unbalanced diamond methods

[fromageGB]

Playing a balanced or semi-balanced 1♣ with a 1♦ as the bid when either long in diamonds or short (singleton or void) in a major or clubs has been around quite a while now, and has more adopters. I am interested in how you play this.

 

Given that the 1♦ open may contain a singleton and three cards in a suit, does a 1NT rebid identify that the shortage is in responder's major, or is it used for a support bid or somethig else? If you do not identify a short suit, how would you describe a typical 3-suited hand?

 

If responder bids your 3 card suit do you raise, or how do you support?

 

It seems that there are many ways to skin this cat, but I would like to gain an idea of the more common approaches.

[msjennifer]

Sir I ,personally ,feel that it may be difficult and manage to open a 4414 hand playing this variable diamond method with 5 card major requirement. I only have heard of a LEGHORN DIAMOND system of bidding which may be useful.Our 1NT response shows 6 to10 HCP and denies 3 or more card support for openers major. With 3 card or more support we give an immediate support response depending upon the LTC count (if unbalanced) or else with a GF hand we make a 2/1 bid and show the support later. Many players do play BERGEN responses over 1 of a major.We ,personally, do not like the BERGEN responses.Some also play simple or reverse DRURY in all positions. As the opener if responder bids a suit and we have three cards we support immediately if there is no other better bid THANKS.

[mikestar13]

My preferred method is transfer responses to 1♣ and tranfser rebids by opener in the very common 1♦-1M sequences: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/esoterica/lesage.html

[awm]

My only experience with this sort of diamond was playing against Marshall Miles and friends in the 2000s. I wasn’t impressed with their results. In general having 1d show an unbalanced hand but without showing any particular suit(s) never seemed useful to me (1d showing unbalanced *with diamonds* is a different story of course).

 

I guess my question is who is playing this/recommending this and what advantage do you hope to get from it?

[nullve]

Playing a balanced or semi-balanced 1♣ with a 1♦ as the bid when either long in diamonds or short (singleton or void) in a major or clubs has been around quite a while now, and has more adopters.

Many players sloppily describe the typical system with a natural or balanced 1♣ opening and a natural and unbalanced 1♦ opening as one with a balanced 1♣ opening and an unbalanced 1♦ opening. Is that also more or less what you're doing here, or are you literally talking about systems where one is supposed to open something other than 1♣ and 1♦ on one-suiters with 6+ clubs and 0-1 diamonds?

[helene_t]

In Brasov, Csaba and I played a crazy system which AWM invented, it was a very pleasant and (I think) efficient system to play. It involved among other things a 1♥ opening showing clubs and a 2♣ opening showing hearts.

 

1♦ is here unbalanced 4+, can have longer clubs. The 1NT rebid shows 6 diamonds, now responder can ask for 3-card support by bidding 2♣. The 2♦ rebid is available as an extra raise.

 

It does mean that the 2♣ rebid is a bit vague, but in a naturalish system in which you open 1♣ with 4♦5♣ you don't have that problem.

[Bende]

I have played two systems with unbalanced diamond. In one we played transfers after 1D-1M so 1NT would show clubs. 1D-1H; 2D would show three card support and 2H four card support. 1D-1S; 2D would show 4+H.

 

In the other 1NT is sort of like Gazzilli, showing a strong hand or long diamonds.

[gwnn]

In Brasov, Csaba and I played a crazy system which AWM invented, it was a very pleasant and (I think) efficient system to play. It involved among other things a 1♥ opening showing clubs and a 2♣ opening showing hearts.

 

1♦ is here unbalanced 4+, can have longer clubs. The 1NT rebid shows 6 diamonds, now responder can ask for 3-card support by bidding 2♣. The 2♦ rebid is available as an extra raise.

 

It does mean that the 2♣ rebid is a bit vague, but in a naturalish system in which you open 1♣ with 4♦5♣ you don't have that problem.

I agree, I liked it a lot. Is this the only system where the inventor probably never played a single board with it IRL but two crazy cult members fans played several sessions with it?

[fromageGB]

Many players sloppily describe the typical system with a natural or balanced 1♣ opening and a natural and unbalanced 1♦ opening as one with a balanced 1♣ opening and an unbalanced 1♦ opening. Is that also more or less what you're doing here, or are you literally talking about systems where one is supposed to open something other than 1♣ and 1♦ on one-suiters with 6+ clubs and 0-1 diamonds?

No, I meant what I wrote : 1♦ is long, or has a shortage outside diamonds. 1♣ is long, or is (semi)balanced with no shortage except perhaps in diamonds. This is what I am playing at the moment, where by "long" I mean 6+ cards.

[fromageGB]

My only experience with this sort of diamond was playing against Marshall Miles and friends in the 2000s. I wasn’t impressed with their results. In general having 1d show an unbalanced hand but without showing any particular suit(s) never seemed useful to me (1d showing unbalanced *with diamonds* is a different story of course).

 

I guess my question is who is playing this/recommending this and what advantage do you hope to get from it?

The 1♦ I am playing, and have for a number of years, contains a shortage somewhere if the hand does not contain 6 diamonds, and diamonds will not be the short suit. Diamonds will be 4+ 90% of the time by this definition, and can be immediately supported as such.

 

I am playing this because it gives the best base for a 1♣ open with transfer continuations, in that life becomes much simpler when responder knows opener will have at least 2 cards in responder's major. It is also working well on the 1♦ hands, as responder is better able to judge where to go - particularly on weaker hands - when opener has rebid to show his hand type, which by definition has to be single-suited, both minors, or three-suited.

 

Currently I may not be playing the best continuations, which is why I was looking for advice/experience.

[Zelandakh]

After a natural, unbalanced 1♦ opening, my 1♥ response is an invitational+ relay and the 1♠ response is natural and non-forcing. In that context 1♦ - 1♥; 1NT shows spades and 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT shows hearts. Since the 1♠ response is non-forcing, with a weak hand and 3 card support it is acceptable to pass. With a strong hand and 3 card support a 2NT raise is available although a second suit will typically be shown in preference. I would not regard this as a common approach though.

[gwnn]

On-topic, I think the simplest thing you can play (that is not too far from optimal) is:

1♣-(transfer)

(complete) = 3-card support

 

1♦-1M

1NT = 3-card support.

 

You can even play the same 2♣ relay scheme over both, although with some rearrangements; perhaps you can differentiate diamond length in the relay following 1♦.

 

For instance:

1♣-(transfer)

(complete)-2♣:

2♦=min unbal (2NT asks)

2♥=min bal (2NT invites)

2♠=max unbal (2NT asks)

 

1♦-1M

1N-2♣

2♦=min unbal 5+ ♦ (often passed. 2NT asks)

2♥=min unbal 4 ♦ (2NT asks)

2♠=max unbal (2NT asks)

[fromageGB]

After a natural, unbalanced 1♦ opening, my 1♥ response is an invitational+ relay and the 1♠ response is natural and non-forcing. In that context 1♦ - 1♥; 1NT shows spades and 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT shows hearts. Since the 1♠ response is non-forcing, with a weak hand and 3 card support it is acceptable to pass. With a strong hand and 3 card support a 2NT raise is available although a second suit will typically be shown in preference. I would not regard this as a common approach though.

That's interesting, as I had a swapped scheme of a reply of 1♥ as either major, and 1♠ as a relay with any 11+! That worked very well, but it proved too memory-heavy for my one partner who tried it, so it's now simple for all three partners.

[fromageGB]

On-topic, I think the simplest thing you can play (that is not too far from optimal) is:

...1♦-1M

1NT = 3-card support.

...

Thanks, Gwnn, but I think taking up a cheap bid for the 3 card support puts too much pressure on being able to describe the hand for partner to choose the right contract when both parties are minimumish. Still mulling things over.

[gwnn]

Thanks, Gwnn, but I think taking up a cheap bid for the 3 card support puts too much pressure on being able to describe the hand for partner to choose the right contract when both parties are minimumish. Still mulling things over.

You could make the same argument re: support doubles :P

 

But yes I'd like to say that the presence of 3-card support is the single most important feature of such a well-defined hand (4+ diamonds, no 5cM, no 4-card support, unbalanced) and in my eyes it makes sense to use the one bid, 1NT, that our methods freed up, for this purpose. Just to be a bit of a hater/internet troll:

 

1) 3-suited, short in partner's suit - what?? 3-suiters are unlikely to begin with, and normally they have a cheap rebid available (1S over 1H or 2C over 1S).

2) transfer rebid, showing clubs - ok that's great but when do I accept the transfer? wouldn't I like to know whether or not my partner has 3 cards in my suit or a stiff? Sure, opener can still show a 3-card fragment, but wouldn't they like to have shown it a round earlier to have one guess less? or to have this sequence show a non-minimum? after a 1NT rebid showing 3-card support by opener, we can always stop in 2M when opener has no extras; now we'll have to guess.

3) part of a transfer rebid method, showing spades - no offence but I won't even comment on this. lol sorry

4) relay - asking what? exactly. First of all, why is an unbalanced hand relaying? And why are we asking a partner who could have anything from xxxx Axxx xx xxx to AKxx AKQxxx Jx x. Good luck relaying with that. It is a simple fact of life that relaying without a known game force is utter nonsense.

Furthermore, the expected value of a 13+, unbalanced, 4+ diamonds hand is still something like 13-16, 5 diamonds with a singleton. The expected value of "4+ hcp, 4+ hearts" is basically undefined. Responder should do the asking, not opener. So 1NT should definitely show something, not ask - and why not show the single most important piece of information that responder is interested in????

5) other - sure but then we're getting into deep waters. But once we're there, maybe we should play switched majors or similar systems. The thing is, unbalanced 1♦ systems are stretching our bridge intuitions, and maybe we should re-structure responder's rebids from the start. I'm sympathetic to the idea of having one of the 1M bids to start a relay sequence, but then definitely responder should be the one doing the asking.

[nullve]

The 1♦ I am playing, and have for a number of years, contains a shortage somewhere if the hand does not contain 6 diamonds, and diamonds will not be the shortsuit. Diamonds will be 4+ 90% of the time by this definition, and can be immediately supported as such.

 

I am playing this because it gives the best base for a 1♣ open with transfer continuations, in that life becomes much simpler when responder knows opener will have at least 2 cards in responder's major. It is also working well on the 1♦ hands, as responder is better able to judge where to go - particularly on weaker hands - when opener has rebid to show his hand type, which by definition has to be single-suited, both minors, or three-suited.

 

Currently I may not be playing the best continuations, which is why I was looking for advice/experience.

I solve Opener's rebid problems on minimum (= doesn't meet the rule of 25) hands as follows:

 

1) I open

 

* 1♣ also on minimum hands with 3154/4054/4144/4153;

* 1♦ also on minimum hands with 0445/1345/1435/1444.

 

2) I play T-Walsh and a version of switched 1M responses to 1♦ where

 

1♦-1♥ = "4+ S. May have longer H unless GF";

1♦-1♠ = "4+ H. Less than 4 S unless GF".

 

Because of 1) and 2) I can now play

 

1♣-1♦("4+ H"); 1♠ = "4+ S or MIN w/ 31(54)";

1♦-1♥("4+ S"); 1♠ = "4+ H or MIN w/ 13(54)",

 

which basically solves all Opener's rebid problems on minimum "3-suiters" (including 5m(431)) with shortness in Responder's major.

 

3) I treat minimum 22(54)/4252 hands as balanced.

 

4) I play 1N over 1♦-1M as a kind of Gazzilli that together with the natural 2♦ rebid takes care of all remaining minimum hands with clubs and less than 3c support for Responder's shown major. This (almost) frees up the 2♣ rebid, which can now be used to cover all minimum hands with 3c support.

Edited January 10, 2020 by nullve

[mycroft]

I agree, I liked it a lot. Is this the only system where the inventor probably never played a single board with it IRL but two crazy cult members fans played several sessions with it?

I present Kontrast, invented in a fun day on BBO (I'm told) by Dan Korbel and his then life partner. She showed it to me and we refined it into a playable system (FCVO "playable") and took it to an Ottawa Regional for the Mid-Chart events. You can tell how long ago this is, because we could play Multi in 2 board rounds...

 

Interestingly enough, I think it's all Open (no +) chart legal as long as we meet the 6-board Multi rule...so at a random club game, say. There's a couple of players who complain about my regular system, that I only play it to confuse. No, it's KSU with Keri and NTO for takeout. If you want to see what I play when I do want to confuse, give me a couple weeks!

[fromageGB]

But yes I'd like to say that the presence of 3-card support is the single most important feature of such a well-defined hand (4+ diamonds, no 5cM, no 4-card support, unbalanced) and in my eyes it makes sense to use the one bid, ...

And yes to you, I agree wholeheartedly with practically everything you say in your post, except maybe the choice of this one bid.

 

1) 3-suited by this definition is not uncommon at all; it is not just a pure {1444} but also a {1345} with a 5 card minor.

The problem with a cheap rebid of 2♣ on a 3-suiter is that it shows only a second suit and there is no way a weakish responder can bid or discover the hearts. After 1NT to show all three suits, responder can bid any of them to play, which is the advantage of that option.

The other problem is that when bidding ♣ as your cheap suit, you will be taken to be the xx55 type of 2-suiter and be completely misleading.

2) I'm thinking responder only accepts the transfer if less than invitational, and is prepared to be passed by a non-strong opener. With better than that, or no fit, responder will make some sort of break.

 

wouldn't I like to know whether or not my partner has 3 cards in my suit or a stiff?

Of course, and I thinking opener's second bid should be the transfer to your major, showing 3 only. A relay break can then ask for a stiff.

3) I found the idea of this on the web but don't see the purpose myself - I was hoping for a comment by a practitioner.

4) 99% agree. Found this one, too, somewhere. To my way of thinking opener has to describe.

1% disagreement - I think a relay can be useful less than GF. A common example is a non-specific trial bid, another the next step after a "2-under" sort of bid, another the artificial 1♦ 1M methods.

[fromageGB]

I solve Opener's rebid problems on minimum (= doesn't meet the rule of 25) hands as follows:

This is a very neat idea. Unfortunately too complex for me and partners, but something along these lines sounds the right way to go if you can cope with it, restructuring as gwnn said.

[foobar]

She showed it to me and we refined it into a playable system (FCVO "playable") and took it to an Ottawa Regional for the Mid-Chart events. You can tell how long ago this is, because we could play Multi in 2 board rounds...

 

 

Out of curiosity, what is "FCVO" and what adaptations did you make? How do the GF relay and other NF (12+?) responses work?

[gwnn]

Out of curiosity, what is "FCVO" and what adaptations did you make? How do the GF relay and other NF (12+?) responses work?

"for certain values of"

[gwnn]

And yes to you, I agree wholeheartedly with practically everything you say in your post, except maybe the choice of this one bid.

Which was the whole point of my post :) so I don't think you really agree with that much I guess.

1) 3-suited by this definition is not uncommon at all; it is not just a pure {1444} but also a {1345} with a 5 card minor.

The problem with a cheap rebid of 2♣ on a 3-suiter is that it shows only a second suit and there is no way a weakish responder can bid or discover the hearts. After 1NT to show all three suits, responder can bid any of them to play, which is the advantage of that option.

The other problem is that when bidding ♣ as your cheap suit, you will be taken to be the xx55 type of 2-suiter and be completely misleading.

Hearts can be lost in various different ways, and it is not really the time or place for opener to show them here. You should rather probably have inv flannery in your arsenal or something similar. And if 1NT is not a pure 3-suiter then sometimes it has a 3-card fragment, so responder will have a tough time deciding between 1NT and 2H

2) I'm thinking responder only accepts the transfer if less than invitational, and is prepared to be passed by a non-strong opener. With better than that, or no fit, responder will make some sort of break.

Yep so whenever I am non-invitational, I have to guess your holdings in your non-heart suits.

4) 99% agree. Found this one, too, somewhere. To my way of thinking opener has to describe.

1% disagreement - I think a relay can be useful less than GF. A common example is a non-specific trial bid, another the next step after a "2-under" sort of bid, another the artificial 1♦ 1M methods.

It just depends on what you mean by relay, I guess. If 1NT-2♠ is played as "weak hand, clubs or diamonds", then opener's 2NT could be called a relay, but I'd call it a puppet. Other similar ones I'd call "pass/correct". Of course those can happen without GF values but that's just nitpicking. This is not what a 1NT "relay" in this context would entail; it would be an asking bid prompting responder to describe/narrow down one of 150000 hands rather than one of 2.

 

I just don't know how it's putting pressure on me (responder) that I now know that my partner has 3 cards in support? I can just relay with 2♣ (not promising any extra values) and depending on partner's 2♦/2♥ bid I can safely park in 2♦ or 2M. So once in a while we "miss" 2♣ but at the risk of not knowing whether my partner has 0 cards or 3 cards in my major suit. That seems like a very fringe win to me. Sure, opener can sometimes show 3-card support later or higher, but doesn't that put more pressure on me when we're both minimumish?

[nullve]

2) transfer rebid, showing clubs - ok that's great but when do I accept the transfer? wouldn't I like to know whether or not my partner has 3 cards in my suit or a stiff? Sure, opener can still show a 3-card fragment, but wouldn't they like to have shown it a round earlier to have one guess less? or to have this sequence show a non-minimum?

When nullve-nullve played transfer rebids (starting about 20 years ago when, in my hubris, I thought I had invented them (but they apparently invent themselves),

 

1♦-1M

2M-1 = (bad MIN or INV), 3 M

 

and

 

1♦-1M

1N*-2♣**

P = < INV, < 3 M ["wouldn't I like to know whether or not my partner has 3 cards in my suit or a stiff?"]

2M = good MIN, 3 M ["wouldn't they like to have [...] this sequence show a non-minimum?"]

 

* "clubs"

** a hand that over 1♦-1M; 2♣ in standard 2/1 would either have passed or given a courtesy raise ["when do I accept the transfer?"]

 

after a 1NT rebid showing 3-card support by opener, we can always stop in 2M when opener has no extras; now we'll have to guess.

As you can see, we don't have to guess now, either.

[gwnn]

It seems like you addressed my point by splitting minimums into good/bad minimums (my points were assuming that 1D-1M; 1NT-2C; 2M showed a non-minimum). So basically now as responder I can just assume my partner is short in my suit and bid accordingly.

 

That's fine, but then we still get high when you have an "invitational" hand.

 

With your system, it would go:

1D-1S

2H*-2S

foo

 

whilst in mine, it would go:

 

1D-1S

1NT*-2C* (3-card support - ask)

2S* - pass (non-minimum - whatever)

 

OK with M=H I'd also get too high, I admit :)

 

I can also stop in 2D sometimes if opener has 5 diamonds (or restructure the whole thing and have 2D show a minimum 4+ - now I can even stop in 2H opposite the 15-17 variant).

 

As opposed to that, you can sometimes show clubs en route to showing support and two minimums. That is definitely an upside. I didn't intend to suggest that 1NT=3 is 100% superior to 1NT=♣, just that the given criticism (too much pressure on min opp min) doesn't make too much sense to me and that 1NT=3 is not obviously inferior to other structures and it has the benefit of simplicity (for instance you can use the same structure here as over 1C).

 

PS we can now list another batch of pros/cons but unless you are saying that 1NT=3 is just really bad and has no pros, I suggest a truce and say that it's a matter of taste.

[nullve]

It seems like you addressed my point by splitting minimums into good/bad minimums (my points were assuming that 1D-1M; 1NT-2C; 2M showed a non-minimum).

Yes, sorry. But if a hcp range, like the 1♦ range here, is divided into 'minimum' and 'maximum' without further explanation, I just assume these terms refer to the bottom and top halves of that range, respectively. So when you wrote

 

On-topic, I think the simplest thing you can play (that is not too far from optimal) is:

1♣-(transfer)

(complete) = 3-card support

 

1♦-1M

1NT = 3-card support.

 

You can even play the same 2♣ relay scheme over both, although with some rearrangements; perhaps you can differentiate diamond length in the relay following 1♦.

 

For instance:

1♣-(transfer)

(complete)-2♣:

2♦=min unbal (2NT asks)

2♥=min bal (2NT invites)

2♠=max unbal (2NT asks)

 

1♦-1M

1N-2♣

2♦=min unbal 5+ ♦ (often passed. 2NT asks)

2♥=min unbal 4 ♦ (2NT asks)

2♠=max unbal (2NT asks)

I interpreted 'min' and 'max' as something like "11-15" and "16-21", respectively.

 

Then I probably got confused by

 

after a 1NT rebid showing 3-card support by opener, we can always stop in 2M when opener has no extras

because if

 

'no extras' = 'min' = "11-15",

 

then the statement is simply not true given your structure over 1♦-1M; 1N-2♣, since the range is so wide that Responder will sometimes need to invite and thereby bypass 2M. It might become a true statement, however, if

 

'no extras' = my 'bad MIN' = bottom half of "11-15".

 

---

 

With this clarification, may I suggest an improvement to your 1N gadget (which I don't hate, btw)?

 

1♦-1M; 1N-?:

 

2♣ = GF opposite MAX, relay

...2♦ = bad MIN

......P = allowed

......(...)

...2M = good MIN

...2OM/2N+ = MAX (GF)

(...)

2M = not worth GF opposite MAX

(...)

 

But in fromageGB's system, where the 1♦ opening also covers such shapes as 1444, (31)45, (40)45 and (41)35, potentially seriously overloading 1♦-1♠; 2♣(NAT), how about

 

1♦-1♥; ?:

 

1N = 3 H

other = NAT

 

1♦-1♠; ?:

 

1N = "4+ C or 1453"

2♣ = 3 S

other = NAT

 

1♦-1M; [1M+2]-?:

 

2M-2 = GF opposite MAX, relay

...2M-1 = bad MIN

......P(M=♥) = allowed

......(...)

...2M = good MIN

...[2M+1]+ = MAX (GF)

(...)

2M = not worth GF opposite MAX

(...)

 

?