Steer this auction in the right direction

[TWO4BRIDGE]

IMPs, 24-board match.

Responder:

♠AQ9xx

♥AQ10x

♦Ax

♣Kx

 

All roads lead to Opener replying NT on his 3rd bid.

 

Responder, with his 19 hcp count ( full of prime cards ), knows they are in slam territory if partner has opened with a decent hand.

 

I'd just blast to 6C or 6NT...counting on a ♣ suit headed by the A ( more likely the A,Q... ) , and has at least one , if not both , Major K's .

 

Little does Responder know that partner opened with a pathetic 11 count .

[Cyberyeti]

Op I would take th above advice with a large spoonful of salt. The hand is not worth an opening bid unless you play a lob system or peculiar methods which have no relevance to 95% of bridge players.

I think you will find that opening 1D is not uncommon as you do not need to make that appalling 2C rebid on such a tatty suit. I really enjoy playing against players who are inclined to bid 2C on that rubbish.

 

 

Almost nobody used to weak no trump stuff will open this 1♦, certainly not in the UK. If AJ109x is a tatty suit, you get dealt a good suit very infrequently. I accept that a decent number of people will pass. KnR gives 10.75 with no useful 8s or 9s so it is pretty much worth its full 11.

[the_clown]

If I really wanted to open this hand (which I dont), I would much rather open 1♦, planning to rebid 2♣ or 1N.

[the hog]

Yeti again you post nonsense. I have played a wnt for years, primarily in an Acol context. Many, though certainly not all, would open this 1D. True, weakr players who do not look far ahead will open 1C like lemmings. (By the way, playing a wnt does not automatically mean that you are playing Acol, which you seem to suggest in a post above.) The fact is that weak or strong NT has little to do with it. What you are looking at is preparedness. I know of few people who would prefer to show 5 cards rather that 9. You appear to be one of them. Are you aware, (I guess not), that in traditional Acol, it was recommended that you open 1S on a 4-5-x-x hand not good enough to reverse? Of course no one does this anymore. If you doubt this, I suggest you look up hand records from old matches - Tollemache and GC are around. Particularly look for a somebplayers you may have heard of - Reese and Shapiro and the Sharples come to mind.

On another issue, if you think this hand is worth 11, then I suggest you get yourself some lessons on hand evaluation.

[Fluffy]

a style that opens 1♦ when clubs have 4 honors is a bad style. Not unplayable, but not a winner on the long run IMO.

[hrothgar]

a style that opens 1♦ when clubs have 4 honors is a bad style. Not unplayable, but not a winner on the long run IMO.

 

What does this have to do with the hand in question?

 

Hands with five cards suits containing four honors range from

 

AKQJ9 (the best) to

KQJT2 (the worst possible holding)

 

AJT9x is a far cry from any of these...

[Cyberyeti]

Yeti again you post nonsense. I have played a wnt for years, primarily in an Acol context. Many, though certainly not all, would open this 1D. True, weakr players who do not look far ahead will open 1C like lemmings. (By the way, playing a wnt does not automatically mean that you are playing Acol, which you seem to suggest in a post above.) The fact is that weak or strong NT has little to do with it. What you are looking at is preparedness. I know of few people who would prefer to show 5 cards rather that 9. You appear to be one of them. Are you aware, (I guess not), that in traditional Acol, it was recommended that you open 1S on a 4-5-x-x hand not good enough to reverse? Of course no one does this anymore. If you doubt this, I suggest you look up hand records from old matches - Tollemache and GC are around. Particularly look for a somebplayers you may have heard of - Reese and Shapiro and the Sharples come to mind.

On another issue, if you think this hand is worth 11, then I suggest you get yourself some lessons on hand evaluation.

 

A weak NT makes a huge difference as playing a strong NT you can rebid 1N over 1♣-1♠ with a minimum opener with a stiff spade if that's your range. I've seen this type of hand opened 1♦ at my table in an Acol context about twice in 40 years, (other than where the clubs are like Jxxxx and treated as a 4 card suit). Having played in the late stages of both the above events, I can be categorical that it's extremely rare here now.

 

AJ109x is easily worth at least 6 honour points (it's 4 tricks most of the time opposite xxx and often opposite xx, and often as good as AKxxx/KQJxx and better than AQxxx as a trump suit, particularly if partner doesn't have one of the missing honours), also the last thing I want is partner with 2 diamonds and 3 clubs or 2-2/3-3 to put me back into diamonds which again is usual here. Normally I'm all for showing 9 cards rather than 5, but in this case it's not showing 9, it's showing 8 and lying about 1, partner will always assume 5 diamonds and 4 clubs, and this makes a lot of auctions easier later if it's unambiguous when partner has a good hand. Partner will never assume I have 6 clubs other than over 1♦ if I rebid 2♣.

 

I'm with KnR on this one, I think it's worth a fraction less than 11, but that's enough for me to open it as that makes the "rule of" total 19.75 and we open based on rule of 19.

[helene_t]

The idea of opening this hand 1♦ strikes me as bizarre. You are playing a system in which 1♣ suggests a 5-card suit, you are weak enough to make it likely that partner needs a lead direction, if you reopen with a double after 1♠ partner will support your minor suit with 3-card support - some partners might raise on three, over interference. And if partner is strong you might be able to pattern out if you open your longest suit.

 

Even if it goes

1♦-1♠

2♣-2♦

there is no guarantee that you are in a better spot than after

1♣-1♠

2♣

 

Yes I would open this hand 1♦ playing many other systems but certainly not playing Acol. Maybe if I moved to Oz I would have to change my style but here in England, opening the longest suit at least has the advantage that people won't think you are from a different planet. (By "people" I don't just mean kitchen bridge bunnies. Experts open 1♣ as well. Maybe some experts would open 1NT under some circumstances, though).

 

If they open at all, of course. I suppose for those who play rule-of-19 it is borderline so it is not quite as crazy here as it would be in other parts of the World. It is the country of light openings after all.

[NickRW]

The idea of opening this hand 1♦ strikes me as bizarre.

 

I have to agree in a modern Acol context. Unless you decide to open 1NT, one picks the longest suit. End of discussion. A 1♦ opener followed by a 2♣ rebid would absolutely guarantee ♦ at least as long as ♣. To do otherwise (as suggested here) would strike most as a breach of basic system agreements - despite what Schapiro and other mays well have done donkeys years ago

 

Nick

[the hog]

The idea of opening this hand 1♦ strikes me as bizarre. You are playing a system in which 1♣ suggests a 5-card suit, you are weak enough to make it likely that partner needs a lead direction, if you reopen with a double after 1♠ partner will support your minor suit with 3-card support - some partners might raise on three, over interference. And if partner is strong you might be able to pattern out if you open your longest suit.

 

Even if it goes

1♦-1♠

2♣-2♦

there is no guarantee that you are in a better spot than after

1♣-1♠

2♣

 

Yes I would open this hand 1♦ playing many other systems but certainly not playing Acol. Maybe if I moved to Oz I would have to change my style but here in England, opening the longest suit at least has the advantage that people won't think you are from a different planet. (By "people" I don't just mean kitchen bridge bunnies. Experts open 1♣ as well. Maybe some experts would open 1NT under some circumstances, though).

 

If they open at all, of course. I suppose for those who play rule-of-19 it is borderline so it is not quite as crazy here as it would be in other parts of the World. It is the country of light openings after all.

 

With all due respects, Helene, I regard your post as bizarre.

"You are playing a system in which 1♣ suggests a 5-card suit" eh? Where does the op say that? What about 3334 shapes? Where does the op say what system he is playing apart from the fact that it is a wnt system? Have you ever heard of wNT and 5 card Majors for example?

 

" you are weak enough to make it likely that partner needs a lead direction" Partner is not a passed hand, so this comment is meaningless.

 

"Even if it goes

1♦-1♠

2♣-2♦

there is no guarantee that you are in a better spot than after

1♣-1♠

2♣"

If you are playing with a pick up or casual partner, this is correct, otherwise it is again meaningless. If these sequences are ones you have discussed, then pd knows what to expect.

 

 

"Experts open 1♣ as well" Some do, some don't.

 

" Maybe some experts would open 1NT under some circumstances, though)."

Playing a mini NT perhaps.

[Cyberyeti]

With all due respects, Helene, I regard your post as bizarre.

"You are playing a system in which 1♣ suggests a 5-card suit" eh? Where does the op say that? What about 3334 shapes? Where does the op say what system he is playing apart from the fact that it is a wnt system? Have you ever heard of wNT and 5 card Majors for example?

 

" you are weak enough to make it likely that partner needs a lead direction" Partner is not a passed hand, so this comment is meaningless.

 

"Even if it goes

1♦-1♠

2♣-2♦

there is no guarantee that you are in a better spot than after

1♣-1♠

2♣"

If you are playing with a pick up or casual partner, this is correct, otherwise it is again meaningless. If these sequences are ones you have discussed, then pd knows what to expect.

 

 

"Experts open 1♣ as well" Some do, some don't.

 

" Maybe some experts would open 1NT under some circumstances, though)."

Playing a mini NT perhaps.

 

What is partner supposed to do with say AQxxx, xxxx, xx, Qx, in Acol, 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♦, what a lovely contract, 1♣-1♠-2♣-P much better (but not necessarily good).

[the hog]

What is partner supposed to do with say AQxxx, xxxx, xx, Qx, in Acol, 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♦, what a lovely contract, 1♣-1♠-2♣-P much better (but not necessarily good).

 

Yeti, don't be disingenuous. You have been playing long enough to know that there are problems in both styles.

 

You hold

 

 

x AKx AJxx xxxxx

So you open 1C and rebid 2C? What a great bid!

 

Anyway we have had this 1D vs 1C debate before and I am getting tired of it. Personally I don't really care what others do; I play what works.

[helene_t]

x AKx AJxx xxxxx

That's a different hand, one with which almost all club players would open 1♣, but I don't know what a serious Acol player would do. My choice would be between pass and 1♦. In one Acol partnership I had gadget that could deal with this hand after a 1♣ opening.

[Cyberyeti]

Yeti, don't be disingenuous. You have been playing long enough to know that there are problems in both styles.

 

You hold

 

 

x AKx AJxx xxxxx

So you open 1C and rebid 2C? What a great bid!

 

Anyway we have had this 1D vs 1C debate before and I am getting tired of it. Personally I don't really care what others do; I play what works.

 

Opposite the sample hand I gave you're in a mess with that hand whatever you do, and 2♣ is still better than 2♦. As helene says, that is a different hand (I noted more people open 1♦ in a previous post with a really poor club suit), I would still open 1♣, but I accept there's more of a case to open 1♦.

 

As an aside, there's much more of a case to open 1♦ in a system where 1♦ shows 4 and 1♣ shows 2, particularly on a hand like this where opps may well overcall in spades meaning you only bid once and your diamonds are better than your clubs.

[Fluffy]

What does this have to do with the hand in question?

 

Hands with five cards suits containing four honors range from

 

AKQJ9 (the best) to

KQJT2 (the worst possible holding)

 

AJT9x is a far cry from any of these...

 

So I will explain to you why on 5-1 fit scenario where the suit rebid matters, the 9 is worth a trick, and you will reply with some definition on a enciclopedia written by a beginner where honor stops on the 10, ok, you win.

[hrothgar]

So I will explain to you why on 5-1 fit scenario where the suit rebid matters, the 9 is worth a trick, and you will reply with some definition on a enciclopedia written by a beginner where honor stops on the 10, ok, you win.

 

Merely trying to establish whether or not you understand basic definitions like what the word "honor" means.

 

Pissy little post you made there. Feeling defensive?

[Fluffy]

you are trying to impose your definition of honor over mine, which is totally unrelated to the topic in question. Don't know the meaning of Pissy. I feel like you made an unnecesary cheap shot at something I wrote that was understood by anyone.

[Cyberyeti]

Merely trying to establish whether or not you understand basic definitions like what the word "honor" means.

 

Pissy little post you made there. Feeling defensive?

 

An over simplistic but useful thing I was taught as a beginner was to regard things like AJ10 as AJJ when counting points, so I totally understand treating AJ109 as 4 honours.

[hrothgar]

you are trying to impose your definition of honor over mine, which is totally unrelated to the topic in question. Don't know the meaning of Pissy. I feel like you made an unnecesary cheap shot at something I wrote that was understood by anyone.

 

Fluffy, I'm willing to give you a little slack because you aren't a native English speaker.

 

With this said and done, this isn't an issue of "my" definition or "your" definition.

 

The word "honor" has a specific meaning in bridge which is defined in the laws of the game.

Here's a direct quote from the Laws of Contract bridge (I used the version from the ACBL site)

 

Honor — Any ace, king, queen, jack or ten.

[hrothgar]

An over simplistic but useful thing I was taught as a beginner was to regard things like AJ10 as AJJ when counting points, so I totally understand treating AJ109 as 4 honours.

 

Interesting argument. I'll need to try it next time I'm playing rubber bridge...

[hrothgar]

An over simplistic but useful thing I was taught as a beginner was to regard things like AJ10 as AJJ when counting points, so I totally understand treating AJ109 as 4 honours.

 

Interesting argument. I'll need to try it next time I'm playing rubber bridge...

[Cyberyeti]

Interesting argument. I'll need to try it next time I'm playing rubber bridge...

 

Not done that for at least 20 years, clearly it doesn't apply there, I said I can understand doing it, ie not that it is 4 honours, but that it's reasonable to treat it as such.

[hrothgar]

Not done that for at least 20 years, clearly it doesn't apply there, I said I can understand doing it, ie not that it is 4 honours, but that it's reasonable to treat it as such.

 

Do you believe that KQJT2 (or, for that matter AKQJ9) will play for the same number of tricks as AJT9x ?

[Zelandakh]

I feel this hand is fully worth an opening bid, but I open pretty light, QJ is worth its 3 points, AJ109 is worth a lot more than 5, stiff K worth a lot less than 3, overall I assess this as worth a "normal" 11 points, so rule of 20 opening bid. We open based on rule of 19 so it's an easy opening for me.

I would open the hand (1♦) playing strong club too but that system is designed around opening light. My understanding is that your system is too to some extent. That is different for a pair just playing Acol and in that context (and even move so playing 5 card majors) I think the hand is better passed. As Mike suggests, with the black suits reversed I would open in an Acol context too.

 

Incidentally the idea that 1♣ - 1♠; 2♣ shows 6+ clubs is just silly. It is quite possible to have 5 clubs and 4 of a red suit and lack the values for a reverse here. The usual rule I have seen for deciding which minor to open a minimum (13)45 hand is whether the club suit can stand a rebid, an extremely old-fashioned concept but one that still has a little merit on occasion. With ♣xxxxx it would be logical to prefer 1♦; with hrothgar's AKQJ9 1♣. Without getting into this timeless debate, it is not unreasonable to set a line somewhere between the extremes and stick with it. It is also not unreasonable to decide always to open one or the other with that shape. That is what strong club systems do after all. Arguing that another's style is wrong when it is within the generally played spectrum seems to me to be a little pointless. It is enough to say that there are several viable possibilities here.

[Cyberyeti]

Do you believe that KQJT2 (or, for that matter AKQJ9) will play for the same number of tricks as AJT9x ?

 

KQJ102 opposite xx or xxx will often play for the same number of tricks as AJ109x, I certainly rate AJ109x as good as KQJxx if not better.