Prec.: playable giving up 3 suiter short in D ?

[Chamaco]

Hi all !

 

I'd appreciate feedback on this.

The scheme sacrifices 3 suited bids for a better description of 2suited hands while keeping explicit (xfer) weak 2 bids so that pard can raise immediately.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Currently we play

 

1C = 16+ any, excluding 4441 17-20 AND excluding 4-losers 2 suiters

1D = 4+ diamonds (REAL DIAMONDS!), < 16 hcp

1M = 5+, < 16 hcp

1NT = balanced (12)13-15 (we'll open also most 11 count with 2 Aces)

2C = 6+ C or 5C4M with good clubs

2D = MULTI (weak 2M or 4441 17-20)

2H = 3 suiter short in Diamonds

2S= generic TOUCHING 2 suiter, about 4 losers (usually 55, 16-18, but might be 65 with 13-15, etc etc)

2NT= generic NONTOUCHING 2 suiter, about 4 losers (like 2S)

====

 

WHAT WOULD WE LIKE TO CHANGE ?

 

We absolutely want to keep the 4-losers 2 suited hands OUT of the 1C opener, because we firmly believe this makes the 1C opener much less vulnerable to opps interference.

 

However, we like less and less the 2D Multi opener.

The first reason why we dislike it is the fact that in Italy you cannot open a 2D Multi if you have < 6 hcp. This is a shame, especially in 3rd seat.

The second reason is that pard cannot freely raise preemptively the suit promised by pard (because he ignores which major is held by opener).

 

The main reason why we had chose to use Multi was to allow to bid "better" the 4441 17-20, but we are ready to give this up.

We use the 1C-1D-1H opener's rebid to show strong, non minimum reverse hands, so we might just use a followup of this sequence to solve this.

 

Still, we'd like to maintain a way to show strong 2 suiter (Misiry might work for instance :) ), as well as being able to open a weak 2 WITHOUT using Multi 2D.

 

This might require to give up the 3 suited opening short in Diamonds (2D or 2H, according to the versions) opener.

 

HOW DO WE PLAN TO OPEN THE 3 SUITED HAND SHORT IN Diamonds ?

 

- 4414 and 4405 shall be opened 1H: we use Kaplan inversion and 2/1 GF, the 1NT rebid by opener (showing either a Flannery hand or 44M hand) will be passed more often rather than preferencing to hearts with a doubleton

Opening 1H with 44M will also occur on balanced hands, avoiding to pen 1NT with 44M, risking to lose the partscore spot at MP

 

- (43)15 shall be opened frequently 1NT, unless clubs are biddable or the 4 card major is very good.

 

HOW DO WE PLAN TO SHOW THE STRONG 2 SUITERS ?

 

We plan to use a scheme of xfer 2-level opener I have seen adopted by some experts:

 

2D = 5+ hearts, weak, OR STRONG 2 suiter hearts + minor

2H = 5+ spades, weak, OR STRONG 2 suiter with spades + minor

2S = 55+ in minors, weak/strong

2NT = 55+majors, weak/strong

 

Ys, I know the disadvantage of xfer openings (extra low level cuebid, extra chance for penalty given by pass then double), but on the whole I think the other advantages compared to the previous scheme outweight these disadvantages.

===============

 

The final scheme would be:

 

1C = 16+ excluding 2 suiters

1D = 4+ D, max 15 hcp

1H = usually 5+H, might be 44M, max 15 hcp- Kaplan Inversion may follow.

1S = 5+S, max 15

1NT = (12)13-15, balanced WITHOUT 44M, very often offshape (e.g. 5431 with bad clubs 5 bagger)

2C = 6C ot 5C+4M with god clubs

2D = weak 2 in H or strong 55+, H +m

2H = weak 2 in S or strong 55+, S +m

2S = 55+ minors, weak/strong

2NT = 55+ majors, weak/strong

 

Comments on the playability of such scheme ?

 

Thanks a lot !!

[helene_t]

It certainly looks playable.

 

One drawback of opening the 3-suiters 2♥ instead of 2♦ is that with a 4315-shape, it is less convenient to open 2♥ as this may be a 3-3 fit. (Reese said you should open 2♦ and correct 2♥ to 2♠). But I think this is a minor concern. Even f you use 2♦ for this purpose, it is not necesarily better than opening 1♠, 2♣ or 1NT depending on the location of honours etc.

 

With 4135/1435 I would often prefer to open 1♦, though. I think a singleton in a major is worse than a singleton minor.

[Chamaco]

One drawback of opening the 3-suiters 2♥ instead of 2♦ is that with a 4315-shape, it is less convenient to open 2♥ as this may be a 3-3 fit. (Reese said you should open 2♦ and correct 2♥ to 2♠).

 

The 3-suited 2H is part of the old scheme.

The new scheme (shown at the bottom of the post) just gives up altogether any way to show a 3 suiter short in diamonds.

That's the mai point of the post: how much we'll lose/gain giving up the 3 suiter short in D.

[helene_t]

Sorry, Mauro, I must be sleeping. Will you please stop asking Precision-questions that early in the morning :-)

 

Not sure how your continuation is over 2♣. In symmetric relays it is a problem to show all possible shapes because of the lack of bidding space, even if 2♣ promises six. And SR more or less requires the shape to dictate the opening. Presumably you don't play a full relay structure?

 

Otherwise, I won't miss the openings showing specifc 3-suiters. I'm no big fan of openings with such a low frequency. So giving up 4414/4405 is something you can sell to me.

 

FWIW, I dislike multi with strong variants because partner should be allowed to do crazy things after your preempt. But that's just my taste.

 

Opening 1♥ with 44M is fine if you play Kaplan Inversion. But you might consider an optional 1NT opening with 44M (depending on the seat and such).

[Gerben42]

The final scheme would be:

 

1C = 16+ excluding 2 suiters

1D = 4+ D, max 15 hcp

1H = usually 5+H, might be 44M, max 15 hcp- Kaplan Inversion may follow.

1S = 5+S, max 15

1NT = (12)13-15, balanced WITHOUT 44M, very often offshape (e.g. 5431 with bad clubs 5 bagger)

2C = 6C ot 5C+4M with good clubs

2D = weak 2 in H or strong 55+, H +m

2H = weak 2 in S or strong 55+, S +m

2S = 55+ minors, weak/strong

2NT = 55+ majors, weak/strong

 

Looks playable, but I'm not in love with the preempts. I think there was some system that takes care of those strong 2-suiters. Maybe Ben remembers what it was...

 

So my scheme would be:

2♦♥♠: Weak two

2NT: ♣ weak or strong ♥ + ♦/♠

3♣: ♦ weak or strong ♣ + major

3♦: ♥ weak or strong ♦ + ♣/♠

[Chamaco]

The final scheme would be:

 

1C = 16+ excluding 2 suiters

1D = 4+ D, max 15 hcp

1H = usually 5+H, might be 44M, max 15 hcp- Kaplan Inversion may follow.

1S = 5+S, max 15

1NT = (12)13-15, balanced WITHOUT 44M, very often offshape (e.g. 5431 with bad clubs 5 bagger)

2C = 6C ot 5C+4M with good clubs

2D = weak 2 in H or strong 55+, H +m

2H = weak 2 in S or strong 55+, S +m

2S = 55+ minors, weak/strong

2NT = 55+ majors, weak/strong

 

Looks playable, but I'm not in love with the preempts. I think there was some system that takes care of those strong 2-suiters. Maybe Ben remembers what it was...

 

So my scheme would be:

2♦♥♠: Weak two

2NT: ♣ weak or strong ♥ + ♦/♠

3♣: ♦ weak or strong ♣ + major

3♦: ♥ weak or strong ♦ + ♣/♠

 

Yes I know Misiry and I like it, but right now my pards seem to be more likely to accept the xfer openings at the 2 level rather than at the 3 level :-)

 

I suspect it's just a matter of familiarity, oh well... ;)

 

The 2-level opening scheme is currently being used by Facchini , an ex World Champion (or, perhaps should I write world champion, he was one of the "Soldier's Foot" pair...) into a scheme very similar to Polish Club.

He includes in the xfer opening also good-ish one suiters and many minimum unbalanced hands.

 

==========

 

However, for the purpose of this post, it's enough for me to know that giving up the 3 suiter and opening 1NT offshape more often is not a totally reckless strategy :)

[david_c]

The 2-level opening scheme is currently being used by Facchini , an ex World Champion (or, perhaps should I write world champion, he was one of the "Soldier's Foot" pair...) into a scheme very similar to Polish Club.

He includes in the xfer opening also good-ish one suiters and many minimum unbalanced hands.

I'm not surprised - I think you will find that your strong options are too infrequent. (Well, the frequency of the strong option is the same as MisIry, but relative to the weak option it's much lower.)

 

Personally I really don't like using 2♠ to show both minors. The 2♠ opening should be treated with respect - "the best pre-empt in the pack" - and playing it as forcing makes it very feeble (the opponents are no longer threatened by you playing at the two level). If 2♦ and 2♥ are transfers then 2♠ should be something like Muiderberg.

[david_c]

By the way, I happen to think that opening 1NT on 4414 and (43)15 shapes is very effective. It's the (41)35s that worry me.

[Chamaco]

By the way, I happen to think that opening 1NT on 4414 and (43)15 shapes is very effective. It's the (41)35s that worry me.

And I can see why (pard is more likely to xfer in our singleton).

 

However, I want my 1-level openings to be lead-directing, I will never open 1 of a suit with Jxx or Qxx in the suit.

 

With (41)35s my strategy shall be:

 

- open 1D (steal a card) with HHx or better

 

- open 1M (steal a card) with HHTx or better

 

- open 2C with HHTxx or better

 

- open 1NT with none of the above

 

Alternatively, I am starting to understand why people play canapè MAFIA openings (Jimmy r u around ? ;) )

[Gerben42]

Opening 1NT systemically with a small singleton may be problematic in your regulations.

 

A 2♠ opening bid should show ♠.

[Chamaco]

Opening 1NT systemically with a small singleton may be problematic in your regulations.

No, fortunately FIGB explicitly states that 5431 shape is allowed ;)

[mikestar]

I like Real Diamond Precision. You don't need a special bid for 4=4=1=4, the frequencey of this pattern is only 3/4 %. Opening 1♥ with it won't come up often enough to disrupt your 5 card major methods.

 

But I really don't like the complictions handling the 4M-5♣ hands. There are two reasonable and simple ways of handling these wehn a nebulous 1♦ is not an option:

 

1. Open 2♣ even with modest clubs and take your lumps when it is wrong.

 

OR

 

2. Play four card majors

 

 

Option 2 may well be superior, but I prefer 5CM. There are ways to reduce the loss from 2♣ openings.

 

Pass borderline hands--a questionable 11 count may be fine to open 1♠

with 5♠-4♥ but with 5♣-4♥ you will pass. 2♣ should have a fair 12 count.

 

Use a response structure the lets your constructive but non-invitational hands play in 4-4, 5-3 and 4-3 major fits at the two level. (Your bad hands will pass 2♣ and you will sometimes get a bad score.)

 

I have used the following:

 

2♦=conditional transfer to ♥

... 2♥=3♥ or 4♥ and a minimum hand.

... 2♠= 0-2♥ and 4♠

... 2NT=0-2♥ and 0-3♠, maximum hand.

... 3♣=0-2♥ and 0-3♠, minimum hand.

... 3♦=artificial, 4♥, GF with slam interest

... 3♥=4♥ invitational

... 3♠=Splinter bid

... 3[NT]=to play

... 4♣=4♥ with long strong ♣

... 4♦=splinter

... 4♥= to play, terrible hand for slam

 

2♥=conditional transfer to ♠

... 2♠=3♠ or 4♠ and a minimum hand.

... 2NT=0-2♠, maximum hand.

... 3♣=0-2♠, minimum hand.

... 3♦=artificial, 4♠, GF with slam interest

... 3♥=0-2♠, 4♥, maximum hand

... 3♠=4♠ invitational

... 3[NT]=to play

... 4♣=4♠ with long strong ♣

... 4♦/4♥=splinter

... 4♠= to play, terrible hand for slam

 

2♠=5♠ and 4+♥, less than GF

 

2N=♦ or inv+ ♣ raise

 

3C=constructive ♣ raise about 8 points

... rebids show stoppers

 

3♦/3♥/3♠=splinters

 

4♣=preemptive

 

4♦=RKCB for ♣

 

4NT= natural NT slam invitation.

 

Jumps to game or slam=to play

 

 

The 2♦ and 2♥ responses are the workhorses of this method and you often get to the field contract in 2M.

 

If you find this structure interesting, I can dig up my old system notes for more details.

[Free]

5m-4M hands are always a problem in precision, however, they still manage to get to decent contracts most of the time (and the good one when you have a GF). So there isn't much drawback imo.

 

Real Diamond Precision is something I've been working on as well. It's quite simple to make 1♦ real (supposing you want 5 card Majors): you need only 1 NT-range, and either use a bid to show a 3-suiter with short ♦ or just open it 1♥ or 1NT. I prefer opening 1♥ on those. This keeps 2♦ and up for anything you want, apparently strong 2-suiters at 2-level. I'd rather go for something like misiry and use the 2-level to preempt, but that's a matter of preference.

 

1 thing I wonder: what's your response scheme over 1♥ openings? Because if you use 2/1 forcing, then you'll have to find a rebid for the 3-suiter (some NT perhaps). :D

[Chamaco]

1 thing I wonder: what's your response scheme over 1♥ openings?  Because if you use 2/1 forcing, then you'll have to find a rebid for the 3-suiter (some NT perhaps).  :D

Over 1♥ I use Kaplan Inversion:

 

1♥:?

....1♠ = 0-11 hcp (denies a GF hand), 0-4 cards in ♠. Opener rebids

............1NT, NF with 4 cards in spades

............2m, 3+ cards (just like after a 1NT forcing)

............2H, 6+ cards (just like after a 1NT forcing)

....1NT = 5+ ♠ unlimited

....2/1 GF

 

So if opener has 44 in the major (such as with the 4441 short in D), he can rebid 1NT if his pard responds 1♠.

[Free]

nice :D

[luke warm]

Alternatively, I am starting to understand why people play canapè MAFIA openings (Jimmy r u around ? :) )

heheh... i'm still waiting on someone to show me why canape openings (limited of course) aren't superior

 

on your structure, have you ever thought of using either 2nt or 3c as your 6+ club, 11-15/16 hand? can play a misiry type opening structure then, beginning with 2d