[W Kovacs]

There's no option for those of us that play strong 1♣?

IF you are going to force me into a standardish system, then 1♦.

[the hog]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-02, 07:07, said:

Ron I am no longer opening 1♠ with 5 spades and 7 clubs, do Balicki-Zmudinski open 1♠?

Yes. So does Steve Robinson by the way.

[Hanoi5]

Two-suited hands are very hard to bid after 2♣. Besides, if it goes 2♣-2♦ and we end up in diamonds I won't be declaring...

[rduran1216]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-03, 04:04, said:

Two-suited hands are very hard to bid after 2♣. Besides, if it goes 2♣-2♦ and we end up in diamonds I won't be declaring...

This is the kind of shape and situation though where u could seriously see it go 1D p p p. This is what I think is wrong with 1D. If I was 6610 or 7600 I'd open 1 in a flash without fear.

But if I open 1D, I'll catch partner with QJ10xx of clubs and out, and with his 3325 shape he's passing 1D when I can make 4H virtually alone.

[mikeh]

rduran1216, on 2010-December-03, 13:07, said:

This is the kind of shape and situation though where u could seriously see it go 1D p p p. This is what I think is wrong with 1D. If I was 6610 or 7600 I'd open 1 in a flash without fear.

But if I open 1D, I'll catch partner with QJ10xx of clubs and out, and with his 3325 shape he's passing 1D when I can make 4H virtually alone.

And your experience is that your opps routinely pass out hands on which they own half the high cards and most of the spades?

[mfa1010]

It's not just about surviving the first round after 1♦. I think expert practice is to make rather aggressive reverses with 5-6 shapes. If partner ever shows any enthusiasm of his own for our suits we will be strong enough for a leap to 7-direkt. So we can anticipate a bad guess later on after opening 1♦, I think. Unless of course he finds a cunning pass after 1♦-1♠-2♥ with Kxxxx, JTx, x, Jxxx or the like.

On the other hand, if we open 2♣ and can bid 3♥ then 4♥, then judged from this thread, partner can't expect less from our hand than we have (or we would have opened 1♦). So what is the problem?

[mikeh]

mfa1010, on 2010-December-03, 13:47, said:

It's not just about surviving the first round after 1♦. I think expert practice is to make rather aggressive reverses with 5-6 shapes. If partner ever shows any enthusiasm of his own for our suits we will be strong enough for a leap to 7-direkt. So we can anticipate a bad guess later on after opening 1♦, I think. Unless of course he finds a cunning pass after 1♦-1♠-2♥ with Kxxxx, JTx, x, Jxxx or the like.

On the other hand, if we open 2♣ and can bid 3♥ then 4♥, then judged from this thread, partner can't expect less from our hand than we have (or we would have opened 1♦). So what is the problem?

If we can open 2♣ and rebid 3♥ and then 4♥, this will probably work out as well or better than (tho sometimes worse than) opening 1♦.

However, some players don't use the jump to 3♥ over 2♦ as 4+♥ and longer ♦s, and for them, opening 2♣ seems fraught with difficulty.

Moreover, why are all the 2♣ openers so (apparently) sure that they get to bid out their hand so conveniently?

If I knew that partner would pass 1♦ (or my reverse) and that the opps would be silent, then I would opt for 2♣.

Otoh, if I knew that my partner might respond 2♥ immediate second negative, I might not be so happy with 2♣ (altho it will still often fare ok). If I knew partner was going to bid, say, 3♣ or 2♠ or whatever 2N means (assuming it doesn't mean hearts), I'm not happy. And, of course, if the opps enter the auction, I will often be better positioned after opening 1♦ than 1♥.

So I think it's a mixed bag, as is so often the case when good players split on the best approach. My personal preference over the years has been to open 1♦ and it seems to work out ok for me, and I am sure that those who prefer 2♣ can say much the same thing.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

.

[the hog]

mikeh, on 2010-December-03, 13:22, said:

And your experience is that your opps routinely pass out hands on which they own half the high cards and most of the spades?

And your experience is that you rely on the opponents to help you in what may be a difficult auction? Personally I prefer to rely on my partner, but hey, each to his own.

[han]

With my regular partner I would probably open 2D (multi) and rebid 3H (GF, 5+ hearts and 5+ diamonds).

[Phil]

the hog, on 2010-December-03, 19:52, said:

And your experience is that you rely on the opponents to help you in what may be a difficult auction? Personally I prefer to rely on my partner, but hey, each to his own.

Ron I was not even aware that you played this style of preferring a 5cM to a 6cm. If you are trolling just to make noise, please stop.

In many novice classes they are taught to always open the 5 card major, regardless of what other long suits they have outside.

If the hand were weaker, then 1♥ has something going for it I think. I have no idea how we can ever convince partner that we have six diamonds if we open 1♥. The potential of a diamond slam is so huge that I cannot see how we can rationally ignore it.

Discussing Steve Robinson's style as anything close to mainstream is LOL.

[the hog]

Phil, on 2010-December-04, 14:04, said:

Ron I was not even aware that you played this style of preferring a 5cM to a 6cm. If you are trolling just to make noise, please stop.

In many novice classes they are taught to always open the 5 card major, regardless of what other long suits they have outside. This approach seems to have

If the hand were weaker, then 1♥ has something going for it I think. I have no idea how we can ever convince partner that we have six diamonds if we open 1♥. The potential of a diamond slam is so huge that I cannot see how we can rationally ignore it.

Discussing Steve Robinson's style as anything close to mainstream is LOL.

Just annoyed at the supercilious Mikeh, Phil. The comment was not aimed at you - look whom I quoted.
However, something you should consider is that just because a style is not mainstream, does not mean it is not valid or perhaps even not superior.

[CSGibson]

l milne, on 2010-December-01, 17:57, said:

Maybe I need to bind a key with *reply "agree with han" *post. 1♥ I really don't like. Lying to partner just seems unnecessary here.

Also, what would 1♦-1♠-3♥ be for most people?

for me, a multi-ranged splinter, either 14-16 HCP with a stiff ♥, or 20+ HCP with a stiff ♥. 17-19 HCP with a stiff would make a 4 level splinter

[Phil]

the hog, on 2010-December-04, 22:50, said:

Just annoyed at the supercilious Mikeh, Phil. The comment was not aimed at you - look whom I quoted.
However, something you should consider is that just because a style is not mainstream, does not mean it is not valid or perhaps even not superior.

I think the burden of proof is on the minority view and presenting a fallacious argument does not validate it.

Over the years I've played plenty of things that many would not consider mainstream that I have dropped. Bidding theory changes for sure, but I really doubt the mainstream view about the effectiveness of opening with your longest suit is going to be disproven anytime soon.

[Fluffy]

the mainstream might be right on general, but if you are clever enough, knowing there are alternatives and using the flexibility natural systems give you to your advantage will give you better results than just following blindly whatever herd's arbitrary rule.

[mikeh]

the hog, on 2010-December-04, 22:50, said:

However, something you should consider is that just because a style is not mainstream, does not mean it is not valid or perhaps even not superior.

Your basic point is valid but something you should consider is that the vast majority of ideas dismissed as crackpot turn out to have been....crackpot.

If only 5% (say) of novel ideas are good, it is probably an error to assume that one's particular novel idea is more likely good than bad, no matter how high an opinion one has of oneself.

[FrancesHinden]

I open at the 1-level on all sorts of hands that other people open 2C. I once made a grand slam try after the auction had started 1D P P and RHO foolishly protected (grand was on a finesse).

My current rule for opening 2C is that I will (at least consider) open(ing) 2C if there are hands where partner will pass me out at the 1-level where slam is good. Here's one: partner will pass 1D on xxxx Qxxxx xx xx and grand slam is playable.

Even saying that, I might open 1D in first seat, when there's a much better chance that someone will bid, and give me a chance to describe my hand.

But in fourth seat, I'm going against my normal style and opening 2C. Once both LHO and RHO have passed in 1st/3rd seat there's a very good chance of an uncontested auction, and I'm not unhappy with 2C - 2D - 3D - 3S/3NT - 4H. This seems to leave me better off even if partner is going to respond to 1D

Think of an auction starting:

1D - 1S
2H - 2NT (lebensohl)
3H

Do you play 3H as forcing? Sure? What would you do with a 1-5-6-1 14-count that wanted to bid out its shape?

Even if you play 3H as forcing, partner rebids (say) 3NT over it, and are you going to pull? If you are, how does partner know you've got this hand than the same one without the ace of spades?

So I am opening 2C, and this will come as a shock to many of my regular partners!

[FrancesHinden]

p.s. there is a huge difference between

(i) agreeing with partner to play a strict 5-card-major first style, in which opening 1M and rebidding a minor lots of times is likely (or at least allowed) to be a canape even with a very strong hand,and

(ii) opening this hand 1H in any standard method

[Hanoi5]

Quote

My current rule for opening 2C is that I will (at least consider) open(ing) 2C if there are hands where partner will pass me out at the 1-level where slam is good.

Don't you consider the opponents when deciding this? There are 21 HCP's outside you hand and 11 spades (not to say 13 clubs). How likely is it to have the bidding go 1♦-Pa-Pa-Pa? I suppose being fourth changes this a bit, but by how much?

[mtvesuvius]

I open 1♦. I have never seen much good come from opening these hands with 2♣. In the past week in Orlando, I saw three auctions begin something like: 2♣ - (2♠) - P - (3♠) - 6♥/♦

Opening this 1♦ gives us the greatest amount of time to describe the hand, and I definitely do not expect it to be passed out! Since when do the opponents pass holding half the deck and a bunch of spades?! And to the hog: I like to rely on my opponents to help me out of tough situations sometimes. Often it's the only way to show a shapely hand at a manageable level. In summary, the concern that 1♦ will be passed out is fairly ridiculous.