1C opening as short as 2

Post by dfm
A new partner wants to play that a 1C opening can have as few as 2 clubs, so that a 1D opening can guarantee 4+ diamonds. Otherwise, we're playing a fairly ordinary 2/1.
It seems to me that a 1D opening nearly always has 4+ diamonds anyway. The only exception is 4=4=3=2, right? So the advantage of a 100% guarantee is slender.
Whereas in my limited experience with this partner so far, making the 1C opening as short as 2 has already put a damper on responder's willingness to compete in part-score auctions when holding club length.
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of this agreement?

Make 1C be 1+ card so 1D,1H,1S are all 5 cards.
Play T-Walsh responses to 1C (assuming it's allowed).
Also reconsider if 1D-(P)-2D should be inverted over a 5+card suit.

doug

David Goldfarb

2017-01-09 03:32:08 UTC

Post by Douglas Newlands
Play T-Walsh responses to 1C (assuming it's allowed).

In the ACBL, in most events, it isn't.

--
David Goldfarb |"It is curious that a dog runs already
***@gmail.com | on the escalator."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Bella Abzug

KWSchneider

2017-01-09 21:43:10 UTC

Post by Douglas Newlands

Make 1C be 1+ card so 1D,1H,1S are all 5 cards.
Play T-Walsh responses to 1C (assuming it's allowed).
Also reconsider if 1D-(P)-2D should be inverted over a 5+card suit.
doug

1C 1+card and TWalsh not allowed in ACBL GCC. Not sure where poster plays.

Daniel - why do you care how many clubs 1C guarantees? The club suit is already essentially artificial at 3+clubs anyway. I agree with your partner, make the diamond suit 4+ (or 5+) if possible.

As a seat-of-my-pants concept, if you play GCC, 1D response can be whatever you want - so you could use it as artificial (F1) and show club support (without 4+M) or a GI+ hand, and ask if the club suit was real. Then opener could bid 1N, 1M to show 4+c4M unbalanced, and 2C to show a real club suit, knowing that responder is either strong or has clubs.

Ultimately you can slowly mutate to a Polish Club concept...

Kurt

--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

dfm

2017-01-10 02:20:03 UTC

Post by KWSchneider
Daniel - why do you care how many clubs 1C guarantees? The club suit is already essentially artificial at 3+clubs anyway. I agree with your partner, make the diamond suit 4+ (or 5+) if possible.

Well, we've only played one session so far, so my experience with it is obviously not yet statistically significant. But for example, in that session, partner sold out to 2S with Kxx/xxx/xx/Kxxxx after I opened 1C at favorable vulnerability. We set them one for +100, but 3C was making our way for +110, and +100 was a pretty bad result. Partner didn't like to compete to 3C even with five trumps because I might have only two (I had four).

That's just one board, so maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but it feels like this sort of downside is going to be more common than the upside of greater confidence about diamond length in a 1D opener.

Note that with this partner I don't really anticipate constructing a nonstandard system beyond a few minor tweaks. Slowly mutating to something like Polish Club just isn't going to happen. But I'm interested in the pros and cons within an otherwise fairly ordinary 2/1 framework.

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2017-01-10 03:32:54 UTC

Post by dfm
Well, we've only played one session so far, so my experience with it is obviously not yet statistically significant. But for example, in that session, partner sold out to 2S with Kxx/xxx/xx/Kxxxx after I opened 1C at favorable vulnerability. We set them one for +100, but 3C was making our way for +110, and +100 was a pretty bad result. Partner didn't like to compete to 3C even with five trumps because I might have only two (I had four).

The problem was your partner's exaggerated caution about your club length. If the opponents have an 8-card major fit, the likelihood of < 4 clubs goes way down. To open 2-card club, you MUST BE 4-4 majors.

So agree to play short club only if partner promises in blood not to suppress 5-card support in a competitive auction ever again.

Carl

dfm

2017-01-10 16:30:33 UTC

The problem was your partner's exaggerated caution about your club length. If the opponents have an 8-card major fit, the likelihood of < 4 clubs goes way down. To open 2-card club, you MUST BE 4-4 majors.
So agree to play short club only if partner promises in blood not to suppress 5-card support in a competitive auction ever again.
Carl

Thanks, this is helpful.

Travis Crump

2017-01-10 03:52:19 UTC

Well, we've only played one session so far, so my experience with it is obviously not yet statistically significant. But for example, in that session, partner sold out to 2S with Kxx/xxx/xx/Kxxxx after I opened 1C at favorable vulnerability. We set them one for +100, but 3C was making our way for +110, and +100 was a pretty bad result. Partner didn't like to compete to 3C even with five trumps because I might have only two (I had four).
That's just one board, so maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but it feels like this sort of downside is going to be more common than the upside of greater confidence about diamond length in a 1D opener.
Note that with this partner I don't really anticipate constructing a nonstandard system beyond a few minor tweaks. Slowly mutating to something like Polish Club just isn't going to happen. But I'm interested in the pros and cons within an otherwise fairly ordinary 2/1 framework.

Were spades bid and raised suggesting an 8 card fit? Then opener only
has at most 2 spades, and therefore must have 4+ clubs. I think
generally people overestimate the odds of 1C being short especially
since it mostly comes into play in competitive auctions. Maybe be a
little cautious if the opponents are bidding diamonds, but otherwise
don't worry about it too much. You'll take much bigger risks over the
course of a session.

dfm

2017-01-10 16:33:19 UTC

Well, we've only played one session so far, so my experience with it is obviously not yet statistically significant. But for example, in that session, partner sold out to 2S with Kxx/xxx/xx/Kxxxx after I opened 1C at favorable vulnerability. We set them one for +100, but 3C was making our way for +110, and +100 was a pretty bad result. Partner didn't like to compete to 3C even with five trumps because I might have only two (I had four).
That's just one board, so maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but it feels like this sort of downside is going to be more common than the upside of greater confidence about diamond length in a 1D opener.
Note that with this partner I don't really anticipate constructing a nonstandard system beyond a few minor tweaks. Slowly mutating to something like Polish Club just isn't going to happen. But I'm interested in the pros and cons within an otherwise fairly ordinary 2/1 framework.

I believe the auction was 1C (1S) 2C (2S) AP, so yes, there was no way I could have 2 clubs or even 3. Nice logic. Thanks.

dfm

2017-01-10 16:43:46 UTC

Well, we've only played one session so far, so my experience with it is obviously not yet statistically significant. But for example, in that session, partner sold out to 2S with Kxx/xxx/xx/Kxxxx after I opened 1C at favorable vulnerability. We set them one for +100, but 3C was making our way for +110, and +100 was a pretty bad result. Partner didn't like to compete to 3C even with five trumps because I might have only two (I had four).
That's just one board, so maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but it feels like this sort of downside is going to be more common than the upside of greater confidence about diamond length in a 1D opener.
Note that with this partner I don't really anticipate constructing a nonstandard system beyond a few minor tweaks. Slowly mutating to something like Polish Club just isn't going to happen. But I'm interested in the pros and cons within an otherwise fairly ordinary 2/1 framework.

I believe the auction was 1C (1S) 2C (2S) AP, so yes, there was no way I could have 2 clubs or even 3. Nice logic. Thanks.

Actually maybe it was 1C (1S) 1NT (2S) AP, but either way, yes, an apparent 8-card spade fit their way (although it turned out they only really had 7).

Adam Lea

2017-01-10 23:18:51 UTC

Well, we've only played one session so far, so my experience with it is obviously not yet statistically significant. But for example, in that session, partner sold out to 2S with Kxx/xxx/xx/Kxxxx after I opened 1C at favorable vulnerability. We set them one for +100, but 3C was making our way for +110, and +100 was a pretty bad result. Partner didn't like to compete to 3C even with five trumps because I might have only two (I had four).
That's just one board, so maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but it feels like this sort of downside is going to be more common than the upside of greater confidence about diamond length in a 1D opener.
Note that with this partner I don't really anticipate constructing a nonstandard system beyond a few minor tweaks. Slowly mutating to something like Polish Club just isn't going to happen. But I'm interested in the pros and cons within an otherwise fairly ordinary 2/1 framework.

My partner did the opposite last week, he took a gamble and competed to
the three level with four clubs after I had opened 1C on J976 A742 AK2
J5. The auction went 1C (me) (1H) 1NT (P) P (2H) 3C AP and I went three
off when partner put down AK5 985 J97 8742, thus breaking fundamental
rule 1; if bidding to play in a trump suit, make sure you have more
trumps than the opponents, and fundamental rule 2; don't play in suits
that aren't going to yield tricks. He did say afterwards that he took a
gamble. That is the only thing I don't like about the 5 card major short
club system; in the case shown I have two four card majors and there is
a reasonable chance one of them could end up being a viable trump suit,
but instead I have to start bidding the suit that looks least likely to
be a suitable trump suit. Fortunately the probability of opening 1C on
two is so low that it very rarely is an issue.

jogs

2017-01-11 22:55:35 UTC

Post by Adam Lea
My partner did the opposite last week, he took a gamble and competed to
the three level with four clubs after I had opened 1C on J976 A742 AK2
J5. The auction went 1C (me) (1H) 1NT (P) P (2H) 3C AP and I went three
off when partner put down AK5 985 J97 8742, thus breaking fundamental
rule 1; if bidding to play in a trump suit, make sure you have more
trumps than the opponents, and fundamental rule 2; don't play in suits
that aren't going to yield tricks. He did say afterwards that he took a
gamble. That is the only thing I don't like about the 5 card major short
club system; in the case shown I have two four card majors and there is
a reasonable chance one of them could end up being a viable trump suit,
but instead I have to start bidding the suit that looks least likely to
be a suitable trump suit. Fortunately the probability of opening 1C on
two is so low that it very rarely is an issue.

4=4=AKx=Jx You opened 1C???? Playing 2/1 or SAYC no rational player would open 1C. Open 1D.

1C-(1H)-1NT???????
AK5 985 J97 8742

1NT with no heart stop. I prefer double.

1C-(1H)-1NT-(p)
p-(2H)-3C ?????

Again, what's wrong with double? They're in your 4-3 fit.

Adam Lea

2017-01-11 23:25:14 UTC

4=4=AKx=Jx You opened 1C???? Playing 2/1 or SAYC no rational player would open 1C. Open 1D.

It is rational in that I am following the system. 1D would show a 4 card
suit, if I am going to bid 1D with three cards with a 4-4-3-2 I might as
well play better minor. The other player who held my hand and was
playing the same system also opened 1C.

Post by jogs
1C-(1H)-1NT???????
AK5 985 J97 8742
1NT with no heart stop. I prefer double.
1C-(1H)-1NT-(p)
p-(2H)-3C ?????
Again, what's wrong with double? They're in your 4-3 fit.

Partner doesn't know the opponents are in a 5-1 fit. I'm guessing he
read the situation as being that the opponents are in a 7 or 8 card fit,
I am likely to have club length so compete in clubs, as they can
probably make 2H. I'm just guessing here.

jogs

2017-01-12 14:02:43 UTC

Post by Adam Lea
It is rational in that I am following the system. 1D would show a 4 card
suit, if I am going to bid 1D with three cards with a 4-4-3-2 I might as
well play better minor. The other player who held my hand and was
playing the same system also opened 1C.

Post by jogs
1C-(1H)-1NT???????
AK5 985 J97 8742
1NT with no heart stop. I prefer double.
1C-(1H)-1NT-(p)
p-(2H)-3C ?????
Again, what's wrong with double? They're in your 4-3 fit.

Do you play in the USA? If so, the system is explained by Larry Cohen in the Jan 2017 Bridge Bulletin. 1D promising four diamonds is non standard.

Adam Lea

2017-01-12 21:43:54 UTC

Post by jogs
1C-(1H)-1NT???????
AK5 985 J97 8742
1NT with no heart stop. I prefer double.
1C-(1H)-1NT-(p)
p-(2H)-3C ?????
Again, what's wrong with double? They're in your 4-3 fit.

Do you play in the USA? If so, the system is explained by Larry Cohen in the Jan 2017 Bridge Bulletin. 1D promising four diamonds is non standard.

No, I live in the UK. Most people play some variety of Acol here, those
who play five card majors either play better minor or a short club with
1D showing four.

Player

2017-01-14 02:46:33 UTC

Post by jogs
1C-(1H)-1NT???????
AK5 985 J97 8742
1NT with no heart stop. I prefer double.
1C-(1H)-1NT-(p)
p-(2H)-3C ?????
Again, what's wrong with double? They're in your 4-3 fit.

Do you play in the USA? If so, the system is explained by Larry Cohen in the Jan 2017 Bridge Bulletin. 1D promising four diamonds is non standard.

1D promising 4 is certainly becoming more expert standard in the US. This makes sense. It is a far better treatment.

Co Wiersma

2017-01-09 14:00:05 UTC

In The Netherlands , playing short 1C is very common and it is in the
newest beginnersbooks
In my experience though
the not-so-expert players make a lot of mistakes due to the short clubs
And as most players are not-so-expert and never will be, I think they
are wrong to put it in the beginnersbook.

Now the experts in the Netherlands who play short clubs,
they play transfer bids after 1C opening and they even open 1C with a
4-3-4-2 shape and a 3-4-4-2 shape
And obvious they have a complex system that allow them still to find
their 4-4 fit in diamonds if need be (for playing 6D)

Co Wiersma

Peter Smulders

2017-01-10 11:07:19 UTC

Post by dfm
A new partner wants to play that a 1C opening can have as few as 2
clubs, so that a 1D opening can guarantee 4+ diamonds. Otherwise,
we're playing a fairly ordinary 2/1.
It seems to me that a 1D opening nearly always has 4+ diamonds anyway.
The only exception is 4=4=3=2, right? So the advantage of a 100%
guarantee is slender.
Whereas in my limited experience with this partner so far, making the
1C opening as short as 2 has already put a damper on responder's
willingness to compete in part-score auctions when holding club length.
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of this agreement?

In The Netherlands , playing short 1C is very common and it is in the
newest beginnersbooks
In my experience though
the not-so-expert players make a lot of mistakes due to the short clubs
And as most players are not-so-expert and never will be, I think they
are wrong to put it in the beginnersbook.
Now the experts in the Netherlands who play short clubs,
they play transfer bids after 1C opening and they even open 1C with a
4-3-4-2 shape and a 3-4-4-2 shape
And obvious they have a complex system that allow them still to find
their 4-4 fit in diamonds if need be (for playing 6D)

I think that over 90% of the Dutch players use 1C as 2+ clubs. Instead
of 2 questionable openings you now have only 1. The chance for a 1C
opening to contain only 2 clubs is small. According to this article only
4.6%:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_doubleton
The advantage of being able to rely on a !D opening outweighs this
uncertainty. What kind of mistakes do beginners make that do not happen
when 1C promises 3+?

Co Wiersma

2017-01-10 14:48:09 UTC

Post by Peter Smulders

Post by dfm
A new partner wants to play that a 1C opening can have as few as 2
clubs, so that a 1D opening can guarantee 4+ diamonds. Otherwise,
we're playing a fairly ordinary 2/1.
It seems to me that a 1D opening nearly always has 4+ diamonds anyway.
The only exception is 4=4=3=2, right? So the advantage of a 100%
guarantee is slender.
Whereas in my limited experience with this partner so far, making the
1C opening as short as 2 has already put a damper on responder's
willingness to compete in part-score auctions when holding club length.
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of this agreement?

In The Netherlands , playing short 1C is very common and it is in the
newest beginnersbooks
In my experience though
the not-so-expert players make a lot of mistakes due to the short clubs
And as most players are not-so-expert and never will be, I think they
are wrong to put it in the beginnersbook.
Now the experts in the Netherlands who play short clubs,
they play transfer bids after 1C opening and they even open 1C with a
4-3-4-2 shape and a 3-4-4-2 shape
And obvious they have a complex system that allow them still to find
their 4-4 fit in diamonds if need be (for playing 6D)

I think that over 90% of the Dutch players use 1C as 2+ clubs. Instead
of 2 questionable openings you now have only 1. The chance for a 1C
opening to contain only 2 clubs is small. According to this article only
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_doubleton
The advantage of being able to rely on a !D opening outweighs this
uncertainty. What kind of mistakes do beginners make that do not happen
when 1C promises 3+?

I meet long-time-players who make mistakes like
Axxx
xx
Kx
AQxxx
opening one club and rebidding 2C "I did not mention my clubs yet"
(And so losing the spade-suit)

I know that is a very silly mistake
And most do realize that you cannot NOT bid the spade-suit

Very common are mistakes like
KJx
xx
KJx
AJxxx
1C-P-1H-P
2C (I did not bid my club-suit yet)

or
xxx
xx
xxx
Axxxx
1C-P-P-1H
1NT-2H-P!(I did not know that we had a club-fit)

Honestly; bidding is for most people very difficult
Even if they themselves think they understand at least their own system,
they make all kind of silly mistakes
And not seldom mistakes that are more silly then these above.
Often they play at least as good as me (not that such is difficult, but
still)

Co Wiersma

Co Wiersma

2017-01-11 13:51:47 UTC

Oh and just last night some opponent opens 1C (alerted) and partner
responds 1H with 1 point and a 5card heart "did not dare pass 1C"
It brought them minus 300 , but that was a good score for them as it
made us loose an otherwise obvious game.

They had agreed on just pass below 6 points, but when push came to
shove, the fear was bigger then the agreement :P

Post by Co Wiersma
I meet long-time-players who make mistakes like
Axxx
xx
Kx
AQxxx
opening one club and rebidding 2C "I did not mention my clubs yet"
(And so losing the spade-suit)
I know that is a very silly mistake
And most do realize that you cannot NOT bid the spade-suit
Very common are mistakes like
KJx
xx
KJx
AJxxx
1C-P-1H-P
2C (I did not bid my club-suit yet)
or
xxx
xx
xxx
Axxxx
1C-P-P-1H
1NT-2H-P!(I did not know that we had a club-fit)
Honestly; bidding is for most people very difficult
Even if they themselves think they understand at least their own system,
they make all kind of silly mistakes
And not seldom mistakes that are more silly then these above.
Often they play at least as good as me (not that such is difficult, but
still)
Co Wiersma

dfm

2017-01-10 16:37:13 UTC

Post by Peter Smulders

Post by dfm
A new partner wants to play that a 1C opening can have as few as 2
clubs, so that a 1D opening can guarantee 4+ diamonds. Otherwise,
we're playing a fairly ordinary 2/1.
It seems to me that a 1D opening nearly always has 4+ diamonds anyway.
The only exception is 4=4=3=2, right? So the advantage of a 100%
guarantee is slender.
Whereas in my limited experience with this partner so far, making the
1C opening as short as 2 has already put a damper on responder's
willingness to compete in part-score auctions when holding club length.
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of this agreement?

In The Netherlands , playing short 1C is very common and it is in the
newest beginnersbooks
In my experience though
the not-so-expert players make a lot of mistakes due to the short clubs
And as most players are not-so-expert and never will be, I think they
are wrong to put it in the beginnersbook.
Now the experts in the Netherlands who play short clubs,
they play transfer bids after 1C opening and they even open 1C with a
4-3-4-2 shape and a 3-4-4-2 shape
And obvious they have a complex system that allow them still to find
their 4-4 fit in diamonds if need be (for playing 6D)

I think that over 90% of the Dutch players use 1C as 2+ clubs. Instead
of 2 questionable openings you now have only 1. The chance for a 1C
opening to contain only 2 clubs is small. According to this article only
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_doubleton
The advantage of being able to rely on a !D opening outweighs this
uncertainty. What kind of mistakes do beginners make that do not happen
when 1C promises 3+?

Thanks for the reference on percentages. Also, I hadn't known a name for this before, so I shall now be happy to call it Dutch Doubleton!

Ronald

2017-01-10 22:56:35 UTC

Post by Peter Smulders

Post by dfm
A new partner wants to play that a 1C opening can have as few as 2
clubs, so that a 1D opening can guarantee 4+ diamonds. Otherwise,
we're playing a fairly ordinary 2/1. It seems to me that a 1D opening
nearly always has 4+ diamonds anyway. The only exception is 4=4=3=2,
right? So the advantage of a 100% guarantee is slender. Whereas in my
limited experience with this partner so far, making the 1C opening as
short as 2 has already put a damper on responder's willingness to
compete in part-score auctions when holding club length.
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of this agreement?

In The Netherlands , playing short 1C is very common and it is in the
newest beginnersbooks. In my experience though the not-so-expert
players make a lot of mistakes due to the short clubs. And as most
players are not-so-expert and never will be, I think they are wrong to
put it in the beginnersbook.
Now the experts in the Netherlands who play short clubs, they play
transfer bids after 1C opening and they even open 1C with a 4-3-4-2
shape and a 3-4-4-2 shape. And obvious they have a complex system that
allow them still to find their 4-4 fit in diamonds if need be (for playing 6D)

I think that over 90% of the Dutch players use 1C as 2+ clubs. Instead
of 2 questionable openings you now have only 1. The chance for a 1C
opening to contain only 2 clubs is small. According to this article only
4.6% https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_doubleton. The advantage of
being able to rely on a !D opening outweighs this uncertainty. What kind
of mistakes do beginners make that do not happen when 1C promises 3+?

Thanks for the reference on percentages. Also, I hadn't known a name for
this before, so I shall now be happy to call it Dutch Doubleton!

Dutch Doubleton is more then just opening 1C on 2+!

--
Ronald

Peter Smulders

2017-01-11 14:24:54 UTC

Post by Peter Smulders
I think that over 90% of the Dutch players use 1C as 2+ clubs. Instead
of 2 questionable openings you now have only 1. The chance for a 1C
opening to contain only 2 clubs is small. According to this article only
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_doubleton
The advantage of being able to rely on a !D opening outweighs this
uncertainty. What kind of mistakes do beginners make that do not happen
when 1C promises 3+?

Thanks for the reference on percentages. Also, I hadn't known a name for this before, so I shall now be happy to call it Dutch Doubleton!

Actually I wonder if that number of 4.6% is correct. The anonymous
wikipedia author does not say how it was obtained.

Peter Smulders

2017-01-13 14:02:07 UTC

Post by Peter Smulders
The chance for a 1C
opening to contain only 2 clubs is small. According to this article only
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_doubleton

When your 1C opening may be done on a doubleton, what is the chance that
it actually contains a doubleton?
The wikipedia article cited above gives a value of 4.6%,
but does not say how this was obtained.
I have verified this number using Hans van Staveren program "dealer"
The answer depends of course on what sorts of hands you include in the
1C opening.

Let's assume the following conditions define a 1C opening
1. hcp 12-20
2. no 5-crd or longer in spades or hearts
3. One or more of the following:
3 diamonds and 2 or more clubs, or,
4 diamonds and 4 or more clubs, or,
club length greater than diamond length

Producing 10 million hands with these conditions I obtain
2-card: 4.6%
3-card 17.9%

Post by Peter Smulders
= 4-crd: 77.5%

A refinement may be obtained by noticing that some of those hands are
opened by 1NT. Excluding hands with 15-17 hcp and a balanced
distribution (any 4333, 4432, or 5332) changes the result to
2-card: 4,0%
3-card 15.6%

Post by Peter Smulders
= 4-crd: 79.4%

Thus, only 1 in 25 times a 1C-opening will contain a doubleton clubs and
close to 80% will be done with a 4-card clubs or longer.

Ronald

2017-01-09 22:04:06 UTC

Post by dfm
A new partner wants to play that a 1C opening can have as few as 2 clubs,
so that a 1D opening can guarantee 4+ diamonds. Otherwise, we're playing
a fairly ordinary 2/1.
It seems to me that a 1D opening nearly always has 4+ diamonds anyway.
The only exception is 4=4=3=2, right? So the advantage of a 100% guarantee is slender.
Whereas in my limited experience with this partner so far, making the 1C
opening as short as 2 has already put a damper on responder's willingness
to compete in part-score auctions when holding club length.
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of this agreement?

It is not uncommon around here. If a pick-up wants to play like that, I
don't make a fuss about it.
IMO this only makes sense if 1D is always unbalanced. 1D then is 5+ or
4-4-4-1 unless 4414 or 4D-5C not strong enough to reverse. Since you don't
need the "normal" 1N-rebid anymore shows the latter.

--
Ronald

p***@infi.net

2017-01-10 17:15:20 UTC

Post by Ronald

Post by dfm
A new partner wants to play that a 1C opening can have as few as 2 clubs,
so that a 1D opening can guarantee 4+ diamonds. Otherwise, we're playing
a fairly ordinary 2/1.
It seems to me that a 1D opening nearly always has 4+ diamonds anyway.
The only exception is 4=4=3=2, right? So the advantage of a 100% guarantee is slender.
Whereas in my limited experience with this partner so far, making the 1C
opening as short as 2 has already put a damper on responder's willingness
to compete in part-score auctions when holding club length.
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of this agreement?

When you define 1D as "unbalanced", do you in fact open Axx QJx AKxxx xx wirh one club? Sounds like it, if you define the 1NT rebid as showing 4-5. That seems to be a significant loss competitively. And do you open 1D or 1C on 1435 hands? If 1C then you can't assume 1C is balanced.

Ronald

2017-01-10 23:01:35 UTC

Post by p***@infi.net

Post by Ronald

Post by dfm
A new partner wants to play that a 1C opening can have as few as 2 clubs,
so that a 1D opening can guarantee 4+ diamonds. Otherwise, we're playing
a fairly ordinary 2/1.
It seems to me that a 1D opening nearly always has 4+ diamonds anyway.
The only exception is 4=4=3=2, right? So the advantage of a 100% guarantee is slender.
Whereas in my limited experience with this partner so far, making the 1C
opening as short as 2 has already put a damper on responder's willingness
to compete in part-score auctions when holding club length.
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of this agreement?

When you define 1D as "unbalanced", do you in fact open Axx QJx AKxxx xx wirh one club?

Yes, because I play WNT. Playing SNT I would of course open 1N.

Post by p***@infi.net
Sounds like it, if you define the 1NT rebid as showing 4-5. That seems to
be a significant loss competitively. And do you open 1D or 1C on 1435
hands? If 1C then you can't assume 1C is balanced.

I open balanced hands 1N or 1C, that doesn't mean 1C is always balanced.

--
Ronald

Fred.

2017-01-10 12:29:39 UTC

When the ACBL decided to start calling 1C on 4=4=3=2 "natural"
I looked at it for our system and decided it couldn't matter
much. What is important is to refuse to obsess over the
possibility of a short opening when the opponents are competing
in a suit. I've always assumed when the opponents are competing
in a suit that partner opened a 4-card minor, 5 if they are
competing to a high level. I've been burned on disclosing the fit,
but never on partner coming up short.

Fred.

Fred.

Steve Willner

2017-01-11 23:07:54 UTC

That last is backwards. The better conclusion is that the 100%
guarantee has very little _cost_. The value is significant because it
is far easier for responder to compete in 1D auctions. Of course you
lose a little in 1C auctions, but a) you weren't outbidding the
opponents' diamonds anyway, and b) 1C auctions are already hampered by
3c clubs.

jogs

2017-01-11 23:25:20 UTC

Post by Steve Willner
That last is backwards. The better conclusion is that the 100%
guarantee has very little _cost_. The value is significant because it
is far easier for responder to compete in 1D auctions. Of course you
lose a little in 1C auctions, but a) you weren't outbidding the
opponents' diamonds anyway, and b) 1C auctions are already hampered by
3c clubs.

In contested auctions, especially when playing matchpoints, it is rarely right to allow opponents to play two of a major. If pard opens 1C and they contest you should bid as if pard has shown 5 cards in clubs. This logic only applies to 3C decisions. If required to compete with 4C, you should be more willing to allow opponents to declare on the 3 level.

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2017-01-12 03:15:32 UTC

Post by jogs
In contested auctions, especially when playing matchpoints, it is rarely right to allow opponents to play two of a major.

Unless, of course, they're making 5.

How much can you trust their bidding?

Adam Lea

2017-01-12 21:45:57 UTC

Post by jogs
In contested auctions, especially when playing matchpoints, it is rarely right to allow opponents to play two of a major.

Unless, of course, they're making 5.
How much can you trust their bidding?

http://community.dur.ac.uk/bridge.club/POOR/42.html

:-)

jogs

2017-01-12 23:46:13 UTC

On 12/01/2017 03:15,

Post by jogs
In contested auctions, especially when playing matchpoints, it is rarely right to allow opponents to play two of a major.

Unless, of course, they're making 5.
How much can you trust their bidding?

http://community.dur.ac.uk/bridge.club/POOR/42.html
:-)

What's the point of this link? If a diamond is the opening lead AND declarer plays the hearts correctly, then the heart spots are critical.

It isn't necessary for 1D to guarantee 4. In contested auctions just bid as if pard has 4 or 5.

Adam Lea

2017-01-13 09:13:28 UTC

On 12/01/2017 03:15,

Post by jogs
In contested auctions, especially when playing matchpoints, it is rarely right to allow opponents to play two of a major.

Unless, of course, they're making 5.
How much can you trust their bidding?

http://community.dur.ac.uk/bridge.club/POOR/42.html
:-)

What's the point of this link? If a diamond is the opening lead AND declarer plays the hearts correctly, then the heart spots are critical.
It isn't necessary for 1D to guarantee 4. In contested auctions just bid as if pard has 4 or 5.

WHOOSH!

It was an amusing article about the worst that can happen when
balancing, the post I responded too was about not letting opponents play
at the two level, unless they are making five. In other words I was just
being a bit light hearted, no need to get all narky about it.

Travis Crump

2017-01-15 00:15:08 UTC

One point that I'm not sure has really been mentioned yet is that a 4-3
fit isn't necessarily the disaster that a 4-2 might be. Say the bidding
starts 1C-1S-? and you have something like xxx xx Axxx KJxx. Wouldn't it
be nice to be able to bid 2C making it easy for partner to compete to 3C
when they have 5+ clubs? And if you end up in 2C in a 4-3 fit you still
might get a decent board for scrambling to +90.

Adam Lea

2017-01-16 09:01:30 UTC

The hand you show isn't compatible with the bidding. It is not a 1C
opening or a 1S response.

Adam Lea

2017-01-16 09:02:36 UTC

Post by Adam Lea