Looking for Real Diamond Precision systems...

[jtfanclub]

Hi. I've been working for some years and a number of different partners on Precision systems in which 1D absolutely promises 4+ diamonds (and 11-15 hcp). 1NT, 2D, and/or Pass cover the other hands.

 

Does anybody know if there are any systems out there already that use this?

 

Thanks muchly.

[whereagles]

I think Reese precision is what you want. I don't know where to find notes on it, though.

[helene_t]

In the original Wei Precision, 1NT is 13-15 and 2♦ is threesuited, short in diamonds.

[EarlPurple]

You can play that 1♦ promises 4 if you pass on balanced 11-12-point hands.

 

Then you are no longer using 1♦ for weak balanced hands. 1NT covers 13-15

 

Traditional precision used 2♦ to show 4-4-1-4 hands.

I prefer 2♣ freeing 2♦ for other uses. If partner has a 4-card major after your 2♣ opener you will find your fit, otherwise he will usually have at least 3 clubs and you're no worse off there than anywhere else. If partner is 3-3-5-2 maybe he will bid 2♦ and pass your 2♥ response. (Some players prefer 1♥ with this hand but I'd rather lie about my minor than my major).

 

You can modify 1NT to be 12-15 instead of 13-15 if you don't like passing with 12 points. Certainly a good 12 can be opened 1NT thus:

 

♠K 10 x ♥ Q 10 x ♦ x x ♣ A Q J x x

[MickyB]

I like to maximise the frequency of the 1♦ opener by opening 1♦ with 11-13 bal with 4 diamonds. 1NT is decent 12-15, and I use Keri to allow invites to play in 2major or 3minor - partner will have 14-15 if he has 4 diamonds, so if he is 12-13 then he will often have reasonable support for my 4 card major or 5 card club suit. With 4-4-1-4 shape I happily open 1NT at IMPs unless I am maximum, in which case I will usually open 1♥ or stretch to 1♣.

 

In 3rd and 4th seat, I switch to 4 card majors, 14-16 NT, short diamond. Otherwise you will miss a few games (4-4 major fits) and a few partscores (12 opp 11 passed out).

[Flame]

I played this kind of precision simply by passing 11-12 hand with no bid, i dont think its a bad idea to pass 11-12 balance hands. on some good 12 you can open 1nt.

Another way which i think is good, is kind of sweedish system, the 11-12 hcp balanced are added to the 1c opening. the oviuos advantage is the good 1d opening which now show atleast 4 card unbalanced and usually 5 card, another advantage is having less interference by the opponents.

[jtfanclub]

Wow you guys are quick. Thanks for your responses....I'll see if I can find the Reese book, now that I know about it (I have the Wei book). If anybody else knows more systems that use it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

Let me ask a specific followup question, if I may....

 

For those of you who play or are fluent with a Natural Diamond Precision, after the bidding of:

 

1D (P) 1H (P) or 1D (P) 1S (P)

 

Do you have a bid that indicates, denies or implies exactly 3 card support for the major?

Do you think it's a good or bad idea?

 

For the record, I think it's a good idea, both of the partners I play this with think it isn't (although they play it to humor me). We play that 1D 1M 1NT absolutely denies 3 cards in the major, so 1D 1M 2C and 1D 1M 2D either have 3 card support or are so distributional that they aren't interested in 1NT.

[the hog]

"Do you have a bid that indicates, denies or implies exactly 3 card support for the major?

Do you think it's a good or bad idea?"

 

1D 1M 2NT = 14-15, good 6 card D suit, not 3 cards in support

1D 1M 3D = 14-15 6 card suit, exactly 3 cards in support

 

With a weak but shapely hand, raise the M immediately with 3 card support. eg Jxx x AKxxx Kxxx - raise 1S to 2.

1M 1M 2C should be 5-4 either way in the minors

[EarlPurple]

A 1♦ opening bid will always be unbalanced though. With a balanced hand you would open 1NT (weak) or 1♣ (strong).

 

If you have 3 card support for the major you will surely have a singleton somewhere. That is if you treat 2-3-6-2 and 3-2-6-2 hands as balanced.

 

By the way, your 2♦ opening is no longer needed as any kind of normal opening and can be used for some pre-emptive type, for example a weak 2 in either major while a 2♥ and 2♠ opening would be 5-5.

 

What would 1♦-1M-1NT show? If it can't be a balanced hand, you could conventionally use this to show 3-card support while a direct raise would be 4 card support.

 

Note that you might have longer clubs. With 1-3-4-5 or 3-1-4-5 you would open 1♦.

[jtfanclub]

Earl:

 

"A 1♦ opening bid will always be unbalanced though. With a balanced hand you would open 1NT (weak) or 1♣ (strong)."

 

Yes. Right now, with 1345 across 5323 (in that order) we're finishing in 1NT.

No, I'm not going to defend it- that's why I'm looking for other options.

 

"If you have 3 card support for the major you will surely have a singleton somewhere. That is if you treat 2-3-6-2 and 3-2-6-2 hands as balanced."

 

We do.

 

"By the way, your 2♦ opening is no longer needed as any kind of normal opening and can be used for some pre-emptive type, for example a weak 2 in either major while a 2♥ and 2♠ opening would be 5-5."

 

The hole is 4414 singleton diamond. We actually use it for 4+-4+ in the majors, not 4432. We could limit it a lot more than that, but it turns out to be a powerful tool to have 1M deny four cards in the other major.

[the hog]

"What would 1♦-1M-1NT show? If it can't be a balanced hand, you could conventionally use this to show 3-card support while a direct raise would be 4 card support."

 

I don't think so....What is he supposed to do with a 2452 after 1D 1S? Opening this shape with 1NT depends on the quality of the doubletons.

[Free]

Hi.  I've been working for some years and a number of different partners on Precision systems in which 1D absolutely promises 4+ diamonds (and 11-15 hcp).  1NT, 2D, and/or Pass cover the other hands.

 

Does anybody know if there are any systems out there already that use this?

 

Thanks muchly.

The easiest way to play real ♦'s is to play 4-card Majors. Then the problem solves itself:

 

1♦ = 4+♦

1M = 4+M

1NT = balanced range covering the limited openings

2♣ = 6+♣ (or perhaps also 5+♣-4M)

 

Support your Major as it was a 5 card and you'll do just fine... Prepare to play sometimes in 2M in a 4-3, but that's not a bad spot.

[EarlPurple]

Then you have the problems of 4-card majors. Not as easy for responder to raise after competition, and especially hard to handle when responder has invitational values and 3 card support. By the way I do not like "making up a suit" for a 2/1 response. I prefer it to show a real suit, so when I'm deciding whether to accept the invite I know whether my side suits are fitting well with partner's. Thus:

 

1♠=2♣=2NT-3♠.

 

Do I accept the invite? If I can't base this on my club holding because partner's 2♣ could be "fake" then I'm guessing. Maybe partner has no more than

 

♠Kxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AQJxx

 

Of course, with precision this will only come up if you open them on hands too weak for 1NT.

[Free]

Fit showing jumps help for such hands: 1M-3X = 6 card (or good 5 card) and 3 card support. But then you have to sacrifice minisplinters or so...

[LukeG]

Swedish style Precision systems use the 1♣ opening as a two-way bid - either balanced 11-13 or any hand with 17+. 1NT is 14-16 and the 1♦ opening is always 4+ diamonds in an unbalanced hand. I played Svan, one of these systems, last year and liked it. See Dan Neill's web site for the notes.

[tysen2k]

Hi.  I've been working for some years and a number of different partners on Precision systems in which 1D absolutely promises 4+ diamonds (and 11-15 hcp).  1NT, 2D, and/or Pass cover the other hands.

 

Does anybody know if there are any systems out there already that use this?

I just finished a "Bidding System Design Contest" over on rgb.

 

http://tinyurl.com/5y28g

 

A total of 18 systems of various styles and complexities entered, but the funny thing is that the winner of the contest was a Precision system that had a 1♦ opening that promises 5+♦s.

 

1♣ = strong

1♦/2♣ = 6+ or 5 w/ side 4-carder

1♥/1♠ = 5+

1NT: 13-15 balanced (May be 2254 or 2245)

2♦: Roman

[EarlPurple]

Swedish style 1♣ openers are probably great with no interference, but I actually think they are more susceptible to interference than a 1♣ opening bid which is always strong.

[cwiggins]

Swedish style 1♣ openers are probably great with no interference, but I actually think they are more susceptible to interference than a 1♣ opening bid which is always strong.

If interference bids over a Swedish 1♣ and a Precision ♣ occurred with the same frequency and if the interference bids meant the same thing, I would agree.

 

But are these two conditions true?

 

Over a Precision 1♣, opponents should assume that the opener's side has the predominance of points and should strive for as much obstruction as quickly and as highly as possible. Flimsy overcalls or jump overcalls (e.g. 2♠ holding J10xxxx/x/xxxx/xx) are entirely reasonable. CRASH, WONDER, etc. bids that rob room may well be rational in this situation.

 

But over a Swedish 1♣, some substantial percentage of the time (40-60% depending on ranges), 1♣ is the weak balanced hand. Opponents may hold the majority of the points or even game. Rationally, opponents must preserve their ability to bid constructively, which means it does not make good sense to make many of the nonsense bids that are apporpriate if your only concern is obstruction.

 

If opponents use these strategies, then : (1) Interference occurs fewer times over a Swedish 1♣ than a Precision 1♣ (when an interference bid occurs over a Swedish 1♣, it will occur over a Precision 1♣. But not vice versa.) (2) When interference occurs over a Swedish 1♣, the interference bid has more meaning which offsets in part that you must factor in that the opener has 11-13 HCP. Example: Consider 1♣-2♠. After a Swedish 1♣, the 2♠ is probably s pretty standard weak jump overcall, maybe KQJxxx/x/xxx/xxx. But over a Precision 1♣, it could be not only that but xxxxxx/x/xx/xxxx as well as anything in between.

 

OTOH, when you have 11-13 HCP, opponents are more likely to have a constructive overcall or double than when you hold 16+ HCP.

 

It would be interesting to calculate the loss from interference by comparing hands from a tournament where both the Swedish and Precision apporaches have been used.

[mikestar]

The simplest natural diamond Precision:

 

Five card majors

1D promises 4+ diamonds and is unbalanced.

pass balanced 11-12's

2C is 6+ C or 5C-4M

 

With exactly 4-4-1-4, pass a marginal hand or open 1H (you might try 1S with AKQx xxxx x KQxx).

 

Note that 4-4-1-4 only occurs 1/4 of 1% of the time. Opening a four card major in this case just isn't frequent enough to disrupt your five card major structure.

 

IMO natural diamond is much superior to nebulous daimond--the short diamond hands are frequent enought to distort your 1D structure, and the deviation is greater: it's a much bigger lie to pretend a stiff diamond is four cards than to prentend four hearts are five.

[LukeG]

Here is my experience, admittedly limited, regarding interference after a Swedish style two-way club system. As a practical matter, very few of your opponents will have even heard of these systems and none of your opponents will have discussed their defenses to same. Since any forcing 1♣ opening is GCC-legal here in ACBL-land, as long as you promise 10+ HCP, you are under no obligation to provide suggested defenses. Most opponents would banter back-and-forth and then decide to treat the 1♣ bid as natural.

 

My team played Florida in the GNT, and one of their players consulted with Eric Rodwell re: suggested defense. Rodwell told him so play Mathe - double for the majors and 1NT for the minors. So even one of our top international players has given very little thought to this subject.

[mikestar]

A suggested defense to Sweedish style 1C: use your favorite weak NT defense one level lower (double substitutes for 2C). With a hand worth a penalty double of a weak NT, pass and wait for clarification.

 

For example, using Asptro:

 

P = too weak to compete OR penalty double of weak NT.

X = hearts and another suit (shorter hearts if both majors are held).

1D = spades and another suit (shorter spades if both majors are held).

1H/1S = natural, usually 6+ cards.

1N = minors.

2C/2D = natural, usually 6+ cards.

Higher bids are preemptive.

[EarlPurple]

What you say about coming in over 1♣ bids is true, but:

 

- you will rarely hold the hand you showed. More often than not when 1♣ is strong, each of the other players will have around 7-8 points.

 

- When the interference occurs it is more damaging over a variable club. For example if the auction goes:

 

1♣ 2♠

 

can you freely show your hearts at the 3 level with these hands:

 

(a) ♠ xx ♥ QJTxxx ♦ Axx ♣ Jx

(b) ♠ xx ♥ AQJxx ♦ Kxx ♣ xxx

© ♠ xx ♥ KJTxx ♦ Kxx ♣ xxx

 

Ok you can play "good-bad" 2NT and use it to show hands like (a) though if the next player bids 3♠ you are now shut-out.

 

After a strong club you are probably better placed because you know partner has a good hand and so it is much less of a gamble to bid on with any of those hands. Here I might even go straight to 4♥ with (a) (4♦ if we've agreed transfers) because it will probably make and partner will know we have them if they bid 4♠. With hand (b) I'd bid 3♥ which is forcing (3♦ if agreed transfers).

 

I guess over Swedish-style club you'd probably play some form of transfers, possibly even transfer into suit 2 above. Then partner completes it with a weak hand or bids the suit in between with a strong hand. You might find you are often short of bids though.

[Cascade]

More often than not when 1♣ is strong, each of the other players will have around 7-8 points.

This is an overstatement.

 

I ran a simulation in which South had 16+ hcp. In 1000 hands only 120 times did each of the other players have 6-9 hcp. I extended your range based on the 'around' adjective. When the range was limited to 7-8 then there were only 21 times in 1000 that everyone had 7-8 points. When it was extended to 5-10 it still only rose to 297 times out of 1000.

 

4-11 points got close to 'more often than not' with 493 times out of 1000.

[EarlPurple]

12% of the time all the players were in that range. For only LHO to the 1♣ bidder to be in that range will be quite frequent then. (Simulate that?)

 

Besides, we can probably invent one bid (1NT maybe?) as an overcall to 1♣ that can be used to show a very weak but shapely hand? That will therefore allow you to use certain other bids as constructive in case your side does own the hand. So you still might not lose out on all the overcalls of the weak 1♣.

[Cascade]

LHO hcp after a strong 1♣.

 

HCP [space] [space] [space] [space] Freq in 1000 simulated hands

0 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 17
1 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 22
2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 36
3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 46
4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 73
5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 85
6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]113
7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]102
8 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]124
9 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]119
10 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]75
11 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]63
12 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]49
13 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]29
14 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]17
15 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]16
16 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 3
17 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 6
18 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 0
19 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 5
20 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 0
21 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 0
22 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 0
23 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 0
24 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 0