[hrothgar]

IMPs Both Red

You're playing 2/1 GF with a 20-21 2NT opening.
You're dealt

♠ 3
♥ AK85
♦ AK97
♣ AQ87

What's your plan?

[hanp]

I open 1C and will bid 2H if partner responds 1S and later will force to game.

The reason that I open 1C is because it makes it more likely to find a minor suit fit: partner can easily bid 1D over 1C but not so easily bid 2C over a 1D opening.

2NT is not an option for me.

[Hanoi5]

1♦, I always open 1♦ on three-suited hands (4441) with both minors.

Over 1♥, splinter 3♠. Over 1♠, 2NT. Over 1NT or 2♦ 2♥. Over 2♣ 3♣ unless it's passable, in which case 2♥.

[mike777]

1d, over 1s will rebid 2h and not stop short of game.

side note, many play Walsh style 2/1 so diamond suit is often lost over one club openings.

[Mosene]

Not 2nt. HanP's reasoning makes sense to me - so 1 club. But, mostly not 2nt.

[jdonn]

I open 1♣ and rebid 2♥. Not just to find a diamond fit, but I think 1♣ will help more than 1♦ for partner's judgment given the specific holdings in those suits. Also if partner bids lebensohl I can force to game with 3♦ but would be stuck with 3NT if I had opened 1♦.

In other words, I might open either minor on reversing strength or stronger with this shape, but I like 1♣ on this hand.

I'll lastly mention that, speaking as someone who doesn't particularly mind rebidding or even opening notrump with a singleton, I think to open 2NT on this hand is beyond awful.

[TimG]

mike777, on Mar 10 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

side note, many play Walsh style 2/1 so diamond suit is often lost over one club openings.

Not if you reverse into 2♦ instead of 2♥.

[mtvesuvius]

I would have opened this 1♦ planning to reverse to 2♥. However... Looking at Josh and Han's reasoning, I am convinced that 1♣ is better.

[mikeh]

I change methods, for this board only, and open a Roman 2♦.. 17+ hcp, 4441.. the perfect weapon.

Ok, not allowed.

I open 1♦.

Obviously this hand rates to be no problem over many possible responses, but there are two that are likely to engender difficulty: 1♠ and 1N.

There are also problems lurking should LHO intervene with a spade call and partner passes.

Assuming silent opps, over 1♠ I will reverse into 2♥. Partner will assume I have 4=5 or better. I will then, if possible, introduce clubs at my next turn. Admittedly, this is a hand on which playing ingberman or lebensohl may prevent me from showing clubs naturally (over 2N, I am requested to bid 3♣ absent a strong reason not to do so.. and my choices would seem to be a conservative 3♣ or an aggressive 3N).

Over 1N, I will jumpshift into 3♣, and over 3♦ from partner (which I would expect to be the most frequent move) I have an easy 3♥.

I read Josh's comments on clubs over diamonds but didn't find them persuasive. Yes, clubs gets him to evaluate the club K or Jack more aggressively, but diamonds gets him to evaluate the diamond Queen more aggressively, and the club K... any K.. will, from his p.o.v. be a good card anyway when we show strength.

Finally, while we have a great hand, there is no rule that requires the opps to remain mute. Throw in a spade overcall, of any variety, and unless partner has hearts, we will do better or break even after a 1♦ start compared to a 1♣ start.

Say it goes 2♠ on our left, P P double and partner is looking at Jxx Qxx xxxx Jxx... he might well pick clubs rather than diamonds... you will rarely hold 4 diamonds along with hearts and have opened 1♣, at least not in NA where the normal choice on 4=4 minors tends to be 1♦.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Mar 10 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

Assuming silent opps, over 1♠ I will reverse into 2♥. Partner will assume I have 4=5 or better. I will then, if possible, introduce clubs at my next turn. Admittedly, this is a hand on which playing ingberman or lebensohl may prevent me from showing clubs naturally (over 2N, I am requested to bid 3♣ absent a strong reason not to do so.. and my choices would seem to be a conservative 3♣ or an aggressive 3N).

3♣ is a choice? 3NT is aggressive? I see a 20 count that is entirely made up of controls. I know you are the resident voice against the evils of 4441 distribution, but if you don't think 3NT is automatic there then all I can say is wow.

Frankly if I were to bid 3♣ on that auction and have partner pass, I would be fairly sure I missed a slam in clubs.

Quote

Say it goes 2♠ on our left, P P double and partner is looking at Jxx Qxx xxxx Jxx... he might well pick clubs rather than diamonds... you will rarely hold 4 diamonds along with hearts and have opened 1♣, at least not in NA where the normal choice on 4=4 minors tends to be 1♦.

I would hope partner would bid 2NT there as a scramble. Of course you may play it as natural or lebensohl, in which case this hand is simply a good advertisement for other methods. I used to play lebensohl but have come to the conclusion scrambling is more useful on these auctions, as I usually do.

But I don't really see your point, for the following reaosn. If partner was forced to choose a suit with 3334 after 1♦ and a reopening double, I argue he would prefer diamonds over clubs if forced to choose. You could be equal length, but you could be more like 1363 as well with no reason to act again over a 3♣ bid.

[Stephen Tu]

mikeh, on Mar 10 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

Assuming silent opps, over 1♠ I will reverse into 2♥.

Mike, do I now get to needle you for posting:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=178847?

[hanp]

I like mikeh's unintended argument for 1C:

1C - 1S
2H - 2NT
3D

is forcing while

1D - 1S
2H - 2NT
3C

is not.

[mike777]

Since Lebensohl was not stated in the OP and I never play it over reverses I assumed 4th suit by opener is always forcing.

I grant not perfect given partner will assume 0=4=5=4.

so:

1d=1s
2h=2nt(weakish)
3c=natural and forcing.

or:

1d=1s
2h=2s(weakish)
3c..

OTOH if Lebensohl is assumed I can understand wanting to open 1c.

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on Mar 10 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 10 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

Assuming silent opps, over 1♠ I will reverse into 2♥.

Mike, do I now get to needle you for posting:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=178847?

Believe me, I was aware of that previous post. However, there has to be an exception to just about every rule.. and 20 hcp is my exception Especially this 20 count, with 8 controls and not a jack in sight. This hand is 'impossible' absent a gadget.

So I am systemically fixed.. in my style, whatever I bid will be a distortion.

2N over 1♠ lies about both my strength and my spade support.

2♥ lies about my diamond length, but incorporates hands this strong... indeed, since I am a BIG 2♣ opener when I don't have a very good suit, this is not even a max for a reverse

Since I have to lie, I choose the lie that misleads by the least amount.. and I am pleased that it is also the cheapest lie I can find... I mean, over 2♠ I can bid 3♣ and come very close to showing my hand.

BTW, while some might argue that one should not design a method that prevents one from showing this type of hand, 4441 20-21 counts not suited for 2N (ie, stiff K or A) are so infrequent that the occasional inconvenience from a systemic lie, when they do arise, is imo worth the increased integrity that allows partner to play me for 5+ diamonds when I do reverse.

[mikeh]

hanp, on Mar 10 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

I like mikeh's unintended argument for 1C:

1C - 1S
2H - 2NT
3D

is forcing while

1D - 1S
2H - 2NT
3C

is not.

I agree with josh in that I would never rebid 3♣ over 2N... even if my earlier post suggested that it was a possibility.. it may be, but it is too deep for me to ever do it... no, this is a 3N bid, even tho (despite josh's apparent confidence) that may be a contract that does not make. I'd far rather be in 3N, or some other game, along with everyone else holding my cards, and failing than be in 3♣ making multiple overtricks. The first scenario is probably a push, while the latter is probably a big loss.

But I still don't get the 1♣.

Give me your suggested sequence, facing me as responder, and there is not a chance in the world that I would place you with a 1=4=4=4... I would expect 1=4=3=5, which would be out by a card in each of the two possible trump suits. Yes, it might be 0=4=4=5, but I wouldn't play you for it.. a powerhouse 1=4=3=5 with very good diamonds makes more sense to me (your views may differ, of course).

It is not that my sequences will be better.. altho if partner has a GOOD hand, I expect to do as well or better than you do... but, on the most common hands, I think that my sequences will be at least as good as yours more often than not.

One possible exception actually is the clubs, hearts, then diamonds sequence, in which we avoid a bad 3N opposite the equivalent of 9xxx in spades... my diamonds then hearts then 3N won't often work well then.. but it is not as if that route is doomed to failure nor, more importantly, that showing the non-existent 1=4=3=5 will get you to the right spot anyway.

[OleBerg]

1♣ seems completely obvious to me. (I must admit I am used to opening 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.) Only problem is when partner responds 1♠, where I will show 4-5 in ♣+♥, when I bid 2♥.

Opening 1♦ will not solve this dilemma however.

[hanp]

mikeh, on Mar 10 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

But I still don't get the 1♣.

Give me your suggested sequence, facing me as responder, and there is not a chance in the world that I would place you with a 1=4=4=4... I would expect 1=4=3=5, which would be out by a card in each of the two possible trump suits. Yes, it might be 0=4=4=5, but I wouldn't play you for it.. a powerhouse 1=4=3=5 with very good diamonds makes more sense to me (your views may differ, of course).

Do you open 1D because 1C.. 2H.. 3D.. shows 1435, or does it show 1435 because you open 1D with 1444 hands? I haven't given this much thought but I don't really see the point of introducing a 3-card diamond suit in that sequence when partner didn't bid 1D over 1C.

In practice I do agree that partner will often play us for a 5-card minor when it matters, but I think that's true whether we open 1C or 1D.

[mikeh]

OleBerg, on Mar 10 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

1♣ seems completely obvious to me. (I must admit I am used to opening 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.) Only problem is when partner responds 1♠, where I will show 4-5 in ♣+♥, when I bid 2♥.

Opening 1♦ will not solve this dilemma however.

This is an issue that has been the subject of numerous posts here, and lots of heated discussion in expert and other bridge circles. I know that many very good players open 1♣ on 4=4 minors, altho I had understood that many of them open 1♦ when 1=4=4=4 to cater to the obvious rebid issue over 1♠, unless they also belong to the 1N rebid with a stiff school.

I have heard all of the arguments.

They lack persuasive force to me, but I admit that this is because I (strongly) believe that one should bypass diamonds, in response to 1♣, in order to show a major...even with longer diamonds...unless one has a strong hand.

The strongest argument I have seen for the 1♣ choice arises from a minority but increasingly popular approach... use of transfer responses to 1♣. I like this style so much that I now think that reserving 1♦ for 5+ suits or 4441s makes a lot of sense.

As it is, and reverting to Han's last post, I assumed, in my posts, and I concede this was unstated and at least debatable in terms of accuracy, that we were not playing strictly up the line responses.

Thus to me, partner with 4=2=5=2 weakness should indeed respond 1♠, which would risk reaching 3N on a combined spade suit of 6432 opposite x, while we were 5=4 in diamonds, with the diamond slam perhaps needing only normal breaks.... picture Jxxx xx QJxxx Kx.

Diamonds are still reachable after 1♣, but only if we rebid 3♦ over partner's 2N. Of course, open 1♦ and find partner with Jxxx xx Qx KJxxx and we have even more of a problem, as I noted in an earlier post.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Mar 10 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

Give me your suggested sequence, facing me as responder, and there is not a chance in the world that I would place you with a 1=4=4=4...

Mike, you realize it's impossible to answer this question without either being completely sarcastic, or saying the same thing but referring to a 1♦ opening instead. In other words, no one told you to give no chance in the world to the possibility partner could be 1444 on any particular auction!

[whereagles]

The 4441s are always bothersome. I'll just pretend I have 5 diamonds: open 1♦, reverse into hearts and follow up with some NT or club bid, depending on how it does.