Your plan?

[flytoox]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saqt75h2dak8765cq]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

You deal yourself a very nice hand. What is your plan? Do you open 1D then jum shift to spades at some level or open 1S then rebid 4D to show (if possible) this hand?

[TylerE]

I strongly prefer 1♠ on this...treat it as a good 5-5.

 

♦ spots would need to be a lot better for me to open 1♦. T9 at the very least, pref. the J.

[655321]

Do you open 1D then jum shift to spades at some level or open 1S then rebid 4D to show (if possible) this hand?

None of the above.

 

Diamonds, then Spades, then Spades. Normal biddiing to show your 6-5, no jumping required.

[inquiry]

Diamond then SPADES, SPADES. That shows at least 5-6.

Of course, where allowed I would open MisIry, but that is a different discussion.

 

This hand reminds me of a hand in Card Reading, that was 5-2-6-0. The opening lead was the heart king and EAST had to work out that it was a stiff heart and overtake and give his partner a heart ruff to beat 6♦. The auction was something like

 

1D- 1H

2S - 3C

3S - 4D

4N - something

6D.

 

The entire card reading was to get the fact that opener was 5-6 from the auction.

[Jlall]

Do you open 1D then jum shift to spades at some level or open 1S then rebid 4D to show (if possible) this hand?

None of the above.

 

Diamonds, then Spades, then Spades. Normal biddiing to show your 6-5, no jumping required.

Meh I think 1D 1H 1S 1N 3S would be reasonable, just bidding 2S there could be like a 5-6 9 count or w/e.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I open diamonds, and then I bid / rebid spades in a forcing manner.

 

We play either spades or diamonds, and I am just interested in the

level (from 4S upwards).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hanp]

1D except in the unlikely event I play with fluffy.

 

Edit: Changed my mind, will open 1D even if I play with fluffy.

[Fluffy]

lol han, I am changing my views on the 5-6 approach from the years on the forums.

 

With spades I don't think 1♠ is the only possible bid (Except with both majors) any more. Althou my partners won't let me open 1m anyway.

 

With hearts you need to reach 4♥ ASAP and I will always open 1♥.

[whereagles]

Prefer 1♠. Willing to live with the cons of it.

[ONEferBRID]

This hand is strong enough to open 1♦ and reverse into ♠ and then rebid ♠ again.

However, if it goes thru 4th Suit GF, you may need a 3rd ♠ rebid to show your 5-6:

 

1D - 1H

1S - 2C!

2S = either a 5-6 or a 4-4 ( concept of "least plausible rebid ";

at this point Opener with a 4-4 can't support ♥, and doesn't have a ♣-stop for a 2NT rebid or 4 cds ♣ for a 3C rebid, and can't bid 3D without extra ♦ length ).

 

After Responder's 3rd bid, if Opener bids ♠ again ( 3S), it shows the 5-6.

[jdonn]

Do you open 1D then jum shift to spades at some level or open 1S then rebid 4D to show (if possible) this hand?

None of the above.

 

Diamonds, then Spades, then Spades. Normal biddiing to show your 6-5, no jumping required.

Meh I think 1D 1H 1S 1N 3S would be reasonable, just bidding 2S there could be like a 5-6 9 count or w/e.

Agree except I think you are being quite kind. I think 3♠ on the third round is clearly correct and 2♠ is quite wrong. Kxx of spades with partner is very close to game already.

[bid_em_up]

I strongly prefer 1♠ on this...treat it as a good 5-5.

I strongly prefer 1♠ 1♦ on this...treat it as a good 5-5. like the 5-6 it actually is.

[mikeh]

Hasn't this issue of 5-6 major-minor been beaten to death already? Other than Steve Robinson and the tiny minority who agree with him, every competent bridge player opens 1♦ (playing a standard-based method) for reasons that are or should be apparent to the meanest of intelligences.

 

As Justin points out, the issue really is the 3rd call: 1♦ then spades then jump in spades (assuming a 1N rebid by responder) is extremely descriptive while risking very little in terms of safety.

 

BTW, when our major is spades, the perverted desire to open the major becomes even less defensible than with, say, 5-6 reds.

 

After 1♦ 1♠, when we have reds, we have to reverse to show our hearts....we have to get to 3♥ to show our 5-6...and the combination of this issue means that it is often prudent to bid our weaker 5-6 openings as if they were 5-5.

 

But when we have spades.... partner (or the opps) won't be obstructing our auction as often, and, sometimes, when they do, our ability to bid spades conveniently is awesome.

 

Say we opened 1♠ and lho bid 4♥. Wouldn't we want to take another call? Yet how can we bid 5♦?

 

If we open 1♦, we have an easy 4♠ over 4♥.

 

And there are many other, less preempted, auctions on which 1♦ plainly works more effectively than 1♠.

[billw55]

So .. any 5M-6m that is worth opening, is worth reversing? This particular hand, OK. But with, say, AJxxx x KQxxxx x ... is everyone happy with 1♦-1NT-2♠?

[hanp]

So .. any 5M-6m that is worth opening, is worth reversing? This particular hand, OK. But with, say, AJxxx x KQxxxx x ... is everyone happy with 1♦-1NT-2♠?

no, not worth reversing.

 

This auction is not common btw, the opponents have 9+ hearts and the majority of the points.

[Siegmund]

My strong preference is to open the major with 5-6s, followed either by bidding diamonds twice, or, with some partners, having an agreement that an otherwise impossible jump shift (say, if our 1-bids are limited enough that the JS can't be a 20 point monster) shows the 5-6. Too often if I open the minor the bidding is already up to 4H when it comes back to me and I don't get the chance to ever bid the spades twice.

 

I have no particular argument with people who play the more traditional style.

 

It's something worth discussing with your partners, which opening they prefer, just so you can keep it in the back of your head if the sequence actually does come up.

[the hog]

Prefer 1♠. Willing to live with the cons of it.

I agree totally.

[mikeh]

Too often if I open the minor the bidding is already up to 4H when it comes back to me and I don't get the chance to ever bid the spades twice.

 

think about what you wrote...while once in a while opening 1♠ will preempt LHO, usually if they can reach 4♥ over 1♦, they will reach it over 1♠.

 

Which partnership is better off: the one that opened 1♦ and now bid 4♠ or the one that opened 1♠ and now either has to pass and never show the good 6 card suit, and thus never show the most important part of the hand...its shape/playing power....or commit to the 5-level in a sequence in which partner cannot even know that it is wrong to correct to spades with equal length in your suits?

 

This is not the main reason to bid in such a manner as to let partner know your hand, but it is an important one.

[Echognome]

Mikeh - We have to be a little bit careful. Most of your arguments have also been made by those that want to open 5-5 major/minor suit hands with 1m.

[mikeh]

Mikeh - We have to be a little bit careful.  Most of your arguments have also been made by those that want to open 5-5 major/minor suit hands with 1m.

The fact that the arguments for opening 1m with 5-5 contain similar statements to the arguments for opening 1m with 5-6 is immaterial.

 

It is incorrect imo to ever evaluate the merits of a treatment by focussing on only the arguments in favour. The arguments against deserve equal weight.

 

I have not tried, and the constraints of posting on a forum militate against trying, to list all of the arguments for and against opening 1m on 5-6. The arguments against opening 1m on 5-5 are significantly different from the arguments against opening 1m on 5-6.

 

In fact, some of the more cogent arguments for opening 1m on 5-6 are precisely the same arguments for opening 1M on 5-5!

 

As one example: shape....shape...shape.... all competent bridge players know that on shapely hands, distribution and degree of fit are of approximately equal weight to high card strength. We have all (I assume) bid and made slams on 15-18 hcp..why? Because of shape and fit.

 

Consider playing grand where we have no side losers and a choice of AKxxx AQxxxx opposite Qxx Kxx. At mps, we'd maybe, in a tough field and without 13 tops in notrump, choose the 5-3 major suit fit but at imps that would be lunacy.

 

Even if we agreed that we open 1M with 5-6, how can we ever hope to find the 6-3 side fit when responder has primary support for the major? I suspect that most auctions would prevent opener from even showing equal length, let alone longer length in the minor.

 

Similar arguments can be made for partials, games, and small slams...altho, for games, the arguments lose some force because major suit games require fewer tircks, of course. Indeed, we all know that there will be hands on which the 5-2 major is better even than the 6-4 or 6-5 minor, because, typically, we have 3 unavoidable losers. But we can often diagnose that after opening 1m with 5-6 anyway.

 

There are other arguments: but I would hope that this is enough to show that arguing for im on 5-6 is not remotely akin to arguing 1m on 5-5.

 

BTW, I play in a partnership where, to humour partner, we open 1♣ with most 5-5 blacks but I've never seen anyone above the level of beginner suggest it with other 5-5 major/minor combos.

[Echognome]

<Lots of stuff>

 

Thank you for being careful. :)