5xx5 any debate?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj432hadk3caj952&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=?]133|200[/hv]

[MickyB]

No.

[neilkaz]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj432hadk3caj952&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=?]133|200[/hv]

 

I open these 1♠ no matter what. Perhaps if my ♠ were 65432 and my ♣ AKQJT I'd reconsider with a dead minimum hand.

[billw55]

If you are making a natural opening bid, 1♠ is absolute IMO.

 

If you have an applicable two-suited opening, go for it.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1S all day long... this hand has "extras" .

 

If you had a minimum or sub-minimum , say removing the ♥ A :

 

Q J x x x

x

K x

A J x x x

 

... then I'd open 1♣.

 

With the 1♣ open and let's say partner has GF values and a RED suit, the auction most always will go thru 4th Suit GF:

1C - 1Red

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

??

.. 2S = minimum 5-5 in the blacks

.. 3S-jump = good 5-6 hand

[broze]

I don't understand. :huh:

[mycroft]

There are still people who open 1♣ with 5-5 blacks at a high level; they're very rare (and from memory, many of those play 4-card majors). 5cM, 2/1 based systems work very badly if these hands are opened in the minor. Fewer people did it, so 2/1 developed assuming 1♠ is the call, so fewer people do it, so...

 

If you're going to open 1♣ with this shape, you are going to bid your hand as if it were 4-5 or 5-6. If your suit quality is such that you feel comfortable doing that, fine. Otherwise, standard-based systems will hang you if you don't open 1♠.

 

Another advantage: 1♣-(2♦)-pass (or double, if that doesn't necessarily guarantee 4-3. If it does, assume the overcall is 3♦). Enjoy.

[wyman]

always 1S for me

[mikeh]

I am a diehard 1♠ opening, but I think that the overwhelming consensus today (which is 1♠) tends to mean that the other approach, 1♣, gets little attention and that many of those who reject it do so without really understanding that it does have some points going for it.

 

I have played on and off (seriously for a few years) with one of Canada's finest players, Doug (Fuggie) Fraser, and he loves 1♣ with this shape. He played some stuff I liked and I played some stuff he liked, and this was one of the latter.

 

It is quite playable. There are auctions in which it is a definite improvement, so long as you are aware that what sounds like 5=6 may be 5=5.

 

Consider: you open 1♠ and LHO bids 4♥. There will be hands on which you want to bid again, especially at favourable. Note that this is true after hearts overcalled on your left and raised on your right.

 

It is far easier to bid both suits when you start with 1♣. Indeed, if you belong in 5♣, you will often be defending 4♥ if you open 1♠.

 

And the opps don't need to go to the 4 level to cause problems showing your second suit, nor do they need to bid hearts....diamonds can be just as problematic.

 

Plus in uncontested auctions: compare:

 

1♠ 2♦ ?

 

Do you rebid 2♠ or bid 3♣? Most but not all require extras for 3♣, so most use 2♠ as a stall, without promising more than 5 cards.

 

Say you bid 3♣ with your extras. How many does partner play you for? How does he show he likes clubs without committing beyond 3N?

 

 

Compare 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ (FSF) 2♠

 

Responder, having set the gf, can now set clubs as trump at the 3-level. This is a far more efficient auction.

 

In short, when we belong in clubs, opening 1♣ on 5-5 is more efficient.

 

However, majors are generally more important than minors, so stressing clubs isn't as big a deal as one might think. While the issues are real, they arise infrequently and can sometimes be solved despite the loss of bidding room occasioned by 1♠.

 

And 1♣ invites the very competition that it solves better than 1♠. 1♣ allows far easier opposition entry into the auction than does 1♠.

 

I suspect, but don't know, that this last factor may explain, in part, why the 1♣ approach died out. It used to be mainstream, back in the days when players tended to stay out of auctions after their opps opened. Read any tournament record from the 50's or 60's, and there were far more uncontested auctions than we see now, and even the contested ones were often relatively tame. Few if any played preemptive raises, jump overcalls were as apt to be strong or intermediate as to be weak, 2-suited overcalls were confined to the unusual 2N, and so on. As opps became more active in overcalling, the preemptive effect of 1♠, especially when showing 5, became more valuable.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj75h8dj9876cq83&w=s9hj975432dq54c64&n=sqt432hadk3caj952&e=sk86hkqt6dat2ckt7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1np2d2s3h3s4hppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Here's the hand that sparked the debate :) (new partner)

 

I wasn't all that happy with double nor pass or 4♠. When I'm faced with these decisions, I'll get it wrong!

[lalldonn]

No real debate any more, just a fringe theory.

[losercover]

1♠. Anything else can create a rebid problem.

[wyman]

You have 8, RHO has 15+, so I guess partner could have 17 and LHO could have 6-7 hearts, but this auction is more consistent with a 5xx6 pard with a regular opener, in which case we have basically no defense at all -- 1 spade, 0-1 club, maybe a red ace or something? Maybe an opening D ruff? I'm definitely not ripping this. If I pass (I'm prob not passing), I'm just going to quietly lead a diamond and hope for the best.

 

Probably I'm gonna bid 4/4 though. It just doesn't feel like we're beating 4H with 18+ cards in the blacks.

[mikeh]

I would always assume that partner holds 5 spades for his bid of 2♠, even if mine weren't so good. He 'knows' that clubs are sitting over him more times than not, and his rho is unlimited, such that he risks going for his life in 2♠ or 3♣ on a misfit with nothing in dummy. That's how one goes for 800 or 1100.

 

Alternatively, he has a GOOD hand.

 

So either way, we have to bid 4♠: I truly don't see any alternative. Pass, which I would never do, is the lesser of the two mistakes one might otherwise make. Double is penalty. You have zero reason to expect to beat 4♥ if partner has 5.

 

I should add: much as I think S ought to bid 4♠, I think N ought to have done so as well, once he bought a raise.

[ggwhiz]

imo players that open 1♣ with this still play Flannery and the dreaded Rosencrantz double.

[Codo]

As usual the opinions are stronger then the facts. :) As it is so often, MikeH had a good summary about most of the pros and cons- and most experts tend to see the cons here stronger then the pros.

 

I belive that it is much easier to compete over 1 ♣ (1 or 2 or even more diamond or heart) then over 1 ♠ (2 or more diamond or heart)...

 

For your auction: Sorry, but X was horrible. You have zero tricks outside partners suits. This could be (and was) a double game swing. Even if you belive that partner should open 1 Spade with his hand- in this case he showed a 5xy6 hand what makes the descission for 4 ♠ even easier.

 

I would bet that 4 ♠ would be close to 100 % in nearly every bidding panel.

[BillPatch]

imo players that open 1♣ with this still play Flannery and the dreaded Rosencrantz double.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstein were charactors in Hamlet.

The double was invented by Jorge (George) Rosenkranz.

[rmnka447]

Given my druthers, I'd always open 1 ♠ with 5-5 in the blacks.

 

Unfortunately, one of my regular partners insists that we open 1 ♣ with these hands. It is a source of confusion in many competitive auctions.

The opponents are likely to more intervene more over 1 ♣ and it can get very murky as to whether opener has 4 or 5 ♠s.

[Thiros]

All three of my neighbors' cats open 1♠.

 

Debate, not so much. Pontification? Yes, definitely.

[neilkaz]

Given my druthers, I'd always open 1 ♠ with 5-5 in the blacks.

 

Unfortunately, one of my regular partners insists that we open 1 ♣ with these hands. It is a source of confusion in many competitive auctions.

The opponents are likely to more intervene more over 1 ♣ and it can get very murky as to whether opener has 4 or 5 ♠s.

 

Hmmm...I'd suggest finding a new partner then! I do see that we both live in Illinois :) ... neilkaz ...

[Cyberyeti]

My partner and I open 1♣ and 1♠ with different 5-5s in an acol context, this is 1♠. The two types we open 1♣ are:

 

2 really good suits but not a great hand, open 1♣, rebid a NF 2♠ over 1red.

 

A king better than the hand here (our 1♠ rebid is all but forcing and we respond fairly light) 1♣-1red-1♠-any-2♠

[P_Marlowe]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj75h8dj9876cq83&w=s9hj975432dq54c64&n=sqt432hadk3caj952&e=sk86hkqt6dat2ckt7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1np2d2s3h3s4hppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Here's the hand that sparked the debate :) (new partner)

 

<snip>

Hi,

 

why?

 

North sees a 9 card fit, 2S did not promise 5, you would bid similr with 54 in the blacks.

 

So playing 4Hx with a known 9 card fit in spades, a 55 shape and no trump tricks, is ...

 

You can endlessly debate what to open, but the given hand is no hand to spark this discussion,

starting the discussion is just throwing a distraction bomb to avoid discussing the real issue on

the hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

Maybe in a strong club system.

[mycroft]

Nah, Rosencrantz was in that Stoppard Play. You know, that one about nothing? :-)

 

Around here, I hear it Alerted usually as "you know, that guy double?" "Tell me what it means, please, not whose name it is" "Uhhh..."

 

I was playing in Toronto NABC, 2001, against this lovely lady when a gentleman of clearly Latino extraction sits down. "Hi, George" said the lady's partner. And then the light went on...

[ArtK78]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstein were charactors in Hamlet.

The double was invented by Jorge (George) Rosenkranz.

That would be Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They were minor characters in Shakespeare's Hamlet who were killed after delivering a letter to the King of England which they thought was from King Claudius (Hamlet's uncle). However, Hamlet had altered the letter changing the instructions to the King of England to have Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killed.

 

And, as mycroft pointed out, they were the title characters in Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead which is a quote of a line at the very end of Hamlet.

 

Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is often compared to Beckett's Waiting for Godot.

 

For fans of the early episodes of Saturday Night Live (back when it was still called Saturday Night), the line "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" in Hamlet is very similar to the line at the end of the wrestling match between the Killer Bees and the Wasps "Yes! They've done it! They've dropped the cow!" Totally irrelevant but somehow it brings a fitting end to the action.