1 H or 1 Spade ?

[aguahombre]

We have one situation where we can untangle 5-6 after opening 1♠ which others might not have:

 

1S-2N is natural. (Even some J2N people keep 2nt as natural and use J3C).

 

So, an "unnessary" jump to 4H becomes descriptive of the longer hearts.

 

In other cases, we can't; and Mikeh's observations have come to roost for us.

[Free]

1♥, but it's a matter of style and preference

[olien]

I do have a preference for opening 1♥ and planning to bid re-bid 2♠. I believe in bidding my longest suits first, and say partner ends up on lead against a contract (albeit unlikely), I would definitely prefer a ♥ lead to a ♠ lead.

 

The other option is to play Flannery à la Levin-Weinstein where they include 5-6 minimums like this.

 

So, I prefer to open 1♥ or 2♦ Flannery as mentioned above rather than distort my suit lengths (especially with ♥ being significantly better than ♠). Imagine if partner is able to show a GF hand with short ♠ and 3+♥ over our 1♥ opener, we will easily be able to evaluate this as a great thing for our hand, but if we open 1♠, it will be very unlikely that we will be able to find out if responder has short ♠ with 3+♥ while opening 1♠ and hearing short ♥ with 3+♠ will not improve our hand. I know this is an unlikely combination, but it is one consideration I have not seen mentioned before.

 

I think a more interesting problem might be AQJxx Axxxxx xx --- which I would consider opening 1♠ playing a natural (e.g. SAYC or 2/1) system.

 

Either hand I would open 1♥ if playing a strong/forcing ♣ system.

[Yu18772]

If thats the auction you expect,

As elaborated before - I expect several auctions. The one I expect the least is direct support for ♥ from partner.

assuming your pd's 1NT is 5- 11/12 hcp, your pd's hand will be full of minors with the opps being silent on their 18-24 hcp range. I would not even bother to bid ♠ and find a "maybe" 5-3♠ fit.

I would very much try with 6-5 in the higher ranking suits to play in the best fit I have. 5-3 in ♠ seems much better than 6-1 in hearts.

If this is the auction that biased your choice mainly, then with;

1♠--1NT

2♥--2♠ auction you are nowhere close to know what pd has. He may have 3 card ♠, he may as well have stiff ♠. He may have 1-2 2-1 2-2 2-3 3-2 in majors. And if he has one of those, bidding 3♥ will not make things much better if not worse. But i expect some competition rather than your prediction, it is another story.

 

In regular partnership we play that 1M-1NT denies 3 card support, in a casual one I would not know, but there is no one auction that biased my choice. I wont know what partner has on many possible auctions, but I dont want to know. He wil be the captain of this, and my first priority is to describe this unexpected hand to him as accurately as I can, so the basic math is that 1♠-1NT-2♥ describes 9-10 cards out of my hand, while 1♥-1NT-2♥ really only 6. In any case if partner answers 1NT I wont be able to describe my hand fully, but imo it is closer to AKxxx,Axxxx,xx,x than to AKxx,Axxxxx,xx,x.

What biases my choice is that opening 1♠ and rebidding ♥ forever basically, will have the potential of describing my hand to partner more accurately in several plausible auctions, and I am willing potentially on some to hide one card for it, rather than hiding five.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[whereagles]

This is on the borderline for me, but I have enough controls to make me open 1♥, plannng on bidding spades twice if appropriate.

 

It's true that a 6-5 has like a 90-95% chance of finding a fit across, but it might be at the FOUR level:

 

1H 1NT

2S 3C

3S 4H (on a 2236)

 

are you sure you want to go that high just for the sake of completing your hand description? I mean.. the suits are a bit broken for that purpose. At least I think so.

[Free]

Playing Gazzilli, 1♥-1NT-2♠ shows <16HCP with 6♥ and 5♠. WTP? :P

[Fluffy]

Playing 2/1 1♠-1NT-4♦ shows 5♠-6♥ for me, but forget a bit about tools and theory, think a bit about suit quality.

 

♥Axxxxx is a great side suit to have a ruff in dummy, if partner is 3-2 in the majors (most likelly holding) you will want to play in spades more often than some people here is saying. Its true that one extra trump might help to avoid being tap, but winning a tempo by ruffing in dummy gets gets back one tempo (1 tap) and 1 loser. Also being tap is not as obvious at it seems for guys here, dummy will often provide some quick/slow stoppers in the minors.

 

Also important, being inmediatelly raised in spades and winning the competition is more likelly than in hearts.

[Free]

Playing 2/1 1♠-1NT-4♦ shows 5♠-6♥ for me

Has this ever come up? ;)

[aguahombre]

Playing 2/1 1♠-1NT-4♦ shows 5♠-6♥ for me

Has this ever come up? ;)

At risk of off-tracking, I would be interested in seeing a hand which wants to be that high after the 1NT response and would need to do it that way, rather than reverse.

[Phil]

This is on the borderline for me, but I have enough controls to make me open 1♥, plannng on bidding spades twice if appropriate.

 

Wow. As someone who wrote a very useful treatise on reverses this is a surprising comment. Forcing to game on this is a serious overbid. Maybe this is what you meant by 'as appropriate' and you wouldn't rebid 3♠ over a weak sequence by responder but this isn't clear.

 

I can stomach 1♥, 2♠, 3♥ to let partner out, which does not preclude a 5-6.

[olien]

I do have a preference for opening 1♥ and planning to bid re-bid 2♠. I believe in bidding my longest suits first, and say partner ends up on lead against a contract (albeit unlikely), I would definitely prefer a ♥ lead to a ♠ lead.

 

The other option is to play Flannery à la Levin-Weinstein where they include 5-6 minimums like this.

 

So, I prefer to open 1♥ or 2♦ Flannery as mentioned above rather than distort my suit lengths (especially with ♥ being significantly better than ♠). Imagine if partner is able to show a GF hand with short ♠ and 3+♥ over our 1♥ opener, we will easily be able to evaluate this as a great thing for our hand, but if we open 1♠, it will be very unlikely that we will be able to find out if responder has short ♠ with 3+♥ while opening 1♠ and hearing short ♥ with 3+♠ will not improve our hand. I know this is an unlikely combination, but it is one consideration I have not seen mentioned before.

 

I think a more interesting problem might be AQJxx Axxxxx xx --- which I would consider opening 1♠ playing a natural (e.g. SAYC or 2/1) system.

 

Either hand I would open 1♥ if playing a strong/forcing ♣ system.

 

My apologies, when I wrote this I had mentally reversed the major suit honors, I thought the hand in the OP was Axxxx AQJxxx xx ---

 

That being said, playing 2/1 I would probably open 1♠ but I would prefer to open 1♥ if playing a limited opening system as I don't feel a subsequent reverse would overstate my strength. Also, in my regular precision partnerships, we play that a reverse after a 1-level response promises atleast 6-4, so 1♥-1N// 2♠ describes 10 of my cards while 1♠-1NT// 2♥ only describes 9

[mikeh]

Wow. As someone who wrote a very useful treatise on reverses this is a surprising comment. Forcing to game on this is a serious overbid. Maybe this is what you meant by 'as appropriate' and you wouldn't rebid 3♠ over a weak sequence by responder but this isn't clear.

 

I can stomach 1♥, 2♠, 3♥ to let partner out, which does not preclude a 5-6.

I am a huge believer in the power of Aces and of shape.

 

We are in a situation in which we have to make a committal decision before we have sufficient information to be comfortable, no matter which way we go.

 

Obviously my approach carries risks. So too does 1♠.

 

If we have game or slam, then 1♥ is usually going to be the better opening call, since we will be describing our shape more accurately than the 1♠ bidders....we will always play our longer major and partner will be better positioned to count winners when he has a big hand.

 

Of course, he hardly needs a big hand if he fits either of our suits.

 

When we have a partscore in a major, I am going to be higher than the 1♠ openers, and sometimes 2 levels higher. Thus, I will be failing in some partscores where the 1♠ openers make. Offsetting that to some degree is the reality that I will on a few hands bid and make a game when the 1♠ bidders are in a partscore in the wrong suit.

 

While I don't generally change my approach to bidding at mps rather than imps, I can accept that this hand could be an exception. 1♠ will probably generate more plus scores than 1♥, but 1♥ will probably generate more big plus scores than 1♠. I like big plus scores, so 1♥ remains my choice.

[Phil]

I am a huge believer in the power of Aces and of shape.

 

We are in a situation in which we have to make a committal decision before we have sufficient information to be comfortable, no matter which way we go.

 

Obviously my approach carries risks. So too does 1♠.

 

If we have game or slam, then 1♥ is usually going to be the better opening call, since we will be describing our shape more accurately than the 1♠ bidders....we will always play our longer major and partner will be better positioned to count winners when he has a big hand.

 

Of course, he hardly needs a big hand if he fits either of our suits.

 

When we have a partscore in a major, I am going to be higher than the 1♠ openers, and sometimes 2 levels higher. Thus, I will be failing in some partscores where the 1♠ openers make. Offsetting that to some degree is the reality that I will on a few hands bid and make a game when the 1♠ bidders are in a partscore in the wrong suit.

 

While I don't generally change my approach to bidding at mps rather than imps, I can accept that this hand could be an exception. 1♠ will probably generate more plus scores than 1♥, but 1♥ will probably generate more big plus scores than 1♠. I like big plus scores, so 1♥ remains my choice.

 

I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish except showing the 6th heart along the way in one specific auction. When some of us open 1♠, clearly we will find our 5-3 fit quickly and we might back into a 6-3 fit anyway. After 1N when partner does not support spades, we can rebid hearts twice to show the 5th and in some case, we can bid hearts a 3rd time which suggests a minimum 5-6 so we can play the 6-3 instead of the 5-3 when its right.

 

When we have slam, I will find the 6-3 fit without a lot of headache. As Justin indicated earlier, you might have a bear of a time finding a 5-3 spade fit in preemption.

 

I will concede that I will have a hard time getting to a 6-2 heart fit, and that you will find 4♥ across from x Kx Axxxx xxxxx but this seems like a pretty specific hand.

[mikeh]

I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish except showing the 6th heart along the way in one specific auction. When some of us open 1♠, clearly we will find our 5-3 fit quickly and we might back into a 6-3 fit anyway. After 1N when partner does not support spades, we can rebid hearts twice to show the 5th and in some case, we can bid hearts a 3rd time which suggests a minimum 5-6 so we can play the 6-3 instead of the 5-3 when its right.

 

When we have slam, I will find the 6-3 fit without a lot of headache. As Justin indicated earlier, you might have a bear of a time finding a 5-3 spade fit in preemption.

 

I will concede that I will have a hard time getting to a 6-2 heart fit, and that you will find 4♥ across from x Kx Axxxx xxxxx but this seems like a pretty specific hand.

 

I disagree with your view of which hands that I am catering to. The question of what to open is a close one, as I said in my OP and as is evident by the narrow split in the poll. Any post that actually attempted to deal with all of the issues would be too lengthy for most to read, and too lengthy for me to want to write, especially since I am currently trying to be concise ;)

 

I have read nothing in this thread that persuades me that 1♥ is, on average, the poorer choice. Nor would I expect to be able to change the minds of most of the 1♠ bidders. We come to make these decisions primarily by our experiences, including hands we have played and discussions with players whose opinions we respect. By the time we reach the point in our bridge career that you and I have reached, we have a conscious or subconscious database that is unlikely to be overwhelmed by reading posts on a forum. A simulation might help, but would be extraordinarily difficult to construct and I would expect that no two posters would run the same simulations, since we have to account for actions by all 4 players in a myriad of possible auctions.