[borag]

How bad is below scheme ?

1♣ = art, 16+ hp
1♦ = art, 10-15 hp 4M-5m, 4441
1♥ = nat, 10-15 hp 5+h
1♠ = nat, 10-15 hp 5+s
1n = 12-15 bal or 5m4m(31)
2♣ = 10-15 hp 6+c(4M possible if bad suit)
2♦ = 10-15 hp 6+d(4M possible if bad suit)
2M = 6-9 hp 5+M
2n = 10-15 hp 5m-5m

[wclass___]

Really good in general. If i agreed to play same system NV - VUl this would be close to optimal.

[straube]

I like it, but I like awm's structure better. His is...

2m-6m, could have 4M
1N-14-16
1M-5+
2N-5/5 minors
1D-other

Not wild about a 4-cd NT range or opening 1N with a singleton. Wondering what you open with AKJx xx x Axxxxx

[awm]

Obviously pretty good, because it's pretty close to mine...

I'd be concerned that the 1♦ bid is very low frequency for such a cheap call. It seems like you must be able to do something better with that bid. Your 1NT opening encompasses quite a range of hand types (both shapes and strengths) and is going to cause you some trouble on constructive bidding; for example partner won't want to pass with a random 10-count (because you could have game) but that gets you too high quite often, and partner won't want to pass with a 5M (because 2M is often a better partial and may even be a light game if opener has a 4M) but that gets you to a 5-1 occasionally.

So my (perhaps unsurprising, given what I play) recommendation is to take some hands out of 1NT and put them into 1♦. What Sam and I do is to let 1♦ have a balanced range (11-13) and also include the hands with both minors, which makes 1NT a balanced 14-16. Some other ideas along the same lines:

You could put (13)(45) into 1♦, or into 2m, to avoid problems inherent in opening 1NT with singleton.
You could put balanced with 4M into 1♦, keeping the idea that 1♦ promises a major but reducing pressure on responder to 1NT (which would deny a major).

[hrothgar]

borag, on 2012-April-29, 16:36, said:

How bad is below scheme ?

1♣ = art, 16+ hp
1♦ = art, 10-15 hp 4M-5m, 4441
1♥ = nat, 10-15 hp 5+h
1♠ = nat, 10-15 hp 5+s
1n = 12-15 bal or 5m4m(31)
2♣ = 10-15 hp 6+c(4M possible if bad suit)
2♦ = 10-15 hp 6+d(4M possible if bad suit)
2M = 6-9 hp 5+M
2n = 10-15 hp 5m-5m

I think you'd do better using your 3C opening to show the two suited hand with the minors.

[awm]

hrothgar, on 2012-April-29, 17:35, said:

I think you'd do better using your 3C opening to show the two suited hand with the minors.

I disagree. Certainly you will do better when you have a two-suited hand with the minors by taking away some calls from the opponents and possibly right-siding a 3NT contract. But surely a preempt in clubs is substantially more common than holding 5/5 in the minors, and you will do quite a bit worse on these hands (either being forced to pass, or putting them into a 2NT bid of some variety which may wrong-side a game). Further, the club preempt hands more often "belong" to the opponents so your primary goal should be to make it difficult for them to act... whereas the 5/5 minors hands in this thread have sound values and will often be "our hand."

[glen]

borag, on 2012-April-29, 16:36, said:

How bad is below scheme ?

1♣ = art, 16+ hp
1♦ = art, 10-15 hp 4M-5m, 4441
1♥ = nat, 10-15 hp 5+h
1♠ = nat, 10-15 hp 5+s
1n = 12-15 bal or 5m4m(31)
2♣ = 10-15 hp 6+c(4M possible if bad suit)
2♦ = 10-15 hp 6+d(4M possible if bad suit)
2M = 6-9 hp 5+M
2n = 10-15 hp 5m-5m

playable. I prefer this adjustment:
1♦ = art, 10-15 hp 4M-5+m, 4441, or 14-15 bal with a 4cM
1n = 12-15 bal or 5m4m(31), no 4cM if 14-15

The idea is responder can pass 1n knowing if there is a missed 4-4 major fit, opener is minimum and game is unlikely. Stayman replies as 2♦/2♥/2♠ all 12-13, 2NT as 14-15 no 4cM.

[Free]

hrothgar, on 2012-April-29, 17:35, said:

I think you'd do better using your 3C opening to show the two suited hand with the minors.

awm, on 2012-April-29, 17:39, said:

I disagree. Certainly you will do better when you have a two-suited hand with the minors by taking away some calls from the opponents and possibly right-siding a 3NT contract. But surely a preempt in clubs is substantially more common than holding 5/5 in the minors, and you will do quite a bit worse on these hands (either being forced to pass, or putting them into a 2NT bid of some variety which may wrong-side a game). Further, the club preempt hands more often "belong" to the opponents so your primary goal should be to make it difficult for them to act... whereas the 5/5 minors hands in this thread have sound values and will often be "our hand."

I also disagree. A 5-5 minor hand with 13-15HCP can be really good. You want to give opener an extra round to bid in that case imo. You don't want to start opening 1♣ with such hands, but 10-15 is a huge range to open non-forcing at 3-level.

[akhare]

Looks really good, except that the 12-15 NT might be a little unwieldy.

Also, since the 1♦ opening can ostensibly contain 6+♦ and a good 4CM, it might be be better to define 2♦ as denying a 4CM.

[borag]

Thanks a lot for all replies, I had tried to think about all possible options for minors while reading
And;

1) If I put 5m-4m into 2c/2d, I'm afraid of loosing the power of 2m-3m and 2m-3N biddings
2) If I put 5m-4m back into 1d, I will not be comfortable when opponents compete with a major.
3) I also don't like the wide range 1N but that's not only a problem for me but also for opponents.
* maybe we should "pass" with 12 bal

Now;

- I will try this scheme for a while and will invent something new for 1N auctions.
- I really think it is a good idea to move some part of balanced hands to 1N (like 11-13 hp bal)
But need to run some tests for that.

"awm" 2m=6+m or 5m-4+m, did you have any problems with that ?


P.S: "straube" I think I would open that hand 2c, and will try 1s next time if it goes wrong
And don't know what will happen when I open 1d, we will see

[borag]

By the way "glen" I totally agree about the problem with 14-15 hp bal hands with a 4M.
In the past we had some issues with that when opponents competed.

thanks for reminder

"akhra" I want to keep 1d/2d option to judgement.
based on vulnerability and the smell of the match

[borag]

sorry "akhare"

[borag]

"awm" do I have the chance of accessing any documents about your system ?
for just understanding the details of development.

regards

[awm]

borag, on 2012-April-30, 15:26, said:

"awm" 2m=6+m or 5m-4+m, did you have any problems with that ?

We prefer to put the 5m-4+m hands into 1♦, and have had no real issues with that. We also open 2m freely with four-card majors. Our 1♦ is overwhelmingly a balanced hand (since it includes all 11-13 balanced) and we play a lot of transfers in competition after that.

There is a (slightly out of date) version of our notes available online.