relays over 1D

[benlessard]

1D (always 4 unbalanced) 12-22

 

1D------???

 

1H = GF or at least 3cards

1S = 5 cards (maybe 4 if 4216/ 4225)

1NT = 5-5 M (maybe should play 4/4 M)

2C = NF C+M at least 5-5 with (0 or 1D)

2D D raise (tend to denied a 4M)

2M preempts.

 

1D------1H

???

 

1S = clubs any strenght

1NT= 6D any strenght or D+H 12-14 (here you could play in 4-3 H fit)

2C = D+ spades 12-14 or GF

2D = D + spades 15-17 NF

2H D+4H 15-17 NF (here you could play in 4-3 H fit)

 

2S = 3451 GF

2NT = 2452 GF

3C = 1453 GF

3D = ?46? no void GF

3H = S void

3S = club void 14 H keycards

3NT = club void 30

4C = etc

 

 

 

 

 

1D--------1H

1S--------???

 

1NT multi inv

2C+2D+2H = to play 5-9pts

2S GF relay

2NT+ NAT GF

 

 

1D---------1H

1NT--------???

 

2C = multi inv

2D/2H = to play (2D is going to be corrected if opener has 4H)

2S GF relay

2NT+ NAT GF

 

1D----------1H

2C---------???

 

2D/2H/2S = to play

2NT + NAT GF

 

1D----------1H

2D---------???

 

Pass/2H/2S to play

2NT + NAT GF

 

 

strenghts

 

perfect for slammish hands/relays

INV and stay at the 2 level.

All 3 level bids are always GF

1S tend to show 5.

Simpler than what im used to play.

1Nt and 2C are free for gadget.

 

 

weakness

 

vulnerable to preemption after 1H relay

play 2H in 4-3 fit instead of better D fit (but you are sure of having xtras)

doesnt differientiate between 4D+5C or 5D +4C

Impossible for opener to make 3 card H raise.

5S+4H by responder might be problematic.

might miss 4-4 S fit with 4441 by opener.

Cannot stop in 1Nt

[kenrexford]

I don't understand.

 

I mean, when you open 1♦ as unbalanced, you have already, by that bid, just increased your descriptive power quite remarkably. I understand the goal of trying to get out at the two-level on some invitational hands, but no one stops at the two-level anyway, when there's a major fit, especially when Opener has known shortness.

 

I think some of the weaknesses are much more substantial than the benefits, personally.

 

What really baffles me, though, is how on earth this approach could possibly be easier than what you usually play. What the heck are you usually doing? I mean, having played an unbalanced diamond for 20+ years, with people of all levels of ability (novice to expert), 1♦ sequences are just about the easiest and most natural there are.

[benlessard]

People play complicated stuff ovec a strong 1C/1M or 1Nt opening yet they play very natural after 1D.

 

 

But for me 1D openings pose a lot more problems than any other opening (except the strong club)

 

 

Lets says that you have a S fit some distribution and slam is a possibility.

 

1- you are not forced to find a side fit,

2- 2NT, 3Nt and all 3 level bids could be used as slammish.

3- 4Nt to play isnt necessary.

4- the 5 level is available for some slam bids.

 

 

 

Lets says that you have a D fit some distribution and slam is a possibility.

 

1- you are pretty much forced to check for a M fit first.

2- 3NT come way faster than 4M.

3- 3Nt has to be to play

4- 3 level bids are more COG than slammish.

5- 4Nt is possibly not safe yet often need as natural to play.

6- The only 5 level bid available is 5C.

 

 

 

Lets say now that you are in partscore/INV zone.

 

1- With a M fit. Its easy to make a game try and stop at 2M (if your system is minimally efficient). For example ... with a forcing NT/constructive raise or with a 2C (that may be a limit raise)

 

 

2- after a 1M opening There is no big worry that you only have a partial fit.

 

1D------1H

2H

 

vs

 

1H-------2H

 

In case 1 you probably need 2Nt as natural because a 4-3 fit is possible.

 

 

There is no COG inv bids. With minors you often have to direct your invitations towrd 3Nt or 5m.

 

 

If you think its efficient to play partscore at the 2 level, game at the game level and have slam tools i dont see how you can be playing complex stuff over 1M but simple stuff over 1D.

 

 

Did you play a complex structure over 1D if so why did you drop it ? And can you post it here ?

 

Because for me the best way to scoops imps Vs strongs teams is minors slams or minors games when 3Nt is down.

[kenrexford]

People play complicated stuff ovec a strong 1C/1M or 1Nt opening yet they play very natural after 1D.

 

 

But for me 1D openings pose a lot more problems than any other opening (except the strong club)

 

 

.....

I just don't know what you are doing. 1♦ openings for me make for the absolute easiest of all sequences. If you are having major problems, then something must be wildly problematic that I cannot even guess.

 

When reading through your suggested problems, I just scratched my head baffled.

 

I do like golady (2♣ as an artificial GF denying any five-card majors) with transfer rebids by opener (e.g., 2♥ shows spades) because it allows setting trumps lower (2♠, then start cuebidding), but that is not critical, just really nice.

 

Are you catching all of the inferences to an unbalanced diamond approach?

 

For example, a simple raise always is "stronger" than a simple raise in any other sequence because you already know that there is a stiff also. So, whereas 1♣-P-1♥-P-2♥ has maybe an 11-HCP minimum, 1♦-P-1♥-P-2♥ has about a 14-count minimum (11 HCP plus 3 for the stiff in support). If the maximum for a simple raise is usually 15-16, then that same hand is worth 18-19 with the stiff. But, you don't need to bid the stiff values as much by jumping because it is already on the table.

 

Also, pattern is often defined in two bids, or severely limited. E.g., consider these two:

 

1♦-1♥-1NT = 3154 With sixth diamond, fifth club, or fourth spade, would bid something else.

 

1♦-1♠-1NT = four hearts, five diamonds (with 1354 would rebid 2♣)

 

Also, in considering the above, note that rebidding Responder's major (1♦-1♥-1NT-hearts or 1♦-1♠-1NT-spades) shows a suit playable opposite a stiff. That seems really nice to me.

 

Furthermore, when pattern is so well defined, and so limited in possible types, artificial fourth-suit bids allow really fine tuning. If 1♦-1♥-1NT promises exactly 3154 shape, then if 2♣ is 4SF, Opener has nothing to describe but strength. It is after these sequences that easy tweaking is abundant.

 

I have no idea where you are running into trouble, unless some addition of unwarranted artificiality is creating the mess itself.

[benlessard]

Im not really talking naturalish bidding with gadgets im talking about relays.

 

AKxxx

AKxx

xxx

x

 

 

Qxx

xxx

AKQx

Axx

 

After a 1S opening a relay system can reach 6D and avoid 6S. 6D isnt so hot after a trumps lead but it still have some decent play. (note that the contract is excellent if north/south had the J of D or south T of D)

 

If you swtich D and S in both hands and north open 1D its near impossible to reach 6S in the 4-3 fit.

 

 

These hands come up frequently.

 

My estimate for suits slams its that 65% will be in a major and 35% in a minor. If we remove hands where slam is making in 2 suits and picking the major over the minor bear no cost, at the end we are still getting a lot of great minors slams that are "unbiddable"

 

 

PS 4252,2452,2245 are possible shapes for my 1D.

[kenrexford]

Im not really talking naturalish bidding with gadgets im talking about relays.

 

AKxxx

AKxx

xxx

x

 

 

Qxx

xxx

AKQx

Axx

 

After a 1S opening a relay system can reach 6D and avoid 6S. 6D isnt so hot after a trumps lead but it still have some decent play. (note that the contract is excellent if north/south had the J of D or south T of D)

 

If you swtich D and S in both hands and north open 1D its near impossible to reach 6S in the 4-3 fit.

Just thinking here...

 

I first want to assess what I would actually do with these hands if 1♠ was opened. Start is easy.

 

1♠-2♣(GF, real or balanced)

2♥-2♠(trumps set)

 

then:

 

Opener: 3♥ (two of the top three spades because bypassed the weak-trumps 2NT, no club honor because bypassed 3♣, no diamond control and hence 2+ diamonds because bypassed 3♦, two of the top three hearts)

Responder: 3♠(the trumps are solid, plus I have diamonds controlled)

Opener: 4♣(stiff club, non-serious)

Responder: 4♦(first-round diamond control)

Opener: 4♠(no third top heart)

 

At this point, Responder can count five spades, two hearts, and his four minor tricks, for 11 tricks. Responder also knows that the 12th trick will come from a club ruff if diamonds are actually set as trumps. If Opener has a stiff club, and at least two diamonds, then he can probably make 6♦ even if the diamond fit is 4-2, so long as diamonds split 4-3, if he doesn't get a club lead or the person with a fourth diamond has three spades. Or, Opener could have three diamonds after all, or Opener could have the diamond Jack.

 

As Responder has already denied a diamond control, 5♦ by Responder seems to work to resolve matters. Natural slam invite. If Opener has a sixth trump, he can bid 6♠. With only five trumps but a fifth heart, he can reciprocate 5♥. With three diamonds, he can bid 6♦.

 

So, I'm not sure that a relay approach is actually necessary; deep thinking is necessary.

 

So, let's try this switching diamonds and spades on both sides.

 

1♦(unbalanced)-2♣(GF, artificial, no 5-card major

2♦(four hearts)-2♠(natural, no heart fit)

3♦(natural, no club suit or stopper)-3♥(waiting/probe)

3♠(spade fragment)-4♣(diamond flag)

4♦(two of the top three diamonds)-?

 

At this point, Responder knows that Opener has a fifth diamond and that the diamonds are solid combined. Looking at the two black Aces, regular RKCB makes no sense. As 4♥ would be RKCB for diamonds, 4NT operates as RKCB but with Opener directed to show the heart King and Queen instead of the diamond King and Queen RKCB-style.

 

Opener shows three (5♣ is normal style).

 

Responder can now count five diamonds, the heart A-K, the club A, and three spades, for 11 tricks. The obvious line of ruffing a club makes 6♠ the option if a grand in diamonds is unavailable. So, Responder asks about the heart Queen, hears no, and then bids 6♠, confident that Opener would bid the grand with the K-Q in clubs but 6NT with just the club King.

 

So, it seems that finding 6♦ on the first would be really tough for me, requiring a lot of thinking, whereas reaching 6♠ on the second would be child's play, assuming good cuebidding tools.

 

I think, therefore, that the problem is in trying to jam a relay structure onto a 1♦ opening rather than just letting the thing work its own magic.