[Kungsgeten]

So I've toyed with some ideas for a strong pass system, while at the same time keeping it legal according to Swedish system regulations. Here's the idea, do you think it would be playable?

Pass = 13+ hcp, unbal. Forcing.
1C = 8-11 NT or 15+ NT. Forcing.
1D = Fert, 0-7.
1M = 4+M, longer minor possible. 8-12.
1NT = 12-14
2m = 5-4 minors or 6+m, 8-12.
2M = Weak.
2NT = Not sure, would have to be strong.

Responding to pass 1C would be an artificial GF, 1D would be 0-7 and other bids would be natural 8-11 (like openings).

I guess transfers would be okay when responding to the 1C opening.

[nullve]

So

* the P/1♦ openings are standard WOS base except that P is always unbal.
* the 1M, 1N and 2m openings are as in Magic Diamond
* the 2M openings are more or less standard weak twos
* the 2N+ openngs are undefined

So far so good.

I don't think I've seen this exact 1♣ opening before, but it does look a lot like

* a Boring 1♣ opening, but with 8-11 or 15+ instead of 12-18
* the balanced part of Polish, Roman or Swedish 1♣ opening, but with ranges shifted downwards a few points.

Just to prove that the opening itself is playable (not to suggest a structure after it):

1♣-?:

1♦: as in Belladonna's 1986 version of Roman Club, but with 0-13 negative range and other ranges shifted upwards 4 points
...Instead of Roman Club-style rebids:
...1M = 8-11, 4 M or 3M3-OM [delayed Regres 1M opening, but always bal. and with 8-11 instead of 8-12; should be playable]
...1N = 15-17 [playable]
...2♣ = 18-19 [delayed Mexican, should be playable]
...2♦ = 20-21 [delayed Mexican, should be playable]
...2♥ = 22-24 [balanced-only Birthright, should be playable]
...2N = 25+ [playable]
1♥+: as in Belladonna's 1986 version of Roman Club, but with Responder's ranges shifted upwards 4 points
...1♠+: as in Belladonna's 1986 version of Roman Club, but with ranges being 8-11/15-17/21+ instead of 12-15/19-21/25+, respectively, and with Opener's cheapest C rebid (otherwise idle) showing 18-20 bal. [should be playable]

I suppose transfer responses to 1♣ could work, too, but the wide 8-11 range might cause some problems that a 8-10 or 9-11 range wouldn't.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-April-02, 10:04

[rbforster]

The 1C opening should be fine, so few hand types and so much space. For example, Swedish club systems have a weak NT or any strong hand, while you have a weak NT or any strong NT. There are so many more unbalanced hands.

OTOH, you're compressing a lot of hand types into the unbalanced suit opening at a relatively high level, so those are unlikely to perform well compared to standard methods. For example, your 1M has all the hand shapes of a standard 5cM opener, plus all the 4+ minor / 4M unbalanced canapés also - it will be hard to get to good partials since you won't be able to unwind opener's major lengths at a low level and even strong auctions will necessarily be less precise. Likewise, your 2m openers with 5+ are less well defined than precision or similar where 2m is 6+ (perhaps also 5m/4M depending on style), and hence it will be easier to miss major fits since for responder it will be harder to judge if to pass or try to improve the contract.

I think you should work on the 1C continuations and you'll find that you have lots and lots of unused bidding sequences. Then you should think about what problem hands you've got in your other limited suit openers and consider putting some into 1C to fill the gaps there and to improve continuations for the remaining suit openers.

Alternatively, if you're mathematically inclined, figure out what fraction of hands are opening each bid. Generally, lower bids should have higher %'s since there's more space to handle them, while higher openers should be lower frequency. I think the 1C will stick out as an underused outlier.

[Kungsgeten]

The 1C opening could probably contain more hands, but in that case they would need to have 4+ clubs in order to match the system regulations. Perhaps 8-12 with both minors for instance, making 2m show 6+ suit. Another possibility is of course 1C as natural or balanced.

[rbforster]

Thinking about your major openings, removing the club-M canapés could help the continuations a fair bit. Suppose 1C was expanded to:

Mini NT
strong+ NT
4H/4+ clubs
4S/4+ clubs
5S/4+ clubs

This gets you back to pretty much a 2/1 GF style for your 1M openers:

1H-1S(Kaplan inversion / forcing NT):

1N 4H/longer D (then 2C cheap force, 2DH preference)
2C 5+H/4+C
2D 5+H/4+D
2H 6+

1S-1N(forcing):

2C 4S/longer D (then 2DS preference, 2H cheap force)
2D 5+S/4+D
2H 5+S/4+H
2S 6+

Then your 2m openers can be 6+ single suited, or 5+ with both minors. I hear this should play pretty well.

[Zelandakh]

Good opponents will bid freely after your initial pass and this is going to cause you problems. My solution within your regs would be to remove some of the club-based hands and put them in 1♣. That evens out the hand types a little and will make competition run more smoothly. Which hands to remove is something you will have to test - I would probably play-test removing all of them (13+) to start with and take it from there. One advantage of that approach is that "Opener's" 2♣ "rebid" could be artificial and strong without causing any difficulties at all if you wanted to structure things that way.