[Hanoi5]

They're vulnerable, you're not:

♠AKJ9
♥5
♦J875
♣KJ74

It goes:

Pa 1♥ Pa ???

You:
a. 1♠
b. 1NT (forcing)
c. 2♣
d. 2♦

[mtvesuvius]

1♠

[kenrexford]

Initially, this seems like a WTP 1♠. However, as I think this through, I can see some problems possibly lurking.

For the sake of arguments, let's assume a 2♣ start and think through what could happen. If partner bids 2♠ or 2♦, you are reasonably well-positioned. If partner raises clubs, you feel OK also. If partner rebids 2♥, your move of 2♠ is also acceptable. Whatever I can predict, you seem fairly well positioned to find fits right and to explore slams right and the like.

Compare this, however, with a 1♠ start. I could see a couple of problems cropping up. What if partner, for instance, bids a minor? You'd have a fit, but showing a GF with support low enough to let partner know this without bypassing 3NT is tricky. If partner jumps in a minor, you think you like that, but his minor could be semi-manufactured because of long hearts and extras, and you are kind of tweener as far as your holding and trick-taking expectancy. I'm not sure if everyone would agree, but I personally don't really feel comfortable with my "what next" after any minor bid by partner.

What if partner raises spades? That also sounds nice, but partner could well have 3514 or 3541, which causes problems itself. You try 2NT, but some minor might get lost in this and might be ideal.

What if partner has the 3514/3541 shape and extras? This gets even more messy, potentially.

So, although 1♠ seems like the "right" bid, I often actually violate by bidding 2♣ with this pattern when I have a COV in 4-4 blacks and 4144 shape, just because I feel better about what I should do whatever partner does next.

[inquiry]

1♠

[mike777]

Hanoi5, on May 12 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

They're vulnerable, you're not:

♠AKJ9
♥5
♦J875
♣KJ74

It goes:

Pa 1♥ Pa ???

You:
a. 1♠
b. 1NT (forcing)
c. 2♣
d. 2♦

1s no problem yet/

[655321]

WTP 1♠

Despite Ken's long lawyerly list of possible disasters, for me the only auction that could be unclear is a 2♦ rebid by partner. Over this I will 4th suit with 3♣, and pass 3NT, potentially missing a better game or slam in diamonds, but usually working out OK.

[Phil]

1♠.

Obvious Rexford 2♣. Frankly I can't imagine him doing anything with =4♠, <4♥, and <5♦. I would bet he'd want to do it with 51(34) as well.

[MarkDean]

1♠ for me. I would consider 2♣ with this shape sometimes, but not with these suit qualities.

[hanp]

Ditto Mark Dean.

If partner rebids 2D I will bid 3NT, not 3C.

[jdonn]

2♣ for me. I think almost all auctions are easy after that, whereas about half partner's rebids give me problems after starting 1♠.

[whereagles]

Agree with Phil

[Hanoi5]

Well, 7 votes for 1♠. The tray goes back and forth:

Pa 1♥ Pa 1♠
Pa 2♣ Pa ???

Your choices:

a. 2♦
b. 3♣
c. 3♥
d. 3NT

[kenrexford]

Phil, on May 12 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

1♠.

Obvious Rexford 2♣. Frankly I can't imagine him doing anything with =4♠, <4♥, and <5♦. I would bet he'd want to do it with 51(34) as well.

With 4-4-5-0, clear 2♦.

With 5-1-3-4, clear 1♠.

I'd only bid 2♣ if intended as natural or as artificial with a fit for opener's major. With a COV 4-1-4-4, I might show 4♠/5♣ because it works better, IMO.

Just noticed that Josh agrees. Hah!

Anyway...waiting gleefully to see how the 1♠-ers handle the easy 2♣ rebid. LOL

[gnasher]

After 1♥-1♠;2♣, I bid 2♦. If partner bids anything at the two level, I'll continue with 3♣; if he bids 3♣ I'll bid 4♣. In all cases we've exchanged more information than after 1♥-2♣;3♣, but maybe I'm not seeing as deeply as Ken.

[gwnn]

i stopped bidding 1♠ on four cards with GF hands and I !h it. Sign me up for 2 ♣, for sure

[P_Marlowe]

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 04:54 AM, said:

Well, 7 votes for 1♠. The tray goes back and forth:

Pa 1♥ Pa 1♠
Pa 2♣ Pa ???

Your choices:

a. 2♦
b. 3♣
c. 3♥
d. 3NT

3NT.

[andy_h]

I don't like 1♥-1♠ auctions. Actually, I think it's partner who will hate it more. Especially those awkward hands that are 6♥ 17+ counts and what not, or if the auction goes 1♥-1♠; 2♦-3♣.
I think 2♣ will simplify many auctions. If I can bid 2♣ over 1♥ with 2344 GF values, I don't see why I shouldn't bid 2♣ here.

[Codo]

Andy is better in analyzing bridge situatons then in handling bridgemates....

So I join his bidding ideas: This is an obvious 2♦ followed by 3 (or 4) ♣.

[Hanoi5]

So far it's been 2 votes for 2♦, 1 vote for 3NT. I'll wait some more hours before continuing the bidding, we can discuss afterwards if we would have arrived at the same contract or a different one with othe bidding and clearly 1♠rs (I belong to that group) should realize by now that there is a problem.

[jdonn]

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

So far it's been 2 votes for 2♦, 1 vote for 3NT. I'll wait some more hours before continuing the bidding, we can discuss afterwards if we would have arrived at the same contract or a different one with othe bidding and clearly 1♠rs (I belong to that group) should realize by now that there is a problem.

It's clearly quite hopeless to rebid 3NT with Jxxx of diamonds, 2♦ is quite obvious after 1♥ 1♠ 2♣. There is no bidding problem at all on that auction.