21 pts witn singleton Ace - opening?

[jikl]

1♠ for me, if partner can't muster up a response then I am probably where I should be.

 

Sean

[Fluffy]

If anything, being in third position means that being an Ace short for a 2♣ opening won't be as painy as it should.

 

At the table I would open 1♠ without a second thought, now I read about it, I see some merit on opening 2NT, but I'd rater promote my hand to the 22-23 range.

[Rossoneri]

1♠. Don't like my options after opening 2♣ and rebidding 2♠.

[jillybean]

Oh, I missed the 3rd seat part - 1♠ is probably enough now.

Hey Jilly. I'm curious why you think being in 3rd seat makes 1♠ more obvious than it would otherwise have been. I don't think that makes much of a difference to me one way or the other, and in fact the (small) factors I can think of would if anything point me closer to 2♣ in 3rd seat compared to 1st (but I'd rather not get into those factors unless someone really wants to hear.)

Hi, I play 2♣ as 100% game force, I don’t usually play 2♥ bust. Its an upgrade to open 2♣ so I think its better after partner has passed to down grade to 1♠.

If partner shows any life we wont miss game but we could avoid a disaster.

 

Yes, I want to hear why its closer to a 2♣ opening in 3rd seat for you.

[Codo]

If 2 ♣ is 100% gf you have no problem, open 1 ♠

If 2 ♣ is semiforcing (Benjamin) no problem, 2♣

So for all of us who play 2 ♣ as something inbetween, it is a borderline hand and I would open it 1 ♠.

 

Being in third seat would make me open 2 ♣ more often then being in another seat. In 3. seat my openings can be truly light, so I would try to open stronger with these borderline hands.

[Viren169]

Hi,

 

1S seems right for this hand.

 

The downside is that Pd may pass when you have game, there are many upsides, as pointed out by others! Besides the opps are usually there to balance - I havent played in a 1-level contract below 1N for some time!

 

Regards,

Viren

[G-Bear]

More important than whether to open 1♠ or 2♣ is "What are your partnership agreements, understandings and style? What does your partner expect if you open 2♣?

 

My vote is for 1♠, which promises a 5-card suit and 12-21 points which is exactly what you have after you downgrade the hand.

 

The downgrades (IMHO) include:

1. Singleton ♣A (I don't like singleton aces until I know more about pard's hand)

2. ♥QJx which are overvalued unless partner has something in hearts (if the QJ were in the spade or diamond suit I would like the hand a lot better)

3. Not a very strong spade suit for a 2♣ bid

[kenrexford]

I still don't get the problem.

 

Suppose that I open 2♣. If partner bids 2♦, we arer in a GF sequence (I'm assuming). I bid 2♠. If partner does not have three spades, and does not have his own suit, he bids 2NT. If I now bid 3♦, he will presumably bid 3♠ when he has two spades, after which I can bid 3NT comfortably. Or, if he has one spade, he must have either a 3NT or a 3♥ bid, after the latter of which I bid 3NT. If he bids 3NT, I'm not concerned about the wrong-siding, because 1♠-P-1NT wrongsides worse.

 

So, what about after a 2♥ response? I now bid 2♠, presumably hear something intelligent, and then make a similarly intelligent follow-up.

 

Nothing seems bad yet.

 

So, what about if he has hearts? Again -- no problem. He bids them, and I raise them.

 

So, the remaining problem seems to be when Responder gets too excited.

 

Could he get too excited about a spade fit? Not really -- he would bid something flashy over 2♠, but I can slow that auction down.

 

Could he get excited about a diamond fit? Maybe, in which case I'm not that upset, because his excitement would be based on something intelligent, as well. I don't exactly have a worthless hand.

 

Could he force some spade or diamond contract if I rebid 2♠ and then 3♦? I suppose, but then is that all bad? I don't particularly like the stiff Ace if partner has nothing there and wild interest in diamonds. I don't really see that as a realistic possibility, though.

 

I guess that I don't see what the problem is with opening 2♣. I understand the general idea that 2♣ openings are abused, and that you look impressive the more willing you are to open strong hands at the one-level, but this seems easy. I have my 21 HCP, my 9 losers, and my rebids planned. I have a fair shot of making game opposite something as light as ♠xxx ♥10xx ♦xx ♣xxxxx. Win the spade lead, A-K-ruff a diamond, club back, ruff a diamond (losing allowed), ruff the club back, pull two trump, heart out, ruff the club back, heart out, ruff the club back, claim the 13th trick as the established heart.

[jdonn]

Oh, I missed the 3rd seat part - 1♠ is probably enough now.

Hey Jilly. I'm curious why you think being in 3rd seat makes 1♠ more obvious than it would otherwise have been. I don't think that makes much of a difference to me one way or the other, and in fact the (small) factors I can think of would if anything point me closer to 2♣ in 3rd seat compared to 1st (but I'd rather not get into those factors unless someone really wants to hear.)

Hi, I play 2♣ as 100% game force, I don’t usually play 2♥ bust. Its an upgrade to open 2♣ so I think its better after partner has passed to down grade to 1♠.

If partner shows any life we wont miss game but we could avoid a disaster.

 

Yes, I want to hear why its closer to a 2♣ opening in 3rd seat for you.

Two reasons really.

- My partners don't stretch to respond as light opposite a 3rd seat opener, because both opponents have already passed so we aren't that interested in trying to steal the hand from them. Therefore opening a very heavy hand on the 1 level is more risky.

- I myself am opening lighter in 3rd seat than in other seats, so if I don't reduce the top end then the whole range has become wider.

 

These are both just small factors, but I can't think of any that point the other way. Maybe there are some that someone will point out though.

[DrTodd13]

It depends a bit on what one knows about partner. I see an awful lot of people passing with even 6 or 7 points opposite a 1-level opening. If I know partner will stretch to bid then I may settle for 1♠ but if I don't know my partner's tendencies then 2♣, imo, is less likely to result in a disaster.

[fred]

I still don't get the problem.

 

Suppose that I open 2♣.  If partner bids 2♦, we arer in a GF sequence (I'm assuming).  I bid 2♠.  If partner does not have three spades, and does not have his own suit, he bids 2NT.  If I now bid 3♦, he will presumably bid 3♠ when he has two spades, after which I can bid 3NT comfortably.  Or, if he has one spade, he must have either a 3NT or a 3♥ bid, after the latter of which I bid 3NT.  If he bids 3NT, I'm not concerned about the wrong-siding, because 1♠-P-1NT wrongsides worse.

I have a different way of looking at 3D than you do.

 

For me the 2C opener should not be thinking of routinely "patterning out" his 5431 hands unless he has extra values.

 

The advantage to this approach is that 3D becomes a strong statement, either of a very suit-oriented hand (ie 10 cards in the 2 suits or maybe 2 very strong suits if 5-4) or extra high cards (if random 5-4).

 

In other words, for me when opener has a (sub-)minimum 2C opening, he can limit his hand with 3NT. Meanwhile the range of the unlimited 3D is narrowed.

 

My approach will work better on some hands and yours will work better on some hands. Obviously I like my way better, but I doubt I could easily (if at all) demontrate that my way is better (whatever that means) and for all I know it may not be better at all (whatever that means). Probably you find all of this to be interesting, but sorry I am not interested in a debate on this subject at this time :P

 

Of course what is better is partly a function of when you open 2C and, since I do not open 2C on hands like the one in this thread and you do, it is not surprising that we see this auction differently - you need to find a way to bid this hand and I don't.

 

Anyways, I hope you can at least see where I am coming from now...

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[ArtK78]

It depends a bit on what one knows about partner. I see an awful lot of people passing with even 6 or 7 points opposite a 1-level opening. If I know partner will stretch to bid then I may settle for 1♠ but if I don't know my partner's tendencies then 2♣, imo, is less likely to result in a disaster.

I saw this the other day. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would pass out a full 6 count opposite a one level opener.

 

I had the pleasure of playing in 1♥ on these cards:

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sxxhxdkqjxct98xxx&s=skjxhatxxxd9xcajx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Thanks to significant misdefense by my opponents, I made 1♥. My pard (who was a semi-pickup - he was recommended to me by someone who I thought was a friend of mine) insisted that pass was the right call on his cards.

 

Oh, well. I suppose playing in 1♥ is better than a minor suit slam if I had a big major-minor two suiter with controls, like:

 

A

Axxxx

Ax

AJxxx

 

7♣ is on a 1-1 club break, but I am playing in 1♥.

[kenrexford]

I'll further the debate. Fred, you can sneak a peek but refrain, if you want. :)

 

Here's the "other problem" I see to this hand.

 

Suppose you do start 1♠. If partner raises you, you end up in the strange nether-world of invitational/slammish next calls and other auctions that few find easy. This should be better than the alternative, admittedly.

 

However, if partner does not raise, you end up with several problems.

 

First, partner will undoubtedly bid 1NT quite often. Quite often, then, my cards will be on dummy. I'm not sure that this is good.

 

Second, after 1NT, I have a tough rebid. If I do bid 3♦, this seems worse than the "pattern out" problem with a 2♣ opening, because my diamond length is wildly unknown. I might have a fragment, or I might be 6-4, or I might have 5-5, or I might have this hand.

 

Once I do bid 3♦, I'm not sure that I do much to get us safely to 3NT. If partner is concerned about 3NT after I show a 21-count, how sure will he be about side stops when my hand is all the more likely to have COV problems?

 

I mean, every single point of problem that I see with 2♣...2♠...3♦ seems tame in comparison to the problems after 1♠...3♦, and we end up at the same level with less assurance of diamonds as real and more concern over whether Opener has a problem hand.

 

Contrasting this is the idea of 2♣...2♠...3♦ as a more powerhouse, heavy COV hand, but that holding seems RARE as heck, and one where I can stand the occasional 4♦ rebid.

 

Add in the 1♠-P-P-P making four problem.

 

But, maybe this is a matter of style.

[han]

(he was recommended to me by someone who I thought was a friend of mine)

:P