[aawk]

To open or not to open will always a debate in bridge. The trend is to open with nearly any 11+ HCP even holding a nt pattern.

Play for MP go right ahead and agree with your partner what your rebid with a 5332 pattern and a minimum should be.

Play for imps i would pass first, no reason to reveale your hand yet because its not likely to be passed out.

If partner opens you can get to game anyway

If opponents open you can balance if needed

The argument to open this hand so partner knows what to lead is a indication a lesson in what and how to lead is recommended.

For example (IMP) you hold Kxxx Jx xxx xxx and opponets bid 1nt-3nt do you lead x from Kxxx in s or lead the J from Jx in h.
Leading s is a passive lead and is not likely to gain the needed tricks to set 3nt. Leading h is looking for partners strenght and more likely to set 3nt.

[helene_t]

Problem with 3d is that partner can't show his club stopper. So hopefully the system prescribes 2s or 2h for this hand. 2h is obviously better but I would bid 2S if that is our agreement, except possibly in an indy or if it's the last hand of the event.

[Manastorm]

I bid 2♠ showing a minimum opener. I agree with 1♠ opening. This is better than a bad 12 pointer, which I usually open.

[mycroft]

I can't imagine anyone in my area in the A game not opening this one. I can't imagine anyone in my area short of the "really top A" - like 5 people - doing anything but bidding 2NT now. It's a style, but it's Calgary style, that 2NT does not promise extras, and 2♠ promises 6 (and AKQJT doesn't count).

It's a style I'm still uncomfortable with, having learned my 2/1 in the wilds of Ontario, where 2NT shows extras. So on a good day, I'd probably bid 2♥ and hope to land on my feet; on a normal day, I'd bid 2♠ and hope the 5-2 plays well; on the days when I actually *play* bridge, I'd bid 2NT and keep my partner happy.

And with my regular partner, I put a spade in with the clubs and open 1NT like all right-thinking people should :-).

[Stefan_O]

♣

kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 05:04, said:

...some people are willing to rebid Spades with only five.

mycroft, on 2016-August-22, 11:12, said:

....and 2♠ promises 6 (and AKQJT doesn't count).

While 1♠-2♣-2♠ might promise a 6-card suit,
afaik, 1♠-2♦-2♠ only promises 5, since it is also what you bid with a 5♠+4♣ minimum hand, isnt it?

That's why 2♥ (pd expecting 4-card suit) to me seems like a very uncalled for risk to take here.

Also, xx in ♣ speaks against 2NT rebid + pd probably has the stronger hand (I hope! ), so 3NT plays better from pds hand.

[mycroft]

I don't disagree - I'm just telling you what is "standard Flight A" around here. It works (like anything does, if everyone is on the same page), but my belief is that there are more effective agreements (like anything does).

[rmnka447]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 05:04, said:

I really don't understand this discussion. People seem willing to do things that don't make much sense to me.

No one wants to be one card short in the heart suit. I understand that. However the third suit is less frequently the Trump suit. And if there is a general rule that the suit between the two over one and the original suit is suspect this is an easily handled problem.

In rejecting that some people are willing to rebid Spades with only five. In other words the most likely Trump strain is one that you're willing to fudge on. You give no additional explanation of your hand when you do this however. You don't gain the advantage of showing a feature. You don't gain space for partner to raise spades cheaply.

Others are willing to bid two no-trump. This Summer's wrong siding many contracts. It also deprives the partnership showing a feature. It takes up valuable space. While it does show a pattern feature namely balanced which is better than the two spade option, the combination of wrong sighting and not showing the feature is a bad thing.

The third option of showing Diamonds by bidding 3 diamonds is the worst of all worlds in all respects.

The end result in an auction like this is that everyone sees the potential harm done by all 4 calls but then excused as their own as a necessary evil. That necessary evil is one catered to later. However it seems axiomatic that if you were going to have one call be impure then it seems best to make the call that is cheapest impure especially if that call has the benefit of being a bid where you live option. I understand the hesitancy 2 fudge with a major. That said if you realize this principle of making the cheapest call a potential fudge then the call no longer is truly a fudge. In simpler terms if a 2H rebid in the sequence only promises a fragment then life is a lot easier in the sequence. If you assess this situation not from the standpoint of conventional wisdom Brooke from the standpoint of efficiency and a willingness to reconsider conventional wisdom then the problem seems to be solved best by making two hearts suspect.

There are different approaches to 2/1. First, some people play that 2/1 is an absolute game force. Others play 2/1 as a game force except if responder rebids their suit.

If I read your comments right, then your approach is to bid the pattern or features of your hand then try to decide what level you belong at. A potential problem with this approach is determining exactly what the assets between the hands are because no one has limited their hand. I'm sure there are hands where patterning out may allow finding slams on minimum values that are otherwise unbiddable. But I'd bet that there are also some hands where game versus slam gets somewhat murky neither partner has fully defined the total extent of their assets.

An alternate approach is to let opener say something about their assets with their rebid. This means having rebids that indicate minimum opening values limiting responder's expectations about opener's hand. These rebids don't show pattern, but do provide some valuable information about the size of the assets in opener's hand. So in that sense, they are starting to define the potential level belonged at rather than pattern. When opener doesn't make the "minimum" rebid, then the rebid shows both extras and a feature. So by the time responder gets to rebid, some estimate of the total assets between the two hands is available. But, of course, less is known about the pattern of the hands. So there may be some minimum value pattern hands where you miss slam, but more certainty of game versus slam on others because of better definition of the total assets held.

I'd suspect there might be some other variations that are hybrids between these approaches that others play.

Using the "assets" first approach, opener defines the hand as a minimum and let's responder drive the auction from there. What that minimum bid is depends on the pairs bidding agreements but is normally 2 ♠ or 2 NT. If nothing else, it complies with a principle of good bidding that in any auction one should limit one's hand as soon as one is able to do so.

For most people, a 2 ♥ rebid promises 4+ ♥ but not necessarily extras. The main problem with bidding 2 ♥ on this hand is that it will be difficult to convince responder that you don't have 4 ♥ when a ♥ fit exists. Sure it lets responder bid 2 ♠ to set ♠ as trump, but what should opener do after that other then bid 4 ♠ as a signoff? I can see some advantage to this approach if responder holds something like ♠ xx ♥ xxx ♦ AKQJx ♣ KJx as it will let responder bid NT.

[miamijd]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-22, 05:04, said:

I really don't understand this discussion. People seem willing to do things that don't make much sense to me.

No one wants to be one card short in the heart suit. I understand that. However the third suit is less frequently the Trump suit. And if there is a general rule that the suit between the two over one and the original suit is suspect this is an easily handled problem.

In rejecting that some people are willing to rebid Spades with only five. In other words the most likely Trump strain is one that you're willing to fudge on. You give no additional explanation of your hand when you do this however. You don't gain the advantage of showing a feature. You don't gain space for partner to raise spades cheaply.

Others are willing to bid two no-trump. This Summer's wrong siding many contracts. It also deprives the partnership showing a feature. It takes up valuable space. While it does show a pattern feature namely balanced which is better than the two spade option, the combination of wrong sighting and not showing the feature is a bad thing.

The third option of showing Diamonds by bidding 3 diamonds is the worst of all worlds in all respects.

The end result in an auction like this is that everyone sees the potential harm done by all 4 calls but then excused as their own as a necessary evil. That necessary evil is one catered to later. However it seems axiomatic that if you were going to have one call be impure then it seems best to make the call that is cheapest impure especially if that call has the benefit of being a bid where you live option. I understand the hesitancy 2 fudge with a major. That said if you realize this principle of making the cheapest call a potential fudge then the call no longer is truly a fudge. In simpler terms if a 2H rebid in the sequence only promises a fragment then life is a lot easier in the sequence. If you assess this situation not from the standpoint of conventional wisdom Brooke from the standpoint of efficiency and a willingness to reconsider conventional wisdom then the problem seems to be solved best by making two hearts suspect.

Maybe your system is that the cheapest bid is the default bid (i.e., the inability to make any other bid), but no one else in the world plays that.

In almost all modern 2/1 systems (though not Hardy's original system), 2s does not show 6 spades at all. It shows either (i) 6+ spades OR (ii) the inability to make any other descriptive bid. So you aren't "fudging" when you rebid 2S at all. Your partner should expect you to have 5, as the default bid will occur more often than the 6+ spade hands.

A 2H bid shows 4+ H here. Period. You don't want partner bidding 4H on 3451, do you?

A 2NT bid ought to show at least a partial stop in H and C. Not a small doubleton. Yes, in Hardy's original system, 2S showed 6+ and 2NT was the default bid, but very few top-level players play that way any more.

In early versions of 2/1, a raise to 3D used to show 4+ diamonds and extra strength. No more. 3+ trump and a minimum opening are fine.

So your choices are 2S (default) or 3D. Since my diamonds are awful; my hand is weak; and I have no shortness, I don't really want to encourage a diamond contract. So I would bid 2S here. After 2S, I'm well-positioned to handle whatever partner bids.

If he has three spades, he'll raise and we've found our strain.
If he bids 2NT, I can raise to 3NT.
If he has a side club suit, he'll bid 3C, and now I can bid 3NT.
If he rebids 3D, I can bid 3H, showing a heart stop and pinpointing the club concern.
If he rebids 3H, I'll bid 4D. Luckily, partner won't rebid 3H here unless he is totally bankrupt in clubs or else has 5 hearts (he knows I don't have 4 when I bid 2s).

Incidentally, I would only open this hand in 1-2 seat if playing a strong club system. In 2/1, it's generally better to pass with 11 and 5332 (exchange a small club for a small h and it's an easy opener). If you open hands like this in 2/1, you put too much pressure on the 1NT forcing response (it has to cover much too wide a variety of hands, even with methods like Gazilli).

[kenrexford]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-22, 06:12, said:

A very interesting treatment, but probably not available to the OP

By the way, it is obviously more convenient to speak your posts, but please proofread because sometimes your posts contain some impossible-to-interpret gobbledygook.

In all fairness, some consider even my proof read posts to contain impossible to interpret gobbledygook.

[kenrexford]

Many years ago I was one of the first advocates on bridge base forums for two clubs as a Game Force but artificial. That was considered ridiculous at the time. It is now fairly mainstream.

At about the same time I also suggested that a Two Diamond rebid by opener after two clubs should be used as either diamonds or balanced. That was crazy at the time as well. But it is catching on rapidly.

I am now advocating that two hearts be a fragment or better after a Two Diamond Game Force. It's all the same principle.

I might as well give you the next step. When a 1♤opener hears a Two Diamond Game Force and then rebids 2♡, responder bids 2 no-trump to support hearts. This saves space when we do in fact have a heart fit. If opener next says three no Trump that shows this hand. Opener cannot have no comtrol. If the final contract is three no-trump it is right sided.

If responder in this sequence would normally bid 2 no Trump he might instead bid a quantitative three no-trump or a waiting three clubs.

The beauty of this however is not just in the ability to handle the heart fragment but in the ability to have a lower slam seeking auction when hearts are agreed.

[Kaitlyn S]

miamijd, on 2016-August-22, 15:52, said:

Maybe your system is that the cheapest bid is the default bid (i.e., the inability to make any other bid), but no one else in the world plays that.

Ken plays bridge so I have to assume at least one other person plays that.

And without his last post "You called me crazy when...", I would have still said that his approach is not theoretically unsound, but it is wrong playing with most partners today. In other words, I don't think that bidding 2H is wrong if partner would also bid 2H on the hand. I wouldn't bid 2H on this hand so bidding 2H playing with me would be wrong. However, if this is within the subset of hands that partner would expect for a 2H bid, I don't think there's anything wrong with playing that way. Yes, he will play 4H sometimes when 4S, 3NT, or 5D is preferable, but on many of those hands, many of the rest of us won't end up in the correct contract either. On the upside, he'll end up in 4H sometimes when 3NT has no play.

That being said, most of my recent bridge has been the Main Bridge Club with pickup partners and I think that bidding 2H with this hand there would be a grave error for three reasons.

1. They are unlikely to consider this possibility and are more likely to end up in the wrong spot.

2. Rather than thinking I made a great bid of the future, they are going to assume I am clueless in the bidding and make future bidding decisions with that in mind.

3. I'm still Cinderella looking for the perfect partner. It would be a darn shame if my handsome prince was partnering me and I bid 2H on this hand and he decided based on that bid that the slipper didn't fit.

[Kaitlyn S]

miamijd, on 2016-August-22, 15:52, said:

Incidentally, I would only open this hand in 1-2 seat if playing a strong club system. In 2/1, it's generally better to pass with 11 and 5332 (exchange a small club for a small h and it's an easy opener). If you open hands like this in 2/1, you put too much pressure on the 1NT forcing response (it has to cover much too wide a variety of hands, even with methods like Gazilli).

I wonder how many people who call AQ10xx, KQx, xxx, xx an 11 count 5332 would also call all of these weaker hands an 11 count 5332?

AQxxx, KQx, xxx, xx
Qxxxx, Kxx, Qxx, Ax
xxxxx, Qxx, Axx, KQ

People open the actual hand because it's a better hand than some of the 13 point "mandatory openings" that people routinely open, such as QJxx, Kxxx, Jxx, AQ. If I was forced to open only one of the two hands AQ10xx, KQx, xxx, xx or QJxx, Kxxx, Jxx, AQ, the first one would get the nod.

[mike777]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-August-22, 19:25, said:

I wonder how many people who call AQ10xx, KQx, xxx, xx an 11 count 5332 would also call all of these weaker hands an 11 count 5332?

AQxxx, KQx, xxx, xx
Qxxxx, Kxx, Qxx, Ax
xxxxx, Qxx, Axx, KQ

People open the actual hand because it's a better hand than some of the 13 point "mandatory openings" that people routinely open, such as QJxx, Kxxx, Jxx, AQ. If I was forced to open only one of the two hands AQ10xx, KQx, xxx, xx or QJxx, Kxxx, Jxx, AQ, the first one would get the nod.

Great question, I was taught playing a lite opening system all of your examples are an easy one bid. fwiw I was also taught that 2/1 gf meant 14+ in this style. This style throws many hands into 1nt response.

[Kaitlyn S]

mike777, on 2016-August-22, 20:11, said:

Great question, I was taught playing a lite opening system all of your examples are an easy one bid. fwiw I was also taught that 2/1 gf meant 14+ in this style. This style throws many hands into 1nt response.

If I opened in first chair with xxxxx, Qxx, Axx, KQ, I would expect to see a robot in my partner's seat as soon as he figured out what my hand was. Especially if partner's spade lead from S-Kx let the opponents make an unmakeable 4H.

[MrAce]

kenrexford, on 2016-August-21, 12:18, said:

2H. Nothing else even close.

What an unfortunate comment.

[mike777]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-August-22, 20:31, said:

If I opened in first chair with xxxxx, Qxx, Axx, KQ, I would expect to see a robot in my partner's seat as soon as he figured out what my hand was. Especially if partner's spade lead from S-Kx let the opponents make an unmakeable 4H.

Yes, Kaitlyn you make a fair, very fair criticism of opening lite style.

And yes that is a clear one spade opener....


Thus we have a discussion/dbate..one that in the current WC book just out World Class players open on less.

[MrAce]

mycroft, on 2016-August-22, 11:12, said:

It's a style I'm still uncomfortable with, having learned my 2/1 in the wilds of Ontario, where 2NT shows extras.

I open all 15-16 hcp 5332 hands 1 NT. 2M and 2 NT is my default rebids over 2/1 response. 2 NT does not show extras. 2M does not promise 6 of them. For example;

AJxxx
Kxx
xx
KJx

I rebid 2 NT over 2♦.

AKxxx
xx
KQx
xxx

I rebid 2♠. Knowing that the most likely game we will play is 3 NT, I really do not want to wrong side it. There will be times 3 NT is makeable by pd but not from our side. Especially at MP, even if we can make 3 NT from both sides, having it played from other side usually gains a trick if not two,

[Miss Happ]

Arrive at your first barrier quickly so that partner, in charge of the auction, can impress you with their judgement.

[rmnka447]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-August-22, 19:25, said:

I wonder how many people who call AQ10xx, KQx, xxx, xx an 11 count 5332 would also call all of these weaker hands an 11 count 5332?

AQxxx, KQx, xxx, xx
Qxxxx, Kxx, Qxx, Ax
xxxxx, Qxx, Axx, KQ

People open the actual hand because it's a better hand than some of the 13 point "mandatory openings" that people routinely open, such as QJxx, Kxxx, Jxx, AQ. If I was forced to open only one of the two hands AQ10xx, KQx, xxx, xx or QJxx, Kxxx, Jxx, AQ, the first one would get the nod.

I'm an old fashion QT counter as part of my evaluation of opening bids. My standard 12 HCP and 2 QT, but will consider opening 11 HCP 2 1/2 QT hands. So I'm opening AQxxx KQx xxx xx, but passing the other two hands. Qxxxx Kxx Qxx Ax has only 1 1/2 QTs and other flaws (dangling honors). xxxxx Qxx Axx KQ has 2 QTs but again has flaws (no honor in long suit, a dangling honor, doubleton honor).

[ggwhiz]

mike777, on 2016-August-22, 20:11, said:

Great question, I was taught playing a lite opening system all of your examples are an easy one bid. fwiw I was also taught that 2/1 gf meant 14+ in this style. This style throws many hands into 1nt response.

.
Exactly. The style is legitimate but I prefer to play against it rather than play it. Both styles are playable and a debate on which is better is a waste of time, they are both as good as the partnership that plays them.