Is this an opening hand?

[CamHenry]

[hv=pc=n&s=sh5dkqj983ckt9843]133|100[/hv]

 

First in, none vul. Would you open this hand, playing 2/1? Playing Acol?

If so, would you open 1♦ or 2♦ (weak)?

 

Partner and I decided that it was very marginal, and we got a good result so didn't worry too much, but some opinions from those better qualified than me would be much appreciated!

[the_clown]

I would open 4NT if available to show both minors. If not I would probably pass.

[CamHenry]

I would open 4NT if available to show both minors. If not I would probably pass.

 

4NT would have been specific aces.

[helene_t]

I think 1♦ is fine. I am probably going to show a minor suit monster next round anyway, either by opening 1♦ and rebidding a big number of clubs, or by passing and overcalling 4NT, and it might not matter which of the two strategies I choose.

 

But if I don't open I might not be able to show both minors next time. For example, if partner opens or overcall in a major, 4NT probably means something different. And if partner is strong it can become difficult to show him that I have this amount of playing strength.

 

Granted, if I open, partner will play me for some defence. I will pull any double of 4M, but when he doubles their 5M contract I may face a difficult choice.

[mgoetze]

Even grannies open rule-of-20 nowadays, and this is a 21. The high spot cards then go on to make this a really obvious opener.

 

(That said, I would use 4NT if I had it available as both minors. You should switch, specific aces is stupid.)

[f0rdy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sh5dkqj983ckt9843]133|100[/hv]

 

First in, none vul. Would you open this hand, playing 2/1? Playing Acol?

If so, would you open 1♦ or 2♦ (weak)?

 

Partner and I decided that it was very marginal, and we got a good result so didn't worry too much, but some opinions from those better qualified than me would be much appreciated!

 

I'm fairly sure I'd open 1♦ and expect most of my partners to (all playing strong 2C systems, ie not limited openers). However, 2♦?! If I wanted to preempt at my first call, I'd rather open 5♦ than 2♦ or 3♦. I've been in debates here about whether opening 6-5s with a call showing only the 6 card suit is unwise, because partner will misevaluate her hand so badly, and with 6-6 it seems about a trick crazier.

 

I don't think I count as better qualified than you, though!

[ArtK78]

2♦ is such a wild distortion of this hand that it would not occur to me unless I was drunk (and I don't drink).

 

I don't like 1♦ due to the lack of defense. I would rather pass originally and come back in with whatever level of notrump is necessary to show the minors.

[mcphee]

I do not go out of my way to open weak minor suited hands. Granted this hand is good playing strength and opening early will let you bid your suits. But opening shows some defensive values and I am not even sure if I have ONE!

 

I wait and bid later.

[gszes]

there is little benefit to opening this collection 1d

there is little /no defense and the dia bid itself says

nothing useful. If the opps intervene to 4M before I

get a 2nd bid how will p take a 5c continuation? strong

or weak?? I would guess strong since you could have

passed orginally and backed in with 4n with a weak hand.

 

Passing now makes it a ton easier to show both suits at once if

opps bid and if p opens/overcalls M we will probably be better

served taking it easy because of the obviously wasted values in p hand.

 

I would not open 4n to show minors with this type of hand it is too

unilateral. There is no reason to assume we are either safe at the

5 level or that the opps can make anything it is merely a bid that

prefers gambling to efficiency.

 

The same arguments hold for a 2d opening (at least 2d doesn't promise

defense). Once you decide to go down this road your partnership will

never be able to make rational competitive decisions again because the

range of possible hands is too huge. You would not open 1n with a range

of say 12-19 balanced because there is no rational way to decide how to

proceed. Rules are nice but let's not lose sight of what we are trying to

accomplish with the bidding. void void QJxxxxx KJxxxx another rule of 20

that is even worse than the proposed hand is that a 1d opener also???

 

You and your partner decide.

[Codo]

I would open to get my suits in early. If I have no 4 NT for the minor avaiable, I would try 1 ♦.

If I have a 4 NT oepning for the minors, I would use it. I will be at the strong end, but if I do not use it now, I never will.

[lycier]

This hand is good at playing strength,bad at defensive value only with one quick trick possible,as we know that a reasonable opening bid must promise two quick tricks unless light open at the third seat.so I perfectly agree mcphee's opinion,wait and bid later is a good idea,carefully bide one's time.

[Zelandakh]

I think this is worth a nige-style poll. Give marks out of 10 for each of Pass, 1♦, 2♦, 2NT and 4NT (and any other ideas) should you have them available.

[Codo]

This is not the BI part, so no, we do not need two quick tricks any more. Maybe Culbertson taught this too you, but the man is dead since ages.

 

If you want to use the same rules for 6/6 hands then for the typical 4432, go ahead, but you are just wrong.

 

I guess even in SEF like this is taught to beginners, this is an opening with 13 FL, isn't it?

[helene_t]

Thinking about it, I kinda like a 5♦ opening.

[ggwhiz]

I may well need to play in the correct minor and the easiest way is to bid 1♦ followed by 5♣.

 

My pard won't expect more defence than this for such an auction and if I pass first it might be rather high in a major back to me. Worst if pard opens or jumps to a large number of one of them.

 

A weak 2♦ is WAY too out there.

 

btw, where are the losing trick count police? Doesn't take long to count those.

[WellSpyder]

Thinking about it, I kinda like a 5♦ opening.

Where is the down-voting facility when you need it? :)

[mgoetze]

Where is the down-voting facility when you need it? :)

Surely you meant to quote lycier's post, not Helene's? ;)

[pigpenz]

2♦ is such a wild distortion of this hand that it would not occur to me unless I was drunk (and I don't drink).

 

I don't like 1♦ due to the lack of defense. I would rather pass originally and come back in with whatever level of notrump is necessary to show the minors.

I tend to agree with ART

I have played alot of wild systems like EHAA and Kamizzee NT

but when I open I like to promise 2 defensive tricks called quick tricks incase partner doubles

if the opps bid you can still bid some number of NT to show your two suiter

 

so it seems unlikely your gonna get shut out on the auction unless it goes all pass

[ArtK78]

If you open 1♦ and get involved in a competitive auction (what are the chances of that happening?) you will never be able to know if you should sit if partner doubles.

 

If you pass and show a distributional minor suited hand later, and then partner doubles, you will be able to sit for his double.

 

By the way, I am one of the biggest proponents of losing trick count, and this is not a hand for losing trick count.

[broze]

(That said, I would use 4NT if I had it available as both minors. You should switch, specific aces is stupid.)

 

One of my greatest peeves is people throwing around black or white unsupported statements like this in internet fora (I know - I am riled a lot). Several good players are advocates of the method - sure, I can see problems with it, infrequency being well up there, but I'd hardly call it stupid.

[ggwhiz]

I think it could easily go either way but how do you feel about p - 1♥ on your left and 3 (or 4) ♠ by partner? Nobody can play in a minor after that.

[ArtK78]

I would use 4NT if I had it available as both minors. You should switch, specific aces is stupid.

One of my greatest peeves is people throwing around black or white unsupported statements like this in internet fora (I know - I am riled a lot). Several good players are advocates of the method - sure, I can see problems with it, infrequency being well up there, but I'd hardly call it stupid.

Given the frequency of a 4NT opening playing either of these methods, I really doubt that it is going to make a significant difference in your overall game if you decide to play one of these methods or something else. In his earliest Romex books, Rosenkranz advocated opening 3NT on a 3 loser minor suited hand and 4NT on a two loser minor suited hand. Both were specifically defined as 1-1-(5/6) - 11 cards in the minors divided 6/5 or 5/6, no voids. Whatever you may think about the utility of these opening bids, at least they are well defined. Partner, looking at major suit aces and/or minor suit honors, knows exactly how high to bid. He might be one card off in the degree of the minor suit fit.

 

The hand in the OP is a 4 loser minor suited hand.

 

I would guess that using the 4NT opening as a specific ace asking bid would solve a problem on the very rare hand on which it is appropriate. On the other hand, opening 4NT on a hand like the one in the OP may be good or bad, depending on the lay of the cards. So my vote goes with the specific ace asking 4NT opening. Another reason for choosing the specific ace asking bid is that there may not be another way of getting the information needed on the rare hand on which specific ace asking is appropriate. In the case of an extreme minor suited hand, there are other ways to get that message across. They may not be as quick or effective as a 4NT opening, but they work.

 

That doesn't mean that I am going to play my 4NT openings as a specific ace asking bid. And, believe me, I am not going to lose any sleep over this decision.

 

I heard a story once about a pro-client bridge partnership. On arriving at the hotel prior to game time, the client asked the pro how he would play a 5NT opening bid. I am sure the partnership had nowhere to go but up after that start.

[mgoetze]

One of my greatest peeves is people throwing around black or white unsupported statements like this in internet fora (I know - I am riled a lot).

Sorry, the religion thread at the Water Cooler got closed recently so I needed a new outlet to proclaim my beliefs. ;)

[lycier]

May I ask a question? What is values for this hand? game force? weak? preemptive values at 5 of level?

Is that the only sure thing people do bid up to game at 5 of level?

[mgoetze]

May I ask a question? What is values for this hand? game force? weak? preemptive values at 5 of level?

Is that the only sure thing people do bid up to game at 5 of level?

You may ask but I don't really understand the question. We have a chance at making 5♦ opposite as little as xxxx xxxx xxx Ax. If partner has that hand and 5♦ isn't making, then 5♠ is and 6♠ might well be. Think of other possible hands for partner and you will see, they all point to bidding to a high level, ideally right away.