[fred]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 18 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 18 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

Strange (to me at least) that, as far as I can tell, nobody asked "agree with 1S"?

Not saying I disagree with 1S, but easy to see how 1C could work better.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred,

Do you like flame wars or was the forum to silent
in the last couple of days?

I think the 1C openers got smashed, but now they
will come back, ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

Sorry Marlowe, but I don't understand your post. I still don't see any references to opening 1C and I do think there is a lot to be said for opening 1C (even though I might not do that myself).

I read a lot of Forums threads, but the few I tend to get involved in are those in which I think a lot of people have missed some simple key point that is at least worth thinking about.

If making such posts constitutes starting "flame wars" then I suppose I like flame wars. Probably you meant something else, but really I have no idea what your reference to flame wars is all about. If you clarify I will be happy to respond to whatever your question is asking.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[P_Marlowe]

fred, on Aug 18 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Aug 18 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 18 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

Strange (to me at least) that, as far as I can tell, nobody asked "agree with 1S"?

Not saying I disagree with 1S, but easy to see how 1C could work better.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred,

Do you like flame wars or was the forum to silent
in the last couple of days?

I think the 1C openers got smashed, but now they
will come back, ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

Sorry Marlowe, but I don't understand your post. I still don't see any references to opening 1C and I do think there is a lot to be said for opening 1C (even though I might not do that myself).

I read a lot of Forums threads, but the few I tend to get involved in are those in which I think a lot of people have missed some simple key point that is at least worth thinking about.

If making such posts constitutes starting "flame wars" then I suppose I like flame wars. Probably you meant something else, but really I have no idea what your reference to flame wars is all about. If you clarify I will be happy to respond to whatever your question is asking.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It was just a joke, I just tried to be funny, this
showes, I should stop it.
... I usually learn my lessons, at least for a
while.

But to clarify:

I think opening 1C with 6-6 is similar to opening
1C with 5-5, and this is a "flame war" topic.

Actually, I believe, that both styles are playable
as long as you know the consequences.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

This was the full hand:

Scoring: IMP

---

If you're going to bid, 4♠ is more successful than 5♣. I think 4♠ implies something like 6-5 anyway, so I'd have bid 4♠ and then passed if doubled.

At my table they bid 5♣ and went for a large penalty. At the other table, opener bid 4♣ on the second round, getting his hand-type across at a safe level. I suspect that this bid wasn't available to South at my table.

4♥ is two down, so defending is best. Maybe those aces and empty suits should make us think twice about bidding over 4♥? West didn't overcall, so it's no surprise to find him with five weakish hearts, giving partner four. No one has bid diamonds either, again suggesting that partner has length there.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Aug 18 2008, 05:34 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ A108654 ♥   ♦ 7 ♣ AJ9542

1♠   pass  1NT  dbl 2♣   4♥   pass pass 1NT = any non-game force without 3-card support Over 1NT, the only other way to show clubs was 3♣, game-forcing. Do you agree with 2♣?  What do you do now?

Old fashioned Acol players might open this 1♣, then rebid 2♠ over 1N, and finally 4♠ over 4♥; but Gnasher's 1♠ and 2♣ bids are reasonable and 4♠ seems a fair gamble now; although Gnasher makes an excellent point about empty ace-high suits and the dearth of diamond bids by opponents.

[OleBerg]

Very good tread. I've been convinced that 4♣ is the bid at openers second turn. Something that wouldn't have occurred to me.