[straube]

In the context of a strong club system, I've been wondering whether minor suit openings should require a bit more. For example, perhaps a Precision 2C opening should be 12-16 if 1S is 11-15. Or if opener anticipates opening 1D and rebidding 2C, perhaps again it should be 12-16.

Hands with minors have fewer game options (4M less likely). They also tend to be more difficult to bid. Like you have 1-4-4-4, you open 1D and choose to rebid 2C over 1S....harder than 4-1-4-4 where you open 1D and rebid 1S.

In Precision, after 1C-1D, 2m uses up a lot of room compared to 1C-1D, 1M. Shouldn't it promise a bit more in terms of hcp strength?

I'm thinking, too, of RobF's decision not to open single-suited club hands. I guess if that is playable, wouldn't it also be playable to pass 10-11 point hands with 6 clubs?

Or not? What do others think?

[chasetb]

I play 2♣ as 10-15 with either 6+ or a good 5 with a 4-card Major, and I actually like it. There's been a few games found because I've opened at 10 or 11, and I can still remember a 9 HCP hand loaded with spots where we ended up in 4♠ making after a competitive auction because my AT9 of trump and a singleton ♦ was perfect for partner. You have a good point that minor-suit hands should have a bit more in terms of points to open 1♣, but on frequency and my possibly bias view based on my own results, I am sticking with the range. It might be playable to not open single-suited club hands, but it's a bidder's game, so I'm opening the bidding.

Though I like the my 2♣ to be that low range, I think 1♦ would be better if the top of the range was bumped to 16 (or even 17). While it's more constructive if 1♦ isn't opened on 11 or some 12 balanced hands, I have found, at least in the lower and middle end of players, that opening hands they wouldn't throws them off because they don't know how to bid well defensively and can't determine how good a fit they have. The reason I would bump the range of 1♦ is because of the real possibility of wrong-siding the contract after 1♣-1♦, the space wasted with 1♣-1♦; 2♦, and the difficulty of showing the 16-17 hands with diamonds in competition. What also might help my cause is 1♣-1♦; 1M only promises 4 in the system I play, so the 2m rebid shows a single-suited hand.

[Zelandakh]

To me it makes sense for the 2♣ opening range to be as low as possible. The 2♣ opener tends to be a winner when it preempts them and a loser when it is our hand. There are some alternatives to the problem of the auction of 1♣ - 1♦; 2m. The popular one is to use possible canape rebids. Then the 2m rebid denies a 4 card major and becomes very specific; the downside is that the 1M rebids do alot of work and need to be unwound.

Another solution is to use a form of Kokish to split up the minor suit ranges. So you might play 1♣ - 1♦; 2♣ is 16-18 and 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ as 19+. Of course in this case you need some solutions for hands with hearts and clubs - perhaps 1♣ - 1♦; 2♥ is free for that?

As you know, the solution I came up with was to use option 2 above in combination with lowering the 1♣ opening range for club (and balanced) hands. I do not think this is an option in the context of your methods though. I cannot remember the exact definition of your 2♣ opening but I seem to remember it can contain one major but not the other. If you could make it pure (no major) then extending the range on it becomes a better option. 12-16 would certainly be playable here though and it would be interesting to see the overall effect.

Unlimiting the 1♦ opening when it is already nebulous sounds a little risky to me too. The difference in playing strength between a balanced 11 count and a 16hcp minor 2-suiter is large so you are really giving up some of the benefits of the bid but keeping the disadvantages. It might be worth doing a little testing but I suspect this idea would only be worth it if you dealt with the weak NT hands a different way.

[akhare]

Hmm..., I would argue for even lighter 2♣ given its premptive value. The same goes for unbalanced hands with 1♦ as well -- the downside is more than offset by firing the first salvo and denying the opps the comfort of their opening structure.

Also, if anything, I would argue for the upper range to be more lowered than raised -- my philosophy is to open 1♣ when in doubt (except when holding marginal extremely distributional hands)...

[ArtK78]

I played strong club systems for many years, and I hated 2♣ openers. I found them to be losers more often than not.

I would argue to raise the lower limit of the opening 2♣ bid.

[straube]

Thanks for the replies.

I like to open as low as possible. The question I'm having is how low can we afford to open?

I think that most strong club structures have difficulty with big minor suit hands. For us even more so because we've used Moscito-style 1H and 1S responses.

1C-1S (DN) and now we have problems with Axx x AKxxx AJxx or Axx AQx x AQxxxx. We have to rebid 1N on the first hand (partner thinking we usually have a balanced 17-21 count) and 3C on the latter (because 2C is Staymanish).

I'm not suggesting we revise to need 12 hcps for opening 1D on a 5m/5m hand. We would open any hand that we might open in Standard American (as well as light majors and 11-13 balanced).

I'm thinking we ought to bump the range of our minor suit openings (or 1D, 2C rebids) at least 1 and possibly 2 points.

[akhare]

straube, on 2012-January-31, 09:19, said:

Thanks for the replies.

I like to open as low as possible. The question I'm having is how low can we afford to open?

I think that most strong club structures have difficulty with big minor suit hands. For us even more so because we've used Moscito-style 1H and 1S responses.

1C-1S (DN) and now we have problems with Axx x AKxxx AJxx or Axx AQx x AQxxxx. We have to rebid 1N on the first hand (partner thinking we usually have a balanced 17-21 count) and 3C on the latter (because 2C is Staymanish).

Perhaps the solution lies elsewhere then -- playing a structure that allows a natural 2♦ / 2♣ rebid.

For example, there's no such problem over the classic 1♦ response. In fact, this isn't the only such example -- the 1♥ / 1♠ responses really aren't good for finding the best part score..

[Siegmund]

In the Polish family, there are always two ways to bid a minor after a 1C opening (1C-1D-2C and 1C-1D-3C, most often, with one 16-19 and the other 21+). No reason why you couldn't do the same in Precision I suppose.

For quite awhile I played a variant of Polish where the 2C was really just a heavy weak two, 7-13 (but not many 7s or 13s), and hands down to 14 were included in the 1C opener. The wider range is much more manageable if you aren't afraid of the 5C4M hand, too: having 2C promise 6 is a major improvement.

That's just a different way of "promising more": with only 5 of a minor you can either bid notrump or have some cheap bid promising 4CM, and wait for six to open 2m.

[wclass___]

straube, on 2012-January-31, 01:20, said:

I've been wondering whether minor suit openings should require a bit more.

As far as i am concerned most play style where it does promise more. It is not that much about exact points, but passing with poor 11 counts is quite normal. 11 counts with 5M don't get passed all that often plus often 1M cab be some good 10 count or maybe even 9.

11-15 is just a guideline.

[wclass___]

I'm not thrilled about opening lighter with minorish hands. e.g. I think magic diamond 2♣/2♦ 8-11 are not logical (bad). OK, you might do well when you open, but then you will lose something elsewhere. I think that 2♣/2♦ should be mainly used for constructive purposes.

[mycroft]

The one thing I would add to this discussion is that I like keeping minimum balanced hands out of a (solely)-strong 1♣. So I don't mind 1♦ having the odd balanced 16 in my Precision system, for instance - and have both played and suggested playing Precision with a 15-17 NT (of course that means you have to be careful and not open crappy flat 11s, or your 1NT rebid becomes unwieldy).

Upping the preempt factor for 2♣ is a very reasonable approach.

[straube]

I think that a useful rule of thumb is that if one has an awkward rebid and a marginal hand, deduct a point and see if one still has a minimal threshold for opening.

For us, x AQxx Axxxx xxx is an opening hand. After 1D-1S, our rebid with this pattern is 2D (which shows 4H and 5+ diamonds). That's an awkward rebid because our 1S response tends to deny hearts. We are therefore in la la land with a possible misfit and only ten points. So using this rule, I deduct a point and then I have a 9 count...so I pass.

Same for x AQxx Axx xxxxx. This also meets our point/control requirement for an opening hand. If partner responds 1S, we have to rebid 2C here which promises a minimum of 3 diamonds and a minimum of 4 clubs. Do we really want to do this?

Here's another...xxx x Axxxx AQxx. After 1D-1H we rebid 2C showing 5D/4C. That's not bad. We're offering 2 suits at the 2-level and partner knows which suit is longer. Worth opening light perhaps. Perhaps not.


For 2m openings, I'm envisioning that 2m is the range of strength that standard players have when they open and rebid 2m...approximately 12-16 hcps, but occasionally 11 or 17 depending on our suit. For example, if we have a poor suit and our high cards are concentrated outside of our suit, we might prefer to open 2m rather than 1C and rebid 3m. If we have a seventh card in our suit or a very strong six-card suit or controls, we might want to open with 11.

I think that passing some 10/11 single-suited minors will at least occasionally make our auctions easier.

P P 1H P and we have xx Axx xx AQxxxx....we can make a Dury-type raise. Yes, I'd rather open 2C, but opening a hand that can be as light as this will often preempt partner as well as the opponents from showing a major.


Also, since our Drury bid is usually 2M-1, we often are able to show a six-cd minor...

P P 1S P and we have xx Axx xx AQxxxx we can respond 2C natural.

[benlessard]

If your 1D is at least 4 than diamonds hands in the 15-21 range are better in 1D than in 1C. The drawback of not being to psych is compensated but clearer auction and by freeing up 1C--???--2D to show many strong hands or 3 card fits or whatever. 1C--1??--2D as showing D is terrible.

[straube]

benlessard, on 2012-February-01, 02:17, said:

If your 1D is at least 4 than diamonds hands in the 15-21 range are better in 1D than in 1C. The drawback of not being to psych is compensated but clearer auction and by freeing up 1C--???--2D to show many strong hands or 3 card fits or whatever. 1C--1??--2D as showing D is terrible.

I have sympathy for that style. However, our 1D is nebulous/artificial and we like to keep it fairly limited. For example, we frequently preempt opposite our 1D opener and we couldn't do that very often if partner could have a good hand. I'm very happy with our 1D, but I think when we anticipate bidding past 1N that we need to have a fit or reasonable expectation of a fit or more values than we've promised previously.

[mikestar13]

benlessard, on 2012-February-01, 02:17, said:

If your 1D is at least 4 than diamonds hands in the 15-21 range are better in 1D than in 1C. The drawback of not being to psych is compensated but clearer auction and by freeing up 1C--???--2D to show many strong hands or 3 card fits or whatever. 1C--1??--2D as showing D is terrible.

I rather like the type of structure you propose, but I think "terrible" is bit of an overbid for 2♦ rebid=♦.

[rbforster]

Late to reply here, sorry. There are lots of related issues here, many variations are playable in the right combination.

David - you mention 2♣ as precision style, but I don't remember how you play 2♦? Is that natural & weak, natural & intermediate like 2♣, 3-suited short diamonds, multi, or something else? That choice will certainly dictate a fair bit of what else is going to be reasonable.

In no particular order, here are some of my thoughts on this general issue and some of the things mentioned so far:

1. if you play 2m as constructive/intermediate, 2C should be wider (in terms of shape, values or both) than 2D due to space constraints. For 2C, you could have a wide ranging weak two, say 5-12, or a very sound intermediate one with 12-17 which could take some pressure off your strong club rebids.

2. if you like making life hard on the opponents, consider a 2-suited 2m opener, possibly weak or possibly intermediate, where you promise 5m/4M or better.

3. if you open light, as you like to do, P-1M-2D can serve nearly as well as 2C Drury and frees up a natural 2C PH response to show non-fitting club hands that you didn't open 2C for whatever reason. I do like P-1♠-2♦ as Drury and not 2M-1 for various complicated reasons. Ask me sometime if you really care, but you can put the extra space to good use if you're willing to remember a lot.

4. One solution to narrowing your minor strength ranges is to lower your 1C minimum, 14-15+ instead of 16+ or similar. Well designed strong club methods are overkill in uncontested auctions for unwinding all the strength and shapes by opener after 1C-1D(neg), so they can probably handle the extra load. Competition and/or your desire to play 1C-1S(double neg) may make this less attractive.

5. Traditional strong club methods (with 1C-1D neg) are fairly amenable to having both
.....1) a natural wide ranging 2♣ rebid and unwinding various possibilities via 2♦ asking ala precision 2♣, and
.....2) an artificial 2♦ rebid to show various hands that might be difficult otherwise. This goes well with the next point -

6. Playing 1♦ opening as potentially stronger than the light 1M openers in precision. 10-18 wouldn't be unreasonable instead of 10-15 for example (which frees up the 1C-1D-2D rebid). There are lots of jump rebids by 1D opener that are pretty darn rare playing a limited 1D so you can use these to show extras and appropriate shapes; add in structured reverses over 1D-1M-2OM and you've got tons of space to handle even a "standard" 10-21 range. You might get less safety psyching 1D-1M now, but only allowing an extra 2-3 hcp shouldn't cause too much trouble.

7. Lowering your 1C and/or raising your min balanced range openings can help narrow your balanced hands to a single 1N opener. This makes 1D natural and also frees up the 1D-1M-1N rebid to help with problem hands (showing extra strength, specific length in both minors, via transfers or whatever). Essentially this lets you trade off passing awkward minor hands for passing awkward balanced hands (which is probably good when Vul; less clear at NV on a frequency basis).

[PrecisionL]

An old Schenken Idea playing a strong club:

Some one-suited club hands are too good to open 2♣, therefore open 3♣.

Have had good success opening 1 suited minor hands at the 2-level with 10 - 14 hcp.

[straube]

Thanks for posting.

Our 2D shows 6+ diamonds, 0-4 clubs, and no 4-cd major. It's 10-15. Our 2C shows 6+ clubs and can have 4 spades or 4 diamonds but not 4 hearts. It's also 10-15. We get rid of the 6C/4H with our 2N opening.

Basically, 2C and 2D are designed to be comfortably relayed. Both are approximately +0.

I really only want to tweak our structure a bit. We're playing SCREAM in which the basic 1C structure is...

1C-16+
.....1D-GF, balanced or M/m or M
..........1H-bal or S/m or S
...............1S-bal or H/C
....................1N-bal
.........................2C-bal, 4+M
.........................2D-bal, no M
.........................2H+ H/C
.....................2C-S/C
.....................2D-S
.....................etc-S/D
...............1N-H or H/D
...............2C-S/C
...............2D-S
...............etc-S/D
..........1S-H, H/m
..........1N-H/S, 3-suited short m
..........2C-C/D
..........2D-C
..........2H-3-suited short M
.........etc-D
.....1H-all semipositives
.....1S-all DNs
.....1N-H/S, 3-suited short m
.....2C-C/D
.....2D-C
.....2H-3-suited short M
.....etc-D

This allows an unbalanced hand to describe to a balanced hand any time that situation exists...all being +0. We are well set up for slam bidding but we've traded part score accuracy.

We can't sign off in a minor at the 2-level because after 1C-1H or 1C-1S we're using...

2C-stayman
2D-transfer
2H-transfer
2S-minor suit stayman

We're in a very similar position to Moscito and it's pretty easy to compare our advantages and disadvantages to that system, but harder to compare to your structure, to IMPrecision TOSR, etc.

I thought if we tweaked our 2m (and our 1D-1M, 2C) structure a tad that we would not mind so much when we have 1C-1S, 3m auctions (or 1C-1S, 1N auctions on say 1444).

But it also has occurred to me that every other system is in a similar boat to ours regarding minor suit openings.

1) We're a level higher. We need more to go plus.
2) It takes more to make game in a minor.
3) There is less room after we're in 2m to show our hand before 3N

Since we've given up 1C and 1D to show strength ranges and not suits, it seems like we shouldn't be in a better position compared to standard for handling minor suits.

I'm thinking...

2C-same patterns but 12-16, and occasionally 11 or 17. Basically a hand that in standard would open 1C and rebid 2C.
2D-same idea
1D-1H, 1S-10-15 as now
1D-1M, 2C-11-16
1D-1M, 1N-11-13

1C-1S, 3m would be a hand that in standard would open 1m and rebid 3m. We would use some judgment especially in regarding suit quality.

[awm]

There's a lot wrong in this thread... I don't really know where to start but I will try...

1. A six card suit is a positive feature. 11 hcp and a 6-minor is an opening hand for virtually anyone. It is true that a similar hand with 6-major is more likely to produce game, but your 1M doesn't show six...

2. Safety is not an issue. You have a 6m! Opponents are the ones under pressure.

3. Yes, you lose space in constructive auctions, but you still have room for full relays. I don't see the big deal.

4. Playing standard, I would not normally open 1c and rebid 2c with 16 hcp. In fact I bid 3c on some 15s; the jump is 15+ to 18-. With 16 and a bad suit I would tend to reverse or rebid 2nt. You could probably construct some awful 16 where I might rebid 2c, but I consider that a downgrade and not part of the range. Further, I think my style here is extremely standard!

5. Opening 2m showing 6+ is a long-term winner, especially if there are negative inferences about 4M. I would want to open 2m as much as possible! This is one place to get back boards you lose by opening nebulous diamond.

6. While you can survive passing on some "opening hands" (see phantom club or roth-stone or silent club) you DO lose some on those hands. You need to be getting something big in return. All you get is the slightly sounder range... I don't see it. These aren't even "rebid problem" hands.

7. Its not true that other systems "have the same problem" -- a lot of your problem is lack of a way to show minor one-suiter at the two level after 1c-negative. Many systems can do this!

[JLOGIC]

Thanks awm, I was going crazy. Why do you people want to pass with more hands?