[fred]

I would open 1NT.

2nd choice would be 1C then 2H.

No 3rd choice.

For me 1C then 2C shows a 6-card suit. I have rebid 2C with 5 before, but I would never do that with a suit like Qxxxx. 2C is also flawed on this particular hand because partner will not expect 16 HCP (at least my partner wouldn't).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[the saint]

luis, on May 4 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 4 2006, 04:00 PM, said:

T KQ65 AKQ Q8532

Also, I am assuming the following rebids given the opening choice
1♣ 1♠ 2♥
1♦ 1♠ 2♣
1♥ 1♠ 2♣
1NT 2♥ 2♠
So if you would rebid something else, please feel free to say so.

I thought this was an interesting and difficult choice, it's not often that there are four plausible choices for an opening bid on the one level.

What the hell is this?
Why would you open a 4 card heart suit playing 5 card majors in first position when holding 5 clubs?

I open 1♣ which I think it's 100% universal. 1NT is risky, 1♥ demential in my opinion and 1♦ is very funny.

After 1♣ - 1♠ I just bid 2♣ I don't have enough for a reverse and 2♣ never promised more than 5 clubs so it's automatic too.

Luis

Squire would approve wholeheartedly of 1♥, and he is perhaps the finest theorist ever on the structure of natural bidding.

[mikeh]

the saint, on May 4 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

Squire would approve wholeheartedly of 1♥, and he is perhaps the finest theorist ever on the structure of natural bidding.

From the little I know of Squire, he'd be rolling in his grave at what most tournament players think of as 'natural'

And, as for the finest natural bidding theorist, I'd go with S.J. Simon, whose production was cut short by an early death: A Design For Bidding is by far the best book I have ever read on how to build a natural method... I could never play that style, but it is a beautiful book. Unfortunately I lent my copy to a friend who took it on a vacation to Hawaii and it has not been seen since.

[jdonn]

fred, on May 4 2006, 02:15 PM, said:

I would open 1NT.

2nd choice would be 1C then 2H.

No 3rd choice.

For me 1C then 2C shows a 6-card suit. I have rebid 2C with 5 before, but I would never do that with a suit like Qxxxx. 2C is also flawed on this particular hand because partner will not expect 16 HCP (at least my partner wouldn't).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Perhaps Fred is not aware that a 1♣ opening is "100% universal" and a 2♣ rebid is "automatic".

Without saying what I like or don't like I just want to pose a question that may further the discussion. It seems that the general order of preference for the crowd is 1♣ 2♣, 1NT, 1♣ 2♥, 1♦, then far behind is 1♥ (apparently Squire likes it! whoever that is)

Except for some of the 1♣ 2♣ group who seem to think this hand is not misdescribed by that sequence, everyone pretty much admits nothing fits this hand and it's simply a matter of deciding which misdescription to choose. My question is, why is 1♥ promising five so much more sacred of a description to avoid violating than 1NT without a (small!) singleton, or meeting the minimum values for a reverse, or any of the others? Most people immediately write off 1♥ essentially because "I don't have five hearts, end of story", but don't object as strongly to all the other "lies". Why is that?

[han]

Because partner will take us back to hearts on very many hands containing 2 hearts, and 4-2 fits generally don't play as well?

[jdonn]

Hannie, on May 4 2006, 03:37 PM, said:

Because partner will take us back to hearts on very many hands containing 2 hearts, and 4-2 fits generally don't play as well?

Ok, but neither do 5-1 fits (either 1C 2C, or 1NT then maybe transfer to spades) which doesn't seem to be stopping many people.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on May 4 2006, 10:45 PM, said:

Hannie, on May 4 2006, 03:37 PM, said:

Because partner will take us back to hearts on very many hands containing 2 hearts, and 4-2 fits generally don't play as well?

Ok, but neither do 5-1 fits which doesn't seem to be stopping many people.

Well, I would prefer a 5-1 fit over a 4-2 fit any time of the day.
Also, 1N has the upside of getting your values across, whereas 1♥ has no such upside (where, in fact, it may be very difficult to do this later).

I could imagine hands where I would open a 4-card major, but it doesn't feel right on this hand.

Arend

[luis]

fred, on May 4 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

I would open 1NT.

2nd choice would be 1C then 2H.

No 3rd choice.

For me 1C then 2C shows a 6-card suit. I have rebid 2C with 5 before, but I would never do that with a suit like Qxxxx. 2C is also flawed on this particular hand because partner will not expect 16 HCP (at least my partner wouldn't).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I guess you have to alert your 1NT openings then if 1♣ - 1M ; 2♣ is either 6 cards or 5 with a good suit then you need to open 1NT with this type of hands and it becomes an agreement.

Luis

[joshs]

jdonn, on May 4 2006, 03:32 PM, said:

fred, on May 4 2006, 02:15 PM, said:

I would open 1NT.

2nd choice would be 1C then 2H.

No 3rd choice.

For me 1C then 2C shows a 6-card suit. I have rebid 2C with 5 before, but I would never do that with a suit like Qxxxx. 2C is also flawed on this particular hand because partner will not expect 16 HCP (at least my partner wouldn't).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Perhaps Fred is not aware that a 1♣ opening is "100% universal" and a 2♣ rebid is "automatic".

Without saying what I like or don't like I just want to pose a question that may further the discussion. It seems that the general order of preference for the crowd is 1♣ 2♣, 1NT, 1♣ 2♥, 1♦, then far behind is 1♥ (apparently Squire likes it! whoever that is)

Except for some of the 1♣ 2♣ group who seem to think this hand is not misdescribed by that sequence, everyone pretty much admits nothing fits this hand and it's simply a matter of deciding which misdescription to choose. My question is, why is 1♥ promising five so much more sacred of a description to avoid violating than 1NT without a (small!) singleton, or meeting the minimum values for a reverse, or any of the others? Most people immediately write off 1♥ essentially because "I don't have five hearts, end of story", but don't object as strongly to all the other "lies". Why is that?

Essentially becuase:

If you promised 6C and only have 5, or promised 4D and only have 3, there are weaknesses assocaited with these but you will probably end up in 3N anyway when you belong there. Essentially these lies do not mess up your choice of game auctions all that much.

But when you promised 5 hearts and only have 4 you will play a lot of 4-3 major suit fits when you belong in 3N. Is this that hand type where you want to be in a 4-3 major suit fit?

In fact if the auction starts 1H-2m by partner you are really badly placed. You will raise the minor and then when partner bids hearts.... How often will you be going down in some number of hearts when you can make 6 of a minor?

If you don't end up in game, almost anything you do can turn out silly with any plan here. But getting the choice of games right is important, as is getting to game when its good...

Anyway, thats my opinion. And I will open 1M on 4 card suits on some rare hand types, this just isn't one of them.

[luis]

Quote

My question is, why is 1♥ promising five so much more sacred of a description to avoid violating than 1NT without a (small!) singleton, or meeting the minimum values for a reverse, or any of the others? Most people immediately write off 1♥ essentially because "I don't have five hearts, end of story", but don't object as strongly to all the other "lies". Why is that?

Dear Jdonn,
With respect and honor I answer the question you kindly posted.
It is my humble opinion that 1-4-3-5 is not the usual shape that pd expects when somebody opens 1♥ and that makes me think pd might get quite confused in the bidding and eventually take bad decision.

It is also my humble understanding than there is no way to describe a canape hand playing 2/1 or SAYC, so letting pd know you have more clubs than hearts might be quite a difficult task.

Given that pd is not a passed hand I guess we can have some problems in the bidding, innocent pds will take 1♥ followed by 2♣ as 5+ hearts and 4+ clubs.

Sincerely,
Luis

[mikeh]

Why I don't like 1♥, if it promises 5:

1) partner will take us back to 2♥ after either of 1♥ 1N 2♣ or 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ on a doubleton: with our hand liable to be tapped if they play on ♠

2) partner will commit us to ♥ on shapely (and some not-so-shapely) 3 card support when we belong in notrump or ♣: I can see us playing in ♥ on an indifferent 4-3 ♥ fit with a good 5-4♣ fit

3) if we fudge in notrump, we certainly rate to get a poorish board if partner transfers us to a 5 card ♠ suit and passes, but that is the worst case.

If he has 6 ♠, then on many hands we will do as well in ♠ as we would in any other denomination... I am not sure exactly how this would break down, but 6-1 fits can play remarkably well: indeed, if he has, say, KQ987x of ♠ and no more than one useful card outside, that ♠ suit may be almost worthless in any other denomination: would he bid 2♠ or 2♥ with, for example, KQ987x Jxx xx xx after 1♥ 1♠ 2♣, suggesting a distributional hand? I'd rather play 2♠ than 2♥. If you think that this is a clear 2♠ bid, tweak the hand.. there has to be a point at which we'd all bid 2♥ rather than 2♠, with 2♠ still superior: make it QJ98xx or the like... worth 4 winners in ♠ and none in ♥.

Generally, I think that there is more fuzziness about shape with 1N than there is about 1♥ in a firm 5 card major approach.

Add to this the fact that I have some extra hcp in the context of 1♥, but not enough to warrant a third round 2N after a preference to ♥, while 1N is bang on in terms of hcp, and I just feel so much more comfortable with my uncomfortable 1N than a painful 1♥.

[luis]

jdonn, on May 4 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

Quote

Seriously, we are glad to hear what you have to say, and see your choice, but you DO NOT have to crap over any choice that isn't your own.

On a side note when you express your opinion about my posts please don't use the word 'we' as if you were speaking in the name of all the forum posters. What you think is what you think and what the majority of people think may be different.

Thanks,
Luis

[jdonn]

luis, on May 4 2006, 03:55 PM, said:

Dear Jdonn,
With respect and honor I answer the question you kindly posted.
It is my humble opinion that 1-4-3-5 is not the usual shape that pd expects when somebody opens 1♥ and that makes me think pd might get quite confused in the bidding and eventually take  bad decision.

It is also my humble understanding than there is no way to describe a canape hand playing 2/1 or SAYC, so letting pd know you have more clubs than hearts might be quite a difficult task.

Given that pd is not a passed hand I guess we can have some problems in the bidding, innocent pds will take 1♥ followed by 2♣ as 5+ hearts and 4+ clubs.

Sincerely,
Luis

Now that's what I call laying it on thick. But you have the right idea

I am actually more interested in the answer to my question from people who think that 'no bidding sequence describes this hand', not people from your group who think '1♣ then 2♣ describes this hand'. In other words, I'm asking the liars why this is the lie they mind the most. And as I suspected would happen, they don't really even have the same reasons as each other. I think it's just been ingrained in peoples' heads that opening a four card major when playing five card majors is a terrible sin to perpetrate, and that they begin with that premise and then search for the reasons to justify it when on certain hands (not saying this one) it may be a reasonable choice, or dare I say even an obvious choice.

Also, in the ACBL (which is all I can speak for) it is well established that people who open 1NT with a singleton on rare occasions because they have an awkward hand and feel it is the best description do not have to alert. On some hands it might even win a majority vote, maybe something like K KJx AQxx Kxxxx.

[awm]

There are a lot of possible actions for partner on this hand. The problem with 1♥ is that partners like to raise a major suit opening on three-card support. There is no particular guarantee that we can get to the right spot in such an auction, for example:

xxx Axx xxxx AKx

5♣ is probably the spot to reach, and 6♣ has a bit of play. I wouldn't want to end up in 3NT or 4♥ on these cards, would you? But once partner shows a three-card limit raise it will be very difficult to end in clubs.

On something like 85% of hands, our side has an eight-card or better fit. The percentage is even slightly higher when opener has 1435 shape. The hands with a fit also include the vast majority of the hands where we can make a game or slam without a huge number of high card points. With this in mind, I'd like to find these fits when they exist. I'm willing to risk the possibility that I will play 2NT instead of 1NT or 3♣ instead of 2♣ on a misfitting hand in order to find all the light fitting games and also avoid the lousy 3NTs.

Opening 1NT seems like it will do poorly on most hands where partner has three spades, because we're usually better off in another strain unless the three card holding is extremely strong (3-1 in spades guarantees an 8+ card fit somewhere). Opening 1NT also doesn't do well when partner has a moderate five-card spade suit and chooses to transfer and pass, or when partner has a weak four-card spade suit and puts me in 3NT instead of 5♣ or 6♣.

Given the choice between a slight misrepresentation of my strength and a slight misrepresentation of my shape, I very much prefer the former.

Added Later: As another note, the "worst problem with 1NT" isn't that partner might transfer to spades and pass. Take another look at the hand above (xxx Axx xxxx AKx); I think most of us bid 3NT over 1NT with that. Not the right spot. Change a small diamond to a small club and you are odds-on for slam in clubs, but opening 1NT gets you to 3NT, probably down one on a spade lead.

[luis]

I thought your problem was trivial but it turns out it has suprised me.

A 16 count 1-4-3-5 is not something rare so I guess you need to know what you open and what you rebid over 1♠ with that hand. Or am I nuts?
Whatever you have agreed is what is right.
If you have agreed to open 1NT then 1NT becomes alertable as "may contain 1♣ substance with no apropiate rebid and a singleton"

If you have agreed that reverses can be light you open 1♣ and then 2♥ is probably alertable.

I thought 1♣ and 2♣ would be almost universal because you don't need a special agreement to do that. Note that Fred who refuses to open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ has the special agreement that a 2♣ rebid shows 6 cards or a good 5 count and can't be as heavy as this hand. But that is a special agreement or is it not?

Luis

[1eyedjack]

I have no doubt that the question is phrased within the context of a strong NT system, but I think that it may be interesting to note that the hand may illustrate one of the advantages of a weak 1N opening style. In such a method I would open 1C and rebid 1N (15-17) over 1S response. This is slightly safer than opening 1N (15-17) for two reasons:
(1) Partner is more likely to be guarding the Spades
(2) The rebid having denied 4 card Spade support (and some distributional 3 card supports) responder is less likely to reiterate a suggestion of a Spade contract on as few as 5 card trumps.

It could be argued that there are at least equally frequent compensating hands where opener has the same shape but the values for a weak 1N opener, on which the weak no-trumpers are stuffed, but I do not believe that the problem is so acute. A 1C-1S-2C sequence may be unpalatable on Qxxxx whatever your 1N opening range, but at least the overall values of the hand are less distorted if you limit these sequences to the playing strength of a weak NT.

[luis]

1eyedjack, on May 4 2006, 09:23 PM, said:

I have no doubt that the question is phrased within the context of a strong NT system, but I think that it may be interesting to note that the hand may illustrate one of the advantages of a weak 1N opening style. In such a method I would open 1C and rebid 1N (15-17) over 1S response. This is slightly safer than opening 1N (15-17) for two reasons:
(1) Partner is more likely to be guarding the Spades
(2) The rebid having denied 4 card Spade support (and some distributional 3 card supports) responder is less likely to reiterate a suggestion of a Spade contract on as few as 5 card trumps.

It could be argued that there are at least equally frequent compensating hands where opener has the same shape but the values for a weak 1N opener, on which the weak no-trumpers are stuffed, but I do not believe that the problem is so acute. A 1C-1S-2C sequence may be unpalatable on Qxxxx whatever your 1N opening range, but at least the overall values of the hand are less distorted if you limit these sequences to the playing strength of a weak NT.

Well let's say you then have 12-14 and the same shape
1-4-3-5
Playing weak NT do you open 1NT or do you open 1♣ ? And what do you do over 1♠? Aren't the problems symmetric?

Since the weak 1NT has higher frequency than the strong 1NT if you open 1NT here you are in a bad 3NT game a lot more often than the strong NTers.

[cherdano]

luis, on May 4 2006, 11:14 PM, said:

I thought 1♣ and 2♣ would be almost universal because you don't need a special agreement to do that. Note that Fred who refuses to open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ has the special agreement that a 2♣ rebid shows 6 cards or a good 5 count and can't be as heavy as this hand. But that is a special agreement or is it not?

It would be a special agreement in Germany, but I think it would be standard in North America.

Arend

[hrothgar]

luis, on May 5 2006, 12:14 AM, said:

I thought 1♣ and 2♣ would be almost universal because you don't need a special agreement to do that. Note that Fred who refuses to open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ has the special agreement that a 2♣ rebid shows 6 cards or a good 5 count and can't be as heavy as this hand. But that is a special agreement or is it not?

Luis:

Please note that Fred and I agree that a 1NT opening is the smallest lie.
If you find Fred and I agreeing about bidding, I'd hardly consider this a rare/special agreement.

[1eyedjack]

luis, on May 4 2006, 10:28 PM, said:

Well let's say you then have 12-14 and the same shape
1-4-3-5
Playing weak NT do you open 1NT or do you open 1♣ ? And what do you do over 1♠? Aren't the problems symmetric?

Sorry I thought I had addressed this point.

Playing weak 1NT I open 1C with 1-4-3-5 and 12-14, intending to rebid 2C over 1S.

This is symmetrical with the strong NT openers who open 1C and rebid 2C with the same shape and 15-17 points, in as much as both methods distort the Club holding, but with the exception that the weak NT style hand has NOT distorted the overall playing strength of the hand when rebidding 2C. That a-symmetry is the key to my suggestion that the problem illustrates a benefit of the weak NT.