analyzing potential pitfalls.

Well, I've never played it at the table, so perhaps I'm missing something, but this is what worries me:

The difficulties in responding to a Precision 2♣ are well-known. F-N's 2♣ bid is slightly better in some respects, because it's more limited than the Precision 2♣. But it covers a wider variety of shapes.

Their 2♦ bid has all the same problems as 2♣, but in addition you've lost the 2♣:2♦ sequence. That seems to make constructive bidding much harder.

As far as I can tell, they also open 2♦ with a 4441. I don't understand this at all - what's wrong with 1NT?

[david_c]

Chamaco, on May 4 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

What worries me of contiguous range is opps intereference: if opps jumpovercall 2S, either in direct or sandwich seats, opener mani times will have trouble to show:
- bal 15-17
- bal 18-20
- bal 23+
- 14-17 with clubs WITH takeout shape (spade shortness, 4H)
- 14-17 with clubs WITHOUT takeout shape (spade length)
- 18-21 with clubs WITH takeout shape (spade shortness, 4H)
- 18-21 with clubs WITHOUT takeout shape (spade length)
- GF hands

I want to remove from 1C opener at least one of the hand-types that would double, thereby reducing the indetermination of the meaning of double

This seems a bit odd to me - of the hand types above, you'd not want to double with 15-17 balanced or 14-17 without take-out shape, which leaves:

- 18-20 balanced
- minimum with take-out shape
- better than minimum, with take-out shape
- hands too strong for any other bid

But if you're playing 1♦ as 18-20 balanced or 14+ with diamonds, then after a 1♦ opening you'll presumably be doubling in competition with

- 18-20 balanced
- minimum with take-out shape
- better than minimum, with take-out shape
- hands too strong for any other bid

So how is it better to put 18-20 in 1♦, rather than 1♣?

[Chamaco]

david_c, on May 4 2005, 10:33 AM, said:

But if you're playing 1♦ as 18-20 balanced or 14+ with diamonds, then after a 1♦ opening you'll presumably be doubling in competition with

- 18-20 balanced
- minimum with take-out shape
- better than minimum, with take-out shape
- hands too strong for any other bid

So how is it better to put 18-20 in 1♦, rather than 1♣?

It seems easier to me having two 2-way bids , applying to both the same mechanism to show the balanced hand in competition rather than a single 3-way 1C bid with contiguous range.

My reasoning is that the 2-way 1D bid can be easily be handled the same way Buratti-Lanzarotti play it, and it does not seem a huge price to pay to reduce the indetermination of a catchall 1C bid.

I understand this might add occasionally some awkward problems if opps overcall over 1D, but I suppose that this can reasonably be handled, just like Buratti-Lanzarotti do.

Do you think this is too big a price to pay ?

[MickyB]

As usual, I'd just like to agree with everything that david_c has said

1♣ as 15+♣/bal
1♦ nat or 4♦5+♣, possibly using a 1N rebid as showing ♣ >= ♦
1M 14+ ish
1N 12-14
2♣ 11-14, 6♣ or 5♣4M
2♦ 9-13, 6 card major
2M 9-13, 5M4m
2N Weak with a minor or GF with diamonds

sounds pretty good to me. I probably still wouldn't make 1M openings forcing - if you bid on a 0 count I suspect you will be a fair bit more likely to get too high than to find a game you would have missed, particularly when you take into account the opps might balance. If you find you don't get too high opposite 0 counts, you are probably losing accuracy opposite another range.

[Chamaco]

MickyB, on May 4 2005, 12:29 PM, said:

I probably still wouldn't make 1M openings forcing - if you bid on a 0 count I suspect you will be a fair bit more likely to get too high than to find a game you would have missed, particularly when you take into account the opps might balance. If you find you don't get too high opposite 0 counts, you are probably losing accuracy opposite another range.

If the 1D and 1M openers are not forcing, but limited to, say, 21-22 (GF hands going via 1C), the 1-level scheme of the system is basically very close to Nightmare

[david_c]

Chamaco, on May 4 2005, 05:41 AM, said:

It seems easier to me having two 2-way bids , applying to both the same mechanism to show the balanced hand in competition rather than a single 3-way 1C bid with contiguous range.

I'm not convinced that you would use the same mechanism to show the balanced hand in competition. For example, if you have 15-17 balanced, and the auction begins 1♣ : (1♠) : dbl : (2♠), then you will probably show your hand by passing. But if you have 18-20 balanced, and the auction begins 1♦ : (1♠) : dbl : (2♠), are you still going to pass? Or are you going to show your extra values?

Quote

My reasoning is that the 2-way 1D bid can be easily be handled the same way Buratti-Lanzarotti play it, and it does not seem a huge price to pay to reduce the indetermination of a catchall 1C bid.

I understand this might add occasionally some awkward problems if opps overcall over 1D, but I suppose that this can reasonably be handled, just like Buratti-Lanzarotti do.

Do you think this is too big a price to pay ? 

I do think that if you're playing a forcing 1♦ opener, it makes life difficult if you can't use the 1NT rebid to help sort out the unbalanced hands. You might think that there is an equivalent problem after 1♣ if you put balanced 18-20 in there, but in fact it doesn't seem as bad at all, because of the extra step available before you reach 1NT.

[Chamaco]

Quote

But if you have 18-20 balanced, and the auction begins 1♦ : (1♠) : dbl : (2♠), are you still going to pass? Or are you going to show your extra values?

You are definitely right. The mechanism cannot be the same.
In this regard, however, there is not much los between the 2 systems (indeed, if there was a big loss in competition, probably Buratti-Lanzarotti would not play the 2-way diamond I suppose ).

Quote

I do think that if you're playing a forcing 1♦ opener, it makes life difficult if you can't use the 1NT rebid to help sort out the unbalanced hands.

It can be handled via the use of Multireverse (http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=6187) with any 18+ unbalanced: it does lose some useful steps compared to 1NT, but in general it works just fine.

[Chamaco]

david_c, on May 4 2005, 03:03 PM, said:

I do think that if you're playing a forcing 1♦ opener, it makes life difficult if you can't use the 1NT rebid to help sort out the unbalanced hands. You might think that there is an equivalent problem after 1♣ if you put balanced 18-20 in there, but in fact it doesn't seem as bad at all, because of the extra step available before you reach 1NT.

I just checked the F-N system notes of 1C opener, and the extra step below 1NT you refer to is not used for strong hands.

Actually, when they have a GF hand opposite a (semi)negative response, they never rebid at the 1 level, but they rebid:
- 2D= natural reverse +, can still be GF
- 1C-1D(showingH)-2S = either natural reverse+, ♣+♠, OR GF single suiter in Clubs
- 1C-1H(showing spades)-2H = same as 1C-1D-2S (2suiter with oM, rev+, or GF with Clubs single suiter) ;
- 3X (except 3 clubs) = various 23+ balanced

The bottomline is: even in 1C opener the "extra-step" at the 1 level is not used for GF hands, so maintaining a similar scheme for 1D opener (using Multireverse instead, e.g. 2H or 2S-according to responder's promised/denied major - to show a natural reverse+ OR GF D singlesuiter) will probably work just as well as the 1C opening.

[david_c]

Chamaco, on May 5 2005, 02:58 AM, said:

The bottomline is: even in 1C opener the "extra-step" at the 1 level is not used for GF hands

Well, of course not: that would be an appalling waste of space. But what you might want to use the extra step for is

(i) to be able to show the shape of opener's hand more precisely

and/or

(ii) to be able to distinguish minimum hands from hands in the 18-21 range, at a low level.