[david_c]

Playing SAYC or 2/1, I've seen some people opening 1NT with hands such as

♠ x
♥ AKTx
♦ KQx
♣ Kxxxx

in order to avoid possible rebid problems after opening 1♣.

Hands of this shape (but perhaps a little lighter in HCP) are also a problem in Precision, because a 5-card 2♣ opening is so difficult to handle. So I'm wondering whether it might be advisable to open a weak no-trump on these sorts of hands.

More specifically - I like to play a system where 1NT is 12-14HCP, and all stronger balanced hands are opened 1♣. (Hence, a 1♦ opening will not be balanced.) Hands with a club suit are currently treated in much the same way as in the Fantoni/Nunes system: 2♣ shows about 10-14HCP with 5+ clubs; stronger hands open 1♣. The 1NT opening already includes 4=4=1=4 hands (because I don't want to bother with a precision 2♦), as well as most 2=4=2=5 and 4=2=2=5 hands. So this leaves the following shapes with 5 clubs in the 2♣ opening bid:

• 1=4=3=5
  
• 4=1=3=5
  
• 3=4=1=5
  
• 4=3=1=5
  
• 4=4=0=5

The method I'm considering is to open all of these except the last one with 1NT. The 4=4=0=5's never come up. This would mean that 2♣ promises a 6-card suit.

So, is this a good idea or not?

Some statistics: if you open 1NT on all these hands, then 1.2% of 1NT opening bids will contain a singleton spade, another 1.2% contain a singleton heart, and 4.1% contain a singleton diamond.

Note: I'm only asking about the relative merits of opening 1NT vs. 2♣ on these hands. Anyone who says, "This is what happens if you try and play 5-card majors with a strong club" will be shot.

[luke warm]

at the risk of being shot yet another plug for canape

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 18 2005, 02:25 AM, said:

at the risk of being shot yet another plug for canape

And I'll comment once again that your decision to play canape is completely irrelevant...

David runs into problems with the hand that he posted. You have the option to open this 1♥ which is all well and good. However, your canape style also has major holes in the 1 level opening structure. Lets change the hands slighty so that you hold

♠ x
♥ AKT9x
♦ KQx
♣ Kxxx

Here David gets to open 1♥ but you can't. As I understand matters, you also have a systemic bid to handle hands with a 5 card major and shorter minor. (I believe that you are opening 2♥ or some such).

In short, the canape opening style is not decreasing the number of "holes" in your one level opening structure. Rather, your concious decision to sacrifice using 2♥ and 2♠ as preempts is where you are gettting gains with your constructive hands.

[mike777]

Actually we open 1H also.
When second suit is clubs we open the other suit at one level.

As for David's problem, my preference is to open 1D which allows for 2club opener to be 6 cards in length. My understanding is Eric Rodwell has strong feelings on this issue as well.

Strongly dislike opening wk nt with 4414 shape

Yes, this is a headache hand in 2/1
I may open 1c and rebid 2clubs.
Admire opening 1H and rebidding 2C

[luke warm]

first of all richard, it was said (i thought) humorously... in any event, the example you posted

♠ x
♥ AKT9x
♦KQx
♣ Kxxx

is opened 1♥ (as mike said)... as for david's hand, i'd open it 1♦ also.. if partner bids 1♠ i can bid 2♣ (or even 1nt then, if it doesn't confuse partner)

i've yet to run into any 'major holes' in the 1 level canape structure... i'm sure i will one day

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 18 2005, 03:02 AM, said:

first of all richard, it was said (i thought) humorously... in any event, the example you posted

♠ x
♥ AKT9x
♦KQx
♣ Kxxx

is opened 1♥ (as mike said)... as for david's hand, i'd open it 1♦ also.. if partner bids 1♠ i can bid 2♣ (or even 1nt then, if it doesn't confuse partner)

i've yet to run into any 'major holes' in the 1 level canape structure... i'm sure i will one day

I was under the impression that your 1 level openings promised a 4 card suit.

Mind clarifying the difference between your 1M and 2 major openings?

[mike777]

1 level bid promises 2 suited hand 100%. 4-5, 5-5, etc. Canape often but not 100%
2c=3 suited hand
2d, 2h, 2s, 2nt, 3c = one suited.

[luke warm]

all 1 level openings, not just 1M, are 2 suited and usually canape, 11-16.. the only time the opening doesn't have to be canape is when clubs is the 2nd suit... with 2 equal length suits, open the lower ranking (again, unless clubs is in there somewhere)... with 2 unequal length suits, open the shorter

all 2 level openings, with the exception of 2c, are 1 suited hands, 6+ and 11-16/17 hcp.. 2c is 3 suited, 11-16.. 2nt is one suited clubs, 14-17, 3c is one suited clubs, 11-14... there are no weak 2 bids in this system, which was the toughest philosophical hill for me to climb.. i can say that after playing this way for awhile, i rarely miss them

the 1 level bids are 4/5, 4/6, 4/7, 5/5, 5/6, etc... 2 suited with a minimum of 4 cards in the opened suit

if i'm not mistaken, fredrick is now playing this in 3rd and 4th seat... at least he was

oops.. yeah, what mike said heheh

[Winstonm]

Regardless of the system, there will always be holes to plug. What you have to look at is the ramifications a change will have on all other bids. As bidding is as much art as science, the better idea instead of gadgets to fix is a firm grasp on the auctions where pard may have a rebid problem and adjust your own bidding slightly to compensate. In Standard for example, the auction 1D-1S-2C may be made on some fairly strong hands, so you strain a little harder to keep the bidding alive, sacrificing a little in partscore bidding for the possible game bonus. The same can be said for 1C-1S-2C. This can be a hand very close to reverse strength that hand no good rebid. Again, recognition of the problem leads responder to strain a little harder to keep the bidding open, and makes opener aware that responder may be straining.

If this were easy, we'd all be perfect bidders.

Anyway, that my point of view for what it is worth.

WinstonM

[luke warm]

imo most of the problem bids occur in auctions where the hand(s) are 'unlimited'... that's the strength of most big club systems, all bids other than 1c

i do know that bidding seems easier when opener's shape (and general strength) is known from the beginning

[Winstonm]

Quote

imo most of the problem bids occur in auctions where the hand(s) are 'unlimited'

In in Standard bidding, the hands are limited by a failure to open 2C; a simple rebid is limited by its failure to be valued worth a reverse or a jump rebid or a jump to 2N. In fact, that very much is what bidding is about - continually narrowing the definition of your hand until one of the two partners can determine the most likely contract.

WinstonM

[Winstonm]

Quote

bingo

And now if only you would be good enough to recommend a good chiroprator; I seem to have dislocated my shoulder patting myself on the back.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Jun 17 2005, 10:02 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 17 2005, 09:28 PM, said:

Quote

imo most of the problem bids occur in auctions where the hand(s) are 'unlimited'

In in Standard bidding, the hands are limited by a failure to open 2C; a simple rebid is limited by its failure to be valued worth a reverse or a jump rebid or a jump to 2N. In fact, that very much is what bidding is about - continually narrowing the definition of your hand until one of the two partners can determine the most likely contract.

WinstonM

bingo. Standard bidding is really brilliant to me because the first 2 bids (e.g. 1D p 1H) say very little about your strength, 12-21, but your NEXT bid really narrows not only your shape but your values (e.g. 1D p 1H p 1N, balanced 12-14, not 4 hearts, not 4 spades, definitely 4 diamonds).

Justin I know you read all the forum posts and am surprised you say this.
Per forum rules, 1nt=may have 4 spades, may have 3 diamonds and may have other than 12-14 hcp. Also on bbo must open 2clubs with any random 19hcp.

[david_c]

mike777, on Jun 17 2005, 11:49 PM, said:

As for David's problem, my preference is to open 1D which allows for 2club opener to be 6 cards in length.

My feeling is that this probably is the best solution if 1♦ includes a balanced range (so that it is already nebulous). Then adding 4=1=3=5 and 1=4=3=5 to it makes a lot of sense, and a Precision-2♦ can take care of the rest (or you can open 1♦ with those as well). However, in the system I referred to earlier, 1♦ currently promises a 4-card suit, and so adding these hand types would make it considerably less effective.

I'll restate my question because no-one has tried answering it yet
I have three options for what to do with 5♣-4M-3-1 hands:

1. Always open 2♣.
[Advantage: keeps the 1NT opener clean.]

2. Always open 1NT.
[Advantage: 2♣ now promises a 6-card suit.]

3. Allow opener to choose between 1NT and 2♣ depending on suit quality etc.
[Advantage: flexibility.]

My current position is basically "1", with very occasional 1NT openers allowed (usually with singleton honours). This works well enough. But I'm wondering whether changing to "2" might be better.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 18 2005, 04:43 AM, said:

all 1 level openings, not just 1M, are 2 suited and usually canape, 11-16.. the only time the opening doesn't have to be canape is when clubs is the 2nd suit... with 2 equal length suits, open the lower ranking (again, unless clubs is in there somewhere)... with 2 unequal length suits, open the shorter

Silly question...

Can you explain why you adopted this method? Case in point, MOSCITO conciosuly adopts a major's first opening style because went we prioritize finding major suit fits. However, its hard to reconcile this explanation with a canape style that forces a 1♦ opening shapes like 1=5=4=3 or 3=4=1=5 shape...

Also, I'm curious about implications this style has regarding rebid strength. Suppose that you have a minimum strength 5=3=4=1 hand. You open 1♦ as your style suggests and partner responds 1NT or some such. Does the 2♠ rebid show strength or merely shape?

[luke warm]

Jlall, on Jun 17 2005, 10:02 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 17 2005, 09:28 PM, said:

Quote

imo most of the problem bids occur in auctions where the hand(s) are 'unlimited'

In in Standard bidding, the hands are limited by a failure to open 2C; a simple rebid is limited by its failure to be valued worth a reverse or a jump rebid or a jump to 2N. In fact, that very much is what bidding is about - continually narrowing the definition of your hand until one of the two partners can determine the most likely contract.

WinstonM

bingo. Standard bidding is really brilliant to me because the first 2 bids (e.g. 1D p 1H) say very little about your strength, 12-21, but your NEXT bid really narrows not only your shape but your values (e.g. 1D p 1H p 1N, balanced 12-14, not 4 hearts, not 4 spades, definitely 4 diamonds).

maybe so... but it does make me wonder why there are so few 'standard' methods being played at the highest levels, and so many big club systems...

in your methods, after 1D p 1H p 1S, what is opener's strength? distribution? is he 3 suited with short hearts? how about responder's? with me, opener is 11-16 with 5 spades and 4 diamonds.. responder is <11 hcp with < 4 diamonds and an ability to play in any other suit

but i do like 2 over 1... character flaw no doubt

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2005, 06:52 AM, said:

Silly question...

Can you explain why you adopted this method? Case in point, MOSCITO conciosuly adopts a major's first opening style because went we prioritize finding major suit fits. However, its hard to reconcile this explanation with a canape style that forces a 1♦ opening shapes like 1=5=4=3 or 3=4=1=5 shape...

Also, I'm curious about implications this style has regarding rebid strength. Suppose that you have a minimum strength 5=3=4=1 hand. You open 1♦ as your style suggests and partner responds 1NT or some such. Does the 2♠ rebid show strength or merely shape?

fair questions... for a long time the distributions 2452 and 2425 bothered me in 2/1... i toyed with opening those hands 1H (because i intensely dislike opening them 1NT).. 1H seemed to lose nothing and helped solidify the system (based, as free will remember, on a mini nt)

anyway, not long after this mike came on the forums asking if anyone was interested in playing a canape system... since i'd been thinking along those lines anyway, i said sure... at first i was so turned off by the absence of weak 2 bids that i was ready to chunk it... but i realized that wouldn't be fair, any system should stand or fall on results... so i tried to learn it (and still try)

anyway, i studied the system and also studied the way it would operate in the vugraph and other sessions i kib (a bunch)... time after time it seemed to reach the same or better contracts in fewer bids... sure, there were times when it didn't, like any system.. but for the most part i was impressed... anyway, that's the 'why'

the moscito distributions you showed, 1543 and 3415, are easily bid in weiss.. for example, in the first after 1D responder (with fewer than 11 hcp and 2+ hearts) will usually bid 1H with <4 diamonds.. now opener can raise hearts OR pass OR bid his 2nd suit (a 1NT rebid would show 5 diamonds and 4 clubs)..

responder would not bid 1H with an inability to play there, should hearts turn out to be opener's 2nd suit... same for 1D p 1S.. now opener can also pass, as responder has shown a 6+ card (usually) suit <11 hcp and a reluctance to play anywhere else

with the 3415 hand, open 1H... opener does the same, 1S is a relay (not forcing), 2C or 2D are weak hands with one suit

on your 5341 question.. opener is minimum and opens 1D.. now a 1NT response shows >10 hcp and <4 diamonds.. opener usually rebids 2S

responder bids 1NT with most all 10+ hands unless a fit (4+) is held for opener's 1st suit

[mike777]

Jlall, on Jun 18 2005, 01:46 AM, said:

the only time I rebid 1N over 1H with 4 spades is if i had 4333. With that I would open 1C. You are correct a 1D opener can have 3 diamonds, but only if 4432. With that shape it would raise 1H to 2H. So with 4 spades and 4 diamonds I would always rebid 1S. Thus if I open 1D and rebid 1N I deny 4 spades, 4 hearts, and promise 4+ diamonds.

me to, I was joking.
1nt for me would be 11-13, 1nt opening= 14-16 off shape often.