[wclass___]

1♣ WJ00 plus 5♣+4M and (4441)
1♦ 5♦+ Not 5332
2♣ 5♣+4♦ or 6♣+

Has anyone played or thought about 1♦ promising 5cards?

[TylerE]

I've thought about it, but ultimately rejected it. Puts too many hands into other sequences, and really isn't that big of a gain...I mean, how often does it actually win to play in diamonds and you have trouble getting there?

[kenrexford]

Yes, but it focuses the wrong thing theoretically, IMO.

A vastly better alternative, IMO, and more popular these days is for 1♦ to promise an "unbalanced" hand.

Here's the general difference:

If 1♦ promises 5+, 1♣ is bid when 4-4-4-1 or when any 5332 with diamonds. You gain knowing about the fifth diamond, which is nice, but little else of value is really accomplished,

If 1♦ promises 4+ but unbalanced, then you will open 5332's with five diamonds 1♣ and treat it as balanced. 4-4-4-1, 4-1-4-4, and 1-4-4-4 are opened 1♦. Opener's NT rebids assure stiff in Responder's major. Responder's major raises promise shape and not just 5422. 1♣, BTW, also promises at least 2+.

The nuances of how this is more powerful take a lot of thought, but the end result is much more dynamic in its benefit than simply a 5+ diamond opening.

[the hog]

Power uses a 5 card D suit. It works well.
Vienna used a 5 card D suit. It worked well.

Having siad this, I prefer a 4 card D suit playing PC as it removes this hand from the 1C opening.

[Gerben42]

I also prefer putting even more 4-card ♦ hands into 1♦. I mean, we're already ahead of the field when we open 1♦, let's do it a bit more often.

[dake50]

If the artificial 1C suffered more preemption, it would need be more circumspect. After all 1C =1-7xC and 0-5xD and 0-5xH and 0-5xS with 11-22hcp SCREAMS to be preempted to make them sort out which suit/how much at some high level. Demanding 5xD to add more into the 1C is madness.

This 1C artificial only succeeds generally against corpses. Why such varied schemes against 1NT well-defined yet little against 1C artificial AND undefined?! A puzzlement to me. Why this 'fert like' 1C? Let's see how tame opponents are? Let's put ourselves into 'don't know' in any competitive/preemptive auction? Let them decide if they want the 1-level to clarify their hands or take the low levels away -this fielder's choice is theirs!?

[OleBerg]

Gerben42, on May 9 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

I also prefer putting even more 4-card ♦ hands into 1♦. I mean, we're already ahead of the field when we open 1♦, let's do it a bit more often.

It seems to me, that the more often you open 1♦, the less ahead of the field will you be, when you actually do it.

[whereagles]

5-card 1♦ kind of overloads the 1♣ opener a bit. One must ponder the pros and cons, given one very rarely wants to direct support a minor, even if it's a 5 cards one.

[benlessard]

I agree with Ken 100%. An unbalanced 1D is often 5 anyway and i dont mind raising with 3 if i can ruff with the 3 trumps hand. The drawback of opening 1C with 4441 if bigger than the advantage of the 5th diamond. I also prefer to treat 3352 as a balanced hand allowing some nice gadget after 1D----1M...

[kenrexford]

dake50, on May 9 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

If the artificial 1C suffered more preemption, it would need be more circumspect. After all 1C =1-7xC and 0-5xD and 0-5xH and 0-5xS with 11-22hcp SCREAMS to be preempted to make them sort out which suit/how much at some high level. Demanding 5xD to add more into the 1C is madness.

This 1C artificial only succeeds generally against corpses. Why such varied schemes against 1NT well-defined yet little against 1C artificial AND undefined?! A puzzlement to me. Why this 'fert like' 1C? Let's see how tame opponents are? Let's put ourselves into 'don't know' in any competitive/preemptive auction? Let them decide if they want the 1-level to clarify their hands or take the low levels away -this fielder's choice is theirs!?

From 25 years of experience playing 1♦ as unbalanced, I can assure you that your expectation of the preemptive threat is vastly overstated, at least as to unbalanced 4+ diamond openings. Sure, an occasional weird auction might develop once in a blue moon. But, no more so than with normal bidding of 3+.

What you may miss in all of this is the fact that this type of structure actually is less subject to preemption. "After all," the average 3+ minor openings do little to change your "after all." The other three suits are still 0-5. Clubs, however, when playing an unbalanced diamond, merely move from 3+ to 2+. which is not that substantial. In contrast, however, knowing that partner has 4+ diamonds (not just 3+) AND that he has an unbalanced hand is powerful. Simple example. Partner opens 1♦. Your RHO overcalls 1♠, you do something, and your LHO raises spades. You look down and see three spades in your hand. Guess what? The opponents have nine spades, or more, between them, OR partner has 10 cards in his two longest suits. You can usually figure out what and where. Hence, the preemption of these spade bids was not as damaging to you as to the jokers playing 3+ diamond openings.

[wclass___]

Thanks for responses.

My general intention is indeed to make pressure type bidding more colourful. Some has noted that after 1♦ openings (3+;4+;4+Unbal) responder usally rebids his major, but i am planning to use something like

2N = 4♥4♦ pressure bid(exact range not clear yet)
3♣ = 4♠4♦ same

I have also other ideas, but need precision.
You may say that this generally works only in 1st position, and even then i can't expect +10 IMPs too often. True, but it fits well with my general tactics to make life for opponents as hard as possible, allowing also decent on-bidding. And it goes together with my preferred 2♣ opening.

I agree that adding 4♦441 woun't hurt much.

And, I'm not afraid of those self-murderers who states that they will Preempt my precision 1♣ & polish club 1♣ . Generally i am happy with information i get, you may enter the race even more