[Kungsgeten]

I'm not a big fan of the nebulous 1♦ in many big club systems, I do however like the short club with transfer responses. My idea was to make 1♦ the strong bid, and using 1♣ as the "nebulous" bid (but using the advantages of the short club transfer structure). I've read a bit about strong diamond systems, but haven't come across this approach.

The opening structure could be something like:

1♣ - 11-14 balanced / 18-20 balanced / Natural unbal with 11-16 hcp
1♦ - 15-17 balanced / 21+ balanced / 17+ unbal
1♥♠ - 5+ suit, 11-16 hcp
1NT - (4)5+♦, 4-card major, 11-16 hcp
2♣ - 4♣, 5♦, 11-16 hcp
2♦ - 6+♦, no 4-card major, 11-16 hcp
2♥♠ - Weak
2NT - Weak with 5-5 in majors or minors

After the 1NT opener 2♣ would be a relay; weak with the majors or invitational+. With a minimum opener bids 2♦ and responder can bid 2♥ to play in opener's major.

[straube]

I like relays over a strong club and it's probably not possible to relay over a strong 1D.

Transfers over a short club are nice. When opener is minimum, I think it's a small gain on average. I mean, if responder has enough strength for us to buy the contract, he'll have close to parity with opener in terms of high cards and often will have more.

Having 1C be possibly 18-19 means that responder can't preempt against this. You probably won't have as many 1C-4H auctions as you would if 1C were limited.

Not sure I understand how the 1N and 2C auctions proceed. I would miss having a natural 1N opening.

You might look at awm's strong diamond system and compare. I think it's called the Recursive Diamond, but I may have misremembered that from some other.

What do you see are the advantages of this structure?

[gwnn]

1NT will not come up enough IMHO.

[Zelandakh]

I have thought about playing with this kind of structure but have not gotten a round Tuit as yet. I think I would be inclined to re-arrange some things though. Perhaps

1♣ = (10)11-16 nat or 11-13 bal or 17-18 bal or (10)11-16 with diamonds and a major
1♦ = 17+ unbal or 19-20 bal or 23+ bal
1M = 10-16, 5+ suit
1NT = 14-16 bal
2♣ = (10)11-16, both minors
2♦ = (19)11-16, 6+ diamonds, no major
2M = weak
2NT = 21-22 bal

Would need some testing of course. Whether this kind of approach is better than a multi-way club is dubious but I do not see any reason why it cannot be made to work.

[Cthulhu D]

Wouldn't 17-19 as the upper 1C range and 2NT as 20-21 bal make a bit more sense? You're not going to get past 1NT with the 1C opening so invitational sequences won't be totally horrible, so taking some pressure off 1D might be worth it?

[FrancesHinden]

I don't like leaving out the natural 1NT opening, it's such an important hand type to show quickly.
Originally I played around a bit with

1♣ = weak NT (including 5 of either minor) or a natural 1m opening not covered by 2m
1♦ = 18+ balanced or 17+ unbalanced any
1♥/1♠ = 9-16 5+ cards
1NT = 15-17 bal
2m = natural single-suited
2M = weak
2NT = some artificial pre-empt of your choice

It gets a bit messy sorting out the hand types after opening 1C. An alternative is to make 1C natural or balanced(ish) and play 2C to include some of the diamond hands

[straube]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-June-05, 04:38, said:

I don't like leaving out the natural 1NT opening, it's such an important hand type to show quickly.
Originally I played around a bit with

1♣ = weak NT (including 5 of either minor) or a natural 1m opening not covered by 2m
1♦ = 18+ balanced or 17+ unbalanced any
1♥/1♠ = 9-16 5+ cards
1NT = 15-17 bal
2m = natural single-suited
2M = weak
2NT = some artificial pre-empt of your choice

It gets a bit messy sorting out the hand types after opening 1C. An alternative is to make 1C natural or balanced(ish) and play 2C to include some of the diamond hands

I like this one best, but I'd incorporate Zelandakh's natural 2N. Not ideal, but I think 2m needs to include hands with a side major.

[PrecisionL]

Has anyone tried 4-cd majors with a Strong Diamond System?

[Cyberyeti]

 PrecisionL, on 2013-September-12, 20:33, said:

Has anyone tried 4-cd majors with a Strong Diamond System?

No but I have used them (possible canapes too to deal with some of the 4M/5m hands) in a system with nebulous 1♣ and 1♦ and a big NT.

[mgoetze]

I agree that natural 1NT openings are very nice. On the other hand, it is certainly true that when playing 2/1 T-Walsh the unbalanced 1♦ opening is too infrequent in theory (I get 16.6% 1♣, 4.3% 1♦, 6.5% 1♥, 8.7% 1♠, 6.4% 14-16 1NT). Perhaps something like the following could work:

1♣ 11-13 balanced / 17-19 balanced / 11-17 unbal with 4-card major or 5-4 minors
1♦ 18+ unbalanced any / 20+ balanced (or even 22+ if you play 2NT as 20-21)
1♥ 11-17 5+ hearts
1♠ 11-17 5+ spades
1NT 14-16 balanced
2♣ 12-17 6+ clubs
2♦ 12-17 6+ diamonds

treating 2245/2254 as balanced.

[Zelandakh]

Michael, would you not be better off with a Swedish Club setup than this? Move the entire 1♦ opening into 1♣ and the entire 2♦ opening, along with the 11-17 section of the 1♣ opening, into 1♦. This also frees up the 2♦ opening for a preempt.

[straube]

deleted

[mgoetze]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-September-16, 10:43, said:

Michael, would you not be better off with a Swedish Club setup than this?

I dunno, when I played Swedish Club I played 1♣-1♦ as negative, and I do think transfers over 1♣ are very nice. Of course if someone presents a workable structure for transfers over a Swedish 1♣ then the above might be moot...

[Zelandakh]

Am sure it is far from optimal but off the top off my head: after 1red: 1M = 11-13 bal; 1NT = 17-19 bal; 2NT = 20-21 bal; new suit = 18+ unbal. That leaves all the bids from 1♠ up to handle the hands without a major, perhaps 1♠ = ~6-12; 1NT = ~0-5; 2m = GF. The opps would not be able to tee off on the 1NT response since Opener would still pass with 17-19 balanced (but wrong-siding is an issue for sure). A 1♦ = hearts or negative structure would probably be workable too if you were not against it.

[CamHenry]

 PrecisionL, on 2013-September-12, 20:33, said:

Has anyone tried 4-cd majors with a Strong Diamond System?

Nearly. We play 4-card ♥, 5+ unless both majors 4=4, and 5+ ♠. With unequal length we open the longer major; with equal length we open 1♠ if holding 5+ cards.

The 1♦ opening and continuations are absolutely fine; the 1M openings work just fine; the real weakness is our 1♣ opening which contains everything from (41)44 to 03(73) and beyond, along with one of the weak NT ranges (our 1NT is natural but variable strength depending on vulnerability). Fortunately, people don't think of overcalling frequently when we open 1♣ so we get away with it