Opening bid with 5-7 in minors

[andrei]

IMPs, fav, you are dealer:

 

x

void

KJxxx

KJT9xxx

[Fluffy]

If I have 4NT aviable at this vul I would use it, if not 5♣

[32519]

If I have 4NT aviable at this vul I would use it, if not 5♣

That's exactly how we open these sorts of hands, 4NT as "Pick-a-minor." You have zero defence against the majors and want to prevent the opponents even entering the auction.

[gwnn]

5 clubs. I don't like 4NT.

[aguahombre]

I am sure the majority want to get in it right now with a hand like this --- and maybe they are right.

 

I will go with the pass, knowing it will not be duplicated at the other table. I hope to compete in clubs at the 3-level next round and then try 4NT if convenient...showing the uneven distribution in the two suits. If it works out that I can't/shouldn't do that, perhaps my inaction will create a favorable variance anyway in the form of an unpleasant surprise for the opponents during the play of the hand.

[mikeh]

Pass

 

Opening 5♣ is extremely committal. It eliminates diamonds as a trump suit (unless you are planning on bidding 5N or 6N over a major suit by them, and that strikes me as insane).

 

I am passing.

 

Yes, I allow them one round in which to exchange information, imo, doing so:

 

- allows rho to know if his partner has opening, passing, or preemptive values and this is bad

- allow partner to tell me if he has opening, overcalling, passing or preemptive values and this is extremely useful

- allows LHO to know if his partner has responding, overcalling, passing, opening or preemptive values and this is bad

- minimizes the risks of a huge disaster if we belong in diamonds rather than clubs, or if we belong on defence, or slam, or a part- score, and this is extremely useful

 

It's not as if I intend to allow the opps a lot of room in which to exchange information: I can always judge to jam to the 5 level next round if the auction starts in such a way.

 

Meanwhile I may avoid a terrible outcome.

 

Btw, I don't have an opening bid gadget for preemptive minor 2 suiters. I would be worried about using it anyway, with a 2 card discrepancy in the suits. I would hate to play 5♦ opposite 3=2 or 2=1 minors, for example.

 

Maybe my age is showing, but I don't believe in the notion that being favourable and shapely always mandates a high 1st seat pre-empt.

[bigbenvic]

I'm leaning towards opening 1♣ and maybe I can continue to compete until I get doubled in 3,4 or 5♣.

[SteveMoe]

With some partners in a forcing or Polish ♣ context we play 2N as 55+m 4-9/10 HCP. This fits this hand. Works better than 4N ecause we can stop at 3 level or play in 4M when right (usually (21)=55 ). Makes finding their Major fit and level a bit tougher.

[jdeegan]

:P 5♣ for me. The dreaded 7-5 hand is usually best treated as a one suiter, imo. Look at it this way. If partner has three cards in your 5 bagger and one card in your 7 bagger, you have two 8 card fits. BUT, as declarer your biggest threat is getting tapped out. A 4-1 (or 5-0) trump split is much more likely than normal. Playing in the 7 bagger, you have some staying power and a fighting chance to set up your side suit. 7-5 hands don't come up very often, but just a few experiences of playing in the 5-3 fit and losing control have made a lasting impression on my psyche.

[nige1]

IMPs, fav, you are dealer: ♠ x ♥- ♦ K J x x x ♣ K J T 9 x x x

IMO 3♣ = 10, 5♣ = 9, Pass = 8, 4♣ = 7. Considerations

• Is it illegal to have a partnership agreement to open 1♣ on such hands in most jurisdictions?
• Your side may have the balance of strength so you may want to keep 3N in the picture.
• If the other side have the balance of strength, major games might fail against likely bad splits.

[PhilKing]

4♣ = 7.

 

Im pretty gutted. Nige - how can you give me a zero? :(

[hrothgar]

I don't have a normally have 4NT bid available to show both minors. (I use this to show good 5 level preempts in a minor)

If I could open 4NT, I would.

 

With a 7-4 pattern, I am content to open 5m. However, with a 7-5, there's too great a chance that we belong in Diamonds rather than Clubs and this could be very important if we're playing 5mX.

 

At the table, I'd open 1S playing MOSCITO (showing a unbalanced hand with 4+ diamonds, could have longer clubs)

 

Playing more standard methods, I'd probably pass...

[helene_t]

At the table, I'd open 1S playing MOSCITO (showing a unbalanced hand with 4+ spadesdiamonds, could have longer clubs)

FYP

[helene_t]

Is it illegal to have a partnership agreement to open 1♣ on such hands in most jurisdictions?

Dunno about "most" but it is not a HUM to agree to open at the 1-level with this hand and I would feel comfortable doing it in EBU-land also.

Anyway, 5♣ for me. If I wanted to keep diamonds in the picture I would open 3♣ or 4♣ (or maybe a precision 2♣) and then 4NT over opps 4M contract next round.

Your side may have the balance of strength so you may want to keep 3N in the picture.

It is extremely unlikely that we belong in 3NT, let alone that we can have an intelligent auction leading to 3NT and opps won't sac.

[nige1]

Im pretty gutted. Nige - how can you give me a zero? :(

I give marks to the actions that I consider: 10 marks to the action that I like best; 5-9 for actions that I think will often work; 1-4 for actions that I judge will sometimes work; and 0 for actions that I deem most unlikely to work :)

[hrothgar]

IMO 3♣ = 10, 5♣ = 9, Pass = 8, 4♣ = 7. Considerations

Is it illegal to have a partnership agreement to open 1♣ on such hands in most jurisdictions?

 

"One swallow does not a summer make"

 

This morning, I managed to convince myself that opening a MOSCITO style 1S opening was the best course of action.

 

I also considered (but ultimately rejected) pass, 1N (showing 11+ - 14 balanced), 3N (showing a level preempt in either minor).

 

Its entirely possible that I'd reach a complete different decision this evening or that I would have reached a different decision this morning had the cats let me sleep in peace past 4:00 AM.

 

I don't think that an ephemeral decision to open this hand 1♣ constitutes a partnership agreement...