[Wackojack]

Free, on 2011-November-17, 03:36, said:

Why don't you play 2♥ as ♥+another and 2♠ as ♠+minor? I mean, you already include 6♥-5♠ in the 2♥ opening anyway... After 2♥ you have more space, and you can even use 2 P/C bids (2♠ and 3♣) which makes it possible to invite ♠ quite easily. I use this as a preemptive structure and works quite well imo.

Interesting that you should say this. The original devised by my partner was 2♥ = 5+ ♥ & 5+ another; and 2♠=5+♠& 5+minor or 6 ♠+5 ♥ and max/min with precise shape after 2N enquiry. Then he changed it to the way it is now with slightly easier to remember system of responses. This was not prompted by me.

The 9-14 range is about as large as practical for reasonable accuracy. So 15+ you open 1♣ and 0-8 you pass. It also means that 1M-2y-2z and z has to be a 4 card suit and is never 5.

[chasetb]

Before I talk about the subject, I would like to end the debate in that Jassem-Martens play Precision @ NV and Polish @ Vul. There is a difference between both in that the Precision is always strong (15-17 NT or 17+) whereas Polish you have the weak NT thrown in. It is fundamentally different enough to defend against. Here's the link to the CCs: http://www.ecatsbrid...n%2FBermudaBowl

I like most of your system, but the 2♦ bid I don't agree with. It seems that if you are weak with both Majors and little to no Diamond support or have an invitational hand, you pre-empt yourself with the bid. I would go the Bertheau-Nystrom route, and make 2♦ either a great 5♦-bad 4♣ or 6+ ♦, denies a 4-card Major, 10-15 (A hand you wouldn't want to jump with). I have a write-up of my version of that, but it's on a friend's computer and she's in Vegas playing in their sectional with a few of her friends.

If you wanted to deviate more, just scrap the natural bid and make 2♦ the mini-Multi with one of the Majors. No matter which way you go, take the other hands that used to open 2♦ and open them 1♦.

[Vampyr]

Free, on 2011-November-17, 03:31, said:

The little extra step you lose by opening 1♦ with strong hands also makes quite a difference imo.

Is this really a lost step when the auction will often be at 2♠ or higher when opener rebid?

[Mbodell]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-17, 19:25, said:

Is this really a lost step when the auction will often be at 2♠ or higher when opener rebid?

Maybe in better/stronger fields. But I've found that I get no more, and possibly less, interference over a strong club then over a natural 1 opener. Certainly when there is interference it is almost certainly "my" hand so the interference is more troubling, but lots of people will stay out of the way without shape and/or a good suit. And really, against a lot of non-expert strong club pairs, staying out of their way is fine as the 1♣ auctions aren't always fantastic.

[Free]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-17, 19:25, said:

Is this really a lost step when the auction will often be at 2♠ or higher when opener rebid?

Same goes for a nebulous 1♣ opening don't you think?

Opps interfere constructively over the nebulous opening. Since the opening is weaker, chances are much bigger that our opps have something to bid.
Over our strong 1♣ opening, opps overcall rather preemptively. But in my experience, the higher the level of play (especially at imps) the less interference you get.

So I prefer my nebulous opening to be 1♦.

[whereagles]

Free, on 2011-November-21, 06:17, said:

1. (...) in my experience, the higher the level of play (especially at imps) the less interference you get.

2. So I prefer my nebulous opening to be 1♦.

1. The most interference I had opposite a strong 1C opener was at HIGH level. In international matches it was common for the 1C opener to have the auction come back to him at 3 or 4 level. I even had once it going 1C (6H)!!

2. I prefer 1C because I find that little extra step helps more after a nebulous opener.

[Free]

whereagles, on 2011-November-22, 07:16, said:

1. The most interference I had opposite a strong 1C opener was at HIGH level. In international matches it was common for the 1C opener to have the auction come back to him at 3 or 4 level. I even had once it going 1C (6H)!!

This can only mean 1 thing: you don't penalize your opps enough. Once they know you shouldn't be messed with, the interference goes down a lot.

[whereagles]

You think I don't? Well, once vs Poland we got +1400 after they overcalled over 1C. Didn't stop them to head for another -1100 next board... When the hand fit their methods, they would just overcall no matter what.

[PrecisionL]

rbforster, on 2011-November-15, 09:53, said:

If you want to minimize the extra work of dealing with nebulous minor openings, I suggest natural 2m bids. This just leaves 1♦ as a catchall for 2 and 3-suited hands with a 4 card major. For example,

2♦ 5+ 10-14, no 4 card major (6+♦ or 5/4+ minors)
2♣ 5+ 10-14, no 4 card major (6+♣ or 5/4+ minors)
1N 12-14 balanced
1M 5+ 10-14, includes 5M/6m hands
1♦ 0+ unbalanced 10-14, promises at least one 4 card major (4441s, 4M/5+♣, 4M/5+♦)
1♣ 15+

There are a lot of inferences after 1♦-1M here. For example, if you don't raise partner's major, you promise 4 of the other major. Also, you can't have both minors, so if you rebid either minor it shows 4OM/5+m. You could even use 1N rebid to show a minimum misfitting partner's major, while 2m (natural) could show extras with the other major.

Yes, this works very well as I have used a similar scheme for 1♦ & 2♣ & 2♦ openings for several years.

We use the design of The Diamond Major where 1♦ always promises at least one 4-card major:

http://www.bridgeclu...ude/Diamond.htm