Is this a 2 Clubs FG opening?

[Hanoi5]

All white, dealer passes and you hold?

 

♠AQJxxx

♥A9x

♦KQ

♣KQ

 

Do you?

[Jlall]

I would open 2C, it's a little light but you have no rebids if you open 1S so I think it's practical.

[gwnn]

I am happy nowadays to open these weakish 1 suiters 2♣ (just like I am happy to open some 14-15 counts with 1 good suit with a strong ♣)

[pooltuna]

All white, dealer passes and you hold?

 

♠AQJxxx

♥A9x

♦KQ

♣KQ

 

Do you?

a shade too light for me so I would call 1♠ and worry about any rebids later

[gordontd]

Five losers & 4.5 quick tricks. Seems a bit light to me. I'll start with 1♠ and force to game if partner responds. If not, we may well not be making game.

[mikeh]

Your question contains a hidden subtext: is 2♣ FG?

 

Your question assumes that it is, but my understanding, which is not as current as I'd like it to be, is that common usage allows the auction to die short of game.

 

Certainly, I think everybody with whose methods I am familar, plays that a rebid of 2N may be passed, and I think it fairly common to play that 2♣ is forcing to 2N, 3M or 4m...if, like me, you play 2♥ immediate negative, then you probably play, like me, that it is forcing to 2N, 3S, or 4other suit.

 

This may not matter, but if you do indeed play 2♣ as FG, that may make you decide that this hand may be worth a not-quite FG bid, but not a true FG bid.

 

As for me: if you'd asked me two years ago, I'd have very firmly said this is too weak for 2♣.

 

One of the results of my reading posts here, and of reading Bridge Worlds, and of playing with a new partner is that all three sources suggest that my approach may be too restrictive.

 

So, I have decided that from now on I open this hand 2♣. Of course, I will probably never hold this hand, so this promise costs me little.

 

Edit: this hand is an absolute minimum even for the new, bolder, looser me...and I choose it primarily because I don't know what to bid after 1♠

[blackshoe]

I agree with Gordon. This is not a game forcing hand on its own merits.

 

When I hold hands like this, I wish I was playing Precision. Or Romex.

[Cyberyeti]

I agree with Gordon. This is not a game forcing hand on its own merits.

 

When I hold hands like this, I wish I was playing Precision. Or Romex.

Old fashioned acol strong 2S also works.

 

The question is, "what are you going to do when partner responds 1N to 1S".

[Phil]

If I have a way to show a GF single suiter if pard responds 1N I will open 1S. Otherwise 2C.

[mikeh]

If I have a way to show a GF single suiter if pard responds 1N I will open 1S. Otherwise 2C.

I have that method (a js to 3♣, multi=purpose, partner bids 3♦ relay if interested) but I wouldn't use it here...this hand, with 14 hcp outside of spades, weakish spades (in context) and stopper everywhere, doesn't look like a pure one-suiter...I'd rather bid 3N over 1N, if I opened 1♠

[Phil]

Crackberry double post.

[the hog]

1S for me. I agree that it is a tad too weak for 2C.

[nigel_k]

I would open 1♠ and prefer to play 2♣ forcing to game after a suit rebid. Usually responder doesn't have a complete yarborough and doesn't know if his few cards are the right ones. Even if I could stop in 3♠ after a 2♣ opening I would probably still open 1♠ though it is closer.

 

You could also play that 1♠-1NT-3NT shows this hand type (6322 or maybe also 6331) since 5332 shapes are already limited to a 2 point range and can just rebid 2NT.

[helene_t]

I have no problem with a 3NT rebid after a 1NT response. Does that systematically show something different?

[Free]

1♠, I don't have problems with showing a strong hand later.

[Little Kid]

1♠ and 3NT for me too, which shows a semi-balanced hand with 6 very good ♠s.

[gordontd]

The question is, "what are you going to do when partner responds 1N to 1S".

With one of my partners I'd rebid 2♥, which is a transfer, and then bid 3NT which shows this hand.

 

Otherwise I'd rebid 3♣. Rebidding 3NT is not terrible, but it does make it harder to find 4♥ or 4♠ when they are better contracts.

[gordontd]

I think it fairly common to play that 2♣ is forcing to 2N, 3M or 4m...if, like me, you play 2♥ immediate negative, then you probably play, like me, that it is forcing to 2N, 3S, or 4other suit.

I don't know that it's common, though I know some play it this way. The trouble with this hand is that if your partner responds 2♦, forcing to game, you won't have any certainty of making game even if your partner has trump support and the king of trumps or an ace. That being the case, I think 2♣ is simply an overbid.

 

The broader problem with your method is that it's unclear in which circumstances you can stop short of game, and what you need to do to avoid being passed out in a part-score when you want to investigate further for slam.

[aguahombre]

If I have a way to show a GF single suiter if pard responds 1N I will open 1S.

......doesn't look like a pure one-suiter...I'd rather bid 3N over 1N, if I opened 1♠

By definition, 1S-1N;3N* shows six spades in ours, so this becomes a non-problem.

[whereagles]

Seems like an easy hand to bid:

 

2♣ 2♦

2♠ any

3NT

 

If you open 1♠, you risk to hear the dreaded

 

1♠ 1NT

 

after which you'll be pretty much stuck for a bid:

 

- 3♠ is an underbid

- 3m or 3♥ = lol (in my opinion)

- 2NT is a misdescription and underbid (though probably the best bid here)

- 4♠ is a flyer

[Phil]

If I have a way to show a GF single suiter if pard responds 1N I will open 1S. Otherwise 2C.

I have that method (a js to 3♣, multi=purpose, partner bids 3♦ relay if interested) but I wouldn't use it here...this hand, with 14 hcp outside of spades, weakish spades (in context) and stopper everywhere, doesn't look like a pure one-suiter...I'd rather bid 3N over 1N, if I opened 1♠

Mike, in your opinion, how do you differentiate between:

 

1♠ - 1N - 3N; and

 

1♠ - 1N - 3♣ (multi-way) - 3♦ - 3♠; and

 

1♠ - 1N - 4x (non♠'s) (ostensibly an auto-splinter)?

 

Thanks.

[mikeh]

If I have a way to show a GF single suiter if pard responds 1N I will open 1S. Otherwise 2C.

I have that method (a js to 3♣, multi=purpose, partner bids 3♦ relay if interested) but I wouldn't use it here...this hand, with 14 hcp outside of spades, weakish spades (in context) and stopper everywhere, doesn't look like a pure one-suiter...I'd rather bid 3N over 1N, if I opened 1♠

Mike, in your opinion, how do you differentiate between:

 

1♠ - 1N - 3N; and

 

1♠ - 1N - 3♣ (multi-way) - 3♦ - 3♠; and

 

1♠ - 1N - 4x (non♠'s) (ostensibly an auto-splinter)?

 

Thanks.

1♠  1N  3N need not be 6+ spades, for one thing: it's how I would bid a 19 count with 5 good spades, assuming I hadn't upgraded to 2N. I wouldn't usually upgrade if my spades were good and I held an unstopped side suit....say AKQxx xx AJx KQx....I'd be worried that 4♠ or 5minor would be better than 3N and be unfindable after 2N, but would always bid 3N over 1N.

 

The pure one suiter will usually be flawed for notrump, else 3N is too attractive, and will often have 7 cards in the major...many balanced hands with 6 spades will prefer 3N and many unbalanced hands will have a biddable 4 card side suit.

 

BTW, 3♣ shows either blacks, or spades, or exactly 4 hearts, freeing up the js to 3♥ to promise 5 cards, which simplifies responder's rebid when he is 1=3 or 2=3 in the majors.

 

As for the auto splinter....I don't think I have ever even seen that sequence let alone bid it myself. I am not saying it's not a good use...tho I am a bit worried about what responder is going to do over it that can't be done by establishing the gf 1-suiter at the level of 3♠....I can see pros and cons. I think I'd need to run some simulations.....these hand types are so uncommon that there's no point is simply waiting to see which is better at the table.

[billw55]

hmm nobody for opening 2NT? I wouldn't but I thought somebody might.

 

I am not fond of the short suit honors, so I choose 1♠.

[awm]

As for the auto splinter....I don't think I have ever even seen that sequence let alone bid it myself. I am not saying it's not a good use...tho I am a bit worried about what responder is going to do over it that can't be done by establishing the gf 1-suiter at the level of 3♠....I can see pros and cons. I think I'd need to run some simulations.....these hand types are so uncommon that there's no point is simply waiting to see which is better at the table.

This is interesting because I've made the auto-splinter bid on numerous occasions and I'm sure that Mikeh has played more bridge hands than I have.

 

The hand where I have seven-plus good spades and a bit too much in the way of values to open 4♠ comes up with reasonable frequency. I really don't like the sequence 1♠-1N-4♠, because the reason I opened 1♠ (rather than four) was to find a marginal slam and I feel like partner will have no idea what to do with a random ten-count in this auction.

 

Obviously I could try for 3NT (and sometimes 3NT is best) but this is not too appealing when I have a small singleton or a void somewhere (as I often will, with seven-plus good spades). The issue is that partner will not know to "only pass 3NT with stuff in my short suit" and in fact he's going to pass 3NT almost all the time (barring 3-card spade support or a super-max that might make slam). I think I'd rather take my chances in 4♠ (which will usually make) than basically gamble on 3NT.

 

Perhaps if I had Mikeh's specific agreement about the three-way 3♣ jump shift, or was playing Gazzilli, I would have other options, but assuming "regular" 2/1 jump shifting in a fake minor suit is not that appealing and it's not clear that this will lead to a better auction than just blasting 4♠.

 

So my view is that most of the time when I have seven-plus good spades and a small singleton or void and a hand too good to open 4♠, I'm opening 1♠ and making the auto-splinter.

[Echognome]

1♠  1N  3N need not be 6+ spades, for one thing: it's how I would bid a 19 count with 5 good spades, assuming I hadn't upgraded to 2N. I wouldn't usually upgrade if my spades were good and I held an unstopped side suit....say AKQxx xx AJx KQx....I'd be worried that 4♠ or 5minor would be better than 3N and be unfindable after 2N, but would always bid 3N over 1N.

What is 1♠ - 1N; 2N for you?