[the hog]

Cascade, on Feb 26 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 26 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

Yes you are correct, many people play this as standard notwithstanding the comments of some doubting Thomases above.

"...many people play this as standard ..." is quite different than this is standard.

Oh you little pedant, you.

[Cascade]

Truscott "The Bidding Dictionary" commenting on the auction 1♦ 1♥; 2♣ notes "Four strong diamonds and five weak clubs is just possible..."

This is not the language one would use to describe something that is standard.

[Flame]

the book opening you are talking about is when both suits are 4+ card and of same length.

[skjaeran]

Very few (if any) Norwegians are followers of this "book" referred to in the OP.

Around here both 1♣..1NT and 1♣..2♣ is common with 2245. I normally open 1♣ and rebid 1NT.

1♦..2♣ is not for me, ever.

[the hog]

skaeran, on Feb 27 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

Very few (if any) Norwegians are followers of this "book" referred to in the OP.

Around here both 1♣..1NT and 1♣..2♣ is common with 2245. I normally open 1♣ and rebid 1NT.

1♦..2♣ is not for me, ever.

Ever??
x
Axx
AKJx
23456

[han]

The_Hog, on Feb 27 2008, 12:03 AM, said:

Ever??
x
Axx
AKJx
23456

I could see opening 1D but then I'd rebid 1NT over 1S.

[pclayton]

About the only time these days I'm opening 1♦ with a 4-5 is when I'm specifically 0=4=4=5, especially with lousy clubs and good diamonds.

Even with this pattern I'll open 1♥ is the suit's good enough.

[skjaeran]

The_Hog, on Feb 27 2008, 06:03 AM, said:

skaeran, on Feb 27 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

Very few (if any) Norwegians are followers of this "book" referred to in the OP.

Around here both 1♣..1NT and 1♣..2♣ is common with 2245. I normally open 1♣ and rebid 1NT.

1♦..2♣ is not for me, ever.

Ever??
x
Axx
AKJx
23456

That's a 1♣ for me.

With a couple of my regulars that's systemic. With anyone else I just open 1♣.

[Ayjay]

These are very enlightening and humbling comments Didn't mean to create such a stir by saying that the standard 'book' opening was 1♦.

One positive in opening 1♦ as far as I'm concerned is finding a 4-4 diamond fit, which would otherwise be elusive. But then again one would have to deal with having to play in a 4-2 fit every now and then.

[the hog]

Ayjay, on Feb 27 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

These are very enlightening and humbling comments Didn't mean to create such a stir by saying that the standard 'book' opening was 1♦.

One positive in opening 1♦ as far as I'm concerned is finding a 4-4 diamond fit, which would otherwise be elusive. But then again one would have to deal with having to play in a 4-2 fit every now and then.

No, you never play in a 4-2 fit. You don't give false preference to 2D with a doubleton. The Poles open this way in Polish Club, of course.

[gwnn]

Ayjay, on Feb 27 2008, 10:55 AM, said:

One positive in opening 1♦ as far as I'm concerned is finding a 4-4 diamond fit, which would otherwise be elusive.

Only if you always respond 1M on a 4-4.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Feb 27 2008, 04:00 AM, said:

Ayjay, on Feb 27 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

These are very enlightening and humbling comments Didn't mean to create such a stir by saying that the standard 'book' opening was 1♦.

One positive in opening 1♦ as far as I'm concerned is finding a 4-4 diamond fit, which would otherwise be elusive. But then again one would have to deal with having to play in a 4-2 fit every now and then.

No, you never play in a 4-2 fit. You don't give false preference to 2D with a doubleton. The Poles open this way in Polish Club, of course.

If you are 4522 what makes the preference false?

[mikestar]

awm, on Feb 25 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

I'd open 1♣ and plan to rebid 1NT over partner's major suit response.

Basically you will lose precision in one of these three situations:

(1) The 1♣...2♣ rebid will not necessarily promise six clubs.
(2) The 1♦...2♣ sequence will not necessarily promise diamonds >= clubs.
(3) The 1NT rebid might be slightly off-shape.

Varying your approach a lot based on suit quality can really lose in all three cases since partner effectively can't trust any of your rebids anymore (you could be "off shape" on any of the three sequences). It seems better to limit the problem to one of the three cases. I have a strong preference for the off-shape 1NT rebid, because (like many people) I play a lot of checkback methods over 1NT that might help with this, and because I like to raise 1M response to 2M with three-card support a lot (which makes the 1NT rebid a lot more constrained, so adding a few extra hands in here is not costly).

I'm really not so worried about this. Could be that having three calls lose a little accuracy is better than one call losing a little and another call losing a lot.

So I advocate Edgar Kaplan's "least lie" principle. So on on the assumption that 1♣-1M-2♣ promises six clubs, 1♣-1M-1NT promises a balanced hand, and 1♦-1M-2♣ promises diamonds at least as long as clubs:

With the example hand

♠42
♥J6
♦Q642
♣AKQ83

I think 1♣-1M-2♣, pretending the ♣ are 6 long is far superior to bidding 1NT with the other major wide open or opening 1♦ and implying longer diamonds.


With

♠x
♥Axx
♦AKJx
♣xxxxx

I rather like 1♦. If opposite 5422 we end up in a strong 4-2 fit instead of a weak 5-2, we were probably heading for a poor score anyway. So I open 1♦ intending to rebid 2♣ over 1♠ or 1NT. Obviously, I raise 1♥.


With

♠K
♥Axx
♦Axxx
♣Qxxxx

1♣ intending to bid 1NT over 1♠ seems fine.


I do agree that an off shape 1NT is the best default for the difficult cases.

[Fluffy]

han, on Feb 27 2008, 05:23 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 27 2008, 12:03 AM, said:

Ever??
x
Axx
AKJx
23456

I could see opening 1D but then I'd rebid 1NT over 1S.

Of course, you raise with 3 cards, why wouldn't you promise 2 card support with singleton? hehehe.