5cm and short club

[Bill1pop2]

Hi All.

Recently started playing 5cm , strong NT and short club. I'm not sure Which suit would I open if I have 6 clubs / diamonds and 5 of a major ? If I have 4 diamonds and 5 clubs do you open the Diamond as you have 4 diamonds? By bidding 1c does this deny a 5cm suit and 4 diamonds ?

[Cyberyeti]

You've hit on 2 contentious issues.

 

2245 in NT range are often opened 1N, I would almost always open 1♣ with 4-5 but some disagree.

 

If you're 5116 you can open 1♣ and rebid 1♠ over 1red, if you're 1516 1♣-1♠ is awkward, some (particularly in the US) will open the major most of the time. It may also matter if you play 2/1 GF or not and whether 1♥-2♦-3♣ if you do shows extras and whether you have any.

[AL78]

If the 5 card major is spades and the six card minor is clubs, there is no problem, open the minor and bid the major next time. If you have 6 diamonds and 5 spades, it depends on how strong you are. If you are strong enough to reverse, open 1D and bid 2S if partner responds 2C. If you are not strong enough to reverse, treat it as a 5-5 shape and open 1S. If you are 5422 shape, think how you would feel rebidding the 5 card suit if you can't show the 4 card suit next round. If the 5 card suit is poor and there is a good chance partner's response will prevent you showing the 4 card suit, open 1NT if in HCP range. Opening 1C does not deny a diamond suit, you could have 6 clubs and 4 diamonds, nor does it deny a 5 card major, though the frequency of hands where you would hold a 5 card major after opening 1C is very low.

[DavidKok]

As Cyberyeti pointed out the questions you've asked have multiple answers and depend on partnership agreement. I'd like to add to the above that modern bidding systems go out of their way to show "shape first", so ideally your bidding system would allow you to open 1m with 6m5M even with weaker hands. Most systems have literally no way to convince partner you have exactly 5 of a major and 6 of a minor after opening 1M, so you would only choose this out of tactical considerations (and sell the hand as a 5=5, never showing the sixth card in the minor suit).

 

The system I play has good solutions to most of these, but still struggles with minimum value openings (say 8-11 HCP) with exactly 5 hearts and 6 clubs. I will open those hands 1♥ for lack of a better alternative.

 

It is standard to open 1NT or 1♣ with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs. This is a weak point of many bidding systems, since it is very difficult to show the diamond suit later (especially if you play some form of Walsh). Some partnerships opt to open 1♦ with that holding, but this is not standard and has other downsides. In particular, you would need partnership discussion on how to show this shape during the subsequent auction.

[johnu]

If you're 5116 you can open 1♣ and rebid 1♠ over 1red, if you're 1516 1♣-1♠ is awkward, some (particularly in the US) will open the major most of the time.

 

Not only is

 

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1sp]133|100[/hv]

 

very awkward when you have a minimum hand with clubs and hearts, but

 

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1np]133|100[/hv]

 

is very awkward when you have a minimum hand with clubs and either hearts or spades.

 

If you open 1♣ and rebid 2 of your major in these auctions, partner will correctly assume you have a reverse.

[Evies Dad]

1C-1NT is rather unusual and precise.

Any rebid by opener other than 2C has to be considered in that light.

[helene_t]

W.r.t. 4♦5♣ it depends a bit on your rebid style. If you generally raise on 3-card support and rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit, you don't have a rebid problem with those hands anyway so you might as well bid whichever suit you want partner to lead.

[Cyberyeti]

1C-1NT is rather unusual and precise.

Any rebid by opener other than 2C has to be considered in that light.

 

Depends on system if you respond 1N with some balanced ish diamond hands (3343/3352), but you are guaranteed a 6-2 club fit at least, possibly 6-3, in our case 6-4. It is entirely reasonable particularly if you bid diamonds if you have them to play 2M as reverse or weak 6-5.

[mw64ahw]

I take a binary approach and open all 5 card Majors regardless of the length of the minor suit as this removes any ambiguity

When long a minor responder will often have at least 2M so you play in 2M with a Minimum hand or partner can pass your 2-level 2nd suit bid (assuming 2♣ isn't artificial) or indicate a raise with 2NT when max.

When opener is distributionally, but not hcp strong, I will bid the 2nd suit at the 3 level with at least 5+.

I have a variety of ways to show the strong hands depending on suit opened and the 2nd suit with subsequent bids then defining the length of either suit.

 

When I started play short ♣ I did this in conjunction with an unbalanced ♦ so the suit opens depends on whether the shape is 22(54) or (31)(54)

[DavidKok]

I take a binary approach and open all 5 card Majors regardless of the length of the minor suit as this removes any ambiguity

When long a minor responder will often have at least 2M so you play in 2M with a Minimum hand or partner can pass your 2-level 2nd suit bid (assuming 2♣ isn't artificial) or indicate a raise with 2NT when max.

When opener is distributionally, but not hcp strong, I will bid the 2nd suit at the 3 level with at least 5+.

I have a variety of ways to show the strong hands depending on suit opened and the 2nd suit with subsequent bids then defining the length of either suit.

 

When I started play short ♣ I did this in conjunction with an unbalanced ♦ so the suit opens depends on whether the shape is 22(54) or (31)(54)

I hope your opponents have taken a vow of silence for the bidding.

[mw64ahw]

Methods are of course different with interference, but opening a Major first leaves opponents less room to interfere

[johnu]

1C-1NT is rather unusual and precise.

Any rebid by opener other than 2C has to be considered in that light.

 

Depends on who is responding 1NT. :lol: The light that needs to be considered is that any rebid other than 2♣ shows considerable extras.

[Cyberyeti]

Depends on who is responding 1NT. :lol: The light that needs to be considered is that any rebid other than 2♣ shows considerable extras.

 

Not necessarily, if you have 5 hearts and 6 clubs, that IS considerable extras if your 1N guarantees you a 6-4 fit (as it does for us).

 

AKxxx/Axxxxx is very likely enough to make game opposite xx/Kxxx in your suits

[johnu]

Not necessarily, if you have 5 hearts and 6 clubs, that IS considerable extras if your 1N guarantees you a 6-4 fit (as it does for us).

 

AKxxx/Axxxxx is very likely enough to make game opposite xx/Kxxx in your suits

 

Something like

[hv=pc=n&s=sak862h6d6cat7432]133|100[/hv]

is a very good 5-6 hand.

 

Something like

[hv=pc=n&s=sk10862hkdqckj7432]133|100[/hv]

doesn't play nearly as well.

[mikeh]

I take a binary approach and open all 5 card Majors regardless of the length of the minor suit as this removes any ambiguity

This gets my vote as the silliest comment of the year. Removes all ambiguity? Lol.

[mikeh]

The OP asks interesting questions and, as others have commented, the issues are complex and often system dependent.

 

I usually play somewhat esoteric methods, but have a long history of playing fairly standard (whatever that means) 2/1, so my comments are in that context. Also, despite having played a fair amount of weak notrump methods, I’ll discuss this in the context of a strong, 15-17, approach.

 

With 5=6 blacks, there is no hand on which I’d open 1S. I’d always bid 1C. Then if the auction permits, I can bid spades twice, thus showing 5=6 or better…at least 5 spades and longer clubs. 5=6 is far more frequent than other such combinations.

 

With 5=6 hearts and clubs, it depends.

 

I happily reverse 5=6 with a good 13, all my values in my suits. If I have values outside the suits, and only a moderate opening hand, I’ll treat it as 5=5 and open 1H

 

x AQJxx x AKxxxx is for me a comfortable reverse after a 1S or 1N response. I’ll show the 5=6 next time if the auction permits. It’s very useful to play methods over reverses, such as ingberman. You can see my pinned thread on reverses, although I wouldn’t play reverses exactly as I did back then.

 

The same is true with 5H and 6D.

 

5S and 6D: I always bid 1D. The arguments are a little different from 1C, after which responder, absent competition, is usually responding at the one level.

 

After 1D, responder might bid 2C, but then h3 has values and I’m not at all embarrassed about bidding spades twice…1D 2C 2S is often played as suggesting more than a minimum but I don’t think anyone plays it as a full reverse.

 

After 1C 1N, it’s common in NA to require 8-10 for 1N, responding with a mark time 1D with a weaker hand unwilling to raise clubs and lacking a major.

 

Btw, I note that cyber suggests he’d respond 1N with 3=3=5=2. I truly hate that. I think it’s awful.

 

If you have a hand with fewer than opening values, opener is stronger, so it’s best to let opener declare, both to conceal assets and to right side the contract. If, on the other hand, responder has good values, wtf is wrong with describing one’s hand?

 

Plus, if 1N promises at least 3 clubs, as imo it should, opener is better positioned to compete if 4th seat overcall 2M and is also better positioned to pull 1N to a club partial with a weak shapely opening.

 

The other part of the OP is about the perennial and as yet unresolved issue of 4=5 minors.

 

It’s important to remember that the opponents are allowed to bid. So it’s naive to argue that one always opens 1C on minimum 2245 hands, because you can rebid 1N over a 1M response.

 

Qx xx AJxx KQxxx. After 1m (1S) x (p) it seems misguided to rebid 1N, lol. Edit: this is what happens with long posts where I don’t review carefully before posting. I meant too give opener Qx in partner’s suit, not LHO. With Qx xx, I’d happily rebid 1N given no raise or redouble. But my point was to be prepared for the bidding. Had LHO overcaller 1H, rebidding 1N with my example hand would appear to me to be misguided. Sorry for the error, and thanks to Stephen for pointing out what I’d written

 

Anyway, my approach has always been to open 1C with the vast majority of 4=5 hands ill-suited to a 1N opening, because of strength.

 

Once in a while I have to rebid a poor suit if I can’t bid notrump due to the opps. That’s a negative

 

The alternative, in my view and experience is worse. 1D 1M 2C leaves responder in a terrible position with hands such as a 5=3=2=3 9 count. The 2C rebid could be minimum or just short of a gf jumpshift, so responder strains to keep the auction alive, and will commonly do this by bidding 2D. This is fine if opener is weak with 5=4, since it’s a 7 card fit, which is likely the best one can do. But if he can be 4=5, you can see that the end result is unlikely to be happy.

 

So I open 1D only with an inability to rebid 1N (including anticipating a 1M overcall) AND with a very good diamond suit and a weak club suit. AKQx Jxxxx is exaggerated but shows what I mean.

[mw64ahw]

This gets my vote as the silliest comment of the year. Removes all ambiguity? Lol.

... as to whether opener has a 5 card major. Perhaps the silliest thing is writing and assuming all.

[pilowsky]

OP frames the question in the context of "short club", but doesn't the problem described exist using better minor as well?

I think we had a discussion about the significance of better minor vs short club a while back but I would like to know what specific theoretical problem using short club solves.

[mikeh]

OP frames the question in the context of "short club", but doesn't the problem described exist using better minor as well?

I think we had a discussion about the significance of better minor vs short club a while back but I would like to know what specific theoretical problem using short club solves.

I think that simply playing ‘short club’ doesn’t offer any net theoretical benefit in and of itself

 

It works well in a Walsh style approach, in which. 1D response denies a 4 card major unless diamonds are longer than the major and responder has a good hand. Some play that a ‘good hand’ means invitational or better: I prefer that responder has to have game values.

 

The reason it works well is that opener can conceal his major shape with a balanced hand, rebidding 1N over a 1D response. No major fit is ever missed since responder won’t have a major unless strong enough to bid over 1N

 

Transfer Walsh is even better, but that’s an entirely different level of complexity and there are many versions of transfer Walsh, so simply saying ‘let’s play transfer in response to 1C’ is meaningless without a lot of additional discussion

 

Bypassing a major in order to rebid 1N with a balanced minimum has enormous benefits and no discernible downsides.

 

The opponents are often on lead against 1N or 3N, etc, not knowing if opener has either or both majors. Countless times opponents lead into opener’s good major, losing a trick immediately and concurrently giving declarer a tempo in the play.

 

And when 1N is passed to 4th seat, it’s far more dangerous to balance in a major (or to ask partner to choose a major) when opener could be as much as 4=4 in those suits.

 

And it gets better: say the auction goes 1C 1D 1S

 

Responder knows now that opener has at least 4 spades and longer clubs…he is at least 4=5 in the blacks.

 

Imagine a common hand type such as Qx Jxx KJxxx Jxx

 

Bid 1N and opener may hold AJxx x xxx AKxxx

 

The opps run 5 hearts at him right away, and 1N is almost certainly down. Bid 2C instead, knowing you have an 8 card fit.

 

Or give responder a good hand with 4 clubs. Say Kx Axx KQJx QJxx

 

If opener would bid 1S on some 4333 or 4324, you’d probably want to be in 3N, but if he promises shape for 1S, you may be able to bid a club slam.

 

So short club works well in a Walsh style and extremely well in a transfer Walsh style. But if you bid ‘up the line’, I think that, subject to the next paragraph, short club methods are not very good.

 

Finally, ignoring Walsh altogether, there is a modest competitive advantage if 1D promises at least 4 diamonds…say it goes 1D (1S) and responder has a modest hand with 4 diamonds. It can be dangerous to raise diamonds if partner might have only 3. Of course, the converse is true…when opener could have as few as two clubs, raising clubs is dangerous. The good news is that diamonds outrank clubs so it is very slightly better to improve your diamond bidding than your club bidding.

 

However, I’d advise against opening 1C on a singleton, so for me ‘short club’ should be 2+ and I wouldn’t do it if we bid up the line.

[AL78]

However, I’d advise against opening 1C on a singleton, so for me ‘short club’ should be 2+ and I wouldn’t do it if we bid up the line.

 

There is a pair at my club that played 1♦/♥/♠ opening showed five cards so a 1♣ opening could be as short as one. It is the only time I have seen a short club system that short.

[DavidKok]

Great comments as always mikeh. Thank you for the level of detail and for explaining the rationale behind system choices instead of just giving the resulting bidding system. I agree with everything you said but would like to add some small notes.

 

Anyway, my approach has always been to open 1C with the vast majority of 4=5 hands ill-suited to a 1N opening, because of strength.

 

Once in a while I have to rebid a poor suit if I can’t bid notrump due to the opps. That’s a negative

 

The alternative, in my view and experience is worse. 1D 1M 2C leaves responder in a terrible position with hands such as a 5=3=2=3 9 count. The 2C rebid could be minimum or just short of a gf jumpshift, so responder strains to keep the auction alive, and will commonly do this by bidding 2D. This is fine if opener is weak with 5=4, since it’s a 7 card fit, which is likely the best one can do. But if he can be 4=5, you can see that the end result is unlikely to be happy.

 

So I open 1D only with an inability to rebid 1N (including anticipating a 1M overcall) AND with a very good diamond suit and a weak club suit. AKQx Jxxxx is exaggerated but shows what I mean.

I play short club and unbalanced diamond, so 1♦-1M; 1NT is not in use in my system. We use this to show exactly 4♦5♣ and insufficient strength to open 1♣ and reverse into 2♦. It is NF. By contrast, 1♦ into 2♣ shows an unambiguous 5=4 minors or longer (even over 1♠, we open 1♣ with 1=4=4=4).

In my experience the main downside of opening 1♦ on xy45 with weak hands is that responder will often compete with only 3-card support (one of the upsides of unbalanced diamond) or bid higher than 'the law' with 4-card support. Also we might lose a 5-3 or even 5-4 club fit, similar to how we sometimes lose a 5-3 diamond fit if we open a 3=3=5=2 with 1♣.

I think on balance this is playable but not great. Weak xy45 hands are a seam in most methods, opening 1♣ and rebidding them is also not ideal, especially if the suit is weak.

 

I think that simply playing ‘short club’ doesn’t offer any net theoretical benefit in and of itself

 

It works well in a Walsh style approach, in which. 1D response denies a 4 card major unless diamonds are longer than the major and responder has a good hand. Some play that a ‘good hand’ means invitational or better: I prefer that responder has to have game values.

Very much so! And of course this is slightly 'chicken and the egg' - the short club is beneficial in combination with a Walsh structure, but it is precisely because showing majors early is a good idea in and of itself that short club can get an edge.

 

No major fit is ever missed since responder won’t have a major unless strong enough to bid over 1N

 

[...]

 

Bypassing a major in order to rebid 1N with a balanced minimum has enormous benefits and no discernible downsides.

It is possible to lose a 4-4 spade fit with this approach, but it is rare. For example ♠KQxx, ♥Qxx, ♦xx, ♣AKxx opposite ♠Jxxx, ♥AKxx, ♦xx, ♣xxx, where the auction will (presumably) go 1♣-1♥; 1NT-P. I chose my example to be maximally disturbing with a wide open diamond suit. On balance I much prefer bypassing the major suits in a balanced hand though, I fully agree with the other points.

 

Finally, ignoring Walsh altogether, there is a modest competitive advantage if 1D promises at least 4 diamonds…say it goes 1D (1S) and responder has a modest hand with 4 diamonds. It can be dangerous to raise diamonds if partner might have only 3. Of course, the converse is true…when opener could have as few as two clubs, raising clubs is dangerous. The good news is that diamonds outrank clubs so it is very slightly better to improve your diamond bidding than your club bidding.

 

However, I’d advise against opening 1C on a singleton, so for me ‘short club’ should be 2+ and I wouldn’t do it if we bid up the line.

There are two more theoretical reasons to prefer to have a more descriptive 1♦ opening at the cost of muddying the 1♣ opening.

1. Balanced minima are just awful in competition, to the extent it is beneficial to rule them out as soon as possible. Weak NT bidders have a significant advantage here, but balanced club in a strong NT system approximates the same approach. If most balanced minimum hands open 1♣ regardless of minor suit holding you can compete freely if partner opens 1♦ (showing, for example, 5+ or 4=4=4=1), at the cost of having to cater to the dreaded balanced minimum if the opponents compete over 1♣. But the high frequency of a balanced minimum in 1♣ is also something of an upside. It makes splitting rebids into "balanced minimum" and "other" worthwhile (incidentally, this is exactly what happens if you bypass a major suit to show a balanced minimum).
   
2. Using 1♣ as the dumping ground for balanced minima instead of 1♦ saves one valuable step, which allows for systems such as Transfer Walsh or Dutch Doubleton. In fact, in a vacuum we would prefer to open 1♣ significantly more often than 1♦ (I think the theoretically best value is something like 40% more?) to make optimal use of our bidding space. However, this is only true if the opponents are silent.
   

 

There is a pair at my club that played 1♦/♥/♠ opening showed five cards so a 1♣ opening could be as short as one. It is the only time I have seen a short club system that short.

One pair at my local club play this as well, but they only open 1♣ on a singleton with exactly a 4=4=4=1 hand. For all intents and purposes it is the same system as a 2+ 1♣ (but keep in mind there are many different "2+ 1♣" systems). I think they just love alerting 1♣ as "1+". However, if you start to add other hand types with a singleton club to your 1♣ opening (I don't know, maybe (43)=5=1?) then I think the system would quickly descend into chaos.

[nullve]

So it’s naive to argue that one always opens 1C on minimum 2245 hands, because you can rebid 1N over a 1M response.

 

Qx xx AJxx KQxxx. After 1m (1S) x (p) it seems misguided to rebid 1N, lol.

1N is dangerous?

 

2♣ is not dangerous?

[mikeh]

1N is dangerous?

 

2♣ is not dangerous?

It’s funny. I post. You can’t help yourself. You have, it seems, a pathological need to make a critical comment, usually revealing a failure of comprehension. Get some help….lol.

[Stephen Tu]

It's funny. I post. You can't help yourself. You have, it seems, a pathological need to make a critical comment, usually revealing a failure of comprehension. Get some help….lol.

Well, I also don't comprehend your comment. Are you saying that rebidding 1nt is misguided, and that one should rebid clubs (or reverse into 2d without extras), or not?

 

We are asking you for help, to explain yourself more. Because some of us see significant advantages in rebidding 1nt without stopper or half stopper after a negative double on a somewhat routine basis. Here our 2c bid more reliably implies 6, we don't get stuck in 5-1 fits as often. Our reverse can promise extras. With a half stop, lead in their suit comes up to us, from the overcaller, which is often better when partner has help in the suit. We aren't stuck for a decent rebid with something like xxx Qxx AJx AQxx. If 1nt is our best scoring contract when partner isn't taking another bid, we get to declare it rather than some lower scoring 2m. In my experience with opponents not raising and only holding 2, partner often has length and help in NT. If we declare 1nt, the opponents might run the suit, but we aren't down yet, and still might have 7 after they take the first 5 or 6. The only big downside as far as I can tell is that partner has to have stopper or first confirm we have stopper if his next intention is to bid 3nt.

 

I don't see why you should attack criticism so harshly and tell people to get help. Your posts are usually chock full of very good, accurate information. Mostly I think the bulk of us are nodding silently in agreement. But occasionally IMO you make strong statements that reveal an inflexibility of thought, lack of thorough thinking about possible methods and tend to dismiss things as misguided/fundamentally unplayable or something like that when there are perhaps advantages that you haven't fully considered or haven't tried.

[DavidKok]

The only big downside as far as I can tell is that partner has to have stopper or first confirm we have stopper if his next intention is to bid 3nt.

At IMP scoring there is a significant downside. 3NT will frequently be wrong-sided, or even be reached when 4M in a 7-card fit or 5m is better. At MPs the 'race to 1NT' is arguably more important, but at IMPs bidding 1NT is more of a stepping stone to 3NT than a suggestion of the final contract. Or, to put it differently, we can always bid NT later if that turns out to be correct.

There is a secondary downside of suggesting we have that dreaded 'balanced minimum'. If the opponents do take further action partner might not compete aggressively enough. The example hand was ♠Qx, ♥xx, ♦AJxx, ♣KQxxx on the auction 1♣-(1♠)-X-(P); ? (some partnerships will open 1♦ instead, e.g. I systematically have to). Both 3♣ and 3♦ might be fine contracts based on the auction thus far. Plus partner needs significant extras for the double to make 3NT a good proposition, so if that is the best contract we can always bid it later. With a minimum hand like 3=4-(42) partner won't move over 1NT nor over 1NT-(2♠).