[foobar]

nullve, on 2022-January-06, 16:23, said:

2NT as opening hand with 64/46+ m's

That was mea culpa -- ulven's version is the system as written.

[glen]

The closest design I had to this was ETM BOTS

1C: 17+ any or 12-16 three suited without a five card major
1D: 10-13 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton)
1M: 12-16 five card majors (1S can be 5-5 majors 10-11)
1NT: 14-16
2C: 10-16 6+Cs
2D: 10-16 6+Ds or 5-5+ minors 13-16
2M: 7/8-11 5 or longer suits, 6 if 7/8-9
2NT: 10-12 5-5+ minors
3NT: 10-13 6-5+/5-6+ majors

Another option which I had seen elsewhere was 1C was big or both minors (4-4+). Three suited with short minor, no five card major moves to 1D.

Not vulnerable I would like something like:
1C: Opening values and not appropriate for any one level opening (not balanced or five card major if less than 17)
1D: 10-13 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton)
1M: 11-16 five card majors
1NT: 14-16
2X: weak two, five or longer

Vulnerable is really interesting, start with core:

1D: 11-14 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton)
1M: 11-18 five card majors
1NT: 15-17

Now what do you put at the two level to make 1C more bulletproof. Fun stuff like:

1C: Clubs unbalanced 11+ or any 18+ (if clubs unbalanced can be 4-5 in minors)
1D: 11-14 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton)
1M: 11-18 five card majors
1NT: 15-17
2C: Four or longer diamonds 14-17, if just five diamonds has four card major, if four diamonds 15-17 and 4-4-4-1 exactly
2D: Five or longer diamonds 10-13, if just five diamonds has four card major

(or 2D: diamonds and four card major, 10-13, 2C: as above and could be 10-13 with long diamonds, no second suit)

[olien]

foobar, on 2022-January-06, 11:18, said:

These are very interesting insights. Did the the lack of a 2M weak opening contribute to any swings?

Ulf keeps accurate record of the results and IMP swings of such hands where he can't open a weak 2M vs the hands where we are able to open the canapé 2M openings. I do not, and our last tournament as partners was the 2019 fall NABC in San Francisco. However, I only recall one significant, adverse swing that could be directly attributed to not being able to open 2M weak. Of note is that we have the explicit principle that we do not open 3M with a normal, weak 2M opening, nor do we stretch to do it. If we open 3M with only 6, it is supposed to be such a hand that we would choose to do so even if we could open 2M instead. I do have a recollection of several positive swings resulting from the canapé 2M openers, but I may be victim to selection bias on the net IMPs swung resulting from not having weak two bids available.

[olien]

glen, on 2022-January-06, 17:55, said:

The closest design I had to this was ETM BOTS

1C: 17+ any or 12-16 three suited without a five card major
1D: 10-13 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton)
1M: 12-16 five card majors (1S can be 5-5 majors 10-11)
1NT: 14-16
2C: 10-16 6+Cs
2D: 10-16 6+Ds or 5-5+ minors 13-16
2M: 7/8-11 5 or longer suits, 6 if 7/8-9
2NT: 10-12 5-5+ minors
3NT: 10-13 6-5+/5-6+ majors

Another option which I had seen elsewhere was 1C was big or both minors (4-4+). Three suited with short minor, no five card major moves to 1D.

Not vulnerable I would like something like:
1C: Opening values and not appropriate for any one level opening (not balanced or five card major if less than 17)
1D: 10-13 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton)
1M: 11-16 five card majors
1NT: 14-16
2X: weak two, five or longer

Vulnerable is really interesting, start with core:

1D: 11-14 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton)
1M: 11-18 five card majors
1NT: 15-17

Now what do you put at the two level to make 1C more bulletproof. Fun stuff like:

1C: Clubs unbalanced 11+ or any 18+ (if clubs unbalanced can be 4-5 in minors)
1D: 11-14 balanced/semi-balanced (no major suit singleton)
1M: 11-18 five card majors
1NT: 15-17
2C: Four or longer diamonds 14-17, if just five diamonds has four card major, if four diamonds 15-17 and 4-4-4-1 exactly
2D: Five or longer diamonds 10-13, if just five diamonds has four card major

(or 2D: diamonds and four card major, 10-13, 2C: as above and could be 10-13 with long diamonds, no second suit)

Ulf and I first played together at the 2019 Summer NABC in Las Vegas, and the opening structure was different, with both 1♣ / 1♦ openings being artificial and showing 15+ HCP:

1♣ showing one of: balanced / any 4441 / unbalanced, primary minor
1♦ showing unbalanced hand, 5+ major

1NT opening was 11+-14, and other openings are as described upthread.

This 1♣ opening did not offer as much insulation against interference as we were often in a gray zone with high variance potential when responder had 6-8 HCP and opener was 17-20. It also sucked when opener held a balanced hand of 15-17 or 20-21 with our auctions beginning 1♣ - (P) 1♦ - (overcall) when other table possibly bidding 1/2NT - 3NT and opps now getting off to best lead of partner's suit rather than having a blind lead.

I do recall one, random pickup against Nickell in R32 of the 2019 Spingold. Nickell - Katz agreed to play a natural 1NT overcall against our 1m openings since they might only be 15. RHO texas transferred to a major over this and now my partner was on lead and knew to lead the other major. LHO would have never overcalled 1NT if my partner had been known given no stopper (dummy had Kx) and the 1♦ opening resulted in them wrong-siding a game for +12 IMPs.

[nullve]

olien, on 2022-January-07, 00:35, said:

Of note is that we have the explicit principle that we do not open 3M with a normal, weak 2M opening, nor do we stretch to do it.

But do you ever open 1M with a normal, weak 2M opening?

Seems like you could have opened with a standard Weak Two on boards 16 and 19 here, if available.

And why the jump to 3♠ on board 20? Could it be that you were you too strong for a 2♠ rebid in your system?

(Not that you played the same system back then, but your 2M openers were the same, weren't they?

[foobar]

nullve, on 2022-January-07, 03:03, said:

Seems like you could have opened with a standard Weak Two on boards 16 and 19 here, if available.

FWIW, I would be wary opening 16 with 2♥ even playing a standard limited opening system. It's a flat hand, and with the scattered outside values, it seems like 1♥ is a good alternative. Note that 19 was opened with 1♠ at the other table as well.

[ulven]

Weak 2's are no doubt net plus over time. Canapé 2's are a lot more net plus over time. Simple as that.

So we played the Nickell team, arguably the most successful team the last 25+ years, and you found 3 boards where we could've opened weak 2 or our action may have been affected by the lack of weak 2.
Those 3 boards were push, win 8, win 3 for net +11 imps. What's your point?

Btw those two last quarters were live-streamed on Youtube if you want to look it up. Meckstroth got the blue card right back at him. I wonder how times that ever happened to him :-)

[Kungsgeten]

I wonder if it could be worthwhile to expand the range of the 1♦ opening? The reason would be adding a weak NT opening and thus increasing the aggressiveness (not sure if it is needed though). So maybe:

1C = Strong. Includes 15-17 NT but not 18-19 NT.
1D = 11-14 NT with major, or any 18-19 NT.
1NT = 11-14 NT without major.

1D---
1H = "Stayman".
1S = Puppet to 1NT. Weak or GF.
1NT = To play vs 11-14, GF vs 18-19.
2m = To play vs 11-14.
2H = At least 4-4 majors, NF.

Letting the opponents get in at the one level when holding a 15-17 NT may not be a good idea though, and the split range of 1♦ prevents some preemptive jumps as responder.

[olien]

Kungsgeten, on 2022-January-11, 14:49, said:

I wonder if it could be worthwhile to expand the range of the 1♦ opening? The reason would be adding a weak NT opening and thus increasing the aggressiveness (not sure if it is needed though). So maybe:

1C = Strong. Includes 15-17 NT but not 18-19 NT.
1D = 11-14 NT with major, or any 18-19 NT.
1NT = 11-14 NT without major.

1D---
1H = "Stayman".
1S = Puppet to 1NT. Weak or GF.
1NT = To play vs 11-14, GF vs 18-19.
2m = To play vs 11-14.
2H = At least 4-4 majors, NF.

Letting the opponents get in at the one level when holding a 15-17 NT may not be a good idea though, and the split range of 1♦ prevents some preemptive jumps as responder.

I suggested something along these lines to increase the utility of the bid, and to help tighten up the balanced ranges when opening 1♣. Suggested both making it a spit range NT, and also suggested having it as a wide-ranging (i.e. 12-16) NT. The latter idea was to enable an artificial 1NT opening to help sort out our minor-oriented hands. Ulf rejected both proposals; the first because it would mean we couldn’t just blast to game since partner wouldn’t always have the weak range. One nice thing about 1NT openings is one almost always knows exactly what our target level is almost immediately, but if you widen the range or add a 2nd range, that becomes much less likely. One final reason he liked keeping it as always being a weak range is that he didn’t have to be so concerned about siding in determining best meanings for responder’s initial bids, and thereby keeping it simpler.

[foobar]

olien, on 2022-January-11, 19:13, said:

I suggested something along these lines to incUlf rejected both proposals; the first because it would mean we couldn’t just blast to game since partner wouldn’t always have the weak range. One nice thing about 1NT openings is one almost always knows exactly what our target level is almost immediately, but if you widen the range or

If I am not mistaken, the 1D opening is one of the biggest wins of the system, based on table results, right?

[olien]

foobar, on 2022-January-11, 21:05, said:

If I am not mistaken, the 1D opening is one of the biggest wins of the system, based on table results, right?

I say it is based on my personal recollection. Things like when it goes 1D - (p) - 2R transfer. Now when your arrive in 2M, the opps have no idea what kind of fit you have. It basically has all of the upside of opening 1NT and very little of the risk/randomness (unless you are as “good” as Fantoni-Nunes) that is often associated with weak 1NT ranges, This is because the opps can’t really double you, and even if they can you can now bail in any strain at the 1 level (except clubs) still giving responder all of the benefits of knowing that you have no trump distribution. Ulf has the data to back up my recollection.

[ulven]

olien, on 2022-January-12, 04:15, said:

I say it is based on my personal recollection. Things like when it goes 1D - (p) - 2R transfer. Now when your arrive in 2M, the opps have no idea what kind of fit you have. It basically has all of the upside of opening 1NT and very little of the risk/randomness (unless you are as “good” as Fantoni-Nunes) that is often associated with weak 1NT ranges, This is because the opps can’t really double you, and even if they can you can now bail in any strain at the 1 level (except clubs) still giving responder all of the benefits of knowing that you have no trump distribution. Ulf has the data to back up my recollection.

1D has been the best opening. Not a lot of double-digit gains but steady gains on a very frequent hand type.

[foobar]

ulven, on 2022-January-12, 07:09, said:

1D has been the best opening. Not a lot of double-digit gains but steady gains on a very frequent hand type.

Out of curiosity, noticed that olien mentioned 1D - 2R as a transfer, but in the latest incarnation, 1D - 2M is natural. This exposes the 1D, but my guess is that it really doesn't make that much of a difference, right?

[ulven]

foobar, on 2022-January-12, 20:10, said:

Out of curiosity, noticed that olien mentioned 1D - 2R as a transfer, but in the latest incarnation, 1D - 2M is natural. This exposes the 1D, but my guess is that it really doesn't make that much of a difference, right?

I don't think so. Seems the direct 2M puts more pressure on 4th hand. Also conceals the more undefined hand (as declarer).

[nullve]

MickyB, on 2004-May-27, 13:30, said:

I am considering using a 1♦ opener as showing 11-15/16 points, 5+ cards in either minor.

foobar, on 2021-December-24, 01:59, said:

SCUM is a very impressive new strong ♣ system by ulven. The central principle is that the 1M openings are unbalanced, and 1♦ includes the balanced hands outside the 1N range, and may have 5M332.

1♣: 16+, 18+ balanced
1♦: Balanced, 11-13 (14), may be 5M332
1♥: 11-15, Unbalanced, can be 4-card if 4441
1♠: 11-15, Unbalanced, can be 4-card if 4441
1N: 14 - 17-
2m: 11-15, 5+, denies major, can be 4om
2M: 11-15, 4M with longer minor, unbalanced not 5422

The 2M openings seem bizarre, but work very well in practice.

SCUM modifed to suit my religious beliefs:

1st/2nd seat:

P: includes 11-13 BAL
1♣ = Precision [or SCUM except 17+ if BAL]
1♦ = SCUM 2-level or 3♣* [MickyB's 1♦ opener, more or less]
1M = SCUM 1M
1N = 14-16 BAL
2♣+ = weak preempts

* assuming SCUM 2N and SCUM 3♣ both show intermediate strength minor 2-suiters not covered by the SCUM 2m openings

[nullve]

If

1♦(SCUM 2-level or 3♣)-1♠ = GF relay,

then e.g.

1♦-1♠; ?:

1N = C 1-suiter, M+C reverser or H+C 3-suiter
...2♣
......2♦ = H+C reverser or H+C 3-suiter
.........2♥
............2♠ = H+C 3-suiter
...............2N
..................3♣ = 1444
..................3♦ = 4414
..................3♥ = 0445
..................3♠ = 0454
..................3N = 4405
..................3♣ = 0445
..................3♦ = 0454
..................3♥ = 4405
............2N+ = H+C reverser
......2♥ = S+C reverser
......2♠+ = C 1-suiter
2♣ = D+C 2-suiter
...2♦
......2♥ = reverser
......2♠+ = long-legged
......2N+ = anti-reverser
2♦ = H+D reverser or S+D 3-suiter
...2♥
......2♠ = S+D 3-suiter
.........2N =
............3♣ = 4144
............3♦ = 4441
............3♥ = 4045
............3♠ = 4054
............3N = 4450
............3♣ = 4045
............3♦ = 4054
............3♥ = 4450
......2N+ = H+D reverser
2♥ = S+D reverser
2♠+ = D 1-suiter

This post has been edited by nullve: 2022-March-28, 17:21

[PrecisionL]

Here is the url for SCUM SYSTEM posted on the internet by Ulf:

https://sites.google...fn66/home?pli=1