[Badmonster]

Scoring: IMP

---

I opened 1♣ p 1♠ p 2♠ p 3♠ p p p



We made 5s on a d lead.

After the hand someone suggested that on the above hand I should have opened 1♦ and p agreed that he reason he didn't make a 3d game try was he rated my points to be in clubs.

My understanding was that if you have 3/3 you bid clubs and 4/4 you bid diamonds or something apocolypitc would happen. But one of the people I discussed this with advocated your better minor unless you are 4/4. This seems worth at least looking into. What do you think? How do you discuss this with p/u p's? Where would I read about it?

[whereagles]

The reason people open 1♣ on 33 minors is because when you have a set of rules and follow them, it helps to clarify opener's shape, e.g. if the bidding goes

1♦ 1♥
1♠

then opener has at least 44 on the blacks. If you could have 3 diamonds on this auction, it would be more difficult for responder to know what to bid next. Location of high cards is low priority information. Shape and hcp strength are far more important than that.

In any case, with better evaluation you wouldn't miss this game: those high cards are all aces and kings. That is worth more than the usual 14 hcp and you should bid game. The hcp scale is ok for slightly misfitted balanced hands. For suit contracts, aces and kings are worth more than the 3/4 points they're usually given (and queens/jacks are worth less, especially in short suits).

[DrTodd13]

One school of thought is that if you have equal length and a radical difference in suit quality then you open the stronger minor. If you had 3♣ and 3♦ and your ♦ were AKQ and ♣ 432 what would you open? If opps end up declaring the hand then your partner may get off to a better lead. He may also be better able to judge whether the hands are fitting if your bidding indicates the position of your high card points. The question is whether KTx is that much better than xxx. I think Goren suggested you should consider using this rule if the suit quality differs by 3+ points so it is on the borderline.

Personally, if I have a balanced hand with length in the minors and I suspect we'll end up in NT then I used a mixed strategy. Sometimes I will open the conventional minor. If I would prefer an opening lead of ♦ (into a tenace for example) then I may open a ♣ to deter a ♣ lead and perhaps entice a ♦ lead. I'll only do this if the suit quality is not radicallly different between the two suits.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Apr 3 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

The reason people open 1♣ on 33 minors is because when you have a set of rules and follow them, it helps to clarify opener's shape, e.g. if the bidding goes

1♦ 1♥
1♠

then opener has at least 44 on the blacks. If you could have 3 diamonds on this auction, it would be more difficult for responder to know what to bid next.

Just what does your partner open with a 4=1=5=3 shape?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

a matter of partnership agreement, I play it the way
you have outlined.

I dont understand your partners comment, he did not
want to make a game try in diamonds, ... but made what?
What was 3S? A game try in the trump suit, preemptive ?

In case 3S was a game try, you have maximum for your bidding,
you should simply bid 4S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Badmonster]

whereagles, on Apr 3 2006, 12:05 PM, said:

The reason people open 1♣ on 33 minors is because when you have a set of rules and follow them, it helps to clarify opener's shape, e.g. if the bidding goes

1♦ 1♥
1♠

then opener has at least 44 on the blacks. If you could have 3 diamonds on this auction, it would be more difficult for responder to know what to bid next. Location of high cards is low priority information. Shape and hcp strength are far more important than that.

In any case, with better evaluation you wouldn't miss this game: those high cards are all aces and kings. That is worth more than the usual 14 hcp and you should bid game. The hcp scale is ok for slightly misfitted balanced hands. For suit contracts, aces and kings are worth more than the 3/4 points they're usually given (and queens/jacks are worth less, especially in short suits).

You don't think I needed to downgrade for the 4-3-3-3 and lousy spots?

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Apr 3 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

whereagles, on Apr 3 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

The reason people open 1♣ on 33 minors is because when you have a set of rules and follow them, it helps to clarify opener's shape, e.g. if the bidding goes

1♦ 1♥
1♠

then opener has at least 44 on the blacks. If you could have 3 diamonds on this auction, it would be more difficult for responder to know what to bid next.

Just what does your partner open with a 4=1=5=3 shape?

hum. oh, that was a typo. It's not 44 in the blacks but in spades/diams.

[whereagles]

Badmonster, on Apr 3 2006, 06:13 PM, said:

You don't think I needed to downgrade for the 4-3-3-3 and lousy spots?

Perhaps. But I think the plusses (good cards and a max) outweight the minuses (bad shape), so 4♠ should still be bid. Besides, there's nothing against pard having a bit of shape himself, no?

[Badmonster]

Yep. I think here 1♣ was right but my pass wasn't.

But more generally, I guess people do just play better minor. And I'm sure there's more to it than just picking the suit that has the highest high card, or is there? Is better minor better? Or is the 3/3 clubs 4/4 diamonds worth holding onto for a while longer?

[P_Marlowe]

Badmonster, on Apr 3 2006, 02:00 PM, said:

Yep. I think here 1♣ was right but my pass wasn't.

But more generally, I guess people do just play better minor. And I'm sure there's more to it than just picking the suit that has the highest high card, or is there? Is better minor better? Or is the 3/3 clubs 4/4 diamonds worth holding onto for a while longer?

Hi,

the adv. of 3/3 clubs, 4/4 diamonds is,
that you get a better picture about partners
shape.

It is also not easy to get a common partnership
understanding, what it means a minor is stronger
than the other.
Is 1098 stronger / weaker than J87 ?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[EricK]

Your partner should have made a game try in ♦ because your points might be in diamonds. After all, with a 4234 shape you will always open 1♣ even with much better ♦

[cherdano]

I almost always open 1♣ with 3-3 in the minors; I would need a much stronger discrepancy than your hand to deviate from it.

Similarly, when I have fixed a rule what to open with 4-4 in the minors with a partner, I would almost never violate it.

Arend

[barmar]

I think most players bid 1♣ with 3-3 in the minors, and without discussion that's what I would expect from a pick-up partner. Some pairs agree to play "better minor", but that's not the common default.

The nice thing about this is that it means that 1♦ openings usually show 4+ ♦, as the only time you will bid this on a 3-card suit is with precisely 4=4=3=2 distribution (this is also the reason why some pairs play "short ♣" -- then 1♦ is [b]guaranteed[b] to show at least 4 cards).

If your ♦ were something like KQ9 I could see deviating from the normal opening bid (but I probably wouldn't do it myself). Not only does it emphasize where your strength is in a constructive auction, but if LHO ends up declaring it will get partner off to the right lead.

[han]

I must be missing something. Your partner has many kinds of game-tries available, and decides to use the only one that (1) doesn't give any information about his hand, and (2) doesn't allow you to say anything about your hand. (I don't know what you play, but I assume that 3♠ was a non-descript try for 4S).

And then, partner blames your choice of opening bid for the fact that he had the wrong picture of your hand, duh!

The discussion of what to open with 3-3 in the minors is overrated. Just agree on something and stick to it (for the record, I open 1C unless my diamonds are KQx or better and my clubs Jxx or worse, then I might open 1C, but not if I am very strong). Much more importantly, make intelligent game-tries later in the auction that allow you and your partner to evaluate your hand properly.


Two asides:

-Playing that 3♠ is a game-try that says nothing much except "I'm interested in 4♠" is quite useless imho. I suggest you either play it as a bar bid (weak hand, long spades) or as a game try that specifically asks about good trumps. In general, vague invitational bids are rarely right.

-I would have accepted with your control-rich 14-count.

[Gerben42]

One big reason to open 1♦ on 4 - 4 minors is auctions like:

1♣ (1♠) Dbl (Pass) ?

♠xx
♥KQx
♦Axxx
♣Axxx

Now what? If you open 1♦ you can continue with 2♣. Now it's not so clear.

One big reason to open 1♦ has already been mentioned. It makes 1♦ a real bid (I prefer to open 1♣ also on 4♠ 4♥ 3♦ 2♣ so 1♦ promise 4, this is a similar story).

[vang]

i like zia/rosenberg style, described by rosenberg in his book, where you open 'what you feel like' with 3-3, 4-4, 4-3, 3-4 in minors.

[Chamaco]

Anyone who embraces the concept described by Jeff Rubens, the "In and out" principle, will often base his bidding and re/de-evaluation, assuming his pard has points in the suit bid.

If one indeed adopts the In & out principle, the corollary of this, of course, is that bidding empty suits leads to poor hand evaluation by his pard (and often poor results), even if it's systemic.

Because of this I am becoming more and more fond, at least in borderline situations, of bidding suits where there is honors concentration, rather than bidding empty suits.

Balanced hands with equal length in minors are - at least to me - a good example where i beieve it pays off to be more relaxed in terms of promised length but rather prefer the suit quality approach.

BTW, there is a chapter about thi concept i the excellent book by Kit Woolsey "Matchpoints, where he suggests that "not being slave of the system" but allowing ccasional 4 card major opening as well as occasional deviation in 1m opening can be a winner, if used with a grain of salt.

[inquiry]

To be perfectly frank, 1♣ or 1♦ makes little difference here. The combined hands were:

---

The comments about opening 1♦ versus 1♣ is a red-herring. The vast majority of the EAST's holding you hand opened 1♣, you were the only pair not to bid game. Really. the opening bid was not the reason you didn't bid to game.

If 1♣ was acceptible and 1♠ then 2♠ were normal, where did the wheels fall off? The answer can found mostly (but not exclusively) in the 3♠ bid. This was played at imps and you were vul. Your partner is looking at 11 hcp, distributional values and a spade fit opposite an opening hand. 3♠ is playing it too close to the vest at imps at this vulnerability. At several tables West simply bid game after his partner showed ♠ support. This hand, at imps vul, is worth a game bid I think (in fact, you have less than a 50% chance to make game after losing 3♣ you must avoid a ♦ loser and not lose a long spade too. But still looking at both hands, game is where you want to be.

If one pretends that this is matchpoints or imps not vul, then perhaps a game invite with WEST is best. A 3♦ game try seems more informative than 3♠. But rather WEST bids a cautious 3♠ or 3♦ your hand is a clear game accept.
So of I was to apportion the blame. I would share it roughly equal. West for not bidding game or using a more useful game try, and you for your timid pass. But clearly. it would never occur to me to lay the blame on missing the game on the decision to open 1♣.