[cherdano]

I think that 1♦ - 1x -2♥ - ? - 4/5♦ describes our hand much better than whatever sequence we could come up with after a 2♣ opener. That's why I think for constructive auctions, opening 1♦ is better than opening 2♣.

[jdonn]

Sorry gnome, I agree with almost nothing you've said here. The only reason I can think of to open 2♣ is if you are worried the hand belongs to the opponents, in which case you might as well just open 5♦ or 6♦. The two points you made that I believe are actually true (after 2♣ you won't play 1♦, and the opponents are less likely to interfere) aren't big issues to me. You will never play in 1♦, and if the opponents interfere I can stand to bid diamonds to quite a high level anyway.

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Oct 24 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

The only reason I can think of to open 2♣ is if you are worried the hand belongs to the opponents, in which case you might as well just open 5♦ or 6♦.

Agree the chances of 1♦ being checked out are vanishingly small.

There's another reason to open 5♦ or 6♦, which is you believe you have little chance of exchanging useful information below that level.

If we open 1♦ and partner bids hearts, we're ahead
If we open 1♦ and the opponents bid AND raise hearts, we're ahead
If we open 1♦ and hear spade or club bids from other players at the table, our next call is a guess

I would rather open 5♦ (6♦ feels like a little much, we partner to provide us with 3 tricks and we rate to have very little communication with the dummy) since I think that the most likely scenario is that we will be bidding 5♦ over opponent competition next round anyway.

[pclayton]

1 or 5. I opened 1.

If you open 1, you hear 3♣ on your left, pass, pass.....

[CSGibson]

pclayton, on Oct 24 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

1 or 5. I opened 1.

If you open 1, you hear 3♣ on your left, pass, pass.....

Matchpoints I call 3 hearts, trying to get to a magic 3N. Imps, I call 3 hearts, trying to get to 3N if it's our only making game.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Oct 24 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

I think that 1♦ - 1x -2♥ - ? - 4/5♦ describes our hand much better than whatever sequence we could come up with after a 2♣ opener. That's why I think for constructive auctions, opening 1♦ is better than opening 2♣.

Ok. I'm convinced. I raise the white flag. Honestly. I was trying to back the underdog and feel that between you and Josh that you have convinced me in the error of backing the wrong horse. I appreciate the dialog.

[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

Table 1:
P - P! - 1♣ - P
1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠ - P
P - 3♥ - 3♠ - 4♥
4♠ - 5♦ - 5♠ - Dbl
All pass

Table 2:
P - 1♦ - 3♣ - P
P - 5♦ - All Pass

---

Lots of action at both tables. I should note that the initial pass at table 1 was facing after facing a significant deficit and was purposeful swinging.

Another item of interest in the play of 5♦ is the safety play available in hearts. (There are actually two equivalent lines to guarantee only 2 losers in hearts.)

[FrancesHinden]

Echognome, on Oct 25 2008, 01:06 AM, said:

3. 2♣ is less likely to get interference than opening 1♦.

It's funny, you made this particular point and jdonn agreed with it... but I think, with the opponents at favourable, you will get at least as much interference over 2C as over 1D. You've taken away their takeout double of 1D, but against that you will get much more pre-emption and you may well find yourself guessing what to do at a high level, much more so than opening 1.

FWIW, 2D Acol 2 in diamonds for me. Failing that, 1D.

[Echognome]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 29 2008, 08:48 AM, said:

It's funny, you made this particular point and jdonn agreed with it... but I think, with the opponents at favourable, you will get at least as much interference over 2C as over 1D. You've taken away their takeout double of 1D, but against that you will get much more pre-emption and you may well find yourself guessing what to do at a high level, much more so than opening 1.

FWIW, 2D Acol 2 in diamonds for me. Failing that, 1D.

Despite all the other points in the thread, I still believe this is true.

I really don't understand how it could not be true. You have taken away the opponents' ability to overcall at the 1-level. Granted, you are also preempting your own side in that regard. So it's much more than just taking away the opponents' takeout double.

On a similar token, would you argue that you get at least as much interference over a strong NT than you would over a 1♦ opening at favorable? I understand that it's slightly different because it's less clear whether you are in a sacrifice position, but is it any more dangerous to overcall than over a 2♣ opening?

[han]

Yes it is much more dangerous to overcall over 1NT than over 2C, and this is especially true for preempts. The downs are smaller and the ups are much smaller.

This is especially true when 2C is opened with hands varying from balanced monsters to high-card shy 1-suiters.

[FrancesHinden]

Obviously part of the discussion over a 2C opening is a matter of partnership style; if you are allowed to have this hand then partner won't simply bid 7NT on a random 15-count later in the auction.

Quote

On a similar token, would you argue that you get at least as much interference over a strong NT than you would over a 1♦ opening at favorable? I understand that it's slightly different because it's less clear whether you are in a sacrifice position, but is it any more dangerous to overcall than over a 2♣ opening?

Absolutely not, in the same way that you tend not to get much interference over a 2NT opening. In terms of how well an opening bid defines your hand, then in standard methods

1NT > 2NT > 1 suit >>> 2C

A 2C opening says nothing about whether you have a balanced hand or not. Says nothing about what your longest suit may be. If this is a 2C opening, it says nothing about whether you have a 14-count with an 8-card suit, or a 26-count with 5-5 in the majors. The vaguer the meaning of the opening bid, the more incentive to bid against it, PARTICULARLY if it advertises a strong hand.

Mind you, if you are going to open 2C on hands like this it does make defending against them much harder, because the opponents might not realise they have the majority of the HCP early enough.

[Echognome]

Ok, so I agree that since the hand is less well-known it increases the odds of something good happening when overcalling.

But, I still stick with the fact that opening 2♣ leads to less interference. Again, it's such a tertiary issue with the hand in particular. I mean over 1NT a lot of people play DONT and WOOLSEY and whatever other method they play against a strong NT. Over a 1♦ opening, they that 1♥, 1♠, and 2♣ available as natural overcalls. Over 2♣ they have none of the above. They have in all likelihood a natural 2♦, 2♥, and 2♠.

So I still don't understand, would you say the set of hands with which they would overcall 1♦ (since that was the argument, 1NT was my own aside), is at least as great as the hands that would overcall 2♣? If you think that then fine. What can I say other than I disagree? I am basing it also on my own experience and yours may differ.

[Echognome]

han, on Oct 29 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

Yes it is much more dangerous to overcall over 1NT than over 2C, and this is especially true for preempts. The downs are smaller and the ups are much smaller.

This is especially true when 2C is opened with hands varying from balanced monsters to high-card shy 1-suiters.

Ok fine. I can see that.

What about 1♦ versus 2♣ since you are sharing your opinion?

[pclayton]

CSGibson, on Oct 24 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 24 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

1 or 5. I opened 1.

If you open 1, you hear 3♣ on your left, pass, pass.....

Matchpoints I call 3 hearts, trying to get to a magic 3N. Imps, I call 3 hearts, trying to get to 3N if it's our only making game.

Late to this, but I really don't like 3♥.

It isn't forcing for starters, and do you really want pard passing with 3=1 in the reds?

[han]

Echognome, on Oct 29 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

han, on Oct 29 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

Yes it is much more dangerous to overcall over 1NT than over 2C, and this is especially true for preempts. The downs are smaller and the ups are much smaller.

This is especially true when 2C is opened with hands varying from balanced monsters to high-card shy 1-suiters.

Ok fine. I can see that.

What about 1♦ versus 2♣ since you are sharing your opinion?

I do agree with you that over 1D you are more likely to get a competitive auction. However, that doesn't mean that you more often get a problematic auction.

[whereagles]

I'll go with a 5♦ opener as well. Stopped worrying about constructive bidding with these freaks anyway. If given the chance, I'll venture a dbl over a bid by opps, to show defensive values.

[Cascade]

1♦ or 5♦ for me.

For us 5♦ is about this strong.

However with 4-1-0 outside it will be very hard for partner to judge when to raise. Of course it is also hard for the opponents too.

[Edmunte1]

Some points of view:
- I completely disagree with 2♣, this hand is more like a diamond preempt and an outside Ace;
- 1♦ is for the opthimists. We will fight, we will try to find maybe a slam on this hand, maybe we'll have some chances to describe, maybe partner will understand, or will have much extras to drive us to slam, i take all the risks.
- 5♦ is for the non-opthimists, trying to score on the right column. Over 5♦ it will be much tougher for them to interfere, or will have to take a guess, and even if we make slam they'll have pretty often a cheap save.