[nullve]

In case it hasn't occured to you: limited 1M openings are not an essential part of strong club (or diamond) systems:

ulven, on 2016-August-04, 00:46, said:

I just came back from Summer NABC. Played strong 1C (17+ if BAL) and wide range 1M for 400+ boards against top notch opponents, winning two regional imp events and losing in R32 in Spingold.

IMHO: 17 BAL in 1C was never a problem. Limited opening bids in 1M is over rated, prefer including 5+M & 4+ sidesuit in 1M instead of 1C since these are easily the hands most vulnerable to enemy interference.
That works very well and makes 1C-1D continuations must easier.

So if you play a strong club (or diamond) system, especially one with 5c+ 1M openings, why are your 1M openings (un)limited?

[hrothgar]

nullve, on 2017-August-28, 06:47, said:

So if you play a strong club (or diamond) system, especially one with 5c+ 1M openings, why are your 1M openings (un)limited?

1. 1M - 4M
2. 1M - 2M
3. 1M - 3N
4. 1M - 3M

[awm]

The basic reason is that I think opening shapely 8- and 9-counts is a winning tactic but partner has to be able to cope with it. A range of "8+ unlimited" or "8-21" or the like doesn't work well, because partner has to keep the auction open in case of the big hand while getting out fast opposite the bad hand...

The only top pair I'm aware of playing truly "unlimited" 1M is a certain famous cheating pair, and even they were more like 14+ than 8+

And 8+ to 15 is already a pretty wide range for me.

[Kungsgeten]

nullve, on 2017-August-28, 06:47, said:

So if you play a strong club (or diamond) system, especially one with 5c+ 1M openings, why are your 1M openings (un)limited?

Probably because we didn't question it, when deciding to play a forcing club. Having limited major suit openings is very comfortable, you do not have to discuss a lot of what to do after the opening bid (unless you want to) and there are very few difficult auctions. Some (usually those who haven't tried a system with limited openings) consider strong club to be a complicated and "hard" system, but I disagree: It is a lot easier to play strong club than a "natural" system. There might be more specific auctions to study, but the problematic sequences (what do I do now?) presented are fewer.

I'm not very big on the whole "We can raise to 3 or 4M with a big variety of hands" reasoning. Sure, sometimes that is the case, but we usually do not. This may seem dumb, but the reason is that a 11-16 (in our case) opening with 5+M isn't as limited as one might think. Also bidding 1M-4M, and then the opponents decide to enter the auction, now it will be hard for opener to make an intelligent decision if 4M can be "anything from 0 points to a GF not interested in slam"; it will all be up to responder. What I do like about limited openings is the option to the describe the hand in more detail, with the rebids (especially with extreme shape), which isn't always possible in a natural systems since you need the rebids to define your strength.

I wonder how much better the 1M opening becomes by removing the strong single-suited hands from it... Ulf Nilsson is also a fan of unbalanced major suit openings (denying 5M332), so my guess would be that his major suit openings in the discussed system is something like: "5+M, 11-19 unbal. If single-suited, then 11-15."

[steve2005]

I think a system where 1M can be stronger could be worked out. I think you want your limit lower than 21 though.
While yes 54 hands vulnerable to inference they don't otherwise cause big bidding problems,
The difficulty strong club hands are with minor suits. Starting 16 point hands at 2m is a disadvantage.
Having 1D potential stronger may give better rewards in uncontested auction,
Clubs possibly too, but that is harder. Maybe 2C=12-16 or 12-17.

[The_Badger]

The Polish Club system does go some way to having stronger major-suited hands opened on 17HCPs maximum, whilst stronger hands are opened 1♣, but then again the 1♣ bid is two-sided used for a weaker hand too.

Whilst the major suit opening isn't unlimited, it does mark an advance from the Blue Club norm of 16 maximum and a 4 card suit, with canapé; and the Precision norm of 15 maximum with a five card major.

The system infrastructure of Fantunes is truly unique, and the thinking behind it revolutionary, but given the success of Polish Club I am sure there is a way of using a strong 1♣ system without the weak hand option, and incorporating semi-unlimited majors into the mix, perhaps upping the major suit bids to 19 maximum.

[ulven]

Is there a question for me?

In current system version 1M denies 5332 in 1st & 2nd, 10-19 if 54+, 10-14 if 1-suited.

The system is really good, and I am capable of judging that.

Yes, limited hands have some advantages, but this approach has bigger upsides if you really think about it.

This summer NABC included beating Zimmerman Multon Helness Helgemo in the final of a bracketed KO.

[WellSpyder]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-28, 06:54, said:

1. 1M - 4M
2. 1M - 2M
3. 1M - 3N
4. 1M - 3M

1M - Pass?

[nullve]

I'm sure there are good reasons for preferring either a standard system or a strong club system to a strong diamond system, but it would be interesting to hear how people would rank the following frameworks,

a) strong club, limited 1M openings
b) strong club, standard 1M openings
c) strong diamond, limited 1M openings
d) strong diamond, standard 1M openings
e) standard (= wide-ranging quasi-natural 1m openings, wide-ranging natural 1M openings),

by imagining picking the best possible system within each.

My own ranking right now:

a) < b) < c) < d) < e).

[foobar]

nullve, on 2017-October-01, 06:26, said:

I'm sure there are good reasons for preferring either a standard system or a strong club system to a strong diamond system, but it would be interesting to hear how people would rank the following frameworks,

a) strong club, limited 1M openings
b) strong club, standard 1M openings
c) strong diamond, limited 1M openings
d) strong diamond, standard 1M openings
e) standard (= wide-ranging quasi-natural 1m openings, wide-ranging natural 1M openings),

by imagining picking the best possible system within each.

My own ranking right now:

a) < b) < c) < d) < e).

Not sure whether you really intended to rank strong club with limited openings at the very bottom, but my rankings would be almost a mirror image. Regarding wide ranging 1M openings, my opinion echoes awm's in that 8-21 (or even 8-19 or 11 -19) is way too wide.

a > c > b > d > e

[awm]

The sequences in standard bidding for 1M openings with extras are really bad -- it's very easy to miss game or play in the wrong game or play in a dumb 2nt when opener makes a try opposite a weak response, etc. And this isn't just my opinion -- it's the reason lots of good pairs have taken to playing Bart or Gazzilli or the like (which create other issues of course). It's also the reason you see people open 1nt or rebid 2nt with singletons, six card minors, five card majors, etc. Basically their methods for dealing with hands of 16-18 HCP are terrible.

Of course there are negatives to a strong club too, but one of the big wins is much better methods on the 16-18 range. In unobstructed auctions it's not just a little better either, but ridiculously better! Even in competition we usually come out ahead because partner can show a suit in a lot of auctions where he can't in standard (i.e. 1H-2S and partner has some 2236 eight count, he cannot really bid, but after strong club you have an easy auction).

Anyway I don't see much point in adopting strong club (with the attending problems around minor suits, especially in competition) only to throw the 16-18 5-card major hands back into the awfulness of standard bidding on hands in this range!

So I'd rate a > c > e > b > d.

[nullve]

foobar, on 2017-October-01, 11:57, said:

Not sure whether you really intended to rank strong club with limited openings at the very bottom

Not what you'd expect from a regular poster in this forum, was it?

awm, on 2017-October-02, 02:53, said:

The sequences in standard bidding for 1M openings with extras are really bad -- it's very easy to miss game or play in the wrong game or play in a dumb 2nt when opener makes a try opposite a weak response, etc. And this isn't just my opinion -- it's the reason lots of good pairs have taken to playing Bart or Gazzilli or the like (which create other issues of course). It's also the reason you see people open 1nt or rebid 2nt with singletons, six card minors, five card majors, etc. Basically their methods for dealing with hands of 16-18 HCP are terrible.

Of course there are negatives to a strong club too, but one of the big wins is much better methods on the 16-18 range. In unobstructed auctions it's not just a little better either, but ridiculously better! Even in competition we usually come out ahead because partner can show a suit in a lot of auctions where he can't in standard (i.e. 1H-2S and partner has some 2236 eight count, he cannot really bid, but after strong club you have an easy auction).

Anyway I don't see much point in adopting strong club (with the attending problems around minor suits, especially in competition) only to throw the 16-18 5-card major hands back into the awfulness of standard bidding on hands in this range!

So I'd rate a > c > e > b > d.

The "standard" framework was supposed to be broad enough to include systems with some artificial rebids over 1x-1y/N, too. Sorry if that wasn't clear. But anyway, I agree with you to the extent that if the standard framework is split into

e1) standard with only natural rebids over 1x-1y/N
e2) standard with some artificial rebids over 1x-1y/N,

then my ranking becomes

e1) < a) < b) < c) < d) < e2).

[awm]

As mentioned before, the various artificial rebid styles all have costs, in many cases high ones. It's impossible to go through all of them, but common issues include:

1. Ending up at the three level when opener has something decent opposite a misfitting bad hand.
2. Being unable to play in 2m in many sequences, or in some cases unable to even show a long minor.
3. Not enough calls to show shape correctly in both a forcing and non-forcing way.

It's a little better than "natural" but not a huge amount. Still nowhere close to relay or the like. And you still see people with all these gadgets do stuff like open 1nt on 4522!

[Zelandakh]

I think you also need to differentiate between truly limited (max ~15), semi-limited (max ~17), semi-unlimited (max ~19) and unlimited (max just below GF) openings as each of these has a different character. In terms of the given systems, it seems clear from expert practice that a and e should be at the top. I would hesitate to rate b, c and d as they are too rare at that level but my guess for those would be c then b then d.

I think though that the discussion of the pros and cons between limited and semi-limited strong club systems is much more interesting and relevant than between limited and unlimited. If going for unlimited majors then transfer openings (whether 1-under or 2-under) strike me as a much more harmonious basis than combining with a strong club or diamond.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-04, 10:10, said:

I think you also need to differentiate between truly limited (max ~15), semi-limited (max ~17), semi-unlimited (max ~19) and unlimited (max just below GF) openings as each of these has a different character.

If you mean that ranges such as "11-15", "11-17", "11-19" and "11-21" all have different character, then I agree. But I think that has more to do with other aspects of the 1M range than just its upper limit. If the range is continuous (e.g. "11-21", but unlike benlessard's "11-14 or 18-22"), then the width is probably what matters the most. For example, my 1M opening/overcall ranges are "10-21"/"8-19", respectively, which means I can use essentially the same continuations in both cases. (For example, 2♣ over (1♦)-1♠-1N is Gazzili, but with the strong option starting at "14" instead of "16".)

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2017-October-06, 06:31, said:

If you mean that ranges such as "11-15", "11-17", "11-19" and "11-21" all have different character, then I agree. But I think that has more to do with other aspects of the 1M range than just its upper limit.

But the upper limit does have direct consequences. The ability to respond 1M - 4M with the first range is directly linked with the low upper range allowing slam to be ruled out with even some rather good hands. This happens much less with the second range. Between the second and third range, the upper limit directly impacts the requirement for false preference in the third range on many hands that can be safely passed in the second. There are other efficiency gains to be had too (the second is the range I have delved into the most due to my own system) but whether they can be said to be a direct result of the upper end or not is perhaps more subjective. The smallest difference is between the last 2 ranges, where the separator is the inclusion of Acol 2-type hands. If you do not include a method for removing these from your 1M openings then they need to be accounted for in the rebid structure, although the practical difference is admittedly small here.

You can see clearly that each lowering of the upper range comes with a practical advantage that is directly related to that upper limit. Against that, you typically lose some homogeneity, often meaning that other parts of the system can suffer in competition. There is a trade-off here, which is why I prefer the semi-limited approach. This trade-off is in turn probably why your suggestion of unlimited 1M openings with a strong 1♣ or 1♦ is rarely played. You are losing all of the benefits of the smaller range for only a negligible advantage. If you disagree then I wouldsuggest you construct such a system and playtest it. I suspect you will find out the issues soon enough if you do this objectively.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-06, 09:01, said:

But the upper limit does have direct consequences. The ability to respond 1M - 4M with the first range is directly linked with the low upper range allowing slam to be ruled out with even some rather good hands. This happens much less with the second range. Between the second and third range, the upper limit directly impacts the requirement for false preference in the third range on many hands that can be safely passed in the second. There are other efficiency gains to be had too (the second is the range I have delved into the most due to my own system) but whether they can be said to be a direct result of the upper end or not is perhaps more subjective. The smallest difference is between the last 2 ranges, where the separator is the inclusion of Acol 2-type hands. If you do not include a method for removing these from your 1M openings then they need to be accounted for in the rebid structure, although the practical difference is admittedly small here.

If we're talking about ranges with the same lower limit, then I agree with all of this. But it seems to me that "9-15" (Moss-Grue Precision?) is more like "11-17" (Polish Club) than "11-15" (classic Precision) in terms of the ability to bid 1M-4M, the need for an artficial rebid structure over 1M-1♠/N, etc.

[ulven]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-06, 09:01, said:

If you disagree then I would suggest you construct such a system and playtest it.

Yes, yes and already did, but will take it a step further now and test that.

Two comments:
- A 2-suited hand with a 5-card major is the hand type that's the most vulnerable to interference after a strong club. Each silly result you might see when opened 1M has to be compared to the silly results you end up after a contested 1C auction. What's the plus/minus bottom line? And for the argument about 1M-4M being good. Sure. But 1M-2M, 4M is also good and should be compared to auctions like 1C (strong) - 1NT, 2M - 3M etc in terms of available space for slam investigation and anonymity / information leakage.
- The key to make this work is keeping the strong 1-suited M hands in the 1C opening.

[ulven]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-06, 09:01, said:

I suspect you will find out the issues soon enough if you do this objectively.

I suspect prevalent theory and my experiences doesn't match. Or maybe I fail the objectivity test... and just keep playing shitty stuff that doesn't work :-).

[foobar]

ulven, on 2017-October-07, 15:55, said:

I suspect prevalent theory and my experiences doesn't match. Or maybe I fail the objectivity test... and just keep playing shitty stuff that doesn't work :-).

Can we have a link to your preferred methods please?