All Blacks

[mikeh]

Opening 3♣ then 4♠ is perfect if the opps permit it. Well. even then it isn't perfect...we need so little for slam.

 

I'd open 1♣. At least I know I'm getting to bid again.

 

And I don't consider that I have any agreement, explicit or otherwise, that my 1♣ opening may be this light on hcp. If and when it happens again with this partner, then we may have a problem. Since I expect to be long dead before that happens, I won't worry too much about it.

 

I'd far, far rather begin at the one-level than the 3-level even tho I am fully aware of the downsides should partner have a strong red hand. Tant pis.

 

Oh...I can't resist: LOL at the idea that the knock on 1♣ then spades is that the sequence is a 'complete misdescription' while opening 3♣ hoping/intending to bid 4♠ isn't.

 

Some hands are so out of the norm that no rational bidding system can afford any realistic description of them, and this is one of those hands.

 

A simulation might be fun, but probably of little help since I suspect a lot would depend on bidding choices by opps and partner and no simulation could adequately address these. A double-dummy analysis of the most probable making contracts won't help tell you how to get there after any particular start.

[cherdanno]

Why is opening 3♣, then later volunteering 4♠ a complete misdescription? What kind of hand would you expect?

[ONEferBRID]

There is another recent thread [ http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=40724 ] where I showed a system for opening 1C with a minimum ( or sub-minimum ) 5-5 in the blacks.

 

Let's say partner has a good hand with one or both red suits and the opps are nice enough not to interfere ( unlikely here ) :

 

1C - 1R ( Red suit )

1S - 2oR! ( other-Red suit, 4th suit GF )

2S!* - 2NT ( or 3R or 3oR )

3S**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2S!* = minimum or sub-minimum 5-5 in the blacks

( whereas a 3S-jump would show at least a 5s/6c w/hcp worthy of a reverse )

 

3S** now would show at least a 5s/6c minimum ( or sub-minimum ), ie a hand where the trick-taking ability will only result if one of the blacks are trump.

[mikeh]

Why is opening 3♣, then later volunteering 4♠ a complete misdescription? What kind of hand would you expect?

Edited to remove irritated reaction :)

 

I didn't say that opening 3♣ and rebidding 4♠ was a complete misdescription.

 

I said that it was as much a misdescription as opening 1♣ then rebidding spades was. I also said, and I don't think you'd seriously argue the point, that no rational bidding system will afford a complete description of this hand.

 

If you open 1♣, you are playing homage to the playing strength, assuring yourself a better chance of bidding out your pattern at a low level, and misdescribing your hand by the equivalent of about 2-3 hcp. I suspect opening a 1-bid would be virtually unanimous were we K109xxx void void AQxxxxx, absent specialized openings. Make the spades KJxxxx and who wouldn't open the 1-level?

 

Opening 3♣ carries a higher risk of not being able to bid spades effectively (yes, I know it won't go all pass....I mean, partner never holds 4=5=4=0 15 counts on these hands). And if we do get to bid spades, as a suit, it seems to me he is more likely to play us for 5=7 or 5=6, and thus we have underbid by a trick in terms of playing strength.

 

Hence the 1 level is an overbid and the 3 level, even if followed by 4♠, is an underbid. I rate them as more or less the same degree of distortion. Your opinion may well vary, but I LOL'd the notion that one sequence was apparently seen as 'normal' and the other a 'complete misdescription'.

[neilkaz]

With only 7 HCP I like the idea of 3♣ followed by 4♠ and would even bid 5♠ at these colors if need be. I want to preempt somewhat.

 

An alternative is just to open 5♣ and let the chips fall where they may but that is missing ♠ when it is correct.