[Hanoi5]

Pairs:
♠AQJ
♥AKQ87x
♦x
♣Kxx

All red, you dealt.

[MrAce]

To be honest this is a 1 level opening to me, however, unless I have sophisticated agreements on how to handle this type of hands after opening at one level, I open them 2♣, particularly when I have such a good suit and not scared of misfits.

[rmnka447]

I'd open this big 4 loser hand with a strong 2 ♣ bid.

[the hog]

1H. Trick question?

[mcphee]

Yes I do not see what the issue is, this is worth only 1H.

[rhm]

♣

mcphee, on 2014-October-09, 01:28, said:

Yes I do not see what the issue is, this is worth only 1H.

The risk of getting too high by opening this hand 2♣ can be exaggerated. The risk of aiming not high enough after 1♥ is much higher.
I would not be happy if partner passes 1♥. I may need no more than the ♣Q. A yarborough with 3 hearts and 2 clubs might make game. You sometimes do get a black suit lead against 4♥
So there are plenty of hands where a 2♣ opening could get "lucky".
Anyway I have found out over the years that there is no extra penalty going down in game after a 2♣ opening compared to sequences, which did not start with 2♣.
Meanwhile if I open 1♥ I have no comfortable rebid if partner responds 1♠.
Yes I would bid 3♣ like most people, but this does not mean I like it or, if playing that, some convoluted Gazilli sequence, which is not my cup of tea either. (Though that would be much better here)
Anyway opening 1♥ will mean you will loose all your bidding room on the second round you saved with not opening 2♣.

I am not comfortable with the modern trend of opening lighter at the one level and at the same time raising the requirements for a 2♣ opening.
The cost of this approach may be hidden, but is real.

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

rhm, on 2014-October-09, 02:43, said:

♣
The risk of getting too high by opening this hand 2♣ can be exaggerated. The risk of aiming not high enough after 1♥ is much higher.
I would not be happy if partner passes 1♥. I may need no more than the ♣Q. A yarborough with 3 hearts and 2 clubs might make game. You sometimes do get a black suit lead against 4♥
So there are plenty of hands where a 2♣ opening could get "lucky".
Anyway I have found out over the years that there is no extra penalty going down in game after a 2♣ opening compared to sequences, which did not start with 2♣.
Meanwhile if I open 1♥ I have no comfortable rebid if partner responds 1♠.
Yes I would bid 3♣ like most people, but this does not mean I like it or, if playing that, some convoluted Gazilli sequence, which is not my cup of tea either. (Though that would be much better here)
Anyway opening 1♥ will mean you will loose all your bidding room on the second round you saved with not opening 2♣.

I am not comfortable with the modern trend of opening lighter at the one level and at the same time raising the requirements for a 2♣ opening.
The cost of this approach may be hidden, but is real.

Rainer Herrmann

Some of us have methods,

[Cyberyeti]

Easy 1♥ for us, we also happen to respond fairly light.

[whereagles]

2♣ for me, on the theory that major strong 2s can be opened in that way.

[PrecisionL]

1♥, partner won't pass with only an Ace, or K + Q.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2014-October-08, 19:01, said:

Pairs. All red. You dealt. ♠ A Q J ♥ A K Q 8 7 x ♦ x ♣ K x x

IMO 2♣ = 10, 1♥ = 9. Initially, I judged to open 1♥ but rhm's arguments persuade me. If you open 1♥, this hand might pose rebid problems -- assuming you are lucky enough to ger the chance to rebid. You'd be unhappy to see partner pass 1♥ unless partner would have kept the bidding open on a 2 count. There seems to be a greater chance of 1♥ being passed out nowadays because players are aware that 2/1 exponents routinely open such hands at the one level. Also your ♠ holding makes it less likely that opponents will compete.

[billw55]

At first I looked at this and thought, obvious 1♥.

Then I read Rainer's comment about what to rebid after partner's 1♠. And thought about it. It is a nuisance. Suggestions from the 1♥ crowd? Maybe another three card reverse 3♣? Is that less a distortion than opening 2♣?

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2014-October-09, 10:25, said:

At first I looked at this and thought, obvious 1♥.

Then I read Rainer's comment about what to rebid after partner's 1♠. And thought about it. It is a nuisance. Suggestions from the 1♥ crowd? Maybe another three card reverse 3♣? Is that less a distortion than opening 2♣?

Art GF 2N for us which is part of the reason we open 1♥ follow up after the semi forced 3♣ response is 3♠ showing 3-6.

[nige1]

billw55, on 2014-October-09, 10:25, said:

At first I looked at this and thought, obvious 1♥. Then I read Rainer's comment about what to rebid after partner's 1♠. And thought about it. It is a nuisance. Suggestions from the 1♥ crowd? Maybe another three card reverse 3♣? Is that less a distortion than opening 2♣?

If you open 1♥ and are fortunate enough to get a 1♠ or 1N response, then a forcing Gazzilli 2♣ takes care of initial rebid problems

[steve2005]

Wile this is a 4-loser hand its a mirage. if you can't get to dummy your going to lose K♣, so is really a 5-loser hand opposite a poor hand. So if partner cant respond game unlikely to be missed.

[Lovera]

steve2005, on 2014-October-09, 12:02, said:

Wile this is a 4-loser hand its a mirage. if you can't get to dummy your going to lose K♣, so is really a 5-loser hand opposite a poor hand. So if partner cant respond game unlikely to be missed.

I think as you have said too because the opening 2♣ that i use is based on my consideration to count only longness plus Milton Work : in this way 2♣ is used more often but if not consider longness (21 points) we must open to first level applying official method (G. Barbone) (4 losers x 5=20, Milton Work 19). All it is depending as you like ..(Lovera)

[FrancesHinden]

The risk of opening 2!C on this hand is that partner gets you too high. It's a Acol 2!H opening i.e. not worth a game force. If you include hands like that in your 2!C opening, then fine, but that's a different method.
And as others have said, 'obviously' you play some methods if the auction starts 1!H - 1!S. Even if you don't, 1!H - 1!S - 3!C tells partner you have a strong hand not good enough to opening it 2!C which is quite descriptive.

I very much doubt I will miss game if partner passes a 1!H opening, unless partner believes he needs 6 HCP to respond at the 1-level.

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-12, 03:56, said:

I very much doubt I will miss game if partner passes a 1!H opening, unless partner believes he needs 6 HCP to respond at the 1-level.

I agree, xxx, xx, xxxxx, QJx looks the most likely hand to miss a decent game, but quite unlikely.