Precision 2D: WORTHLESS!
Albert Silverman
here about the Precision 2D opening bid, with less than 16 points, 4441
distribution and a singleton diamond (or some variant thereof). Those
hobbyists who are involved in this little exercise seem unable to see the
forest for the trees. This forest is the utter ABSURDITY of wasting a
perfectly good 2D opening bid on a distribution pattern and strength which,
if one is lucky (after all of this preparation), might occur about once
every eight months or so!! It is FAR better to use this bid for something
USEFUL, like the good old-fashioned weak 2D bid, which one can at least to
see more than once in a lifetime. But as I have discovered in the past in
my attempts to get you hobbyists to REASON before you start chattering and
hurling unfounded accusations, common sense and logic are in exceedingly
short supply in this newsgroup.
I find extremely amusing your attempts to create complex sequences and/or
conventions to reach slam after an opening bid which almost never occurs.
Apparently you do not mind cluttering your heads with all of this
meaningless nonsense, at the ready for use in the remote future, if an when
you ever hold this hand as opener. But don't count on it. For the
information of those who do not understand what C.C. Wei was up to when he
conjured up this "brilliant" solution to an imagined problem, it was *NOT*
to facilitate the bidding of a hand with 4441 distribution, a la the now
defunct Roman club system. No, it was because there was no available
opening bid with this particular hand, consistent with the forcing 1C
opening bid and the 5-card-major opening bid. To avoid roasting in hell if
he ever picked up such a hand conceived by the bridge devil, old C.C. had a
stroke--of brilliance. Praise Confucius for our salvation! Little did poor
C.C. realize that whenever this tortuous creature of the devil might rear
its big bad ugly head, he could just tell a little white lie and open the
hand with one heart! For shame; may Confucius visit his wrath upon us
unworthy subjects. Perhaps every three years or so, opening such a hand
with one heart might result in a poor low-level heart contract, and this
would simply be intolerable. So break out that 2D shield, folks, and
preserve the pristine purity of the 5-card-major opening bid--whatever the
cost. Needless to say, it is this sort of "logic" which plagues the
Precision system as conceived by the Master Tactician.
So knock off the waste of bandwidth. If you hobbyists out there are ever
going to become BRIDGE PLAYERS, you are going to have to start THINKING
instead of engaging in endless meaningless debate and following like a
bunch of sheep. Baaaa... Baaaa....
Albert Silverman
(the truth always hurts!)
James and Miyuki Wade
: my attempts to get you hobbyists to REASON before you start chattering and
: hurling unfounded accusations, common sense and logic are in exceedingly
: short supply in this newsgroup.
As is civility, apparently.
: So knock off the waste of bandwidth.
Excellent advise. Why not take it?
: Albert Silverman
: (the truth always hurts!)
Indeed it does, Al. Have a nice day.
Jim Wade
Georgiana Gates
The Precision 2D does have a much lower frequency of occurrence than a
weak 2D. I don't play Precision, so I can't comment on its merits,
but I used to play an artificial 2D for certain big hands (2C = 22-23 HCP
or C or H; 2D = 24-25 or D or S). It worked beautifully, except it never
came up. Now we play weak 2D. Our average result on a board isn't as good,
but we have more results, so our total good results are more.
Robert D. Silverman
stuff deleted...
:see more than once in a lifetime. But as I have discovered in the past in
:my attempts to get you hobbyists to REASON before you start chattering and
:hurling unfounded accusations, common sense and logic are in exceedingly
:short supply in this newsgroup.
Why don't you tell it to the Italian Blue team who used BOTH a 2C and a 2D
opening in the manner you are disparaging?
Rest of insulting and irrelevent drivel deleted....
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Aviel Roy-Shapira
> In article <slvrmnCv...@netcom.com> slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman) writes:
> stuff deleted...
>
> :see more than once in a lifetime. But as I have discovered in the past in
> :my attempts to get you hobbyists to REASON before you start chattering and
> :hurling unfounded accusations, common sense and logic are in exceedingly
> :short supply in this newsgroup.
>
> Why don't you tell it to the Italian Blue team who used BOTH a 2C and a 2D
> opening in the manner you are disparaging?
>
In all fairness, the Roman 2c/2d and Blue Team Club 2d were not very good
treatments. They are simply forced by the system.
Their gain comes not from the utility of the convention itself, but from
the greater accuracy of bidding other hands.
I think that in all the years I played Blue Team Club, the 2D opening cost me
more than it gained. Sure, I bid a few games and slams missed by the
field. I also overbid to unmakeable games and slams, and the defence is
very easy after a 4441 opening.
However, 2D is required by the system. Since a suit bid after 1C opening
promises 5 cards.
The same is true for the Roman Club. There is a great advantage in knowing
that when partner bids 3 suits, the third is a cue bid, and never a real
one, or that when he bids 2 suits, he does not hold 4 cards in the third.
The precise distributional information in Roman is impossible without
the sacrifice of the 2C and 2D bids (and it is a sacrifice)
Although not at the same level, the precision 2D call is alos required by
the system.
In summary, it ok to sacrifice the natural weak two in diamonds for a less
useful bid in the frameworks of a complete system.
What really bugs me is Flannery. Why so many American players sacrifice a
whole bid in order to describe 45 in the majors is beyond me. Particularly
since 45 in the majors is easily handled by other means.
Avi
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
Aviel Roy-Shapira writes:
>What really bugs me is Flannery. Why so many American players sacrifice a
>whole bid in order to describe 45 in the majors is beyond me.
If Flannery solved all problems with 45 major hands, then there would be
a case for the convention, but Flannery only moves the problems from opener
to responder's side of the table. A balanced invite or a strong hand
with 1 or 2 minors is impossible to bid after a Flannery 2D.
> Particularly since 45 in the majors is easily handled by other means.
The reason why people play Flannery is that not every 45 major hand is
easy to handle in a 5 card major, forcing NT system.
The problem is a 4522 distribution, where partner responds with a forcing NT to
1H. You either have to rebid 2C on a doubleton or 2H on a 5 card suit, both
choices are not perfect, Flannery solves this problem. (With 45-31m there is
never a problem, just rebid as if you had 35-32m.)
A more obvious solution is, of course, to switch the 1S and 1NT responses
to 1H, or simply to agree that 1H-1NT-2H can be a 5 card suit if exactly
4522. Either way, 2D can be used for a more common hand type than 4522,
11-15. (Yes, I know that Flannery includes more hand types, but those can
easily be bid after 1H).
What really bugs me is why Hamman-Wolff use Flannery in their Blue Club
based methods. I can see a case for reverse Flannery, but 4S-5H is
easy to bid in a 4 card major, canape method.
Henk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: he...@vxdesy.desy.de
University of Oxford 13364::henk
DESY-F01 Phone: +49.40.89983133
Notkestrasse 85 Fax: +49.40.89983092
Hamburg, D22603, Germany Home: +49.40.3898954
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.
Chip Martel
--
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article <33vsqd$7...@dscomsa.desy.de>, uij...@zow.desy.de (Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)) writes:
|>
|> Aviel Roy-Shapira writes:
|>
|> >What really bugs me is Flannery. Why so many American players sacrifice a
|> >whole bid in order to describe 45 in the majors is beyond me.
|>
|> If Flannery solved all problems with 45 major hands, then there would be
|> a case for the convention, but Flannery only moves the problems from opener
|> to responder's side of the table. A balanced invite or a strong hand
|> with 1 or 2 minors is impossible to bid after a Flannery 2D.
|>
|>
Since there has been a lot of Flannery bashing in this group I will stand
up for it. First let me state that I am not claiming Flannery is the
optimal use for 2D (something which would be very hard to justify for any
use), merely that it is much better than its critiques seem to make it
out.
In my experience Flannery leads to a definite gain when you do bid it
(this is true both when I have opened Flannery and when my opponents
open it, so this is not caused by my general edge in play). There are
of course some annoying minor suit hands, with invitational values, but
the hands where you preempt the opponents or have a nice auction to a
slam far outweigh them.
However, the main gain for Flannery is when you don't bid it (as partly argued
by Henk Uijterwaal). It is annoying to have to rebid with 4-5-2-2 after
1H-1N. In addition, it is not ideal to bid 2m with 4-5-(1-3) after
1H-1N since it is useful for your partner to assume that the 2m bidder
has either a 4 card suit or a balanced hand (otherwise opener has
a problem after 1H-1N-2C-2S= strong raise). Even this is not the main
gain. Responder's ability to bid 1N with 4S has several advantages:
1) concealment if you end up in 2/3N it is useful to have the opponents
unsure if you have 4S or not.
2) Allowing opener to raise a 1S response freely with 3 and for responder
to know that the raise is 3 card support (so responder can evaluate better)
3) With 4S, a 6 card minor and a weak hand, it is much easier to get out
in your minor after bidding 1N then 1S.
4) In constructing the rest of your system it is very useful if you
don't have to cater to 4-5 minimums. For example after 1H-2C we play
that 2S is either a 4-6 minimum or any hand with extra values. After
1H-2D we play that 2S shows CLUBS and 3C= spades + extras. Also after
a 1H opening a strong raise, responder can get opener's exact shape and
strength. The fact that opener cannot have a 4-5 minimum makes this
possible.
5) In competitive auctions it is useful to know partner does not have
4 spades. After 1H-(2m) if you have a 7 or 8 count with 4S you can
pass knowing you don't have a 4-4 spade fit. Similarly, if you double,
partner can freely bid 2S with 3 knowing you will only expect 3.
|>
|> The problem is a 4522 distribution, where partner responds with a forcing NT to
|> 1H. You either have to rebid 2C on a doubleton or 2H on a 5 card suit, both
|> choices are not perfect, Flannery solves this problem. (With 45-31m there is
|> never a problem, just rebid as if you had 35-32m.)
|>
|> A more obvious solution is, of course, to switch the 1S and 1NT responses
|> to 1H.
I did a simulation of using switching 1S and 1N and found it to be a
big loser. Allowing the opponents to show spades cheaply by doubling
was a major loss.
|> or simply to agree that 1H-1NT-2H can be a 5 card suit if exactly
|> 4522.
This is a possible solution, but can lead to some pretty sad 5-1 fits.
|>
|> What really bugs me is why Hamman-Wolff use Flannery in their Blue Club
|> based methods. I can see a case for reverse Flannery, but 4S-5H is
easy to bid in a 4 card major, canape method.
It should come as no surprise that Hamman-Wolff do not play that 1S-1N-2H
is a canape sequence.
Henk.
David Shao
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford) <he...@vxdesy.desy.de> wrote:
>What really bugs me is why Hamman-Wolff use Flannery in their Blue Club
>based methods. I can see a case for reverse Flannery, but 4S-5H is
>easy to bid in a 4 card major, canape method.
Unfortunately for Hamman-Wolff, they encountered in their bridge
playing lifetime a nightmare hand for this treatment:
Board 78, 1992 Olympiad Final, France versus USA
Vul:None S KJT753 East South West North
Dlr:E H - Wolff Chemla Hamman Perron
D KJT53 2H* Pass Pass Double
C K6 All Pass
S 94 S Q862 Down 5, -1100, France wins 15 imps.
H T9 H AK632
D A64 D Q8
C J98532 C Q8
S A
H QJ8754
D 972
C AT7
Jacob Duschek
: What really bugs me is why Hamman-Wolff use Flannery in their Blue Club
: based methods. I can see a case for reverse Flannery, but 4S-5H is
: easy to bid in a 4 card major, canape method.
This assumes that the opening bid may contain a longer _major_ side suit.
I am not sure whether or not this applies to the Hamman-Wolff system.
Jacob
Lynn Johannesen
: In article <33vsqd$7...@dscomsa.desy.de>, uij...@zow.desy.de (Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)) writes:
: |>
: |> Aviel Roy-Shapira writes:
: |>
: |> >What really bugs me is Flannery. Why so many American players sacrifice a
: |> >whole bid in order to describe 45 in the majors is beyond me.
: Since there has been a lot of Flannery bashing in this group I will stand
: up for it. First let me state that I am not claiming Flannery is the
: optimal use for 2D (something which would be very hard to justify for any
: use), merely that it is much better than its critiques seem to make it
: out.
[deletions]
: However, the main gain for Flannery is when you don't bid it (as partly argued
: by Henk Uijterwaal). It is annoying to have to rebid with 4-5-2-2 after
: 1H-1N. In addition, it is not ideal to bid 2m with 4-5-(1-3) after
: 1H-1N since it is useful for your partner to assume that the 2m bidder
: has either a 4 card suit or a balanced hand (otherwise opener has
: a problem after 1H-1N-2C-2S= strong raise). Even this is not the main
: gain. Responder's ability to bid 1N with 4S has several advantages:
: 1) concealment if you end up in 2/3N it is useful to have the opponents
: unsure if you have 4S or not.
: 2) Allowing opener to raise a 1S response freely with 3 and for responder
: to know that the raise is 3 card support (so responder can evaluate better)
: 3) With 4S, a 6 card minor and a weak hand, it is much easier to get out
: in your minor after bidding 1N then 1S.
: 4) In constructing the rest of your system it is very useful if you
: don't have to cater to 4-5 minimums. For example after 1H-2C we play
: that 2S is either a 4-6 minimum or any hand with extra values. After
: 1H-2D we play that 2S shows CLUBS and 3C= spades + extras. Also after
: a 1H opening a strong raise, responder can get opener's exact shape and
: strength. The fact that opener cannot have a 4-5 minimum makes this
: possible.
: 5) In competitive auctions it is useful to know partner does not have
: 4 spades. After 1H-(2m) if you have a 7 or 8 count with 4S you can
: pass knowing you don't have a 4-4 spade fit. Similarly, if you double,
: partner can freely bid 2S with 3 knowing you will only expect 3.
I might add that people who open 1H on at least some minimum openers
with 4-4 in the majors find Flannery useful even though we gain almost
none of the negative inferences that Chip has just outlined. What
Flannery does for us is allow the sequence 1H-2m-2S to suggest either
a minimum 4-4 in the majors or a STRONG hand. Those extremes can be
[just barely] sorted out below 3NT. If we also had to bid that way on
minimum 4-5s, we'd be dead. Other solutions to the problem also work,
but Flannery is the simplest one.
LynnJ
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
Lynn Johannesen writes:
[Why Flannery is (not) useful]
>I might add that people who open 1H on at least some minimum openers
>with 4-4 in the majors find Flannery useful even though we gain almost
>none of the negative inferences that Chip has just outlined. What
>Flannery does for us is allow the sequence 1H-2m-2S to suggest either
>a minimum 4-4 in the majors or a STRONG hand. Those extremes can be
>[just barely] sorted out below 3NT. If we also had to bid that way on
>minimum 4-5s, we'd be dead.
>Other solutions to the problem also work, but Flannery is the simplest one.
What is wrong with a 2NT rebid with minimum 4S-4H-32 or 5H-332 as in Dutch
Acol with its 1H=4H4S or 5+, 1S=5+ opening structure? You never miss a 8
card major suit fit (assuming responder bids 1S with 4S-5m and invitational
strength only), 2H/S can be used for the 18-19 44-32's and 4+S-5+H and there
is no need to play Flannery.
I'm not claiming that this is the best solution, but it was good enough
for 2 pairs on the team that won the 1993 Bermuda Bowl.
B.Y.
CM> I will stand up for [Flannery].
Unfortunately I am trying to finalise a paper on which I are fighting
the referee, so I have been swamped with work. When I have time I
will try to answer [in some part] Chip's learned treatise.
CM> [...] main gain for Flannery is when you don't bid it ... 4) In
CM> constructing the rest of your system it is very useful if you
CM> don't have to cater to 4-5 minimums. [...] [after 1H-2C; 2S]
CM> either a 4-6 minimum or any hand with extras. [1H-2C;] 2S shows
CM> CLUBS and 3C= spades + extras. Also after a 1H opening a strong
CM> raise, responder can get opener's exact shape and strength. The
CM> fact that opener cannot have a 4-5 minimum makes this possible.
To be quite honest, I have to say that I am baffled. Presumably Chip
does just fine over 1S-2NT (forcing raise), it is hard to see why he
can't play 1H-2S as the forcing raise instead (like in Romex, or as in
Woolsey-Manfield) and have the same amount of space to play arount
with. Also similarly, I have to wonder how Chip copes with 1S-2C and
1S-2D auctions which is identically game-forcing the way he plays,
since he has even more hand-types to take care of after opening 1S.
Lynn Johannesen (ly...@netcom.com) wrote:
LJ> [...] people who open 1H on at least some minimum openers with 4-4
LJ> in the majors find Flannery useful even though we gain almost none
LJ> of the negative inferences that Chip has just outlined. [...]
It is hard for me, really, to understand why people would play
Flannery AND open 1H with 4-4 in the majors. WAAAAAaaay back when
Eddie Kantar could get people to play 4-card majors with him, he
opened 1S with those 4-4's because of Flannery (or maybe he played
Flannery because he likes to open 4-card spades-- take your pick).
Flannery is supposed to be able to cure the ills after 1H openings
because you needn't respond on (most) 4-card spade suits. How would
you ever play the 4-4 spades instead of 4-3 hears after 1H then??
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Bridge is a Science, they said hopefully." ... of M. Miles & E. Kantar. |
| "ACBL is for Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons." ... Edgar Kaplan. |
| "System is to Judgment as Strategy is to Tactics." ... Eric Rodwell. |
| "Only wimps are afraid to prepare!" ... <after '90 WOPC> Adam Zmudzinski. |
| >>>> Professor WHO??, Enthusiast, at your service: yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Lynn Johannesen
: Lynn Johannesen writes:
: [Why Flannery is (not) useful]
: >I might add that people who open 1H on at least some minimum openers
: >with 4-4 in the majors find Flannery useful even though we gain almost
: >none of the negative inferences that Chip has just outlined. What
: >Flannery does for us is allow the sequence 1H-2m-2S to suggest either
: >a minimum 4-4 in the majors or a STRONG hand. Those extremes can be
: >[just barely] sorted out below 3NT. If we also had to bid that way on
: >minimum 4-5s, we'd be dead.
: >Other solutions to the problem also work, but Flannery is the simplest one.
: What is wrong with a 2NT rebid with minimum 4S-4H-32 or 5H-332 as in Dutch
: Acol with its 1H=4H4S or 5+, 1S=5+ opening structure? You never miss a 8
: card major suit fit (assuming responder bids 1S with 4S-5m and invitational
: strength only), 2H/S can be used for the 18-19 44-32's and 4+S-5+H and there
: is no need to play Flannery.
: I'm not claiming that this is the best solution, but it was good enough
: for 2 pairs on the team that won the 1993 Bermuda Bowl.
The reason we can't solve the problem that way (or at least, we prefer
not to) is that we play weak NT and wish to be able to rebid 2NT to
show the strong NT range with five hearts. When I said that other
solutions are possible, the 2NT rebid is part of what I had in mind,
but in the context of our weak NT structure, we think using Flannery
works better. We could certainly be wrong--it has happened before.
LynnJ
alan d frank
The reason I play Precision 2D when playing Precision is to keep other
bids well-defined, not because the 2D bid itself is particularly useful.
Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson
>gga...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Georgiana Gates) writes:
Once again:
There is absolutely no need to let the 2D opening be confined to one
meaning only. I totally agree that if 2D only shows 12-15 hcp and
4-4-1-4 (maybe also 4-4-0-5), then it doesn't come up often enough to
justify the waste of an opening bid. Some people thus include
4-3-1-5/3-4-1-5 distribution in this opening but that can be handled by
the 2C opening.
Now, if the 2D opening is a multi type, like either 16+ hcp and any
4-4-4-1, or a weak two in major, then it comes up frequently enough to
justify itself, IMO. Also it solves a problem that arises with 16+ 4441
when you open 1C and partner responds 1D, then you have to start lying
to your partner as a new suit by opener promises 5+ suit and 1NT show an
even distribution.
Then what shall be done about the 4-4-1-4 hand in the 12-15 range?
Well, one way is not to let the 1D opening promise anything in diamonds,
but it is probably not very attractive to most players. The Power
Precision by Weichsel and Sontag solves these hands by letting the 2H
opening show either Flannery 4-5-x-x and 12-15 hcp, or 4-4-1-4/4-4-0-5
and 12-15 hcp. I've played this for four years now and combined with
the multi type 2D described above it comes up often enough to justify
itself. I think this can be used with any type of Precision and it
surely is better than the standard version.
Bjorgvin R. Leifsson MS biology student
b...@ismennt.is
***********************************************
Home: Gardarsbraut 31 * *
640 Husavik * It seems like something is missing ... ? *
ICELAND * *
Tel.: 354-6-42076 ***********************************************
Gary Jackoway
: a...@world.std.com (alan d frank) writes:
: >gga...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Georgiana Gates) writes:
.......
: Once again:
: There is absolutely no need to let the 2D opening be confined to one
: meaning only. I totally agree that if 2D only shows 12-15 hcp and
: 4-4-1-4 (maybe also 4-4-0-5), then it doesn't come up often enough to
: justify the waste of an opening bid. Some people thus include
: 4-3-1-5/3-4-1-5 distribution in this opening but that can be handled by
: the 2C opening.
: Now, if the 2D opening is a multi type, like either 16+ hcp and any
: 4-4-4-1, or a weak two in major, then it comes up frequently enough to
: justify itself, IMO. Also it solves a problem that arises with 16+ 4441
: when you open 1C and partner responds 1D, then you have to start lying
: to your partner as a new suit by opener promises 5+ suit and 1NT show an
: even distribution.
You want a reason, how is this: your agreements are virtually banned in
the US (only allowable in top levels of competition). Now almost everyone
on the net knows this is pure stupidity on the ACBL's part, especially
since the multi-2D is widely accepted elsewhere in the world. Nonetheless,
we in the US must live within these restrictions.
Another possible reason is the potential for disaster. I was just reading
a report from an old international match where North and East both had
six spades, South and West both had six hearts. When South opened a multi
2D no one could figure out which suits were suits and which were cue bids.
So multi is not without risks, even by top players.
: Bjorgvin R. Leifsson MS biology student
: b...@ismennt.is
Gary J.
Adam Beneschan
> a...@world.std.com (alan d frank) writes:
>
>
> >The reason I play Precision 2D when playing Precision is to keep other
> >bids well-defined, not because the 2D bid itself is particularly useful.
>
> Once again:
>
> There is absolutely no need to let the 2D opening be confined to one
> meaning only. I totally agree that if 2D only shows 12-15 hcp and
> 4-4-1-4 (maybe also 4-4-0-5), then it doesn't come up often enough to
> justify the waste of an opening bid. Some people thus include
> 4-3-1-5/3-4-1-5 distribution in this opening but that can be handled by
> the 2C opening.
It can be, but it's unattractive if your clubs are something like
Jxxxx. My Precision partner and I have agreed that hands with these
distributions can be opened either 2C or 2D, depending on how the
strength is distributed. Something like AQxx xxx x AKxxx is a 2C
opening (emphasizes clubs and your major); KJxx AKx x Qxxxx is a 2D
opening (looks more like a 3-suiter).
> Now, if the 2D opening is a multi type, like either 16+ hcp and any
> 4-4-4-1, or a weak two in major, then it comes up frequently enough to
> justify itself, IMO. Also it solves a problem that arises with 16+ 4441
> when you open 1C and partner responds 1D, then you have to start lying
> to your partner as a new suit by opener promises 5+ suit and 1NT show an
> even distribution.
Sadly, we're not allowed to use this convention in most events in the
USA. Grrrrrr . . .
> Then what shall be done about the 4-4-1-4 hand in the 12-15 range?
> Well, one way is not to let the 1D opening promise anything in diamonds,
> but it is probably not very attractive to most players.
It's playable, though. Matchpoint Precision, e.g., uses a "nebulous"
1D opening that doesn't promise any diamonds. Since their 2C opening
*denies* a 4-card major, 4-3-0-6 and 3-4-0-6 hands must be opened 1D,
I believe. Since 1D can already be very short, it would make sense to
use 1D for 4-4-1-4/4-4-0-5 hands also, and use 2D for something else
(e.g. a regular weak 2, or an intermediate hand with 6 diamonds, as
I've seen several pairs play). Why MPP retained the Precision 2D is a
bit of a mystery to me.
-- Adam