Restrict on points or shape?

[glen]

Since this forum has been quiet lately, here’s a theory/best use question on whether to restrict more on points or hand types. Playing a big club system if you have a choice of these two 1♦ openings, which would you pick and why:

 

1) 11-13, any shape without a five card or longer major

2) 11-15, if balanced 11-13, otherwise with ♦s unbalanced or a 5-4-3-1 with 3♦s and 5♣s

 

Thanks in advance!

[Free]

Both openings are trash bins for all hands that don't fit in other openings, so comparing these 2 is pretty difficult without knowing the advantages that other openings provide! But I'll give it a try.

 

I've played both sorts of openings before, but the continuations and intervention handling are very different. I've played the first opening several years ago in an old local system with the range 10-14. It worked ok with an INV+ relay. Doubling low-level interference was equal to the INV+ relay and worked ok. These days I play the 2nd opening in one of my partnerships, but the continuations are natural. Intervention handling is also different, although Dbl tends to show values with a balanced hand (suggesting penalizing opps). I need more experience with it, but it also seems to work...

 

The first is pure randomness considering the minors. The auction 1♦-1X-2♣ now has to show ♣, while with the 2nd opening it would show both minors. The 54+m handtype becomes difficult in the first case, but that's pretty much it. You can still rebid your 5 card suit if it has decent quality.

One neat feature of this opening is that in competitive auctions the opener can just bid 2M on a decent hand with a good 4 card suit. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I do know that I did this several times in the past with success.

 

In my limited experience the 2nd opening is also pretty random and doesn't really affect what responder does. Maybe with a 5 card ♦ responder has an easier time, but that's about it. Opener can show his minor 2-suiters with 1♦-1X-2♣, but the longest suit is usually unknown, so it's still not perfect.

 

Handling interference should also pretty similar imo.

 

So, comparing these 2 openings on their own, I'd vote for the first one. The smaller point range surely must help in being more accurate, you can play some sort of GF relay much easier (less trouble with INV hands I mean),...

[mtvesuvius]

Free said it very well, it depends what effects it would have on the remainder of the system. The 1♦ should be all the other hands that don't fit... This means the rest of the system should outweigh the losses that come from 1♦. Both are playable though, however the first one will lose a lot of minor fits. It would be best to remove BAL hands from 1♦, then 1N can be used to show both minors after 1♦-1M.

 

Anyway, without knowing anything else I would always pick the 2nd one.

[akhare]

I play 2) with a pard, but as others noted, it depends on the rest of your system. For example, our 2-level minor openings are natural, promising 6+ cards in the suit.

[Zelandakh]

Any 1D opening that is 0+ length and contains all 4 hand types - balanced; both minors; diamonds only; clubs only - is going to play badly. Opening 1 is of this type and I would suggest rearranging hand types, for example making a 2C opening both minors or moving all balanced hands outside of range to 1C, to avoid this. Thus I think Opening 2 is better since it at least promises 2+ diamonds. However, as Free and the Volcano-man mentioned, this is largely dependant on other aspects of the system and what compromises must be made.

[glen]

Thanks for the discussion, very good points raised. Here's another question, and since this forum has its own set of posters it will just be added on to this thread.

 

Say you are playing a modified Polish ♣ system where 1♣ is 12-14 bal (includes 5-4-2-2s with 5♣s), three suiter short ♦ (4-4-1-4/4-4-0-5/4-3-1-5/3-4-1-5), ♣s 16+ or any 18+ (same issue in Tarzan Precision where 1♣ 16+, 1NT 12-15, 2♦ three suiter short ♦, 1♦ unbal ♦s, 2♣ natural ♣s).

 

Which would you like:

 

1) 1♦: 4+♦s unbalanced,

-- 2♣: 6+♣s or 4-1-3-5/1-4-3-5

 

2) 1♦: 4+♦s unbalanced or 4-1-3-5/1-4-3-5 (only 3♦s with 5♣s),

-- 2♣: 6+♣s

 

That is which opening do you make less than perfect, 1♦ as 3+ (instead of 4+) or 2♣ as 5+ (instead of 6+)

 

Btw a mod Polish ♣ system I would like to see is one with 2♦ as 18-19 bal. The reason for this is that the 18-19 bal can be stuck if the opps compete and responder has to assume the frequent 12-14 bal opening.

[mtvesuvius]

I strongly prefer making 2♣ 5 cards, but that's probably not a popular opinion. I find it's more effective to be able to pre-empt/compete accurately when we have diamonds.

[Finch]

I prefer making the 2C bid promise 6+ clubs.

(Actually I like it to deny a major, but that only really works well in a blue-club style canape system)

 

The simple reason why is that I prefer to have my ambiguity at a lower level.

Obviously it isn't quite that simple, because of the relative frequency of the two hand types I'm going to be opening an ambiguous 1D more often than an ambiguous 2C.

[dake50]

Try 3-option: both 1C and 1D unrestricted!! Partition as you wish.

2-suiters + bal in one, // 1-suiter + 3-suiter rest in other;

3-s + bal // 2-s + 1-s

1-s + bal // 2-s + 3-s

have short // bal

C+2nd in 1C // D+2nd in 1D

[Free]

In a strong ♣ system I prefer to make 2♣ a 6 card suit, and open 1♦ on hands like 1-4-3-5 or 4-2-2-5. It helps finding M fits much easier.

 

In a Polish club system, I'm not sure what's best. The weak NT is out of 1♦ so you already have less ambiguity. If you're happy to treat a (42)-2-5 hand as balanced and open it 1♣, then you can play 1♦ as 3+♦ (and only 3 with a singleton). This keeps the ♦ opening pretty natural and lets responder compete.

 

I don't have enough experience with Polish Club to really appreciate the natural unbalanced 1♦ opening like The Hog does for example.

[awm]

I'd actually suggest a third option.

 

Let 1♣ include (41)35 patterns. Then 1♦ can guarantee four and 2♣ can guarantee six. Thus 1♣ is a minimum opener balanced or three-suited without four diamonds, or various strong types.

 

Treating three-suiters as balanced hands (you rebid your major after 1♣-1♦ or rebid 1NT after 1♣-1M if they bid your singleton) tends not to be particularly costly, especially when you have an opportunity to find major-suit fits at the one-level beforehand (i.e. the biggest problem is 1NT-all pass when you have a 4-4 major fit and a ruffing value in the opener hand). You get a lot of compensation for this in having both the 1♦ and 2♣ openings "real."

[Zelandakh]

I personally prefer Option 1 (and indeed use such a scheme in a multi-way club system) although the theory seems to be running in the opposite direction on this and I do not think there is much to choose between them other than personal preference. Yet another alternative you can use is for 2C to show both minors and 1D is then diamonds or clubs, but not both. The latter is an attempt to take Frances' point (ambiguity at a lower level) and rearrange the hands to make Opener's rebid more meaningful (at the cost of making the opening 1D bid 0+).