Style Check - IMPS none

[dboxley]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hk76dqjt5cakj43&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p]133|200[/hv]

[mgoetze]

And why do you expect to learn anything new from this particular hand? There are people who love opening 1♦ on 1345 shape, there are people who hate it, and there is nothing special about this hand that is going to change anyone's mind.

 

Of course if you want to hear the same old arguments that have been trotted out a million times before you could try the beginner forum.

[dboxley]

And why do you expect to learn anything new from this particular hand? There are people who love opening 1♦ on 1345 shape, there are people who hate it, and there is nothing special about this hand that is going to change anyone's mind.

 

Of course if you want to hear the same old arguments that have been trotted out a million times before you could try the beginner forum.

 

You are an incredible pompous ass.

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hk76dqjt5cakj43&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p]133|200[/hv]

 

This has been done to death in many threads.

 

For the record, I'd open 1♣, bid 1N over 1♠, bid 2♥ over 1♥.

[dboxley]

This has been done to death in many threads.

 

For the record, I'd open 1♣, bid 1N over 1♠, bid 2♥ over 1♥.

 

Thanks for your answer, I don't read the bbo forums very often. I am not trying to start a long drawn out discussion, just wanted to get an idea of the percentage of answers.

[neilkaz]

Where's the box to vote for 1♣ WTP? I'd never consider anything but 1♣ with this fine suit.

[Phil]

Yes, 4-5 has been discussed. A lot. It's a good question of course but that's why it's already been covered.

 

The consensus is to open these 1C. All responses are easy to handle except 1S but with strong clubs I much prefer to treat them as 6 and rebid them.

 

After 10 years or so I guess it's too late to talk about hashtags.

 

Curious why you think vulnerability matters although form of scoring might be relevant.

[billw55]

Where's the box to vote for 1♣ WTP? I'd never consider anything but 1♣ with this fine suit.

Fine enough to rebid 2♣ over 1♠?

[nullve]

A very similar hand (6-K65-Q987-AKJ98) was recently discussed here:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72910-its-easy-for-opener-to-misrepresent-5-4-minors-distribution/

[fromageGB]

I think this just boils down to preferred system. 1♦ from me, but if the question was phrased in a way that meant no specific understandings or methods, then the results may be more meaningful.

[neilkaz]

Fine enough to rebid 2♣ over 1♠?

Yes, for me.

[Cyberyeti]

Fine enough to rebid 2♣ over 1♠?

 

If you play some sort of modern method with a 2♦ inv+ ask, if partner is inv or better you can now describe your hand as a maximum 2♣ rebid with 4♦ which sums it up pretty well.

[rhm]

And why do you expect to learn anything new from this particular hand? There are people who love opening 1♦ on 1345 shape, there are people who hate it, and there is nothing special about this hand that is going to change anyone's mind.

 

Of course if you want to hear the same old arguments that have been trotted out a million times before you could try the beginner forum.

Still the trend is interesting

When the debate started the ones who would open 1♣ and rebid 1NT were a distinct minority.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gszes]

I normally open 1c with this hand type. The dia suit is of such good quality I feel this is an exception to my normal practice. I am "proud" to play either minor and prefer the flexibility offered by 1d followed by 2c in this instance. What would it take to get a 1c opener to change their mind about opening 1c?? 7 A32 AKQ2 87654 surely 1d has to be considered

in the discussion and with 7 A32 8765 AKQ32 even the staunchest 1d opener has to be leery in this case. This hand pattern may indeed have no specific solution in the form of it is always better to open 1c vs 1d or vice versa. For those distributionalists (always 1c or always 1d) please consider the extreme examples presented above and see if you can really reconcile your absolutist choice with them.

 

While I open 1c normally I will change to 1d with any minimum hand (less than a reasonable 16) if the dia suit contains at least 3 of the top 5 honors or the AK. Are there any other "flexible" openers out there that want to offer some criteria of when they would choose to open 1d vs 1c? Maybe this topic can be interesting to standard bidders after all:)

 

Once one decides to open this hand 1d most rebid problems over 1s are over but there is still the problem of what to do if p bids 1h. I would bid 2h mainly because I do not want the opps to easily discover their 8+ card spade fit. If p cannot move over 2h then we are unlikely to be in a terrible spot (always a good thing)

[kenrexford]

The exact hand is an unfortunate choice, for failure to enable a more interesting isdue, IMO.

 

Some 5431 hand types are difficult in a non-canape approach. The example forces a club rebid with 5 because the 4-card suit is higher ranking but inconvenient. Contrast 4135, which is very convenient.

 

Some 5431 patterns allow for a unique handling where your second call can be in the 3-card suit effectively. E.g., 1453. Open 1D, then rebid 2C if partner responds 1S. 3145; open 1C and then rebid 1S if partner responds 1H.

 

If this is done, the unique follow up is the third rebid. I like for any major call after a 5431 potential to be 4. Thus,

 

1D-1S

2C-2D

2H=1453

 

1H-1N

2C-2H

2S=4513

[ggwhiz]

Are there any other "flexible" openers out there that want to offer some criteria of when they would choose to open 1d vs 1c?

 

I lean to opening 1♦ with this shape if they are of sufficient quality or I can't stomach rebidding 2♣. I'm allergic to rebidding 1nt with a stiff petunia in spades.

 

Of interest is if you reverse the majors. Then I lean towards 1♣ and over 1♥ I'll bid 1♠ on 3 cards. It works surprisingly well, right siding notrump if partner bids it or plays well if you get raised. All based on suit quality of course.

 

Few remember that this is where support doubles came from when Meckwell were getting to too many 3-3 fits, bidding 3 card majors on this kind of hand and directly over a 1♥ opener with 3-1-4-5 where 1nt just looked (and often is) completely wrong. Most think it's to avoid playing in a moyse, NOT.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hk76dqjt5cakj43&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p]133|200|

Prefer to open 1♣ then after a reply of

 

- 1♦ rebid 2♣.

- 1♥ rebid 2♥ (Some partners prefer on a 2♣ rebid).

- 1♠ rebid 1N (Again, some partners prefer a 2♣ rebid).

[/hv]

 

 

 

[jallerton]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hk76dqjt5cakj43&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p]133|200|

Prefer to open 1♣ then after a reply of

 

- 1♦ rebid 2♣.

- 1♥ rebid 2♥ (Some partners prefer on a 2♣ rebid).

- 1♠ rebid 1N (Again, some partners prefer a 2♣ rebid).

[/hv]

 

Nigel: after the 1♦ response you didn't mention an alternative to rebidding 2♣.

 

May I suggest "(Some partners prefer me to raise with 4-card support)"?

[nige1]

Nigel: after the 1♦ response you didn't mention an alternative to rebidding 2♣.

 

May I suggest "(Some partners prefer me to raise with 4-card support)"?

 

you have a point ;)

[Zelandakh]

On this hand, 1♣ assuming a natural context. Change the hand to ♠x ♥Kxx ♦AKQx ♣Jxxxx and you may well get some different responses though. All of the recent hands on this subject have had very good clubs, which tends to explain the "trend". Is there any poster that has actually changed their position on the subject in the last couple of years though? I know I am more likely to open 1♦ now than when I started playing, primarily due to having done so in a strong club context and thereby getting used to it.