Precision idea for 2D opening.

[Gerben42]

In a natural precision style it is often hard to force after a negative, my idea is to:

 

* Use 2♦ as art. forcing bid after 1♣ - 1♦

* Use the 2♦ opening as either 11 - 15 and short ♦, or as 16 - 19 with 6+♦.

 

What do you think? Crazy or good idea?

[helene_t]

It is more the unbalanced hands with 5 diamonds (or 4=4=4=1) that cause problems I think. Btw, many play 1♥ as the artificial force.

 

Anyway, I think it may be a good idea to put some of the strong diamondish hands in the 2♦ opening. After all, if p passes 2♦ he will have 6 (rarely 5) diamonds, that is not likely to happen when you have diamonds yourself.

[hrothgar]

This might be the first good reason that I've seen to use 2♦ to show the short Diamond hand rather than 2♥

 

Doesn't mean that I necessarily like the bid, but ...

[TylerE]

As far as forcing bids over 1C-1D, I like to play a 1M rebid by opener as 4+M, possibly longer m, F1

 

Over this I play a sort of ultra-Drury type stucture:

 

1N=0-4. <4 M

2C=5-7, 0-2M

2D=5-7, 3M

2M=0-4, 4M

3M=5-7, 4M

4M=0-4, 5+ M

[rbforster]

my idea is to:

 

* Use 2♦ as art. forcing bid after 1♣ - 1♦

* Use the 2♦ opening as either 11 - 15 and short ♦, or as 16 - 19 with 6+♦.

I'm not particularly a fan of the precision 2♦ opening in general, but your idea seems ok. I was thinking about this issue at one point as well. Admittedly I was going to use the sequence 1♣-1♦-2♦ for something else (specifically in a 2 way club system, to show the weak option, a 3-suited hand with short clubs), but I thought about this issue of moving the 16-19 long diamond hands elsewhere to free up this 2♦ rebid.

 

Rather than putting these hands in 2♦, I don't think it's too bad to put these into your precision 1♦ opening. If partner responses with 1M, you can have a 2N rebid show the strong 16-19 diamond hand while 3♦ shows a more typical precision jump based on playing strength and fewer points (~13-15). If you play 2N as forcing one round, you can still check back for 3 card major support with 3♣ in case opener has the strong diamond hand with awkward 3 card support.

[awm]

What is 1♣-1♦-3♦?

 

The problem with putting the strong diamond hand into 2♦ is that partner can no longer jump to game in a major with a suitable hand. This action is wide-ranging (could be anything from a preempt to a strong hand with club wastage) and is one of the few good things about the 2♦ opening. The diamond one-suiter isn't going to be described before 3♦ anyway.

 

If instead you put the strong diamond one-suiter into 1♣, you get to have a nice auction when partner has a positive response. When partner has a negative, you may have to rebid 3♦ (using 2♦ as an artificial force) but you were getting to 3♦ if you opened the diamond one-suiter with 2♦ anyway.

[Guest Jlall]

I the 2D opener is just unplayable

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I use a mixture of bids after 1C*-1D-1S=4+ F1 and 1M-1NT=0-4 without 4M

-2C*=5-7 with 0-2M

-2D*=3M and 5-7

-2M=4 card raise @5-7

 

1C-1D-1NT=natural 18-20(I open 1NT=15-17)

1C-1D-2C*=diamonds

 

1C-1D-1H*-semi force to 1S-1N*=clubs, anything else shows hearts and the suit bid

 

1C-1D-2D*=strong 4441 type with 19+

 

1C-1D-2H*=Kokish strong 2H or 25+NT

 

1C-1D-2S*=5-5(+)minors strong

 

With about 16-19, you canape with 4M and 5m

 

With 20+, you transfer into the minor and rebid the M

 

Regards,

Robert

[Mbodell]

Do you mean hard to force for 1 round or hard to force to game, b/c to date I haven't had either problem? I'm not familiar with how everyone else plays precision, but in the partnership that I play precision almost everything past 1♦ is forcing for at least one round. 1♥ as a Kokish bid, 1♠ as an artificial forcing spade bid, 2♥+3♣+3♦ as a forcing "2♣ strong sa" suit in which the 1♦ bidder shows general controls and any new suit by 1♣ bidder is 1 round force (so strong 2 suiters can also be shown this way). I play 2♠ as the very strong 4441 hand which is also a 1 round force. The only non-forcing bids for me are NT responses (showing balanced and fixed point ranges) and 2♣ or 2♦ showing 5+ card suits and at most 4 in a major and not a super strong hand opposite the negative.

[jdonn]

This might be the first good reason that I've seen to use 2♦ to show the short Diamond hand rather than 2♥

 

Doesn't mean that I necessarily like the bid, but ...

I have always thought there were several good reasons.

 

- Partner can pass the 2♦ opener when weak with long diamonds. This not only stays a level lower than if you had to bid 3♦ over 2♥ to sign off, but it lets you give some other meaning to responder bidding 3♦, thus you can show more hands.

- It lets opener bid 2♠ over 2♥ with 4315 shape. In theory you can construct shapes for responder where this makes your situation worse since he just has to bid 3♥, but my experience in practice is that it's a big winner. Too often responder is 3343 or 3352 or 2353 or so. And even in the cases where he has to rebid 3♥, you break even if you make it.

- It lets responder declare the heart contracts. Crucial since opener is invariably the player who describes his hand after these openings.

 

Yes, I understand using 2♥ has its advantages too, mainly in making intervention by the opponents more difficult. And of course some pairs will always want to play multi as well.

 

As for the original idea, isn't 2♣ already a forcing artificial bid after 1♣ 1♦? So I just don't see the use. The 2♦ opener seems to have a number of problems as well. Responder can no longer jump straight to game, you can't show as much over the 2NT ask, you are forced to the 3 level when opener has diamonds, responder has not described his potentially nice hand when you have diamonds as he has when you open 1♣, etc.

[awm]

I think the original poster's idea was to use opener's 1♥/1♠/1nt/2♣/2♦ rebids as natural and NF. This is potentially useful when responder is really broke. Of course, the jump rebids are available as strong/forcing hands, but this leaves you poorly placed with a big three suiter or forcing balanced hand. So there seems to be some advantage to using one or more of opener's rebids as strong and forcing.

 

Many people do solve this by playing some form of kokish and/or making opener's one-level major suit rebids forcing. I know that's my preferred solution.

 

An alternative approach involves using opener's 3m rebids as non-forcing. Most of the options which try to remove one or more strong one-suiters from the 1♣ opening will require those hands to resolve at the three-level (for example open 1♦ and rebid 2nt/3♦, or open 2♦ rebid 3♦, or use some rebid after 2♦ multi). So it seems like opening 1♣ on those hands and rebidding 3m doesn't lose you much, and it potentially helps a lot when responder has a positive response to 1♣ (since now you are game forced and don't need to jump anymore). So perhaps something like:

 

1♣-1♦...:

 

1M, 1NT = natural, not forcing

2♣ = very strong hand, either (441)4♣ or (431)5♣ or 6+♣ or a big balanced hand

2♦ = very strong hand with 4+♦, either 4441 or (431)5♦ or 6+♦

2M = natural and forcing, 5+M

2NT = natural, not forcing, bigger than 1NT but not as big as 2♣

3m = natural, not forcing, 16-19ish

[han]

It's great, please use.

[Gerben42]

I can live with 1M forcing, but 1NT and 2m I would prefer as nonforcing in this situation. If the 2♦ bid is now free because of this convention you can now force with the really big hands.

[kes]

We use

1C (13+HCPs , each distribution) - 1D (5-7 HCPs without 5+M or 0-4 HCPs)

and then 2D with 22+ HCPs .

 

I would never use the proposed 2D opening .

[helene_t]

The 4315/3415/4405/4414-criterion allows p to double 2M for penalties. If 2♦ can be diamonds as well, presumably opener should pass the double with a doubleton but take out with a singleton (yes, oversimplified rule of thumb, I know, but something like that).

 

Sounds like a small disadvantage.

[keylime]

One of the reasons for the original 2D opening was a systemic plug for the 1D opening. I've played it at the 2D slot and even tho it gave the penalty double and helped somewhat to unload the 2C opening, it didn't "do" a lot outside of that. I can see how in the 2H slot it would act as a barrier so to speak.

 

I don't like the ability in 2 way bids that are of alien nature to help in constructive bidding. That, and well, sometimes playing 2D is your spot.

[awm]

I can live with 1M forcing, but 1NT and 2m I would prefer as nonforcing in this situation. If the 2♦ bid is now free because of this convention you can now force with the really big hands.

This is the part that's confusing to me. Why do you want 2m non-forcing?

 

It seems like there are two advantages:

 

(1) If responder is really broke, you can get out in 2m instead of 3m.

(2) If responder has a maximum negative, you give him more room to describe his hand.

 

Okay, great. But say we play the 2♦ opening as you describe. This opening would be used on the same hands that want to rebid 2♦ non-forcing. Now on those same hands:

 

(1) If responder is really broke, you play 3♦ because responder bids his 4cM in case you have the 4441 hand and then you bid 3♦.

(2) If responder has a hand in the 5-7 range, he also starts by bidding his 4cM and then you rebid 3♦, and you're at the three-level without responder really revealing much about his hand (okay, the identity of his better major). I'm not sure what responder bids with a 5cM on 5-7, since he wants to bump the auction opposite 4414...

(3) When responder has a game-going hand opposite the diamond one-suiter (8+) your auction will be cramped by opening 2♦ and rebidding 3♦.

 

So it seems like you'd be better off making 1♣...3♦ show this hand rather than 2♦...3♦, since you've lost the "2♦ rebid non-forcing" benefits anyway by putting the hand into an ambiguous 2♦ opening?

[rbforster]

I can live with 1M forcing, but 1NT and 2m I would prefer as nonforcing in this situation. If the 2♦ bid is now free because of this convention you can now force with the really big hands.

It's not clear to me that the proposed 2♦ opening actually includes all the hands that would normally make a natural NF 2♦ rebid after 1♣-1♦. Wouldn't hands with 4M/5-6♦ normally rebid 2♦? These would have issues in the proposed 2♦ opener when partner takes a major suit preference (which might only be 3 cards) even if they have a "fit". Similarly, hands with both minors, say 5♦5♣ or 6♦5♣ normally make a 2♦ rebid after starting with 1♣. It seems like there are getting to be a wide range of strong hands in the 2♦ opening and it may become too difficult to separate them all effectively.