5332

[gwnn]

Suppose you hold a hand with 5 spades and 2 hearts and equal length in the minors.

 

You open 1♠ and CHO bids 1NT. Do you reply 2♣ always or do you bid your better minor, or only bid diamonds with significant discrepancy, or... ?

[Guest Jlall]

always 10000000000000000000000 % bid 2C plz.

 

With AKQ of diamonds and 432 of clubs bid 2C plz.

[jdonn]

I didn't realize this was a controversy!

[PassedOut]

2♣. Responder's weak 1=4=3=5 hands are a problem in any case. You certainly don't want to go out of your way to bid a 3-card diamond holding.

[Guest Jlall]

Some reasons...

 

1) Even if you play no systems over this auction, 2C gives partner more room. If he is say 1453 he can bid 2D over your 2C bid. If you bid 2D he cannot bid 3C with 1435 and will have to pass so you can play the 3-3 fit.

 

1a) You could just play a good system over 2C like bart and cannot play as good of a system over 2D. Some people even bid 2C with 5332 and 2 clubs for this reason.

 

2) If you can bid 2D on 5233 then your 2D bid loses definition, and you have no increased gain of definition in 2C since it can also be 5233. In general it is bad theoretically to have 2 bids for the same shape, and that is especially true in an auction like this. Usually partner can count on 2D being 4 diamonds unless you are exactly 5332 and can make better decisions because of that. Some people rebid 2C with 5332 also to give 2D even more definition which also ties into 1a.

 

This is similar to a recent thread asking why you should always bid clubs with equal length after 4S X p 4N p ?. It is better to have more defined shapes rather than worry about suit quality. This is also similar to asking the question "what do you open if you are 5-5 in the majors with much better hearts?" Well of course you don't distort your shape and you open 1H.

[awm]

I vote for pass. B)

[Guest Jlall]

I vote for pass. B)

just pretend you have a 15 count adam!

[MickyB]

I vote for pass. B)

just pretend you have a 15 count adam!

I thought we opened 1♠?

[gwnn]

I think Justin was referring to this: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=253085

[kenrexford]

Ditto the above.

 

I take this to the extreme and would rebid 2♣ after 1♥-P-1NT-P-? with 4531 pattern rather than 2♦.

[jdonn]

Ditto the above.

 

I take this to the extreme and would rebid 2♣ after 1♥-P-1NT-P-? with 4531 pattern rather than 2♦.

At some point you might as well just switch 1♠ and 1NT B)

[PassedOut]

At some point you might as well just switch 1♠ and 1NT :P

It was really irritating when the 1♠ - 1N intechange was taken off the ACBL's GCC. :angry:

[skjaeran]

I vote for pass. :)

Me too. Then I do play 1NT as NF. ;)

[kfay]

Some reasons...

 

1) Even if you play no systems over this auction, 2C gives partner more room. If he is say 1453 he can bid 2D over your 2C bid. If you bid 2D he cannot bid 3C with 1435 and will have to pass so you can play the 3-3 fit.

 

1a) You could just play a good system over 2C like bart and cannot play as good of a system over 2D. Some people even bid 2C with 5332 and 2 clubs for this reason.

 

2) If you can bid 2D on 5233 then your 2D bid loses definition, and you have no increased gain of definition in 2C since it can also be 5233. In general it is bad theoretically to have 2 bids for the same shape, and that is especially true in an auction like this. Usually partner can count on 2D being 4 diamonds unless you are exactly 5332 and can make better decisions because of that. Some people rebid 2C with 5332 also to give 2D even more definition which also ties into 1a.

Agree with all of this.

 

Learned the hard way playing money bridge with GIB.

[mikestar]

2♣ always, even on 5=3=3=2 (assuming partnership agreement, of course).

 

Let's define a losing case as where we end up in a six-card fit.

 

2♣ has a single losing case: partner has 1=4=4=4. We end up in 4-2 clubs instead of 4-3 diamonds.

 

2♦ has these losing cases:

• 1=4=3=5
  
• 1=3=3=6 with weak clubs
  
• 0=4=3=6 with weak clubs
  

If you avoid the last two losing cases by bidding 3♣ anyway, you will lose back your gains when opener isn't 5-3-3-2.

 

Also, 2♣ gives you a better chance that the opponents will balance and rescue you from your six-card fit. They must exists some hands where an opponent would chance 2♦ over 2♣ but would not bid 3♣ over 2♦ on the same hand with the minors reversed.

 

 

Given that 2♣ more often works better constructively as well, this is a no brainer to me.

 

 

By the way, I'm equally fine with 1♥-1NT-2♣ on 3=5=3=2. There are no losing cases at all for 2♣, but 3=1=3=6 with weak clubs is still problematic for 2♦.

 

Playing this way also handles the dreaded 4=5=2=2 nicely for those of us whose wouldn't be caught dead playing F******y or need 2♦ for something else in their methods.