Precision Two Diamond Adaptation?

[glen]

Has any big club/precision partnerships tried this adaptation: 2♦ 11-15 opening is three suited short, and either short in ♦s (as per usual Precision) or short in a major with 3♦s & 5♣s & 4 in a major (4-1-3-5/1-4-3-5)? This then makes the 1♦ opening either balanced or with real ♦s, allows the 2♣ opening to promise 6+♣s (treat 4-2-2-5/2-4-2-5 as balanced) and, for the 2♦ opener, puts the opponents under a little more pressure to compete, as they might lose a nice major fit.

[rbforster]

I haven't tried this. I don't think it would be too hard in weak auctions (just rebid 2♠ if partner takes a weak 2♥ preference) and let him pick again. This will reach inferior 3♦ and 3♥ contracts sometimes, but might be worth it for gains elsewhere. I think you might suffer however in constructive auctions after your forcing response (2NT or 3D or whatever). Now you have your value range (10-15 or 11-16 or whatever) as well as your short suit (♦ or ♥) to convey. 2♦ is already the highest opener in precision that tries to be constructive and the limited bidding space means that having a narrowly defined set of hands makes it much easier for contructive auctions.

 

This then makes the 1♦ opening either balanced or with real ♦s

I'm not sure how this adaptation changes your 1♦ opener. If you were using the common "precision style" openers of 2♦ shortness and 2♣ 5+, were you really opening 1♦ with the (41)35 shapes? I play these precision style openings and I always open 4135 and 1435 2♣, not 1♦. My 1♦ is already balanced (2+♦) or 4+♦ unbalanced, and would still be with your suggested change to the 2♦ opener.

 

...allows the 2♣ opening to promise 6+♣s (treat 4-2-2-5/2-4-2-5 as balanced)

Having 2♣ promise 6 is nice, but I'm less sure about treating the (42)25 hands. I'm not sure what NT range your playing, but if you've got balanced hands in 1♦ presumably there are 2 NT ranges you're opening weaker than 1♣... say 11-13 and 14-16 (with 1♣ 17+). With two ranges, you'll still have the problem of 1♦ only promising 2+ since it might be balanced or even (42)25 shapes.

 

I guess if you've got only 1NT range (say 12+ to 15 1NT, 1♣ 16+, and pass with bad 12's or worse - reasonable at Vul), then 1♦ is already unbalanced 4+ and then you would just have to change your 1NT responses to deal with semibalanced hands like(42)25 shapes.

[awm]

Much as I like 2♣ promising six, I think this is a terrible idea. Some reasons:

 

(1) Expert bridge players disagree a lot on which conventions are good. There are a number of conventions which I personally think are awful which some experts swear by, and which get a fair bit of play in top level events (for example cappelletti/dont versus 1NT and flannery). Nonetheless, the expert community is virtually unanimous on the mini-roman 2♦ being a bad convention. There's simply no reason to push to the three-level on a minimum-opening-strength three suited hand. You'll run into many of the same problems if you try to move from precision 2♦ towards the much more mini-roman-like structure you present here. Opener's partner can no longer evaluate degree of fit right away (this is a huge help on deciding whether to invite or sign off on borderline hands, and also helps with blasting some light games). You can no longer guarantee to get out in the best major fit (what does responder bid with 5-4 majors now that opener might be 1-4 in those suits?). I don't think that putting opponents "under pressure" is the point of the 2♦ opening.

 

(2) The precision 1♦ opening showing "2+ diamonds" is admittedly an awkward bid at times. But the vast majority of the time, this is a balanced hand. Removing (14)35 shapes won't greatly increase your expected number of diamonds for the opening, so partner isn't really any better placed. If you could actually have 1♦ guaranteeing 4 there might be more benefit here.

 

My preferred structure is to use 2♣/2♦ both natural, 6+ cards and 10-15. This makes the 2♦ opening very passable (or raisable) as well as more frequent. The 1♦ opening becomes wholly artificial, usually either balanced (not in 1NT range) or 3-suited (any shortage, could be 5431ish if no 5cM). But I'd much rather play "normal" precision openings than the combination of "1♦ 2+ and 2♦ mini-roman" that you describe here.

[Gerben42]

I play that 2♣ shows 6 and put these hands into 1♦. 1♦ then shows 3+♦ and is always unbalanced. Or if you like narrow 1NT ranges, include a NT range also.

 

Making the singleton in the 2-level opening not just ♦ but some other option is HORRIBLE! Don't do it.

 

Mini_Roman is a terrible convention, don't imitate it.

 

Our opening structure:

 

1st 2nd seat:

 

1♣: 15+ any / 16+ balanced

1♦: 10 - 14, Unbalanced, 4+♦ or 4135 / 1435

1♥/♠: 10 - 14, 5+card

1NT: 12 - 15 (includes 4225 / 2425)

2♣: 10 - 14, 6+♣

2♦: 10 - 14, 4414 / 4405 / 4315 / 3415

 

3rd 4th seat:

 

1♣: 17+ any / 18+ balanced *

1♦: Up to 16, 3+♦ as before OR 12 - 14 balanced

1♥/♠: Up to 16, 5+card

1NT: 15 - 17

2♣: Up to 16, 6+♣

2♦: Up to 16, 4414 / 4405 / 4315 / 3415

 

* A lower minimum in this position would lead to too few positive responses

 

Higher: Your favorite preempt structure, we use:

* Weak Two Bids

* 2NT - 3♦: MisIry transfer preempts

* 3♥ any solid suit

* 3♠ natural

* 3NT broken 8-card minor

* Namyats

[pclayton]

Has any big club/precision partnerships tried this adaptation: 2♦ 11-15 opening is three suited short, and either short in ♦s (as per usual Precision) or short in a major with 3♦s & 5♣s & 4 in a major (4-1-3-5/1-4-3-5)? This then makes the 1♦ opening either balanced or with real ♦s, allows the 2♣ opening to promise 6+♣s (treat 4-2-2-5/2-4-2-5 as balanced) and, for the 2♦ opener, puts the opponents under a little more pressure to compete, as they might lose a nice major fit.

I can't see this as being playable; its too hard to find the best major fit at the 2 level and responder will never pass 2♦ with ♦'s.

 

I am back to playing a strong club, and we are making 2♥ the hand with short diamonds and 2♦ as Wagner.

[esmarti]

You might be interested in a method suggested in The Bridge World by L. Torkelson about 30 years ago (in 1975 I believe). I played it for several years with a partner long ago and enjoyed it. The article was titled "A Disciplined Diamond." It was played in the context of a strong club system.

 

2C and 2D openings are 12-16 HCP, natural with at least 5 cards in suit opened, and DENY a 4-card major. (We played that 1C+HCP showed 17 if unbalanced, but you can adjust the range to fit your strong club opener). Typically these bids actually have 6+ length in the suit opened, having only 5-card length if they happened to have 4 cards in the other minor.

 

1NT opener is a weak NT = 12-14 HCP balanced.

 

1D was opened with:

 

a) a balanced hand of 15-17 HCP (shown by rebidding cheapest NT over responder's bid), or

:ph34r: any 4441 of 12-16 (or whatever your range is for a non 1C opener), or

c) unbalanced hand long (5+) in one of the minors, with one or both 4-card majors. (Of course since the long minor might be clubs, you might have literally zero diamonds. But the odds of getting passed out in 1D and having to play it with zero diamonds is virtually nil.)

 

The interesting thing about this was what opener's rebids show after having opened 1D. Responders bids are assumed here to be fairly natural and typical of Precision. If partner responds with 1H or 1S, opener will:

 

- raise to the appropriate level with 4-card support;

 

- rebid 1NT with hand "a" above (without 4-card support); or,

 

- rebid in a suit with either "b" or "c."

 

Since opener must have a 4-card major if he doesn't have a balanced hand, the choice of the rebid suit can help indicate the number of cards opener has in responder's major. After 1D-1H, 1S by opener would be unbalanced with 4 or more in an undisclosed minor, hold 4 spades, and deny more than 2 hearts. With a weak hand, a misfit, and desire to get out in the minor, responder would now bid 2C and opener could pass or correct. If, instead, opener had rebid 2C or 2D over responder's 1H, that would be unbalanced, show 4 spades, be natural in the minor bid, but also promise exactly 3 hearts. Knowing that opener had 3-card support for hearts might be all responder needed to know to pick the right part-score.

 

Things are similar after a 1D-1S start, except the roles of the opener's rebids are reversed a bit. In this case. the 2C or 2D rebid is natural in the minor, promises 4 hearts, and denies more than 2 spades. A 2H rebid (1D-1S; 2H) denies 4 spades, shows 4 hearts, is long in an undisclosed monir, but because it is a reverse and, therefore, an otherwise inefficient sequence, it guarantees exactly 3 spades.

 

We found that the 2 of a minor opening put a lot more pressure on the opponents and we didn't risk missing 4-4 major fits. And, on the competitive auctions starting with 1D we knew partner either had a strong NT or a 4-card major (or both), which made competing easier for us.

 

Hope you found this interesting. Would love the opportunity to try and play this style again.

[lowerline]

Has any big club/precision partnerships tried this adaptation: 2♦ 11-15 opening is three suited short, and either short in ♦s (as per usual Precision) or short in a major with 3♦s & 5♣s & 4 in a major (4-1-3-5/1-4-3-5)?  This then makes the 1♦ opening either balanced or with real ♦s, allows the 2♣ opening to promise 6+♣s (treat 4-2-2-5/2-4-2-5 as balanced) and, for the 2♦ opener, puts the opponents under a little more pressure to compete, as they might lose a nice major fit.

I don't think this is a good idea. When designing a bidding system you should always keep the Usefull Space Principle in mind. The higher your constructive opening the more precise it should be.

 

- Keep the 2♦ opening as it is. There isn't enough space to add other hand types.

- Having the 2♣ opening always show 6 is an improvement though, because you make it more precise. As a result, you have to open 1♦ with 4M5♣ not short in ♦. This is less of a problem because there is still plenty of space to figure it out.

 

Some pairs take this even one step further:

- 2♦ shows 6♦ without a 4crd major

- 2♣ shows 6♣ with or without a 4crd major

- 1♦ can now also be short in ♦

 

This approach is more playable than what you suggest, because the 'multi-meaning uncertainty' is one level lower.

 

Steven

[glen]

First I should note that I was not saying this adaptation was a good idea. I was just wondering with all those mini-Roman 2♦ players out there if anybody had given it a shot at some point. One often finds that some idea has already been tried by somebody.

 

You might be interested in a method suggested in The Bridge World by L. Torkelson about 30 years ago (in 1975 I believe).  I played it for several years with a partner long ago and enjoyed it.  The article was titled "A Disciplined Diamond."  ...snip... 

In the early 80s my first system off-the-blocks (i.e. in play in regular partnerships) was Arctic Power Precision, partly named after a laundry detergent and meant to show some "Power Precision" ideas blended with Canuck stuff.

 

This was:

1♣: 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced

1♦: 15-16 balanced or 11-15 multi-suited (5-4-3-1/5-4-2-2/4-4-4-1/5-4-4-0/5-5-3-0) with no minor void and no five card major.

1♥/♠: 10/11-15, Five+ majors.

1NT: 11/12-14 balanced/semi-balanced, no five card major, no singleton/void.

2♣/♦: 11-15, Six+ minors.

2♥: 11-15, Flannery (omg!) or 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=5=0.

2♠: weak-two

2NT: Minor preempt

3♣/♦: 11-15, both minors, 3♦ bid if lots of playing value.

 

At the time I had not heard of "The System" (Dick Reed and Stormy Horn) and had only subscribed to Bridge World from 80 on. When I later ordered a whole bunch of BW back issues I was thrilled to see "A Disciplined Diamond" and a few other articles about attempts to restructure the big club systems. Thanks for bringing back the memories.