[jillybean]

Hi, we have been playing this system over opponents 1nt for a while now:

2C both majors
2D one major (6 cards)
2H H+m
2S S+m
2N minors
3C/3D natural
X equiv.

It covers the majors well, I really like the 2C and 2D bids but we are missing out on minor hands where we can't bid at the 3 level.
So, it is time to change the system again and this is what we are looking at..

X = 4 card major & 5+ minor suit
2C = diamonds or 5-5 M/m 2 suiter
2D = hearts
2H = both majors
2S = spades
2N = clubs
3C = both minors
3D = both majors gf (i.e. stronger than 2H)

Comments?

[awm]

I think the Meyerson defense is just better than this. Again it's:

Dbl = Major + minor two-suiter at least 5/4 either way
2♣ = majors
2♦, 2♥, 2♠ = natural
2NT = minors
3x = natural

This allows you to show 5M/4m combinations, lets you ask for the longer suit opposite the double or 2♣ overcall, lets you raise partner's diamond overcall in competition, and actually has more non-forcing bids (putting more pressure on the opening side). The ambiguous "major + minor two-suiter" also seems to fare a lot better in competition than ambiguous bids that include one or more one-suiters (like your 2♣ call).

The follow-ups if you're interested:

(1NT)-2♣-(Pass): 2♦ asks longer major, 2M is to play, 3M is a mixed raise, 2♦ followed by a non-pass is invitational.
(1NT)-2♣-(Dbl): Rdbl asks longer major, other calls are to play including pass and 2♦
(1NT)-Dbl-(Pass): 2♣ asks five-card suit (NF), 2♦ asks major (forcing), 2M is a suit of my own
(1NT)-Dbl-(Rdbl): Same as over pass
(1NT)-Dbl-(stayman or xfer): Dbl shows 4+ in the suit they bid and asks to compete if partner has 4+ there also; 2NT is minors; pass then X is t/o

[jillybean]

Thanks Adam, we'll take a look at it.

[bluecalm]

You can also play multi-landy (defence you described as your actual system) but with X being 5-4.
If there is one thing I want to have after 1NT it's 2C majors. Rest doesn't matter much imo and there are a lot of sensible options to try.

[nigel_k]

Most methods work ok if the opponents remain silent. I would judge the method by how it fares if responder bids two of a major or three of a minor immediately. I like the following:

X: Good single suiter or any strong hand
2C: Hearts and another (9+ cards)
2D: Spades and another (9+ cards)
2H/S, 3C/D 6+ card suit, weakish
2NT minors
With both majors bid 2♦ with longer hearts, otherwise 2♣

My preference is also to have a six card suit when bidding two of a major, because doing it with 5-4 hands is risky and makes it hard for partner to know whether to compete further. Two ways to show single suiters is also good so partner won't get excited when you have a good suit and not much else, as they sometimes do. You can't usually play two of a minor with a two suiter, but they seldom let you anyway where I play.

The other consideration is that the above needs very little adjustment if you want to play penalty doubles, which I definitely prefer against a weak NT and don't want to have to remember two systems.

[jillybean]

As was kindly pointed out, I should mention that the 2D bid we were playing is illegal.

2C both majors
2D one major (6 cards)
2H H+m
2S S+m
2N minors
3C/3D natural
X equiv.

[PhilKing]

Land of the free.

[paulg]

PhilKing, on 2012-October-21, 12:43, said:

Land of the free.

To be fair, the Board of Directors did vote on this in July 2010 and decided not permit such methods (on the GCC). Democracy in action.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2012-October-21, 12:55, said:

To be fair, the Board of Directors did vote on this in July 2010 and decided not permit such methods (on the GCC). Democracy in action.

Hi Paul. To be clear, you are talking about the EBU/SBU and not the mighty ACBL here?

[paulg]

paulg, on 2012-October-21, 12:55, said:

To be fair, the Board of Directors did vote on this in July 2010 and decided not permit such methods (on the GCC). Democracy in action.

jillybean, on 2012-October-21, 13:03, said:

Hi Paul. To be clear, you are talking about the EBU/SBU and not the mighty ACBL here?

It was the ACBL of course, but I think all three organisations are equally democratic. Unfortunately this is not the same as always doing what I think they should do.

[fromageGB]

I don't like the X = 4 card major + 5+card minor. I used to play it as part of the original vertigo defence, but found it didn't work out often enough. Many times it was OK, but other times when there was no decent fit you end up too high. For example, advancer has a 4 card major and when overcaller shows the wrong major you are scratching around hoping to find a minor fit at the 3 level - and there isn't one. I now think bids should be more defined. If you initially show at least one definite suit you have the option of playing there.

Of course your 2C is OK in this regard, because if you have the 2-suiter, you will be bidding 2 of your 5 card major. However, I see little point in also having a 5 card minor, because what is partner going to do with a 4225 or 5125 when you bid hearts? You may have a wonderful 5-5 club fit, but he is never going to risk bidding it. It seems you are catering just for the rare occasion he has both long minors. You suffer the same problem as with the X.

[fromageGB]

Perhaps I should add that if you are going to have a partially unknown major/minor 2-suiter option, I think it better to show the minor and leave the major to be discovered. At least that way, if say 2♣ = ♣ + (♥ or ♠) you can discover the major at the 2 level, and it it does not fit well, you KNOW whether it is safe to go to the 3 level minor. Completely different to showing the major and leaving the minor undefined.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2012-October-21, 12:55, said:

To be fair, the Board of Directors did vote on this in July 2010 and decided not permit such methods (on the GCC). Democracy in action.

jillybean, on 2012-October-21, 13:03, said:

Hi Paul. To be clear, you are talking about the EBU/SBU and not the mighty ACBL here?

paulg, on 2012-October-21, 14:40, said:

It was the ACBL of course, but I think all three organisations are equally democratic. Unfortunately this is not the same as always doing what I think they should do.

Oh! Reading the ACBL GCC I find this under "DISALLOWED"
5. Relay (tell me more) systems.

Where in the GCC is (1N) 2D (showing one major) relay to 2H allowed?

[wyman]

jillybean, on 2012-October-21, 18:56, said:

Where in the GCC is (1N) 2D (showing one major) relay to 2H allowed?

it's not. it's expressly disallowed.

The X=canape (5m+4M), 2C = M's, 2D = M unspecified, 2M = M+m is typically called Woolsey, and the "multi" 2D is why it's disallowed.

7. DEFENSE TO:
...
b) Natural notrump opening bids and notrump overcalls, except that direct
calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2012-October-21, 14:40, said:

It was the ACBL of course, but I think all three organisations are equally democratic. Unfortunately this is not the same as always doing what I think they should do.

At least we can play Multi-Landy!

[jeffford76]

jillybean, on 2012-October-21, 11:25, said:

As was kindly pointed out, I should mention that the 2D bid we were playing is illegal.
2D one major (6 cards)

You just need to move south a little bit. Most events in District 20 (includes Oregon) allow "GCC + any defense to 1NT". Or come play in Seattle - any of the events that have a 0-750 event in parallel, which is a lot of them, allow midchart at the sectionals.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2012-October-21, 14:40, said:

It was the ACBL of course, but I think all three organisations are equally democratic. Unfortunately this is not the same as always doing what I think they should do.

Vampyr, on 2012-October-21, 19:16, said:

At least we can play Multi-Landy!

Even stronger, we can play anything in all but novice events in the UK.

When the ACBL BoD votes against such a simple change that's already in common use in some areas, it must be very frustrating for those who want to see further changes to the GCC.

[Zelandakh]

Here is my suggestion, a mix of Asptro, French and Multi-Landy:

X = 4+ hearts: either ♥ + ♦ + ♣, or 4♥ + longer minor, or ♥ + ♠ (spades > hearts)
2♣ = 4+ spades: either ♠ + ♥ + ♦, or 4♠ + longer minor, or ♠ + ♥ (hearts > spades)
2♦ = ♥ or ♠
2♥ = 5♥ + minor
2♠ = 5♠ + minor
2NT = minors
3m = natural

This gets you into the auction on all of the hands your existing systems do (plus some extras) while still differentiating between major suit lengths. You also get your major into the auction directly with the Asptro-like X/2♣ calls rather than the suits being completely unknown. Of course, none of this is GCC legal; but then again neither is your current defence.

[helene_t]

jillybean, on 2012-October-21, 18:56, said:

Oh! Reading the ACBL GCC I find this under "DISALLOWED"
5. Relay (tell me more) systems.

Where in the GCC is (1N) 2D (showing one major) relay to 2H allowed?

You can play relays in response to weak two openings (Ogust or w/e).

The GCC is difficult to read but probably the restriction on relays applies only to follow ups after one of a suit openings. You can play a 2♦ response to capp (nonforcing relay) or landy (forcing relay).

Another issue is that it is relay systems that are banned, not relays in isolation. You can get away with a relay in response to an opening if it is not followed up by another relay in second round. This may be the reason why Stayman is allowed.

So the problem is just that 2♦ doesn't have an anchor suit.

[MickyB]

I wouldn't worry about showing diamonds at the two-level. Sometimes you'll gain when you do so, but just as often you'll lose out, often by pushing oppo into a 4-4 major fit when they were about to play in 1NT. I care much more about getting in on 4S5m than 4H5m for similar reasons, don't want to push oppo into 2S.

I can't resist the temptation to join those mentioning their own defence -

Dbl = pens
2♣ = 3+♠,4+♥, could have longer ♣/♦
2♦ = ♠+minor, 5-4 either way. 2♥ forcing ask for the five-card suit
2M = natural

Not everyone likes pen dbls vs strong NTs, but they are still useful, and it obviously has benefits to not worry about different defences vs different NT ranges, or switching vs 3rd NV strong NTs to cater to psyches.

Many are sceptical about the 2♣ overcall. At most conditions, you can think of it as "the majors; or hearts+minor with three spades on the side". The 2♦ response is a non-forcing ask for overcaller's five-card suit. Getting all three strains into play on 35(41) and 34(51) is pretty cool, and its handling of major two-suiters is second only to Landy. Love all at MP, you can take a lot more liberties - shapes like 35(32) and 3442 [the latter passes the 2D relay] can get in if you so choose, the only shapes that aren't fair game are 3433 and 3424.