[fourdad]

I will join the consensus that the hand should be opened 1♦. the main reason is that you can then bid clubs w/o it being a reverse and showing extra values, but rather describing the SHAPE of my hand to partner. Hence, we would play a 3♣ bid here over the 2♥ as descriptive and non forcing. With the hand so well described, partner's X would then be penalty...or he could raise my suits of rebid spades.
Old fashioned I know, but it still works in competitive auctions such as this.

[mikeh]

fourdad, on 2015-March-16, 15:25, said:

I will join the consensus that the hand should be opened 1♦. the main reason is that you can then bid clubs w/o it being a reverse and showing extra values, but rather describing the SHAPE of my hand to partner. Hence, we would play a 3♣ bid here over the 2♥ as descriptive and non forcing. With the hand so well described, partner's X would then be penalty...or he could raise my suits of rebid spades.
Old fashioned I know, but it still works in competitive auctions such as this.

I have an adjective for the notion that this hand, having opened 1♦, should freely bid 3♣ over 2H, and while in some circles my choice of language would, itself, seem old-fashioned, old-fashioned is not the adjective I would use. The terms that spring to mind are unprintable in a forum where children may read the posts, so I will content myself with 'idiotic'.

[PhilKing]

I lead a trump.

3♥ won't always fail, but since we have no clear constructive move, the attraction of passing is much greater.

[Vampyr]

zillahandp, on 2015-March-16, 14:18, said:

Well open 1nt in acol, and problem may not have occurred

I do not think that this one hand is a good enough argument to cause OP to switch to a weak NT. And obviously a hand with a similar problem in a weak NT system can be constructed.

[nige1]

eagles123, on 2015-March-15, 09:11, said:

I literally had no idea what to do here

---

IMO Pass (and lead ♥s) = 10, 3♠ = 9, 4♦ = 7. It might be easier, if you'd opened 1♦ but I'd open 1♣

[jodepp]

mikeh, on 2015-March-16, 13:45, said:

Who are you smirking at? Seems most likely to be me, but that requires that you have limited comprehension skills, since when I criticized the opening bid, I was careful to note that had we opened 1♦, we'd still be in a difficult position.

As for what Roth and Kantar, and others, have written 40-50 years ago: I have news for you. Nobody plays the methods which formed the context of their discussion.

IIRC, one of the major arguments for the 1♣ school was that opening 1♣ allowed for a 1♦ response, and the partnership would find its minor suit fit regardless of which minor it was, while opening 1♦ would sometimes lead to never finding the club fit.

That era was remarkable for a number of factors that don't exist or aren't common anymore.

Back in the 1960s and early 1970s the requirements for overcalls were more stringent that now. I am not sure how many people here have access to old bridge records, but I have Bridge World magazines from the late 1930s until I cancelled my subscription a few years ago. World Championships and other high level tournaments featured far fewer competitive auctions back then than nowadays. The main weakness of opening 1♣ on 4-4 minors is that competition can create nightmare scenarios...even worse than the OP one. When uncontested auctions were the norm, that problem wasn't very big...and if the opps did compete, they had real values anyway.

The development of aggressive competition in bidding undercut what was the single most widely presented argument (back then) for the 1♣ choice: that it allowed for responder to bid diamonds, finding the fit at the 1-level, while opening 1♦ made it difficult to find the 4-4 club fit. Once opps started routinely overcalling on 5 card majors with 7-8 hcp, this argument lost a lot of steam (and the invention of the weak jump overcall happened a little earlier, but weak jump overcalls didn't become generally accepted until well into the 60's).

At the same time, almost everyone was a strict up-the-line bidder. Only in the mid to late 1960s did some radical players suggest that one should bypass the 1♦ response in order to show a 4 card major. There are still many players who would respond 1♦ with 4=4 in a major and diamonds, but this is hardly universal anymore, as it was when Kantar and Roth (and others) had their discussions. So even with an uncontested auction, responder will often bypass diamonds, negating the finding of the suit at the 1-level, which had been a main element of the 1♣ approach.


I tend to smirk when I find people advancing arguments based on appeals to authority rather than reasoning, and a fortiori when those appeals cite authorities out of context

Roth And Kantar's discussion is not as archaic as you imply. They discussed this - at length - in 'Bridge Today' magazine about 12 years ago if memory serves, taking opposing views. Personally my answer to this age-old question of whether to open 1♣ or 1♦ with 4=4 isn't mainstream - I say 'open whatever you want'.

What I smirk at are players who - in threads like this - imply that the thread author did something egregiously wrong by opening 1♣, especially when the choice of 1♣ is not demonstrably wrong and is a matter of personal and partnership preference.

Thanks for the opinion.

[helene_t]

Probably I would have passed with this hand which is also the reason why I probably should not have doubled. It felt wrong to defend undoubled with the majority of the points but that is too much matchpoint thinking.

[dave_beer]

nige1, on 2015-March-16, 17:04, said:

IMO Pass (and lead ♥s) = 10, 3♠ = 9, 4♦ = 7. It might be easier, if you'd opened 1♦ but I'd open 1♣

Pass (and lead ♥) = 10, 3♠ = 9, 4♦ = something a lot smaller than 7. How can we belong in either minor at the 4-level if partner is 5=2=3=3?

[masonbarge]

mikeh, on 2015-March-16, 12:15, said:

I suspect that you would have to play a lot of bridge to ever see opener with K10xxx in hearts! They'd need at least 6 clubs for that, not to mention that it is bad bridge to reopen with a double with a void, so you'd need the opps to have bid to the 3-level on a 7 card fit.

Haha, right you are! I have seen protective doubles hit a partner with bigger hearts than this, though, but usually they have bid spades or passed.

Quote

Indeed, I would suggest that the doubler is typically expecting partner to pass with any 3 card heart holding absent a reason not to do so. K10xx would be an entirely unexpected bonus.

The double has a lot of names in expert bridge, but I think the most useful description is that it asks opener to 'do something intelligent, partner', bearing in mind that passing with Jxx and no more than 2 spades would be one of the prototypical actions listed under the 'do something intelligent' part of the dictionary.

I call them co-operative doubles, and that's a good point, but a matter of style and expectations. I bid 3S, because my partner will double just in case I do have good heart defense.

[Trinidad]

masonbarge, on 2015-March-16, 21:09, said:

I bid 3S, because my partner will double just in case I do have good heart defense.

If I have good heart defense, I can double 3♥ myself. Who plays the double of 3♥ (after 1♣-Pass-1♠-2♥; Pass-3♥-Pass-Pass; ??) as takeout after having passed 2♥ on the previous round? What would it show? Some kind of 2146 hand that now wants to bid at the four level but didn't want to bid at the three level before?

So, while partner might be hoping for some heart defense in my hand if I pass the double, he is certainly not doubling because I might have good heart defense. My good heart defense takes care of itself.

Given that I have some heart defense, I have the amount of defense that my partner is expecting when I pass. It is not a coincidence that I don't have anything to bid either, making pass the fairly obvious choice.

Rik

[helene_t]

I don't think that opener can double this very often . Responder just promised 5 points. Of course with a 17 count that planned to reverse in hearts but presumably we are talking about balanced hands.

That said I agree that pass is normal with this hand but I also don't think it is obvious. Responder could be 5143 or maybe 6142.

[Taiwan_up]

3NT

[NickRW]

mikeh, on 2015-March-16, 10:47, said:

I know that there are many players, I think primarily European, who open 1♣ with 4=4 minors, and I have never understood why...

Quite a few Europeans are playing 1♣ as 2+ and essentially showing "balanced or clubs", while 1♦ is 4+ (for some 3+) and often (for some always) unbal. In other words they are either explicitly playing unbalanced diamond, or have otherwise shifted the emphasis of their 1m openings in that direction.

There are also some who play 5 card diamonds.

Whether that has merit or not is open to debate, but it is different from standard.

[mikeh]

NickRW, on 2015-March-17, 06:47, said:

Quite a few Europeans are playing 1♣ as 2+ and essentially showing "balanced or clubs", while 1♦ is 4+ (for some 3+) and often (for some always) unbal. In other words they are either explicitly playing unbalanced diamond, or have otherwise shifted the emphasis of their 1m openings in that direction.

There are also some who play 5 card diaxmonds.

Whether that has merit or not is open to debate, but it is different from standard.

I fully understand that there are methods that affect choices, if only because by defining a 1D opener as 'unbalanced', as an example, one gets certain useful inferences and can play certain agreements that will be customized for the method. That has nothing to do with the choice of minor in standard.

It is amusing that the poster who so smugly attacks those who criticize the 1C opening bid advances no bridge argument in support of his position. Anyway, while opening 1C was IMO poor, at the end of the day, unless responder held 4+ diamonds, the result would likely have been the same

[Aardv]

Partner's double here should say that he's got extra values and is willing to defend 3♥X opposite the sort of weak NT I'm quite likely to hold. Our choice of which minor to open doesn't affect that.

[foobar]

My guess is to pass an lead a ♠ (but a ♥ could very well be right).

[eagles123]

Many thanks all, I think I learned a valuable lesson here to open 1d rather than 1c with this type of hand. As it happens I passed and it's cold (other table was in same contract but undoubled)

thanks

Eagles

[PhilKing]

eagles123, on 2015-March-17, 12:49, said:

Many thanks all, I think I learned a valuable lesson here to open 1d rather than 1c with this type of hand. As it happens I passed and it's cold (other table was in same contract but undoubled)

thanks

Eagles

What did partner have?

[mike777]

eagles123, on 2015-March-15, 09:11, said:

---

I literally had no idea what to do here

Thanks,

Eagles

good problem. tough hand.

Nonexpert answer here but I am going to try 3s.

Play pard for AKQxx...x...QTxx...xxx

My assumptions are I have shown a bal hand in the range of 11-13 with 2 spades w/o many hcp in h.

Agree with the 1d comments but that does not solve all our problems.

the opp may have a stiff s and a stiff d here.

give the opp something close to:

Txxxx...T987...x...Kxx
x...AKQxx...Axxx...xxx

[beowulf]

Plenty of opinionated commenters on your choice of 1♣ opening. Best solution for this type of hand is for it to be in your 1NT range. Not much fun if partner has a Yarborough of course but it wins out on this type of hand. If you do have to open 1 of a minor, I think it's pretty much up to you to decide whether you think this hand is balanced or unbalanced. If balanced, bid 1♣ and then, assuming you don't hear 1♦ from partner, rebid 1NT. If unbalanced, start with 1♦ so that you can rebid clubs.

The trouble with considering this hand as balanced is that you won't be thrilled rebidding 1NT over a major, and raising 1♥ to 2♥ is I think stretching things a bit. On balance, 1♦ opening probably best here. Mikeh's comments re: competition are also appropriate -- although if there is an overcall, I believe there will be a better chance that partner can make a negative double (or raise) if you start with 1♣ than 1♦ but the difference probably isn't great compared with the rebid problem discussed above.