[Kalvan14]

Scoring: XIMP

---

The choice is between 2♣ (semi GF) or 1♦.

No strong club, pleeeeease!

[pbleighton]

Close.

1D. The SK is a flaw, and it decreases the chance the hand will be passed out.

Peter

[Gerben42]

Depends on my system. I have a bid for this hand. 2♣ 2♦ 3♥ = ♦ with 4♥. If I have that bid I open 2♣. If not, then 1♦.

[Kalvan14]

I'd have been much more willing to open 2♣ with a 2-2-6-2 (3N would be almost sure). Strong hands with 6m / 4M are not easily bid when you give away the first 6 levels of bidding.
The ♠K is more of a red herring than a full plus. And IMHO it would be very unusual if 1♦ would be passed out.

[cherdano]

2♣.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Mar 6 2006, 04:00 AM, said:

Depends on my system. I have a bid for this hand. 2♣ 2♦ 3♥ = ♦ with 4♥. If I have that bid I open 2♣. If not, then 1♦.

I see Gerben, you are now responding with xxxx Jxxxx xx xx?

Arend

[Miron]

Close decision (every post contains this, my as well).
1♦. I have better chance to find 4-4 ♥ fit. Also this hand is not THAT strong (one more Q and clear 2♣).
After 2♣ it will be more difficult to find hearts:
2♣-2♦-3♦-3NT-4♥?
Or would partner say 3♥ after 3♦ with hearts?
(BTW: would you say? I play a bit different structure after 2♣, so I'm not sure here).

[luis]

2♣ looks clear.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1D, intending to bid 3H.
If partner passes, we wont make
3NT most of the time, ... they have
the spades, chances are great they
have the Ace as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joker_gib]

luis, on Mar 6 2006, 02:06 PM, said:

2♣ looks clear.

Ditto

[inquiry]

It seems to me the wheels are going to fall off too often if you are forced to open this hand with 2♣. The reason is that your next bid will be 3♦ which is forcing, so unless you stumble into a heart fit, you might as well just open 3NT for that is where you are headed. Better to open 2NT, sure you have a singleton but it is a king. Sure you don't quite have enough hcp, but the diamond suit has to more than adequately make up for that.

I happen to play a version of multi-2♦ that includes, among others, acol two in a minor, and would choose that for this hand. Without the multi-2♦ I would open 2NT and see what happens.

[Fluffy]

Depends on if you want find ♥ fit or not. I do, so 1♦

[whereagles]

What do you guys have against 2♣ openings? Whenever I see a "2♣ or not" problem, almost everybody opens something other than 2♣...

If you never open 2♣, you might as well play that as WEAK.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Mar 6 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

What do you guys have against 2♣ openings? Whenever I see a "2♣ or not" problem, almost everybody opens something other than 2♣...

If you never open 2♣, you might as well play that as WEAK.

The first time I saw this hand, I counted it as 19 hcp... here I see must have mentally totally discounted the king of spades to 0... that is wrong, so I would in fact open it 2♣ and rebid 2NT if the multi-2♦ was not available.

As or your comments about something against opening 2♣ with strong hands. I have nothing against it, in fact, my opening of 2♣ is probably much more liberal than most peoples. For instance I will open both of the following hands 2♣

AT9x KQxx x AQxx and

AKJTxx AQx QJ9 x

I suspect I will be in a huge minority on both of these hands.. the first one I might be in a minority of one. Be that as is may, there is a problem opening 2♣ with the example in this post. That problem is it is impossible to accurately descibe your hand with your second bid. I suspect many people will rebid 3♦ with this hand, which is a "new suit" and is forcing. So they will fluttering along forcing the auction higher and higher. Those who rebid 2NT, however, are exactly right.

[Al_U_Card]

With more quick tricks than losers (doesn't matter that it might end up in NT, because P will have S) I would open this rock 2C. Even playing 2H response as a bust, you bid 3D and go from there. Over 2D I would bid 2NT and if pard bids 3NT, I would think about looking for 5D. If he bids stayman then you are off to the races.

[pclayton]

8 tricks and 8 controls? I think unless your name is Fantoni, this is a 2♣ opener, not a 1♦ opener.

I'm driving toward 3N, so lets let pard in on the process and tell him about our ♦ suit along the way.

[luis]

To the 1♦ openers I wish you luck in your 1♦ contract but you probably don't need it :-)

[mikeh]

1♦: wtp?

Seriously, the risk of 1♦ being passed out is remote and the result, when it happens, is not automatically bad! Style matters, and in my partnerships, we strain to keep a minor opening alive. If your partnerships require 6 points to respond, for example, then use 2♣.


In my experience, opening 1♦ on this hand type leads to well controlled auctins unless they bounce in a black suit: but even then, you are ahead of the 2♣ bidders.

If they preempt, at least you will have begun the auction with your long suit and you can usually (except at high levels) get to suggest your strength and distribution. Imagine them bouncing in ♠: is your ♠K valuable now?

Contrast this with opening 2♣ and having ♠ bid and raised: now you are in a forcing auction on a hand that is borderline and you have not even begun to suggest your shape.

And if the opps do not preempt, then starting with 1♦ allows you to bid out your hand, while 2♣ will often result in you preempting yourself out of ♥.

The majority of players have trouble with this type of hand after opening 2♣ (which is why some adopt the jump rebid of 3Major to be 4 major and longer ♦, with that agreeement, I would choose 2♣ if my hand were K AK10x AKQxxx Kx).

Open 2♣, and hear a 2♦ waiting response: now bid 3♦ (what else? 2N is sick), and good luck finding your 4-4 ♥ fit.

I know that this is a big hand, I know that we all love to hear our side open 2♣, but I truly fail to understand why people think that 1♦ leaves our side poorly placed.

To anyone who points out that 1♦ passed out may miss a game, let me suggest that you attempt to be objective. Of course 1♦ comes with risks but only an idiot would suggest that 2♣ solves your problems. It merely exchanges one set of problems for another.

Edit: I just posted this and then read Luis's last post: Luis and I disagree on many points, but I was not suggesting that I think he is an idiot