[Hanoi5]

I use to open 1♣ when holding both 4-card minors and a balanced hand but 1♦ if my hand was 4441. I thought that was standard and the reason I did it was I expected my partner (or myself) to have at least 5♦'s and 4♣'s when s/he opened the bidding with 1♦ and re-bid 2♣.

How do you play and why?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Always diamonds.

The major advantage is, that it is simple.

Coming from an Acol background, I used to
open always clubs.

I dont understand differentiating between bal.
and unbal.
If you are bal. your next bid will be? NT.
Being unbal., i.e. 4441, the theory is, that you
have the chance to bid 2C, in case you opened
1D, but it is certainly an option to bid 1NT as well,
if partner hits your singleton.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

In principle 1♦ since 1♦ suggests more length in most styles and since 1♦ allows you to rebid clubs non-reverse in some (competitive) situations. Those come up very rarely when you're balanced and even with a 1444 I'm fine with rebiding 1NT if in range.

I voted "stronger suit" but if the suits are of approximately equal strength, I open 1♦.

Playing a 15-17 1NT there is a case for opening 1♦ with 12-14 and 1♣ with 18-20. Depends on your 1♣-structure, though.

The only hand that must open 1♦ is a 1444 with 16-17 points, too strong for a 1N rebid and too weak for a reverse if p responds 1♠. And even that hand might open 1N if the honor structure is soft, with the ♠ being an ace or king. With all other hands it barely matters.

[Echognome]

I used to always open 1♦, but now I am a strong believer in allowing it to be flexible. You may want to bid one or the other for many different reasons, such as lead direction or lead aversion. It will somewhat depend on your rebid. My point about variety is mainly when your rebid is the going to be the same regardless.

By way of example, suppose you have Kx KJx xxxx AKTx. You can open 1♣ happily rebidding 1NT.

Or strengthening it a bit, AK KQx xxxx AKTx. I might open 1♦! and rebid 2NT. This may prevent the opponents from making the killer diamond lead.

I can understand those that always open 1♦, it just seems stifling to me.

[Gerben42]

I voted for "always because it's closest to the truth for me.
If the ♦ are really bad, ♣ good AND I'm balanced 12-14 I open 1♣.

[FrancesHinden]

There isn't a standard, it's a matter of partnership agreement.

There are two relevant agreements:

1. We agree which suit we systemically open with 4-4. We are - in general - not allowed to choose based on what we fancy at the time. We prefer this because of the inferences this gives to the later auction. As it happens, we open 1D, but the following inferences would be equally valid, but swapped, were we to open 1C:

1D - 1H - 1S is either 4=1=4=4 or has 5 diamonds, but 1C - 1H - 1S promises five clubs
If I open 1C and raise a 1D response (or show 4 diamonds after a checkback sequence or similar), I must have at least 5 clubs
If I open 1D and raise clubs, I may only have 4 diamonds


2. Which suit to open
We always open or rebid NT with a balanced hand, even in competition. With 2=3=4=4 /3=2=4=4 we open 1 minor and after a 1M overcall and a double from partner, will rebid 1NT/2NT whether or not we have a stop in the overcalled suit. Thus 1D (1H) x (P) 2C promises 5 diamonds in our style (1D - 1S - 2C might be 1444 in an uncontested auction, but after a 1H overcall and a double I would rebid in NT as more descriptive).

The only choice we allow ourselves is what to rebid on a 1=4=4=4 after 1D - 1S. With minimum values either 1NT or 2C is permitted.
We don't regularly open 1NT on 4441 hands

We have agreed to open 1D on all 4-4 in the minor hands. We don't feel very strongly about which is better in an uncontested auction, but because we play 1D as 4+ diamonds and 1C as 2+ clubs, we prefer to open the suit partner can raise most freely in competition.

[FrancesHinden]

Echognome, on Jul 23 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

Or strengthening it a bit, AK KQx xxxx AKTx. I might open 1♦! and rebid 2NT. This may prevent the opponents from making the killer diamond lead.

Yeah... but alternatively although I open 1D systemically on that shape, I might choose to open it 1C. This helps me get to 5/6C opposite

xxx
Axx(x)
x(x)
QJxxx

whereas the chance we belong in a diamond slam (or game) is much smaller.

[awm]

I like having the choice of minors to open, since this often helps partner on lead or in game try auctions. When in doubt I tend to open 1♦ with 4-4 in order to rebid clubs later in competition.

[1eyedjack]

I have until now taken the view that opening 1C is superior in an uncontested auction, as there is a close correlation between hand types to be described and sequences available to describe them, but that opening 1D is superior in a contested auction as at a pinch you may describe your hand as minor two-suited as being (by then) the lesser evil.

With most partnerships I open 1D with 4-4 in the minors, in light of the above, because

1) Contested auctions are more common
2) There tend to be higher swings at stake in contested auctions
3) Available bidding space in contested auctions is constricted by the opponents by an amount largely beyond our control, and
4) My 1D opener promises 4 card suit, while my 1C opener only promises 2, so I have got a bit more information across in the opening bid itself.

That said, if playing transfer Walsh responses, you might want to maximise their frequency, which objective is not served by opening 1D in preference to 1C. I am currently looking at a system played by a successful pair that will open 1C on virtually any balanced hand outside of the 1NT opening range, perhaps with 5 card Diamond suit. Then a 1D opener absolutely promises an unbalanced hand or a very strong balanced (as well as Diamonds). Haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but seems interesting.

[skjaeran]

I'm brought up in a school where you alway open 1♣, and still prefer that. This is standard in Norway, and also in the Swedish "Modern Standard" which I played once upon a time (in that system you open 4c suits in the order ♥-♣-♠-♦, Norwegian Standard is up-the-line with 1♠ showing 5, thus 1♣ is opened with 4=3=3=3). The upside is that it's far easier for partner to give preference to our best fit. The downside is that it sometimes gets more difficult in competitive sequences, but my experience is that you're able to do fine even then.

With my regular partner we open all out of range balanced hands 1♣, and 1♦ with 5+ unbalanced (except 4=4=4=1), thus we're systemically bound to opening 1♣ with 4-4.

[skjaeran]

1eyedjack, on Jul 23 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

That said, if playing transfer Walsh responses, you might want to maximise their frequency, which objective is not served by opening 1D in preference to 1C. I am currently looking at a system played by a successful pair that will open 1C on virtually any balanced hand outside of the 1NT opening range, perhaps with 5 card Diamond suit. Then a 1D opener absolutely promises an unbalanced hand or a very strong balanced (as well as Diamonds). Haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but seems interesting.

That's the main reason for our style - to be able to apply T-Walsh more often. We open 1♣ on all balanced 11-14 and 18-19 hands, even with 3=3=5=2. We have an agreement that we might open 1♦ with this distribution if the suit is VERY strong - that hasn't come up yet. I even opened 1♣ once with ♦JTxxxx, but that was possibly stretching it too far (our opponent at the other table thought hard about opening 1♣, but landed on 1♦ playing similar methods).

[mikeh]

As Justin hints, my views are quite firmly held and definitely in favour of 1♦.

Bear in mind that I am speaking in terms of a fairly straightforward, standard or 2/1 type of method. I am not familiar with methods in which 1♦ promises 5+ or shape, so my comments do not touch on the implications of such a method. Nor am I concerned, for this purpose, with Kokish's idea that, in a micro-notrump method, one differentiates between ranges of 1N rebids by choosing 1♣ with, say 13-15 and 1♦ with say 16-17. Nor does my argument deal with transfer walsh.. I played it in one partnership and did open 1♣ a couple of times with 4=4... I really liked it with 17-19 hcp, because our rebid over the (transfer) responses of 1♦ or 1♥ was 1N to show a balanced 17-19... which helps immensely when partner has his usual crap and affords an extra level of bidding space when he surprised me by having a real hand

I believe that virtually everyone recognizes that 1=4=4=4 has to be opened 1♦ unless one routinely rebids 1N with that shape once partner responds 1♠. The issue of one's willingness to rebid 1N with a stiff is an interesting one. Clearly, if one is willing to do so, no matter how small the stiff, then some of the arguments against a 1♣ opening on 1=4=4=4 disappear.

4=1=4=4 hands add little to the debate, because we all rebid 1♠ over 1♥.

When I first read of the issue, it was in an old Bridge World. Kaplan was very much a 1♦ bidder, if memory serves, but he set out the arguments advanced by the 1♣ bidders.

One main point was that opening 1♣ ensured that any minor fit was found early. Responder was expected, at that time, to bid up the line, so the diamond fit was found immediately. And obviously the club fit was found, at least by responder, as soon as opener bid 1♣...responder could raise immediately or later raise.

However, these arguments no longer have much force.

In the old days, players used 4 card majors, so 1♣ was often a real suit. Not so anymore. Indeed, increasing numbers of players open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2.. I think Frances said she does, and I certainly like the method. So responder needs a lot of ♣s to feel that he has found a home right away opposite a 1♣ opening.

And fewer and fewer players respond 1♦ with 4=4 in a major and diamonds, and many, many bypass even a longer diamond suit in order to show a major, in a hand with moderate strength. So the diamond fit is not found (or at least, not immediately).

And even when responder bids 1♦, few players today would dream of raising 1♦ on a balanced 4432 minimum, especially if their major holdings included honours/stoppers. Personally, I strain to rebid 1N with all balanced hands and would surely want to do so even if I opened 1♣ on, say, Kx KJx Qxxx Axxx.

Most would play, I think, that the raise to 2♦ showed some extras... not necessarily in terms of hcp, but certainly in terms of shape.

Compounding the situation is the very common practice of defining the 1N response to 1♣ as something on the order of 8-10 hcp. This practice (certainly a part of many 2/1 methods) means that 1♦ is the default bid on weak 3334 hands... especially since 2♣ is often an inverted raise.

Then we have the increased sophistication of bidding methods after opener's rebid, whether that be 2-way new minor over 1N or 4th suit forcing. So any fit that exists is going to be found on all the big hands.

Thus the old arguments in terms of finding one's minor suit fit quickly no longer apply to many, if not most, 5 card major players.

I concede that, for most deals, it should not matter which minor you choose: certainly it shouldn't matter a lot if opener is balanced or if the opps stay out (other than some of the 4441 hands).

However, I am a big believer in the power of shape and I think that there are more and easier shape inferences available after one starts 1♦ on 4-4 hands. Let me add: on 4=5 hands, unable to rebid 1N, I would require a suit imbalance on the order of AKQx Jxxxx before I opened 1♦. This is not without a downside (I have to rebid putrid 5 card club suits on occasion) and this is not the post in which to try to justify this approach, which I consider to be a net gainer (obviously, else I wouldn't play it).

1♣ 1♦ 1♠ promises 4=5 or better in the blacks.

1♣ 1♥ 1♠: the same.

If I opened 1♣ on 44 minors, the second sequence would not be as precise: I might be 4=1=4=4.

And competitive auctions are easier, in some situations, when one opens 1♦.

xxx Ax AJxx KJxx.

I open 1♣, LHO calls 1♠ and partner doubles.

Yes, I know that 1N is the popular bid, on the arguments that rho didn't raise and we have time to work out whether we have a stopper. Personally, I prefer more than a trickless minimum with 532 in spades to rebid 1N.

If you reject that, make LHO's bid 2♠, and partner negative doubles. I doubt that even Kokish would be ecstatic with a stopperless 2N.

The 1♦ openers have no trouble here, and, indeed, would wonder what the fuss was all about.

These situations may be infrequent, but in my view the small, infrequent gains from 1♦ justify the choice because there are virtually no significant downsides. When one approach affords a slight edge, and costs nothing in terms of memory or complexity, only inertia justifies using the other method.

Now, if you choose that you will open 1♦ or 1♣ depending on hand type, and especially if you would open 1♦ on that xxx Ax AJxx Axxx type hand, then some of my arguments lose force. In other words, if you are careful to choose hands on which netiher competition nor partner's actions will place you in a lose-lose rebid scenario, you avoid most of the pitfalls of the 1♣ approach.

However, by doing so, you create ambiguity for partner: ambiguity in what should be one of the simplest sequences you have. That in itself is a major (a punster would have said minor) problem, imho.

There are some great players who open 1♣. I have never understood the arguments they make in support of the approach... this may, of course, be more of a comment on my understanding of the issue than any lack of explanation....

paging Roland... or Richie.....

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Jul 23 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

Compounding the situation is the very common practice of defining the 1N response to 1♣ as something on the order of 8-10 hcp. This practice (certainly a part of many 2/1 methods) means that 1♦ is the default bid on weak 3334 hands... especially since 2♣ is often an inverted raise.
.
.
There are some great players who open 1♣. I have never understood the arguments they make in support of the approach... this may, of course, be more of a comment on my understanding of the issue than any lack of explanation....

I think that's the big one. Over a 1 club bid, you can have 1NT be narrowly defined, while in response to a 1 diamond opener, a 1NT tends to become a rather large garbage bin.

[jdonn]

I agree with Mike that the argument in favor of 1♣ regarding not missing a minor suit fit is fairly pointless. But there is a HUGE reason to open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors, as the last posts have been alluding to. Because peoples' systems are way better after a 1♣ opening than a 1♦ opening. The notrump ranges are more tightly defined as for many 1NT over 1♣ is 8-10, over 1♦ it is like 5-10. More options are available especially with balanced hands. If 2♣ is forcing to game after a 1♦ opening then a hand like xx Axx Qxx AJxxx has to choose between badly wrongsiding notrump, overbidding to a game force, or raising diamonds with three. Of course all of this is inherent to the particular system but the system after 1♣ will pretty much always be better due to the extra room. How many people play transfer responses to 1♣? Some nifty gadget after 1♣ (1♦)?

I don't think this reasoning is so persuasive to make a 100% case to always open 1♣, but it's very easy to overlook and represents the argument behind that choice. Personally I will open 1♦ only if the diamonds are a fair amount better, or if I anticipate a possible rebid problem after 1♣ in competition. Otherwise I am happy bidding 1♣.

By the way, despite all the ranting by me and others, I think in practice it rarely matters and usually you break even.

[BebopKid]

I open 1♦ with 4-4.

My 1♣ open says I have less than 4 diamonds unless I have more clubs than diamonds and 17+ points, planning to make a reverse bid of 2♦ on my
second bid.

[Walddk]

mikeh, on Jul 23 2007, 08:43 PM, said:

paging Roland... or Richie.....

Quite right, I prefer 1♣ (unless 1-4-4-4) for two reasons:

- 1. I like transfer-responses and I will obviously get them in more often if I open 1♣.
- 2. The 1NT response becomes more accurate than after 1♦.

However, I do not feel strongly about it and am prepared to open 1♦ if my partner wishes. Or something like the Zia-Rosenberg approach: "Sometimes we open 1♣ and sometimes 1♦."

I am not concerned about

1♣ - (1♠) - X - Pass

I rebid 1NT if I have a balanced hand, spade stop or not. Those who open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ if they don't have spades stopped indicate an unbalanced hand in my view. I think it's much more important to show the hand type with say ...

1042
Q5
AJ95
KQJ7

This is balanced, not two-suited. So 1♣ I open and 1NT is my rebid, with or without overcall.

Roland

[whereagles]

Opening 1♦ lets you bid clubs later without raising the level.

Opening 1♣ avoids the insidious 1♦-2♣-2NT auction.

Both have pros and cons, so it's up to you and pard to agree what to open.