Small or grand?

[Kalvan14]

I'm in favor of 2N, which is what I bid at the table.

Pard rebids 4♠, which is a fully autonomous suit.

Abstain. I refuse to answer questions where I'm forced to bid after a really silly auction. What the hell is 4♠ ?

I really have to say that no one is compelled to participate in a discussion. OTOH, if one does, I would suggest that name calling and not contributing anything to the discussion is possibly not the best way to do it.

 

I suppose you are the kind of guy who changes a lot of partners, aren't you?

[Kalvan14]

I am a lil surprised by the insistence on opening 1♦. I know it is the normal treatment for hands with 4-4 in the minors, but this time there is no possible issue with the rebidding. You can either reverse in NT, or reverse in diamonds.

Opening 1♣ - btw - has a significant advantage: partner can bid diamonds at 1 level if he holds the suit. Don't you think that just this lil advantage calls for an opening in clubs?

[Kalvan14]

Over 4♠, you bid 4N, and pard shows 3 key-cards. If you are nervous, you can even confirm the Q♠ (which brings you to 5♠). Now what are you going to bid?

[han]

7NT, obviously.

 

 

Some other comments:

 

1) There is no such thing as "reverse in NT".

 

2) I do not think that "really silly auction" and "what the hell is 4♠" qualify as name-calling.

 

3) I think that saying that one strongly dislikes the methods can be a valuable contribution to the discussion. I usually enjoy reading such comments.

[keylime]

I would have rather had the choice of opening the Mexican 2D or maybe a slightly heavy 1NT due to the weak majors.

 

With that said, I open 1C to start, then rebid 2NT to slow the auction down.

 

After hearing 4S, I bid 5H to ask about heart control enroute to whichever degree of slam needed.

[luke warm]

I am a lil surprised by the insistence on opening 1♦.

well it isn't the worst opening bid i've seen, but the danger (as richard, i think it was, pointed out) is that it can mislead partner into expecting 4/5 or 4/6 in the minors

 

i think 2NT stands out, also.. i have the same problem with a 3D bid as i do with the 1C opening - it would make me think opener has longer clubs... and after 4S, i can't think of any reason not to bid rkc for spades

[awm]

One observation:

 

Some people automatically open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors. While I suppose there are some advantages to this, when I am on opening lead against the auction 1♣-1M-2NT-3NT against such people, I find that a diamond opening lead is virtually automatic, and almost always effective. Opener normally holds the much stronger hand in these auctions, and at most three diamonds. Assuming some of responder's meager strength is in the major suit (often but not always true) this is a big win. Even when responder does have diamond cards, I am leading through dummy's strength.

 

Anyways, this lead idea doesn't work out anymore when people open 1♣ with 4-4 minors. Obviously there are disadvantages to opening 1♣ with 4-4 minors (most particularly the rebid after partner's negative double, and how aggressively partner can raise in competition because of the possibly 3-card club suit) but when opener holds the super-strong balanced hand (18-19 or whatever) I think these disadvantages are minimal.

 

I think the 1♣ opening on this hand is perfectly fine. Strong jump shifts are a reasonable method too. It's just the 4♠ bid that I take some issue with (surely 3♠ would be forcing and set trumps).

[Robert]

Hello bearmum

 

Many poeple open 1C with this shape and these values to allow for a fit to be found in either minor. If you open 1D most partnerships require 10+ HCP to bid clubs. Over a 1C opening responder may raise clubs or bid 1D with 6+HCP.

 

Reversing with 2344 shape is very often a very bad idea. How will partner 'ever' decide that you are reversing with two four card suits and a balanced hand?

 

Hello awm

 

Playing expert style Soloway jump shifts the 4S rebid 'shows' a solid suit. A rebid of 3Ss would deny a solid suit. Kantar also plays this style of SJS. Mike Lawerence may well be in the group since he played for the Dallas Aces when their Aces Scientific methods were used.

 

There was a recent thread about how to bid a hand with a 'solid' suit opposite a 1H opening. Using classic bidding methods where a 2/1 followed by a jump showed a solid suit, the auction to 7NT was quite easy.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Kalvan14]

7NT, obviously.

 

 

Some other comments:

 

1) There is no such thing as "reverse in NT".

 

2) I do not think that "really silly auction" and "what the hell is 4♠" qualify as name-calling.

 

3) I think that saying that one strongly dislikes the methods can be a valuable contribution to the discussion. I usually enjoy reading such comments.

1) Isn't there a reverse in NT? Just to think that for all these years I've been bidding 1x - 1y - 2N, and this bid was not allowed :) I wonder how I can set it right

 

2) These expressions would not be considered acceptable at my club (zero tolerance policy). I doubt they should be allowed here.

 

3) I'm afraid being unable to agree with you.

[Kalvan14]

North hand was:

 

AKQJxx Axx x xxx

 

Twelve tricks, but if you get a lead in a black suit the 13th is on a double squeeze.

A red suit lead takes away the needed link between declarer's hand and dummy.

 

7♠ is one light (you cannot play for the squeeze)

 

The lead at the table was ♣J, from JT98 (which I would say is the normal lead)

[hrothgar]

Some people automatically open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors. While I suppose there are some advantages to this, when I am on opening lead against the auction 1♣-1M-2NT-3NT against such people, I find that a diamond opening lead is virtually automatic, and almost always effective. Opener normally holds the much stronger hand in these auctions, and at most three diamonds. Assuming some of responder's meager strength is in the major suit (often but not always true) this is a big win. Even when responder does have diamond cards, I am leading through dummy's strength. 

 

Anyways, this lead idea doesn't work out anymore when people open 1♣ with 4-4 minors.

Comment 1: I'm not particularly interested in debating whether or not its better to open 1♣ or 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors. The main reason that I raised this point initially was the author's insistence that he that he was playing Standard SAYC combined with a highly no systemic opening bid.

 

Comment 2: Regarding lead implications in the auction 1♣ - 1M - 2NT. I'm unconvinced of the merits of an "near automatic" Diamond lead during this auction. Many responder's tend to suppress Diamond suits when responding to 1♣ opening. Sure, you're leading through strength, but you're also blowing a tempo.

 

Equally significant, all you're doing is squeezing a tube of toothpaste... Your flattening a buldge in one area, but its just going to pop up in another. More specifically, lets assume that you're systemically opening 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. This time, however, you gave the auction 1♦ - 1M - 2NT. Wouldn't a club lead stand out for all the same reasons?

[Gerben42]

Nice analogy. I always seem to see a bidding system as a carpet which is too large for the room. You make it nice and flat in some place, it will bulge in another. All carpets are too large, just that some are larger than others :)

[Gerben42]

About the 1♣ or 1♦ issue: I like 1M to be 5 cards, 1♦ to PROMISE 4 and 1♣ can be 2 cards (rarely), see my Blog for a discussion about this.

 

In this framework opening 1♦ on 4-4 minors is clear as you have conveyed more information to partner. Now if you say well I lead a ♦ against this go right ahead, because responder will also have been aware that partner will not have 4 cards in ♦ unless he has 5+♣ and ignore his own 4-card ♦, expecting partner to mention it by reversing into ♦.

[Fluffy]

I'd probably bid 2NT, but then I don't play SJS nor would I open 1♣ on this (1♦ with 4 - 4 minors)

I Fully agree with these.

[joker_gib]

I'd probably bid 2NT, but then I don't play SJS nor would I open 1♣ on this (1♦ with 4 - 4 minors)

I Fully agree with these.

Of course :)

[awm]

The point is that there is value in varying your minor suit openings. When you hold 18-19 balanced, by far the majority of contracts will be played in 3NT or 4M. On those hands where you have slam in one minor or the other, there is plenty of space to find that.

 

The inference that if a particular minor is opened, you will not have four cards in the other minor (because (23)44 hands invariably open one minor or other) tends to be very useful to the defense, and not very useful to partner when you're just going to play 3NT anyways.

 

There are advantages to treatments where 1♦ guarantees four (or is 99% four) but most of these come in competitive sequences where neither side has game values and it becomes easier for partner to raise diamonds right away, or easier for you to rebid clubs after a negative double and have partner correct to diamonds. These advantages are minimized when opener has the 18-19 balanced hand, since you will usually have game values and you will usually be rebidding notrump anyway and not the other minor.

 

So my suggestion is to use one of hrothgar's favorites here: a mixed strategy, and randomize the choice of minor to open.

[hrothgar]

So my suggestion is to use one of hrothgar's favorites here: a mixed strategy, and randomize the choice of minor to open.

This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable strategy...

 

As I recall, the Hog (Mollo's Hog that is) was very fond of this ploy

[Kalvan14]

As I remember, the Hog played WEAKER MINOR, to steer opponents' lead toward his stronger suits. Which is not a bad policy in itself.

 

I am not really a fundamentalist in minor suits openings: I usually open 1♦ with 4-4, but also with 5-4 either way, if the hand is not worth a reverse.

With 3-3, I usually open 1♣. I don't like at all 1♣ on 2 cards, btw.

 

However, the key word here is "usually": tactically, it is worth to randomise a bit these openings. So I might open 1♦ with 3-3 in the minors too.

 

In the posted hand, the main point in opening 1♣ was the possibility of hearing 1♦ from partner.