[Flame]

Lets say you play chamco precision with 1D show 11-15 with 4+ diamond unblance hand.
Now if the name precision isnt holy for you, isnt it better to widther the range of this 1D ?
Lets say 1D is 11-19.
I think the price is very minimal when you open 1D. On the other side the gain is much bigger, when you hold those 16-19 unbalance with 4+ diamond you are much better placed opening 1D then 1C.
Another gain is that it takes the 16-19 diamond hands out of your 1C, this might really help, for example if you play kind of precision that use a rleay 1H to show all 20+ hands, you can just just the 2D rebid for something else.
Oviously this could easily be expanded to a full polish club system (and obviously this is my choice), but i wanted to focus on the sperate case of 1D because i think its the most clear of all.
Why use this low level bid for such a small group of hands especially the minors one which arent the most important in this game.

[david_c]

Yup, I do this playing with mr1303. In fact, we do this even though we have a balanced range in 1♦. I think that if 1♦ is natural then it makes even more sense to widen the range. We use 1♣:1♦,2♦ to show a 4-4-4-1 hand.

[mr1303]

I should also add that 19-22 ish hands go in our multi 2D.

[Flame]

its a honor for me to think like great players

[Robert]

Hello everyone

It is a matter of style. You might gain is some areas mentioned, however, you will also lose out in other areas.

I play a 1D=2+ 11-15HCP and my jump shifts promise shape with a 14-15HCP range. Your jump shifts would be much stronger in HCP and some shaped
14-15(16-17?)HCP hands would be making minimum bids.

If the other pair jumps over our 1D opening, we know that 15HCP is partner's max. holding. If they bid 1D-(2M or 3C) over your opening, what does your reopening double show? 11-19HCP?

I am currently tinkering with a POWER type base of 11-18HCP for my 1D/1M
openings so I do see merit in expanding the range. I am trying both a five card diamond and 5+ major structure so 1C is covering a lot of other shapes.

I like to play a 15-17NT and also bid 1C-1D-1NT=18-20HCP. We sometimes go down in 1NT, however, with 18-20HCP it is not very often.

Regards,
Robert

[david_c]

Robert, on Nov 3 2005, 11:14 PM, said:

If the other pair jumps over our 1D opening, we know that 15HCP is partner's max. holding.  If they bid 1D-(2M or 3C) over your opening, what does your reopening double show?  11-19HCP? 

Yes, so it's like a Standard 1♦ opening in that respect. If the opponents do pre-empt, I'm much happier having opened 1♦ than 1♣, even if partner will initially play me for a weaker hand. Of course, there's no way I can prove that expanding the range of 1♦ is superior, but I do have a particular fondness for this method. There's a previous thread discussing it here.

Quote

I like to play a 15-17NT and also bid 1C-1D-1NT=18-20HCP. We sometimes go down in 1NT, however, with 18-20HCP it is not very often.

Smells Polish.

[awm]

Widening the range for 1♦ brings back a lot of annoying ambiguities from standard bidding. Some examples:

1♦-Pass-1♠-Pass: How do you show a game-force? In standard bidding this often involves jumping or reversing into a suit you don't actually hold. This is really bad, because you are simultaneously using up a lot of space (on hands where both opponents have already passed and you really need room to explore for slam) and misdescribing your hand (partner will usually assume you have the suit you bid). While you can make this a little better by taking advantage of the "unbalanced" part of the opening (1NT and 2NT are available), you lose the other possible meanings of those calls (1NT to show 3-suiter short spades, 2NT to show a good spade raise) which is a pretty big deal.

1♦-2♠-Pass-Pass: If you rebid 3♦, how does partner know whether to carry on to game? If 1♦ was limited, then partner pretty much knows what you have (something like 12-15 with six good diamonds) and can make a reasonable decision. The range of hands is much wider if the initial opening was 11-19. Of course, you can help this a bit using good/bad or the like, but again that is not without cost.

In exchange for all this, you are opening 1♣ very slightly less often (good, but not a big change) and giving opener one more artificial call (bidding diamonds) in certain sequences. This can help a little bit, but I don't think you're really going to be substantially better positioned after 1♣ and interference than you were before.

Of course, personally I'm not a big fan of the "real diamond" style to begin with. I much prefer to play that 1♦ does not show diamonds and use an intermediate 2♦ open with 6+♦ and about 10-15 hcp. The general reasoning is that 4-4-1-4, 4-4-2-3, 4-4-4-1 all look fairly similar to me (three suit support, kinda square shape) whereas 1-3-7-2 seems substantially different (very different playing strength, many fewer "places to play"). I'd rather have my 1♦ opening show a limited balanced or 3-suited hand than have it "show diamonds" and the intermediate 2♦ opening eats a lot of space while being very descriptive, frequently passed, and essentially never getting us too high.

[Chamaco]

I agree with robert's and awm 's post (although I prefer to have real 1D opener: I like to be able to show immediately real diamonds even when I do have only 4/5 and a so-so suit that makes a 2D opening unappealing).

Using 1D as a wider range will improve the 1C sequences, but will worsen the 1D opening sequences, and usually the limited openers are more frequent, so I prefer to protect my 1D opener, and keep the pluses of having a REAL, LIMITED 1D vs the IMO lousy standard "better minor" opening :-)

Right now, having the 1D opener limited to 15, enables to jump for distributional hands.
If instead we had to include hands up to 19, the system should implement some sort of "Gazzilli relay" for hands with extra real hcp power (say 16/17-19) from thos that have only extra shape (say 64 or better with 12-15 hcp or so).

There are indeed similar mechanisms both in Nightmare and in the Fantunes system.
And, indeed, delivering immediately the shape has some added bonuses vs. opening an undetermined 1C, but, in case I wanted to embrace fully this phylosophy, I'd take the bull by the horns and use Fantoni-Nunes system, which seems to me the best way to "unload" the big club.

=================================

Quote

Why use this low level bid for such a small group of hands especially the minors one which arent the most important in this game.

I think minors based hands are underrated and nebulous opening overrated. :-)

Think about it, are we more comfortable when pard opens 1M, guaranteeing 5+ cards and (usually) an unbalanced hand or when pard opens a "standard" better minor opening , say 12-20, 3+ cards, balanced or unbalanced ?

And, if RHO makes a wjo, are we better placed if we KNOW that pard is unbalanced and limited or if he can have a catchall ?

Of course a similar reasoning applies to wjo over a big club, but the frequency is lower :-)

[Flame]

I think playing precision makes you spoilt.
You dont need gazzili with this range, its not that big range and you begin with 1D low enough.
The main advantage is to the hands that were took out of the 1C not to the 1C sequences.
Knowing that shape is more important then hcp in todays competitive bridge, I am sure you too hearing you open 1X LHO wjo now when do you feel better when you showed any 16-37 hcp or when you showed 4+ diamonds unbalanced with a fairly limit range (even with no limit range id prefer showing my hand shape)
Yes ofcourse the 1D isnt as perfect as it used to be, but to tell you the truth when half the forum stragle to find a meaning to bids in your post from few days ago, and find it hard to give meaning because you have too many bids avaliable and only few hands types to show, it should give you the sign that you dont need such a perfect 1D.

[Chamaco]

Quote

Yes ofcourse the 1D isnt as perfect as it used to be, but to tell you the truth when half the forum stragle to find a meaning to bids in your post from few days ago, and find it hard to give meaning because you have too many bids avaliable and only few hands types to show, it should give you the sign that you dont need such a perfect 1D.

Hehe, there sure is some truth in this :-)
(although not completely )

However, my point is that, in the big club, the hands that sould be protected are the 2 suiters:

- with a 1 suiter, you get to show it, maybe at a high level, but still the potential headaches are not that many :-)
- with a balanced hand, often you can leave the control to partner, to choose between doubling them, or letting him choose a contract according to his power and shape
- with a 3 suiter (including 5431's), often the use of t/o dbls does the job.

So, even holding diamonds, I do not think that opening them 1C is too big a price.
I would indeed prefer to open something else than 1C when I do have some 55 or 64 in the 16+ range.

=====

Having said that, I do agree that having bid our suit has advantages: all I am saying is that I would not try to transform Precision into the Fantoni-Nunes system, I'd just play Fantunes

[david_c]

Flame, on Nov 4 2005, 11:03 AM, said:

The main advantage is to the hands that were took out of the 1C not to the 1C sequences.

Exactly. Wasn't there a thread a little while ago about how to continue after 1♣:1♦,2♦ in standard Precision? It's very difficult. This, together with problems after interference over 1♣, is why we prefer to open 1♦ on such hands. It does have a small positive effect on the other hands we open 1♣ on, but that's very much a secondary issue.

Anyway, to those who are not sold on the idea of opening 1♦, how about this compromise:

With 5+ diamonds and a 4-card major, open 1♦ even if strong. Two-suiters are easier to bid if you start with a natural opening. And you are guaranteed an easy natural rebid.

With 5+ diamonds and no 4-card major, open 1♣. Then 1♣:1♦,2♦ denies a 4-card major (without having to resort to canape rebids).

[Chamaco]

david_c, on Nov 4 2005, 12:58 PM, said:

Flame, on Nov 4 2005, 11:03 AM, said:

The main advantage is to the hands that were took out of the 1C not to the 1C sequences.

Exactly. Wasn't there a thread a little while ago about how to continue after 1♣:1♦,2♦ in standard Precision? It's very difficult. This, together with problems after interference over 1♣, is why we prefer to open 1♦ on such hands. It does have a small positive effect on the other hands we open 1♣ on, but that's very much a secondary issue.

I do not think it's a secondary issue the effect this has on other limited openings:

the question is, how often do we have a strongish diamond hand(say 16-19) and either pards responds a negative 1D or opps bounce ?
And, even when opps bounce, how many times is this a real problem (if we exclude 55+ or 64+ 2 suiters from big club) ?

On the other hand, how many times are we dealt a hand with REAL diamonds in the 11-15 range ?

Avoiding nebulous or ill-defined openings is a HUGE advantage for responder, and in my opinion, we should try to resolve the ambiguity for the most frequent hands, which I believe are the 10-15 range, not the 16+.

I'd rather have an occasional 1C:1D:2D awkward sequence than an ill-defined 1D opener which arises all the time.

Alternatively 4 card major big club seems even better than systems based on 2/3-way 1 club opening.

[david_c]

Chamaco, on Nov 4 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

I do not think it's a secondary issue the effect this has on other limited openings:

That's not what I said. Let me try again.

Opening 1♦ on strong hands has two benefits: (It has drawbacks too, but these are the benefits)
(i) You get to start with 1♦ on hands in the 16-18HCP range.
(ii) You can play an artificial meaning for 1♣:1♦,2♦

My point is that (i) is important, and is the big reason we play this way, whereas (ii) is not important at all.