[32519]

---

This hand is from a club game where 21 tables were participating. Your system can loosely be described as 5-card majors with some gadgets. What would your first call be with this hand?

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2014-January-17, 11:49, said:

---

This hand is from a club game where 21 tables were participating. Your system can loosely be described as 5-card majors with some gadgets. What would your first call be with this hand?

Hard to imagine anything other than a 1♦ opening playing a standard system.

[CSGibson]

Pass. Any other seat or any other vulnerability and I open 1♦.

[mycroft]

1NT. I might even break my own rule and rebid 2♦ if I get the opportunity.

Oh, strong NT? Well, not sure then. Probably pass.

[32519]

This was the full hand:

---

Only 4/21 tables got to the slam, 1 in 6♦ and 3 in 6NT. This was a nice example hand of a squeeze where poor West had no chance. Declarer ran all the ♦ with West first ditching all his ♣ and a ♥. Then declarer ran the 3 top clubs and it was game over for West.

[HighLow21]

1♦. To pass is weak and to open 2♦ misleads partner about your diamonds (they're pretty weak) and your overall strength (you have enough to open at the 1 level).

[humilities]

I think it's winning bridge to open these hands - I open 1D all day. That being said this is more of a partnership question. If your partnership opens these hands, there really is no alternative to 1D.

You can't open 2D in second seat with a side AK and Q and ever expect your partner to make a good decision. 2D shouldn't even be on the table imo.

[the_clown]

I would have opened 1♦ and rebid 1N after 1♠. The slam is pretty poor anyway, so I will be happy to avoid it.

[rhm]

32519, on 2014-January-17, 21:48, said:

This was the full hand:

---

Only 4/21 tables got to the slam, 1 in 6♦ and 3 in 6NT. This was a nice example hand of a squeeze where poor West had no chance. Declarer ran all the ♦ with West first ditching all his ♣ and a ♥. Then declarer ran the 3 top clubs and it was game over for West.

What is so great about slam with these 2 hands???
It happens to make due to the way opponents 26 cards were dealt.
A quick simulation shows that 6NT will make double dummy about 52% of the time and 6♦ about 60% of the time.
This means in reality 6NT is against the odds while 6♦ will make about half the time.

In the long run opposite this North hand it hardly matters what you do and what contract you reach, as long as it is neither 6NT nor 5♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[HighLow21]

I like the diamond game, but I hate the slam. It depends on way too much.

[ggwhiz]

I would open 1♦ and rebid them expecting to land in 3nt by north since I didn't know the club holding was bullet proof.

[Winstonm]

Weak 2-diamond opener for me in this seat at this vulnerability.

[Onedown]

32519, on 2014-January-17, 11:49, said:

---

This hand is from a club game where 21 tables were participating. Your system can loosely be described as 5-card majors with some gadgets. What would your first call be with this hand?

I play OGUST and would be the only reason I would open this hand 2♦, but if P asked me for a response, it is 3♥ implying good hand, bad suit...I do not have a good hand..I cannot fathom opening 1♦ so I pass and await the next round of bidding.

[Onedown]

humilities, on 2014-January-21, 07:38, said:

I think it's winning bridge to open these hands - I open 1D all day. That being said this is more of a partnership question. If your partnership opens these hands, there really is no alternative to 1D.

You can't open 2D in second seat with a side AK and Q and ever expect your partner to make a good decision. 2D shouldn't even be on the table imo.

Why is it winning bridge to open this hand, 2 quicks and out...or did you lose your green card

[madongjun]

1♦ is better!

[the hog]

1D.

[HighLow21]

Onedown, on 2014-January-26, 18:50, said:

Why is it winning bridge to open this hand, 2 quicks and out...or did you lose your green card

This hand isn't the same as ♠Q2 ♥AK9 ♦Q9864 ♣743 or ♠T2 ♥AK9 ♦T98642 ♣74. It has 11 HCP (maybe reduce 1 for the Q♠ doubleton) but it has a 6-card suit, 2 quick tricks and nearly full values for opening. It also opens the bidding for our side, taking the initiative away from LHO.

Any expert would open with ♠Q2 ♥AK9 ♦Q98642 ♣J4. You're going to let a random jack be the deciding factor?

[kenrexford]

2♦ is sick to me. Nine high-card points outside, with unexpected defense, two quicks external, ad great major holdings, plus a dreadful suit that I don't want to rebid if I open 1♦.

1♦ is sick, but better. The rebid of 2♦ seems awful, as does a 1NT rebid. But, passing just delays the inability to describe this hand well. So, I plug my nose and open.

[gszes]

pass

Suit is too horrid to even think about weak 2 at these colors no matter your

follow up system. 1D does nothing to actually describe this hand and gives p

the impression you actually have values. It is not a good lead indicator, the shortness

in spades seems to put us at a bidding disadvantage from the get go, there is no

reason to want to be in this auction at all, there is no reason to rush to judgement.

If p has a reasonable hand they will get in the bidding and we will then be able to

show our values in almost all conceivable auctions. why mislead p now when there

is so little to be gained from opening and so many disasters waiting to occur?

[kenrexford]

gszes, on 2014-January-27, 12:20, said:

pass

If p has a reasonable hand they will get in the bidding and we will then be able to show our values in almost all conceivable auctions. why mislead p now when there is so little to be gained from opening and so many disasters waiting to occur?

Not necessarily true. If, for instance, you play 2♦ as Drury, you will respond to a 3rd seat 1♠ with 1NT, which is almost never an 11-count. If he opens 1♣, you probably lack a call to show an 11-count with long diamonds. Granted, you might be able to take control of some sequences, but it is difficult to show a hand that would qualify for an opening bid but is not opened because of a defect, especially if no clear fit emerges, as the structure of most systemic agreements is such as to not cater to this type of pass.