2/1 Bidding

[relpar]

Is there a reasonable reason to open a 13 point hand 1♦ when your minor suit holdings are ♣ AJ6 and ♦ AK4?

[blackshoe]

Some people like to do that. I'm not one of them. :-) BTW, if you don't have a five card major, your distribution is some 4333 with a four card major. In evaluating the hand, I would subtract a point for that distribution.

 

The reason I would prefer to open 1!C on this hand is two-fold: 1) the only distribution with which I would open 1!D on a three card suit is 4=4=3=2 and 2) usually when I open 1D I have at least four diamonds. These consequences will help partner evaluate our two hands together.

[jwccsllc]

Is there a reasonable reason to open a 13 point hand 1♦ when your minor suit holdings are ♣ AJ6 and ♦ AK4?

 

Generally no. The usual case where one opens 1♦ with a 3-card suit is on 4=4=3=2 hands.

[nige1]

Is there a reasonable reason to open a 13 point hand 1♦ when your minor suit holdings are ♣ AJ6 and ♦ AK4?

Agree with BlackShoe. "Better Minor" is a misnomer. In 2/1, 1♦ opener = 4+ ♦ unless 4432.

[mycroft]

We're playing Precision with a 14-16 NT?

 

Seriously, though, what they said. There are some people who do open their better minor when planning on rebidding NT, but it's an uncommon take. More common by far is "longer minor, 1♣ with 3=3, 1♦ with 4=4".

[mikeh]

Playing a Walsh style 2/1, which is fairly common amongst experienced players (especially in NA), many pairs would open 1C with 4=4=3=2, reserving 1D for 4+. A substantial minority go further, and open 1c even with 4=2 minors, provided the hand is a balanced hand out of range for 1N.

 

I doubt many knowledgeable pairs ever systemically open 1D with 3=3 minors, playing a natural type of method (as in, not one in which 1C is artificial)

[AL78]

No-one opens 1♣ with a 4432 shape?

 

One of the systems played in my area is 5CM, prepared club, which means 1♣ could be as short as two and 1♦ is always at least four. The only time this comes up is with a 4432 shape outside the 1NT point range.

 

I know one pair who play 1♦ guarentees five, so 1♣ could be as short as one.

[FelicityR]

Is there a reasonable reason to open a 13 point hand 1♦ when your minor suit holdings are ♣ AJ6 and ♦ AK4?

 

Most the replies clearly and rightly state that with 3-3 shape in the minors you should always open 1♣, but let's change the holdings to ♣432 and ♦AKQ (an extreme example admittedly) or something similar where one minor is vastly superior to another, not ♦AK4 vs. ♣AJ6. Now, on a holding where the ♦ suit outweighs heavily in terms of quick trick-taking potential than the ♣ suit, I would then open 1♦. Not only because the suit is vastly superior, but as a potential lead-directing bid should we end up defending.

[TylerE]

No-one opens 1♣ with a 4432 shape?

 

One of the systems played in my area is 5CM, prepared club, which means 1♣ could be as short as two and 1♦ is always at least four. The only time this comes up is with a 4432 shape outside the 1NT point range.

 

I know one pair who play 1♦ guarentees five, so 1♣ could be as short as one.

 

It really doesn't change that much. Exactly 4=4=3=2 shape is something like 1.5%

 

Even when I played a precision system where 1♦ was 0+, it had 4+ D like 65% of time, and fewer than 2 practically never.

[pescetom]

Most the replies clearly and rightly state that with 3-3 shape in the minors you should always open 1♣, but let's change the holdings to ♣432 and ♦AKQ (an extreme example admittedly) or something similar where one minor is vastly superior to another, not ♦AK4 vs. ♣AJ6. Now, on a holding where the ♦ suit outweighs heavily in terms of quick trick-taking potential than the ♣ suit, I would then open 1♦. Not only because the suit is vastly superior, but as a potential lead-directing bid should we end up defending.

 

The inferences derived from knowing that 1♦ guarantees 4-cards and does not deny 4-card clubs whereas 1♣ is everything else considerably outweigh this small advantage in my limited experience.