[jillybean]

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ J82 ♥ KJ87 ♦ 4 ♣ AKQJ4

West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  ?
 


How do you open this & what do you plan for your next bid?

[G_R__E_G]

I'd open 1♣ planning to respond 1♥ to a 1♦ response and planning to respond 2♥ to a 1♠ or 1NT response.

[pbleighton]

I open 1C. My rebid is, depending on pd's response:
1. After 1D, 1H
2. After 1H, 3H
3. After 1S or 1NT, 2C

This hand is not strong enough for a reverse, in my style.

Peter

[cherdano]

1C is obvious. Over 1D I bid 1H, over 1H 3D, and over 1S 2S. These are all automatic for me, but of course there are other styles.

[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Jul 20 2007, 11:03 AM, said:

1C is obvious. Over 1D I bid 1H, over 1H 3D, and over 1S 2S. These are all automatic for me, but of course there are other styles.

Agree on all of these, though I might bid 3♥ instead of 3♦ after a 1♥ response if I was afraid partner didn't know Splinters.

Over 1NT...I pass!

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

1♣ is I hope obvious as the opener.

Over 1♦, of course bid your ♥ at the one level.

If by some miracle partner bids 1♥, jump raise him to 3. You don't have the "points" for this but this hand has enormous playing strength with the ♣ side suit. Yea a splinter is possible but you may confuse partner with this. 3♥ is safe and describes your hand.

Over 1♠ either (1) just rebid your ♣. Some might and probably will jump but I have a 5-bagger only and two seems a-plenty. Not strong enough in my system to reverse into 2♥ or (2) raise to 2♠. Yea, partner may only have 4, but he did skip over the red suits, which raises the likelihood that he has 5+ spades, and you have a singleton and a great side suit. I like the raise myself but I think either is reasonable.

Over 1NT, will anyone consider raising to 2NT? You have 5♣ tricks virtually assured and partner has his values in the other suits. But I'd feel better with a 6-bagger in ♣.

[pbleighton]

I don't think this hand is good enough for a splinter, which I play as GF. If 3D was an invitational splinter, it's OK.

Peter

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I don't think that this hand is "obvious". Look at the various rebids that people are suggesting after a 1♠ response. The pessimists are suggesting a non-forcing 2♣ while the loonies are reversing into Hearts.

Players who chose to open 1♣ are going to be positioned quite poorly after either a 1♥ or 1♠ response by partner. If partner responds 1♥, a 2♥ raise looks to be a severe underbid. Unfortunately, 3♥ is overstating the strength of the hand. You are sitting on six losers, you hold Jxx in Spades, and the Jack of Clubs is (largely) wasted. A 3♥ jump rebid eats up a lot of bidding space. You need to define this rebid quite specifically if you're using it for anything other than a "blame transfer". If partner responds 1♠, things are even uglier because you only have three card support for Spades.

Shift the 4 of Clubs into the Diamond suit, giving partner a 3=4=2=4 hand. I suspect that that the bulk of the players here would choose a 1NT opening. The ones who didn't open 1NT would probably be opening 1♣ because they consider the hand too weak and plan to treat this as a weak NT.

Sorry, but I don't consider this hand good enough to be trotting out 3♥ rebids or splinters.

I know that i am in a small minority here, but I don't have any strong objection to a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening. I think that this accurately reflects the playing strength of the hand. I have good continuations available during any forseeable auction. Partner is a passed hand, so I'm not particularly worried about partner forcing me into a bad Diamond contract.

Sure, I'd prefer xx in Diamonds, but such is life.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

I know that i am in a small minority here, but I don't have any strong objection to a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening.

You've been playing with Jillybean a lot, haven't you?

I would be, um, absoltuely shocked if my partner opened this 1NT. I would not be surprised if we ended up in 1NT going down when 4♥ was ice cold.

[sceptic]

I would open 1NT if the diamonds were clubs

[Echognome]

I don't see how 1NT is anything but LOL?

Our hand is so suit oriented with the main feature being clubs, that if I have a natural club bid available, there's no second, third, or fourth choice to me. It's not like I have a rebid problem. I mean I might have choices of what to bid over 1♠, but it's not like it's going to be a horrible lie about my hand.

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

For what its worth, I don't think that this hand is "obvious".  Look at the various rebids that people are suggesting after a 1♠ response.  The pessimists are suggesting a non-forcing 2♣ while the loonies are reversing into Hearts.

While I am not reversing here, after 1♣ 1♠, I sure wouldn't characterize those who do as 'loonies'. This is a very good hand after 1♠.

Indeed, if we are strict up-the-line bidders (which I am not), the odds are very good that partner has 5 spades, and if we knew, for sure, that he did, then this hand is probably worth a reverse...especially when his passed hand status means that it is almost impossible for him to take charge and drive us beyond our safety level. I would never even consider a reverse opposite an unpassed hand, btw.

As it is, my partners can have 5+♦ and 4♠ here, with a weak hand, since I play that 4th suit is a one round force by a passed hand and I do not play that one jumps to 2♠ after 1♣ 1♦ 1♥. So at the table, in any of my partnerships, I couldn't bid 2♥. I would raise to 2♠.. it is far more forward going than 2♣ and I want to encourage partner.

If we were up the line, I might well choose 3♠... again, if he has 5 spades the hand is worth 3

Further BTW, if any partner of mine opened 1N, they sure had better put one of their hearts in their diamonds (one of the few defects of online bridge is that it deprives one of this kind of fallback after distorting one's hand ).

[skjaeran]

This is a clearcut 1♣ opening, I open 1NT often, but not on this hand.
Over 1♦ I've got an obvious 1♥ rebid.
Over 1♥ I've got an equally obvious 3♦ splinter IMO, game invitational.
Over 1♠ I'll just raise to 2♠ - I agree with Mike's post on this.

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on Jul 20 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

I know that i am in a small minority here, but I don't have any strong objection to a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening.

You've been playing with Jillybean a lot, haven't you?

I would be, um, absoltuely shocked if my partner opened this 1NT. I would not be surprised if we ended up in 1NT going down when 4♥ was ice cold.

Ok you've made your point, you think my bridge is absurd.
Fair enough, you are welcome to your opinion but enough is enough. Please stop the sarcasm.

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jul 20 2007, 04:15 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 20 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

I know that i am in a small minority here, but I don't have any strong objection to a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening.

You've been playing with Jillybean a lot, haven't you?

I would be, um, absoltuely shocked if my partner opened this 1NT. I would not be surprised if we ended up in 1NT going down when 4♥ was ice cold.

Ok you've made your point, you think my bridge is absurd.
Fair enough, you are welcome to your opinion but enough is enough.

*Sigh*

No, I don't think your bridge is absurd.

I don't think having an agreement that you open 1NT with hands like this is absurd, either. I know you play with such an agreement, and that's fine.

But it would be kind of shocking to open 1NT with this hand *without* a specific agreement of that sort.

[vuroth]

I think that jillybean's partner bid 1♠.

I agree that 1♠ is very likely 5, but I'm still not comfortable with distorting my hand in anticipation of problems partner MIGHT have. I'm happy to bid 2♣, and take my lumps if the field is in ♠.

No system handles every hand well, and as a beginner/novice, I'd rather start with clear, accurate communiation. Down the road, if my established partner and I are willing to live with the consequences of bidding 2♠ over 1♠, then so be it.

V

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

For what its worth, I don't think that this hand is "obvious". Look at the various rebids that people are suggesting after a 1♠ response. The pessimists are suggesting a non-forcing 2♣ while the loonies are reversing into Hearts.

By this reasoning no bidding question at an early stage of the auction is ever obvious because there is always someone out there (especially on BBF) with a non-standard style who will give a different answer than the obvious one.
I think the opening is obvious, the rebids over 1D and 1H are obvious (it is really non-standard to play 3D as a GF splinter, and the hand is clearly worth an invite), and in a style that bypasses diamonds to bid a major and that allows 3-card raises at all 2S over 1S is clearly the normal bid (even though I can understand 2H or 3S).

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Jul 20 2007, 04:18 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 20 2007, 04:15 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 20 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

I know that i am in a small minority here, but I don't have any strong objection to a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening.

You've been playing with Jillybean a lot, haven't you?

I would be, um, absoltuely shocked if my partner opened this 1NT. I would not be surprised if we ended up in 1NT going down when 4♥ was ice cold.

Ok you've made your point, you think my bridge is absurd.
Fair enough, you are welcome to your opinion but enough is enough.

*Sigh*

No, I don't think your bridge is absurd.

I don't think having an agreement that you open 1NT with hands like this is absurd, either. I know you play with such an agreement, and that's fine.

But it would be kind of shocking to open 1NT with this hand *without* a specific agreement of that sort.

Sorry, JB. I certainly don't think, based on your posts and our interaction, that your bridge is absurd. However, my own view, and I suspect that of almost all experienced players, is that opening 1N on this hand is very, very bad bridge.

Don't take that personally... if we limited the game to those players never guilty of very, very bad bridge, we'd have a tough time finding a single table And I'd be relegated to a role as a caddy

But maybe by listening to the (near-universal) disdain for 1N may persuade you to change your practice....

One of the problems advancing players have is that they are taught a lot of rules, including rules that really should either not be taught or to which there are numerous exceptions, which are too subtle or confusing to learn until the player advances.

So, the impression I have of what most are taught is that the 8 card fit is king.. that we should never aim for any suit contract in which we have a trump fit of fewer than 8 cards.

That is just plain wrong.

Consider the given hand: Jxx KJxx x AKQJx and imagine partner with AQ10x Axx xxx xxx. Which game do you want to be in?

5♣ isn't hopeless, I suppose, but put me down for 4♠. Just try to get to any suit game after opening 1N. Maybe we won't reach 4♠ all the time on this one either, after 1♣... but we have NO chance after 1N.

And this was just an example that came to me as I was typing.

There are many other problems with 1N. 1N may be the wrong partscore. They may bid over our 1N, and partner will go wrong... imagine they bid 2♠ and partner bids 3♦.

Or partner may double a making contract, expecting you to hold a balanced hand, or may fail to set a contract because he doesn't give you a diamond ruff.

Some of these issues are lessened if you play (and announce) that 1N may be 5431 etc, but most of them remain a problem even then.. and of course playing that you open this hand 1N reallly handicaps partner in constructive auctions since he will never be comfortable he knows your shape.

I could go on... but it is important to understand that when a treatment (1N is balanced) finds almost universal acceptance, the odds are pretty good that a lot of very experienced, intelligent players have thought it through.. that is not the same as saying that we should never challenge the status quo, but it is suggesting that we shouldn't challenge the status quo unless we understand why it is the status quo and we have definitely got a better idea. This one isn't a better idea

[Echognome]

JB - I had no idea what you opened on the hand. I didn't even know if you had this hand, Richard has this hand, another one of your p's had this hand, or it was a hand you kibitzed.

I certainly wasn't judging your bridge in my comments. (Not that you were concerned with my comments.)

I just feel it's wrong to open this hand 1NT.

If you gave yourself something like A KQx AJTx Qxxxx, I bet you would get a lot more people opening 1NT. Here we have a big problem if we open 1♣ and partner bids 1♠.

Here I don't view we have a rebid problem, and certainly not one where opening 1NT is going to help partner judge better. Whether one rebids 2♥, 2♠, or even 3♠ over a 1♠ bid I don't view as a serious problem. It's down to style and subsequent methods. But the other rebids are pretty automatic.

[jillybean]

My comment was specially addressed to jtfanclub whom I seem to be having some sort of spat with. I do not respond well to sarcasm and condescending comments. Otherwise, I appreciate opinions, advice and even a little constructive criticism