My opinion on PC, precision

[perko90]

Fun thread! I too have theory-crafted a similar hybrid system that uses weak NT, an unbalanced 1♦, and a 1♣ that either shows 18+ any dist, 15-17 bal, or 15-17 unbal w/ 4(5)+ clubs. 2♣ and 2♦ are 10-14 w/ 6. It solves many issues that I find w/ Std, Precision, and PC. For ex. after 1♣-1♦, opener can rebid 1NT w/ 15-19 safely without the awkward 1♥ bids of PC (although bidding 1♥ w/ 4 seems fine).

Anyway, the unbal 1♦ can be short in diamonds as well - as inspired my M. Miles. However, my 1♦ which is 11-17, may only have short diamonds when 11-14, so at least it will be their hand if it goes 1♦-swish. And unlike Miles' system, the 1♦ isn't over-burdened w/ the 1-suited minors, which allows for some nice 1♦-1M sequences. Rebids are: 1NT = 0-2 M, 2M raise is always 4, and - the key innovation - a 2m rebid is a natural 5c suit + 3 card support.

There's also room to bump up the strength of the 1NT opening in 3rd and 4th seat to 13-15 or 14-16. The only modification needed is that 1♦ includes the bare minimum balanced hands in 3rd and 4th seat and then passes a 1M response with 3 pcs and the 1NT rebid would still be 0-2 support, but may actually be balanced.

Food for thought.

[Kungsgeten]

I'm quite intrigued by perko's nebulous Miles-inspired diamond in a Polish context. Perhaps something like this would solve some issues with PC (opening 2C on five and the 15-17 club hand in contested auctions)?

 

1C = 12-14 bal or 18+

1D = Unbalanced, no five card major. 11-17. If holding a 6 card minor then 15-17.

1M = 11-17, 5+ suit

1NT = 15-17

2m = (10)11-14, 6+ suit

[straube]

I'm quite intrigued by perko's nebulous Miles-inspired diamond in a Polish context. Perhaps something like this would solve some issues with PC (opening 2C on five and the 15-17 club hand in contested auctions)?

 

1C = 12-14 bal or 18+

1D = Unbalanced, no five card major. 11-17. If holding a 6 card minor then 15-17.

1M = 11-17, 5+ suit

1NT = 15-17

2m = (10)11-14, 6+ suit

 

 

You could move the 12-14 bal into that artificial 1D opening. Maybe something like...

 

1C=16+ (17+ bal)

1D=11-13 bal or 10-15 unbal, no five card major

1M=10-15, 5+ suit

1N=14-16

2m=(10)11-15, 6+ suit

 

But on a more serious note, 1D natural is arguably the most advantageous part of PC and this proposal gives that up. If you're willing to entertain

an artificial 1D, why not lump the 11-13 balanced in with the unbalanced of similar range? If you don't like mixing bal and unbal, well you're doing

that anyway with your 1C opening...plus you're mixing (in 1C) very different ranges.

[benlessard]

I think that 1D unbal but could be short D is odd. It make relaying the full shape impossible and your not able to raise diamonds on T1. For me these are the 2 main advantages of 1D 4+ unb. Opening 1H 1NT with a 4414 is a lesser evil. IMO the penalty of opening 2C with (4315) is just not high enough.

[straube]

Not sure about Miles' 1D, but an 1D opening that can be bal 12-14 or unbal 10-15 and no 5-cd major or 6-cd minor can be relayed pretty comfortably.

 

For me, the tradeoff between PC and strong club/nebulous diamond is whether you want to show diamonds or 16+. I think when partner opens a natural 1D that the diamond information is not as important as knowing he has opening values. I read that Benlessard likes to raise diamonds instead of responding hearts when weak and trying to preempt a spade fit, but I think most folks don't react positively to diamond information if they have a major suit except on occasion (yes, I have done). I.e. I bet a lot of PC 1D and strong club nebulous 1D auctions start off the same way....1D-1M.

 

OTOH, whenever responder has a good 8 or so hcps, he can react positively to the 16+ information of a strong club. That information is more often useful by quite a lot.

[perko90]

I hope the evaluation of an unbalanced 1♦ doesn't begin and end with "can't be raised T1, so can't be good."

You have to balance that with the many advantages. Whether you think the penalty is reasonable for opening the various 5431 and 4441 hands 2♣ or 2♦ like you do in many PC / Precision auctions or open some of them 1♦ but with no unbalanced guarantee, you still are paying a penalty. Besides adding clarity to auctions that are NOT opened with an unbalanced 1♦, one of the biggest strengths of the unbalanced 1♦ is that you often wind up ahead in pattern recognition than if you had started with either a natural or nebulous 1♦.

Don't you hate these:

1) a 1444 hand after 1♦-1♠; ?

2) having 2-2 minors when the auction goes 1♦-1M; 2♣ (5-4 either way) - ?

3) having a 3-3-5-2 hand facing a Precision 2♦ - ?

These are all handled better when starting with an unbalanced 1♦.

1) 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT (with a misfit warning!)

2) 1♦ - 1M; 1NT - Pass

3) 1♦ - 1NT; Pass

Or let's say you start with a 3451 shape and the auction goes 1♦ - 1♠; 2♠. I'd rather have my auction of 1♦ - 1♠; 2♦ (showing 5 D's and exactly 3 S's).

There's also times where the shortness in D's turns to a strength. Imagine LHO with a nice 4441 hand with a perfect TO double of a normal 1♣ opening, but instead hears 1♦. Or maybe he has a nice D overcall. Either way, the uncertainty can make the opponents' choices harder, too.

And who says you can't raise D's T1? Not as often for sure, but you still can. 1♦ - 3♣ = a pass or correct preempt. Sure, you need at least 4-4 in the minors, but if that bidding normally denies a 4CM, it will be the case many times anyway. Similarly, 1♦ - 2♦ = natural forcing, no 4CM. Unwinding the shape of the 1♦ bidder isn't that hard from here and you'll reach 3NT when it's right about as often as any other normal inverted minor auction.

[perko90]

But on a more serious note, 1D natural is arguably the most advantageous part of PC and this proposal gives that up. If you're willing to entertain

an artificial 1D, why not lump the 11-13 balanced in with the unbalanced of similar range?

A big part of the reason is that the 1NT rebid (unbalanced, misfit) after 1♦ - 1M is so useful. Another is that you lose a lot of inferences in other rebids/sequences when it's polluted with balanced hands too. See my above post for more examples.

 

 

If you don't like mixing bal and unbal, well you're doing

that anyway with your 1C opening...plus you're mixing (in 1C) very different ranges.

The key difference here is that there's more room to sort things out. I'm not just talking about the extra step between 1♣ and 1♦; I'm also referring to the strength of the 1♣ bid allows you to safely go to the 2 and 3 level to figure things out. Or if perhaps you're referring to the classic PC where the weak NT is included in 1♣ and you sometimes have to start 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ with a weak hand and only 2 of 'em, you'll have to have someone else defend that, because I don't like that either.

[straube]

A big part of the reason is that the 1NT rebid (unbalanced, misfit) after 1♦ - 1M is so useful. Another is that you lose a lot of inferences in other rebids/sequences when it's polluted with balanced hands too. See my above post for more examples.

 

ok, I was comparing a nebulous diamond to a straw man that placed balanced 12-14 in with 1C. I was suggesting that putting these in 1D was preferable to mixing a weak NT with strong (18+) meanings. So I understand you want to move these to 1N and have a weaker (but still strong) 1C and that may or may not be better (I think it isn't) but that's really a separate discussion. Start a new thread on your system and maybe I'll reply. I'd like to know more about it anyway. But what we've really been debating in this and a couple of other threads here is whether strong club or little club is better and not whether nebulous or unbalanced diamond is better.

 

 

The key difference here is that there's more room to sort things out. I'm not just talking about the extra step between 1♣ and 1♦; I'm also referring to the strength of the 1♣ bid allows you to safely go to the 2 and 3 level to figure things out. Or if perhaps you're referring to the classic PC where the weak NT is included in 1♣ and you sometimes have to start 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ with a weak hand and only 2 of 'em, you'll have to have someone else defend that, because I don't like that either.

 

Yes, I was referring to the classic PC where 1C contained 12-14 balanced.

[awm]

For perko's system, my questions would be:

 

1. What are your options with 15-17 hands after 1d-1x; with many such hands it seems like you are behind standard bidding (I.e 14(35) after 1d-1s)?

2. Are you really better off opening 1d on these hands rather than 1c, given 15-17 bal is in 1c already?

3. What do you bid with 5+/5+ minors hands? Rebidding 1nt with 1165 for example seems unlikely to be right.

4. How do you force after 1d-1M-1nt? It seems like there are some hands where you want to play 2m and this might be hard if some 2m is forcing, whereas more standard bidders are starting 1d-1M-2c and have 2OM to force.

5. 1d seems underloaded relative to the other one level openings. Even 1M might be more frequent, since it can include 6M 11-14 and 5M332 and 5M-5m hands, when many of the analogous hands are not in 1d.

[perko90]

For perko's system, my questions would be:

 

1. What are your options with 15-17 hands after 1d-1x; with many such hands it seems like you are behind standard bidding (I.e 14(35) after 1d-1s)?

2. Are you really better off opening 1d on these hands rather than 1c, given 15-17 bal is in 1c already?

3. What do you bid with 5+/5+ minors hands? Rebidding 1nt with 1165 for example seems unlikely to be right.

4. How do you force after 1d-1M-1nt? It seems like there are some hands where you want to play 2m and this might be hard if some 2m is forcing, whereas more standard bidders are starting 1d-1M-2c and have 2OM to force.

5. 1d seems underloaded relative to the other one level openings. Even 1M might be more frequent, since it can include 6M 11-14 and 5M332 and 5M-5m hands, when many of the analogous hands are not in 1d.

 

I'll take Straube's suggestion and start a new thread for my unbalanced D system. But before I do, I'll answer Adam's Q's here (out of order on purpose):

 

2. Except for 4144 and 4441 shape, all 15-17 1♦ hands have 5+ D's. The other unbalanced hands w/ 4(5)+ C's are indeed opened 1♣

1. The 2 (4441) hands tend to have easy 1♠ rebid or 3M raise to a 1M response. After 1♦-1M, many 15 counts (facing a misfit) should be downgraded to a 1NT rebid. There's also:

3♣ = 15-17 5+ D's & 4+ C's and denies 3 pc raise

2NT = 15-17 5+ D's with a 3 pc M raise

3♦ = 6+ D's and denies 3 pc raise (avoiding the "Bridge World Death Hand" problem of Std)

2♥ (reverse over 1♠) = 15(16)-17 5+ D's & 4 H's (may still have 3 pc raise) NF

3. 2 options here: rebid 3♣ on the stronger hands or, yes, 1NT with the weaker ones. I know the 1NT seems odd at 1st, but responder will often take it to 2♣ (pass or correct) or the opponents will help w/ a 2M balance, where you can bid 3♣ easily. And if it swishes at 1NT, you may not end in the best contract, but the Opps have a good chance they missed an 8-card major fit.

4. 2♣ = pass or correct and 2♦ is an artificial NMF of sorts

5. I've done the math on it and was rather pleased with the spread. Unfortunately, I can't find my calculations, so I'll have to defer the complete answer to my new thread.