[CamHenry]

---

First in, none vul. Would you open this hand, playing 2/1? Playing Acol?
If so, would you open 1♦ or 2♦ (weak)?

Partner and I decided that it was very marginal, and we got a good result so didn't worry too much, but some opinions from those better qualified than me would be much appreciated!

[the_clown]

I would open 4NT if available to show both minors. If not I would probably pass.

[CamHenry]

 the_clown, on 2013-January-22, 03:23, said:

I would open 4NT if available to show both minors. If not I would probably pass.

4NT would have been specific aces.

[helene_t]

I think 1♦ is fine. I am probably going to show a minor suit monster next round anyway, either by opening 1♦ and rebidding a big number of clubs, or by passing and overcalling 4NT, and it might not matter which of the two strategies I choose.

But if I don't open I might not be able to show both minors next time. For example, if partner opens or overcall in a major, 4NT probably means something different. And if partner is strong it can become difficult to show him that I have this amount of playing strength.

Granted, if I open, partner will play me for some defence. I will pull any double of 4M, but when he doubles their 5M contract I may face a difficult choice.

[mgoetze]

Even grannies open rule-of-20 nowadays, and this is a 21. The high spot cards then go on to make this a really obvious opener.

(That said, I would use 4NT if I had it available as both minors. You should switch, specific aces is stupid.)

[f0rdy]

 CamHenry, on 2013-January-22, 02:26, said:

---

First in, none vul. Would you open this hand, playing 2/1? Playing Acol?
If so, would you open 1♦ or 2♦ (weak)?

Partner and I decided that it was very marginal, and we got a good result so didn't worry too much, but some opinions from those better qualified than me would be much appreciated!

I'm fairly sure I'd open 1♦ and expect most of my partners to (all playing strong 2C systems, ie not limited openers). However, 2♦?! If I wanted to preempt at my first call, I'd rather open 5♦ than 2♦ or 3♦. I've been in debates here about whether opening 6-5s with a call showing only the 6 card suit is unwise, because partner will misevaluate her hand so badly, and with 6-6 it seems about a trick crazier.

I don't think I count as better qualified than you, though!

[ArtK78]

2♦ is such a wild distortion of this hand that it would not occur to me unless I was drunk (and I don't drink).

I don't like 1♦ due to the lack of defense. I would rather pass originally and come back in with whatever level of notrump is necessary to show the minors.

[mcphee]

I do not go out of my way to open weak minor suited hands. Granted this hand is good playing strength and opening early will let you bid your suits. But opening shows some defensive values and I am not even sure if I have ONE!

I wait and bid later.

[gszes]

there is little benefit to opening this collection 1d
there is little /no defense and the dia bid itself says
nothing useful. If the opps intervene to 4M before I
get a 2nd bid how will p take a 5c continuation? strong
or weak?? I would guess strong since you could have
passed orginally and backed in with 4n with a weak hand.

Passing now makes it a ton easier to show both suits at once if
opps bid and if p opens/overcalls M we will probably be better
served taking it easy because of the obviously wasted values in p hand.

I would not open 4n to show minors with this type of hand it is too
unilateral. There is no reason to assume we are either safe at the
5 level or that the opps can make anything it is merely a bid that
prefers gambling to efficiency.

The same arguments hold for a 2d opening (at least 2d doesn't promise
defense). Once you decide to go down this road your partnership will
never be able to make rational competitive decisions again because the
range of possible hands is too huge. You would not open 1n with a range
of say 12-19 balanced because there is no rational way to decide how to
proceed. Rules are nice but let's not lose sight of what we are trying to
accomplish with the bidding. void void QJxxxxx KJxxxx another rule of 20
that is even worse than the proposed hand is that a 1d opener also???

You and your partner decide.

[Codo]

I would open to get my suits in early. If I have no 4 NT for the minor avaiable, I would try 1 ♦.
If I have a 4 NT oepning for the minors, I would use it. I will be at the strong end, but if I do not use it now, I never will.

[lycier]

This hand is good at playing strength,bad at defensive value only with one quick trick possible,as we know that a reasonable opening bid must promise two quick tricks unless light open at the third seat.so I perfectly agree mcphee's opinion,wait and bid later is a good idea,carefully bide one's time.

[Zelandakh]

I think this is worth a nige-style poll. Give marks out of 10 for each of Pass, 1♦, 2♦, 2NT and 4NT (and any other ideas) should you have them available.

[Codo]

This is not the BI part, so no, we do not need two quick tricks any more. Maybe Culbertson taught this too you, but the man is dead since ages.

If you want to use the same rules for 6/6 hands then for the typical 4432, go ahead, but you are just wrong.

I guess even in SEF like this is taught to beginners, this is an opening with 13 FL, isn't it?

[helene_t]

Thinking about it, I kinda like a 5♦ opening.

[ggwhiz]

I may well need to play in the correct minor and the easiest way is to bid 1♦ followed by 5♣.

My pard won't expect more defence than this for such an auction and if I pass first it might be rather high in a major back to me. Worst if pard opens or jumps to a large number of one of them.

A weak 2♦ is WAY too out there.

btw, where are the losing trick count police? Doesn't take long to count those.

[WellSpyder]

 helene_t, on 2013-January-22, 09:47, said:

Thinking about it, I kinda like a 5♦ opening.

Where is the down-voting facility when you need it?

[mgoetze]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-January-22, 11:07, said:

Where is the down-voting facility when you need it?

Surely you meant to quote lycier's post, not Helene's?

[pigpenz]

 ArtK78, on 2013-January-22, 07:03, said:

2♦ is such a wild distortion of this hand that it would not occur to me unless I was drunk (and I don't drink).

I don't like 1♦ due to the lack of defense. I would rather pass originally and come back in with whatever level of notrump is necessary to show the minors.

I tend to agree with ART
I have played alot of wild systems like EHAA and Kamizzee NT
but when I open I like to promise 2 defensive tricks called quick tricks incase partner doubles
if the opps bid you can still bid some number of NT to show your two suiter

so it seems unlikely your gonna get shut out on the auction unless it goes all pass

[ArtK78]

If you open 1♦ and get involved in a competitive auction (what are the chances of that happening?) you will never be able to know if you should sit if partner doubles.

If you pass and show a distributional minor suited hand later, and then partner doubles, you will be able to sit for his double.

By the way, I am one of the biggest proponents of losing trick count, and this is not a hand for losing trick count.

[broze]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-22, 04:56, said:

(That said, I would use 4NT if I had it available as both minors. You should switch, specific aces is stupid.)

One of my greatest peeves is people throwing around black or white unsupported statements like this in internet fora (I know - I am riled a lot). Several good players are advocates of the method - sure, I can see problems with it, infrequency being well up there, but I'd hardly call it stupid.