Multiple Choice

[pclayton]

You hold as dealer, all vul at IMPS:

 

♠75432, ♥A, ♦AKQT9, ♣AJ

 

What is your opening bid and your call after pard's continuation.

 

By the way, I got into a pretty heated argument with a good player in Dallas over this hand.

[whereagles]

1♠ + 3♦ is the easy way out.

1♦ + 2♠ if you wanna try your luck.

[pbleighton]

1S then 2D. 3D would be OK.

 

I do not hide 5 card majors, even this one.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

This is a weird hand.

Not surprised to see a lot of debate over it.

 

I like a 1♦ opening, followed by a 1♠ rebid.

I expect to be in a very small minority here, however...

 

I'm not gonnna open that Spade suit if I can help it.

Equally significant, the short suit Aces make the hand too weak for a reverse...

[helene_t]

Agree with Richard.

[hotShot]

Perhaps the minority will be not that small Richard.

Agree with Richard too.

[mike777]

1S then 3D but can live with any rational choice partner makes.

[han]

I really dislike 1S followed by 3D. Because of the spade suit I can't magine forcing to game with this hand.

 

I also like opening 1D followed by 1S, but I don't have a big problem with 1S followed by 2D.

[Blofeld]

I'll join Richard as well -- I really don't like distorting shape, but this seems the hand for it.

[JohnnyH7]

I would open 1S. Sure the spades are bad, but there are still 5 of them. I don't want to needlessly distort my shape. 4S in a 5-3 can easily be better than 3N or 5D. If the auction gets competitive, we may miss a 5-3 fit altogether, or end up showing 5-6 which could cause partner to misevaluate. If we have a 5-4 fit we may end up having to guess what to do as partner will not be able to figure out we have 5 if we open 1D. 1D allows them to get in with hearts much easier. In many auctions, such as 1D p 1H p 1S p 2H p we will be poorly placed. If we bid 2S we will once again be showing 5-6 and defeating the purpose of opening 1D (aren't the 1D openers treating their spades as 4?), but what else is there? 3H? 4H? 2N? 3N? All can lead to poor contracts when spades is our strain.

 

After 1N, I would definitely rebid 2D. Jump shifting when your anchor suit is xxxxx is a recipe for disaster. This plan will miss some games opposite some values and 1-3 in the pointed but not enough to bid over 2D. I believe you will gain much more by stopping short of game when its right than you will lose from the few games you miss.

[1eyedjack]

I am in the 1D-1S camp. I probably don't want to be in Spades if they are only 5-3, and I should find the 5-4 fit.

[Free]

1S then 3D but can live with any rational choice partner makes.

Agree!

 

But if partner doesn't show immediate ♠ support, I won't play 4♠...

[Miron]

1♠ and 3♦.

 

I think I want play 4♠ or 3NT. 5♦ is not great spot for me with strong side suits. Unless partner has 4card fit.

 

So I'll open 1♠ to search for major fit and bid 3♦ over 1NT to end in 3NT.

[Cascade]

I had this hand or its near relative twice on the same day last week. I bid the minor first both times successfully.

 

Its a small sample but I think I will try the same approach next time.

[luke warm]

there's a case to be made for treating the spade suit as if it was 4 cards, but i can't make it... i'd bid 1s then 3d

[Double !]

there's a case to be made for treating the spade suit as if it was 4 cards, but i can't make it... i'd bid 1s then 3d

Yes, Jimmy, there is certainly a good case to be made. The problems, as I see them, is that you have no guarantee that P is going to respond 1H (or 1NT), and it is possible that the opps just might stick their noses into the bidding ("Bad opps, Bad!") by bidding some number of hearts or clubs. Now, is one in a better situation to cope with such interference by opening one diamond, or by opening one spade? IMO, this is a very important consideration.

 

DHL

[Double !]

but I don't have a big problem with 1S followed by 2D.

Relieved to hear that, because that was my choice.

 

DHL

[pclayton]

The player in question opened 1♠. This led to 3N making 6, when they didn't cash out the spade suit. 6♦ is a great spot. The component hand had something like a 1444 8 count.

 

I suggested a 1♦ opening. After all, a 9 card spade fit would still be discovered, and there may be other playable spots, even if we have a 5-3.

 

His quote was priceless, "If you give the subject hand to the top 50 players in the world, not one would open anything but 1♠" ;) In fairness, he qualified it for systemic openings like a Precision club. But in a 5 card majors system with a strong 2♣, he felt 1♠ was 100%.

 

There was a hand posted here a few months ago with very weak spades and a FOUR card diamond suit where many of the posters thought that a 1♦ opening was fine (I thought it was a bit too much), so I'm not surprised about the popularity of a 1♦ opening.

 

Now certainly, 1♠ is still leading the pack in the poll, but there is a substantial group that likes 1♦.

[bid_em_up]

His quote was priceless, "If you give the subject hand to the top 50 players in the world, not one would open anything but 1♠"  ;)  In fairness, he qualified it for systemic openings like a Precision club. But in a 5 card majors system with a strong 2♣, he felt 1♠ was 100%.

Since when have 3 bridge players agreed on anything, much less 50. Never say Never.... :P

 

While not in the top 50 myself, I do not believe all 50 would open 1S, especially given the disparity of the two suits and the total values of the hand. It is certainly good enough to open 1D and then bid spades twice or 2S/3S over whatever interference you may get. (My vote went to 1D followed by 1S over 1H).

 

If there is a diamond slam to be found, you make it difficult for partner to believe that your hand is this good for diamonds after you open 1S. The opposite does not hold true, (if there is a spade slam to be found, you probably will still find it after bidding 1S over 1H) and certainly will find any spade game available on this sequence.

 

The other factor is....should opps for whatever reason buy the contract with pard on lead, there is no way in &*(# that you want him leading a spade away from Qxx, Kxx or what usually happens to me, he leads the spade K from Kx. :lol:

 

As always, jmoo.

[zasanya]

Most if not all bidding books advocate bidding a 5 card weak major in preference to a strong 5 card minor,In fact one of the first books I ever read gave exactly same kind of suits as given in this thread and advised to bid 1 major.Perhaps the experts who advocate opening 1 ♦ in preference to 1♠ have a different system.The book such an expert would write would suggest opening 1 minor in preference to 1 major when the minor is very very strong and the major is very very weak.

The point I want to stress is the two groups are playing different systems.The precision player would of course say both are wrong and advocate 1♣ ;)

[mcphee]

I fail to see why we do not open this 1S. If you do and partner raises your suit don't you know what to do? If partner fails to raise S, we can get D into the bidding later maybe. Bidding S now makes it more difficult for the opps to bid H. Maybe if I was in a money game you could convince me to open 1D where I might collect 150 honors. The big problem with 1D is you will never be able to show this 5 card major without suggesting longer D.

 

I am not going to make a j/s creating a GF with this S suit.

[bid_em_up]

Most if not all bidding books advocate bidding a 5 card weak major in preference to a strong 5 card minor,In fact one of the first books I ever read gave exactly same kind of suits as given in this thread and advised to bid 1 major.Perhaps the experts who advocate opening 1 ♦ in preference to 1♠ have a different system.The book such an expert would write would suggest opening 1 minor in preference to 1 major when the minor is very very strong and the major is very very weak.

The point I want to stress is the two groups are playing different systems.The precision player would of course say both are wrong and advocate 1♣ ;)

The problem with this logic is that the majority of books are written for, well, beginners/intermediates. You said it yourself "In fact one of the first books I ever read gave exactly same kind of suits as given in this thread and advised to bid 1 major" (what level of player were you when you read it?). When teaching someone to play the game initially, it is simply not possible to explain to them when to open 1D and when to open 1S. They have enough to remember already and do not have the experience to be able to judge when to open 1D and when to open 1S. You give them a set of rules to follow, in the hopes that they can remember those (most can't). Since most books that are written are geared to this level of player, it is unlikely that you will ever see a book written that advocates opening 1D instead of 1S.

 

I am not playing a different system when I choose to open this hand one diamond. I am using my judgement and experience at the table to do so and that is why I do not believe that all top 50 experts will open 1S. They have been there, done that, so to speak and while their systemic bid is 1S, they may opt to deviate from this. This hand certainly qualifies as one on which they may choose to do so.

[1eyedjack]

I think I want play 4♠ or 3NT.

Perhaps, but I worry that you will end in 4♠ on some hands when you would rather have ended in 3NT.

[hrothgar]

Most if not all bidding books advocate bidding a 5 card weak major in preference to a strong 5 card minor,In fact one of the first books I ever read gave exactly same kind of suits as given in this thread and advised to bid 1 major.Perhaps the experts who advocate opening 1 ♦ in preference to 1♠ have a different system.The book such an expert would write would suggest opening 1 minor in preference to 1 major when the minor is very very strong and the major is very very weak.

The point I want to stress is the two groups are playing different systems.The precision player would of course say both are wrong and advocate 1♣ ;)

For what its worth I'm one of those crazies advocating a 1♦ opening.

Left to my own devices, I prefer playing Major's first opening styles where I show a crappy 4 card major in preference to a 5 card minor.

 

When I suugest a 1♦ opening, I'm very much doing so within the context of a "standard" 2/1 game force construct. I'm very much playing a standard system. I simply think that things will work out better if I lie about my shape and treat this hand as if it were a 4=1=5=3 shape.

[P_Marlowe]

there's a case to be made for treating the spade suit as if it was 4 cards, but i can't make it... i'd bid 1s then 3d

I agree.

 

It's ugly, but ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe