Nebulous 1D

[Chamaco]

Hi all, it's me again with my dumb questions ! :)

 

 

Playing Precision, 14-16 NT range and 2♣ opening requiring an excellent suit or a 6 bagger, you may open 1♦ with as little as 2 ♦.

 

Therefore the followwing q:

 

1) 1♦:1M:2♣

What shape does it guarantee ? I light of nebulous shape, I do not know whether it shows 5-4/4-5 in the minors or if it just guarantees clubs.

What should responder assume ?

 

2)1♦:2♣:2M

Does opener guarantee 5♦ and 4M, ♣+M or balanced +M ?

What should responder assume ?

 

3) Is there a sequence by which responder can understand better opener's "nebulous" hand ?

 

Please note that I do not mention overcalled sequences, opponents are silent.

 

Thanks !!

 

M.

[inquiry]

Welcome to one of my pet peeves against precision.

 

I started off playing CC Wei's version from a small paper back I got like in 1970 or 1971 (I had played shenken big club before this). This book had super unusual positives and 1♦ promised 4+.

 

I quickly left that version, switching to what use to be called super precision (and all the greek asking bids), and played that for a decade or so. Here we made our 2♣ opening bid show 6 card suit, and our 1♦ was nebulous (2+). We would occassionaly open a 4 card ♥ suit, but we treated it as a five card suit.

 

I will tell you how we were playing nebulous ♦ when we ended. If we rebid 2♣ it showed a FIVE CARD SUIT. IF we rebid 2♦ it showed a five card suit, on the ♣ rebid we may, or maynot, have a ♦ suit, on the ♦ rebid we may or may not have a 4 ♣ club suit. At imps this uncertainty wasn't too bad because I felt our game/slam bidding was excellent at this time. But at matchpoints, we would get zapped by either not competing in the other minor when we had a fit there (missed it), or getting to the wrong minor, or risking partner might have the second minor and taking another bid.

 

I must admit that my understanding of low level doubles has improved since that time, and maybe in competition, I would comeout on my feet more often if we used them... but one advantage of precision is doubling them when they enter the bidding, so couldn't use these "takeout" doubles to find a fit anyway.

 

I think a polish ♣ where you can open 1♣ with weak hand and ♣ or it can be forcing has it all over precision... and you might owe it to yourself if you are just exploring to consider this alternative. (and no, I have studied polish club and played it about 3 times, but certainly am not especially knowledgeable about it).

 

Ben

[the hog]

Hardly dumb questions, Chamaco.

A lot of what you are asking depends on partnership agreement; I can tell you what we played and what most decent Precision players I know play.

 

1) 1♦:1M:2♣

5-4 in the minors either way. Obviously not some 14-16 2-2-4-5 shape, as you might probably open 1N with that.

 

2)1♦:2♣:2M

This should definitely show 5+D a 4 card M and a maximum hand. The penchant some 2/1 practitioners have of bidding this on a balanced hand is awful.

 

3) Is there a sequence by which responder can understand better opener's "nebulous" hand ?

 

Well 1D 2C 2N should show a blanced 11-13

1D 1S 2N could be used to show the bridgeworld "hand of death", 14-15 points, good 6D and 3 card support for partner.

You might also consider playing 1D 2H as 6-9 with 5H/4S, and 2S as 10- -12 5H/4S, both useful bids. I would definitely play either some 2 way checkback, or transfer checkback structure, over a 1N rebid.

Also the wequence 1D 1H 1S should show 5+D & 4S, not some 4432 or 4333 as so many do. The D suit usually gets lost in these sequences.

 

Ron

 

PS. I must admit that I totally echo Ben's comments re a multi way club.

[Chamaco]

Thanks Ron.

 

Sorry if I ask for further clarifications, but I need to get rid of the many doubts :)

Assume you hold

 

x-KQxx-Axxx-AQxx

 

1) you open 1NT with 14-16 balanced

2) you DO NOT have an opening for minimum 4441 openers (except if short in diamonds).

 

 

Therefore, if you do open this hand 1♦, what will be your rebid if pard responds 1♠ ?

 

- if you rebid 2♣ are you showing 54 either way in the minors ? in that case, this bid would be inappropriate;

- if you rebid 1NT, you give a 11-13 range balanced, which distorts both shape and HCP; in that case, it would be better to incoude 4441 into the 14-16 NT opening (although I have bad feelings towards treating ANY 4441 as balanced).

 

 

Comments ?

[blahonga]

How about trying the following opening structure? The nice thing about it is that you don't have to worry about partner having a four card major when he opens 2C.

 

2C or 2D are 11-15 hcp. They deny a four card major and show either a sixcard suit or 54 in the minors. You can figure out a nice continuation.

 

1D is either 11-13 balanced or 11-15 unbalanced with a four card major (either a 5+ minor with a four card major or a 4441).

 

After 1D you can use mostly natural continuations. i.e.

 

1D - ?

 

1M natural

1N signoff vs. 11-13 bal

2m gameforcing

2M weak or strong jumpshift

2N 12-13 balanced

3m inv. with six card suit.

3N to play

 

After 1D - 1M the simplest way to play is like this:

 

1N bal, no support

2m 5+m with exactly four of the other major (now a bid in the other minor is fsf)

 

Bids in the other major can show 4441 hands, and the higher bids can show various raises, perhaps minisplinters.

 

I've been playing like this for two years and it works well. It's a bit vulnerable to competition, but I think it's worth it.

 

/Mattias

[the hog]

x-KQxx-Axxx-AQxx

 

I would lie with this hand and rebid 2C. It's probably the smallest lie on the hand, and hopefully should not get you into too much trouble. This hand is a good argument for playing say a 12-15 NT range, and ignoring flat 11 counts. Doing this you could rebid 1N without too many qualms. I do realise though that the 14-16 range has gained a lot of adherents.

 

I actually don't mind opening 1N with a 4441, but I would like a singleton hon to do so. In some countries system regulations frown upon your doing so.

[hrothgar]

Thanks Ron.

 

Sorry if I ask for further clarifications, but I need to get rid of the many doubts :)

Assume you hold

 

x-KQxx-Axxx-AQxx

 

1) you open 1NT with 14-16 balanced

2) you DO NOT have an opening for minimum 4441 openers (except if short in diamonds).

 

 

Therefore, if you do open this hand 1♦, what will be your rebid if pard responds 1♠ ?

 

- if you rebid 2♣ are you showing 54 either way in the minors ? in that case, this bid would be inappropriate;

- if you rebid 1NT, you give a 11-13 range balanced, which distorts both shape and HCP; in that case, it would be better to incoude 4441 into the 14-16 NT opening (although I have bad feelings towards treating ANY 4441 as balanced).

 

 

Comments ?

Not sure whether I would open this 1♦

As you noted, this creates a difficult rebid problem after a 1S response.

If I were to open this 1D, I would probably rebid 2C

 

With this said and done, I think that I would open 1H.

KQxx looks more like a 5 card suit than Axxx.

[the hog]

I think that I would open 1H.

KQxx looks more like a 5 card suit than Axxx.

 

I think you might run into strife opening 1H on that, Richard. Say the bidding goes

1H 1S

now you bid 2m and pd with a 5233 or similar will give preference to 2H.

(Another possibility, of course, is to play a 1N rebid here as relatively wide ranging, 11-15 and play checkback, but that appears to be adding system for the sake of 1 hand type only).

At least by opening 1D and rebidding 2C you have shown pd 8 of your cards. Also as the 2C rebid shows 5-4 in the minors either way, pd will pass with 3C + 2D and not give prefence.

 

The major problem, (excuse the pun), with opening 1D is that if responder has a 5422 hand you could lose your 4-4 H fit and mbe play in a 4-2 m fit. That is why I suggested to Chamaco that he plays 1D 2H as 4H & 5S, less than an invitational hand cf my first post in this thread. imho this is a very useful treatment if playing the way Chamaco intends to play.

 

Ron

[hrothgar]

I think that I would open 1H.

KQxx looks more like a 5 card suit than Axxx.

 

I think you might run into strife opening 1H on that, Richard. Say the bidding goes

1H 1S

now you bid 2m and pd with a 5233 or similar will give preference to 2H. At least by opening 1D and rebidding 2C you have shown pd 8 of your cards. Also as the 2C rebid shows 5-4 in the minors either way, pd will pass with 3C + 2D and not give prefence.

 

The major problem, (excuse the pun), with opening 1D is that if responder has a 5422 hand you could lose your 4-4 H fit and mbe play in a 4-2 m fit. That is why I suggested to Chamaco that he plays 1D 2H as 4H & 5S, less than an invitational hand cf my first post in this thread. imho this is a very useful treatment if playing the way Chamaco intends to play.

 

Ron

Point taken

[Cascade]

Playing Precision, 14-16 NT range and 2♣ opening requiring an excellent suit or a 6 bagger, you may open 1♦ with as little as 2 ♦.

What do you open with five clubs and singleton or void diamond and a four-card major?

 

2♦?

 

What about hands with six poor clubs? There must be lots of hands not suitable for 2♣ in this structure but without two cards in diamonds.

 

Wayne

Edited February 25, 2004 by Cascade

[hrothgar]

Playing Precision, 14-16 NT range and 2♣ opening requiring an excellent suit or a 6 bagger, you may open 1♦ with as little as 2 ♦.

What do you open with five clubs and singleton or void diamond and no four-card major?

 

2♦?

 

Wayne

I'd normally be calling the director with that one

[the hog]

Me too - or I'd pick up the 13th card from the floor. lol

 

With 6C in a balanced hand if in the 14-16 range you open 1N, else 2C. Having a 6 carder it's not that bad to open 2C, Wayne.

[Cascade]

Thanks Richard not what I intended although there are also six bad clubs and no major and a short diamond which is certainly a possible hand.

 

I have edited the original post.

 

Wayne

[Cascade]

Playing Precision, 14-16 NT range and 2♣ opening requiring an excellent suit or a 6 bagger, you may open 1♦ with as little as 2 ♦.

 

Therefore the followwing q:

 

1) 1♦:1M:2♣

What shape does it guarantee ? I light of nebulous shape, I do not know whether it shows 5-4/4-5 in the minors or if it just guarantees clubs.

What should responder assume ?

If you can have long bad clubs then this is what this shows.

 

2)1♦:2♣:2M

Does opener guarantee 5♦ and 4M, ♣+M or balanced +M ?

What should responder assume ?

 

I would play that if partner has clubs and a major then the initial response is 1Maj unless responder is strong enough to bid again. This probably means that responder's reverse is GF.

 

Therefore I would play 2Maj here shows Maj + diamonds and a good hand - maximum 1♦ opening.

 

3) Is there a sequence by which responder can understand better opener's "nebulous" hand ?

 

I would prefer not to have club hands in the 1♦ opening. As I said in another post I think there are already a lot of hands that do not fit anywhere or fit somewhere else that I do not know about.

 

This means that

 

1♦  1♥/♠

2♣

 

can always show both minors.

 

Alternatively when I play fairly plain symmetric relay our 1♦ is any two or three suited unbalanced hand with no five-card major. This opening excludes any balanced hand but includes the many club two and three suiters.

 

Playing this structure we use

 

1♦  1♠

2♣

 

to show clubs and not diamonds so therefore hearts.

 

This is not needed over 1♥ as always bid 1♠ with spades.

 

And we use

 

1♦  1♥/♠

1NT

 

to show both minors.

 

Wayne

[Chamaco]

What do you open with five clubs and singleton or void diamond and no four-card major?

 

2♦?

 

What about hands with six poor clubs?  There must be lots of hands not suitable for 2♣ in this structure but without two cards in diamonds.

 

Wayne

I plan to use:

2♦= multi, weak 2 in a major OR 4441 20+ (17-19 4441 are included in 1♣/1NT opening)

2♥= 4441, 5440, 5431 short in diamonds.

 

Bergen's "Two-under" preempts in 1st - 2nd seat (3rd seat natural preempts)

2♠= good/bad preempt in ♣

2NT= good/bad preempt in ♦

...........

3♥=good/bad 4-level ♣preempt

3♠= gambling

3NT = good/bad 4-level ♦preempt

4♣♦= Namyats

 

-------------------------------

 

Not sure of bad 6 clubs hands. I'd like to open 2♣ with at least 2 of the top 5 honors, minimum quality being JT98xx or QT9xxx not vuln.

So I guess I'd open 1♦ with a J86432 club suit.

[Free]

Hmmm, I have some thoughts.

 

When was the last time you had a 4441 with 20+HCP? I guess for me, it's about 2 years ago. So why would you insert it in your multi? Mini-multi is way better than normal, because it's NF, puts more pressure on opponents.

 

Also sacrificing the 2♠ bid to show a preempt in ♣ isn't the best sollution imo. You can easily use 2NT for a ♣ preempt,... and use 2♠ for something preemptive as well (like 55+m). There's a lot said on this forum about transfer preempts 'one-under', that they give away a total of 3 bids (and actually even more). But if you make transfer preempts with 2 bids below, then you give opps at least 4 extra bids! And here I guess you'll really get the negative sides of transfering. Say you open 3♦ as trf preempt ♠, opps get a Dbl, 3♥, 3♠ and a pass followed by bidding (or Dbl), and I guess you'll get a lot more (about 2 times more I guess) Doubles and step-1-bids where in the normal (one-under) trf preempts you don't get them this many times.

If you play the trf preempts 'one-under', you'll have to play 3NT as level-4 preempt in either minor.

 

3♠ Gambling is just GREAT, but it's brown sticker. If you don't care, play it as you suggest! It's a lot better than the normal gambling...

[Chamaco]

Hmmm, I have some thoughts.

 

When was the last time you had a 4441 with 20+HCP?  I guess for me, it's about 2 years ago.  So why would you insert it in your multi?  Mini-multi is way better than normal, because it's NF, puts more pressure on opponents.

 

Also sacrificing the 2♠ bid to show a preempt in ♣ isn't the best sollution imo.  You can easily use 2NT for a ♣ preempt,... and use 2♠ for something preemptive as well (like 55+m).  There's a lot said on this forum about transfer preempts 'one-under', that they give away a total of 3 bids (and actually even more).  But if you make transfer preempts with 2 bids below, then you give opps at least 4 extra bids!  And here I guess you'll really get the negative sides of transfering.  Say you open 3♦ as trf preempt ♠, opps get a Dbl, 3♥, 3♠ and a pass followed by bidding (or Dbl), and I guess you'll get a lot more (about 2 times more I guess) Doubles and step-1-bids where in the normal (one-under) trf preempts you don't get them this many times.

If you play the trf preempts 'one-under', you'll have to play 3NT as level-4 preempt in either minor.

 

3♠ Gambling is just GREAT, but it's brown sticker.  If you don't care, play it as you suggest!  It's a lot better than the normal gambling...

First issue

1) 20+ 4441 hands

I like the idea of getting rid of 4441 from strong 1C sequences.

It is rare, but at IMPS rare strong hands have anyway impact on the score, the same cannot be said for pairs tourns, where swings frequency matters much more than magnitude.

Inserting a strong hand in MULTI is not a novelty, actually it was part of

the original multi which included:

- weak 2

- 21-22 balanced (customize HCP range if u like)

- 17-24 4441

 

Eliminating from this the strong balanced 17-19 hcp 4441 helps the clarity.

The way to show the 20+ 4441 is fairly simple:

2♦:2NT

-3♣ = good weak 2 in ♥ OR 4441 20-24, black sngl; after responder's 3♦ relay, opener describes (♥= weak 2, 1st/2nd step = ♣/♠ shortness);

-3♦ = good weak 2 in ♠ OR 4441 20-24, red sngl; after responder's 3♥ relay, opener describes(♠= weak 2, 1st/2nd step = ♦/♥ shortness);

-3♥♠= bad weak 2, natural

-3NT/4♣♦♥= 4441 25+, singleton right above the suit bid (responder bids the sngltn to ask keycards, other bids are signoff)

 

2♦:2♥ (pass or correct or semipositive denying ♥ tolerance)

-2♠ = weak 2 in spades

-2NT/3♣♦♥= strong 4441, unspecified range, sngltn right above suit bid, next step relay by responder asks range, other bids are signoff

 

2♦:2♠ (semipositive, denies ♠tolerance)

-3♥ = weak 2 in ♥

-2NT/3♣♦♠= strong 4441, unspecified range,sngltn right above suit bid (except 3♠, singleton exactly in ♠, when 3NT by responder cannot be to play since 2♠ denied ♠ tolerance, therefore 3NT will be relay), next step relay by responder asks range, other bids are signoff

-------------------------------------------

2nd issue

 

2♠ and higher for clubs and 2-under preempts

 

The idea is not mine, but of Bergn's.

The idea is that in 1st seat and 2nd seat you can preempt much more often with trash, just if your pard was passed. If you bid 2-under rather than 1-under, responder will be able to use the in-between step to check whether we can be missing game-slam (the prempt was "good" = constructive), or whether opener has rubbish.

This you cannot do with 1-under preempts.

 

In 3rd seat, since pard is a passed hand and I do not worry of preempt quality, I revert to natural preempts, and I can use 2♠ and 2NT as a weak 2-suiters, similar to what you suggested.

[cwiggins]

x-KQxx-Axxx-AQxx

 

I would lie with this hand and rebid 2C. It's probably the smallest lie on the hand, and hopefully should not get you into too much trouble. This hand is a good argument for playing say a 12-15 NT range, and ignoring flat 11 counts. Doing this you could rebid 1N without too many qualms. I do realise though that the 14-16 range has gained a lot of adherents.

"Precision Today" agrees with you.

 

p. 97 in a section titled "Opener's Rebid [after a 1♦ opening]" says "rebid 2♣ with an unbalanced hand--usually at least 5-4 in the minors but 1-4-4-4, 1-4-3-5, and 1-4-5-3 patterns are possible."

 

Another possibility to avoid this problem is to open 2♦ with any 4441. The Viking Club (in the base version, pp. 185-187) does this. As a result, the 1♦-1M-2♣ shows at least 5-4 in the minors.

 

In the advanced version of Viking, 4441 are included in the 1♦ opening (p. 249). After 1♦-1♥ (which is either a natural 1♥ response or a GF relay), opener rebids 2♠ with all 4441 hands that do not include 4 hearts. But after 1♦-1♠ (natural, 6+ HCP, 4+ long) you have the same problems as here.

 

BTW, has anyone experimented with the 1♦-1♥ relay in Viking? What hands do you relay with versus "natural bidding"? Is the relay used only for directionless hands?

[Chamaco]

x-KQxx-Axxx-AQxx

 

I would lie with this hand and rebid 2C. It's probably the smallest lie on the hand, and hopefully should not get you into too much trouble. This hand is a good argument for playing say a 12-15 NT range, and ignoring flat 11 counts. Doing this you could rebid 1N without too many qualms. I do realise though that the 14-16 range has gained a lot of adherents.

"Precision Today" agrees with you.

 

p. 97 in a section titled "Opener's Rebid [after a 1♦ opening]" says "rebid 2♣ with an unbalanced hand--usually at least 5-4 in the minors but 1-4-4-4, 1-4-3-5, and 1-4-5-3 patterns are possible."

 

Another possibility to avoid this problem is to open 2♦ with any 4441. The Viking Club (in the base version, pp. 185-187) does this. As a result, the 1♦-1M-2♣ shows at least 5-4 in the minors.

 

In the advanced version of Viking, 4441 are included in the 1♦ opening (p. 249). After 1♦-1♥ (which is either a natural 1♥ response or a GF relay), opener rebids 2♠ with all 4441 hands that do not include 4 hearts. But after 1♦-1♠ (natural, 6+ HCP, 4+ long) you have the same problems as here.

 

BTW, has anyone experimented with the 1♦-1♥ relay in Viking? What hands do you relay with versus "natural bidding"? Is the relay used only for directionless hands?

How does Viking club deal with hands with 6 bad clubs ? Open 2 ♣ even if the 3♣ rebid will be awful or open 1♦ and then the 2♣ rebid would show 9 cards in the minors ?

[mikestar]

Most interesting discussion, but the best way to handle the nebulous 1♦ is not to play it. Bid 2♣ freely on 5C-4M hands and use a 12-15 range for 1NT, passing balanced 11 counts. Now 1♦ is always 4+ and never balanced.

 

Now 2♣ is harder to handle (though a Berkowitz-Cohen structure can help), but instead of 1♦ being the hardest limited opening to handle, it is the easiest: as well as all the normal rebids, 1NT is available for artificial use to handle the problem hands such as the example x-KQxx-Axxx-AQxx.

[Chamaco]

Most interesting discussion, but the best way to handle the nebulous 1♦ is not to play it.

I'd like to be so sure :rolleyes:

Meckwell seem to think otherwise :P

[mikestar]

For those of us who are or honestly hope to be world class experts, Meckwell's opinion in this matter is highly relevant. And no doubt handling a nebulous 1♦ isn't hard for them, considering how well they do with their frightfully complex 1♣ structure.

 

Most of us will never get close to that level--I certainly won't. I offer the opinion of a player who has played Precision at a level ranging from fair intermediate to fair Life Master for many years. To my mind, reducing the frequency and difficulty of the 2♣ opening is a worthy goal but the nebuluos 1♦ is too high a price.

 

Precision gains vs. 2 over 1 on its major suit openings and loses on its 1♣ and 2♣ openings. Play nebulous 1♦ and you reduce but don't eliminate the 2♣ losses but you've increased the frequency and difficulty of 1♦ openings. Now 1♦ loses vs. 2 over 1.

 

But played as I suggest, 1♦ gains substantially against 2 over 1. It just feels better to have three winning bids vs two losing bids instead of the other way round.

 

My viewpoint is also colored by my experience with my longest term Precision partnership--we adopted Precision becuase it allowed us to use fewer conventions and compicated sequences than 2 over 1--this is a huge gain in terms of memory strain, and I hate to give so much of that back to play nebulous 1♦.

[the hog]

BTW, has anyone experimented with the 1♦-1♥ relay in Viking?

 

No, but we played 1D 1H in Symmetric as either natural, or as a GF relay.

In Symmetric relay the 1D opening shows ANY 2-3 suited hand without a 5 card Major; and 2C/D openings show a 6 card suit, no Major - very effective! (Roy Kerr has changed this a bit in the latest version of Symmetric, however).

[cwiggins]

How does Viking club deal with hands with 6 bad clubs ? Open 2 ♣ even if the 3♣ rebid will be awful or open 1♦ and then the 2♣ rebid would show 9 cards in the minors ?

Based on my limited understanding of the Viking Club, the answer to your question is yes with one exception: with 4 diamonds and 6 clubs, you may open 1♦ and then rebid 2♣.

[cwiggins]

I am not sure that the case against a a nebulous diamond is clear cut.

 

The world class Precision pairs that I know of all use a nebulous 1♦. Sontag-Weichsel did and do. Berkowitz and Cohen also, and they are playing Precision for the same reason as you: to reduce the strain on memory. Groetheim (the author of "The Viking Club") also uses a nebulous 1♦ opening.

 

On the other hand, I know of no pairs at the world class pairs playing Precision where 1♦ promises 4+.

 

Sidebar: The European flavors of Precision (per "The Viking Club" and "Precision in the 90s" by Rigal) advocate 5+ clubs for the 2♣ opening compared to the U.S. trend to have 2♣ promise 6+, which means that a 1♦ opening is slightly less nebulous in Europe than it is in the U.S.

 

In addition to the expert experience, reasons exist for using a nebulous 1♦. Per Rigal from "Precision in the 90s":

 

"The choice of structuring the system at the outset has to be between three bids. Are we going to overload the 1NT opening (by giving it a four-point range) and the 2♣ opening by permitting it to be on a moderate five card suit, in order to have a clearly defined 1♦ generally guarenteeing four cards in the suit? My preferred answer to that question is no. A four-point range 1NT leads to a lot of guesswork, and a loose 2♣ opening detracts from accuracy there too. It is better to have the imprecision at a lower level, with more of a chance to sort out the problems cheaply."

 

BTW, Rigal's responses to 1♦ are natural, avoiding the memory strain issue you mention.

 

Based on these, it seems reasonable to conclude that a nebulous 1♦ is flawed but the best solution to the problems. If someone's experience leads them to conclude otherwise, I understand, but I don't think it is clear cut.