[kgr]

MPs

---

1♣=2+ card ♣ (Openings: 5=5=4=2)

System options:
2♥=invite+ with ♣-fit (2NT by opener is then 18-19)
3♣=6-9 with ♣-fit
1♠= 6+ points without ♥-stop, no 4+c♠
1NT=natural
(2NT=weak, 2-5, ♣-fit)

[gszes]

no sense in emphasizing a club "fit" we aren't even sure exists
and taking up a ton of space to do it so 3c seems wrong. Similar
problem with 2h showing fit and overemphasizing this particular
selection of quacks. Using this system I strongly prefer a simple


1s

which will get the ball rolling keep the level low and maybe do other
things like rightside 3n etc etc.

[1eyedjack]

3C for me. Downgrade the points and assume a fit. No point in always bidding for the worst case scenario. Partner is less likely to have 4-4-3-2 anyway after the 1H overcall

[Bbradley62]

Is 2♣ missing from your system choices? Not playing 2♣=simple (or constructive) raise and 3♣=preemptive raise?

[kgr]

Bbradley62, on 2013-September-20, 12:39, said:

Is 2♣ missing from your system choices? Not playing 2♣=simple (or constructive) raise and 3♣=preemptive raise?

2C is transfer D.

[PhilG007]

kgr, on 2013-September-20, 10:05, said:

MPs

---

1♣=2+ card ♣ (Openings: 5=5=4=2)

System options:
2♥=invite+ with ♣-fit (2NT by opener is then 18-19)
3♣=6-9 with ♣-fit
1♠= 6+ points without ♥-stop, no 4+c♠
1NT=natural
(2NT=weak, 2-5, ♣-fit)

2♣ unhesitatingly The hand is too dangerous for NTs

[PhilG007]

gszes, on 2013-September-20, 11:33, said:

no sense in emphasizing a club "fit" we aren't even sure exists
and taking up a ton of space to do it so 3c seems wrong. Similar
problem with 2h showing fit and overemphasizing this particular
selection of quacks. Using this system I strongly prefer a simple


1s

which will get the ball rolling keep the level low and maybe do other
things like rightside 3n etc etc.

You would overcall 1♠ on a rubbish 3 card suit???
Have you heard from your brain lately(?!) What if you become
defenders and partner leads ♠s??

[wyman]

Or you could read the OP to see what system hes playing so you don't continue to look like a jackass when you reply.

[mikeh]

I would elect the 3♣ call, since if ever there was a hand to downgrade, and I hate downgrading, this is it.

Anyone fearing a 2 card club suit should be reassured: I'm assuming the OP only opens this way on 4=4=3=2, and the 1♥ overcall reduces the already low probabilities there. Now, if 1♦ promises 5, the 2 card opening is far more frequent and I reserve the right to press redo.

I like the 1♠ usage....I have a similar agreement with all my regular partners. However, we use 2♣ as a single raise, and I would prefer to have that available here, reserving 3♣ for weaker hands. Incidentally, almost by default, a bid of 1♠ over the 1♥ overcall tends to show 5+ in the other minor for us (too weak to bid 2♦), because we do have the single raise, and we find this added definition to be useful, since 4th seat sometimes has the unpleasant habit of bidding 2♥ and now a very vague 1♠ places too much pressure on opener.

We use 2♥ as showing 6+ spades, limit or better, and 2♠ as the limit club raise, or better. Double, of course, shows 4+ spades, but it won't be 6+ limit or better.

Btw, I see the troll is either upping the ante on the punk'd aspect of his posts, or simply displaying an inability to read, since he thinks your agreement is that 1♠ shows spades, despite your post saying it denied them, lol.

[the hog]

3C is so obvious on this hand. However I also like the use of the 1S bid in your system.

Our resident troll apparently lacks the capability of reading English as well as being a lousy Bridge player. He would rather transfer to a non existent D suit, lol.

[kgr]

mikeh, on 2013-September-20, 16:13, said:

I'm assuming the OP only opens this way on 4=4=3=2, and the 1♥ overcall reduces the already low probabilities there.

correct

mikeh, on 2013-September-20, 16:13, said:

I like the 1♠ usage....I have a similar agreement with all my regular partners. However, we use 2♣ as a single raise, and I would prefer to have that available here, reserving 3♣ for weaker hands. Incidentally, almost by default, a bid of 1♠ over the 1♥ overcall tends to show 5+ in the other minor for us (too weak to bid 2♦), because we do have the single raise, and we find this added definition to be useful, since 4th seat sometimes has the unpleasant habit of bidding 2♥ and now a very vague 1♠ places too much pressure on opener.

2♣ is transfer to ♦ for us. 1♠ therefore tends to show a balanced hand not wanting to bid 1NT (No stopper; or f.i 10/11HCP and a direct 2NT is not natural for us).

mikeh, on 2013-September-20, 16:13, said:

We use 2♥ as showing 6+ spades, limit or better, and 2♠ as the limit club raise, or better. Double, of course, shows 4+ spades, but it won't be 6+ limit or better.

for us:
- DBL: 4+c♠
- 2♦: 6c♠, weak or GF
- 3♠: 6c♠, limit
- 2♠: 5c♠, 4+c♣, weak

mikeh, on 2013-September-20, 16:13, said:

Btw, I see the troll is either upping the ante on the punk'd aspect of his posts, or simply displaying an inability to read, since he thinks your agreement is that 1♠ shows spades, despite your post saying it denied them, lol.

I'm trying to resist to give attention to this

[kgr]

Thanks all (-1) for the answers.

I'm not sure about partners hand, but it was the 4=4=3=2

MPs

---

1♣=2+ card ♣ (Openings: 5=5=4=2)

System options:
2♥=invite+ with ♣-fit (2NT by opener is then 18-19)
3♣=6-9 with ♣-fit
1♠= 6+ points without ♥-stop, no 4+c♠
1NT=natural
(2NT=weak, 2-5, ♣-fit)

I didn't consider 3♣ (but I certainly agree that this hand is worse then the 10HCP), but maybe it is the best bid.
I hesitated between 1♠ and 2♥, but preferred to show my ♣-fit.
2NT by opener now shows 18-19 (this was somehow hidden in my OP), maybe that agreement should have taken more weight for me to decide to bid 1♠.

The result was 3♣= after a small ♥ lead and some miss-defense. Score 33%

All results and score for E-W:

 S2N=leadh6  40      7  38.89%      
 W2D+1,leadcK  34     18 100.00%
 S2N=leadh6  39      7  38.89%     
 S2N+1leadh6  31      1   5.56%    
 S3C=leadh6  38     12  66.67%        
 S1N+1leadh5  35      7  38.89%     
 N1N+2leadc7  37      1   5.56%           
 S2N=leadh8  33      7  38.89%         
 S2N-1leadd4  36     15  83.33%  
 S2N-1leadh7  32     15  83.33%

[Fluffy]

This hand is a 6-9 raise more than anything else, however I don't like 3♣, for maybe a stupid reason, I don't wanna preempt the opponents, I want them to take a look, add their values and realize they don't have much combined, I don't really want them bidding 4 hearts under pressure because it could easily make!

[ggwhiz]

Why does playing a short club have any advantages? Especially on weak openers where competition is expected. Must be playable since it's widespread, I just don't understand how.

That said playing 3+ I would open 1♥ on this one (instead of bidding an xxx suit) with decent spots or pass and balance.

[ahydra]

All those quacks... I think 1S stands out rather than 3C. Does that get us to a better spot (1NT?) that doesn't require a misdefence to scrape home?

ahydra

[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-21, 10:22, said:

Why does playing a short club have any advantages? Especially on weak openers where competition is expected. Must be playable since it's widespread, I just don't understand how.

That said playing 3+ I would open 1♥ on this one (instead of bidding an xxx suit) with decent spots or pass and balance.

It's a trade-off. In strong club systems, for example, you accept the weakness of the strong club because you feel you gain more from the limited openers. In short club systems, you get "better" 1♦ opening bids -- promises 4, or even 5 unless 4-4-4-1, promises an unbalanced hand, etc. So the short club per se has no advantages, but many players feel that they gain more than they lose because of what they can do with their diamond openers.

[lowerline]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-21, 10:22, said:

Why does playing a short club have any advantages? Especially on weak openers where competition is expected. Must be playable since it's widespread, I just don't understand how.

That said playing 3+ I would open 1♥ on this one (instead of bidding an xxx suit) with decent spots or pass and balance.

The short club has advantages when there is no interference or when 1♦ is opened.

Steven

[lowerline]

kgr, on 2013-September-20, 10:05, said:

MPs

---

1♣=2+ card ♣ (Openings: 5=5=4=2)

System options:
2♥=invite+ with ♣-fit (2NT by opener is then 18-19)
3♣=6-9 with ♣-fit
1♠= 6+ points without ♥-stop, no 4+c♠
1NT=natural
(2NT=weak, 2-5, ♣-fit)

As this hand is not worth an invite, only 1♠ applies from the list above...

Steven

[Vampyr]

lowerline, on 2013-September-23, 07:10, said:

As this hand is not worth an invite, only 1♠ applies from the list above...

Why not 3♣? Because we have a spare Jack? I am not saying that it is a better or a worse bid, but obviously the hand qualifies if it is considered to be non-invitational.

[Zelandakh]

I think the usage of the 2♣ response makes a big difference here. As Mike has pointed out, if 2♣ is natural, 1♠ tends to suggest diamonds. But when 2♣ shows diamonds, 1♠ should tend to suggest clubs. Balanced hands are also possible but I can live with that, after all we are 5m332! So my vote is for 1♠, even knowing that this goes against Mike's opinion. We just feel that within this system, we should be better placed on the next round to know whether we should be competing in clubs or not by partner's rebid and seeing if the hearts are raised. I can see the downside clearly, that the opps can show their support cheaply and avoid a guess, but I think it is worth giving them the chance to avoid a guess for us to give ourselves the best chance of getting our guess right.