MFA Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 AAQT7KQJ8543A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Definitely 1♦ for me. I can understand some people might want to open 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDluxe Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 1♦, 2♣ understandable but inferior methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 2♣ seems obvious to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manudude03 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 This depends on the field for me. In my local, I wouldn't be comfortable enough to open 1D due to the very real chance of 1D AP. However, in a very aggressive field, it would be great to see an auction like 1D-2S-P-3SX-P-4C-P5D... and your hand is pretty much fully described. At WvR, its a clear 2C opener though, partner will never appreciate how good this hand is while not raising on the wrong hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Polish style 1♣ if available. Else 2♣ for me. If pard can't bid hearts, I'll play 5♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds. Not because I want to play in hearts, but to help partner evaluate. If not I'll open 1♦ even though I think it's worth 2♣. It's easy to say we have slam opposite (for example) the heart king, but that only helps us if we reach it opposite the heart king and not another king or no kings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 2♦, unbalanced GF with diamonds or 21-22, 7 controls, balanced. We have ways to find the heart fit if it's there. If that's not available, 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 2♣ despite the awkward shape. Just too much strength to represent the power of this hand with a 1♦ opening and get partner to cooperate intelligently. Also, with half the deck and all but one of the aces, I have a legitimate fear of 1♦ being passed out despite the 1-4-7-1 shape. 3NT is likely to be cold opposite most hands with 5-4 or 4-5 in the blacks, and 5♦ is a likely make opposite any hand with a heart card of J or higher, and some hands without that good of a heart holding. I voted 2♣, with 1♦ being inferior. In all likelihood, you can get away with opening 1♦ on this hand. But for the reasons stated I believe that 2♣ is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 1♦, might take advantage of the fact that it denies 5 card major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 3♠ showing a 1=4=7=1 game force. If I'm not allowed to make up a system which has a call that shows this exact hand, then I will open 2♣ or 1♦ depending on my methods over 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianshark Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I hate opening 2♣, but even I will open this hand 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I voted for 2♣, 1♦ doesn't seem terrible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds. Not because I want to play in hearts, but to help partner evaluate. If not I'll open 1♦ even though I think it's worth 2♣. It's easy to say we have slam opposite (for example) the heart king, but that only helps us if we reach it opposite the heart king and not another king or no kings. agreed.. josh's point about helping partner is something that (seems to me) is often overlooked or not sufficiently valued by those who open shapely hands, with fewer than the traditional hcp, with 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Some people playh 2♣-2♦-3M = diamonds and 4 in the bid major. That would be good for this hand. Otherwise I'll open 1♦, as I will have trouble showing x46+x after a 2♣ opener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I also am afraid of this getting passed out in 1♦. I open 2♣, maybe something create will arise to help me show my hearts, or extra ♦ length... I don't like any of my choices here :P (Precision is so much better here :)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 2♦, Acol two. No reason to make system up!Failing that I don't feel strongly between the two options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 So, two votes for 2♦, for different reasons and using different systems. No, I didn't make up my 2♦ bid eiher. It's Romex's Mexican 2♦. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 So, two votes for 2♦, for different reasons and using different systems. No, I didn't make up my 2♦ bid eiher. It's Romex's Mexican 2♦. :P I believe that the Mexican 2♦ opening as developed by George Rosenkranz showed a balanced hand of 19-20 HCP. There is a variation of the Mexican 2♦ opening developed later by others which included three types of hands: (1) a balanced hand of 21-22 HCP; (2) a super-strong balanced hand of 27-28 HCP; or (3) a strong hand with primary diamonds. It is this third variety which you must be referring to. I don't know if this variation was a part of the Romex system. Then again, I haven't played the Romex system in about 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 The main difference from this hand and the other is that even though I'm missing only 20 HCP (instead of 25) I'm not as afraid of the bid being passed around because I have only one spade. People love bidding spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 We'll assume S/A here. If I open 2♣, PD usually bids 2♦ and then I have to bid 3♦ and ♥ can get lost. I do have a swan so that may not be so bad, but I prefer to start with 1♦ here since I don't expect this to be passed out very often.I also think I prefer the given hand be declarer in a ♦ contract rather than dummy after a likely 2♦ response to 2♣. Give me just one more HCP and the chances for pass out when we have game increase and I'll open 2♣ then. EDIT: Oops forgot to mention that I voted 1♦ but don't mind 2♣ all that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 So, two votes for 2♦, for different reasons and using different systems. No, I didn't make up my 2♦ bid eiher. It's Romex's Mexican 2♦. :) I believe that the Mexican 2♦ opening as developed by George Rosenkranz showed a balanced hand of 19-20 HCP. There is a variation of the Mexican 2♦ opening developed later by others which included three types of hands: (1) a balanced hand of 21-22 HCP; (2) a super-strong balanced hand of 27-28 HCP; or (3) a strong hand with primary diamonds. It is this third variety which you must be referring to. I don't know if this variation was a part of the Romex system. Then again, I haven't played the Romex system in about 20 years. The latest books on Romex were written in the 1990s - by Rosenkranz and Phillip Alder. Those books describe as "Mexican 2♦" the opening I mentioned. I have a write up on my website. It would surprise me greatly if Rosenkranz didn't have a hand in the development of these later versions of the Mexican Two Diamonds. Not just because his name is on these books, but because of the way in which they refer to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 The last pair I met who played Romex played the 3 way 2D opening as described in an above post. Nice in theory to have two strong bids, but there's quite a large cost involved (i.e. not having 2D available as something pre-emptive). Agree with the Gnome and others about my 2C methods having a great deal to do with my decision what to open here. If fairly standard (i.e. not thought through properly) then I open 1D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryallen Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 2♣ despite the awkward shape. Just too much strength to represent the power of this hand with a 1♦ opening and get partner to cooperate intelligently. Also, with half the deck and all but one of the aces, I have a legitimate fear of 1♦ being passed out despite the 1-4-7-1 shape. 3NT is likely to be cold opposite most hands with 5-4 or 4-5 in the blacks, and 5♦ is a likely make opposite any hand with a heart card of J or higher, and some hands without that good of a heart holding. I voted 2♣, with 1♦ being inferior. In all likelihood, you can get away with opening 1♦ on this hand. But for the reasons stated I believe that 2♣ is better. With the singletons held, I doubt 1♦ would get passed out, but I fully agree with every thing else. When you require so little points wise for slam, showing your strength at a later point may not be fully possible. Opening 2♣ allows any further bids over interference greater clarity, something which could easily be lost with interference? If you are opening 1♦, what chance has p got in even getting near understanding that his holding of 2 small ♦ and the KJ♥ will guarantee slam?If you can go through any auction without serious interference and the knowledge that p will not pass 1♦, you can do anything you wish, but what will happen in actuality and how difficult will it then be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 We'll assume S/A here. If I open 2♣, PD usually bids 2♦ and then I have to bid 3♦ and ♥ can get lost. I do have a swan so that may not be so bad, but I prefer to start with 1♦ here since I don't expect this to be passed out very often.I also think I prefer the given hand be declarer in a ♦ contract rather than dummy after a likely 2♦ response to 2♣. Give me just one more HCP and the chances for pass out when we have game increase and I'll open 2♣ then. Given your start 2 ♣ 2 ♦ 3 ♦ , your partner may bid 3 ♥ with some hearts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.