Help with 2D

[straube]

My partner and I play that 2D shows an 11-15 pt hand with either six diamonds or a (31)-5-4 or 5m/5m pattern. It always denies a 4-card major. He and I have debated the merits of this opening bid, but that's not the sort of feedback I'm looking for. Consider it's essential to the rest of our system and that we play Matchpoints. What should our structure look like?

 

Partner proposes...

 

2M-invitational, nf, 5+ cards

2N-invitational

3C-asking bid-looks for a 3-card major suit fragment

3D-raise, sort of invitational

3M-GF, 6-cards

 

He's unsatisfied, naturally, with 3C as an asking bid, but he's very reluctant to give up play in 2 of a major. He argues from past experience. I argue that we need more forcing bids and perhaps 2H as an asking bid. What do the system designers think about partner's structure and what not-too-complicated structures would you propose?

[shevek]

We play the same opening, though it's 10-14 & can't be 5-5 (open 2♣)

Perhaps better is to open 1♠ with these but that's not clear and maybe illegal where you live.

 

We use symmetric relay over our 2♦, and all our limit openings, so

 

2♥  13+ near GF

2♠  constructive

2NT  11-13 inv

3♣  constructive (there is a case for this to show 5+♥s)

3♦  invite

3♥+  fit-showing

 

2♦  2♥

 

2♠  & 4♣s

2NT  6+ ♦s, high shortage

3♣  middle shortage

3♦  semi-balanced (3-2-6-2 or 2-2-7-2)

3♥  3-3-6-2

3♠  3+2-7-1

3NT  3-3-7-0

 

Then middle shortage drops in at 3♥ with 3-1-6-3.

High shortage via 3♦ with 2-2-6-3 & 2-3-6-2

 

2 suited structure is longer. Getting bored now ...

[straube]

Thanks a lot. I've looked at something similar to that and liked it a lot. He's not very familiar with symmetric relay structures, but he might consider something similar. I'm looking for lots of opinions here because I'm interested in whether the system designers here favor a forcing or non-forcing approach to 2-level responses.

[jdonn]

Thanks a lot. I've looked at something similar to that and liked it a lot. He's not very familiar with symmetric relay structures, but he might consider something similar. I'm looking for lots of opinions here because I'm interested in whether the system designers here favor a forcing or non-forcing approach to 2-level responses.

I definitely favor non-forcing 2 level responses when the suit opened can be just 5. Having to pass it when staring at a 6 card major and singleton diamond is not my idea of a good time...

[straube]

I definitely favor non-forcing 2 level responses when the suit opened can be just 5. Having to pass it when staring at a 6 card major and singleton diamond is not my idea of a good time...

 

Thanks. How then would you organize the rest of the structure? For example, what would the 3-level responses be? Also, if 2-level responses are nf, would you make them promise 6-card suits? Invitational values or sign offs? Currently, we're playing 5+ GI...so partner won't pass with a stiff.

[akhare]

Seems that in your pard's proposed structure, 2N could be better suited as a puppet to 3♣.

 

Over 3♣:

 

P: To play

3♦: ??

3♥/3♠: GF bids with 6+

3N: ??

 

This freeS up the direct 3♥/3♠/3N for other purposes and allows two ways to raise to 3♦.

 

Also, I think that the 5-5 minor hand should be opened 2♣ and that 2M should be NF...

[MickyB]

2M being NF is great when you want to be in 2M opposite a misfit. It's less good when you have 5M3D or similar and want to be in either 3D or 4M. I suspect the best structure will involve 2H as a transfer. Not sure about higher bids, my inclination is to use 2S as a general enquiry and have 2NT showing hearts.

[straube]

2M being NF is great when you want to be in 2M opposite a misfit. It's less good when you have 5M3D or similar and want to be in either 3D or 4M. I suspect the best structure will involve 2H as a transfer. Not sure about higher bids, my inclination is to use 2S as a general enquiry and have 2NT showing hearts.

 

Yes. This goes part way to my concern. I could as responder easily have only five of the major and three or more diamonds. Now what is opener to do after

2D-2M for instance when holding...

 

a singleton -takes me out of 2M

a doubleton -passes

a tripleton -raises most often

 

Pretty much right? So I usually get to play 2M when opener has 2-card support.

That's great if I have a six-card suit. But when I have 5M/3D and I realize partner has 6 diamonds over there...

 

Your idea of 2H as a transfer is appealing because I would only pass the transfer with six spades. Does 2H always show spades or perhaps something else? Would you flesh out the rest of your structure?

[akhare]

Yes. This goes part way to my concern. I could as responder easily have only five of the major and three or more diamonds. Now what is opener to do after

2D-2M for instance when holding...

Dealer.exe is either a good cure for "intuition" (or an affirmation of it):

 

Here are the probabilities of finding a 8 card fit after the described 2D opening:

 

Multiply numbers by 100 to get %:

 

spade fit: 0.109975

heart fit: 0.131997

diamond_fit: 0.720488

club fit: 0.202772

heart fit with 3 diamonds: 0.0342662

spade fit with 3 diamonds: 0.0412182

 

Seems that worrying about the hands with 3 diamonds and a 8 card major fit with responder isn't a winning proposition (or an error in the script).

 

 

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

dshow = hcp(north) >= 11 and hcp(north) <= 15 and shape(north, xx6x + xx7x + xx54 - 4x6x - x4x6 - 4xx7 - x4x7 - any 5440)

fit = spades(north)+spades(south) >= 8

heart_fit = hearts(north)+hearts(south) >= 8

diamond_fit=diamonds(north)+diamonds(south) >=8

heart_7_fit=hearts(north)+hearts(south) >=7

spade_7_fit=hearts(north)+hearts(south) >=7

club_fit=clubs(north)+clubs(south) >=8

heart_fit_3d = hearts(north)+hearts(south) >= 8 && diamonds(south) >=3

spade_fit_3d = spades(north)+hearts(south) >= 8 && diamonds(south) >=3

condition dshow

action

frequency "points" (hcp(north), 11, 15),

average "spade fit" fit,

average "heart fit" heart_fit,

average "diamond_fit" diamond_fit,

average "club fit" club_fit,

average "heart fit with 3 diamonds" heart_fit_3d,

average "spade fit with 3 diamonds" spade_fit_3d

[Mbodell]

I think you have a script error in that some of your shapes are showing long clubs 4xx7 for instance, rather than long diamonds. That may effect your percentages. Really the heart fit and spade fit should be identical as there is no difference in restriction on these lengths, so the 2.2% difference between the two would be a good clue something is wrong.

 

Really it is hard to tell what is the right systemic bid without knowing the rest of your system. What is a 2♣, 2nt, and 1♦ bid currently? Would you be willing to restrict the hands further so you always have 3 more diamonds than hearts or something that frees up the 2♥ invitational to be some sort of relay?

[blahonga]

We can't have 55 minors in our 2D (open 2NT with that hand).

 

We play

 

2H inv+ relay

2S inv, nf 5+ spades

2N inv, nf 5+ heearts

3C puppet to 3D, weak raise, unbal GF with major, bal slam invite or a void splinter.

3D simple raise

3M, 4C splinter raise.

 

I guess you could switch 2H and 2N, but I doubt there is enough room left.

 

You pass 2S with a min and doubleton spade, and pass 2N with a min and doubleton heart or a min, short hearts and four clubs. This is mainly due to ease of memory though and it's probably better to play 2N as forcing.

[straube]

 

Really it is hard to tell what is the right systemic bid without knowing the rest of your system.  What is a 2♣, 2nt, and 1♦ bid currently?  Would you be willing to restrict the hands further so you always have 3 more diamonds than hearts or something that frees up the 2♥ invitational to be some sort of relay?

 

The other openings are...

1C=16+

1D-promises a 4-card major

1M-5

1N-12-15, denies a 4-card major

2C-6 clubs or (31)-4-5, denies a major

2N-maximum 5/5

 

I welcome criticism of this structure, but hopefully accompanied by solutions for 2D as is.

[kenrexford]

This is VERY similar to my favorite 2♦ opening, which shows an intermediate minor two-suiter. My response structure can be tweaked and is similar to others:

 

2♥ = asking. Does not need to show GF values. Might be heart-based INV.

 

In reply to 2♥, Opener bids:

 

1. 2♠ = minimum with a spade fragment, both minors

2. 2NT = minimum with no major fragment, both minors

3. 3♣ = minimum with a heart fragment, both minors

4. 3♦ = (tweaked for the opening) diamonds, possible major fragment; normally "poor majors," with 3NT "good stuff in majors"

5. 3♥ = both minors, maximum, heart fragment

6. 3♠ = both minors, maximum, spade fragment

7. 3NT = both minors, no major fragment

 

After 2♥ asking, most calls are logical. However, 4♣ and 4♦ by Responder set trumps and demand RKCB from Opener, slam moves. The reason for the "demand" is that it allows Exclusion. For example, 2♦-2♥-3♥-4♣-? Opener showed a max with three hearts; Responder set clubs as trumps, demanding RKCB. Opener's 4♦ would be kickback RKCB. Kickback+1(4♥) would be Exclusion for the known short suit.

 

Instead of 2♥, Responder's options are:

 

2♠ = NF but constructive

2NT = natural, invitational

3♣ = preference

3♦ = preemptive

3M = GF, 6+, natural

3NT = natural

4min = preempt

other = natural

 

In comp., suggest X = penalty, except 2♦-2♥-X maybe "stolen bid." Also, Opener can reopen X with other fragment.

 

I really would advise, though, against tossing in the "just diamonds" option, as this seems likely to cause serious problems, especially if 3145 or 1345 is possible. I also would suggest allowing 5-5 minors back in, making 2NT show a different range (weaker probably). Thus, maybe 2NT shows a 5-5 expectation with 8 to a bad 12? Or, specifically allow a 3055/0355 into 2♦?

 

A probable solution is a "Flamingo" approach. I don't know your entire system, but my guess is that a 1♦ opening (or 1♣?) in your approach could be tweaked so as to show either clubs or diamonds, but not both, such that, for example, 1♦...2♣ shows clubs and perhaps 0 diamonds.

[straube]

Seems that worrying about the hands with 3 diamonds and a 8 card major fit with responder isn't a winning proposition (or an error in the script).

 

I'm not sure how to properly phrase the question, but it seems like the real question is how often are we playing a 5-2 heart fit when we have say a 6-3 or better diamond fit available? Remember that any time responder has exactly 2 hearts he has to have at least 6 diamonds...unless he's specifically 1-2-5-5 minimum.

 

I'd be interested in the percentage of that if you can figure it out, but it seems complicated.

[straube]

This is VERY similar to my favorite 2♦ opening, which shows an intermediate minor two-suiter. My response structure can be tweaked and is similar to others:

 

2♥ = asking. Does not need to show GF values. Might be heart-based INV.

 

In reply to 2♥, Opener bids:

 

1. 2♠ = minimum with a spade fragment, both minors

2. 2NT = minimum with no major fragment, both minors

3. 3♣ = minimum with a heart fragment, both minors

4. 3♦ = (tweaked for the opening) diamonds, possible major fragment; normally "poor majors," with 3NT "good stuff in majors"

5. 3♥ = both minors, maximum, heart fragment

6. 3♠ = both minors, maximum, spade fragment

7. 3NT = both minors, no major fragment

 

After 2♥ asking, most calls are logical. However, 4♣ and 4♦ by Responder set trumps and demand RKCB from Opener, slam moves. The reason for the "demand" is that it allows Exclusion. For example, 2♦-2♥-3♥-4♣-? Opener showed a max with three hearts; Responder set clubs as trumps, demanding RKCB. Opener's 4♦ would be kickback RKCB. Kickback+1(4♥) would be Exclusion for the known short suit.

 

Instead of 2♥, Responder's options are:

 

2♠ = NF but constructive

2NT = natural, invitational

3♣ = preference

3♦ = preemptive

3M = GF, 6+, natural

3NT = natural

4min = preempt

other = natural

 

In comp., suggest X = penalty, except 2♦-2♥-X maybe "stolen bid." Also, Opener can reopen X with other fragment.

 

I really would advise, though, against tossing in the "just diamonds" option, as this seems likely to cause serious problems, especially if 3145 or 1345 is possible. I also would suggest allowing 5-5 minors back in, making 2NT show a different range (weaker probably). Thus, maybe 2NT shows a 5-5 expectation with 8 to a bad 12? Or, specifically allow a 3055/0355 into 2♦?

 

A probable solution is a "Flamingo" approach. I don't know your entire system, but my guess is that a 1♦ opening (or 1♣?) in your approach could be tweaked so as to show either clubs or diamonds, but not both, such that, for example, 1♦...2♣ shows clubs and perhaps 0 diamonds.

Thanks Kenrexford,

 

The difficulty I've had with our 2D is not knowing whether partner has a second suit or not. That's how it is different from your 2D opening. With clubs and short diamonds, for instance, responder doesn't know whether to try to correct to clubs or tough it out in diamonds.

 

I like your structure. 2 questions for you.

 

I believe that if 2D-2H nf is winning, then that means that our 2D opening is faulty. Would you agree with that?

 

Second, would 2S as a drop dead bid (showing 6 spades) work with your structure? Something like 0-10?

[straube]

Kenrexford, I've looked at your structure again and it seems like the only rebid for a hand with just diamonds is 3D. Is that what you meant? I think that maybe 60% or higher percentage of our hands actually have 6 diamonds, so we would need to have more room devoted to their rebids...to sort out min/max and side fragments, etc.

[PrecisionL]

We (Keylime and me) play intermediate twos in all suits.

 

Responses to 2♦ (may have 4♣, but not 5♣ - open 2NT):

 

2M = Good 5,6-card suit, N.F.

2NT = G.I. Relay or better: Opener rebids 3♣ (4+♣) or 3♦ with ALL minimums, major response shows Hxx & Max (GF).

3♣ to play

3♦ promises a ♦ honor (3NT possibility).

3M = G.F. asking for support: 1st step = 0-1 cards, 2nd step = 2, 3rd step = 3 & zoom to controls.

3NT To Play

 

Larry

[kenrexford]

To clarify some of my thoughts.

 

1. I hate 2♦ as showing both minors or just diamonds, especially if the minor two-suiter can be 4♦/5♣. Thus, I suggested initially changing this with a modification of the 1♦ (or 1♣) opening, which I expect to be possible.

 

2. 2♥ is still forcing, but it could be light (invitational) if based on hearts. That's why you only bypass 2NT with hearts.

 

3. IF a diamond one-suiter is possible, could you limit it to use only when 3-card clubs?

 

4. If diamond one-suiter is possible, then 3♦ shows a one-suiter, yes. Responder has a problem in some sequences. However, you could have 3♦ promise a maximum, resolving much of the problem. 2♠, 2NT, and 3♣, then, would show the major fragment realities but possibly with just diamonds.

 

5. I think, in the end, that the "could be just diamonds" treatment is extremely difficult and would focus on whether those hands might be bootstrapped elsewhere.

 

What is the 1♦ opening showing?

[kenrexford]

Thinking more about this over a smoke...

 

Suppose you tweaked my structure a tad.

 

2NT = long diamonds. Then, 3♦ by Responder would be passable (but invitational; in case Opener has a minimum). 3♣ could ask for clarification of the majors (3♦ = none, 3♥ = spades, to allow a pass occasionally right, 3♠ = hearts, or 3NT = both)

 

That frees up 3♦ but leaves no call for both minors and no three-card major.

 

However, you use 3♣ for that hand (rather than 2NT).

 

That takes away the call for a minimum with a heart fragment. But, you use 3♦ for that.

 

I think that solves much of the problem with the asking bid. However, it still leaves you guessing as to whether to pass or bid when you have 3♣/1♦. I still think restructuring somewhere else is your better solution.

[straube]

To clarify some of my thoughts.

 

1.  I hate 2♦ as showing both minors or just diamonds, especially if the minor two-suiter can be 4♦/5♣.  Thus, I suggested initially changing this with a modification of the 1♦ (or 1♣) opening, which I expect to be possible.

 

2. 2♥ is still forcing, but it could be light (invitational) if based on hearts.  That's why you only bypass 2NT with hearts.

 

3. IF a diamond one-suiter is possible, could you limit it to use only when 3-card clubs?

 

4. If diamond one-suiter is possible, then 3♦ shows a one-suiter, yes.  Responder has a problem in some sequences.  However, you could have 3♦ promise a maximum, resolving much of the problem.  2♠, 2NT, and 3♣, then, would show the major fragment realities but possibly with just diamonds. 

 

5. I think, in the end, that the "could be just diamonds" treatment is extremely difficult and would focus on whether those hands might be bootstrapped elsewhere.

 

What is the 1♦ opening showing?

 

I'm not fond of 2D showing both minors or just diamonds either. We're using our 1D bid to promise a 4-card major so we have to put these minor-based hands someplace. Anyway, it makes for an interesting problem.

 

Thanks for your suggestions. I've been trying to work it out for years now. I think something like...

 

2H-GF relay, possible 5-card major(s)

2S-S, F1

2N-GI ask, could have 5 hearts

.....3C-weak, 5/4

.....3D-weak, 6D

.....3H-strong, 3H, D or D/C

..........3S-interested in clubs

.....3S-strong, 3-1-5-4

.....3N-strong, D

3C-six hearts, GI+

3D-weak

 

But pd isn't fond of relays so maybe do a simplified relay

 

2H-

.....2S-side clubs

..........3C-5/5

...........3D-6/4

...........3H-1-3-5-4

...........3S-3-1-5-4

.....2N-balanced

.....3C-3-3-6-1

.....3D-7 diamonds

.....3H-3-1-3-3

.....3S-1-3-3-3

 

We lose some heart fits when we don't have the strength to force game. What do you think? Can anyone tweak this?

[straube]

We play the same opening, though it's 10-14 & can't be 5-5 (open 2♣)

Perhaps better is to open 1♠ with these but that's not clear and maybe illegal where you live.

 

We use symmetric relay over our 2♦, and all our limit openings, so

 

2♥  13+ near GF

2♠  constructive

2NT  11-13 inv

3♣  constructive (there is a case for this to show 5+♥s)

3♦  invite

3♥+  fit-showing

 

2♦  2♥

 

2♠  & 4♣s

2NT  6+ ♦s, high shortage

3♣  middle shortage

3♦  semi-balanced (3-2-6-2 or 2-2-7-2)

3♥  3-3-6-2

3♠  3+2-7-1

3NT  3-3-7-0

 

Then middle shortage drops in at 3♥ with 3-1-6-3.

High shortage via 3♦ with 2-2-6-3 & 2-3-6-2

 

2 suited structure is longer. Getting bored now ...

That's really similar to the structure I just posted. The main difference is that I used 2N as a forcing bid. I think I like 2S as invitational but nf.

[kenrexford]

If the idea is for 1♦ to guarantee a 4-card major, then that tightens up options. That does not eliminate options. Two more questions...

 

1. What is 1♣?

2. How is 2♣ played?

[straube]

Kenrexford,

 

1C is strong, 15+

2C shows 6 clubs or 5 clubs and 4 diamonds, no major. We have similar problems over 2C, but partner doesn't mind giving up a 2D asking bid there.

 

I posed this question to the group for two primary reasons. One is to see ideas for good but not too complicated (mine may be too complicated) artificial continuations. The other is to get a sense of the group as to whether 2H and 2S can be invitational or constructive but nf responses to 2D.

 

Do you think that partner's desire to make these responses nf is workable?

Are nf 2M responses sufficiently winning that one would be willing to play 3C as the first forcing response?

[jtfanclub]

How about....

 

2M = NF, lightly invitational.

2NT = Semi-Relay to 3♣

3♣ = Shows 5+ Hearts, Strongly Invitational (can rebid 3♦, but can't pass).

3♦ = Shows 5+ Spades, Strongly Invitational.

3♥/3♠ Invitational with 6 card suit.

3NT = To play

4♣ = Gerber! j/k

4♦ = Pre-emptive

 

2♦-2NT

3♣-3♦ Invitational hand.

 

2♦-2NT

3♣-3♥/3♠ GF with 5.

 

2♦-2NT

3♦ Club shortness, and therefore 6++ diamonds. (almost always 7+)

 

2♦-2NT

3♣-3NT Club length, choice of games.

 

2♦-2NT

3♣-4♣ Natural, invitational.

 

Main problem is that you lose the natural pre-empts of 3♣ and 3♦ and there's no good way to invite with clubs.

[kenrexford]

Let me see if I have this right. You are wanting to use a strong 1♣ approach with five-card majors and weak two-bids in the majors. You are sacrificing 2NT for minor two-suiters, which is a common tweak and workable.

 

The wrinkle is the 1♦ opening. Essentially, a 1♦ opening is an artificial opening showing a hand where with canape openings you would open 1♥ or 1♠, with the possible canape exception that the hand is actually balanced of some range that is not appropriate for a 1NT opening.

 

To accomplish that goal, you have a problem with minor-oriented hands. You essentially cover these with 2♣ and 2♦ openings that show usually 6+ in the opened minor (but no 4-card major) or longer in the opened minor with a 4-card holding in the other minor, the "problem hand."

 

I mean, it works OK, but why not just commit? Why pussy-foot around where you know that you want to go? Make that canape commitment. I think you are probably caught either in a situation where one of you wants to play canape and the other is hesitant or you both perhaps are inclined to play canape without even realizing it.

 

Sure, you can duct-tape the 2♦ opening and make it work better, but I think you need a reality check here. You think canape, so play canape.

 

Alternatively, there is yet another duct-tape cure possible (from experience with canape I know this). Make 1♦ your opening bid. Dropping the catch-all one level, to 1♣, gives you just enough room to unwind minors better.

 

If, for example, 2♦ showed long diamonds, period, and 2♣ showed both minors (2♦ asking bid), then 1♣ could also show "just clubs." A simple "what next," for illustration purposes only (there has to be better), is to -1 every normal call. If Responder would normally bid 1♠ in response to a 1♦ opening, he bids 1♥ in response to a 1♣ opening. Opener then has one more space available, with which he could for instance bid the otherwise-impossible 1♠ to show the club one-suiter. In other words, if you drop the 1♦ opening to 1♣, you gain one more space for one more meaning. This fails when competition enters, somewhat, but the principle still exists somewhat.

 

All that said, just go canape like I know you want.