BBO Discussion Forums: unbalanced diamond methods - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

unbalanced diamond methods

Poll: unbalanced diamond methods (10 member(s) have cast votes)

What does your 1NT mean after responder's 1M?

  1. 3 card support for partner (1 votes [10.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  2. 3-suited and short in partner's suit (2 votes [20.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  3. part of a transfer rebid method, showing clubs (1 votes [10.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  4. part of a transfer rebid method, showing spades (and 1S shows clubs) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. relay - asking what? (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. other - please describe (6 votes [60.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

Do you, and if so how do you, distinguish between 3 and 4 card support?

  1. no distinction - 3 cards with a side shortage is bid like 4 (1 votes [10.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  2. transfer to M shows 3, direct 2M shows 4 (3 votes [30.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.00%

  3. initially 2M but a relay then asks 3 or 4 (2 votes [20.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  4. other - please describe (4 votes [40.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 40.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Göttingen, Germany
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2020-January-11, 15:23

View Postfoobar, on 2020-January-11, 11:06, said:

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"
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#22 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Göttingen, Germany
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2020-January-11, 15:31

View PostfromageGB, on 2020-January-11, 05:13, said:

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#23 User is offline   nullve 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,228
  • Joined: 2014-April-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:partscores

Posted 2020-January-11, 19:51

View Postgwnn, on 2020-January-09, 16:43, said:

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?"]

View Postgwnn, on 2020-January-09, 16:43, said:

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.
0

#24 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Göttingen, Germany
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2020-January-12, 04:39

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.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#25 User is offline   nullve 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,228
  • Joined: 2014-April-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:partscores

Posted 2020-January-12, 09:16

View Postgwnn, on 2020-January-12, 04:39, said:

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

View Postgwnn, on 2020-January-08, 06:35, said:

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

View Postgwnn, on 2020-January-09, 16:43, said:

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
(...)

?
0

#26 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Göttingen, Germany
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2020-January-12, 09:25

I won't get into another lengthy philosophical debate thanks. :) In my original post I used 'min/max' loosely and similarly the word 'always'. Feel free to nitpick further (treating my posts as if they were legal documents) but I'm out.

Finally yes, it could make sense to have 2C instead after 1S as the 3-card raise, but that violates my "simple and not too far from optimal" rule. I don't want to lengthen this further, I think by now everyone knows what the upsides and downsides are. And if anyone wants to adopt these methods in their system, they are welcome to precisely define "min/max/bad min/bad max/etc."
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#27 User is offline   Kungsgeten 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 2012-April-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skövde, Sweden

Posted 2020-February-06, 05:31

I play the following:

Opening 1D is unbalanced with 4+ diamonds, no 5 card major unless 7-5. If only 4 diamonds it will be three-suited, or 4 diamonds and 5 clubs in the 11-15 range. We open 1D with five diamonds and 5422.

After 1D-1H:

1S = Natural F1.
1NT = F1. 6+D 11-14 or strong hand unsuitable for other calls. Includes three-card support with 15-17.
2C = Both minors, 11-15. Could be 4D and 5C.
2D = NF. 11-14 with 5+D and 3H.
2H = Usually 4 hearts and minimum, but may 1-3-4-5.
2S = 3H 18+.
2NT = 4H 16+.
3C = 14-16 5-5 minors.
3D = 15-17 single-suited.
3H = Good heart raise, about (13)14-15.
3S = Void splinter.
3NT = Solid diamonds and stuff on the side.
4C = Void splinter.
4D = 7D and 4 card support.

After 1D-1S it is similar, but the 1NT rebid covers another hand type.

1NT = F1. As over 1D-1H but also covers 5D and 4H 11-15.
2C = Includes 1-4-4-4.
2D = NF. 11-14 with 4+D and 3S.
2H = 3S 18+.

After 1D-1M; 1NT responder can bid 2C to force game vs the strong hand types (opener bids 2D if "weak"). Otherwise responder usually takes preference to 2D, but may rebid his major. After 1D-1S; 1NT responder's 2H is natural and forcing to game, because we play 1D-1M as Reverse Flannery.
0

#28 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2020-February-06, 12:08

Yeah, looks good.
In AWM's system that Csaba and I used to play, 1nt was also 6+ diamonds. But 2d was a good hearts raise.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users