Simple opening bid - part 1 of 2 or 3

[Cyberyeti]

Mike really covers most of what I wanted to say, but as an aside, this is somewhere the strong no trump suffers slightly in the unopposed auction.

 

1♣-1♠ in a weak no trump auction, having found out that partner has length opposite your shortage, you can just rebid 1N to show your values, and not have the issue that partner might pass 1N with say xxx, xx, KJ10x, Qxxx or transfer you to 2♠ with Jxxxx, QJx, xx, Qxx.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sahk64dq654cak752]200|150|Love All, IMPs, 48-board knockout match

Playing standard methods with a strong no-trump, what do you open? Your methods are such that a reverse is not game forcing, with 1♣-1♠-2♦-2♥ being Lebensohl for weak, misfitting hands. Whether this hand is worth a reverse, even with these methods, is up to you.

If you open one club or one diamond, what is your planned rebid over the likely one spade response?

This is a familiar problem, but there are a number of questions I want to ask about the auction as it develops so will try to set them in the context of the majority.

[/hv]

IMO

• Opening bid: 1♣ = 10, 1N = 8 1♦ = 6. It's scary to open 1N with a singleton, even a top honour, especially if the shortage is a major when partner might hold e.g. ♠ Q x x x x ♥ A x x ♦ - ♣ x x x x x.
• After 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦ - a fair compromise for those who lack time for long systemic discussion is 2N = Lebensohl. 2♥/2♠ = NAT NF, 3♣... = F.

[whereagles]

Why should a reverse require more strength in high card values than a strong notrump opening? (...)

 

I hadn't see this post. But I agree 100% with Rainer. I believe in splitting opening 1-bids in very well-defined ranges

 

min 12-14

med 15-17

max 18-20

 

I define a reverse as a med+ hand, so 15 HCP (the same as a strong NT) is enough for me.

 

I'm not claiming this is optimal. But it sure is systemic and makes bidding much simpler (and simple = good for teaching beginners and getting people into the game).

[mikeh]

deleted

[Zelandakh]

I'm not claiming this is optimal.

It isn't. After a simple rebid you have an invite available whereas after a med-strong rebid there is no invite. More than this, we want our invite range to be as tight as possible. So from a theory point of view you want something like 11-15/16-18-/18+-20, or just 11-15/16-17/18+. I will mention in passing that I agree completely with the principle and this is the fundamental basis for the strong club bidding system I made up. You just have to remember that allocating hands equally is bad - you need the cheapest steps to be much more common and then use the space to branch off.

[whereagles]

Branching out from low level is, in theory, preferable. Thing is it may complicate the auction somewhat.. that's the problem.

[overruff42]

I like whereagles' idea of dividing opening bids into ranges, but where does this one really belong. With no texture and the stiff ace of the suit partner is most likely to bid, I think this is far closer to minimum range than even medium. I'd like to know if anyone has run it through K/R evaluator and where it falls. Because I am treating it as minimum (at least until auction develops more favorably), my choice is to open 1D, even though it distorts minor suit shape. It will make the 2C rebid over 1S automatic, and leave room to see if there may be a chance for a game.

[Cyberyeti]

I like whereagles' idea of dividing opening bids into ranges, but where does this one really belong. With no texture and the stiff ace of the suit partner is most likely to bid, I think this is far closer to minimum range than even medium. I'd like to know if anyone has run it through K/R evaluator and where it falls. Because I am treating it as minimum (at least until auction develops more favorably), my choice is to open 1D, even though it distorts minor suit shape. It will make the 2C rebid over 1S automatic, and leave room to see if there may be a chance for a game.

 

K&R upgrades it I suspect because it fits well with some pretty bad hands (xxxx, Qx, KJ10xx, xx offers decent chances of 5♦, xxxx, AQJxx, x, xxx is a good 4♥) so gives it 17.35.

[jallerton]

IMO

• Opening bid: 1♣ = 10, 1N = 8. It's scary to open 1N with a singleton, even a top honour, especially if the shortage is a major when partner might hold e.g. ♠ Q x x x x ♥ A x x ♦ - ♣ x x x x x.
• After 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦ - a fair compromise for those who lack time for long systemic discussion is 2N = Lebensohl. 2♥/2♠ = NAT NF, 3♣... = F.

 

Without systemic discussion, most would assume that 2♥ is 4th suit forcing. Natural, NF is aiming for a seriously low target, whilst rendering a whole range of hands unbiddable.

[nige1]

Without systemic discussion, most would assume that 2♥ is 4th suit forcing. Natural, NF is aiming for a seriously low target, whilst rendering a whole range of hands unbiddable.

As stated, our agreement is Lebensohl over partner's reverse - FWIW - seemingly not much.

[Zelandakh]

As stated, our agreement is Lebensohl over partner's reverse - FWIW - seemingly not much.

Another common agreement that requires minimal discussion is "cheapest of 2NT and 4th suit Lebensohl, everything else natural and GF". Now you cannot give partner a choice of majors at the 2 level any more but you have gained quite a bit on constructive auctions; which is a good trade overall.

[rhm]

This is a complex topic, and not one that I think can be adequately addressed in this format.

 

To me, as I adverted to in another current thread, I think that a very important part of system design, especially in a method that uses very wide range 1-level openings, is to begin strength differentiation as early as possible. I suspect you agree.

 

That factor doesn't in itself help much with the question of reverses and where they start, provided that one has 'some' strength dividing line. For you that line would be lower than for me.

 

However, the lower the line for the first 'cut', the wider is the range contained in the reverse hand.

 

If you drew the line at 14...(almost) all hands with 15 start with 1N, if balanced, and with a reverse if unbalanced (and a 1-level bid isn't available)...then your reverse hands have a huge range....15-21 or so.

 

That in turn means that responder has to find out more strength information on a wide range of hands.

 

Indeed, on weak misfitting hands he can't pass since opener might hold 20 or so and have game on sheer power, but when opener has the far more common 15 or 16 count, there is no safety at 2N or higher. I think that issue is a huge negative for very weak reverses.

 

Note that this doesn't make it silly to reverse on some 15 counts. AQx KQxx Axxxx x, 1♦1♠ now of course many would want to reverse but apart from rare walruses amongst us, this hand is no 15 count anymore. x KQxx Axxxx AQx is another story altogether.

 

The idea of reversing on the latter hand opposite KJxxx xxx Qx xxx makes me ill. And responder could have a less suitable hand.

 

It's not just or even mostly about the weak hands for responder. One benefit from strong(ish) reverses is that responder is in an excellent position to gauge the chances for game and slam at a low level.

 

With a wide range reverse, both players have to focus on using the next round of bidding as strength defining rather than, as for stronger reverses, more subtle assessments/descriptions of degree of fit.

 

Obviously when one has a narrow range for the reverse hand, one increases the range for the non-reverses, and this is a problem. Wide range reverses have better definition on their non-reverse auctions, and one might think that this offsets the cost on the reverse hands.

 

However, this isn't so imo, at least not fully. Reverses consume bidding space. Non-reverses conserve bidding space. We use bidding space to exchange information, so conserved sequences are inherently more efficient. One should try to put more sequences into conserved auctions than into space-consuming auctions. Sequences that consume space should be relatively tightly defined.

 

No matter where one draws the line, btw, there will always be hands that are going to be guesses. My belief is that in the long run, if one accepts that the number of game misses, due to range issues, is the same regardless of where the lines are drawn, then there is a benefit to the strong, narrower range type of reverse over the almost anything goes school in that the latter will go down at the 3-level, when responder has to cater to the very wide range reverse, while in the former, responder can allow the auction to end at the 2 or even 1 level.

 

I think there is a lot more that could be said on these issues. Everything is a tradeoff or compromise of some kind. The very strong reverse school to which I used to belong allowed for some truly easy and effective game and (especially) slam bidding when one knew what one was doing. This was because responder could very early on decide that slam was in the picture and could start with slam tries at a low level, and opener, having already shown lots of values, wouldn't be worrying about limiting his hand at his next turn.

 

The problem with the very strong reverse school is, imo now, that it left the non-reverse hand as too widely constrained.....it created too many missed games when responder swung low with an 8 or 9 count, and got too high when responder was aggressive.

 

Balancing these issues out requires an assessment of where the optimum dividing line should be. I personally don't find that reference to a notrump range is at all useful. Notrump hands are narrowly constrained as to shape as well as strength, and (ignoring transfers for the moment) the bidding structures used over 1N are fundamentally different, and have different objectives, than the methods used over a 1m opening. I think it flat out wrong to apply ideas from notrump bidding to suit bidding, at least in the early rounds.

 

To me, as I currently see things, the dividing line for reverses is more of a blur than a sharp line. Wonderful 15 counts, with 3 card support for partner, can reverse...personally, for me it would be a terrific 15 count. Misfitting 16's....not so much.

 

At the end of the day, what matters most is that partner knows what to expect and that the pair have very good methods over the reverse hand. I think one would find that the lighter the reverse, the less effective those methods will be and the question becomes at what point does this growing inefficiency become too problematic. Every partnership has to answer that for themselves, but to do so intelligently, they need to be aware of all of the relevant factors, which include non-reverse hands just as much as they include reverse hands. I am not pretending that I have covered all of the factors in this post.

Of course what you say is true.

 

However

 

What I have argued is not that 15 HCP is a better minimum requirement than 16 HCP

What I have argued is that the minimum strength requirement for a reverse should be aligned with your strong notrump openings, because there is a serious rebid problem for unbalanced hands, which fall in the gap between these minimum requirements.

You have to distort them because a 1NT rebid is not available and these are good hands even if they do not meet your requirements for a reverse.

I would have no issue with putting the minimum requirement at 16 provided you do the same with your strong notrump openings.

The actual hand is just a prototype for this problem:

Opening 1NT with a singleton spade describes your strength but you may miss game or slam in a minor when 3NT is down

Opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣ may see you go down in a 5-1 fit in clubs when you belong in 5♦

Opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ risks ending in the wrong minor.

 

With regard to the dividing line and strength differentiation:

 

Yes we have a very wide range in standard systems to deal with and there are limits what we can do about this with our first rebid.

However, we also know that distributional hands at the top of the range are much much rarer than at the bottom and we have lowered the requirements for distributional opening bids as well in the last decades.

One reason people changed from 16-18 NT to 15-17 was that we nowadays open many more balanced 12 counts and good looking 11 counts (e.g. Axxx Kxxx Axx, xx), which used to be passed. This makes a maximum of 15 points for a 1NT rebid unwieldy.

Another reason was to make a 1NT opening more frequent.

 

Now let's say you hold 1♠-3♥-4♦-5♣ as a prototype reverse distribution.

You will open any hand with this distribution when the range is between 11-21 HCP and this is conservative. Some will open 10 counts frequently.

The point is that hands in the upper HCP range are much less likely to occur than those in the lower range. This is even more skewed with unbalanced hands than balanced ones.

 

If we put the dividing line at 15 HCP for a reverse this means roughly 2/3 of all those hands opened will not qualify for a reverse (11-14 HCP) and one third will (15-21 HCP)

If we put the dividing line at 16 HCP for a reverse 4/5 of all those hands opened will not qualify for a reverse (11-15 HCP) and only one 1/5 will (16-21 HCP).

If we put the dividing line at 17 HCP (remember most said the given 16 HCP hand would not qualify for a reverse) about 6/7 of all those hands opened will no qualify for a reverse (11-16 HCP) and only 1/7 will (17-21 HCP).

 

Now in all seriousness even if we put more importance onto the stronger opening hands (responder is unlimited too!) which agreement does a better job at strength differentiation?

Yes reverses consume a little bit more bidding room, but this is exaggerated in my view and what is the point of reverse agreements if they rarely come up in practice?

If you want to avoid reverses put the dividing line up, but do not tell me you do a good job in differentiating opener's strength.

 

It is true that if the deal is a complete misfit reversing lighter might get you one level higher. Every system decision tends to be a tradeoff.

Getting too high has not stopped us opening lighter and bringing strength requirements down in many bidding areas, because complete misfits are rare.

Playing stronger reverses responder will often have to make another try over a non reverse because opener might still have undisclosed values and the partnership risks losing game.

Then you might go down at the three level when opener is minimum, which is more likely.

Lighter reverses will definitely do a better job in finding the right strain when the deal is not a complete misfit or when responder has not a minimum responding hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

If we put the limit at 15 HCP for a reverse this means roughly 2/3 of all those hands opened will not qualify for a reverse (11-14 HCP) and one third will (15-21 HCP)

If we put the limit at 16 HCP for a reverse 4/5 of all those hands opened will not qualify for a reverse (11-15 HCP) and only one 1/5 will (16-21 HCP).

If we put the limit at 17 HCP (remember most said the give 16 HCP hand would not qualify for a reverse) about 6/7 of all those hands opened will no qualify for a reverse (11-16 HCP) and only 1/7 will (17-21 HCP).

As I wrote above this is disingenuous because it does take into account that invites are possible over the lower range. What you actually have in practise is:

 

min 15: 11-12/13-14/15-21

min 16: 11-13/14-15/16-21

min 17: 11-13/14-16/17-21

 

But even that is not really correct if we think of the reverse as an invitation in its own right. That allows us to split the top range, which might just seem to get back to what you had before but this is not true. The 4 ranges in the resulting table are not equal; the middle two are much more important than those at the end because they represent the accuracy of our invites and therefore the accuracy of our game bidding:

 

min 15: 11-12/13-14/15-17/18-21

min 16: 11-13/14-15/16-17;18-21

min 17: 11-13/14-16/17/18-21

 

And this is the crux of it.

 

Now this is itself not quite fair because the min 17 style typically comes from a background with light responses, so 18 may not be enough to force to game. To preserve the 2 point ranges in the critical middle 2 ranges, you automatically need to raise the minimum for a reverse as you lower the requirements for a response. But perhaps you can at least see in the above table why 16 as a cut off makes sense, even if you disagree with the logic within the context of the overall system.

[Cyberyeti]

As stated, our agreement is Lebensohl over partner's reverse - FWIW - seemingly not much.

 

That you play Lebensohl doesn't exclude 4SF as well, Lebensohl knows where it's going initially, 4SF doesn't in these circumstances.

[rhm]

As I wrote above this is disingenuous because it does take into account that invites are possible over the lower range. What you actually have in practise is:

 

min 15: 11-12/13-14/15-21

min 16: 11-13/14-15/16-21

min 17: 11-13/14-16/17-21

 

But even that is not really correct if we think of the reverse as an invitation in its own right. That allows us to split the top range, which might just seem to get back to what you had before but this is not true. The 4 ranges in the resulting table are not equal; the middle two are much more important than those at the end because they represent the accuracy of our invites and therefore the accuracy of our game bidding:

 

min 15: 11-12/13-14/15-17/18-21

min 16: 11-13/14-15/16-17;18-21

min 17: 11-13/14-16/17/18-21

 

And this is the crux of it.

 

Now this is itself not quite fair because the min 17 style typically comes from a background with light responses, so 18 may not be enough to force to game. To preserve the 2 point ranges in the critical middle 2 ranges, you automatically need to raise the minimum for a reverse as you lower the requirements for a response. But perhaps you can at least see in the above table why 16 as a cut off makes sense, even if you disagree with the logic within the context of the overall system.

Sorry I do not really understand what you are saying.

Responder is essentially unlimited and we just know he has at least 4 cards in a major. With Walsh popular or similar he can have a vast variety of distributions and strength.

 

Are you claiming there is no substantial difference whether a non reverse rebid shows 11-14 or 11-15 or 11-16?

Are you claiming there is no problem when a non reverse say 1♣-1♠-2♣ could show five cards or six cards?

 

There is not only a problem whether there is enough strength to reach game. There is also an issue which game or slam.

I am not sure what you believe in.

But I believe the foundation of good slam bidding is based to a large extent on information in the early rounds of bidding and discovering distributional fits (trump agreement) early instead of groping in the dark.

Later rounds of bidding heavily depend on that information.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I believe that separating out range evenly is often important but that evenly overall does not necessarily mean evenly on this round of bidding. I believe that ranges critical for accurate game bidding are more important than separating out different sub-ranges within the part-score and game zone, notwithstanding that the latter are useful for slam bidding. I see little problem in the possibility of 1♣ - 1♠; 2♣ containing a 5 card suit. That is also the case for your methods unless I am missing something, albeit less frequently. There is generally enough space between 2♣ and 3NT to sort things out if we are in the game zone.

 

But what I was actually pointing out was that your categorisation of 15+ as 2/3 against 1/3 and the others as 80+% 2♣ and 20-% fpr everything else is deeply flawed. It was also a continuation of our earlier theme that you had never seen any arguments for the reversing range being what it is. In short, what I believe in is splitting hand types, not hand probabilities. I believe this is what leads to greater bidding accuracy and easier decisons on later rounds.

[awm]

Easy 1♣ for me. I feel that some people are over-predicting the auction.

 

Certainly it is possible that partner will respond 1♠ and opponents are passing and I will be forced to choose between a slight overbid (2♦) and a slight underbid (2♣) at my second turn. But there are many ways the auction can go -- maybe partner responds 1♥, maybe opponents are bidding spades and I am doubling back in, etc. In these cases I will generally be glad not to have distorted my hand on the first call!

 

And even if partner is responding 1♠ and opponents are passing, it's not clear that a 1NT bid gets us to the right spot (i.e. we could play 2♠ in a 5-1, or we could miss a good slam when partner has weak spades and scattered values).

[mikeh]

Of course what you say is true.

 

too bad you didn't stop there :P

 

 

However

 

What I have argued is not that 15 HCP is a better minimum requirement than 16 HCP

What I have argued is that the minimum strength requirement for a reverse should be aligned with your strong notrump openings, because there is a serious rebid problem for unbalanced hands, which fall in the gap between these minimum requirements.

You have to distort them because a 1NT rebid is not available and these are good hands even if they do not meet your requirements for a reverse.

I would have no issue with putting the minimum requirement at 16 provided you do the same with your strong notrump openings.

<snipped>

 

I think this is simply an erroneous correlation. I see zero reason for conflating balanced hand bidding with unbalanced hand bidding. Now, if you are a believer in rebidding 1N with 1=3=4=5 in range (ie, here, 11-14) there is some limited merit in your thinking, but even then I don't find it at all persuasive. We use fundamentally different tools when partner opens 1N, so there is no reason at all to correlate reverse-strength to the 1N opening.

 

<snipped>

 

With regard to the dividing line and strength differentiation:

 

 

One reason people changed from 16-18 NT to 15-17 was that we nowadays open many more balanced 12 counts and good looking 11 counts (e.g. Axxx Kxxx Axx, xx), which used to be passed. This makes a maximum of 15 points for a 1NT rebid unwieldy.

Another reason was to make a 1NT opening more frequent.

 

Having been around when 16-18 was still being played by a small but not tiny minority in NA, and having done a LOT of reading of bridge literature from the 1950s through 1970s, it is my understanding that the lowering of the range of 1N happened before it became common to open 11 counts. It arose because methods over 1N had become very well developed and were leading to good results, and then it was realized that we hold far more 15 counts than 18, hence let's maximize the availability of our best-developed constructive bidding sequences. I think you are using a retroscope to try to argue that the lower range openings can first or even concurrently.

Now let's say you hold 1♠-3♥-4♦-5♣ as a prototype reverse distribution.

You will open any hand with this distribution when the range is between 11-21 HCP and this is conservative. Some will open 10 counts frequently.

The point is that hands in the upper HCP range are much less likely to occur than those in the lower range. This is even more skewed with unbalanced hands than balanced ones.

 

If we put the dividing line at 15 HCP for a reverse this means roughly 2/3 of all those hands opened will not qualify for a reverse (11-14 HCP) and one third will (15-21 HCP)

If we put the dividing line at 16 HCP for a reverse 4/5 of all those hands opened will not qualify for a reverse (11-15 HCP) and only one 1/5 will (16-21 HCP).

If we put the dividing line at 17 HCP (remember most said the given 16 HCP hand would not qualify for a reverse) about 6/7 of all those hands opened will no qualify for a reverse (11-16 HCP) and only 1/7 will (17-21 HCP).

 

Now in all seriousness even if we put more importance onto the stronger opening hands (responder is unlimited too!) which agreement does a better job at strength differentiation?

Yes reverses consume a little bit more bidding room, but this is exaggerated in my view and what is the point of reverse agreements if they rarely come up in practice?

If you want to avoid reverses put the dividing line up, but do not tell me you do a good job in differentiating opener's strength.

 

<snipped>

 

 

What you say is 'true' in the sense of relative distribution of hands, and of the problems inherent in trying to differentiate the wide range non-reverse hands when playing 'strong' reverses. It is also true that there is a tradeoff no matter what approach you take.

 

It is clear that my perception of the difficulties from our respective positions is different from yours. I will add that the current tendency to permit 1N rebids on in-range 5431 hands, with a stiff in partner's spade response, tends to lessen the problem for the strong reverse group, to a modest degree (altho it creates other problems which is why it isn't universal).

 

My take on our disagreement is that I think you underestimate the problems that arise after a weak reverse, and you think I underestimate the problems that arise when the non-reverse is wide-range. I doubt that either will convince the other, since my opinion is based upon a lot of play experience and I suspect yours is as well. This is one reason bridge is a great game :D :D

[aguahombre]

Easy 1♣ for me. I feel that some people are over-predicting the auction.

 

Certainly it is possible that partner will respond 1♠ and opponents are passing and I will be forced to choose between a slight overbid (2♦) and a slight underbid (2♣) at my second turn. But there are many ways the auction can go -- maybe partner responds 1♥, maybe opponents are bidding spades and I am doubling back in, etc. In these cases I will generally be glad not to have distorted my hand on the first call!

 

And even if partner is responding 1♠ and opponents are passing, it's not clear that a 1NT bid gets us to the right spot (i.e. we could play 2♠ in a 5-1, or we could miss a good slam when partner has weak spades and scattered values).

This rare for me: disagreeing with Adam.

 

I see nothing convenient to do on the second round in an uncontested auction (in a 15-17 NT context) after opening 1♣.

 

Every rebid will be a distortion of both size and shape. When this happens, I choose to distort shape the first time, and get it over with early :rolleyes:

[nige1]

As stated, our agreement is Lebensohl over partner's reverse - FWIW - seemingly not much.

Another common agreement that requires minimal discussion is "cheapest of 2NT and 4th suit Lebensohl, everything else natural and GF". Now you cannot give partner a choice of majors at the 2 level any more but you have gained quite a bit on constructive auctions; which is a good trade overall.

Over reverses, Blackout has obvious merit but we already play Lebensohl in other situations, so, here, we can returm to familiar ground, even if out of step with experts. We don't miss FSF since Lebensohl provides invitational and GF options, especially when we have a fit in one of opener's minors. We find 2M more useful to express weak likely-misfit hands with long majors.

[awm]

This rare for me: disagreeing with Adam.

 

I see nothing convenient to do on the second round in an uncontested auction (in a 15-17 NT context) after opening 1♣.

 

Every rebid will be a distortion of both size and shape. When this happens, I choose to distort shape the first time, and get it over with early :rolleyes:

 

1C-1D-3D seems perfect; it may be hard to even find this fit if opened 1nt

1C-1H-2D is fine, 3-support being an upgrade; might be hard to get to game/slam after a 1nt open and here we can pattern out

1C-2C or 1C-3C is great, might find a good 5m/6m when 3nt is lousy

And this is ignoring contested auctions where 1C-1S-X-2S-X (to give one example) is a near-perfect description.

[aguahombre]

1C-1D-3D seems perfect; it may be hard to even find this fit if opened 1nt

Hold that thought. It would be a hijack, here..but with reverse strength and array (slightly more suit-oriented than the OP hand)...and within Walsh responses where the 1D response might be 3-3-3-4 with 6-7 too weak for 1NT, or 11-12 same pattern...another thread might explore 1C-1D-2D being a true reverse and 3D reserved for something artificial.

[PhilKing]

Hold that thought. It would be a hijack, here..but with reverse strength and array (slightly more suit-oriented than the OP hand)...and within Walsh responses where the 1D response might be 3-3-3-4 with 6-7 too weak for 1NT, or 11-12 same pattern...another thread might explore 1C-1D-2D being a true reverse and 3D reserved for something artificial.

 

This problem is something of an illusion - pard only needs to fudge 1♦ rarely, and even when that is true, the chances of no one overcalling spades is minimal.

[aguahombre]

This problem is something of an illusion - pard only needs to fudge 1♦ rarely, and even when that is true, the chances of no one overcalling spades is minimal.

It is more a matter of "useful space" than frequency of the 3-card diamond response, for us. It would be hard to back off into 2N or 3C if we jump raised to 3D; and, the 2D "reverse" raise could allow a smooth slam probe in either minor below 3NT.

 

Anyway, I really don't want to misdirect this interesting thread further with additional stuff like 1C-1D-3D on AXXX AKXX X AKJX (diamond shortness).

[gszes]

1D

 

Yes Yes I see the AKxxx clubs and the puny Qxxx of diamonds but the 1D

bid causes us the least amount of heartache the most often by far. Easy

rebids and continuations and let's face it the 1c opener does not carry

the impact of the precision 2c bid in any way shape or form so the lead

directing advantage of 1c is overstated here. If p takes a 2d preference

over our intended 2c rebid we can now happily announce our extra power.

 

A 1N opening bid gets the power issue out of the way immediately but will

far too often get us overboard when partner has a spade suit of some length and

is counting on our "doubleton or better" when deciding how to proceed and these

"misguesses" will lead to many big losses.

 

1D may rarely lose the club suit but on most of those hands opening 1c will

still result in the club suit being lost. I am a strong proponent of trying to

open my best minor but here the rebid hassles over 1c seem to make 1d a standout.