Opening Bid

[Free]

Looks like a simple 1♦ to me, hopefully this won't be passed out. We can make the auction forcing and show our 5-6 in 3 calls. I hate opening 2♣ with such hands, although it may work better sometimes we won't be able to describe our shape as accurately as after a 1♦ opening.

[han]

Also, what would 1♦-1♠-3♥ be for most people?

 

I suspect most posters here play it as an invitational splinter. I play it as a better raise than 3S (3S = 15-16, 3H = 17-18).

[the hog]

I suppose if KFay wanted to offer a lousy option, he could have included 1♥, true.

 

Perhaps you might like to discuss this with Steve Robinson, Phil.

[han]

I have to say I saw that coming. If you need support for underbidding, quote Frank Stewart. If you need support for distorting your suit lengths, quote Steve Robinson.

[gwnn]

1♦ please don't pass please don't pass.

[rhm]

I have to say I saw that coming. If you need support for underbidding, quote Frank Stewart. If you need support for distorting your suit lengths, quote Steve Robinson.

 

If Frank Stewart was an under-bidder, he would hardly be as successful as he actually is.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

Maybe I need to bind a key with *reply "agree with han" *post. 1♥ I really don't like. Lying to partner just seems unnecessary here.

 

Also, what would 1♦-1♠-3♥ be for most people?

Mini splinter ? although I play it as this hand without the ace of spades, ie 2 good suits, but not a huge hand.

[the hog]

I have to say I saw that coming. If you need support for underbidding, quote Frank Stewart. If you need support for distorting your suit lengths, quote Steve Robinson.

 

You could cite a few more. Sarcasm on//Balicki Zmusdinki deny a 5 card M if they don't open one. They appear to be an ok pair. Sarcasm off//. So do practically all the top Polish players. Before you say they play PC, yes they do, but it is 2/1 based. Here, of course, they would open 1C.

[Fluffy]

Ron I am no longer opening 1♠ with 5 spades and 7 clubs, do Balicki-Zmudinski open 1♠?

[Fluffy]

At least in the early stages of most auctions, the partnership is engaged in the exchange of information.

 

There are auctions in which one partner assumes captaincy very early on, but most auctions don't go like that.

 

Thus most experts would see this hand and think about how best to go about describing it to partner...

You got to the point mike, I find that trying to describe our hand to partner is completelly hopeless for slam purposes, partner will never realise that we have AK AK A instead or AQJ AQJ, even describing the club void will be tough. And the only way to investigate accuratelly for slam is to take captancy.

 

I don't think this concrete hand is best suited to exchanging information. And 1♥ might be a better approach. Why? because when partner has 3+ hearts (he has average 2.66 I think, so he is a favourite) and raises, we can easilly ask about ♥Q and ♠K/♣A. Wich are our main concerns, since ♦Q can be fineses or dropped or whatever.

 

I still don't claim that 1♥ is a better opening, but if out hand was ♠Ax ♥AKJxx ♦AKxxxx ♣- I'd be more inclined to open 1♦.

[mikeh]

Mikeh's post once again shows his deep disrespect for logic..

nice ad hominem argument :rolleyes:

[Phil]

If Frank Stewart was an under-bidder, he would hardly be as successful as he actually is.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

True, I'm sure Frank Stewart rules the Birmingham, AL sectionals and Bracket II regionals KOs.

 

Please do not confuse him with Kit Woolsey's partner, Fred Stewart.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8hak852dakj853c&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=ppp]133|200[/hv]

IMO 1♦ = 10, 2♣ = 9, 1♥ = 5.

But a 2♣ opener has many attractions e.g.

• It quickly expresses the power of your hand. It bathes partner's fitting Yarborough in a rosy hue.
• 7♥ making scores more than 1♦.
• If successful, you can smile at all the sour grapes carping by old-fashioned bidding purists.

[han]

nice ad hominem argument :rolleyes:

 

It was not an argument, just an insult for the sake of insulting, but I think it was to the point nevertheless.

 

I've had enough of the constinuing stream of posts in which you portray yourself as an expert who thinks like an expert and acts like an expert, usually in contrast with the person you are comparing yourself with. It's usually absolutely uncalled for, it certainly was this time.

[mikeh]

It was not an argument, just an insult for the sake of insulting, but I think it was to the point nevertheless.

 

I've had enough of the constinuing stream of posts in which you portray yourself as an expert who thinks like an expert and acts like an expert, usually in contrast with the person you are comparing yourself with. It's usually absolutely uncalled for, it certainly was this time.

I know that my posts are often amongst the longest on these forums. A number of people have told me that they appreciate the detail I go into when setting out my thinking. No-one has to read the long posts if they don't want to.

 

I hope I've made enough admissions about being wrong and being converted to other peoples' point of view on some matters that most readers understand that, despite the arrogant tone that appears in a lot of my posts, I don't see and have never seen myself as infallible or as the font of all (bridge) wisdom. In fact, from my perspective, one of the benefits of making long posts, outlining my thinking, is that it sometimes prompts others to take issue with some or all of my thinking....and in that way I almost always learn something...sometimes something that really alters the way I think. Thus, through these forums I have come to think that rebidding 1N with a stiff, after say 1♦ 1♠ and finding me with 1=4=4=4 or 1=4=5=3 may be the best approach (tho none of my partners yet agree), or that responding to 1♥ by 2♣ with a gf 4=4 blacks may be better than my usual 1♠.

 

 

I know I have been (unfairly on most occasions) sarcastic in my responses to some of your posts, and after the fact expressions of regret don't do much to remove the sting of such an attitude. Combine those failings with the argumentative style I often adopt, and I can understand the animosity you have recently expressed.

 

As for this thread, I had perhaps erroneously but (I suggest) reasonably interpreted Fluffy's comment about 'nonsense' as a criticism of criticism of opening 1♥...in a post in which he certainly did not suggest he'd open 1♦. Fluffy has, if memory serves, often espoused opening 5 card majors while holding a longer minor, and I thought he was advocating the same here. He later clarified the issue in a long post that was responsive to mine. He didn't persuade me, and I didn't persuade him, but I suspect we both better understand our respective points of view as a result of the detailed expositions we exchanged.

 

Meanwhile, please accept my apologies for any offence I have caused you thus far, and (in advance) for the offence I am sure that I shall, intentionally or otherwise, cause you in the future. I usually respect your posts (and certainly respect the posts of almost all of those with whom I disagree), altho once you descend into personal insult merely for the sake of personal insult, you risk diminishing yourself more than you do the object of your insult....who presumably has already harmed himself in the eyes of others if your insults are valid.

[W Kovacs]

There's no option for those of us that play strong 1♣?

 

IF you are going to force me into a standardish system, then 1♦.

[the hog]

Ron I am no longer opening 1♠ with 5 spades and 7 clubs, do Balicki-Zmudinski open 1♠?

 

Yes. So does Steve Robinson by the way.

[Hanoi5]

Two-suited hands are very hard to bid after 2♣. Besides, if it goes 2♣-2♦ and we end up in diamonds I won't be declaring...

[rduran1216]

Two-suited hands are very hard to bid after 2♣. Besides, if it goes 2♣-2♦ and we end up in diamonds I won't be declaring...

 

This is the kind of shape and situation though where u could seriously see it go 1D p p p. This is what I think is wrong with 1D. If I was 6610 or 7600 I'd open 1 in a flash without fear.

 

But if I open 1D, I'll catch partner with QJ10xx of clubs and out, and with his 3325 shape he's passing 1D when I can make 4H virtually alone.

[mikeh]

This is the kind of shape and situation though where u could seriously see it go 1D p p p. This is what I think is wrong with 1D. If I was 6610 or 7600 I'd open 1 in a flash without fear.

 

But if I open 1D, I'll catch partner with QJ10xx of clubs and out, and with his 3325 shape he's passing 1D when I can make 4H virtually alone.

And your experience is that your opps routinely pass out hands on which they own half the high cards and most of the spades?

[mfa1010]

It's not just about surviving the first round after 1♦. I think expert practice is to make rather aggressive reverses with 5-6 shapes. If partner ever shows any enthusiasm of his own for our suits we will be strong enough for a leap to 7-direkt. So we can anticipate a bad guess later on after opening 1♦, I think. Unless of course he finds a cunning pass after 1♦-1♠-2♥ with Kxxxx, JTx, x, Jxxx or the like.

 

On the other hand, if we open 2♣ and can bid 3♥ then 4♥, then judged from this thread, partner can't expect less from our hand than we have (or we would have opened 1♦). So what is the problem?

[mikeh]

It's not just about surviving the first round after 1♦. I think expert practice is to make rather aggressive reverses with 5-6 shapes. If partner ever shows any enthusiasm of his own for our suits we will be strong enough for a leap to 7-direkt. So we can anticipate a bad guess later on after opening 1♦, I think. Unless of course he finds a cunning pass after 1♦-1♠-2♥ with Kxxxx, JTx, x, Jxxx or the like.

 

On the other hand, if we open 2♣ and can bid 3♥ then 4♥, then judged from this thread, partner can't expect less from our hand than we have (or we would have opened 1♦). So what is the problem?

If we can open 2♣ and rebid 3♥ and then 4♥, this will probably work out as well or better than (tho sometimes worse than) opening 1♦.

 

However, some players don't use the jump to 3♥ over 2♦ as 4+♥ and longer ♦s, and for them, opening 2♣ seems fraught with difficulty.

 

Moreover, why are all the 2♣ openers so (apparently) sure that they get to bid out their hand so conveniently?

 

If I knew that partner would pass 1♦ (or my reverse) and that the opps would be silent, then I would opt for 2♣.

 

Otoh, if I knew that my partner might respond 2♥ immediate second negative, I might not be so happy with 2♣ (altho it will still often fare ok). If I knew partner was going to bid, say, 3♣ or 2♠ or whatever 2N means (assuming it doesn't mean hearts), I'm not happy. And, of course, if the opps enter the auction, I will often be better positioned after opening 1♦ than 1♥.

 

So I think it's a mixed bag, as is so often the case when good players split on the best approach. My personal preference over the years has been to open 1♦ and it seems to work out ok for me, and I am sure that those who prefer 2♣ can say much the same thing.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

.

[the hog]

And your experience is that your opps routinely pass out hands on which they own half the high cards and most of the spades?

 

And your experience is that you rely on the opponents to help you in what may be a difficult auction? Personally I prefer to rely on my partner, but hey, each to his own.

[han]

With my regular partner I would probably open 2D (multi) and rebid 3H (GF, 5+ hearts and 5+ diamonds).