Looking for Real Diamond Precision systems... Request for info.
#1
Posted 2004-July-10, 21:47
Does anybody know if there are any systems out there already that use this?
Thanks muchly.
#2
Posted 2004-July-11, 03:01
#3
Posted 2004-July-11, 03:57
#4
Posted 2004-July-11, 04:06
Then you are no longer using 1♦ for weak balanced hands. 1NT covers 13-15
Traditional precision used 2♦ to show 4-4-1-4 hands.
I prefer 2♣ freeing 2♦ for other uses. If partner has a 4-card major after your 2♣ opener you will find your fit, otherwise he will usually have at least 3 clubs and you're no worse off there than anywhere else. If partner is 3-3-5-2 maybe he will bid 2♦ and pass your 2♥ response. (Some players prefer 1♥ with this hand but I'd rather lie about my minor than my major).
You can modify 1NT to be 12-15 instead of 13-15 if you don't like passing with 12 points. Certainly a good 12 can be opened 1NT thus:
♠K 10 x ♥ Q 10 x ♦ x x ♣ A Q J x x
#5
Posted 2004-July-11, 06:51
In 3rd and 4th seat, I switch to 4 card majors, 14-16 NT, short diamond. Otherwise you will miss a few games (4-4 major fits) and a few partscores (12 opp 11 passed out).
#6
Posted 2004-July-11, 10:12
Another way which i think is good, is kind of sweedish system, the 11-12 hcp balanced are added to the 1c opening. the oviuos advantage is the good 1d opening which now show atleast 4 card unbalanced and usually 5 card, another advantage is having less interference by the opponents.
#7
Posted 2004-July-11, 20:41
Let me ask a specific followup question, if I may....
For those of you who play or are fluent with a Natural Diamond Precision, after the bidding of:
1D (P) 1H (P) or 1D (P) 1S (P)
Do you have a bid that indicates, denies or implies exactly 3 card support for the major?
Do you think it's a good or bad idea?
For the record, I think it's a good idea, both of the partners I play this with think it isn't (although they play it to humor me). We play that 1D 1M 1NT absolutely denies 3 cards in the major, so 1D 1M 2C and 1D 1M 2D either have 3 card support or are so distributional that they aren't interested in 1NT.
#8
Posted 2004-July-11, 21:11
Do you think it's a good or bad idea?"
1D 1M 2NT = 14-15, good 6 card D suit, not 3 cards in support
1D 1M 3D = 14-15 6 card suit, exactly 3 cards in support
With a weak but shapely hand, raise the M immediately with 3 card support. eg Jxx x AKxxx Kxxx - raise 1S to 2.
1M 1M 2C should be 5-4 either way in the minors
#9
Posted 2004-July-12, 03:21
If you have 3 card support for the major you will surely have a singleton somewhere. That is if you treat 2-3-6-2 and 3-2-6-2 hands as balanced.
By the way, your 2♦ opening is no longer needed as any kind of normal opening and can be used for some pre-emptive type, for example a weak 2 in either major while a 2♥ and 2♠ opening would be 5-5.
What would 1♦-1M-1NT show? If it can't be a balanced hand, you could conventionally use this to show 3-card support while a direct raise would be 4 card support.
Note that you might have longer clubs. With 1-3-4-5 or 3-1-4-5 you would open 1♦.
#10
Posted 2004-July-12, 20:18
"A 1♦ opening bid will always be unbalanced though. With a balanced hand you would open 1NT (weak) or 1♣ (strong)."
Yes. Right now, with 1345 across 5323 (in that order) we're finishing in 1NT.
No, I'm not going to defend it- that's why I'm looking for other options.
"If you have 3 card support for the major you will surely have a singleton somewhere. That is if you treat 2-3-6-2 and 3-2-6-2 hands as balanced."
We do.
"By the way, your 2♦ opening is no longer needed as any kind of normal opening and can be used for some pre-emptive type, for example a weak 2 in either major while a 2♥ and 2♠ opening would be 5-5."
The hole is 4414 singleton diamond. We actually use it for 4+-4+ in the majors, not 4432. We could limit it a lot more than that, but it turns out to be a powerful tool to have 1M deny four cards in the other major.
#11
Posted 2004-July-12, 21:12
I don't think so....What is he supposed to do with a 2452 after 1D 1S? Opening this shape with 1NT depends on the quality of the doubletons.
#12
Posted 2004-July-13, 02:49
jtfanclub, on Jul 11 2004, 04:47 AM, said:
Does anybody know if there are any systems out there already that use this?
Thanks muchly.
The easiest way to play real ♦'s is to play 4-card Majors. Then the problem solves itself:
1♦ = 4+♦
1M = 4+M
1NT = balanced range covering the limited openings
2♣ = 6+♣ (or perhaps also 5+♣-4M)
Support your Major as it was a 5 card and you'll do just fine... Prepare to play sometimes in 2M in a 4-3, but that's not a bad spot.
#13
Posted 2004-July-13, 04:39
1♠=2♣=2NT-3♠.
Do I accept the invite? If I can't base this on my club holding because partner's 2♣ could be "fake" then I'm guessing. Maybe partner has no more than
♠Kxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AQJxx
Of course, with precision this will only come up if you open them on hands too weak for 1NT.
#14
Posted 2004-July-13, 06:41
#15
Posted 2004-July-13, 07:03
#16
Posted 2004-July-13, 11:40
jtfanclub, on Jul 10 2004, 10:47 PM, said:
Does anybody know if there are any systems out there already that use this?
I just finished a "Bidding System Design Contest" over on rgb.
http://tinyurl.com/5y28g
A total of 18 systems of various styles and complexities entered, but the funny thing is that the winner of the contest was a Precision system that had a 1♦ opening that promises 5+♦s.
1♣ = strong
1♦/2♣ = 6+ or 5 w/ side 4-carder
1♥/1♠ = 5+
1NT: 13-15 balanced (May be 2254 or 2245)
2♦: Roman
#17
Posted 2004-July-14, 09:20
#18
Posted 2004-July-15, 08:08
EarlPurple, on Jul 14 2004, 03:20 PM, said:
If interference bids over a Swedish 1♣ and a Precision ♣ occurred with the same frequency and if the interference bids meant the same thing, I would agree.
But are these two conditions true?
Over a Precision 1♣, opponents should assume that the opener's side has the predominance of points and should strive for as much obstruction as quickly and as highly as possible. Flimsy overcalls or jump overcalls (e.g. 2♠ holding J10xxxx/x/xxxx/xx) are entirely reasonable. CRASH, WONDER, etc. bids that rob room may well be rational in this situation.
But over a Swedish 1♣, some substantial percentage of the time (40-60% depending on ranges), 1♣ is the weak balanced hand. Opponents may hold the majority of the points or even game. Rationally, opponents must preserve their ability to bid constructively, which means it does not make good sense to make many of the nonsense bids that are apporpriate if your only concern is obstruction.
If opponents use these strategies, then : (1) Interference occurs fewer times over a Swedish 1♣ than a Precision 1♣ (when an interference bid occurs over a Swedish 1♣, it will occur over a Precision 1♣. But not vice versa.) (2) When interference occurs over a Swedish 1♣, the interference bid has more meaning which offsets in part that you must factor in that the opener has 11-13 HCP. Example: Consider 1♣-2♠. After a Swedish 1♣, the 2♠ is probably s pretty standard weak jump overcall, maybe KQJxxx/x/xxx/xxx. But over a Precision 1♣, it could be not only that but xxxxxx/x/xx/xxxx as well as anything in between.
OTOH, when you have 11-13 HCP, opponents are more likely to have a constructive overcall or double than when you hold 16+ HCP.
It would be interesting to calculate the loss from interference by comparing hands from a tournament where both the Swedish and Precision apporaches have been used.
#19
Posted 2004-July-15, 09:22
Five card majors
1D promises 4+ diamonds and is unbalanced.
pass balanced 11-12's
2C is 6+ C or 5C-4M
With exactly 4-4-1-4, pass a marginal hand or open 1H (you might try 1S with AKQx xxxx x KQxx).
Note that 4-4-1-4 only occurs 1/4 of 1% of the time. Opening a four card major in this case just isn't frequent enough to disrupt your five card major structure.
IMO natural diamond is much superior to nebulous daimond--the short diamond hands are frequent enought to distort your 1D structure, and the deviation is greater: it's a much bigger lie to pretend a stiff diamond is four cards than to prentend four hearts are five.
#20
Posted 2004-July-15, 12:56
My team played Florida in the GNT, and one of their players consulted with Eric Rodwell re: suggested defense. Rodwell told him so play Mathe - double for the majors and 1NT for the minors. So even one of our top international players has given very little thought to this subject.

Help
