What do you open?

[jdonn]

T KQ65 AKQ Q8532

 

Also, I am assuming the following rebids given the opening choice

1♣ 1♠ 2♥

1♦ 1♠ 2♣

1♥ 1♠ 2♣

1NT 2♥ 2♠

So if you would rebid something else, please feel free to say so.

 

I thought this was an interesting and difficult choice, it's not often that there are four plausible choices for an opening bid on the one level.

[mikeh]

A hand from hell, especially for the methods I play in all my partnerships :)

 

I cannot bid 1♥: for me, in first or second, this promises 5 and I cannot recover from that distortion.

 

I cannot open 1♣ and rebid 2♥ over 1♠: I belong to the 'strong' reverse school, and this hand is more than a tiny bit too weak... give me AKQ KQxx x Qxxxx and I would be delighted to reverse, but not on this hand.

 

I cannot open 1N: more accurately, I refuse to open 1N... wait a second.... I can put a ♣ in with my ♠ and now it is perfect.... let me get back to you on this... it depends on just how repugnant all the other choices are

 

I would not have thought of 1♦ as an opening bid, and, having thought of it, I feel slightly ill... of course, that may be because all of the alternatives are nausea inducing as well. But I cannot open 1♦... if I cannot bring myself to lie about a 5th ♥, how can I lie about a fourth and fifth ♦... for me, 1♦ followed by 2♣ almost always delivers 5♦...plus in my methods, I open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 so 1♦ always shows 4+

 

So my 'textbook' auction is a sickening 1♣ followed (over 1♠) by that wonderful bid: 2♣

 

Okay... I am back to the black-suit myopia solution: I am, I am sure, 2=4=3=4 shape.... heck, I might even be 3=4=3=3= for all I can tell this early in the morning.

 

1N.

[luis]

T KQ65 AKQ Q8532

 

Also, I am assuming the following rebids given the opening choice

1♣ 1♠ 2♥

1♦ 1♠ 2♣

1♥ 1♠ 2♣

1NT 2♥ 2♠

So if you would rebid something else, please feel free to say so.

 

I thought this was an interesting and difficult choice, it's not often that there are four plausible choices for an opening bid on the one level.

What the hell is this?

Why would you open a 4 card heart suit playing 5 card majors in first position when holding 5 clubs?

 

I open 1♣ which I think it's 100% universal. 1NT is risky, 1♥ demential in my opinion and 1♦ is very funny.

 

After 1♣ - 1♠ I just bid 2♣ I don't have enough for a reverse and 2♣ never promised more than 5 clubs so it's automatic too.

 

Luis

[whereagles]

Well, I think I have enough for a reverse, so I bid

 

1♣ 1♠

2♥

 

But I could live with a 2♣ rebid as well.

[jdonn]

What the hell is this?

Why would you open a 4 card heart suit playing 5 card majors in first position when holding 5 clubs?

 

I open 1♣ which I think it's 100% universal. 1NT is risky, 1♥ demential in my opinion and 1♦ is very funny.

 

After 1♣ - 1♠ I just bid 2♣ I don't have enough for a reverse and 2♣ never promised more than 5 clubs so it's automatic too.

 

Luis

Seriously, we are glad to hear what you have to say, and see your choice, but you DO NOT have to crap over any choice that isn't your own. Statements like the following are horrifically rude:

 

"What the hell is this"

"[my choice is] 100% universal" (you know it's not, someone already voted for something else! do we need a lesson on what 100% means?)

"[a potential choice of another person is] demential"

 

How do you think someone who might want to vote for a choice that is different from yours would feel after reading your comments? Try to keep things less negative, please.

 

One last thing. You have made it clear in the past you have no idea what is played in any country besides the one you live in. In North America, it is greatly frowned upon to rebid a minor with only five, especially five bad ones, which is partly why this is an interesting problem. Many great players NEVER or almost never rebid a minor with fewer than six. So be careful before throwing around such strong words.

[hrothgar]

A hand from hell, especially for the methods I play in all my partnerships :)

 

I cannot bid 1♥: for me, in first or second, this promises 5 and I cannot recover from that distortion.

 

I cannot open 1♣ and rebid 2♥ over 1♠: I belong to the 'strong' reverse school, and this hand is more than a tiny bit too weak... give me AKQ KQxx x Qxxxx and I would be delighted to reverse, but not on this hand.

 

I cannot open 1N: more accurately, I refuse to open 1N... wait a second.... I can put a ♣ in with my ♠ and now it is perfect.... let me get back to you on this... it depends on just how repugnant all the other choices are

 

I would not have thought of 1♦ as an opening bid, and, having thought of it, I feel slightly ill... of course, that may be because all of the alternatives are nausea inducing as well. But I cannot open 1♦... if I cannot bring myself to lie about a 5th ♥, how can I lie about a fourth and fifth ♦... for me, 1♦ followed by 2♣ almost always delivers 5♦...plus in my methods, I open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 so 1♦ always shows 4+

 

So my 'textbook' auction is a sickening 1♣ followed (over 1♠) by that wonderful bid: 2♣

 

Okay... I am back to the black-suit myopia solution: I am, I am sure, 2=4=3=4 shape.... heck, I might even be 3=4=3=3= for all I can tell this early in the morning.

 

1N.

Oh my god...

 

Mike and I agree about a bidding question.

The Apocalypse is upon us all

 

For what its worth, if I had to rank bids

 

1N

1♣

1♥

1♦

 

The reason that I rank 1♣ above 1♥ is that a 1♣ opening could work out very nicely if partner advances 1♥ and (maybe) even 1NT.

[paulg]

I must admit that I didn't see any problem with this hand either - a simple 1♣.

 

In the bidding panels over here they occasionally try putting a similar hand with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs and see what the de facto standard is. Each time most of the UK players open 1♣ and most of the North Americans open 1♦, both adding 'what's the problem?' to their choice.

 

Cultural differences I suppose.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

UK

[awm]

As I'm from the "light reverse" school I'll open 1♣ and rebid 2♥. Admittedly partner will expect a stronger club suit (for example x KQxx Axx AQJxx would be typical) but it seems by far the least of evils to me. In my style:

 

1♣..2♣ shows six clubs and 11-14 points.

1♦...2♣ promises diamonds at least as long as clubs (I don't bid this way with 4-5 minors).

1♥ is a five-card major.

1NT promises at least two cards in each suit.

 

The reverse doesn't distort the shape or the values, only the location of the values. Obviously nothing is perfect but I think it's the best call. Most likely partner will bid 2♠ and I can try 2NT (not forcing).

[cherdano]

As I'm from the "light reverse" school I'll open 1♣ and rebid 2♥. Admittedly partner will expect a stronger club suit (for example x KQxx Axx AQJxx would be typical) but it seems by far the least of evils to me.

Well, obviously the hand you give as typical is substantially stronger than the hand of this thread? Yeah, they have same hcp and shape, BUT...

 

I think you have to be of a very light reverse school not to make this an overbid. (Of course, this overbid may still be the smallest distortion.)

 

Arend

[luis]

What the hell is this?

Why would you open a 4 card heart suit playing 5 card majors in first position when holding 5 clubs?

 

I open 1♣ which I think it's 100% universal. 1NT is risky, 1♥ demential in my opinion and 1♦ is very funny.

 

After 1♣ - 1♠ I just bid 2♣ I don't have enough for a reverse and 2♣ never promised more than 5 clubs so it's automatic too.

 

Luis

Seriously, we are glad to hear what you have to say, and see your choice, but you DO NOT have to crap over any choice that isn't your own. Statements like the following are horrifically rude:

 

"What the hell is this"

"[my choice is] 100% universal" (you know it's not, someone already voted for something else! do we need a lesson on what 100% means?)

"[a potential choice of another person is] demential"

 

How do you think someone who might want to vote for a choice that is different from yours would feel after reading your comments? Try to keep things less negative, please.

 

One last thing. You have made it clear in the past you have no idea what is played in any country besides the one you live in. In North America, it is greatly frowned upon to rebid a minor with only five, especially five bad ones, which is partly why this is an interesting problem. Many great players NEVER or almost never rebid a minor with fewer than six. So be careful before throwing around such strong words.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing bridge from real life.

I have been saying what I think for years in this forums and never got anybody offended but you. So maybe it's you who has the problem.

 

I respect all the opinions, If I say I find a bid "demential" this is what I think but I still respect the crazy dudes that choose it. One thing is what I think about a bid and one different thing is what I think about the person or the player.

 

I will keep saying what I think about any bid and I hope I don't have to make a disclaimer again.

 

Luis

[mike777]

1c then 2clubs

 

I am short a club and have more hcp than p will play me for, "if I can just get past this round".

[luis]

1c then 2clubs

 

I am short a club and have more hcp than p will play me for, "if I can just get past this round".

Hey Mike,

What would you do over 2♠ by pd after 2♣.

Do you think 2♠ is constructive since pd could have passed 2♣ ? Then are you jumping to 3NT or do you think 2NT shows this kind of hand?

[mike777]

I will pass 2S but understand many may choose 2nt. I do not play WJS.

I think pard will have less than:

 

AKQxxx...xx....xxx.xx

[jdonn]

You seem to have a problem distinguishing bridge from real life.

I have been saying what I think for years in this forums and never got anybody offended but you. So maybe it's you who has the problem.

 

I respect all the opinions, If I say I find a bid "demential" this is what I think but I still respect the crazy dudes that choose it. One thing is what I think about a bid and one different thing is what I think about the person or the player.

 

I will keep saying what I think about any bid and I hope I don't have to make a disclaimer again.

 

Luis

Look, I reiterate, your opinions about bids are absolutely welcome. However, it is possible to state things kindly.

 

Instead of "What the hell is this?" how about "I don't know why this problem is here, the answer is totally obvious to me".

 

Instead of "demential" how about "ridiculous". Can you not see why calling a bid demential is offensive? Dementia is a debilitating brain disease, you are implying there is something sickening and wrong with any person who chooses such a bid, not to mention that someone close to another poster could be suffering from dementia for all you know. I understand that's not what you meant, but that's what you said.

 

I'm not the only person you have ever offended, I can recall two specific other threads in my short time here where others took issue with the way you stated things. But perhaps it's me most often because you reply to me differently. Look at your other posts in other threads (or your reply to someone other than me in this thread) you are generally kind, good natured, and friendly. Now look at your very first reply to me in this thread, or first reply to me in the puppet stayman thread from weeks ago. You are harsh, abrasive, and disparaging. So yes, if you are only offensive toward me, I'll be the only one who is offended. Shocking.

 

I know bridge players in general (me more than any!) are very strong in their opinions, and sometimes things don't come out the way we intend. I offended MikeH not too long ago with posts I didn't intend that way. We discussed it privately, apologized and made up, and I'm sure if we met in person now we would be buying each other drinks and talking about hands in the bar until late at night. I have said many many other things in my life that I regret so take it from me. Words are very powerful and you should choose them carefully, which goes double when they are written as you have all the time you need to consider them. Maybe we just have to understand each other better, so I welcome a reply, but I hope my position is better understood.

[whereagles]

jdonn, if you excuse me butting-in into this discussion, I would volunteer a word or two which might clear up matters.

 

It is my impression that Luis uses those strong words in a jokingly way. I mean, in a way that you'd laugh about it if he had told them to you face-to-face.

 

Of course, in the internet it's not always easy to distinguish a person's intentions, and maybe Luis should indeed be a bit more careful on that issue, but I honestly think he doesn't mean to offend anyone. It's just him trying to be funny.

[luis]

But perhaps it's me most often because you reply to me differently. Look at your other posts in other threads (or your reply to someone other than me in this thread) you are generally kind, good natured, and friendly. Now look at your very first reply to me in this thread, or first reply to me in the puppet stayman thread from weeks ago. You are harsh, abrasive, and disparaging.

 

I know bridge players in general (me more than any!) are very strong in their opinions, and sometimes things don't come out the way we intend. I offended MikeH not too long ago with posts I didn't intend that way. We discussed it privately, apologized and made up, and I'm sure if we met in person now we would be buying each other drinks and talking about hands in the bar until late at night. I have said many many other things in my life that I regret so take it from me. Words are very powerful and you should choose them carefully, which goes double when they are written as you have all the time you need to consider them. Maybe we just have to understand each other better, so I welcome a reply, but I hope my position is better understood.

Instead of "What the hell is this?" how about "I don't know why this problem is here, the answer is totally obvious to me".

 

Because I think "what the hell is this?" is a more clear description of my thoughts about the problem.

 

Instead of "demential" how about "ridiculous". Can you not see why calling a bid demential is offensive? Dementia is a debilitating brain disease, you are implying there is something sickening and wrong with any person who chooses such a bid, not to mention that someone close to another poster could be suffering from dementia for all you know. I understand that's not what you meant, but that's what you said.

 

I think the bid is indeed demenatial/crazy/insane whatever you want to call it but that doesn't imply anything about the person, I make a lot of sick/demential bids and I auto-qualify them in that way.

 

So yes, if you are only offensive toward me, I'll be the only one who is offended. Shocking.

 

That is your idea but I've never intended to be offensive towards you or anybody else in the forums it seems like you take things in a personal way.

I've been called names and called other names and has always been funny, typical coffee bridge chit-chatting.

 

I have said many many other things in my life that I regret so take it from me. Words are very powerful and you should choose them carefully, which goes double when they are written as you have all the time you need to consider them. Maybe we just have to understand each other better, so I welcome a reply, but I hope my position is better understood.

 

I guess we just have to find a problem where we agree about something so we can praise each other and be friends again? :-)

Lol, chill down I have 0 problems with you and I might have many problems with your bids or plays as you may have with mine, feel free to speak freely about what I think and I won't be offended and I hope to get the same understanding from you, we are all grown up bridge players.

 

For some reason whenever I start strong discussions with some player we end up being good friends maybe because I'm always looking for those that think different than me because they are the ones that can help me learn and improve.

 

If anything I said was offensive to you accept my apologies -once again-

[hatchett]

I would open 1♣, because firstly I may not have to distort the hand if partner does not bid 1♠. Over 1♠ would chance a reverse but a shade light in the expected strength.

[bid_em_up]

Personally, I dont feel that it is a question so much of whether or not the hand "qualifies" for a reverse (it is a 16 count, for cryin out loud), but more of a problem with where the high cards are located and suit quality. If the hand was;

 

x KQxx KQx AQ10xx

 

and I dont think anyone would raise serious objections to the reverse. Its only a jack shy of the reverse, and all other options seriously distorts the hand. In this case, the reverse would be the lesser of all evils.

 

On the given hand, we are presented with 4 choices.

 

To me, 1H is not an option as I play 5 card majors and partner will never believe I have longer clubs than hearts, if I open 1H.

 

1D is out, because like mike, opening 1D guarantees 4 in most of my partnerships and a later bid of 2C will be 5♦4♣ . I open 1C with 4♦5♣ as well.

 

This leaves several flawed choices, imo.

 

Opening 1N (and I assume on the auction listed for the 1N opening that the 2H bid is transfer by pard, not a 2H overcall by LHO). As long as we are willing to take the consequences and cooperate with the transfer when partner transfers to spades (hopefully he has 6+), I think this is a reasonable option, although I would not be happy with it at the time. If it was a 2H overcall, and pard bid 2S (leb) over 2H, again I will pass and not be happy. Since partner is weak, he rates to have more than 5 spades.

 

Opening 1C and reversing into 2H, certainly describes the hand pattern and approximate strength, but I am certain that given the quality of the club suit, I would not want to play 3C opposite a small doubleton, which could easily happen. Nor would I like to end in 3N on some misfitting hand where partner is expecting a source of tricks from the club suit.

 

And last, since opening 1C and rebidding 2C would tend to show 6+ clubs, it is flawed as well. But....if partner cannot take another call over 2C, we have probably not missed much. I think the 2C bid can be made with up to 15/16 hcp, given that we did not open 1N, did not reverse, and did not bid 3C. Partner should be aware of this fact when making his next call.

 

So, of all the options, I think opening 1C and rebidding 2C or opening 1N are about equal, with the reverse a distant third, followed even further back by 1H. Opening 1D will never win the race (much less cross my mind). :)

 

At the table, I would be inclined to open 1C and rebid 2C, because it never seems to work out when I open 1N with a stiff.

[han]

I would open 1NT unless when playing with a partner who can't stomach that, then 1C followed by 2C. 1C should work better in a competitive auction, but after 1NT I will have no rebid problems (but of course, the damage might already be done).

 

I'll echo Arend's comment about the hand that Adam gave: that hand is much stronger even though it has the same shape and HCP. I am willing to reverse on some rare 16-count, but on this one.

[joshs]

This hand type is a bitch.

 

1C then reverse is a definite overbid especially since if partner is weak you will often play in a 5-2 club fit, and that is not going to play well. I am of the opinion that with a decent but not amazing 5 card primary suit you should have about 17 for a reverse. This hand has a weak suit, so with this weak of a suit some would say you need 18....

Honestly if I opened 1C I might well take the conservative position and rebid 2C. Is this hand really stronger than x xxx AKQ KQxxxx?

 

1H then 2C has the benefit of showing your two suits, except you haven't really, over 1N you have shown 5 hearts and 3 clubs and you differ from that by 3 cards. You also have not expressed your strength. Presumably, after 1H-1S-2C-2H you are going to overbid next with 2N (showing 17-18).

 

1N at least gets strength right, but the shape is a bit odd to say the least...

 

1D then 2C has similar problems to 1H then 2C except that in many partnerships 1D-1S-2C is often 1444 or 1345 or 2245, so you are not quite as many cards away from what you have promised as with the 1H opening bid. Also partner is less likely to move to an agressive game in diamonds than in hearts

a. lacking high diamonds

b.you need to make 11 tricks in a minor

 

Of course over a 1C or 1D or 1N opening bid partner might do something friendly, like show hearts....

 

Historically I have always prefered a 1D opening followed by an agressive 2N if partner preferences 2C to 2D on this hand type, but I can'r swear that its best....

 

My votes are in the following order, but its close:

1D

1N

1C then 2C

1C then 2H

1C then 1N (this really isn't as bad as one might think)

and a long way down is

1H

 

I really don't think opening 1H here solves anything much...

[fred]

I would open 1NT.

 

2nd choice would be 1C then 2H.

 

No 3rd choice.

 

For me 1C then 2C shows a 6-card suit. I have rebid 2C with 5 before, but I would never do that with a suit like Qxxxx. 2C is also flawed on this particular hand because partner will not expect 16 HCP (at least my partner wouldn't).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[the saint]

T KQ65 AKQ Q8532

 

Also, I am assuming the following rebids given the opening choice

1♣ 1♠ 2♥

1♦ 1♠ 2♣

1♥ 1♠ 2♣

1NT 2♥ 2♠

So if you would rebid something else, please feel free to say so.

 

I thought this was an interesting and difficult choice, it's not often that there are four plausible choices for an opening bid on the one level.

What the hell is this?

Why would you open a 4 card heart suit playing 5 card majors in first position when holding 5 clubs?

 

I open 1♣ which I think it's 100% universal. 1NT is risky, 1♥ demential in my opinion and 1♦ is very funny.

 

After 1♣ - 1♠ I just bid 2♣ I don't have enough for a reverse and 2♣ never promised more than 5 clubs so it's automatic too.

 

Luis

Squire would approve wholeheartedly of 1♥, and he is perhaps the finest theorist ever on the structure of natural bidding.

[mikeh]

Squire would approve wholeheartedly of 1♥, and he is perhaps the finest theorist ever on the structure of natural bidding.

From the little I know of Squire, he'd be rolling in his grave at what most tournament players think of as 'natural' :)

 

And, as for the finest natural bidding theorist, I'd go with S.J. Simon, whose production was cut short by an early death: A Design For Bidding is by far the best book I have ever read on how to build a natural method... I could never play that style, but it is a beautiful book. Unfortunately I lent my copy to a friend who took it on a vacation to Hawaii and it has not been seen since.

[jdonn]

I would open 1NT.

 

2nd choice would be 1C then 2H.

 

No 3rd choice.

 

For me 1C then 2C shows a 6-card suit. I have rebid 2C with 5 before, but I would never do that with a suit like Qxxxx. 2C is also flawed on this particular hand because partner will not expect 16 HCP (at least my partner wouldn't).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Perhaps Fred is not aware that a 1♣ opening is "100% universal" and a 2♣ rebid is "automatic". :)

 

Without saying what I like or don't like I just want to pose a question that may further the discussion. It seems that the general order of preference for the crowd is 1♣ 2♣, 1NT, 1♣ 2♥, 1♦, then far behind is 1♥ (apparently Squire likes it! whoever that is)

 

Except for some of the 1♣ 2♣ group who seem to think this hand is not misdescribed by that sequence, everyone pretty much admits nothing fits this hand and it's simply a matter of deciding which misdescription to choose. My question is, why is 1♥ promising five so much more sacred of a description to avoid violating than 1NT without a (small!) singleton, or meeting the minimum values for a reverse, or any of the others? Most people immediately write off 1♥ essentially because "I don't have five hearts, end of story", but don't object as strongly to all the other "lies". Why is that?

[han]

Because partner will take us back to hearts on very many hands containing 2 hearts, and 4-2 fits generally don't play as well?