[lycier]

kontoleon, on 2015-November-30, 19:38, said:

heards
On many system (Looks like SAYC) Always open the most lenght, even if is much weaker. Even if is AKQJ10 heards and 234567 Clubs i opened the club).

Hi :
It is your approach,not for me. Obviously opening 1♠ is far more better than 1♣.
I remembered there is a good expert bidding system in USA,its name is Tallahassee Expert Standard Bridge System,its Author Robert S. Todd said very well that " a important philosophy we follow when faced with bidding challenges are to misrepresent minor suit holdings instead of Major suit holdings.

I like Robert S. Todd approach very much,and I will always follow the philosophy of Robert S. Todd.

Thank you for your reply.

[lorserker]

helene_t, on 2015-November-30, 02:40, said:

In my experience this is not so. When it starts
1♦-1♠
2♣
and I have an 8-count 5=3=2=3 then I pass if partner systematically can have longer clubs but bid 2♦ if he can't.

i think that in the case you described above it is not clear whether it is better to pass or to bid 2D because opener could have also longer diamonds, when it is better to bid 2D, or longer clubs, when it is better to pass. we have to guess what to do and maybe one bid has a small edge. this is why i find that which suit is opened has not so much influence because the outcome will be quite random in such cases. the result laregly depends on whether i was lucky to do the right thing, not on whether we had a good agreement.

[1eyedjack]

The 5-2 fit *may* be *slightly* safer than a 4-3 fit. Sometimes it is down to declarer skills not being up to coping with a 4-3 fit. Either way the difference tends to be pretty marginal in the long run (suit quality is important but say that evens out). That should be weighed against the 5-5 and 6-4 possibilities for opener, but more importantly the prospects should opener reckon that he is strong enough to bid again after you have given simple preference, measured against your unilateral decision to close the auction should you give preference by passing.

[Vampyr]

lorserker, on 2015-December-02, 14:01, said:

i think that in the case you described above it is not clear whether it is better to pass or to bid 2D because opener could have also longer diamonds, when it is better to bid 2D, or longer clubs, when it is better to pass. we have to guess what to do and maybe one bid has a small edge. this is why i find that which suit is opened has not so much influence because the outcome will be quite random in such cases. the result laregly depends on whether i was lucky to do the right thing, not on whether we had a good agreement.

Well. If you open your longer suit partner does not need to guess, and the result will not be "random".

[lorserker]

Vampyr, on 2015-December-02, 21:31, said:

Well. If you open your longer suit partner does not need to guess, and the result will not be "random".

if partner has 5-4 it is never an issue, but if he has 4-5 then partner has a guess already at the opening bid. will he get a bad result because he could not show both minors or will he get a bad result because it is not clear how many diamonds and how many clubs he has.

i believe that in a large field with pairs having one or the other agreement in this situation, none of them will have an edge and the result will be determined by other (perhaps random) factors.

[mgoetze]

I've never understood why people have a problem with just opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣. OK, maybe they think they aren't adding any definition, partner already thought I have 4 clubs, now he just knows 1 more card... I see it differently, showing an unbalanced hand rather than the balanced hand partner assumed at first is big. Of course playing transfers I gain additional definition, I'm showing 3 more club cards (will have 2 often enough opening 1♣) and denying 3-card support for partner's major.

Meanwhile resolving an ambiguous 1♦-1M-2♣ is just a pain in the neck. Right now I'm thinking about allowing a 1♦-1♠-2♣ rebid with just 3 clubs (on 1453 shape), that surely won't work if it could also be 4♦5♣.

[nullve]

mgoetze, on 2015-December-03, 01:54, said:

I've never understood why people have a problem with just opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣.

Avoiding 5-1 or 5-0 fits is part of the reason. How would you bid e.g. 13 hcp, 1345 opposite, say, 7 hcp, 5341/5350?

Quote

Meanwhile resolving an ambiguous 1♦-1M-2♣ is just a pain in the neck.

Agree.

Quote

Right now I'm thinking about allowing a 1♦-1♠-2♣ rebid with just 3 clubs (on 1453 shape), that surely won't work if it could also be 4♦5♣.

I open 1♦ with 1453 and rebid 1♠(=4+ H or 1-S3H) over 1♥(=4+ S) but show support over 1♠(=4+ H). Of course, swapping the 1M responses to 1♦ just gives me an analogous problem with 4153, which I solve by opening 1♣(!) and then rebidding 1♠(=4+ S or 3S1-H) over 1♦(=4+ H) but showing support over 1♥(=4+ S).

[mgoetze]

nullve, on 2015-December-03, 02:38, said:

Avoiding 5-1 or 5-0 fits is part of the reason. How would you bid e.g. 13 hcp, 1345 opposite, say, 7 hcp, 5341/5350?

That's easy.

1♣-p-1♠-p
2♣-p-p-X
p-p-XX-p
2♦

(With 5350 perhaps 2♦ instead of XX.)

[lycier]

But our knowledge only skims the surface of the problem.I think we should consider many other problems,involving whether playing better minor,convinient minor,short club opening and opening 1d always promise 4+ cards which are depended on our agreement.
In fact this still is a problem of the bridge,we should face out this question.
Now I can take another related example :

---

---

Opening 1♣?Opening 1♦?Which is better on your agreement?
As for my topic hand,if 2♣ or 2♦ really misfit as final contract,where are majors-fit? Does final contract probably belong to us? If we can't get good contract eventually, opps also can't get it,the final result would be same.

[Vampyr]

On both hands you need to consider your rebid. I imagine that if partner responds 1♠, you will bid 1NT. In this case it doesn't matter which minor you had opened, although 1♣ will allow partner to raise clubs or respond in diamonds, keeping possibilities alive in both minors.

Now what about if partner responds 1♥? If your agreement is that you can raise with this hand, again it doesn't matter much which minor you had opened; similarly if you would rebid 1NT.

Another possibility is that it goes, eg 1m-(1♠)-x-(P). Do you require a spade stopper to rebid 1NT? Would you rebid 2♥ on a 3-card suit? Would your choices be different if the overcall had been 2♠?

If in any of these cases you are stuck after opening 1♣, then open 1♦. This is, by the way, the traditional opening with 4-4 in the minors.

[1eyedjack]

Arguably opening 1D (assuming out of range for 1N) on both of the latest set of hands provides some protection if the auction gets contested, partner forces you to bid, and you no longer feel enamoured of bidding NT to show your shape, ie if the opponents have been bidding Spades.

Personally I open 1C on both (again playing strong 1N), as transfer Walsh responses to 1C are rather better than any responses to 1D, in the perhaps unlikely event of an uncontested auction.

[johnbla]

Since partner has passed, I would open 1♣ and pass a 1♥ response, or rebid 1NT over 1♠.

As dealer, I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. It is important to get your 5suit bid. If partner passes, this should be a reasonable contract, and if he goes back to 2♦ you can correct to 2♥ if his first response was 1♥.

With my minors reversed, I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♥ or 1NT.

With my favorite partners, I play that 1♦-?-2♣ is limited to 12-16pts, but shows roughly equal lengths: With the same distributional limits and 17+ we bid 1♣-?-2♦ (forcing). This has several advantages:

• 1♦-?-3♣ is available as a splinter.
  
• 1♣(1♠)X-2♦ shows 17+ allowing responder to rebid 3♣ with a weak hand.

Especially at matchpoints, which minor is longer by one card is quite unlikely to affect the final contract - it might, but the odds are against it.