Unbalanced Diamond - 1C auctions

[cwiggins]

Having just skimmed through Marshall Miles's new book "My System - The Unbalanced Diamond," I have lots of questions.

 

1C shows 15-19 HCP, any shape. His response scheme is:

1D ambiguous: could be 0-5 HCP or 6+ without a 4+ long major

1M = 6+ HCP and 4+ long

1N = balanced 13-15

2m = 10+ HCP and 5+ long

2M = 6 card suit less than 5 HCP (and not an Ace)

2N = 16+ HCP balanced

 

The text is short on descriptions of the rest of the auctions.

 

Wouldn't transfer responses be advantageous here? Even something simple like Poe's Millenium club responses?

1D = 4+ hearts, 0+ HCP

1H = 4+ spades, 0+ HCP

etc.

[vang]

I usually like Marshall Miles books, but from your description, it's seems i won't buy this one. Can you post an overview of the system (all openings, not just 1c)?

[hrothgar]

My recommendation is that you get a copy of the Magic Diamond notes

[cwiggins]

Here's a short summary of the opening bids.

 

1C = 15-19 HCP but could be 20 HCP with a weak 5CM or unbalanced with fewer than five cards in both majors. Also could be 14 HCP with a long, strong major suit.

 

1D = unbalanced (a singleton somewhere or 5422 or 6m322). The HCP range is "usually 12-14 HCP, but could be 15 or 16 with no four-card major. It could also be a hand with a six-card minor and 11 HCP including an ace and a king, preferably in the long suit..." Apparently no LOBs from Marshall.

 

1H = 10-15 HCP with 5+ hearts.

 

1S = 10-14 HCP with 5+ spades. (Not a typo that the heart and spade ranges are different. Miles uses 1C-1D; 1H as a relay type bid and therefore wants 1H hands, which will always be taking a bid, to be stronger. By one HCP?

 

1N = 12-14 balanced. Denies a 5-card or longer major.

 

2C = 20+ HCP (or equivalent) with a 5+ major, usually 6.

 

2D = 20+ HCP unbalanced or 22-23 HCP balanced. Denies 5+ major unless 22-23 HCP balanced hand.

 

2N = 20-21 HCP, balanced

 

With borderline hands, use judgment to determine whether to open 1C instead of 2C or 2D.

 

The book is short on detailing follow on auctions. The thoroughness is well short of Rosenkranz's Romex books.

 

As a matter of fact, the whole book is short: 152 pages. So if you can find it in a book store, you should be through it after a couple of visits.

 

If one were going to play Miles's system, in addition to looking at transfer responses to 1C, it would be worth checking out Moscito 2005's response structure (including the positive 1D). At least Moscito documents the follow ups well.

 

Lastly, Miles wanted to create a system that is legal under the ACBL's General Convention Chart (GCC). Whatever virtues the Magic Diamond has, I'm positive that part if not all of the Magic Diamond's opening two-bids are not permitted under the GCC.

[Gerben42]

I think the Magic ♦ opening structure is as good as GCC legal and don't see the point of making a whole new system...

 

The 2-suited 2-bids (Polish 2-suiters) may not be allowed, but the workaround is to play 2M as 8 - 12 with a 6-card suit and use the 1M and 2M rebid for the 5 - 5 hands!

[pbleighton]

"I think the Magic Diamond opening structure is as good as GCC legal and don't see the point of making a whole new system..."

 

Unless of course you would like to repond to your partner's opening bids. Transfer responses aren't GCC legal.

 

Peter

[akhare]

As a matter of fact, the whole book is short: 152 pages.  So if you can find it in a book store, you should be through it after a couple of visits.

That's exactly what I did during the recent NABC trip ;). My impressions echo those voiced on this thread -- it's short on follow up details, competitive auction discussions etc.

 

In summary, don't feel compelled to go buy the book unless you are a system junkie and be ready to be disappointed if you do...

[glen]

Books on bidding systems are generally discussion based or specification based. Discussion books focus on the whys of the bidding system, giving the reasons behind the system framework. Specification books give the bidding sequences in lengthy detail, showing how bidding will unfold in various directions.

 

Some books attempt to blend the discussion and specification aspects, but usually weight the book in one aspect or the other.

 

Kaplan wrote two books on the KS system. As I love system specs instead of system discussion, I vastly preferred the KS system notes ("Kaplan-Sheinwold Updated") to the more popular “Kaplan-Sheinwold System of Winning Bridge”. Likewise I liked “Strong Club – the Scanian Way” instead of “Goren Precision”.

 

Marshall Miles’s new book “My System: The Unbalanced Diamond” is a discussion book, as he makes clear on page 118:

I hate it when somebody hands me 60 or 70 pages of notes of a system he wants me to play with 20 to 30 bidding sequences on each page.  My rote memory was never very good, and it is far worse now that I am getting old.  But I still remember things when they seem logical to me or when they follow a pattern.  That is why, instead of just giving you a lot of sequences to remember, I try to explain the reasons for whatever I suggest.

I found Miles’s discussion quite interesting and thoughtful. Reading the book was like having a conversation with the author as he attempts to teach one his system. However as a specification, the book is weak.

 

As an example, take 24-26 point balanced hands. In the system outline on pages 10-16, 24+ balanced hands have no starting bid. On page 14, it mentions using 3NT as gambling or to show a long minor pre-emptive opening.

 

On page 71, we find out that 1♣-1♦;2NT is 24-26 balanced, forcing. On pages 74-75 we find out that 1♣-1M;4♣ can be 24-26 balanced with 2 in M, and 1♣-1M;4♦ can be 24-26 balanced with 3 or 4 in M (or we could use 1♣-1M;3NT as 24-25 balanced and 1♣-1M;4NT as 26-27 balanced if we do not like the 4♣/♦ jump rebids). We find out also that 1♣-1♠;3♥ would show ♠ support, game force, and an unknown singleton. However on page 95 we find out that opening 1♣ and rebidding a major on the three level is natural and game forcing, and on page 87 we are told that 1♣-1♠;2♥ is natural and non-forcing.

 

So there are some inconsistencies here that would need to be worked out at some point.

 

So while the book is a good discussion it is a somewhat flawed specification.

[Gerben42]

Why not use Magic♦ responses to 1♣?

 

1♦ = 0 - 5 or any GF

rest: natural