[babalu1997]

Speaking of the run-of-the mill 5 card major, I never understand the "1♦ is 4" requirement which some players use.

In fact the only pattern that would not meet this requirement is 4-4-3-2, on which I open 1 ♦.
Big deal if the guy responds 2 ♦ on 4, I can play with 7 trumps at the 2 level, if the guy is responding a weak 2♦, I was not exactlyu going to take that deal to the prom.

I dont care for opening 1 club on 2 only, especially on 12-14 hands where I may land on 1nt with my netherlands exposed.

The players who like this 1 club on 2 trumps things are probably people who even in their old age refuse to run with scissors.

But, I digress, what i really would like to ask whether there are, or have been in the past, prominent bridge authors or champions who advocate this approach, and whether there are good logical reasons for one to play it?

Any thoughts?

[pooltuna]

hey I would bid 1♦ on Axxx♠ ss♥ AKx♦ T987♣

[manudude03]

There's another breed of short clubbers. Some strive to open 1C on all balanced hands and play transfer walsh or something similar. Playing that style means that an auction like 1D-1H-1S promises an unbalanced hand, and responder can correct back to 2D with something like xxx KQxxx Qxx xx and know there is an 8 card fit. You could turn a small diamond into a club and still bid 2D, and then 1NT can guarantee a club stopper.

As for the general 1D=4 and 1C=2. It just depends on what side of the window you look at. If you play 1D=3+, it will be at least 4 97% of the time. But if you play 1C=2, it will be at least 3 about 98% of the time (and yes, I would occasionally raise clubs on 4 even if partner only promised 2).

Let's not forget the 1D=5+ and 1C=1+ crowd, now that is radical

[han]

Most strong Dutch players use 4+ 1D and 2+ 1C openings.

[mikeh]

babalu1997, on 2011-September-12, 11:27, said:

Speaking of the run-of-the mill 5 card major, I never understand the "1♦ is 4" requirement which some players use.

In fact the only pattern that would not meet this requirement is 4-4-3-2, on which I open 1 ♦.
Big deal if the guy responds 2 ♦ on 4, I can play with 7 trumps at the 2 level, if the guy is responding a weak 2♦, I was not exactlyu going to take that deal to the prom.

I dont care for opening 1 club on 2 only, especially on 12-14 hands where I may land on 1nt with my netherlands exposed.

The players who like this 1 club on 2 trumps things are probably people who even in their old age refuse to run with scissors.

But, I digress, what i really would like to ask whether there are, or have been in the past, prominent bridge authors or champions who advocate this approach, and whether there are good logical reasons for one to play it?

Any thoughts?

There are many very good players who use this approach.

It fits in very well with transfer responses to 1♣, which in turn are increasingly popular amongst serious players. It is very difficult to design a good method of transfer responses to 1♦....to my knowledge, no-one has yet succeeded in doing so. The advantages to transfer responses to 1♣ are numerous, and I won't go into them here. Suffice it to say that the advantages make it useful to increase the number of hands on which the auction begins with 1♣.

As for 'champions' or 'prominent bridge authors', I can't help you but I suspect that you will see examples of this 1♣ could be 4=4=3=2 on a number of the convention cards filed with the WBF over the past ten years of World Championships.

I have played the method myself, tho not in any current partnership, and I strongly believe in it (partnerships require compromise and this is an area where I gave way to partners).

Even if not playing transfer advances to 1♣, requiring that 1♦ show 4+ is a huge advantage in competitive bidding when our fit is in diamonds, while having 1♣ 3+ isn't that great, in competitive bidding, compared to it being 'usually 3+', which it becomes when the only time it is 2 is 4=4=3=2.

BTW, when looking to 'bridge authors' for bidding ideas, bear in mind that most authors, if they are trying to make money, will usually advocate conservative ideas....their intended market will be players who aren't interested in learning 'new' ideas. So unless the author is a leading player writing about his partnership's methods, what you read is usually pretty banal and basic, reflecting the author's idea of mainstream.

[brian_m]

manudude03, on 2011-September-12, 11:57, said:

There's another breed of short clubbers. Some strive to open 1C on all balanced hands and play transfer walsh or something similar. Playing that style means that an auction like 1D-1H-1S promises an unbalanced hand, and responder can correct back to 2D with something like xxx KQxxx Qxx xx and know there is an 8 card fit. You could turn a small diamond into a club and still bid 2D, and then 1NT can guarantee a club stopper.

As for the general 1D=4 and 1C=2. It just depends on what side of the window you look at. If you play 1D=3+, it will be at least 4 97% of the time. But if you play 1C=2, it will be at least 3 about 98% of the time (and yes, I would occasionally raise clubs on 4 even if partner only promised 2).

Let's not forget the 1D=5+ and 1C=1+ crowd, now that is radical

Ah, dear old Young Chelsea Fireworks. A fun system to play. Well, 1C was strictly 0+, but close enough.

[Siegmund]

It's not an uncommon approach in quite a few parts of the world. Far as I am concerned it makes essentially no difference whether you open 1C or 1D on your 4-4-3-2s.

Lots of prominent people have advocated 1D=4+, but usually for another reason, intending to add a bunch of additional hands to 1C.
For instance, all of the old Precisionists, for whom 1D was 4+, the 13-15 balanced hands opened 1NT, the 11-12 balanced hands passed, and the 4414 hands opened 2D; and most of the modern Polish methods, where 1D is variously 5+, 5+ or 4441, 5+ or 4441 or 4D5C, or just 4+ (and 1C includes a pile of weak balanced hands with only 2 clubs even when it contains 4 diamonds).

On the 1D=5+ and 1C=1+ front, the classic was Kennedy who had his own prominent teaching schoool, book series, etc etc, in competition with the Goren machine 50 years ago. (He was teaching 5-card majors quite a while before Goren was!)

[mike777]

fwiw 1nt after 1c is different from 1nt after 1d.

[whereagles]

Even if you forget transfer responses, there are some slight advantages in using 4/2 as minimum length. I actually prefer 3/3 because it's more mnemonic.

[FrancesHinden]

Are you trolling?

Just from the BB coming up in October, and not including the pairs playing a 5-card diamonds suit

Brink-Drijver (Netherlands)
Lauria - Versace
Bocchi - Madala
Duboin - Sementa
(Italy)
Edgttdon-Grosney (Australia)
Fleisher-Kamil (USA)
Fredin-Fallenius(Sweden)
Jorgenssen/Einarsson (Iceland)

I doubt that's all, I've just stopped looking, it took me about 5 minutes to get to this list and there's lots of countries I haven't looked at yet

Not playing in the BB in October: I play this method too

[JanM]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-September-13, 13:32, said:

Are you trolling?

Just from the BB coming up in October, and not including the pairs playing a 5-card diamonds suit

Brink-Drijver (Netherlands)
Lauria - Versace
Bocchi - Madala
Duboin - Sementa
(Italy)
Edgttdon-Grosney (Australia)
Fleisher-Kamil (USA)
Fredin-Fallenius(Sweden)
Jorgenssen/Einarsson (Iceland)

I doubt that's all, I've just stopped looking, it took me about 5 minutes to get to this list and there's lots of countries I haven't looked at yet

Not playing in the BB in October: I play this method too

Bulgaria: Trendafilov-Karaivanov
Chile: Garcia with Caracci or J. Robles
Garcia-De La Barrera
B. Robles-Pacareu
Egypt: El Ahmady-Sadek
Heshmat-Nadim
Iceland: Jorgenson-Einarsson
Magnusson-Haraldsson
New Zealand - Cornell-Bach (1+ club)
Ware Tislevoll
Poland: Buras-Narkiewicz
Singapore: Hoong-Yukun
Hua-Chu
S. Africa: Donde-Stephens
Sweden: Fredin-Fallenius.

In fact, by my count, after you eliminate Strong and Polish clubs, there are 26 3+ clubs and 22 2+. By the KO stage, I'll bet there will be a majority of 2+ clubs.

[Gerben42]

I play this style too... But like Frances my only contribution to the Bowl might be commentary

BTW this reminds me of something I wrote ages ago:
http://gerbenbridge....01_archive.html

[JanM]

Perhaps I should have "confessed" that I also play this style, although Chip hasn't converted Lew yet, so 2/3 of my Bermuda Bowl team is still playing 3+ 1 ♣ openers.
It's also worth commenting that the suggestion that 98% of 1♣ openers will still have 3+ clubs is probably wrong, since I think most of the pairs (at least the ones I know) who play this style promise an unbalanced hand for a 1♦ bid, so (34)42 & 3352 shapes are opened 1♣, not just 4432.

[the hog]

babalu1997, on 2011-September-12, 11:27, said:

Speaking of the run-of-the mill 5 card major, I never understand the "1♦ is 4" requirement which some players use.

In fact the only pattern that would not meet this requirement is 4-4-3-2, on which I open 1 ♦.
Big deal if the guy responds 2 ♦ on 4, I can play with 7 trumps at the 2 level, if the guy is responding a weak 2♦, I was not exactlyu going to take that deal to the prom.

I dont care for opening 1 club on 2 only, especially on 12-14 hands where I may land on 1nt with my netherlands exposed.

The players who like this 1 club on 2 trumps things are probably people who even in their old age refuse to run with scissors.

But, I digress, what i really would like to ask whether there are, or have been in the past, prominent bridge authors or champions who advocate this approach, and whether there are good logical reasons for one to play it?

Any thoughts?

There are many reasons to play it. Look at all of the Polish C players who play 1D = 4, or perhaps 5. Believe me, this bid gains a lot. When playing 2/1 I play that 1C can be 2 and 1D is always 4+

[the hog]

mikeh, on 2011-September-12, 12:36, said:

There are many very good players who use this approach.

It fits in very well with transfer responses to 1♣, which in turn are increasingly popular amongst serious players. It is very difficult to design a good method of transfer responses to 1♦....to my knowledge, no-one has yet succeeded in doing so.
snipped

Bocchi and Duboin when they played together had a transfer system over 1D. It seemed to work quite well. From memory 1S = H and 1H = S, but not sure of the continuations.

[Free]

Many players overload the 1♣ opening, for example they add 18-20HCP (or 11-13) balanced, and/or make the 1♣ opening forcing. Since 1♣ becomes more artificial, it seems rather obvious to make sure 1♦ is always a 4 card suit or longer.

But even without extra hand shapes, it can pay off. When you have to compete, with ♣ you always need to bid a level higher than your opps. With ♦ you can outbid them at the same level when they hold ♣. So being sure opener has 4+♦ may be more useful in competitive auctions than knowing partner has 3+♣ instead of 2+♣.

Personally I play both minors as 3+ cards. However, we also open 1♦ with minimum 4♦-4♣ and minimum 4♦-5♣. This improves the chance of 1♦ being 4+♦, and we still have our 1♣ opening as 3+ cards. I like this approach.

[helene_t]

If it is only a question on what to do with exactly 4-4-3-2 then it obviously doesn't make much of a difference. A more important issue is if you are allowed to open either minor with 3-3 or 4-4 depending on suit quality, or if you have different rules for 4-4 and 3-3 (and maybe for 4-3 and 4-2 as well) depending on whether your are 12-14 or 18-19.

Opening 1♣ gives you more bidding space so the better use you make of that, the more attractive it is to open 1♣. In SA (including playing 1♣-1♦-1♥-2♠ as FSF) you make virtually no use of the extra bidding space so you might as well try to open 1♦ as frequent as possible since at least it takes away some bidding space from the opponents.

[whereagles]

Well, when 1C is passed out, it's marginally better to play it when opener has 3 clubs. But other than that, the 4-card diamond is normally preferable.

[lowerline]

To me this is just evolution... In the Netherlands and Flanders beginners are taught to open their longest suit and the lowest from 4crd suits. That means a 1♠ opening is a 5crd suit unless 4-3-3-3. Evolution: open 4M-3-3-3 with 1♣. Now a 1♥ opening is a 5crd suit unless 4-4-(32). Evolution: open 4-4-(32) with the longest minor. Now you are playing five cards major and a 1♦ opening is a 4crd suit unless 4-4-3-2. Evolution: open 4-4-3-2 with 1♣.
As already mentioned in this thread, some players take this even further, opening all balanced hands outside their NT range with 1♣ so their 1♦ is always unbalanced (and a 5crd suit most of the time).

Steven

[kenrexford]

As to rationale, I can comment. I have played 1♦ as unbalanced for about 20 years. Hence 1♣ is opened with any balanced hands non-1NT.

The reasoning is that 1♦ auctions become very powerful sequences. As a simple example, consider the mini-splinter. You open 1♦ and partner bids 1♥. With 1453 or 3451 pattern, your hand might have 14 HCP plus 3 for the stiff. No mini-splinter is available to describe this hand, and even if you had one it might be costly to enter the three-level if partner is minimum. Using unbalanced diamond, a simple raise already has a definitional stiff. So, partner expects a HCP range of about 11-14 and hence a strength with shape of 14-17. With a normal style raise, the range might be 11-17, or you end up with non-descript jump raises that could be based on shape without an ability to unwind shape. The simple raise allows the unwind, if Responder is interested, low enough (typically a relay to ask for strength and shortness).

Unbalanced diamond also helps with other auctions. E.g., 1♦-1♠-1NT = Opener has four hearts.

There is a lot to this.

The club sequences advantage is just part of it.