Why open 1 diamond with 4-4 in the minors.

[OleBerg]

Why open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors? (As a general rule. I can make up the exceptions myself.)

 

I have never heard of any europeans doing this, and I am almost 100% sure, that no scandinavian international players do that.

 

However, it seem relatively popular in the forum, so it must have some merit.

 

What is it?

[awm]

It's a popular style in the United States (I think much less so in Europe).

 

There are a couple advantages to this style:

 

(1) You can rebid the other minor without reversing. Now, if you are balanced you plan to rebid notrump, but there are some auctions like 1m-(2♠)-X-(Pass) where you don't really want to bid notrump without a particular stopper, and it is handy to have opened 1♦ so you can rebid 3♣. This can even come up in uncontested sequences like 1m-P-2nt (invitational)-P.

 

(2) The diamond opening more or less promises four, so partner is more apt to raise it in competition to an effective level, whereas partner has to be much more conservative opposite a 1♣ opening which is frequently three cards on a balanced hand.

 

The main disadvantage is that you lose space in an uncontested auction, but since Walsh responses are so popular in the US the auction 1♣-P-1♦ is quite rare in any case.

[hotShot]

You have a small advantage in competitive bidding when you can find 8 card fits at the 2-level.

 

Acol player know that from auctions like 1M - 2m -?

With 3 cards support responder needs to know if opener had 4 or 5 cards in his suit.

 

Playing a 5 card major system you are vulnerable to sequences like:

1m - 1M - ?

With 4 cards responder likes to know if opener held 3 or 4 cards.

Some solve this problem by opening 2+♣ to ensure that ♦ is 4 cards.

Since you only open 4432 shape with 3 ♦, you will usually find partner with 4♦, if you add those shapes with 44 or even 45 in the minors the fraction in 3 card 1♦ openings gets even smaller.

 

So opening 44 with ♦ has about the same advantage as a 2+♣ opening without losing the 3 card length in ♣.

[mike777]

I think this is just a hotly debated issue, ongoing, with decent opinions on both sides.

 

Just as often discussed is do you rebid 1nt with a stiff or do you raise a major on 3 card support.

 

1) If you are 4-4 in the minors and open one club and your partner very often by- passes 1d with longer d and 4 card major and less than game force or 4d and 4 card major and game force hand.......what do you rebid over the major?

 

2) OTOH if you bid up the line......you have different issues.

 

3) OTOH if the opp overcall often and you open 1c you have different issues.

 

4) now compound all of the above issues if you open alot of unbalanced ten=eleven point hands or balanced 11-12 pt hands.

[mikeh]

This is a complex topic and I may not do it justice.... in fact, I am sure that this post, being my initial thoughts, will be incomplete and that others will be able to point to flaws in the argument.

 

We have to have some ground rules as to basic style.

 

For example, my preferred walsh-type approach has the following principles:

 

1. Open 1♣ on out-of-nt-range 4=4=3=2 hands

2. Bypass diamonds as responder with non gf hands (strong walsh) hands with 4 card major and longer diamonds

3. Rebid 1N with all balanced in range hands after a 1♣  1♦ start

4. Do not rebid 1N after 1minor - 1♠ when I hold a stiff spade (so 1=4=4=4 is impossible for me after 1♣)

5. 2-way new minor, so that after opener rebids 1N over 1M, responder can escape to diamonds easily.

6 Tend NOT to rebid 1N after 1m (1M) x (P) without a stopper.. so that if I held xxx Qx AKxx KJxx and partner doubled the 1♠ overcall, I'd tend to bid 2♣.

 

Within this framework, or any lesser walsh.. where one bypasses diamonds to show a major unless invitational or better (weak walsh), opening 1♣ is theoretically far more difficult than opening 1♦.

 

Change the framework, and the arguments shift.

 

Thus, being willing to frequently rebid notrump without a stopper reduces that issue. Note, however, that I gave a simple and inexpensive example, in which our rebid was at the one-level.... if we play there and they run their suit, we still may make 7 or 8 tricks... and we have lots of room to explore. But what if we open 1♣ and they overcall 2M... and partner doubles.... now we have less room... and less chance of surviving if they can run their 6 card suit. Yes, we have a cue at the 3-level to sort out stoppers, but that is not entirely free of cost.

 

Responding strictly up the line, and having opener show 4 card majors even with balanced hands after a 1♦ response also greatly changes the issues.

 

But even this isn't free of implications.

 

Consider a walsh type sequence that begins 1♣  1♦  , opener's raise guarantees shape.. opener must be 4=5 or longer in the minors. If we open 1♣ with 4=4, do we raise 1♦ with 4=4 and a balanced hand or do we rebid 1N? If we rebid 1N, as I suspect most would, then we haven't increased our chances of finding the diamond fit after all...which is one of the usual arguments put forward by the 1♣ crowd.

 

This is very much an initial post... altho I will try to restrain myself.

 

I will be interested in hearing the extent to which overall methodology impacts the arguments in favour of 1♣. I suspect that any plausible arguments will be based on some strikingly different systemic approaches.

 

This type of discussion, btw, is reflective of the complexity of the interactions between various choices facing system designers, and the lack of awareness of these factors explains why so many home-grown methods (see another current thread) are less than successful.

[hanp]

6 Tend NOT to rebid 1N after 1m (1M) x (P) without a stopper.. so that if I held xxx Qx AKxx KJxx and partner doubled the 1♠ overcall, I'd tend to bid 2♣.

Among those mentioned by mikeh this is for me the most important reason not to open 1C with such a hand. We frequently rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit so that is not an issue, but on various competitive auctions is it convenient to be able to open 1D and rebid 2C or 3C.

 

There are also some convenient inferences. For example, if the auction goes 1C-1M-1NT-2D-2NT, then I would expect partner to have 5 clubs.

 

I do think it is a good idea to open 1C instead of 1D with something like Kx KJx xxxx AQJx. It is unlikely that you will face rebid problems and there are various upsides to bidding a suit in which you have honors (lead directing, for finding the right game, helps partner picture your hand in slam auctions.)

 

Ira Chorush taught me to open 1C with very strong hands for the reason I mentioned in the other thread.

 

Playing transfers over 1C (and liking that) might be another reason to open 1C instead of 1D.

[mike777]

To change Han's hand slightly I wonder what advocates of one club bid do the same with:

 

Kx...Kxx....xxxx....AQJx

 

strong clubs, lead direct etc...but opp do bid often or if this is too strong, make it a minimum...

[hanp]

I would open 1C with that hand Mike. There aren't many auctions where 1C gives me a headache next.

[mike777]

"I think this is just a hotly debated issue, ongoing, with decent opinions on both sides.

 

Just as often discussed is do you rebid 1nt with a stiff or do you raise a major on 3 card support."

 

 

As Han pointed out if you are willing to rebid 1nt with a stiff in partner's suit.....that changes the issues...also how often do you raise on 3 card support. These are hotly debated issues but fun to discuss.

 

On other competitive deals you may prefer opening 1d.

[Codo]

The biggest advantage I see, is in competetive bidding.

 

When you do not play that X just shows the other major, you are much better placed after 1♦ (1♠) X (pass) 2♣ then vice versa.

 

And I disagree that it is not common in Europe. Everywhere, where the bidding is influenced by the french style, this is common, because it is part of SEF.

However, I guess it is gettting lesser and lesser popular with all the transferbids after the 1♣ opening, so that many people prefer to open 1 ♣.

[helene_t]

I thought opening 1♦ was standard in Europe. In the Netherlands, beginners are taught up-the-line but I think all the stronger players that I know open 1♦ unless they play a style in which 1♦ tends to be unbalanced so they would open 1♣ with 4M4♦ also.

[Fluffy]

I have never heard of any europeans doing this, and I am almost 100% sure, that no scandinavian international players do that.

Before hearing this I would had bet 100% French people open 1♦ with 4-4 diamonds.

 

I learnt this as a basic rule. The important principle is that clubs are often 3 cards, diamonds are not. And then you find a fit more often in diamonds if it turns competitive since partner is happy raising with 4 cards.

[OleBerg]

Thank you all for your replies.

 

It seems I have assumed to much about the European style.

 

Anyway, I've been stuck often enough in sequences like 1♣ - (1♠) - X - (Pass), that I should have figured that one out.

 

MikeH wrote:

 

"I will be interested in hearing the extent to which overall methodology impacts the arguments in favour of 1♣."

 

One thing that occurred to me, is that NT-range might have an effect. Proponents of the weak NT often argues, that it is not when you bid 1NT (12-14) that it shines, but rather when you do not bid it.

 

Thus in the sequence:

 

1♣ - (1♠) - X - (Pass)

 

you are much less likely to be stuck, as opener will have either an unbalanced hand or extra strength (15+).

(And as 12-14NT is very, very popular among strong players in Scandinavia, the problem would likely crop up with a much smaller frequency. Furthermore, for simplicity's sake beginners are taught to bid up the line in DK, so that could very well have an impact on why it isn't even discussed here.)