[wank]

what should this be please?

something gazilliesque with clubs was my suggestion but partner thought it was a crappy idea.

1 know precision players often play 1 heart as some kind of relay. We would be open to that too, in principle, but perhaps it would be too unwieldy in an unlimited system.

added: we don't open 1D with 4-5 in the minors.

[hrothgar]

What type of hand types does your 1♦ opening include?
In particular, what do you open with a 3=1=4=5 shape?

One option would be to use a 2♣ rebid to show 5+ Clubs and 4 Diamonds
The 1NT rebid would show 5+ Diamonds and 4+ Clubs OR some other strong hand type

[wank]

ah yes i should have said we don't open 1 diamond on 4-5 minors

[paulg]

We play 1NT is natural and limited with clubs or any 16+ (gazzilli). This is combined with 1♦-1♥-2♣ = 6+ diamonds and 1♦-1♥-2♦ showing 3-card heart support (non-forcing).

Continuations after the 1NT rebid are pretty standard. 1♦-1♥-1NT:

2♣=any 8+, GF opposite strong hand
2♦=less than 8 pts
2♥=constructive, NF
2♠=4 hearts, 4 diamonds, 9-11 pts
2NT=4 hearts, 5+ clubs, less than 9 pts
3♣=4 hearts, 4+ clubs, 9-11 pts
3♦=4 hearts, 4 diamonds, less than 9pts

[fromageGB]

I guess it depends on what sort of unbalanced diamond.

For some time now I have been playing a 1♦ open as either 6 diamonds or a hand with a singleton or void outside diamonds. As we would open a major with 5 cards, and a club with 6, this means that if the hand does not have 6 diamonds it will either have 5 plus clubs or be a 3 suiter. The 3 suiter includes a (1435) shape. In that particular case there may be only 3 diamonds, but of course 4+ is much more common.

Our continuation structure is simple and natural. If partner bids a major, say 1♠ :
2♣ = 5+ clubs with 5+ diamonds
2♦ = 6+
2♠ = support
1NT = 3 suiter and you have hit my shortage

Support may be made with 3 cards, as the guaranteed shortage means you are ruffing in the hand with short trumps.

The 1NT bid makes it easy for partner to bid any 2 level bid (apart from repeating his spades) as to play. He knows there has to be a fit. It also stops him repeating his suit hoping for a fit: we use that rebid as an artificial force.

A gazilli addition would be useful, certainly, but I can't see where in our structure. That 1NT has to be able to be passed. We just play natural reverses with strength.

[fromageGB]

paulg, on 2011-March-30, 12:08, said:

We play 1NT is natural and limited with clubs or any 16+ (gazzilli). This is combined with 1♦-1♥-2♣ = 6+ diamonds and 1♦-1♥-2♦ showing 3-card heart support (non-forcing).

So what do you rebid with a 12 count 1444 shape when partner responds 1♠?
It may mean the heart fit is missed if partner thinks you have a minor hand and he has a 54xx shape.
I am also not keen on having it as forcing on a combined 18 count misfit.

[kenrexford]

I have been playing an unbalanced diamond for about 20 years, and I like simple.

1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT?

If Opener had three hearts with a stiff on the side, he'd have raised hearts. If he had 5-5 minors, he'd have rebid 2♣. If he had four spades, he'd have rebid 1♠. Therefore, Opener has precisely 3-1-5-4.

[Flameous]

I suggest you to check out my writing in the non-natural section if you are interested in more artificial rebids. I also use relays from responder even though the diamond is unlimited. You can probably make the structure a lot more efficient for your needs as your opening holds less shapes than mine.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-30, 13:33, said:

I have been playing an unbalanced diamond for about 20 years, and I like simple.

1♦-P-1♥-P-1NT?

If Opener had three hearts with a stiff on the side, he'd have raised hearts. If he had 5-5 minors, he'd have rebid 2♣. If he had four spades, he'd have rebid 1♠. Therefore, Opener has precisely 3-1-5-4.

I think this points to something being wrong if your partnership is aware of opener's 3-1-5-4 pattern by the point of 1N. In standard symmetric, the 5431s resolve at 3D. What I suspect is wrong is that your 1D opening is too limited.

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2011-March-30, 14:44, said:

I think this points to something being wrong if your partnership is aware of opener's 3-1-5-4 pattern by the point of 1N. In standard symmetric, the 5431s resolve at 3D. What I suspect is wrong is that your 1D opening is too limited.

That's about the strangest assessment that I have seen. My structure is not good because it doesn't take until the three-level to resolve a specific pattern? I suppose I'll live with that unfortunate result, as I don't have any experience with bad scores at the actual table from that limited thinking. LOL

[awm]

I'd suggest something along the lines of paulg's post but a little different:

1NT = 6+♦ or a strong hand
2♣ = natural like 11-15
2♦ = good raise of hearts
2♥ = bad raise of hearts

1♦-1♥-1NT:

2♣ = game opposite strong hand (opener bids 2♦ min with 6+♦ or anything else to show strong hand GF)
2♦ = less than GF opposite strong hand, happy to play 2♦ opposite long suit
2♥ = less than GF opposite strong hand, but a boatload of hearts
Else = GF even opposite minimum opener, basically natural

This seems a little simpler, and lets you play 2♣ when opener has ♦+♣+min which paulg's structure doesn't.

[paulg]

fromageGB, on 2011-March-30, 12:41, said:

paulg, on 2011-March-30, 12:08, said:

We play 1NT is natural and limited with clubs or any 16+ (gazzilli). This is combined with 1♦-1♥-2♣ = 6+ diamonds and 1♦-1♥-2♦ showing 3-card heart support.

So what do you rebid with a 12 count 1444 shape when partner responds 1♠?
It may mean the heart fit is missed if partner thinks you have a minor hand and he has a 54xx shape.

Generally we would rebid 1NT showing clubs. I don't see that we are at a significant disadvantage to standard when it comes to missing (or not) any heart fit.

fromageGB, on 2011-March-30, 12:41, said:

I am also not keen on having it as forcing on a combined 18 count misfit.

Luxury. It's the combined 14 count misfits that are troublesome.

[paulg]

awm, on 2011-March-30, 15:21, said:

I'd suggest something along the lines of paulg's post but a little different:

2♦ = good raise of hearts
2♥ = bad raise of hearts

We used to do this but have switched them around so that you can pass 2♦. Of course it depends on what you mean by 'bad'

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-30, 15:04, said:

That's about the strangest assessment that I have seen. My structure is not good because it doesn't take until the three-level to resolve a specific pattern? I suppose I'll live with that unfortunate result, as I don't have any experience with bad scores at the actual table from that limited thinking. LOL

I'm surprised you find it that funny. What I'm saying is that your ability to be so precise at this point should suggest to you that your other sequences might be overloaded. No doubt you are in a good position when 1D-1H, 1N (showing 3-1-5-4) actually comes up. How often does it come up? Not very.

See awm's post that follows for(imo)better continuations.

[paulg]

awm, on 2011-March-30, 15:21, said:

This seems a little simpler, and lets you play 2♣ when opener has ♦+♣+min which paulg's structure doesn't.

These continuations are probably better but we preferred to keep all the gazzilli auctions similar to reduce memory load. We also thought that it was unlikely that we'd play in 2♣ very often.

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2011-March-30, 16:11, said:

I'm surprised you find it that funny. What I'm saying is that your ability to be so precise at this point should suggest to you that your other sequences might be overloaded. No doubt you are in a good position when 1D-1H, 1N (showing 3-1-5-4) actually comes up. How often does it come up? Not very.

See awm's post that follows for(imo)better continuations.

It's just this. Sure -- one could devise a means of having very precise agreements that allow a more evenly spread distribution of hand types across various plausible sequences, with unique methods of showing various things. But, my point was that after 20 years of playing this, I have not experienced any problems. I recall tons of problems in many other sequences. I have tweaked and improved other auctions to the point of extreme complexity and the like. But, auctions starting with 1♦ unbalanced never seem difficult. So, are we reinventing a sexy new structure to solve a problem, and if so what is the problem? To improve upon a sequence that works perfectly fine on its own because some theoretical analysis suggests that it should not work as well as it actually does? Because it seems more artistic? The response was not something about, "What about this sequence?" Instead, the response was that the auction is rare (so?) and that symmetric something or other takes until 3♦ to unwind that hand pattern, as if that's a good thing or something.

Here's one example of what I mean. One proposal has the ability, after 1♦-P-1♥-P-?, to show a "good heart raise" or a "poor heart raise." First of all, that seems dumb even in theory. I'd rather indicate the stiff (e.g., 2♦ = heart raise, short club, but 2♥ = heart raise, short spade). Quantitative seems vastly less important at this point than location of the stiff. But, none of this matters anyway, because the existence of the stiff means that the auction rarely ends up at this point anyway, with the fit, because someone is usually in their competing in that stiff suit. If they are not, then Responder usually has wasted values opposite that stiff, or some other dynamic is affecting your assessment of likelihoods and values and such. In contrast, if the opponents are not bidding, 1NT showing precisely 3-1-5-4 does come up rather frequently, by mere virtue of the silence by the opponents. Isolating the stiff in partner's presumably longest suit has great value. Partner considering a Moysian spade contract immediately has great value.

Sorry -- still don't get it. I find it more humorous than I did before, though. So, keep it coming!

[straube]

kenrexford said:

But, my point was that after 20 years of playing this, I have not experienced any problems. I recall tons of problems in many other sequences.

straube said:

What I'm saying is that your ability to be so precise at this point should suggest to you that your other sequences might be overloaded.

and...

kenrexford said:

But, auctions starting with 1♦ unbalanced never seem difficult.

straube said:

What I suspect is wrong is that your 1D opening is too limited.

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2011-March-30, 18:37, said:

and...

What I meant by "other sequences" is sequences that do not start with 1♦. For example, auctions that start with a 1♠ opening or a 2♣ overcall or a 2♣ opening.

Other auctions after a 1♦-P-1♥-P- start, like after Opener rebids 2♣, 2♦, or 2♥, were not meant as the "other sequences." Instead, they were meant to be included in the "no problems" part.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-30, 18:44, said:

What I meant by "other sequences" is sequences that do not start with 1♦. For example, auctions that start with a 1♠ opening or a 2♣ overcall or a 2♣ opening.

Other auctions after a 1♦-P-1♥-P- start, like after Opener rebids 2♣, 2♦, or 2♥, were not meant as the "other sequences." Instead, they were meant to be included in the "no problems" part.

That's also what I meant by "other sequences". Non-diamond openings. What I've been trying to say all along is that I think that your 1D opening may not have enough hand patterns. This would mean that when your 1D opening comes up, you have very good auctions because you have fewer patterns to describe. Your 1D is a winner when it comes up. I agree with that. I would also suspect that you might have at least the slightest pressure in other auctions. For example, perhaps you're forced to play a 12-15 1N when you might rather be playing a 13-15 NT. Perhaps you're passing 11 pt balanced hands that you might have preferred opening. I don't know the rest of your system so I can't say where it might be pressured.

I do feel that 1D-1H, 1N for one specific hand pattern is a big red flag. I can't even establish this pattern after 1D-1H until the level of 3H! But you have "too much" room available. You could no doubt locate opener's controls and honor cards before 3N has even been passed. This may seem like a very good thing, but it's not. There's a huge opportunity cost for doing this.

Hopefully what I'm saying is more understandable. I do think that 1D unbalanced is playable, even if I wouldn't choose that. If you disagree with my criticism, that's fine, and I don't really want to debate it further. I've appreciated your observations and suggestions on my own threads and would rather not hijack this one.

[kenrexford]

Sorry -- misunderstood. I thought the sole issue was whether a different rebid structure after opening 1♦ and hearing a 1♥ response was suggested, not the core unbalanced diamond itself.

As to that point, you should realize that the only cost is that a 1♣...1NT as 11-14 balanced (and similar related auctions) and the 1♣...2NT stronger parallel are affected in that the club anchor expectation is not present, such that perhaps an "overload" exists in those specific auctions. This does occur. There are some sequences where tweaks are required to cater to the "overload" onto the 1♣ opening.

However, part of the reason for all of this is a realization years ago that 1♣ auctions, being ever-so-slightly cheaper than 1♦ auctions, can actually carry more weight that 1♦ auctions. Thus, the traditionasl treat-1♣-and-1♦-equally scheme actually is one with an overload, tilted against 1♦ sequences. The shift to unbalanced may swing the pendulum past equilibrium, but the shift is not all cost, if you follow.

Furthermore, there are benefits from the overload, in a sense. Opponents have difficulty with the overload, in that it affects some expectations critical to takeout doubles and to lead decisions.