[MickyB]

There are many different options for which minor to open on balanced hands:

1) Better Minor - 1C with 3-3, 1D with 4-4
2) Better Minor, with a variation on the above when holding equal length
3) Short Club - basically Better Minor, except open 1C on 4-4-3-2
4) Short Club - All balanced hands in the appropriate range open 1C
5) Short Club - As above, but 4-4-4-1 shape also opens 1C

What do you think is best? Would this be different if playing a weak NT instead of a strong NT?

My views so far...
I dislike option 3. If 1D is occasionally 3, I can treat it as promising 4, and we may get away with it if it is a 4-4-3-2. If 1C is occasionally 2, then when I am bidding assuming it will be 3 or 4 then the chances of getting away with it are much less.

I doubt option 1 is the best way of playing Better Minor. With 4-4 in the minors, I'd prefer to open 1C and leave open the possibility of finding a diamond fit. With 3-3 I'm not interested in the minors, so there is no problem with preempting my partner out of bidding clubs. I understand that there is a problem with (32)44 without a stop in the three card suit when the opps bid that suit, but that could be the exception that opens 1D.

Better Minor has more to gain if you aren't playing checkback or if you play NMF than if you play 2-way checkback, because then you can sign off in 2 of opener's club suit. However this may not be much of a gain - at IMPs, it would need 1NT to be going down, 2m to be making, and the opps not to balance into a making part-score.

Short Club seems more suited to weak NT systems. You are much less likely to want to stop in 2m when the balanced option is 15+ (as it is both stronger and less frequent). Also in competitive auctions, it can sometimes be an advantage to have opened your shorter minor - then partner is more likely to have the 3 card 'support' with his 9 count that suggests there will be a safe spot (eg 1C-(1H)-2C as forcing, 3+C and 9+HCP, happy to play 3C or 3NT). Against this, if responder is very weak with short clubs and has to pass the opening bid, the opponents are more likely to have a game on if opener has 12-14 bal than if he has 15+ bal.

Any comments?

[paulhar]

One reason to open 1D on 4-4 if you have an unstopped major suit is if the opponent overcalls your unstopped major and your partner bids the other major or makes a negative double, you can bid 2C - rather than having to make an awkward 2D rebid having opened 1C.

[Rebound]

I really only like option 1. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. Just my $0.02.

[EricK]

Personally I prefer number 4. Bidding is much easier if 1♦, 1♥ & 1♠ promise unbalanced hands.

To that end, I reckon that if you also include all 5332 hands in with 1♣ and swap 1♠ and 1NT response to 1♥, the net positives (eg being able to play in 1NT; having 1♠ 1NT 2♣ promise a 4 card suit; not having to rebid 2♠ or bid 3♣ after 1♠ 2♦ with a minimum 5314 hand) outweigh the negatives (missing an occasional major part score).

"Balanced hands should be bid as balanced hands" - that is much easier if they are all bundled into a single opening.

Eric

[whereagles]

Some people that play natual 5-card major systems play option 2) as follows:

1. Open the longest minor if unequal lenght
2. With 33 open 1C
3. With 44 open 1D, except when holding a balanced 12 to bad 13.

The reason for 3 is simple. Diamonds first allows to bid clubs economically later.. but suppose you hold the balanced 12-13 hand and pard a 10-11 hand:

Ax........xx
KJx.......Axx
Qxxx....Kxx
Qxxx....Kxxxx

You pard
1D 2C
2NT ...3NT

Pard, who doesn't have any way to invite game after your 12-14 balanced rebid, feels obliged to "add a 3rd". After all, you could have had Ax KJx xxxx AQxx instead, no?

But if you open 1C, it would go

1C 3C
pass

(Playing inv minors it's 1C-2C-2NT-3C-pass)

By rebiding 2NT after 1D-2C only with a good 13 to 14, you avoid the problem. Sometimes this drives you out of diamond contracts in competitive situations, but makes sure you get to the right 3NTs.

[helene_t]

If you play Walsh the 4-4-fit in diamonds will get lost if you open 1♣. On the other hand, if you play some funny conventional repsonse to 1♣ that you like to use as often as possible (T-Walsh, Montreal, 1♦ negative), you should open 1♣ whenever possible.

So it all depends on your respond scheme to 1♣.

Short club is too vague in my opinion. If the oponents interfere, p can't safely support clubs with a 4-card. Even uncontested auctions become misty. Should clubs be considered a bid suit with respect to 4th suit forcing?

On the other hand, there are more important things to tell partner than whether you have 2, 3 or 4 clubs. So you should play short clubs and release the burden on it by playing 2♣ as a natural opening or 1NT as a transfer-opening showing clubs.

If you have to play a natural system, though, you can play either American style (clubs with 3-3 and diamonds with 4-4) or you can show concentration of strength, the latter making it easier for p to find the lead. It might make sense to play American style with 18-19 and Best Minor with 12-14.

[laughter]

I agree with Helen.
The choice of opening depends partly on your system of responses.
As the bidding sequences available after 1C opening is the double of 1D opening, the scope of conventional responses is much larger.
If you play some sort of transfer responses to 1C, you will get a higher incentive to play option 4, opening 1C whenever possible.
But the obvious cost of ambuguity usually hurts only in contested auction.
In uncontested auctions, the short club bidder should try to rebid 1NT to describe balanced nature, even bypassing 4 card major.
Thus, when he rebids a suit after opening 1C, he shows genuine C.

[paulg]

I play option 4, all balanced hands open 1♣, with transfer responses to the 1♣ opener.

This has the interesting side effect that the auction 1♦-1♥/♠-1NT no longer needs to be natural ... so it is a transfer to clubs.

Eventually this allows 1♦-1♠-2♦ to show a minimum hand with diamonds and 4 hearts, which is a nice plus.

[pclayton]

With some pards I open 1♦ with all 4-4 hands.

With my partner that is a die-hard Bergenite, we open the better minor. We get an occasional rebid problem, but the lead directing value is usually worth it.

[Gerben47]

#1 and #2 are out. The old ways are not the best ways, which is the reason for #3,#4, and #5.

The reason for this is simple. Rather have one minor opening bid well defined than two vague ones.

In Poland there is a big discussion to choose between #4 and #5 and I think the experts are agreeing on #4. Personally I like #4 best.

It gets even better with weak NT. The assurance that 1♣ shows an unbalanced hand with clubs or 15+ balanced is very nice.

[luke warm]

with all of those i open 1nt (10-13 or 12-14) or rebid 1nt (14-16 or 15-17)... exception is if i have 4M and partner bids that M

[flytoox]

I asked this question one year ago and Fred gave a very detailed answer. you shld be able to search it out here.

[MickyB]

Thanks for all the responses.

I agree with Helene and Laughter that responses matter, although I think Montreal sounds like a good reason to play Short Diamond With regards to 4SF auctions, IMO it is clearcut to rebid 1NT on the balanced hands when playing weak NT and /or short club, so if opener has bid 2 suits he is promising an unbalanced hand. Cardsharp also makes a good point, I think I will put some work into 1D-1M-1N auctions.

My opinion remains that short club is more worthwhile when playing weak NT. In addition to the reasons that I mentioned previously, there are lead directing issues - when you open 1m with 12-14 bal, you may well find partner on lead, so being able to choose your better minor is useful. When you open 1m with 15+bal, you are likely to have LHO on lead, and you don't want to give him any help.

Options 4 and 5 are quite similar, it is just one exact hand pattern that you would rather not be dealt! Option 5 does leave a hole in the opening bid structure when combined with a weak NT - if you are opening 1C on a 4-4-4-1 at all it must be to keep 1D as a 5 card suit, but if you open 1C on a 4-4-4-1 with 12 HCP then it no longer promises either extra length or strength. That leaves 1NT, which isn't to everyone's tastes.

So I'm fairly certain option 4 is the way to go playing weak NT. I'm not so sure about strong NT, but I'd probably avoid option 1 if possible

[1eyedjack]

I am a weak notrumper although I think that the relevance is likely to be marginal.

I reckon that if you are going to have any nebulous opening bids it is better to have one nebulous opener than two.

Opening 1D with 4-4 in the minors provides added protection in a contested auction, as I think paulhar mentioned.

If you are purely interested in finding fits (and I realise there are other factors) the distinction between a 3 and 4 card opener is relevant when reponder has 4 card support. The distinction between a 2 and 3 card opener is relevant when responder has 5 card support. Partner is less likely to have 5 card support for your 2 card suit than 4 card support for your 3 card suit (or so I am told), and when he has got 5 card support he probably has fewer other problems. I just tend to find that not knowing if partner's 1C is on 2 v 3 tends to assume lesser importance that not knowing if partner's 1D is on 3 v 4.

If you play transfer Walsh responses to 1C you want to shove more of the balanced hands into 1C.

I think it is close between options 3 and 4. I tend to play option 3 most of the time. 4-4-4-1 hands I often lump into a 2-level opener but I think it is playable to open 1D and rebid 2D over a 2C response. But it would also be playable to open 1C. Options 1 and 2 appear to gain when you are vulnerable and responder is so weak that he is considering passing you out in 1m. Then 4th seat may let you play there in a shortage. If you don't like that then you need to make 1C forcing, which plenty do, of course, but that also has some downsides.

[MickyB]

Oh yes, I meant to talk about this before.

I've looked at systems that use a natural 2C opener and a weak NT, leaving 1C as something like 15+, clubs or balanced. Misho has said that this system only works NV. Presumably this is due to interference - but if so, I would expect it to work better both vul than neither vul. Anyone have any comments on this?

[luke warm]

i haven't noticed any marked interference over 1c when it can have 2 or 3 meanings.. certainly not as much as when it's the strong one only

[Gerben47]

The reason is simple. After a Polish 1♣ it isn't clear whose hand it is.
After a Precision 1♣ it's their hand (normally).

[skorchev]

I don't know which variant is the best or which is the most played, but I was taught to play variant 1) with 3-3 - 1♣, with 4-4 and 5-5 - 1♦, and to open the larger minor (and I still play this variant).

But with 4 cards in ♦ and 5 cards in ♣ with 12-15 and better ♦s than ♣s with shape like ♠QJx♥x♦AQJx♣QJxxx I prefer to open 1♦ because if I open 1♣ I have not good rebid, 1♣-2♦ will means reverse by my system. And when I open 1♦ with this shape I easy can rebid 2♣.

However I play the 1st variant.

Stefan

[joker_gib]

I also play the first one which is french standard but here in Belgium, a lot of players open ♦ with 4+ cards only !

[Free]

Yeah, in Belgium there are 2 standards: ACOL and Majors-5 with 1♦ promissing 4+ cards - which is option 3. However, equal as many people play longest or best minor (so both minors can be 3 cards) but it's not really considered as a basic system for some reason . I still like longest minor more than 4+♦, but if you put all kinds of other hands in the 1♣, then 4+♦ is better imo. Then you use only 1♣ as not natural...