Are these opening bids?

[helene_t]

Presumably the 12-16 1nt rebid means 12-16 three suited short spades OR 15-16 bal. If you have good follow ups after that then I think it's ok.

[AyunuS]

1st hand: Yep, I'll open that, unless my partner sucks. Just don't open 1♣ since then you don't have anything good to bid if partner bids 1♠, which is very likely.

 

2nd hand: Nope, don't open that. Even if you're in 3rd or 4th seat and the action seems passive, your partner will likely compete a bit too much since you had an opening hand. And with a balanced hand I don't like to compete too much with both teams have about 20 HCP since they'll probably end up either being able to make spades at the same level you could bid at, or cause your team to bid 1 level higher where you can't make the bid, and then they still get points.

[VixTD]

If your plan is to rebid 1NT over a 1♠ response on the first one, you had better have an understanding partner if he rebids his spades. I don't disagree with opening 1♦ and rebidding 1NT over a 1♠ response, especially at matchpoints. But if the 1NT rebid promises a balanced hand (i.e., at least 2 spades), then you have to rebid 2♣.

 

If your methods require you to open 1♣ and rebid 1NT to show 12-16 balanced, then your methods are partly to blame. But you can always claim that you had a club (diamond?) mixed in with your spades. Did you treat the hand as 1-4-3-5 because of the disparity of strength in the minor suits? Normally with 4-4 in the minors the correct opening is 1♦.

The methods don't require anything in particular. I had to either lie and say I had a balanced hand, or lie and say I was 5-4 in the minors. I don't see much to choose between the two.

 

I have always opened the lower ranking suit when 4-4 in either the majors or the minors and intending to rebid no trumps. I know there are many who open 1♦ with the minors, but I don't think this is universally regarded as "correct".

 

You said you were playing Acol with 4 card majors. Why not open 1♥ on the first hand? Is there something in Acol that would not allow you to open 1♥? I remember from old-fashioned Goren with 4 card majors that you were supposed to open the suit below your shortness (to facilitate rebids). In this case, that would be hearts.

This stems from a peculiarity of the partnership. We open the lower-ranking of two four-card suits (unless 4-4-4-1 and intending to rebid the next suit down) so that our 1M suit openers are nearly always 5+ cards in length. It's not "standard English", and I don't expect it to meet with approval from anyone in this forum. I don't play it with any other partner.

 

As for the rule of 20, the less said, the better.

I don't use the rule of 20 as a yardstick for opening, but Andrew Robson does on his regular seminar tours of these parts, so there must be something in it.

[VixTD]

as for the seond one i'd pass too. why am i so desperate to play 1nt vul that i'm adding points to my hand?

I'm trying to take into account the number of quick tricks, which surely improves the value of the hand. I would normally pass if the AAK honours were all in different suits in a flat hand. I'm not particularly happy about opening 1NT, though.

[NickRW]

You said you were playing Acol with 4 card majors. Why not open 1♥ on the first hand? Is there something in Acol that would not allow you to open 1♥? I remember from old-fashioned Goren with 4 card majors that you were supposed to open the suit below your shortness (to facilitate rebids). In this case, that would be hearts.

 

Assuming you are not playing wide ranging 1NT rebids (not particularly standard, though quite a lot do), then after a 1♥ opener on hand 1, you have to rebid 2♣ after a 1♠ response. But many prefer this to guarantee a fifth heart. Alternatively, if you open 1♣, you have no systemic rebid over 1♠. Many do, however, allow 1♦-1♠-2♣ to not guarantee a fifth diamond. (But the utterly anaemic diamond suit makes this unattractive too).

 

Not saying I agree or disagree with any of that, just sayin' what often gets taught these days in EBU land about 1=4=4=4 shape.

[NickRW]

One thing I might add to the mix here. It has, I think, become fashionable for players to make up their mind as to whether a hand qualifies for an opening bid or not (by whatever hand valuation method(s) they consciously or subconsciously use) - and then, as an afterthought, figure out what opening to select (in whatever system is in use). However, some hands, as here (arguably), don't fit nicely into the system of openings and potential rebids. IMO, if such hands are borderline, pass is often the better option (or change your system of openings and rebids if you really don't like it).

[buha]

I agree 100%

 

The first one is a full Goren 1950's style opening - A and AK and a singleton. I find it hard to believe that anyone playing today would not open that hand.

Quite a few lads, as you can see.

[fourdad]

Pass and pass.,,,,in 1st and 2nd chair. open otherwise.

2.5 quick tricks is tempting, but without a suit it is off...subject to partnershipo agreement as always.

[nige1]

I had to make a decision whether to open these two similar hands as dealer in pairs games this week. I have a strategy that covers this situation, but since it led me to poor results on both boards I'm wondering whether to revise it. Both times I was playing Acol, 12-14 NT, four-card majors. In the first I was vulnerable against not, in the second both sides were vulnerable. Would you open these hands, and why?

[hv=pc=n&w=s7ha862d9643cak72&d=w&v=ew&a=?]133|200|

IMO 3 quick-trick hands with 2 As and a re-enforcing K are worth more than 11 HCP. Nevertheless...

Pass = 10, 1♣ = 9, 1♦ = 8, 1♥ = 7.

Arguably, you should pass borderline 4441 hands that are hard to rebid because they're good in defence as well as offence,

A 1♣ opener is more descriptive than 1♦ but If you open 1♣ and partner responds 1♠ then you are badly placed if your 1N rebid shows 15=17. You might improvise by rebidding 2♣.

If you open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ this normally implies 5♦s, rather than 4 rags. Hence opening 1♦ is just as problematic as opening 1♣

Misrepresenting m-length is less fraught than exaggerating M-length by opening 1♥ and rebidding 2m over 1♠ [/hv] [hv=pc=n&w=s53hak93d9432ca73&d=w&v=b&a=?]133|200|

 

1N = 10, Pass = 9.

 

With a good partner, especially at MPs, there's a better case for opening 1N; but

Most other partners tend to lack understanding when you go for a penalty, "opening a flat 11 count, vulnerable". [/hv]

[nige1]

I opened the first one 1♣ and rebid a 12-16 NT over the spade response.

A 1♣ opener becomes more attractive on the first hand.now that Vixtd tells us that a 1N rebid shows 12-16. Crowhurst popularised this wide-range rebid (hence the Crowhurst 2♣ check-back convention). He had lots of success with it, although it seems unsound to me.

[tma]

By Kaplan Ruben hand evaluation, the first is a clear opener, the second an optional opener. If I opened the first hand, I would open 1D and rebid 2C -- I think biddng 1N both light in points and off shape is asking

for trouble. The second I would rebid 1N but would definitely not open second seat vul.

[mike777]

Good question, many top players open pretty light but I believe Mike Rosenberg passes balanced 12 counts.

 

Excellent question to ask your pards, what hands do they open?

[wank]

A 1♣ opener becomes more attractive on the first hand.now that Vixtd tells us that a 1N rebid shows 12-16. Crowhurst popularised this wide-range rebid (hence the Crowhurst 2♣ check-back convention). He had lots of success with it, although it seems unsound to me.

 

crowhurst was bad 30 years ago. nowadays it's so bad i doubt half of the forum have heard of it.

[rmnka447]

I would open both hands. Both hands have 3 QTs which is enough for me to make some noise.

 

I can't comment on what the proper Acol calls would be as I play Standard American, 2/1, or K/S with various partners.

 

Playing K/S (essentially 2/1 with weak NTs), my partners and I specify that a 1 NT opener is 11+-14 with the 11+ hand being this AK and A hand only.

[Roby]

On borderline hands I use the LTC principle: A minimum opening bid usually contains seven losers. In the first hand I can count 7 losing tricks so I would open, but the second has 8 losing tricks so I would pass.

[Giangibar]

I'd open both hands, even though I feel like the system used by OP makes me lean towards passing.

 

Playing 2/1 with a strong NT, I would definitely open in both cases and I don't think I would encounter many rebid problems: the second hand is an easy 1♦ opener and I can support partner's Hearts or simply rebid 1NT. The first one is trickier, but I think I would open 1♣ and be happy to raise a red suit by partner; if he bids 1♠, as expected, then I'd bid 1NT because it allows me to still find a fit at the 2 level if he rebids 2♦/♥ with a weakish hand... If he is 5-4 in the Majors and I open 1♦ intending to rebid 2♣, I'm probably burying the 4-4 Heart fit. 1♣ also has a lead directing value.

 

However, things are quite different with the OP's system: I would feel uncomfortable opening the first hand, because after the expected 1♠ response I would be stuck. Rebidding a 12-16 NT just makes me sick, while opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ might well lead me into playing 2♦ in a 4-2 fit. I really think the system needs some adjustments in this area. I'd still open a weak NT the second one, though I wouldn't be happy about it because I might be losing a ♥ fit.

[nige1]

crowhurst was bad 30 years ago. nowadays it's so bad i doubt half of the forum have heard of it.

40 years ago, in Precision Bidding in Acol, Eric Crowhurst described his eponymous Check-back convention that spawned the modern variants. He invented many other conventions, still popular today e.g. 5-card Stayman and Woolsey/Multi-Landy/Reverse-Pottage. He was a modest gentleman and a brilliant bridge-theorist.

[SteelWheel]

pass with both

 

Both of these hands can lead to some very poor low level contracts using a weak NT

structure no matter the basic system (except maybe EHA). Sometimes succeeding at

getting to a good low level contract is not worth the overall risk associated with

landing in poor ones. The 3 quick tricks make it much less likely the opps have a

game so the reward part is dramatically reduced while the risk remains.

 

In EHAA, the hand with the stiff spade is a clear pass. Any 4441 in the 10-12 range is a pass in 1st or 2nd seat. If pard opens in one of your four-baggers, you jump in your short suit to show your mini-splinter.

 

If pard opens in your stiff, you jump to 2NT (sort of an "impossible 2NT" type hand).

[mikestar13]

Legend has it that Edgar Kaplan would assassinate a partner who wouldn't open hand 2 with a weak NT.

 

Hand #1 is more debatable, but I'd given it a try with 1♦ in ACOL, and even more so in 2 over 1/SAYC where I and to raise a red suit response might rebid 1NT after a 1♠ response.

 

In the 2 over 1 case, I'll usually open 1♣, intending to rebid 1NT over 1♠ and raise a red suit response.

 

In ACOL, the opening needs to be 1♦, since 1♣-1♠-1NT would show 15-17. 1♥ is also possible, depending on partner's attitude towards 3-card raises of 1M.

[the hog]

The first one has an easy rebid, so I would open. I pass the second as it is too flat.

[mcphee]

While I think a lot of players will open hand 1 my feelings do not fall into that group. When I do not hold spades opening this particular hand may well become a problem. If you open it looks like you might open the door for the opponents to bid some number of S. If partner bids them it does not exactly light up the campfire. 4/4/4/1 hands also often do not play so well facing minimum competition. Yeah you have some stuff, I just think these sort of hands are better to wait and compete later if possible.

 

Hand 2 playing weak NT I'm in (maybe I can groan before opening:))We may even be fortunate enough to have tremendous run out methods if the axe falls.