2/1: Abstract Opening Question

[gurgistan]

Say, I have a hand that could be opened 1♣ or 1♦ but the textbook correct opening is 1♣.

 

What would you all think of the thought that maybe I should open the hand 1♦ because it allows partner to show he has a GF hand on his first bid whereas after 1♣ partner has no GF bids?

 

Could someone please comment on the soundess or unsoundness of this idea?

[Phil]

The idea is unsound.

 

Play strong jump shifts over minors if you are concerned about immediately setting a GF. In practice these are not necessary because there are other ways to establish a GF after 1♣ - (1x) - (rebid) - ?

[aguahombre]

As stated several times on these fora, people at all levels of play have a better system of responses and rebids after 1C than after 1D.

[Stephen Tu]

The idea is insane.

-- the only time partner will have the GF bid over 1d but not over 1c is when he bids 2c. The only time that happens is if he has GF with club one suiter, or longer clubs than major. There are still a ton of hands with major suit length that will bid 1 over 1 and not establish a GF, and you have distorted your minor suit length for no great reason. Partner bids a major over 1d maybe 4x more often than 2c.

 

-- now your 1d-2c auctions, which are problematic to begin with, are even more so since now you are shoe-horning more hand types into 1d.

 

-- there's no particular reason the end result of the bidding will be more accurate from establishing a GF on the first round rather than on the second round.

 

If you really want to have more auctions with a low level GF established, and open 1d a lot, then play Precision :).

[peachy]

On theoretical level, it is a good sign that having played bridge for only 18 months, you think about what rebids will be before you open. There are some hands that are worthy of that consideration but they are rare.

 

I am definitely recommending that you should make the systemic opening EVERY time. That trains your partners to trust you and trains you to stick to the methods that were agreed. Both are good things!

[pooltuna]

Say, I have a hand that could be opened 1♣ or 1♦ but the textbook correct opening is 1♣.

 

What would you all think of the thought that maybe I should open the hand 1♦ because it allows partner to show he has a GF hand on his first bid whereas after 1♣ partner has no GF bids?

 

Could someone please comment on the soundess or unsoundness of this idea?

It already has a name....mastermind. Generally you are better off bidding your hand and letting your partner bid his <_<

[Siegmund]

I've been known to do exactly the opposite - open hands that are textbook 1D bids with 1C instead, to avoid the uncomfortable 1D-2C auction or putting responder in a bind if he's not strong enough for 2C.

 

I have similarly harsh words for people who think that responding 2m to 1H with 4 spades and a 4-card minor "to show the game force immediately" is good bridge.

[eyhung]

I have similarly harsh words for people who think that responding 2m to 1H with 4 spades and a 4-card minor "to show the game force immediately" is good bridge.

I guess you'll have to be pretty harsh on me, Siegmund, because I was convinced to start bypassing 4 spades to show a game-force only a couple years ago and I think it's greatly improved my bidding. Auctions after 2/1 gf are one of the strongest parts of the system, just like auctions after a 1NT opening in sayc, and I think the tradeoff is well worth it. You lose some definition on the 4-5 hands but you gain much more by being able to convey your general balanced strength immediately.

[eyhung]

I should add that the best time to bypass is when you have mediocre spades and a heart fit (Qxxx Kxx Ax KJxx is a clear 2♣ response for me), and the worst time to do so is when you have good spades and no fit for hearts. I'm not saying that I'm always bypassing, just that I'm willing to bypass and get my values off my chest, and try to sort out finding a 4-4 spade fit later.

[awm]

It seems to me that if your hand is suitable for the cheapest call, yet your system is such that a more expensive call will lead to a better auction, this is perhaps an indictment of your system... In particular I think the "standard" continuations after a start of 1♥-1♠ are quite poor (making it difficult to force game in a lot of sequences) and that this has a lot to do with people choosing to respond 2♣.

[Siegmund]

A very good point, awm. My experience is colored somewhat by having some forcing sequences available - I prefer 1H-1S-2m-3M forcing, and fourth suit for the inv hands. I am always surprised how many people dislike auctions beginning 1H-1S and that may well be why.

 

Still, the message that "if you don't like your 1H-1S auctions, maybe you need to look at your continuations after 1H-1S, rather than just try to make 1S happen less frequently" is a valuable one.

 

re eyhungs hand - if you are preparing a 3-card heart raise, yes, your choice of 1S vs 2C vs something else is going to be determined in large part by what second-round raises you have available.

[junyi_zhu]

A very good point, awm. My experience is colored somewhat by having some forcing sequences available - I prefer 1H-1S-2m-3M forcing, and fourth suit for the inv hands. I am always surprised how many people dislike auctions beginning 1H-1S and that may well be why.

 

Still, the message that "if you don't like your 1H-1S auctions, maybe you need to look at your continuations after 1H-1S, rather than just try to make 1S happen less frequently" is a valuable one.

 

re eyhungs hand - if you are preparing a 3-card heart raise, yes, your choice of 1S vs 2C vs something else is going to be determined in large part by what second-round raises you have available.

You are very right. The standard 4th suit gf convention is just bad after 1H 1S 2D, still most players are just too lazy to change their bidding structure. They'd rather responding 2C with 4-4 black suits, which IMO is even worse because it violates a basic bidding principle: in a gf sequence, you should usually bid the 4-4 suits up the line to show your overall shape accurately (so Bypassing a 4 card suit should show 5-4).

The basic flaw of 4th suit forcing is that it gives all kinds of different gf hands only one bid (it may not even be the cheapest bid, and after 1H 1S 2D, it is just ridiculously high to bid 3C for gf hands). This is a huge violation of a basic bidding principle, save more bidding space for stronger hands and don't invite too much. Standard treatments just have way too many invitational sequences after 1x 1y 2z and only have one gf sequence.

[bucky]

Say, I have a hand that could be opened 1♣ or 1♦ but the textbook correct opening is 1♣.

 

What would you all think of the thought that maybe I should open the hand 1♦ because it allows partner to show he has a GF hand on his first bid whereas after 1♣ partner has no GF bids?

 

Could someone please comment on the soundess or unsoundness of this idea?

If you are interested in making artificial bids just for the sake of establishing GF, you should probably look into some of relay system structures. In sayc or 2/1, the idea is to bid naturally. If in that process we can show a natural suit AND game-forcing value, we will want to take advantage of that. But it is unsound (under the framework of sayc or 2/1) to GF just for the sake of GF.