Polish Diamond? A bit of a thought bubble
#1
Posted 2012-May-09, 17:41
Given how comparatively under-loaded the 1D opening is, has anyone seen anything looking at folding additional hand types into 1D? Obviously inspired by AWM's magic diamond stuff it seems like you could include 21+ unbalanced or 23+ unbalanced in 1D and use some sort of 1NT or 2C gazilli style relay to sort out the strong hands.
Edit:
So this would give you an opening structure like:
1C: Clubs or Balanced, 11-19
1D: Unbalanced diamonds, 11-21 OR Unbalanced 22+ OR Balanced 23+
1M: Standard 2/1 GF stuff.
On the other hand, is the losses in competition worth it? I don't have significant polish or unassuming club experience to know, so input is good here.
On the gripping hand, the other obvious concern is what do I get? Well, you get the 2C opening freed up and the opportunity to start GF auctions at a lower level. B isn't worth much, assuming you use some sort of 1NT Gazilli relay you're going to get P's second negative about the same time a pair playing standard methods bids 2H, so not a huge deal of space is gained.
I do think being able to open a frequent weak hand type - like a weak 2C or whatever would be a big winner when it comes up, but assuming that 60% of auctions are contested, people are going to come in over your 'strong' opening more frequently than you are going to get the upside of a weak 2C. This points to playing something higher frequency - some sort of assumed fit shennagians (4/4 or better minors? At 4.8% frequency this is going to come up a lot and puts the oppo under huge pressure), or a super fert NV or whatever, but these methods have their own risk!
Anyone tried this or seen anything like it?
#2
Posted 2012-May-09, 18:32
If there is one thing I like about Polish Club it's nice 1D opening putting us ahead of precisioners and standard 2/1 players.
#3
Posted 2012-May-09, 18:37
bluecalm, on 2012-May-09, 18:32, said:
If there is one thing I like about Polish Club it's nice 1D opening putting us ahead of precisioners and standard 2/1 players.
Whoops - I was not as clear as I would have liked. I meant has anyone tried something like this
1C: Clubs or any balanced, 11-19
1D: Unbalanced with 5+ diamonds or 4441 with a stiff club 11-21 OR 18+ Unbalanced OR 23+ Balanced
1H: 5+ 11-17
1S: 5+ 11-17
1NT: 14-16
2 level: Whatever.
Then use 1D-1x-1NT as strong artificial. As you point out the losses in competition might be to much.
#4
Posted 2012-May-09, 18:47
#5
Posted 2012-May-09, 18:53
-P.J. Painter.
#6
Posted 2012-May-09, 19:06
MickyB, on 2012-May-09, 18:47, said:
Isn't it pretty much the same as a Polish 1C, except while Polish has three handtypes:
Weak NT
Strong with Clubs
Any strong
We have
Weak with Diamonds
Strong with Diamonds
Any strong?
I've read the blog and I really like it, but it seems more homogeneous than the polish equivalent?
Quote
That would be pretty fun to play!
#7
Posted 2012-May-09, 19:55
Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-09, 19:06, said:
Weak NT
Strong with Clubs
Any strong
We have
Weak with Diamonds
Strong with Diamonds
Any strong?
I've read the blog and I really like it, but it seems more homogeneous than the polish equivalent?
Quote
#9
Posted 2012-May-09, 21:59
Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-09, 18:37, said:
1C: Clubs or any balanced, 11-19
1D: Unbalanced with 5+ diamonds or 4441 with a stiff club 11-21 OR 18+ Unbalanced OR 23+ Balanced
1H: 5+ 11-17
1S: 5+ 11-17
1NT: 14-16
2 level: Whatever.
Then use 1D-1x-1NT as strong artificial. As you point out the losses in competition might be to much.
Imo two-way openings suck. They prevent branching until opener has announced what sort of hand he has. While some bids may be useful to opener (whatever his hand may be), others will not. In effect, responder has to relay...make low-level bids until opener shows one or the other.
Even worse that Polish and Swedish two-way openings (of 1C) show very different hand strengths. Responder has to assume the weaker...which means he can't bid as much or as high....can't compete as high even when it would be helpful opposite a known strong hand.
I realize that a strong club is vulnerable to competition (I think more is made of this than I've experienced at the table), but at least it promises 15+ or 16+. In a similar fashion, a strong NT announces a moderately good hand...before the bidding gets too high for this strong hand to do anything and thusly losing this information to partner. Open a strong NT 1D and after a 3H preempt pass pass it may be too dangerous for opener to act. A game or penalty may be lost.
Both a strong club and strong NT empower responder to bid in a way that Polish Club and weak NT do not. That ought to be a big goal of one's opening structure....saying "I can support fit-finding this high"....letting partner have an idea if we are in a part score, game, or slam vicinity. We have another thread going by mgoetze who would like to sort out Swedish 1C (3H) auctions. It's just frequently not possible.
I have some difficulty doing everything I want after a strong club opening...even in an uncontested auction. I can't imagine adding weak NT or other meanings...and reserving bids I used now for other things to announce a weak NT hand.
The only nice thing I can think of to say about Swedish Club is it's less bad than Polish Club.
This structure seems worse than both. The 1D (in particular) seems extremely overloaded. Plus how is responder to respond? He can't pass, so you need to reserve at least one bid as a waiting/negative bid. After that waiting/negative bid, opener has to announce whether he has a limited hand with diamonds or 18+ unbalanced. I think it would be impossibly difficult.
#10
Posted 2012-May-10, 03:50
-- Bertrand Russell
#11
Posted 2012-May-10, 15:15
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#12
Posted 2012-May-10, 16:16
benlessard, on 2012-May-10, 15:15, said:
I would make this 11+, forcing.
#14
Posted 2012-May-10, 17:41
straube, on 2012-May-10, 17:24, said:
If it's forcing, responder has less room to describe his own hand.
If it is 11-22 it is essentially forcing, and potentially strong.
#15
Posted 2012-May-10, 18:47
1c = clubs, or balanced not in 1nt range; unlimited
1d = natural and unlimited
1M = 5+ cards in M, about 8-16 hcp
1nt = 14-16
2c = 17+ with at least one 5+M
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#16
Posted 2012-May-10, 19:07
awm, on 2012-May-10, 18:47, said:
1c = clubs, or balanced not in 1nt range; unlimited
1d = natural and unlimited
1M = 5+ cards in M, about 8-16 hcp
1nt = 14-16
2c = 17+ with at least one 5+M
Consider the Fantunes split: 5-4-2-2 with a five card major and a four card minor is "balanced", and:
1♣ = ♣s, or "balanced" not in 1NT range; unlimited
1♦ = natural and unlimited
1M = 5+ cards in M, 12-16 or 9-11 both majors, unbalanced
1NT = 14-16 "balanced"
2♣ = 17+ with at least one 5+M, unbalanced
2M = 5+ cards in M, not 4+ in OM, 8-11
#17
Posted 2012-May-10, 20:06
benlessard, on 2012-May-10, 15:15, said:
I would suggest the modern Polish method of opening 1D to show 4+. This takes a lot of pressure off the 1C opening. It is true that some Polish pairs still play the old fashioned 5+Ds but more and more are moving over to Matula's ideas of 4+.
#18
Posted 2012-May-10, 20:15
bluecalm, on 2012-May-09, 18:32, said:
or
the hog, on 2012-May-10, 20:06, said:
#19
Posted 2012-May-10, 20:34
http://www.webcitati...-10-25+18:04:20
1♦ opening - 4+ cards
The WJ2000 1♦ was opened with either 5+ cards, or 4+ cards if 3-suited or with 5 clubs. The 2005 version promotes a simpler definition. It shows 4+ cards (like in the original WJ95). I think there are several good reasons for this change:
With the previous agreement responder didn’t know whether he could raise partner with 3 diamonds for fear of standing opposite a bad 4 cards. As a result he had to assume a conservative stance, assuming that opener may have 4 cards and raise only with 4 cards himself.
One could say that a 1♦ opening always has 5+ cards (like 1♥ and 1♠) – but then unbalanced hands with 4 diamonds would not be biddable.
Thanks to the 4-crd 1♦ opening, we lessen the ambiguity of the 1♣ opening.
Playing this version is easy to understand for new WJ-players; beginners won’t be forced to learn a complicated opening definition, and foreign bridge players see something nearer to what they are used to.
#20
Posted 2012-May-10, 21:02
glen, on 2012-May-10, 19:07, said:
1♣ = ♣s, or "balanced" not in 1NT range; unlimited
1♦ = natural and unlimited
1M = 5+ cards in M, 12-16 or 9-11 both majors, unbalanced
1NT = 14-16 "balanced"
2♣ = 17+ with at least one 5+M, unbalanced
2M = 5+ cards in M, not 4+ in OM, 8-11
Seems like sorting out the weak with both majors from the 12-16 hands would be a pain in the ass - any ETM systems that do something similar? Otherwise I really like it - one option (though not that pure or great) is to put the weak 2D hands into 2C, then put the 8-11 both majors into 2D?