The Minor 4-5

[awm]

I'll mention that looking at the responses from Steve Robinson's gallery, most of the people who open 1♦ and rebid clubs are those who are more known for playing precision (Larry Cohen, David Berkowitz, Kathy Wei-Sender, etc). Since this approach is necessary in precision, it may bias their views somewhat. Obviously these folks are experts and "know how" to play 2/1 also, it's just that what they "are used to" from their strong club partnerships might bias their opinion.

 

The one approach that really makes no sense to me is people who want to open these hands 1♦ and then rebid 1NT. If your second call is going to be 1NT anyway, why not mention your longest minor?

[olien]

I tend to open 1♣ unless my ♦s are significantly better than my ♣s.

 

e.g.

 

AKxx KJxxx I would normally open 1♣

AKxx QTxxx I would probably open 1♦

 

If I have honours in both doubletons, I will open 1♣ planning to re-bid 1NT. I would never dream of rebidding 1NT with a singleton in responder's M, so with (31)45 hands I usually open 1♣ and bite the bullet.

 

Both styles have their wins. I always hear from the 1♦ camp how great it works when the opponents overcall with 2♣. However, I prefer partner to lead my ♣ suit against 3NT instead of my secondary ♦ suit. Anyways, in summary, I open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors about 90-95% of the time.

[mycroft]

AWM: because 1C for them is "clubs or balanced", and therefore they can't bid 1C-1x-1NT or they will have guaranteed 2? Just a guess...

[mike777]

if 14+ and 2=2=4=5 then I would open showing a nt type hand.

If strong enough to reverse I open 1c

All others I will open the stronger minor which I expect will often be clubs.

[xxhong]

If a partnership decides to rebid 1NT with singleton in responder's suit, One should probably always open 1C with a few exceptions.

This treatment is good in many ways, 1NT rebid keeps the bidding low and makes further exploration of the right suit easy because of the two way checkback. Suppose the bidding goes like: 1C 1S 1N 2D(gf checkback) 3D, you have pretty much shown all your features, point range, shape. Those who

open 1C then rebid 2C or 1D then rebid 2C would have a difficult time to reach this bidding accuracy. Also, if you open 1D and rebid 2C, you always get your suit length correct, which is extremely important for game and slam bidding. The draw back is that sometimes, you may miss

5-3 fit in 2M. Still, if you focus on games and slams, this is just a minor issue IMO.

The exceptions not to open 1C with 4-5 are hands with very weak clubs and balanced or semibalanced with 15-16 HCPs (or 14-16 if you play 14-16 1NT).

AK Kx AJxx xxxxx, this is certainly a 1NT opening to me. Sometimes, you may have a big headache, AKQ x AQxx xxxxx, this hand is not strong enough to reverse, no good to open 1NT and the club suit is too weak to rebid 2C. You can probably open 1C, then underbid 1N over 1H and underbid 2S over 1S.

Or you can open 1NT and hope partner doesn't hold 6 hearts or 5 hearts weak hand, or you can just open 1C and rebid 2C, hoping partner can move on or hold some club support.

 

I played at the club today with a friend, we had some very fun hands, and a few bad ones as well, the highlight being us collecting 800 against 4♣ undoubled. On the car ride back, partner asked me a style question which I know has varied in popularity throughout the years. So, I figured I'd make a poll and see what the consensus is now. When holding a minimum strength 4-5 in the minors, what do you generally open? I have always preferred 1D unless planning on rebidding 1N, but have been told other methods are better by people who I consider to be significantly better than myself. Thoughts?

 

This is in a standardish 2/1 or SAYC context.

[CSGibson]

I tend to open 1♣ unless my ♦s are significantly better than my ♣s.

 

e.g.

 

AKxx KJxxx I would normally open 1♣

AKxx QTxxx I would probably open 1♦

 

If I have honours in both doubletons, I will open 1♣ planning to re-bid 1NT. I would never dream of rebidding 1NT with a singleton in responder's M, so with (31)45 hands I usually open 1♣ and bite the bullet.

 

Both styles have their wins. I always hear from the 1♦ camp how great it works when the opponents overcall with 2♣. However, I prefer partner to lead my ♣ suit against 3NT instead of my secondary ♦ suit. Anyways, in summary, I open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors about 90-95% of the time.

 

This is similar to my own style. I have a rebid plan before I open 1C, sometimes it is to rebid clubs on a 5 card suit, sometimes to rebid 1N with a singleton (I'm much more likely to do this with a stiff honor), and rarely to rebid a 3 card spade suit. If the hand does not appear to fit into any of those comfortably, then I will generally look to see if pass is a reasonable alternative, and then I will look to bid 1D with the option of rebidding 2C as my last resort.

[whereagles]

1♣ and I'm ok with rebidding ♣65432 if necessary.

[gnasher]

If a partnership decides to rebid 1NT with singleton in responder's suit, One should probably always open 1C with a few exceptions.

This treatment is good in many ways, 1NT rebid keeps the bidding low and makes further exploration of the right suit easy because of the two way checkback. Suppose the bidding goes like: 1C 1S 1N 2D(gf checkback) 3D, you have pretty much shown all your features, point range, shape.

You've shown your point range and your shape. You haven't shown all of your features - if you always follow this sequence with a (31)45 shape, nothing is known about your suit quality and high-card concentration.

 

Also, if this shows (31)45, you need to find another way to cope with 2245 shapes.

 

Those who open 1C then rebid 2C or 1D then rebid 2C would have a difficult time to reach this bidding accuracy.

I don't see why it's more accurate to bid

1

♣

-1

♠

1NT-2

♦

(FG enquiry)

3

♦

     (1345)

instead of:

1

♣

-1

♠

2

♣

-2

♦

(FG enquiry)

3

♦

     (1345)

If our sole objective were to maximise accuracy with this particular shape opposite a game-force, we would use both sequences to show the same shape, rebidding 2♣ with good clubs and 1NT with bad clubs.

[rhm]

You've shown your point range and your shape. You haven't shown all of your features - if you always follow this sequence with a (31)45 shape, nothing is known about your suit quality and high-card concentration.

This is true and intentional. In the history of Bridge suit quality was always over-judged and should come last.

Remember the days when a 1NT opening had no small doubleton or 4 card majors were opened, but suit quality mattered?

And then people found out that xxxx opposite xxxx in a major was the only game in town.

Modern bidding has different priorities and rightly so.

First find your 8 card and longer fits, find out about your distribution and limit your hand. Finding out about suit quality should always take a back seat to these objectives.

Making suit quality in minor suits "strategic" for your opening bid is a bit over the top.

 

Also, if this shows (31)45, you need to find another way to cope with 2245 shapes.

With this distribution I raise with 3 card support and will bid 1NT only over 1♠ with 1♠=3♥=4♦=5♣ (or 1♠=4♥=3♦=5♣).

Over 1♥ I bid 1♠ with 3♠=1♥=4♦=5♣ and my experience is quite satisfactory.

Why do I need to cope? I am not convinced that relay system are the most important issue.

But say the bidding starts

 

1♣--1♠

1NT -- 2♦ (XYZ, gf)

3♦--3♠

 

3NT would show the singleton ♠, anything else 2245, unless I had precisely AQ in ♥, where I would make an exception and bid 3NT. You see suit quality matters, but in the fourth round of bidding. I have usually more important things to show in the first or second round of bidding.

 

I don't see why it's more accurate to bid

1

♣

-1

♠

1NT-2

♦

(FG enquiry)

3

♦

     (1345)

instead of:

1

♣

-1

♠

2

♣

-2

♦

(FG enquiry)

3

♦

     (1345)

If our sole objective were to maximise accuracy with this particular shape opposite a game-force, we would use both sequences to show the same shape, rebidding 2♣ with good clubs and 1NT with bad clubs.

This is an easy one. For me your last sequence shows at least 6 cards in ♣ and 4 cards in ♦, too weak for a reverse. I have real distributions when I bypass 1NT, not a mediocre 5-4 in the minors. Rebidding a minor almost always already shows 6 cards.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Rainer, did you read the post I was responding to? My comment about suit quality and high-card concentration was in response to the assertion that 1C-1M;2NT-2D;3D showed "pretty much ... all your features". If opener might have either AKQ or xx in the unbid suit, he is some way from showing all of his features.

[rhm]

Rainer, did you read the post I was responding to? My comment about suit quality and high-card concentration was in response to the assertion that 1C-1M;2NT-2D;3D showed "pretty much ... all your features". If opener might have either AKQ or xx in the unbid suit, he is some way from showing all of his features.

 

You are of course right, "all your features" is an overbid. Nevertheless I happen to agree with XXHONG priorities, and to be fair nobody is able to show all features of a hand up to the level of 3 ♦.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[IdiotVig]

I'm surprised so many people are sticking to a hard and fast rule to evaluate how to bid here. This is a problem shape that can lead a potentially-complicated auction. Seems worth it to completely evaluate suit qualities, potential problem auctions, and bid accordingly. Obviously, partnership agreements help (like what hands you can raise 1M to 2M on 3-card support), but in a vacuum, a knee-jerk "100% 1C" or "100% 1D" seems like an inflexible, uncreative way to play bridge. [i seem to recall a passage in Rosenberg's "Bridge, Zia, and Me" where he indicated Zia basically randomizes the 1C or 1D opener with this hand type, so I'm probably biased.]

 

That said, in a vacuum/pickup partnership, I tend to open 1D. But...it depends.

[655321]

[i seem to recall a passage in Rosenberg's "Bridge, Zia, and Me" where he indicated Zia basically randomizes the 1C or 1D opener with this hand type, so I'm probably biased.]

 

I don't recall any such passage in that book. Instead there is a passage where Michael explains that he (not Zia) doesn't disclose to anyone his rules for opening when 4-4 (not 4-5) in the minors. He does go on to talk about opening the 3 card minor when 3-4 or even 3-5 in the minors and planning to rebid NT, but 4-5 in the minors was not discussed.

[rhm]

I'm surprised so many people are sticking to a hard and fast rule to evaluate how to bid here. This is a problem shape that can lead a potentially-complicated auction. Seems worth it to completely evaluate suit qualities, potential problem auctions, and bid accordingly. Obviously, partnership agreements help (like what hands you can raise 1M to 2M on 3-card support), but in a vacuum, a knee-jerk "100% 1C" or "100% 1D" seems like an inflexible, uncreative way to play bridge. [i seem to recall a passage in Rosenberg's "Bridge, Zia, and Me" where he indicated Zia basically randomizes the 1C or 1D opener with this hand type, so I'm probably biased.]

 

That said, in a vacuum/pickup partnership, I tend to open 1D. But...it depends.

 

This is a question of bidding philosophy, not about hand evaluation. I believe that clear information about distribution is more important than suit quality. Bidding the same distribution in different ways depending on the quality of the suits and leaving your partner in the dark about your relative suit lengths is a recipe for disaster. This does not mean that suit quality is unimportant only that it should be clarified in later rounds of the bidding. This has long been agreed in other scenarios. For example only a beginner would have trouble what to open with 5 little ♠ and 5 solid ♥.

 

There are exceptions to this rule. For example a recent hand in this forum was:

 

♠AKQJxx

♥QJ

♦Jxxx

♣J

 

and the bidding started 1♠--2♣, game forcing 2/1

Here I would bypass the ♦ and rebid my solid ♠, even though this technically denies ♦.

 

Rainer Herrmann