AQTxx-75-void-AQxxxx

[MickyB]

Actually I'd have thought these folks would use the precision-style 2♣ opener. The bidding is surely not going to stop here

I don't think our side 5-card spade suit greatly affects the chance that the auction will die here, unless it is an indication of the quality of the shuffling and dealing.

 

For the strong clubbers, 1♠ then 3♣ also seems a pretty reasonable description of this hand.

[hrothgar]

The strong clubbers seem happy to open this hand with 1♠, perhaps because they never regard the club suit as something they need to bid. I often wonder how extreme we have to make the hand to get them to show it (5-0-0-8 perhaps?) :D

 

Actually I'd have thought these folks would use the precision-style 2♣ opener. The bidding is surely not going to stop here and subsequent spade bids will probably show the 5-6 shape with no loss of accuracy over standard.

 

Paul

The Precision style 2♣ opener really isn't all that popular with the strong club crowd anymore. Lots of pairs have migrated to using 2♣ to show a constructive hand with 6+ clubs. There are a number of other pairs who prefer to use this as some type of preempt.

[pclayton]

1♣, without any doubt. clubs/spades is the most difficult 2-suiter to show after opening 1♠ [and normally you are unable to]. Quite likely that opps will show a red suit too. Another reason for keeping spades in reserve

I don't agree.

 

5-6 with ♠/♣ falls within one of the easier hands to describe. Its the 5-6 with the suits touching (5♠ / 6♥) that are a bear.

[lowerline]

The player who opens this hand 1S seems to feel that C will never be the spot to play

That's not it, at least not for me. The 1♠ opening is done mainly because it makes pard's life easier if LHO acts.

I would say this hand is a two-bid hand, by which I mean that you are intending to take a second free bid in competition even if the auction has got quite high. Thus, your aim is to describe your hand as accurately as possible in two calls. So you are not really very worried about what partner does on the first round, it's more important that you choose the bid which will enable you to complete the description of your hand next time. The way to do this is to open 1♣.

 

Having said all that, I often play systems where I am forced to open 1♠ on this type of hand (because 1♣ would be artificial) and I don't feel it's a significant loss to do that.

Suppose you are playing Precision. Do you open this hand with 1♠ or 2♣?

[mr1303]

1♠ for me in a precision context. My 2♣ opener is frequently passed, since:

 

2♦ is a strongish enquiry, promises at least invitational values

2♥ and ♠ are forcing for 1 round.

 

Therefore, if partner has a 7 or 8 count and a 4 card spade suit, he's going to pass 2♣ and we'll miss a game. Therefore I have to open it 1♠.

 

I'll probably rebid 3♣ over 1NT, or indeed 2 of a suit, to show 5+5+ and concentration (NF)

[Finch]

The difference between opening 1S in Precision and in a standard method, is that 1S is pretty much the systemic bid on this sort of hand. If you open 1S and then bid lots of clubs, partner will know you might have more clubs than spades (I suppose this is an extension of the precision style bidding with both minors: opening 1D then bidding clubs could have either minor longer).

 

If you open 1S playing a standard method and then bid clubs, partner KNOWS you have longer spades than clubs, or equal length, because the systemic opening bid with more clubs than spades is 1C. In some auctions I agree that won't matter, but then there aren't many auctions where it hurts to open 1C.

 

Now suppose it really is your hand and you have a slam on. It becomes vital that partner gets your relative suit lengths right. Give him Kxx in both black suits (I'm being kind) and the two red suit aces. Who's fault will it be when you go off in 7S on a 4-1 break with 7C cold? Yes, that's not very likely, but it's possible.

[whereagles]

Well, playing standard methods you can also agree with pard that opening 1♠ and then bidding lots of clubs shows more clubs than spades.

[mcphee]

The idea of agreeing with partner that opening 1S and later bidding C should show longer C is foolish. What is so difficult to understand that if a person opens 1C with the intention of later rebidding S twice if need be will show LONGER C? This would be true regardless of the suit opened.

 

The idea that to open 1S makes it easier for partner is way over rated. Consider when you choose to open 1S and the bidding goes like this, 1S 2H P 3H, now we mention C at the 4 level and partner is 2-2 in the black suits? Even worse if they bid 4H.

 

This type of hand becomes a problem hand for those who open 1S. As MikeH suggests, it would be thrown out of a master solvers problem. He is far to generous explaining that 1 in 100 experts would open 1C, I think it is more like 1 in several thousand. It's a no brianer.

[whereagles]

Well, mcphee.. I think you're just looking at one side of the story. I guess it's just not easy to see things in various perspectives.

[mikeh]

Big Club methods frequently require that opener, with a two-suiter longer in ♣ than in the other suit, open the shorter suit and rebid ♣. However, this does not usually promise longer ♣ than the first suit: it merely includes the possibility of that shape. In other words, big club methods have a weakness in this area: auctions that involve these hands are more difficult in their methods than they are in standard.

 

This should be no surprise: if big club methods had no structural flaws, almost all good players would use one, and the majority of the expert community around the world does not.

 

It is also no surprise that those who use big club methods consider that the advantages afforded ON OTHER HANDS offsets the structural weaknesses (which are not limited to the issue under discusssion). Of course, all methods have structural problems: they differ from method to method but show me your system and I will show you a family of hands which will be difficult for you.

 

The point, to which I come at last, is that to suggest that one can open this hand 1♠, in a standard-based method, and then, by agreement, play that repeated ♣ bids may show longer ♣ is, to be blunt, a remarkably stupid idea.

 

Instead of taking advantage of a standard method's ability to bid this hand without ambiguity, we see the suggestion that we adopt one of the weaknesses of a big club system! This approach suggests trying to get the worst of both worlds.

[whereagles]

mikeh, did you know that in French Standard (SEF)

 

1♣ 1♥

1♠ 2x

2♠

 

shows a black 55 with 15+? Did you also know that in SEF the 6♣5♠ hands are treated as a 55? In other words, in France everybody opens the original hand 1♠ (except for those who upgrade it to an intermediate hand and open 1♣).

 

So the French are bidding, to use your words, in a "remarkably stupid" way.

 

There are pros and cons for each choice of opening, but you seem to be seeing only pros in one opening and cons in another. Quite frankly, your attitude of intolerance towards a what is a perfectly reasonable and playable choice of opening borders on the ridicule. Or perhaps it just shows ignorance of how people play outside the world.. err.. north america.

[mikeh]

whereagles, my comment had nothing to do with SEF.... take another look. I was commenting on your remarkably stupid idea that you could adopt, in a 'standard' (your word, not mine) method the idea of opening 1♠ and rebidding ♣ a couple of times to show longer ♣. Had your post been that this was normal in SEF, I'd be interested in hearing from french experts as to whether and why that is true... altho I can already see some arguments in favour of it and some against it....but of course, your post had nothing to do with SEF...nor did it distinguish hand types by high card strength... or if it did either of those things, you managed to avoid mentioning it :)

 

I am going to try to resist, in the future, rising to the bait offered by your posts. Your attitude that mainstream expert bridge theory is wrong wherever it contradicts your idiosyncratic notions makes discussion with you impossible: your posts rarely, if ever, offer a reasoned approach: being confined, mostly, to claims that you have the right, if not the duty, to mastermind the bidding.

 

Anyway, my failure to respond to or comment upon later posts by you is not a concession that your ideas are correct...merely a decision by me that your posts are not worth responding to.

 

Let me know if your methods ever lead you to success in the real world.

[whereagles]

1.

whereagles, my comment had nothing to do with SEF.... take another look. I was commenting on your remarkably stupid idea that you could adopt, in a 'standard' (your word, not mine) method the idea of opening 1♠ and rebidding ♣ a couple of times to show longer ♣. Had your post been that this was normal in SEF, I'd be interested in hearing from french experts as to whether and why that is true... altho I can already see some arguments in favour of it and some against it....but of course, your post had nothing to do with SEF...nor did it distinguish hand types by high card strength... or if it did either of those things, you managed to avoid mentioning it :)

 

2.

Your attitude that mainstream expert bridge theory is wrong wherever it contradicts your idiosyncratic notions makes discussion with you impossible: your posts rarely, if ever, offer a reasoned approach: being confined, mostly, to claims that you have the right, if not the duty, to mastermind the bidding.

1. I couldn't understand your point in this paragraph. Was the point to tell me that, since it's standard in sayc or 2/1 to open 1♣, I should have specified that my 1♠ opener was in the context of sef? If so, well.. mind you, you also didn't specify under which system you were advocating 1♣.

 

2. That's a completely false and manipulative statement. I've always funded my opinions and claims clearly and adequately. The fact you don't agree with my argumentation doesn't void it, nor does it make discussion impossible.

[kgr]

AQTxx

75

Void

AQxxxx

 

I had a discussion with a good player at the club.

You play some kind of SAYC or SEF.

MP's, your are dealer. (Vul unknown)

What do you open?

I opened 1S. The partner of the good player with who I had a discussion at the bar also opened 1S.

My opinion was that I should have opened 1C, but she diagreed and told me I should bid my 5 card M.

At our table opps remained silent and the bidding continued:

1S-2D

Suppose you were forced to bid 1S. What do you bid now and is 3C 100% forcing? Is 3C reverse? (At the bar we also didn't agree about this.). If you choose 3C, are you happy with it?

==============

If you opened 1C then the bidding would go:

1C-(1H)-2D-(2H)

What do you bid now? (Please also answer the 1S-2D question as that was the issue I faced at the table.)

 

Thanks,

Koen

[mike777]

This last post really worries me.

1) Why does this player say you should open 1S? Should is a strong word!

2) I understand you are not sure if 1s=2d=3c is 100% forcing with silent opponents. This is a great question! Buy some basic bidding books and join BIL I think you will get a great deal out of it. They get these issues all the time! Bill Root has some truly wonderful books on good solid basic bidding.

3) I would stop stop taking any advice from anyplayer that says you Should or must open 1S on this hand. You can debate it, you can open 1S but saying you should or must is too strong and very wrong!

[hrothgar]

I opened 1S. The partner of the good player with who I had a discussion at the bar also opened 1S.

My opinion was that I should have opened 1C, but she diagreed and told me I should bid my 5 card M.

At our table opps remained silent and the bidding continued:

1S-2D

Suppose you were forced to bid 1S. What do you bid now and is 3C 100% forcing? Is 3C reverse? (At the bar we also didn't agree about this.). If you choose 3C, are you happy with it?

You've raises a number of complex issues, made more complicated by the fact that "expert standard" has changed dramatically over the years. For example, within the US there used to be quite a lot of debate about relative merits of opening 1♣ or 1♠ holding a 5-1-2-5 or 5-2-1-5 shape. More recently, folks seem to have settled on opening 1♠ with these hand patterns.

 

Associated with this, people used to refer to auctions like

 

1♠ - 2♦

3♣

 

as a high reverse. The high reverse promised extra values. Weaker hands would rebid 2♠ regardless of shape. These days folks seem to prefer to emphasize shape rather than strength.

 

In either case, a new suit introduced at the 3 level is forcing.

[jdonn]

This last post really worries me.

1) Why does this player say you should open 1S? Should is a strong word!

2) I understand you are not sure if 1s=2d=3c is 100% forcing with silent opponents. This is a great question! Buy some basic bidding books and join BIL I think you will get a great deal out of it. They get these issues all the time! Bill Root has some truly wonderful books on good solid basic bidding.

3) I would stop stop taking any advice from anyplayer that says you Should or must open 1S on this hand. You can debate it, you can open 1S but saying you should or must is too strong and very wrong!

I am completely confused why you are so worried. "Should" is not a strong word, it's not even as strong a word as some you used, like "Wrong". The whole point of giving the problem to people is for them to say what they think the bidder "should" do.

 

3♣ on that auction is definitely forcing. The common and I believe correct way to play it is not necessarily promising the strength of a full reverse, but promising enough values to be game forcing opposite partner's 2/1. This hand is easily good enough with this shape, even though you will sometimes get too high on a misfit.

 

If you opened 1♣ then on the second round of that auction you have an easy 2♠ bid, also forcing. You fully expect to complete your shape with one more spade bid next round.

[kgr]

..about 3C forcing question: sorry. It's clear that 3C is forcing. Wanted to ask if it absolutly forces to game.

[jdonn]

..about 3C forcing question: sorry. It's clear that 3C is forcing. Wanted to ask if it absolutly forces to game.

I answered that :unsure:

[Codo]

mikeh, did you know that in French Standard (SEF)

 

1♣ 1♥

1♠ 2x

2♠

 

shows a black 55 with 15+? Did you also know that in SEF the 6♣5♠ hands are treated as a 55? In other words, in France everybody opens the original hand 1♠ (except for those who upgrade it to an intermediate hand and open 1♣).

 

So the French are bidding, to use your words, in a "remarkably stupid" way.

 

There are pros and cons for each choice of opening, but you seem to be seeing only pros in one opening and cons in another. Quite frankly, your attitude of intolerance towards a what is a perfectly reasonable and playable choice of opening borders on the ridicule. Or perhaps it just shows ignorance of how people play outside the world.. err.. north america.

I play SEF since some years and I never read any article, which said: "in SEF the 6♣5♠ hands are treated as a 55".

 

So I think, this is just your wish. But I am willing to learn, so proove me wrong and tell me, where I can find this idea about SEF writtten down.

[Codo]

AQTxx

75

Void

AQxxxx

 

I had a discussion with a good player at the club.

You play some kind of SAYC or SEF.

MP's, your are dealer. (Vul unknown)

What do you open?

I opened 1S. The partner of the good player with who I had a discussion at the bar also opened 1S.

My opinion was that I should have opened 1C, but she diagreed and told me I should bid my 5 card M.

At our table opps remained silent and the bidding continued:

1S-2D

Suppose you were forced to bid 1S. What do you bid now and is 3C 100% forcing? Is 3C reverse? (At the bar we also didn't agree about this.). If you choose 3C, are you happy with it?

==============

If you opened 1C then the bidding would go:

1C-(1H)-2D-(2H)

What do you bid now? (Please also answer the 1S-2D question as that was the issue I faced at the table.)

 

Thanks,

Koen

1. You can show your 5 card major in the bidding, but where is written dwon, that you need to do so with your first bid?

 

2. If you are not allow to bid new suits at the 3. level GF, you have too many problems, so 3 CLub will get a 100 % vote.

[whereagles]

I play SEF since some years and I never read any article, which said: "in SEF the 6♣5♠ hands are treated as a 55".

 

So I think, this is just your wish. But I am willing to learn, so proove me wrong and tell me, where I can find this idea about SEF writtten down.

It's here:

 

http://perso.orange.fr/mathieu2/bridge/les_ouvertures.htm

 

(Suit symbols may vary with text enconding.)

 

The idea is to treat minimum 65s as 55s, and intermediate+ hands as strong enough to reverse.. So with 4 losers or less, open the longer, with 5 losers or more, open the highest-ranked suit. Kinda like the way you treat black 55s in SEF (which is the opposite of the north-american way, by the way).

 

The original hand, despite being a min, actually has only 4 losers, so a share of the field in France will indeed be opening 1♣ and later double-reversing.

 

There are some SEF variations on how to deal with 65s, though. Other french SEF theoreticians consider you should always open the longest suit, except if the 5 card suit is much stronger than the 6 carder, or if the high cards are scattered.

[Finch]

Certainly standard French opens 1C with 5-5 in the Blacks and a fair hand. So also do many fairly old-fashioned books on Acol, though this is less common nowadays.

 

However, I guess your French must be better than mine, because when I look at your reference and read

 

"Les 6/5, avec la 6ème moins chère que la 5ème, sont assimilés à des 5/5 s’ils sont de plus de 4 perdantes (donc ouverture de la plus chère), sinon on les annonce de façon chère (ouverture de la 6ème). Avec 6C et 5S, on ouvre de 1C, sauf si cette couleur est très faible."

 

My interpretation is

 

"With a 6/5 with the 6-card suit lower than the 5-card suit, treat it as a 5-5 if you have more than 4 losers (so open the higher suit), otherwise open the 6-card suit and reverse. With 6C and 5S open 1C unless the club suit is very weak"

 

That seems to say quite clearly that 5/6 in the blacks is systemically opened 1C on all strengths.

[Finch]

AQTxx

75

Void

AQxxxx

 

I had a discussion with a good player at the club.

You play some kind of SAYC or SEF.

MP's, your are dealer. (Vul unknown)

What do you open?

I opened 1S. The partner of the good player with who I had a discussion at the bar also opened 1S.

My opinion was that I should have opened 1C, but she diagreed and told me I should bid my 5 card M.

At our table opps remained silent and the bidding continued:

1S-2D

Suppose you were forced to bid 1S. What do you bid now and is 3C 100% forcing? Is 3C reverse? (At the bar we also didn't agree about this.). If you choose 3C, are you happy with it?

==============

If you opened 1C then the bidding would go:

1C-(1H)-2D-(2H)

What do you bid now? (Please also answer the 1S-2D question as that was the issue I faced at the table.)

 

Thanks,

Koen

If I were forced to open 1S, I would bid 3C now and be entirely happy with it (in the context of having sorted one of my clubs into the spade suit before opening and only just having found out).

It is absolutely basic bridge that 3C is 100% forcing.

 

Having opened 1C, I rebid 2S over 2H. If partner rebids a non-forcing (in standard) 3D I will continue the description and bid 3S, though this might turn out to be a horrible hand where no-one is making anything.

[whereagles]

My interpretation is

 

"With a 6/5 with the 6-card suit lower than the 5-card suit, treat it as a 5-5 if you have more than 4 losers (so open the higher suit), otherwise open the 6-card suit and reverse. With 6C and 5S open 1C unless the club suit is very weak"

 

That seems to say quite clearly that 5/6 in the blacks is systemically opened 1C on all strengths.

You are right. I had missed the last sentence. I retract my statements for the black 65 case and apologize. I stand by my comments on other 65s though.

 

Another reference: http://membres.lycos.fr/bridgechezsoi/cours/0001.htm

(Scroll down to "Les ouvertures ambigues".)