Balanced club, strong diamond, multi 1NT

[helene_t]

Inspired by David Kok's Polish/Dutch Club, I thought that maybe we should take the strong 2♣ opening out of the Boring Club system (i.e. a system in which 1♣ is 12+ balanced). It would have to be a strong diamond system, then.

 

1♣ = 12-22 bal or 3-suited short in clubs. Probably no 5cM

1♦ = 16+ 5cM OR 16+ 3suited not short in clubs OR 16+ 55m OR 23+ any

1M = 9-15, 5+ cards

1NT = 12+ unbal, 6+ in a minor

2♣ = 12-15, 3-suited not short in clubs

Higher openings = preempts according to taste, probably including some unbal 8-11 with 4cM

 

Anyone tried to toy with something similar?

[DavidKok]

I haven't tried and don't really know, but I do know a tiny bit about a particular strong diamond system. The openings are:

 

1♣: catchall, includes any 11-15 hand that is either

1. Balanced outside the 1NT range.
   
2. Has 6(+) clubs or 6(+) diamonds.
   
3. Three-suiters with a short minor and no 5cM (importantly, these have tolerance or support for both majors).
   

The rest of the openings show:

1♦: 16+ ART any

1♥/1♠: 5(+), 10-15

1NT: 14-16 (semi)BAL (I think?)

2♣: "An 11-15 three-suiter with short hearts", i.e. 3-4♠, 0-1♥, 8(+) cards in the minors up to 6-3 either way (i.e. 6-3, 5-4, 5-3 or 4-4 either way).

2♦: The same as 2♣ but spade shortage instead.

Higher openings: germ warfare.

 

You've swapped the 6(+) minor option from 1♣ with 1NT and redistributed the three-suiters somewhat, freeing up 2♦ in the process. I think assigning sequences to true 3-suiters (4441 or 5440) is not too important, these hand types are infrequent and can usually get away with pretending to be two-suited or balanced. I do think it is important to have a way to show 5431 hands - e.g. (41)(53) hands or a way to bid (43)(51) types. I don't see where these would fit in your scheme.

[helene_t]

5431 is 3-suited if the 5-card suit is a minor. Maybe also sometimes 6430 depending on texture. Sorry I should have mentioned that. I agree it is a bit overkill to assign openings specifically to 4441 and 5440 as in Precision and Blue Club.

[DavidKok]

In that case I don't like opening 2♣ on a number of three-suited hands on what will frequently be only a 4-card suit and may even be a 3-card suit. The narrow range helps (though it does mean you'll have to pass, say, ♠AKxx, ♥KTx, ♦x, ♣Jxxxx) but promising one or both majors without specifying which means responder might be stuck. Do you fish for a good major suit fit or give up on game? I'm also worried that you won't have enough space to describe opener's hand over that opening bid.

 

The rest looks quite playable. The huge balanced range in 1♣ has me a bit worried, but presumably that's an aspect you're prepared to handle.

[nullve]

What do you open with xx55 and less than 16 hcp?

[helene_t]

What do you open with xx55 and less than 16 hcp?

Oh sorry, that would have to be in the 2♣ opening also. But David thinks the 2♣ opening is overloaded already without that hand type so maybe that requires some rethink :)

 

We could also make 2NT that hand. It would have to be quite sound though as there is no room to invite. So with 11 points you would have to pass.

 

But (30)55 could be called 3-suited.

[helene_t]

I think David is right that the 2♣ opening is overloaded.

 

Maybe something like

1♣ includes 3-suited hands short in either minor

2♣ 3-suited short in hearts

2♥ 3-suited short in spades

2NT 5-5 minors

[nullve]

Boring Roman Club:

 

1♣ = 12+ BAL

1N = Roman 1♣-1♦; 2♣ OR any unBAL GF

...2♣ = relay

......2♦ = any unBAL GF

......2♥+ = Roman 1♣-1♦; 2♣-2♦; 2♥+

...(...)

other = Roman

 

Boring Roman Club with strong 1♦:

 

1♣ = 12+ BAL

1♦ = "16+", unBAL

1M = Roman except with "11-15" instead of "11-21"

1N = Roman 1♦ except with "11-15" instead of "11-21"

...2♣ = relay

......2♦ = Roman 1♦-1♥; 2♦

......2M = Roman 2M except with D instead of C

......2N = Roman 2N (the version with 5+D4+C) except with minors reversed (so 4+D5+C)

...(...)

other = Roman

[DavidKok]

I think David is right that the 2♣ opening is overloaded.

 

Maybe something like

1♣ includes 3-suited hands short in either minor

2♣ 3-suited short in hearts

2♥ 3-suited short in spades

2NT 5-5 minors

I think this is very similar to the (only) strong diamond system I've seen before. The pair I know plays transfer Walsh over 1♣, the three-suited with a short minor hands can safely accept or raise the transfer. I don't think that system has room for the huge balanced range in 1♣ though.

Similar to 2♣ and 2♦ in Precision, these openings suffer from being low frequency. Your 1NT also won't come up very often. I think your proposed structure is very playable, but on balance will struggle in competition due to overloading 1♣ and 1♦.

[nullve]

Boring Roman Club:

 

1♣ = 12+ BAL

1N = Roman 1♣-1♦; 2♣ OR any unBAL GF

...2♣ = relay

......2♦ = any unBAL GF

......2♥+ = Roman 1♣-1♦; 2♣-2♦; 2♥+

...(...)

other = Roman

 

Boring Roman Club with strong 1♦:

 

1♣ = 12+ BAL

1♦ = "16+", unBAL

1M = Roman except with "11-15" instead of "11-21"

1N = Roman 1♦ except with "11-15" instead of "11-21"

...2♣ = relay

......2♦ = Roman 1♦-1♥; 2♦

......2M = Roman 2M except with D instead of C

......2N = Roman 2N (the version with 5+D4+C) except with minors reversed (so 4+D5+C)

...(...)

other = Roman

Boring Roman Club with freed up 2M/2N openings:

 

1♣ = 12+ BAL

1♦ = Roman 1♦ OR unBAL part of Roman 1♣-1♦; 2♣+

...1♥ = relay

......1♠ = Roman 1♦ except "11-15" instead of "11-21"

......1N = Roman 1♦ except "16-21" instead of "11-21"

......2♣+ = unBAL part of Roman 1♣-1♦; 2♣+

...(...)

1M = Roman except M always real if "11-15"

1N = "11-15", 6+ C, 1-suited OR Roman 2M OR Roman 2N (5+D4+C version)

...2♣ = P/C

......P = 1-suited

......2♦ = Roman 2N (5+D4+C version)

......2M = Roman 2M

...2♦ = relay

...(...)

2M/N: freed up

 

One could free up the 2m openings as well by instead opening

 

* 1♣ with 44(41) and 44(50)

* 1M with 4M144 and 4M(540)

* 1♦ (or 1N!?) with 5M044

 

.

[DavidKok]

Most of these openings lack an anchor suit. What is your suggested defence to a 2♠ overcall of any of the above?

[nullve]

Most of these openings lack an anchor suit. What is your suggested defence to a 2♠ overcall of any of the above?

How many of the openings 1♣,...,2N in your system (Dutch Doubleton with Multi 2♦?) have no anchor suit? I think five: 1♣, 1N, 2♣, 2♦ and 2N.

 

How many of the openings 1♣,...,2N in (what I've called) Boring Roman Club with freed up 2M/2N openings have no anchor suit? Not necessarily more than four (1♣, 1♦, 2♣ and 2♦). And if 2♣ and 2♦ are freed up as well, then not necessarily more than two (1♣ and 1♦).

[nullve]

I think David is right that the 2♣ opening is overloaded.

 

Maybe something like

1♣ includes 3-suited hands short in either minor

2♣ 3-suited short in hearts

2♥ 3-suited short in spades

2NT 5-5 minors

Or maybe

 

1♣: always BAL

1N = 3-suited (range?)

2♣ = 10-16, 6+m*

2N = 5-5 minors

 

?

 

* i.e. what Marciński - L'Écuyer played in 1st/2nd NV vs. V in the 2022 Bermuda Bowl. Their cc + notes.

[DavidKok]

How many of the openings 1♣,...,2N in your system (Dutch Doubleton with Multi 2♦?) have no anchor suit? I think five: 1♣, 1N, 2♣, 2♦ and 2N.

 

How many of the openings 1♣,...,2N in (what I've called) Boring Roman Club with freed up 2M/2N openings have no anchor suit? Not necessarily more than four (1♣, 1♦, 2♣ and 2♦). And if 2♣ and 2♦ are freed up as well, then not necessarily more than two (1♣ and 1♦).

If we're getting pedantic, I think I have one more round in me. What frequency of the openings does this comprise? Also I don't regularly play 2♦ multi, but a 2♠ overcall does not cause any problems (it's too low to disturb the response scheme). It's really just the 1♣ opening that's weak to interference in Dutch Doubleton. Lastly I feel confident I can handle a 2♠ overcall of a 2NT opening.

More to the point, unbalanced hands that haven't shown their long suit(s) yet are more vulnerable to interference. Systems with split range balanced hands will typically do fine - responder can bid long suits and find support opposite, or can count on the weakest balanced range and opener can jump with extra strength. Opening bids with multiple unbalanced hand types without and anchor suit can get stuck in the bidding. This is why I am concerned about the openings you've suggested, and I was trying to tell you that one red flag is the lack of anchor suits. I'd still like to see your proposed defence to a 2♠ overcall.

 

Or maybe

 

1♣: always BAL

1N = 3-suited (range?)

2♣ = 10-16, 6+m*

2N = 5-5 minors

 

?

 

* i.e. what Marciński - L'Écuyer played in 1st/2nd NV vs. V in the 2022 Bermuda Bowl. Their cc + notes.

This sounds very interesting, though the 1NT opening (let's say 11-15 range?) might be difficult to untangle, and 2♣ as 'clubs or diamonds' has downsides with a constructive range (e.g. you probably shouldn't use 2♦ as a relay, and a Precision 2♣ can already struggle to deal with invitational hands opposite. Compared to that you've doubled the frequency by adding the diamond hands, widened the range, and need extra NF sequences). I don't know of many response schemes for dedicated three-suiters without an anchor, the Jammer preempt perhaps comes closest.

[nullve]

I'd still like to see your proposed defence to a 2♠ overcall.

Here's a structure over 1♣-(2♠) based on lebensohl (aka Good/bad) and a very (too?) aggressive (MP-oriented?) takeout style:

 

P = weak or trap

...X = takeout

......P = LoTT-based, mandatory with 12-17, 4333

......2N = Good/bad

.........3♣ = 12-17

............P/3♦/♥ = NAT

.........3♦+ = 21+, NAT

......3♣/♦/♥ = expecting to play there opposite 12-14, FG opposite 15

...2N = 18-20

X = FG or defending 2♠X opposite 18, takeout. NB! Also made on most GF hands without a S void or positional S stopper, for lack of a better call.

...P = LoTT-based, as always, and mandatory with 12-17, 4333

...2N = Good/bad: 12-14, not 4333 OR 18+ w/ S stopper)

......3♣ = P/C

.........P/3♦/3♥ = 12-14, NAT

.........3♠ = 18+, 4 H, S stopper

.........3N = 18-20, 2-3 H, S stopper

.........(...)

.........4♥ = 18-20, 5 H

.........(...)

......3♦ = ELC

.........P = 12-14, 2-3 H

.........3♥ = 12-14, 4-5 H

.........3♠+ = 18+

......3♥ = FG, 5+ H

......3♠ = FG, 4- H, stopper ask

......3N = FG, 4- H, S stopper, NF

......(...)

...3♣ = 15-17, NAT

......(...)

......3♦ = ELC

......3♥ = FG, 5+ H

......(...)

...3♦ = 15-17 NAT

......(...)

......3♥ = FG, 5+ H

......(...)

...3♥ = 15-17, 4(5) H

...3♠ = 18+, 4 H, no S stopper

...3N = 18-20, 2-3 H, no S stopper

...4♥ = 15-17, 5 H

2N = Good/Bad (aka lebensohl), FG opposite 18

...3♣ = 12-17

......P = to play 3♣

......3♦/♥ = to play

......3♠ = FG, 4 H, positional S stopper

......3N = 3- H, positional S stopper, NF

......(...)

...3♦+ = 18+, NAT

3♣/3♦/3♥ = to play opposite 12-14, FG opposite 15

3♠+ = FG, S void

[helene_t]

Or maybe

 

1♣: always BAL

1N = 3-suited (range?)

2♣ = 10-16, 6+m*

2N = 5-5 minors

 

?

 

* i.e. what Marciński - L'Écuyer played in 1st/2nd NV vs. V in the 2022 Bermuda Bowl. Their cc + notes.

That sounds fun :)

17+ with 6+ minor would be in the 1♦ opening, then, I suppose. That's ok.

[Kungsgeten]

Anyone tried to toy with something similar?

 

I had an idea of "transfer club" with strong diamond. The idea was to use a "normal" short club opening along with limited major suit openings. I think it was something like this:

 

1♣ = 4+♣ unbalanced 11-21, or 12-14 NT, or 18-20 NT

1♦ = 15-17 NT or 21+ NT or 16+ unbal (but GF if clubs being the primary suit).

1♥♠ = 5+ major, 10-15

1NT = Diamonds and hearts, 10-15.

2♣ = Diamonds and spades, 10-15.

2♦ = Diamonds, no major, 10-15.

 

Having three openings for unbalanced hands with diamonds in the 10-15 range seems a bit overkill :) Playing 1NT as "diamonds and a major" is probably wiser.

[Kungsgeten]

"Boring club, exciting pass"

 

Pass = 0-7 or 17+.

1C = 8-17 NT. Could be 4441 with singleton minor if 13-16.

1D = 13-16 5+M or 4441 with singleton major.

1M = 8-12 4+M magic diamond style.

1NT = 12-16 unbal no major.

2m = 8-11 5+m, no major.

2M = 12-16 4M and 5+m.

[helene_t]

1M = 8-12 4+M magic diamond style.

Does that mean 5+ OR 4 card unbal? (41)44 possible but not 44(41)?

[Kungsgeten]

Does that mean 5+ OR 4 card unbal? (41)44 possible but not 44(41)?

 

Yes, but any 4441 is okay.