[helene_t]

I thought it would be fun to play 1NT as wide-ranging (say 9+ HCPs) with both majors. Playing the following response scheme would make it reasonably playable:
2♣=bust OR GF (asks opener to transfer to his longer suit but he must do something else with a monster as the transfer can be passed)
2♦=a.o. semipositive with no preference
2M=semipositive preference

This is of course a solution looking for a problem - we need a system that justifies having such an opening. I think a multi-style 1♦ opening showing 5+ in one major and 3- (or maybe 2- ?) in the other might be a start.

1♣ = 12-22 balanced (or maybe 12+? Or maybe also include 3-suited hands short in a minor?)
1♦ = 5+ in one major, 10+ HCPs or such
1♥/♠ somehow for unbalanced hands without a 5-card major.
1NT=both majors at least 4/5
2m = maybe needed to patch some holes in the system?

Has anyone puzzled with something like this?

[hrothgar]

 helene_t, on 2016-August-09, 04:44, said:

I thought it would be fun to play 1NT as wide-ranging (say 9+ HCPs) with both majors. Playing the following response scheme would make it reasonably playable:
2♣=bust OR GF (asks opener to transfer to his longer suit but he must do something else with a monster as the transfer can be passed)
2♦=a.o. semipositive with no preference
2M=semipositive preference

This is of course a solution looking for a problem - we need a system that justifies having such an opening. I think a multi-style 1♦ opening showing 5+ in one major and 3- (or maybe 2- ?) in the other might be a start.

1♣ = 12-22 balanced (or maybe 12+? Or maybe also include 3-suited hands short in a minor?)
1♦ = 5+ in one major, 10+ HCPs or such
1♥/♠ somehow for unbalanced hands without a 5-card major.
1NT=both majors at least 4/5
2m = maybe needed to patch some holes in the system?

Has anyone puzzled with something like this?

Some early versions of MOSCITO had a 1NT opening that showed at least 4-4 in the majors

[nullve]

 helene_t, on 2016-August-09, 04:44, said:

Has anyone puzzled with something like this?

I briefly played the following as a junior:

1♣ = 11-13 bal., 3-S3-H / 16+, unbal. / 17+ bal.
1♦ = 11-15, 5 M
1♥ = 11-15, either 3H5+m4+Om, 4H5+m, 4H(441) or 6+ H / 11-13 bal., 4 H
1♠ = 11-15, either 3S5+m4+Om, 4S5+O, 4144 or 6+ S / 11-13 bal., 4S3-H
1N = 14-16 bal.
2m = 11-15, 3-S3-H6+m
(...)
2N = 11-15, 5+D5+C
(...),

which is somewhat similar to what you described here:

http://www.bridgebas...-major-system/.

[The_Badger]

Hello helene_t

Mmmm....A Flannery No Trump system, or shortened to Flannotrump system. Sounds even more linguistically incongruous than John Collings' infamous Walpurgis Club (and later Walpurgis Diamond) system. lol!

But will it work? I can't see why not. But the problem with any system (and I played Precision for many years) where bids are 'coded' as opposed to suits is that it presents opponents, especially good opponents, with various opportunities to throw a spanner in the works.

It was bad enough trying to cope with the opponents who interfered over a Precision 1♣ opener, knowing that the opener was already strong, but if you code even weaker hands that can have various meanings, both partner and yourself may be possibly under pressure when the opponents intervene, especially immediately.

I don't know if you watched any of this year's Springold, but I always chose to kib the Roy Welland and Sabine Auken partnership as their bidding system was a revelation. Part natural/part coded. It was a joy to behold...

...but must be a pain to remember in its entirety, even given their consummate professionalism.

[Zelandakh]

I have played around with using 1NT as a preempt (weak 2 in a minor or both majors) in various schemes, both opening and overcalling. The problem is in getting the rest of the system to fit around it.

On the suggested usage, would an xyz-style structure not work fairly well?

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-August-09, 06:03, said:

I have played around with using 1NT as a preempt (weak 2 in a minor or both majors) in various schemes, both opening and overcalling. The problem is in getting the rest of the system to fit around it.

On the suggested usage, would an xyz-style structure not work fairly well?

Then 2♣ followed by 2♥ is semipositive while 2♦ would be invitational or stronger? That allows you to stop in 2♥ with an invite opposite a minimum, and it allows you to sign off in 2♦. OTOH it doesn't allow you to bit a weak or semipos without preference, if I understand correctly.

I don't think it is worth it TBH but who knows?

[Zelandakh]

I was thinking a weak hand either bids 2M directly or marionettes to 2♦ or gets out in 3♣ by the preferred route (direct or via 2♦). Invitational hands should also gain the ability to go to 2NT, either directly or via 2♣. I did not go through the details in my head enough to work out 2♦ but instinctively it should be able to cope with whatever is leftover after taking out the 3 level responses. I think the key to such an opening is going to be to reduce the ranges down while retaining the ability to find some sort of playable spot on most part-score deals. Concentrating on distributional information is usually the way to go but here that seems to me to be making constructive auctions too inaccurate.

[straube]

I don't understand the design goal but for 1N responses something like...

2C-asking (weak, invitational without a preference, or strong)
.....2D-5S/4H
..........2H-relays
..........2S-weak, no major preference
..........2N-invitational, no fit
..........3S-invitational, fit
.....2H-4S/5H
..........P-weak, no major preference
..........2S-relays
..........2N-invitational, no fit
..........3H-invitational, fit
.....2S-5S/5H
..........2N-invitational
..........3C-relays
..........3M-invitational, fit

2D-weak with a preference
.....2H-p/c

2M-invitational with a preference

[rbforster]

Here's a system to play around it, all opening strength bids:

1C strong
1D multi / 5+ major, not other major
1H wide ranging balanced, 10-15 (then 1N or 2X sign off; 1S asks if potentially inviting, with 1N showing the low range and answering stayman if accepting)
1S both minors (5/4+)
1N both majors
2m 5+ natural

[awm]

I think it would be interesting to try 1M = 3-4 in bid major. This could be a balanced hand, or a hand with a longer minor. It may cause some weird problems for opponents (is it natural or not?) and also lets you find some good 4-3 and 5-3 fits that might otherwise be annoying. The rest could be:

1♣ = strong
1♦ = 5+ in a major, at most 3 in the other major
1M = 3-4 bid major, no 5-card major
1NT = both majors, but 4-4 can open 1♥
2m = 5+ in bid minor, at most 2-2 in the majors

Using 1♦ and 1NT as unlimited can potentially improve the 1♣ auctions too.

[helene_t]

 straube, on 2016-August-09, 10:49, said:

I don't understand the design goal

The idea is to make a "shape first" system. Since such a system would need a suit opening (probably 1♣) to show the balanced hands, 1NT is free for other uses. "Both majors" has a high enough safety level. And also, if you need to put unbalanced hands in 1NT there is a case for making it contain the hands that are least likely to end up playing notrumps as it is bad if declarer in 3NT has shown a singleton.

I think the idea of playing 1M as 3-4, possible canape, is a good one albeit different from what I had in mind. I have puzzled with a 3-card major canape system with strong club and multi 1♦, we allowed 1M to have the other major as the canape suit but that has the obvious disadvantage that it is more difficult to pass the 1M opening.

[nullve]

 helene_t, on 2016-August-09, 04:44, said:

I thought it would be fun to play 1NT as wide-ranging (say 9+ HCPs) with both majors. Playing the following response scheme would make it reasonably playable:
2♣=bust OR GF (asks opener to transfer to his longer suit but he must do something else with a monster as the transfer can be passed)
2♦=a.o. semipositive with no preference
2M=semipositive preference

How do 'bust', 'semipositive' and 'GF' translate to approximate point ranges here? Seems like (at least) one range is missing.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-August-10, 13:05

[Kungsgeten]

I suggest you have a look at Turnip Diamond's 1D opening: http://home7.swipnet...alrotsruter.htm

Some ideas, based on your original idea of shape first:

1C = 12+ NT
1D = 12+, 5+ major, unbalanced, not both majors.
1H = 12--17 unbal, no 4+ major
1S = 12--17, 5C and 4M
1NT = Both majors, 12+
2C = 12--17, 5D and 4H
2D = 12--17, 5D and 4S
2H = 18+, 5+C
2S = 18+, 5+D
2NT = ?

Or have 1M be 4M and 5+m, while 2m is 6+m or both minors. Could also use 1M as 3+ suit, so that 2m promises a 6+ suit (treat 5422 as balanced).

Shape first with transfers (but not 1NT as both majors):

1C = 4+H, 12+
1D = 4+S, 12+
1H = 12--17 NT, no major / 25+ NT
1S = 5+C unbal, 12+
1NT = 5+D unbal, 12+
2C = 18--19 NT (could perhaps also be used with other strong hands)
2D = 20--21 NT (could be multi instead)
2M = Weak
2NT = 22--24 NT

Using 1D as clubs and 2C/2D as diamonds:

1C = 12--24 NT
1D = 4+C unbal, 12+. May have longer diamonds.
1M = 4+M unbal, 12+. May have longer diamonds.
1NT = Both majors, 12+.
2C = Any unbal GF or 17+ with 6+ diamonds.
2D = 12--16 with 6+ diamonds.
2M = Weak? Perhaps 5M and 4D would be better.
2NT = 25+ NT

Moscito inspired (could probably work better if 1NT handled some strong hands instead of both majors):

1C = 12--24 NT
1D = 4+H unbal, 12--21, not both majors.
1H = 4+S unbal, 12--21, not both majors.
1S = 6+D unbal or 5D and 4+C, 12--17, no major.
1NT = Both majors, 12--21
2C = 6+C unbal or 5C and 4D, 12--17, no major.
2D = Any unbal GF.
2H = 5+C unbal, 18--21.
2S = 5+D unbal, 18--21.
2NT = 25+ NT.

[Zelandakh]

Another way of doing it that I played with before working on the strong club system is 1♣ = 4+ hearts; 1♦ = 4+ spades; 1♥ = clubs or balanced; 1♠ = diamonds. In the end most of these methods end up being less efficient than strong/mixed club and strong diamond systems when you get down to the nuts and bolts, and less resilient than natural methods against aggressive interference. Having an opening for all balanced ranges turns out not to be so good as differentiating between ranges can become problematic and combining a more restricted range with other hand types works well. Before putting effort into getting this 1NT to work (which I doubt would be too difficult to be honest) I would want to make sure everything else was working. Otherwise it is just wasted effort.

[straube]

 helene_t, on 2016-August-10, 03:27, said:

The idea is to make a "shape first" system. Since such a system would need a suit opening (probably 1♣) to show the balanced hands, 1NT is free for other uses. "Both majors" has a high enough safety level. And also, if you need to put unbalanced hands in 1NT there is a case for making it contain the hands that are least likely to end up playing notrumps as it is bad if declarer in 3NT has shown a singleton.

ok, but the theme of these ideas seem to be...

1D-a 5+M
1M-4M or possibly 3M
1N-5/4+ in both majors

so if have a preference for only one major, you're not able to immediately show it. I think a good rule of thumb is if you have a preference, take up space to show it and if you don't, leave space for partner.

If you have both majors, you get to show both but showing one may have been enough (i.e. only one suit can be trump). Also in some cases you might have found a 5/3 fit immediately just showing the 5-cd major so you're actually at a disadvantage on these occasions.

Interesting choices, too, for responses to 1D (showing a 5-cd major). Is it ok to pass when responder has a bad hand? Is 1H pass/correct or does it show hearts or something else? If hearts, how many? I'd rather open 1M with 5+ and let partner pass if he wants.

[rbforster]

Helene - if you want a symmetric relay structure for 5/4+ majors over 1N-2♣ (GFR), I used to play one in my strong club so I've got the notes so just ask. It typically finished up shapes resolution at 3♦-3♠ . You could shift everything up a step to make 2♣ asking for length preference (with 2♦=equal) if you wanted better partials. The bids other than the relay weren't obviously defined, so there's plenty of room for scrambling bids, various conventions, etc.

[Zelandakh]

 rbforster, on 2016-August-11, 01:39, said:

Helene - if you want a symmetric relay structure for 5/4+ majors over 1N-2♣ (GFR), I used to play one in my strong club so I've got the notes so just ask.

I also have 1NT as a step showing both majors in my relay structure but not only for 5+-4+ but also 44(41) and 44(32). That did not seem like such a good idea for an opening where Responder will not have a game force most of the time. It must surely be better to get the strength ranges under control before thinking about relays. If a structure turns up where a GF can be established at a low enough level to make it worthwhile, relays can be employed. Most likely that is trivial though - 1st step 4♠5+♥; 2nd step 5+5+; 3rd step and up 5+♠4♥ seems to cover it, and if balanced and 3-suited hands are required just put them in the first response and move the others up one step.

A 2♣ GF relay would be a reasonable idea if the opening showed 10-14 for example; any 9+ is a rather different animal though. Perhaps it is possible to work something around 2♦ being game forcing as in xyz. To make that work it would probably be necessary to lose one range on the structures being suggested so far. The question is then whether the benefits are worth it.

[straube]

deleted

[helene_t]

 straube, on 2016-August-10, 13:33, said:

Interesting choices, too, for responses to 1D (showing a 5-cd major). Is it ok to pass when responder has a bad hand? Is 1H pass/correct or does it show hearts or something else? If hearts, how many? I'd rather open 1M with 5+ and let partner pass if he wants.

I thought of something like
1♥/[1sp] = paradox
1NT=relay
2♣ = length in the (presumably) other major
2♦ = constructive with tolerance for both majors

I know this 1♦ opening has been played in the Netherlands under the name "trios" but I can't find a link to it.

AWM provided responses in this thread btw: http://www.bridgebas...d-major-system/

[straube]

Thanks for the link. Those responses were in the context of a strong club system which makes a huge difference.

Even with strong club, designating 1D-1H and1D-1S as nf seems a tremendous waste of sequences. I could be double counting here but you give up 1D-P as well.

Btw I still like my solution for the 1N opening, but if 1N can be 9-21 or so it's just very difficult.

I think this whole structure is wrong track, but if you pursue it I hope it works out for you.