Problems

We do not agree on adopting the 9-11 responder range after opener’s 1♣. If 1♣-2R is 5-8, there could be a hassle if the second defender bids, and the opener has an invitational hand (around 17-18 points). Moreover, you could be missing some partial exclusion games, i.e. 13+11 points are regularly played at IMPs, if the fit is present, so bidding on beyond the 2nd lvl with 13 needs to be more common there, which leads to kind of an overbidding style (partner passes with minimum and now we would be a level higher just too often). Additionally, the Game Forcing bids by responder compatible with our style should be based on a good twelve count, which would lead to 0.5 point gap range left there, and thus make the 9-11 range more unsound.

(1M)-1NT System ON? No. That is too conform and unnatural in a way that it effectively denies the partnership the opportunity to land in 2 of a minor, which is frequently of most desirable goals. Also, the need to go beyond 2M when inviting to game is atrocious. Another thing is that this style often makes partnerships bid 1NT when double would be a better option considering long-term statistics. Needless to say, transfers wrong-side the suit contracts here. One should want the opening bidder to be on the lead, as he is forced to give away more tricks by leading from values straight away from the start (when considered we are playing mostly in a partial). Last, but not least, the values of the 1NT overcaller can often be read by adversaries even when it is the closed hand. On the other hand, defenders sometimes struggle when we hide the short unbid fragments of the advancer.

1♦-2M as weak nat – we couldnt play Reverse Flannery, which we believe is one of the most vital approaches that makes the one diamond opening compatible as it is written in the system. Kit Woolsey believes that Reverse Flannery is a clear winner.

1♣-(X)-XX as a diamond TRF is out of discussion. You can stop at 1♦, but the absence of a power XX would make us uncomfortable. To differ between hands that have offensive and defensive qualities is crucial to us…

2♦ Multi. First played by Jeremy Flint and Terence Reese to puzzle the opponents in the 60s. Nowadays, you surprise almost no one with it. Mandatory would be (if we ever played that) that it only has the preemptive variant, three ranges with two types of asks 2S and 2NT, and we could respond with invitational other Major, game forcing other Major, game forcing own minor, or a sign-off with own minor.

2M as two-suiters. Waste of a call. Does not come as often as our preempts (not even coming close). Also, it tells opponents the distribution too much.

2♣ Control step responses just take up way too much space. To have a range of 0-1 controls is unsound, if the 2♣ opening is not yet game forcing.

Split-range 2♣ opening is too vulnerable to opponents’ interventions for us, if not game forcing. It wrong-sides the 2♥ contracts when weaker (this is less desirable than vice-versa). On the other hand, it allows you to play 2M with 21-22 and it is better to pass 2♣-2♥ with 21-22 than with a stronger hand, as there is considerably smaller chance a sound game could be missed if the responder has some heart support. Another point against could be that it tells the opponents too much opposed to the 2NT-3NT auctions. Good opponents are prepared to double our stretched games, if we invite them to do it. And you also risk getting doubled after 2♣-2♥-2NT – you get mostly there after the split-range switch anyways. It is positive to be able to play weak transfers after 2NT 23-24 opening, but that would make our accepting structure redundant and we would need a revision, as otherwise we would still end in a unsound game with support, minimum (23 pts) against a virtual yarborough. The non-serious and serious steps are needed though, when the responder has little values, but is not completely empty (and that has a much higher frequency) . To conclude, the switch would only be a partial solution to a current problem of getting too high when we transfer with less than invitational values.