[MickyB]

Say 1D openings were banned. What opening structure would you use? You can still respond 1D to 1C, btw.

Random question I know, but it might be going somewhere. Or it might not

[benlessard]

Surely a 4 card major with a forcing 1C opening. Ill probably add a wider Nt range and 2C as naturalish

[Flameous]

Forcing pass (15+)
1♠ fert
1♣ 4+Major 10-14 (1♦ to ask which and 1 major to show own 5 carder)
1♥ no 4 card major 10-14, Unbal when V
1NT 10-12 NV/ 12-14 V
2♣ 6+♣, 6-11
2♦ 6+♦, 6-11
Pre-empts
.
.
.

What was the use of 1♦ opening again?

[awm]

I'd modify what Sam and I currently play, which is strong club with five-card majors, intermediate twos in both minors, and a nebulous 1♦ that shows a balanced hand not in range or various three-suiters or 5-5 in the minors. It seems that I could move most of the 1♦ hands into 1♣ so that I'd be playing a basically polish club style. Something like:

1♣ = 11-13 balanced or 11-16 with any three-suited hand (incl. (34)(51)) or 17+ ART
1M = 5+, approximately 10-16 hcp (maybe a bit lighter with ten cards in two suits)
1N = 14-16 balanced
2m = natural intermediate 6+
2M = natural weak two
2N = 5-5 minors intermediate

Over 1♣ would play some Polish Club-like stuff, with the three-suiters usually masquerading as balanced hands, and making use of the freed up 2♣ bid to help describe some hand types (maybe 2♣ rebid is artificial game force and 2♦ rebid shows 3+ support for partner and extras).

[han]

Ditto 4-card majors with strong club.

[whereagles]

hum.. I might just try something like..

1♣ = 11-15, catchall, no 6 minor (12-14 if balanced)
1♥ = strong 16+ (15 if balanced)
1♠ = 11-15, 5 cards
1NT = 11-15, 5 hearts
2m = 11-15, 6 cards
2M = weak (or dump some loophole here)

[goodwintr]

In The Bridge World, circa 1967-68, Kaplan decried the "statistical" mode of bridge analysis, saying something like: "What if it turns out that we lose IMPs on deals where we open one diamond: are we supposed to stop opening one diamond?"

Looks like somebody here is about to take up Kaplan's suggestion!

[mtvesuvius]

I think I'd try a Strong Club with 4 card majors also... Cool idea


AJK

[cherdano]

So are you going somewhere, MickyB?

[paulg]

goodwintr, on Dec 21 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

In The Bridge World, circa 1967-68, Kaplan decried the "statistical" mode of bridge analysis, saying something like: "What if it turns out that we lose IMPs on deals where we open one diamond: are we supposed to stop opening one diamond?"

I'm anti-statistics too, as I find I lose IMPs whether I bid, play or defend.

[ASkolnick]

I like the premise, but I don't think its accurate statement.

The 1♦ bid does not act in a vacuum. It is possible you go more "plus" on the other bids and go small "minus" on this bid. Sort of a "loss leader" of bidding. The reason may be that the reason that the 1♦ is less defined is because all the other bids are more defined. Something has to take up the slack of making the 1C, 1 of a major, 1N more defined since you only have a limited number of calls per level (5). And the higher the level, the less room you have.

If you eliminate the 1♦ call, you will have only 4 other calls to cover the same range of hands which will make some other calls a wider scope.

For example, most people think it stinks opening 1♦ in Precision, but the reason people do is because it makes other calls much more defined. My guess is you probably do lose IMPS on average when you open 1♦, but at least the theory is you would gain it all back on the rest of the system.

[FrancesHinden]

If I actually had to play this system in the near future, I would want to do something fairly close to my current methods. So I want to keep much of my current 1-level structure the same, and what I would play is:

Strong NT opening
5-card majors
1C = 12-14/18-19 balanced (including 5332 12-14 with either minor) or clubs

2C = diamonds, any range, over which: 2D is passable, then 2M shows a reverse, 2NT 18-19 bal with diamonds, 3C 5-5 minors, about 16-19 diamond single-suiter, higher various FG hands with diamonds; 3C is an FG relay, 2M is a 5-card suit INV or better, 2NT is natural INV. I'll worry later about what to do over the relay.

2D = weak in hearts, or FG with a primary black suit, or 23-24 bal
2H = weak in spades, or FG in hearts, or 25+ bal

I don't think this is the best design (I also fancy a 4CM system with a weak NT and 15+ 1C opening) but it's one I think I could play fairly easily.

[kenberg]

Maybe the following:


2D opening: Roughly a hand that I would have opened 1D and rebid 2D. Weaken it a bit to keep some of the ordinary weak 2D alive. So six cards (maybe a quite good five carder) and 10-14 perhaps.


Most times when I open 1D I hope to raise partner's major response, rebid 1N, or rebid 2D. With the first two cases I now open 1C instead (and rebid as before), and with the last type I open 2D.

It would seem I can manage many common hands this way.

1C-1M-2D is forcing, either with long diamonds and a strong hand or with a typical reverse. The third bid is clubs with the two suiter, diamonds with the one suiter.


To look at this from another side, suppose your opponents are forbidden to open 1D. Suppose that they are not playing a strong artificial club. Should (1C)-2C still be Michaels? Maybe it should be natural, with (1C)-1D used for Michaels? Or maybe just chuck Michaels?

It's possible that banning 1D openings could tilt the balance in favor of four card majors (if any thumb on the scale is needed) but I don't see that as necessary.