[whereagles]

Strong diamond system

Idea: lower the usual precision 1♦ catch-all to 1♣ to make use of the extra step. This is extra step is priceless, as I'll try to argue below. By lowering the catch-all, we make it possible to dump all the usual precision 1♦/2♣/2♦ openers into it... for better or worse! The reason I'm clearing up the whole 2 level? To be able to open a weak 2 in every suit.

DISCLAIMER: I have never, ever, read a single line on strong diamond systems, so this might be a deja vu for you

Below I assume a modern precision NT structure of 11-13, 14-16, 17-19, etc. You can tweak these a bit if you like stuff like the 9-11 or 10-12 1NT.

Openings: (note: 4441s bid as balanced hand if sing is AKQ, else fake a 5 card minor suit)

1♣ = catch-all, 11-15. Unbalanced 5+ in a minor or bal OR 11-13 balanced.
1♦ = strong, 16+ H.
1M = 5 card, good 10 to 15.
1NT = 14-16.
2x = weak, 5+ cards NV, 6 cards V.
2NT = 20-21.
rest = pree

Responses and follow ups:

After 1♣ responder uses transfers, so..

1♦ = 4+ hearts, 1♥ = 4+ spades. Now opener completes the transfer with 3 cards unbalanced or 4 cards and a bal 4333. With 4 card support you just jump to 2/3M. Hands without support bid 1NT (easy to find the 5-3 fit now) or 2/3m (no need to try for a 5-3 fit because it isn't there!). In competition, if 4th hand bids, opener can use support dbl to show a hand that would have completed the transfer at level 1.

Other responses to 1♣ are:

1♠ = artificial, asks for clarification. Usually 0-9 no major or a strong GF hand. Now opener bids 1NT/2m to show hand type, after which you can pass or use up some gadget (e.g. relays) to ask for shape.

1NT = 44 majors, 0-9. This bid is there so that opener can bypass spades over 1♣-1♦ with a bal hand. Opener now passes with a bal and bids 2m unbalanced. Corollary: if responder transfers to hearts and then bids spades, he's showing at least an invite.

rest = [you fill in]

The follow-ups to 1♣ are the main point of the system, which can easily dig out the major suit fits, something which could get complicated in the classic precision scheme. Obviously, this opener is a bit vulnerable to competition, especially from 2nd player. So it requires some tweaking with pet pard to sort all competitive situations.

After other openings you can more or less use whatever you like. Below is what I thought for "1st order approximation":


After a strong 1♦ responder and opener can also use transfers:

1♥ = artificial, weakish hand 0-7. Now opener bids 1♠...2♥ = transfer, responder filling it in with 0-4. Other bids = 5-7.

1♠...2♥ = transfer, GF 8+. Now opener fills transfer = gamma asking bid. Fill transfer in jump = beta ask. Other bids = alfa asking bid. Responder responds to asking bids 1st step to show 12+ (opener reasks in 1st step now), else is normal response 8-11.

2NT...3♥ = transfer, 5-7 hcp, decent suit with intermediates. Opener fills in to sign-off, fill in jump = gamma ask vs minor.
3NT...4♥ = as above, but with more shape and more concentration of hcps in the main suit. At most a Q outside.

That leaves 1♦-2♠/3♠ open for your favourite gadget (for instance 4441s, or specific ace/kings asks, or 55s with 5-7 hcp, etc.)


After a 1M opener I like a 2♣ relay with all invitational hands with 3 trumps, so that you don't go higher than 2M on those hands. We have:

1NT = forcing, but limited to 12 or bad 13.
2x = GF
2♣ = relay. Either nat GF or invite with 3 cards. Opener bids 2M = min 6 cards, 2♥ (if new suit) = 54, 2♦ = catch-all with all other mins, other bids = max. Now responder bids 2M with an invite, 3M = fit slammish and other bids are natural with 5+ CLUBS. 2NT is a "tell me more about your hand" kind of bid.

The rest of the system is up to you. This is just the skeleton. I got a lot of theory on how to bid after a 2m bid that can be 5 cards and may have a side major. PM me if interested.

Comments welcome and thank you for your time

[hrothgar]

I recommend taking a serious look a Magic Diamond before you go and reinvent the wheel

[whereagles]

Ok, I looked at it and it doesn't really look like the above. Actually, there aren't any strong diamond systems around, apparently...

[csdenmark]

whereagles, on Apr 2 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

Ok, I looked at it and it doesn't really look like the above. Actually, there aren't any strong diamond systems around, apparently...

Quadri Livorno, Quadri Italia, Burgay Diamond, Chinvat Diamond, Magic Diamond

[whereagles]

Thx. I looked a bit deeper into it. No real match, though.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Apr 2 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

Thx. I looked a bit deeper into it. No real match, though.

Potentially, the reason that there is no good match is that the system you are proposing isn't particularly well thought out.

Switching from a strong cub to a strong Diamond significantly cramps your constructive bidding. Losing a step of bidding space below 1NT can be devastating. You're adding in a second very poorly defined bid (your catch all club includes an enormous range of hand types - 6+ Clubs single suited, 6+ Dimaonds single suited, all two suited with a 4 card major, 11-13 HCP NTs). Your unobstructive auctions are going to be a mess. Your competitive auctions a nightmare...

And for what gain? A weak two bid in clubs...

Magic Diamond is a quite nice system. You still have two different strong artificial openigns, but at least your able to support a much lighter 1M opening

[whereagles]

Well, I don't fully agree. In fact, having played a very similar strong club system for 5 years, I definitely think unobstructed auctions after 1♣ will be a total piece of cake. And I'm not even using the whole 1♣-2/3x level, which I could use for construtive purposes. I do agree the competitive auctions will be a mess, especially if 2nd player preempts.

As for loss of 1 step after a strong diamond, I'm just 1 step higher than people that play control responses to a strong club, so I can't be THAT bad.

One can, of course, take the balanced hands out of the 1♣ opener, making it a sort of "constructive multicolor for the minors" (i.e. open a permanent 12-14 1NT, dump the 15+ balanced hand to 1♦ and rise the positive response 1 hcp). But if I'm gonna do that, I might as well go back to strong club.

By the way, Magic diamond is nice, but at the moment I prefer something more in line with precision.

[MickyB]

I've seen a few pairs independently develop this basic structure.

I don't feel as strongly about it as Hrothgar does, but I agree with the general principle - I think the gains from having 2♣ as part of your preemptive structure are minimal, and certainly smaller than the losse from giving less definition to your constructive openings. Obviously you love your weak two in clubs, if you are right about the gains it gives you then perhaps this is the system for you. Alternatively, 1C as 11-13 bal/any 17+ and 1D as clubs or diamonds might be preferable.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Apr 2 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Quote

Well, I don't fully agree. In fact, having played a very similar strong club system for 5 years, I definitely think unobstructed auctions after 1♣ will be a total piece of cake. And I'm not even using the whole 1♣-2/3x level, which I could use for construtive purposes. I do agree the competitive auctions will be a mess, especially if 2nd player preempts.

And just how many unobstructed auctions are you expecting? For what its worth, old style MOSCITO used an aritficial 1♦ that denied a 4 card major. (Much better defined than what you're suggesting). This got junked (and much of the system rewritten) because you were dreadfully exposed during competitive auctions.

Quote

As for loss of 1 step after a strong diamond, I'm just 1 step higher than people that play control responses to a strong club, so I can't be THAT bad.

Can you point me at ANY serious pair that still plays control responses over a strong club? Even Hamman - Wolff moved towards methods to show shape and that was years back...

[whereagles]

mickyB: well, the weak 2♣ isn't the reason why I'm messing up the whole system. It's the precision 2♣ opener that I greatly dislike. It can miss out on major suit fits or, if you try and dig those fits out, land you in an unpleasant club contract. I know it because it happened to me over and over again.

You could try and fix this by upping the suit requirements to open 2♣, but then you overload the 1♦ opener into something that pretty much looks like the 1♣ catch-all of the system above.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Apr 2 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

1. And just how many unobstructed auctions are you expecting? For what its worth, old style MOSCITO used an aritficial 1♦ that denied a 4 card major.

2. Can you point me at ANY serious pair that still plays control responses over a strong club? Even Hamman - Wolff moved towards methods to show shape and that was years back...

1. Well, in practice I played a 1♦ opener similar to this 1♣ catchall and it wasn't any carnage whatsoever. I agree it isn't ideal, but I don't think it's totally unplayable.

2. Look, I do agree the extra step is important. But I think it's more important to use it in the catchall than in the strong opener.

[benlessard]

I think the "classic" response structure after a 2C precision is obsolete. If you work on a nice structure after 2C you will prefer having a 2C precision then having a nebulous 1D or a catch-all 1C. Playing a weak 2 in clubs is something that didnt even crossed my mind. (and i much prefer the weak 2D then mini-roman).

In mp however the precision 2C opening is a bit painful i agree.

[NickToll]

I used to play a strong diamond system in the 80s (actually strong diamond was pretty common in Italy at that time). It was not a three-layer system as Magic Diamond: it was just 1♦ 17+ and other bids 11-16, with weak twos in the majors and other normal stuff. This structure has its plusses and minuses, as everything else, but its minuses become worse if one wants to pack lots of different hands in 1♣: then that bid becomes an invitation to overcall, with no information still conveyed.

I found it useful to open 1♣ only with relatively balanced hands, let's say at most 5431 with a 5card minor: it's not a narrow bid, but at least you imply fair defensive values and deny a distributional hand. On the other side, unbalanced hands with a long minor (5431 with a good suit or any hand with a 6card suit) can be opened effectively with 2♣ or 2♦, removing the one level at once but conveying a valuable piece of information: offensive hand, good suit. We can argue if these bids are efficient or not: surely the high level can make them cumbersome, and you need some gimmicks to find your major fit. Anyway, I find them much more playable than a "any-hand 1♣".

[PrecisionL]

whereagles, on Apr 2 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

As for loss of 1 step after a strong diamond, I'm just 1 step higher than people that play control responses to a strong club, so I can't be THAT bad.

Hardly anyone plays control responses to a strong 1♣ anymore, not even Benito! Distribution is King. Loss of that one step is BAD.

One of my Strong Club partnerships uses 1♦ opening to promise one or both 4-card majors. This works surprisingly well.

I also play a version of Millennium Club with transfer responses for pairs and that works well and is fun.

Finally, for serious competition I play Ultra Club with canape positive responses to 1♣. Thus, although I have looked at strong diamond systems, I come back to one of these three Strong Club Systems every time.

Larry

http://ia300218.us.a...ve.org/2/items/ UltraClub-July2007/Ultra.pdf

Ignore space, edited to fit on one line

[aelred]

benlessard, on Apr 3 2008, 02:16 AM, said:

In mp however the precision 2C opening is a bit painful i agree.

We played a (sort of) Magic Diamond opening structure last year. 2♣/2♦ openings showing 5+ w/o a 4 card major, about 9-13 came quite a lot. And my humble feeling was we were miles ahead when they came. Especially non-vul.

It was matchpoints. I've got bragging rights for an extra national title after the event - so the field was not so atrocious after all (perhaps...).

But ... the pain? When does it come ... the pain? I'm waiting impaciently!
(After all, one has to be a masochist to keep playing bridge under current regulations.)

Aelred

[Flame]

I'll just point out that today many of the times you open a strong 1C the next player will interfere and i think when she does it put the strong 1D at equal point as the 1C strong.

[whereagles]

PrecisionL, on Apr 4 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

1. Hardly anyone plays control responses to a strong 1♣ anymore, not even Benito! Distribution is King. Loss of that one step is BAD.

2. One of my Strong Club partnerships uses 1♦ opening to promise one or both 4-card majors. This works surprisingly well.

3. I come back to one of these three Strong Club Systems every time.

1. Actually, I use distribution responses Thing is, control responses, though inferior, are playable, in which case the strong 1♦ suffers little from. Anyway, the loss of 1 step may hurt the strong opener, but, for the purposes of what I was thinking of, that step is much more useful in the catch-all.

2. That would require 2m openers as natural, 6 cards. It is playable, of course, but if I'm going to let go two of my level 2 openers to 11-15 hands, I definitely wouldn't need to switch to strong diamond. And could come up with a bunch of new structures.

3. Thx, I'll have a look.

[PrecisionL]

whereagles, on Apr 5 2008, 03:24 AM, said:

PrecisionL, on Apr 4 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

1. Hardly anyone plays control responses to a strong 1♣ anymore, not even Benito!  Distribution is King.  Loss of that one step is BAD.

2. One of my Strong Club partnerships uses 1♦ opening to promise one or both 4-card majors.  This works surprisingly well.

3. I come back to one of these three Strong Club Systems every time.

2. That would require 2m openers as natural, 6 cards. It is playable, of course, but if I'm going to let go two of my level 2 openers to 11-15 hands, I definitely wouldn't need to switch to strong diamond. And could come up with a bunch of new structures.

Well, I like our 2-level openers in a strong club system, similar to Fantunes, but I have been playing them since 1998.

2♣/♦  = 10-14 hcp and good 5 or 6 card suit, no 4M, might have 4 of other minor. Over 2♣ we use transfers to show a major suit (ACBL Mid-Chart) and opener accepts with 2-cards.

2♥/♠ = 10-14 hcp and 5M332 with good suit. Responder can now play in his suit at the three level by bidding it (not forcing). 2NT is the G.I. try and 3♣ rebid by opener = minimum. I have found that 15 hcp hands are too strong to be included in these 2-level openings.

2NT = 8-11/11-14 hcp (nV/V) and 5-5 in the minors.

In pairs and Teams we win left and right when they can't find:
(1) Their game or their correct game,
(2) Get to 3-level for down 1,
(3) Responder can play in his 6-card suit at the 3-level

Larry

[Free]

PrecisionL, on Apr 6 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

Well, I like our 2-level openers in a strong club system, similar to Fantunes, but I have been playing them since 1998.

2♣/♦  = 10-14 hcp and good 5 or 6 card suit, no 4M, might have 4 of other minor. Over 2♣ we use transfers to show a major suit (ACBL Mid-Chart) and opener accepts with 2-cards.

2♥/♠ = 10-14 hcp and 5M332 with good suit. Responder can now play in his suit at the three level by bidding it (not forcing). 2NT is the G.I. try and 3♣ rebid by opener = minimum. I have found that 15 hcp hands are too strong to be included in these 2-level openings.

2NT = 8-11/11-14 hcp (nV/V) and 5-5 in the minors.

In pairs and Teams we win left and right when they can't find:
(1) Their game or their correct game,
(2) Get to 3-level for down 1,
(3) Responder can play in his 6-card suit at the 3-level

Larry

What's the similarity to Fantunes openings??? 10-13 unbalanced is quite different to 5+ cards and no 4 card Major, and 2M 5332 is not unbalanced... They're completely different

[kenrexford]

I dabbled with a strong diamond system for a while, as well. In the context of a canape approach. I echo the problem that 1♦ is amazingly preemptive on the opening side, as strange as that may seem, and that the "they might overcall 1♣" mitigation was not all that. Whereas 1♣ had seemed nice as a lower start for trouble hands, that seemed more illusory than actual. So, we switched to a strong club and liked it better, for that approach. (It was somewhat like Livorno.)

That said, some structures might handle a strong 1♦ better. I'm curious whether anyone has tried a sort of "Polish 1♦" approach, where both 1♣ and 1♦ openings might cover some minimal holdings and some power holdings. I also dabbled there for a while, with a 1♦ opening that was either 8-10 balanced (with 3+ diamonds), or some unbalanced diamond-oriented intermediates with four of at least one major, or very strong and both minors, and I liked it in the context of a LIA/KS type of system. 1♣ was often a strong balanced hand, possibly 5332 with a major, in that approach. I'd imagine some work could be done there as well.