[rhm]

deleted

[Free]

mycroft, on 2011-February-08, 11:47, said:

For those who rebid 1NT with (13)4=5s - does partner feel uncomfortable with eir decision with a 5cM and a singleton? Do you feel you *always* have to raise with 3 card support - even with, say 4333s?

Knowing partner has 2 cards in my suit, so I can play the potentially 8-card fit if I think it's right, guaranteed not 6-card, is really comforting; for me it's worth the compromise of 1D on 4=5 minimums without great clubs. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I want to know what compromises I'm going to be making to allow it.

What do you bid after 1m-1♠ with a 1-4-4-4?

[rhm]

mycroft, on 2011-February-08, 11:47, said:

For those who rebid 1NT with (13)4=5s - does partner feel uncomfortable with eir decision with a 5cM and a singleton? Do you feel you *always* have to raise with 3 card support - even with, say 4333s?

Knowing partner has 2 cards in my suit, so I can play the potentially 8-card fit if I think it's right, guaranteed not 6-card, is really comforting; for me it's worth the compromise of 1D on 4=5 minimums without great clubs. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I want to know what compromises I'm going to be making to allow it.

Why should partner feel uncomfortable when I rebid 1NT with a singleton ♠ and why should he feel better if I had bid 2♣ instead with a singleton ♠?
As usual what really matters is whether you and your partner are on the same wavelength and partner knows you might have a singleton ♠.
I never understood why 1NT, the cheapest and most desirable rebid over partner 1♠ response, should be so restrictive with regard to distribution.

I rebid 1NT with a singleton ♠ over 1♠, but not with a singleton ♥ over 1♥, irrespective whether I opened 1♣ or 1♦. I will raise a major with 3 cards if I have a small doubleton or less in an unbid suit. I rarely miss 5-3 major fits and when I do, this does not mean I get a bad board in 1NT. Partner rarely takes out 1NT into a 5 card ♠ suit. One big advantage of this is that you almost never loose your ♥ fit, when responder has 5♠s and 4 or 5 ♥s, which is a serious problem when opener bids 1♦ followed by 2♣. Another is I will almost never rebid a 5 card minor and if I do rebid a minor I will almost never hold 3 card support for partner's major.
With 3♠=1♥=4♦=5♣ I will bid 1♠ over 1♥, since 1NT promises at least 2 cards in ♥s. We do not care for this specific distribution and always assume opener has 4 cards in ♠ when he rebids 1♠ over 1♥. However when it came up the results were quite satisfactory. Responder can employ XYZ over this sequence to find out.

Just about the only distribution where, playing "standard" I would open 1♦ is a minimum 0♠=4♥=4♦=5♣.

With regard to responder holding a six card ♠ suit and hears a 1NT response, he simply needs to be aware of that opener might have a singleton ♠. Because of that responder needs a little bit more to force to game.

I play XYZ, which is another good reason to make the 1NT rebid more frequent. By this convention you can define invitational and game forcing hands much better over a 1NT rebid than after opener's rebid of two of a minor.

If partner, holding a six card ♠ suit, is weak, no problem he rebids 2♠ regardless.
If invitational, he bids 2♣ getting a 2♦ response (which always denies 3 cards in partner's major the way I play) and responder will usually rebid 2♠, which opener will pass with a singleton. (With 10-11 HCP responder might bid 2NT or 3♠ instead, depending on ♠ suit quality and distribution)
If game forcing, responder will bid 2♦, opener rebids 3♦, showing 5♣s and 4♦s and over 3♠ opener will usually bid 3NT. (If opener's minors are reversed he opens 1♦ and will rebid 3♣ if responders rebid is 2♦
If opener is 1♠=4♥=4♦=4♣ we open 1♦, rebid 1NT over 1♠, and will bid 2♥ over 2♦(XYZ). If partner shows a 6 card ♠ with 2♠, we bid 3♣, showing exactly this distribution and 3♦ would show 1♠=4♥=5♦=3♣.

This structure has served me well over the years

Rainer Herrmann

[mycroft]

I would like to specifically mention my thanks to all who took my question as the serious one it was, rather than the rhetorical "there's no good answer to this, so I win" it might have sounded.

I have a lot to think about. It may not change my mind (and even if it does, given where I play and who I play with, it may not change how I play), but I certainly have a lot more vision of the problem than I did a week ago.

Thanks again.

[gszeszycki]

THINK REBID AND/OR LEAD DIRECTION

that mantra will go a long way to helping you decide how to open a 2245 hand. Lets start with
3 examples and remember that there is no such thing as 1 size fits all.

A3
32
AKQx
AQ432

here is a wonderful 19 count (which some will make a case for upgrading to a 2n opener)
opening 1c here and planning a 2d reverse is a wonderful method for treating this hand.
I hate the idea of bidding some number of nt with this hand due to the very short and
very wide open heart suit. Opening 1c (vs 2n) might allow us to reach 5c or 5d vs a 2n/3n
that is doomed to failure.

AQ
AQ
Qxxx
xxxxx

here I would HATE to encourage p to raise either of these moth eaten minors so I would start
with 1c and be very very VERY happy to rebid 1n (even if p bids 1d)

Qx
Qx
AKQJ
xxxxx

such a huge quality difference btn clubs and diamonds I am inclined to treat my clubs as a
4 card suit, open 1d and rebid 1n.

The final example not only answers the rebid question but also lead direction. The other side benfit
of opening 1d is it will allow p (with a short dia) to more accurately assess the value of their short
suit (ie downgrade it)

My general rule of thumb is if my dia contain at least 4 hcp and at least twice the strength of my clubs
I will open 1d (unless the hand is strong enough to reverse).

Thus with more mundane hands like

K2
A2
A432
Q5432

I will open 1d planning to rebid 1n.

Scoring in bridge makes showing 54/45 in minors a very poor idea most of the time. NT scores better and can be made
with significantly less power than 5 of a minor.

xx
xx
AKQx
AJxxx

the 2 wide open and short majors convinces me to open a minor and even though the dia suit isnt quite
twice the strength of the clubs---my hand is too weak to reverse---I will open 1d and plan on rebidding 2c.
The upside of this method is it virtually guarantees P will be declarer if NT is right.

[awm]

I'll mention that looking at the responses from Steve Robinson's gallery, most of the people who open 1♦ and rebid clubs are those who are more known for playing precision (Larry Cohen, David Berkowitz, Kathy Wei-Sender, etc). Since this approach is necessary in precision, it may bias their views somewhat. Obviously these folks are experts and "know how" to play 2/1 also, it's just that what they "are used to" from their strong club partnerships might bias their opinion.

The one approach that really makes no sense to me is people who want to open these hands 1♦ and then rebid 1NT. If your second call is going to be 1NT anyway, why not mention your longest minor?

[mycroft]

AWM: because 1C for them is "clubs or balanced", and therefore they can't bid 1C-1x-1NT or they will have guaranteed 2? Just a guess...

[olien]

I tend to open 1♣ unless my ♦s are significantly better than my ♣s.

e.g.

AKxx KJxxx I would normally open 1♣
AKxx QTxxx I would probably open 1♦

If I have honours in both doubletons, I will open 1♣ planning to re-bid 1NT. I would never dream of rebidding 1NT with a singleton in responder's M, so with (31)45 hands I usually open 1♣ and bite the bullet.

Both styles have their wins. I always hear from the 1♦ camp how great it works when the opponents overcall with 2♣. However, I prefer partner to lead my ♣ suit against 3NT instead of my secondary ♦ suit. Anyways, in summary, I open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors about 90-95% of the time.

[mike777]

if 14+ and 2=2=4=5 then I would open showing a nt type hand.
If strong enough to reverse I open 1c
All others I will open the stronger minor which I expect will often be clubs.

[xxhong]

If a partnership decides to rebid 1NT with singleton in responder's suit, One should probably always open 1C with a few exceptions.
This treatment is good in many ways, 1NT rebid keeps the bidding low and makes further exploration of the right suit easy because of the two way checkback. Suppose the bidding goes like: 1C 1S 1N 2D(gf checkback) 3D, you have pretty much shown all your features, point range, shape. Those who
open 1C then rebid 2C or 1D then rebid 2C would have a difficult time to reach this bidding accuracy. Also, if you open 1D and rebid 2C, you always get your suit length correct, which is extremely important for game and slam bidding. The draw back is that sometimes, you may miss
5-3 fit in 2M. Still, if you focus on games and slams, this is just a minor issue IMO.
The exceptions not to open 1C with 4-5 are hands with very weak clubs and balanced or semibalanced with 15-16 HCPs (or 14-16 if you play 14-16 1NT).
AK Kx AJxx xxxxx, this is certainly a 1NT opening to me. Sometimes, you may have a big headache, AKQ x AQxx xxxxx, this hand is not strong enough to reverse, no good to open 1NT and the club suit is too weak to rebid 2C. You can probably open 1C, then underbid 1N over 1H and underbid 2S over 1S.
Or you can open 1NT and hope partner doesn't hold 6 hearts or 5 hearts weak hand, or you can just open 1C and rebid 2C, hoping partner can move on or hold some club support.

mtvesuvius, on 2011-February-04, 19:37, said:

I played at the club today with a friend, we had some very fun hands, and a few bad ones as well, the highlight being us collecting 800 against 4♣ undoubled. On the car ride back, partner asked me a style question which I know has varied in popularity throughout the years. So, I figured I'd make a poll and see what the consensus is now. When holding a minimum strength 4-5 in the minors, what do you generally open? I have always preferred 1D unless planning on rebidding 1N, but have been told other methods are better by people who I consider to be significantly better than myself. Thoughts?

This is in a standardish 2/1 or SAYC context.

[CSGibson]

olien, on 2011-February-10, 16:53, said:

I tend to open 1♣ unless my ♦s are significantly better than my ♣s.

e.g.

AKxx KJxxx I would normally open 1♣
AKxx QTxxx I would probably open 1♦

If I have honours in both doubletons, I will open 1♣ planning to re-bid 1NT. I would never dream of rebidding 1NT with a singleton in responder's M, so with (31)45 hands I usually open 1♣ and bite the bullet.

Both styles have their wins. I always hear from the 1♦ camp how great it works when the opponents overcall with 2♣. However, I prefer partner to lead my ♣ suit against 3NT instead of my secondary ♦ suit. Anyways, in summary, I open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors about 90-95% of the time.

This is similar to my own style. I have a rebid plan before I open 1C, sometimes it is to rebid clubs on a 5 card suit, sometimes to rebid 1N with a singleton (I'm much more likely to do this with a stiff honor), and rarely to rebid a 3 card spade suit. If the hand does not appear to fit into any of those comfortably, then I will generally look to see if pass is a reasonable alternative, and then I will look to bid 1D with the option of rebidding 2C as my last resort.

[whereagles]

1♣ and I'm ok with rebidding ♣65432 if necessary.

[gnasher]

xxhong, on 2011-February-11, 12:27, said:

If a partnership decides to rebid 1NT with singleton in responder's suit, One should probably always open 1C with a few exceptions.
This treatment is good in many ways, 1NT rebid keeps the bidding low and makes further exploration of the right suit easy because of the two way checkback. Suppose the bidding goes like: 1C 1S 1N 2D(gf checkback) 3D, you have pretty much shown all your features, point range, shape.

You've shown your point range and your shape. You haven't shown all of your features - if you always follow this sequence with a (31)45 shape, nothing is known about your suit quality and high-card concentration.

Also, if this shows (31)45, you need to find another way to cope with 2245 shapes.

Quote

Those who open 1C then rebid 2C or 1D then rebid 2C would have a difficult time to reach this bidding accuracy.

I don't see why it's more accurate to bid

1♣-1♠
1NT-2♦ (FG enquiry)
3♦     (1345)

instead of:

1♣-1♠
2♣-2♦ (FG enquiry)
3♦     (1345)

If our sole objective were to maximise accuracy with this particular shape opposite a game-force, we would use both sequences to show the same shape, rebidding 2♣ with good clubs and 1NT with bad clubs.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-February-12, 08:25, said:

You've shown your point range and your shape. You haven't shown all of your features - if you always follow this sequence with a (31)45 shape, nothing is known about your suit quality and high-card concentration.

This is true and intentional. In the history of Bridge suit quality was always over-judged and should come last.
Remember the days when a 1NT opening had no small doubleton or 4 card majors were opened, but suit quality mattered?
And then people found out that xxxx opposite xxxx in a major was the only game in town.
Modern bidding has different priorities and rightly so.
First find your 8 card and longer fits, find out about your distribution and limit your hand. Finding out about suit quality should always take a back seat to these objectives.
Making suit quality in minor suits "strategic" for your opening bid is a bit over the top.

Quote

Also, if this shows (31)45, you need to find another way to cope with 2245 shapes.

With this distribution I raise with 3 card support and will bid 1NT only over 1♠ with 1♠=3♥=4♦=5♣ (or 1♠=4♥=3♦=5♣).
Over 1♥ I bid 1♠ with 3♠=1♥=4♦=5♣ and my experience is quite satisfactory.
Why do I need to cope? I am not convinced that relay system are the most important issue.
But say the bidding starts

1♣--1♠
1NT -- 2♦ (XYZ, gf)
3♦--3♠

3NT would show the singleton ♠, anything else 2245, unless I had precisely AQ in ♥, where I would make an exception and bid 3NT. You see suit quality matters, but in the fourth round of bidding. I have usually more important things to show in the first or second round of bidding.

Quote

I don't see why it's more accurate to bid

1♣-1♠
1NT-2♦ (FG enquiry)
3♦     (1345)

instead of:

1♣-1♠
2♣-2♦ (FG enquiry)
3♦     (1345)

If our sole objective were to maximise accuracy with this particular shape opposite a game-force, we would use both sequences to show the same shape, rebidding 2♣ with good clubs and 1NT with bad clubs.

This is an easy one. For me your last sequence shows at least 6 cards in ♣ and 4 cards in ♦, too weak for a reverse. I have real distributions when I bypass 1NT, not a mediocre 5-4 in the minors. Rebidding a minor almost always already shows 6 cards.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Rainer, did you read the post I was responding to? My comment about suit quality and high-card concentration was in response to the assertion that 1C-1M;2NT-2D;3D showed "pretty much ... all your features". If opener might have either AKQ or xx in the unbid suit, he is some way from showing all of his features.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-February-15, 09:17, said:

Rainer, did you read the post I was responding to? My comment about suit quality and high-card concentration was in response to the assertion that 1C-1M;2NT-2D;3D showed "pretty much ... all your features". If opener might have either AKQ or xx in the unbid suit, he is some way from showing all of his features.

You are of course right, "all your features" is an overbid. Nevertheless I happen to agree with XXHONG priorities, and to be fair nobody is able to show all features of a hand up to the level of 3 ♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[IdiotVig]

I'm surprised so many people are sticking to a hard and fast rule to evaluate how to bid here. This is a problem shape that can lead a potentially-complicated auction. Seems worth it to completely evaluate suit qualities, potential problem auctions, and bid accordingly. Obviously, partnership agreements help (like what hands you can raise 1M to 2M on 3-card support), but in a vacuum, a knee-jerk "100% 1C" or "100% 1D" seems like an inflexible, uncreative way to play bridge. [I seem to recall a passage in Rosenberg's "Bridge, Zia, and Me" where he indicated Zia basically randomizes the 1C or 1D opener with this hand type, so I'm probably biased.]

That said, in a vacuum/pickup partnership, I tend to open 1D. But...it depends.

[655321]

IdiotVig, on 2011-February-17, 08:40, said:

[I seem to recall a passage in Rosenberg's "Bridge, Zia, and Me" where he indicated Zia basically randomizes the 1C or 1D opener with this hand type, so I'm probably biased.]

I don't recall any such passage in that book. Instead there is a passage where Michael explains that he (not Zia) doesn't disclose to anyone his rules for opening when 4-4 (not 4-5) in the minors. He does go on to talk about opening the 3 card minor when 3-4 or even 3-5 in the minors and planning to rebid NT, but 4-5 in the minors was not discussed.

[rhm]

IdiotVig, on 2011-February-17, 08:40, said:

I'm surprised so many people are sticking to a hard and fast rule to evaluate how to bid here. This is a problem shape that can lead a potentially-complicated auction. Seems worth it to completely evaluate suit qualities, potential problem auctions, and bid accordingly. Obviously, partnership agreements help (like what hands you can raise 1M to 2M on 3-card support), but in a vacuum, a knee-jerk "100% 1C" or "100% 1D" seems like an inflexible, uncreative way to play bridge. [I seem to recall a passage in Rosenberg's "Bridge, Zia, and Me" where he indicated Zia basically randomizes the 1C or 1D opener with this hand type, so I'm probably biased.]

That said, in a vacuum/pickup partnership, I tend to open 1D. But...it depends.

This is a question of bidding philosophy, not about hand evaluation. I believe that clear information about distribution is more important than suit quality. Bidding the same distribution in different ways depending on the quality of the suits and leaving your partner in the dark about your relative suit lengths is a recipe for disaster. This does not mean that suit quality is unimportant only that it should be clarified in later rounds of the bidding. This has long been agreed in other scenarios. For example only a beginner would have trouble what to open with 5 little ♠ and 5 solid ♥.

There are exceptions to this rule. For example a recent hand in this forum was:

♠AKQJxx
♥QJ
♦Jxxx
♣J

and the bidding started 1♠--2♣, game forcing 2/1
Here I would bypass the ♦ and rebid my solid ♠, even though this technically denies ♦.

Rainer Herrmann