[straube]

We're playing IMPrecision's 2C opening and responses, but what are the continuations for 2C-2M? They're natural, limited and forcing. Lots to sort out here. For example responder could have a 5M/4M and we might have a fit in the other major. It would also be nice to find 6/2 fits before passing 3C.

Would it make sense to respond in 4-cd major suits as for the 2D opening? Or maybe just 4H? Haven't worked that out.

[whereagles]

What are the shapes put into 2♣?

[straube]

whereagles, on 2014-June-24, 08:52, said:

What are the shapes put into 2♣?

6+ clubs, could have a 4-cd side suit but not a 5-cd side suit.

[whereagles]

Responder's 44 majors use 2♦, I guess?

With 54s you always bid the major, right?

[awm]

We don't play anything particularly complicated here. Our agreements are:

1. 2M is forcing one round, 5+ cards
2. Opener's 2NT rebid is natural and forcing one round
3. Opener's 3C rebid is NF
4. Responder's next bid is usually non-forcing, since strong hands start with 2D or a jump to the three-level.

We are mostly trying to get to the right spot on all of: 1. 6+M 2. 5M/5 other 3. 5M/club tolerance. We could in principle play 2M as non-forcing, but we feel that we are more likely to reach the right spot with a one-round force, and are not particularly afraid of 6-1 club fits when nothing else appeals.

[straube]

awm, on 2014-June-24, 10:41, said:

We don't play anything particularly complicated here. Our agreements are:

1. 2M is forcing one round, 5+ cards
2. Opener's 2NT rebid is natural and forcing one round
3. Opener's 3C rebid is NF
4. Responder's next bid is usually non-forcing, since strong hands start with 2D or a jump to the three-level.

We are mostly trying to get to the right spot on all of: 1. 6+M 2. 5M/5 other 3. 5M/club tolerance. We could in principle play 2M as non-forcing, but we feel that we are more likely to reach the right spot with a one-round force, and are not particularly afraid of 6-1 club fits when nothing else appeals.

I'm imagining 2C-2S, 2N-3C, 3S is forcing with 2 spades?

[rhm]

awm, on 2014-June-24, 10:41, said:

We don't play anything particularly complicated here. Our agreements are:

1. 2M is forcing one round, 5+ cards
2. Opener's 2NT rebid is natural and forcing one round
3. Opener's 3C rebid is NF
4. Responder's next bid is usually non-forcing, since strong hands start with 2D or a jump to the three-level.

We are mostly trying to get to the right spot on all of: 1. 6+M 2. 5M/5 other 3. 5M/club tolerance. We could in principle play 2M as non-forcing, but we feel that we are more likely to reach the right spot with a one-round force, and are not particularly afraid of 6-1 club fits when nothing else appeals.

I can understand this philosophy at IMPs (though I am not convinced), but I would be worried not being able to play 2M after a 2♣ opening at matchpoints.
I think this price is high. I rather play standard or transfer responses.

Rainer Herrmann

[rbforster]

rhm, on 2014-June-25, 01:47, said:

I can understand this philosophy at IMPs (though I am not convinced), but I would be worried not being able to play 2M after a 2♣ opening at matchpoints.
I think this price is high. I rather play standard or transfer responses.

I'm not sure what structure is being used after 2♣-2♦, but one method that can work well when 2♦ is generally strongish is to have opener respond 2M to show his shorter major and only bid higher with significant distribution. This allows responders with a weak long major to bid 2♦ and pass (or rarely with a big fit, play 3M when the opponents have a likely fit and half the deck also).

[rhm]

rbforster, on 2014-June-25, 06:22, said:

I'm not sure what structure is being used after 2♣-2♦, but one method that can work well when 2♦ is generally strongish is to have opener respond 2M to show his shorter major and only bid higher with significant distribution. This allows responders with a weak long major to bid 2♦ and pass (or rarely with a big fit, play 3M when the opponents have a likely fit and half the deck also).

So with 0 or 1 or 2 hearts and say 7 clubs you bid 2♥ over 2♣-2♦ and responder knows what to do?
You also bid 2♥ with 3-3 in the majors?
What if opener has a singleton spade and a doubleton heart? Good luck in 3♥.

I have analyzed this situation when I open 2♣, which in my case shows 6 cards and at most 4 cards in a major and at least 3 cards more in clubs than diamonds.

When partner has a six card or a good 5 card major suit and bids a non-forcing 2M, opener will hold approximately:

a void in opener's major 6% of the time --> opener will correct to 2NT or 3♣
a singleton 26% of the time --> opener will correct to 2NT or 3♣
a doubleton 36% of the time, which is opener's most likely holding --> opener will pass unless very long in clubs or 4 cards in spades (over 2♥).
3 cards 25% of the time --> opener will raise unless 6322 and minimum
4 cards 7% of the time --> opener will splinter with a maximum or raise with a minimum.

So 1/3 of the time you will have shortage in the major, 1/3 you will hold a doubleton and 1/3 you will have a fit in the major.

Rainer Herrmann

[awm]

The problem with the non-forcing 2M bid is that its adherents are (perhaps understandably) unwilling to discuss the point range for the call.

Basically:

1. If you are making this bid on sub-invitational hands, you are behind a third of the time (playing 3♣ instead of 2♣), ahead a third of the time (found a fit) and ahead some of the times you play in a 5-2 fit (MP advantage, but the club fit is probably "safer" and sometimes you will make the same number of tricks and it will be seven). Probably you are slightly ahead... but this is on sub-invitational hands where opponents are passing. Against this, it becomes much harder to bid with invitational hands, such that you will lose on a significant percentage of those. Further, opponents tend to bid when you have a sub-invite, so the frequency of uncontested auction will be lower on this hand type, and in fact bidding the second suit sometimes makes it easier for opponents to come in!

2. If you are making this bid only on invites, then you are also losing all of the times that opener has a maximum with doubleton and you miss a good game by passing 2M. You also lose sometimes when responder is 5/5 and there is a big fit in responder's second suit (but he gets passed in 2M). And you lose when 2M is significantly not the best partial (say responder has a weakish five-card suit and three-card support for clubs). Seems to me that the pass of 2M is probably close to a push.

[rbforster]

rhm, on 2014-June-25, 07:48, said:

So with 0 or 1 or 2 hearts and say 7 clubs you bid 2♥ over 2♣-2♦ and responder knows what to do?
You also bid 2♥ with 3-3 in the majors?
What if opener has a singleton spade and a doubleton heart? Good luck in 3♥.

When I said opener would bid higher with significant distribution, I would assume most 7♣ hands will bid something else (say 2N with max and 3♣ with min; not sure about 7222). I agree this could be problematic if opener can be 4=6 in the minors such that he may be short in both majors and yet not have a 7th club. I don't know if OP's opening includes those shapes with both minors, but they could probably be opened 1♦ acceptably. In the example I gave:

2♣-2♦ invitational ask or long M sign off

...2♥ 2+♠, equal or shorter hearts (3136, 3226, 2236, 7222, 4xx6, 2146, 3046)
...2♠ 2+♥, shorter spades (3316, 1336, 2326, x4x6, 1246, 0346)
...2N 7♣ unbalanced max (or could use for 4♦ if desired)
...3♣ 7♣ unbalanced min

After 2M, the cheapest bid in OM is to play (2♠ or 3♥, the latter will be at least a 6-3 fit if you disallow the 4/6 minors hands). This uses up some space for GFR since you lose the 2♠ ask after opener's 2♥ rebid, so you have to decide what your priorities are. The framework where I normally use this is more of a weak club preempt, so the invitational and GF responds are less important.

[straube]

Just for general info...Imprecision's relay structure is...

2C-2D=GI+ relay
.....2H-single-suited
..........break relay=GI natural
..........2S-GF relay
.....2S-4 diamonds
..........3m-GI natural
..........2N-GF relay
.....2N-4 hearts
..........3C-GI natural
..........3D-GF relay
.....3C-4 spades, minimum
..........3D-GF relay
.....etc-4 spades, maximum

We used to play that 2C denies 4 hearts and this made it possible to use transfers and relays at the same time. I.e.

2C-2D=hearts or GF relay
.....2H-0-1 hearts
..........P or break relay=hearts
..........2S-GF relay
.....2S-2 hearts
..........break relay=hearts
..........2N-GF relay
.....2N-3 hearts, higher shortness
.....3C-3 hearts, lower shortness
.....3D-0346
.....3H-2326
.....3S-4306

which I think is along the lines that some are suggesting. I don't think there is room available for 2C-2D as a transfer or GF relay if opener could have 4 hearts.

[PrecisionL]

Quote

I can understand this philosophy at IMPs (though I am not convinced), but I would be worried not being able to play 2M after a 2♣ opening at matchpoints.
I think this price is high. I rather play standard or transfer responses.

Rainer Herrmann

Yes, Conditional Transfer Responses work well if the 2♣ opening denies a 4-cd major. We have 5 years experience playing such a scheme. Without invitational values it is best to have a club fit.

[biggerclub]

rhm, on 2014-June-25, 01:47, said:

I can understand this philosophy at IMPs (though I am not convinced), but I would be worried not being able to play 2M after a 2♣ opening at matchpoints.
I think this price is high. I rather play standard or transfer responses.

Rainer Herrmann

I played a lot of MP forcing club in the 90s.

For matchpoints, the best solution I ever found was 4 card majors and canape. In a constructive auction, 1H or S-1N-2C or D shows a longer minor with a 4 card major while 1H or S-1N-2H or S (same suit) shows a 6 card MAJ. The advantages are -- no need for contortion to deal with the C + MAJ issue, pre-emption, and just, in general better bidding for MPs. With both MAJ 4-4 open 1H. In fact, the experience made me long for 4 card majors no matter what the system. With this system we were able to shade opening values down to 10 good points and enter the bidding more often and with a higher call giving the OPPs fits. The downside is a fairly consistent opposite (but not necessarily wrong) siding of NT contracts. Both players need to be proficient at 4-3 trump suits, but that is not that difficult.

We also used 2H/2S to show 5+MAJ/4+MIN type hands (again, limited). 1D and 1NT both deny 4 card majors and, if you like 1D can promise 4 or even 5 Ds.

2D is now available as a super strong three suiter with any shortness, multi, Flannery or whatever other toys (weak 2 in a MAJ) you want use there. It is not needed to show limited opening with D shortness, since those hands hold 1 or 2 4 Card MAJ. 2C is reserved for almost exclusively 6 card club hands. And again, pre-empting, describing shape very quickly and precisely.

Someone smarter and more famous than me (Haman?) said that to use a forcing club without 4 card MAJ is a crime against bridge.

Responses are natural too. Tend to respond 1NT (non-forcing) with balanced hands as well as with weak distributional hands -- provided you elect to enter the auction at all (see next sentence), raise with trump support (3+) headed by an honor and shape (at least a singleton somewhere), with game forcing value and slam a possibility bid your longest suit first (2/1 super strong forcing unless suit rebid -- and even then 12-13 HCP). No need to respond at all with up to a bad 9 points (as in all strong club systems).

I would love to find someone in the SoCal area will to work with and play this system now.

[steve2005]

Canapé seems nice and solves a lot of problems. Have read Blue Team Club but just can't get my head around the concept.

I started out learning Acol with 4-card majors so its not the 4-card major that I don't get it's the Canapé.

[PrecisionL]

biggerclub, on 2014-July-04, 19:04, said:

I played a lot of MP forcing club in the 90s.

For matchpoints, the best solution I ever found was 4 card majors and canape. In a constructive auction, 1H or S-1N-2C or D shows a longer minor with a 4 card major while 1H or S-1N-2H or S (same suit) shows a 6 card MAJ. The advantages are -- no need for contortion to deal with the C + MAJ issue, pre-emption, and just, in general better bidding for MPs. With both MAJ 4-4 open 1H. In fact, the experience made me long for 4 card majors no matter what the system. With this system we were able to shade opening values down to 10 good points and enter the bidding more often and with a higher call giving the OPPs fits. The downside is a fairly consistent opposite (but not necessarily wrong) siding of NT contracts. Both players need to be proficient at 4-3 trump suits, but that is not that difficult.

We also used 2H/2S to show 5+MAJ/4+MIN type hands (again, limited). 1D and 1NT both deny 4 card majors and, if you like 1D can promise 4 or even 5 Ds.

2D is now available as a super strong three suiter with any shortness, multi, Flannery or whatever other toys (weak 2 in a MAJ) you want use there. It is not needed to show limited opening with D shortness, since those hands hold 1 or 2 4 Card MAJ. 2C is reserved for almost exclusively 6 card club hands. And again, pre-empting, describing shape very quickly and precisely.

Someone smarter and more famous than me (Haman?) said that to use a forcing club without 4 card MAJ is a crime against bridge.

Responses are natural too. Tend to respond 1NT (non-forcing) with balanced hands as well as with weak distributional hands -- provided you elect to enter the auction at all (see next sentence), raise with trump support (3+) headed by an honor and shape (at least a singleton somewhere), with game forcing value and slam a possibility bid your longest suit first (2/1 super strong forcing unless suit rebid -- and even then 12-13 HCP). No need to respond at all with up to a bad 9 points (as in all strong club systems).

I would love to find someone in the SoCal area will to work with and play this system now.

Yes, my favorite system too - especially for MP Pairs.

[biggerclub]

steve2005, on 2014-July-06, 08:20, said:

Canapé seems nice and solves a lot of problems. Have read Blue Team Club but just can't get my head around the concept.

I started out learning Acol with 4-card majors so its not the 4-card major that I don't get it's the Canapé.

So what is the issue? Are you having trouble with (no opponents bidding) 1H - 1N - 2D? and not knowing if opener is 5-4 or 4-5 in the reds? Note that we have resolved this issue in clubs with our 2MAJ showing MAJ (5) + Cs (4) treatment.

To always PASS 2D cannot be too far wrong. Or if passing partner in a second bid suit with xx is too much to stomach, then correct to 2Hs with xxxx, xxx, xx, AKJx (note that an auction of 1H, 1S, 2D, 2H works better here).

I am going to start a new thread on FC-Canape (Forcing Club) so as not to pollute this one with this discussion any further.

[rhm]

biggerclub, on 2014-July-07, 15:51, said:

So what is the issue?

The issue is 4 card majors.
If I held often enough a minimum opening with long clubs and a 4 card major I would play 4 card majors and canape.
Having played Blue Club I understand that 4 card majors and canape solve a lot of problems.
But 4 card majors put you at a distinct disadvantage compared to others when you have more than 4 cards in a major, the occasional success when you hold precisely four cards in a major notwithstanding.
Also I need two level openings for obstructive purposes, that is for distributional hands with less than opening values.
Any system, which looks only at the constructive side and how to reach good contracts without interference by opponents, are bound to fail at the table.

Rainer Herrmann

[biggerclub]

rhm, on 2014-July-08, 06:56, said:

The issue is 4 card majors.
If I held often enough a minimum opening with long clubs and a 4 card major I would play 4 card majors and canape.
Having played Blue Club I understand that 4 card majors and canape solve a lot of problems.
But 4 card majors put you at a distinct disadvantage compared to others when you have more than 4 cards in a major, the occasional success when you hold precisely four cards in a major notwithstanding.
Also I need two level openings for obstructive purposes, that is for distributional hands with less than opening values.
Any system, which looks only at the constructive side and how to reach good contracts without interference by opponents, are bound to fail at the table.

Rainer Herrmann

Oh. So then this threw me.

Quote

. . . so its not the 4-card major that I don't get it's the Canapé.