[MFA]

A
AQT7
KQJ8543
A

[kfay]

Definitely 1♦ for me. I can understand some people might want to open 2♣.

[HeavyDluxe]

1♦, 2♣ understandable but inferior methinks.

[TylerE]

2♣ seems obvious to me.

[manudude03]

This depends on the field for me. In my local, I wouldn't be comfortable enough to open 1D due to the very real chance of 1D AP. However, in a very aggressive field, it would be great to see an auction like

1D-2S-P-3S
X-P-4C-P
5D...

and your hand is pretty much fully described.

At WvR, its a clear 2C opener though, partner will never appreciate how good this hand is while not raising on the wrong hands.

[whereagles]

Polish style 1♣ if available.

Else 2♣ for me. If pard can't bid hearts, I'll play 5♦.

[jdonn]

I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds. Not because I want to play in hearts, but to help partner evaluate. If not I'll open 1♦ even though I think it's worth 2♣. It's easy to say we have slam opposite (for example) the heart king, but that only helps us if we reach it opposite the heart king and not another king or no kings.

[blackshoe]

2♦, unbalanced GF with diamonds or 21-22, 7 controls, balanced. We have ways to find the heart fit if it's there.

If that's not available, 2♣.

[ArtK78]

2♣ despite the awkward shape. Just too much strength to represent the power of this hand with a 1♦ opening and get partner to cooperate intelligently. Also, with half the deck and all but one of the aces, I have a legitimate fear of 1♦ being passed out despite the 1-4-7-1 shape. 3NT is likely to be cold opposite most hands with 5-4 or 4-5 in the blacks, and 5♦ is a likely make opposite any hand with a heart card of J or higher, and some hands without that good of a heart holding.

I voted 2♣, with 1♦ being inferior. In all likelihood, you can get away with opening 1♦ on this hand. But for the reasons stated I believe that 2♣ is better.

[Fluffy]

1♦, might take advantage of the fact that it denies 5 card major.

[Echognome]

3♠ showing a 1=4=7=1 game force.

If I'm not allowed to make up a system which has a call that shows this exact hand, then I will open 2♣ or 1♦ depending on my methods over 2♣.

[brianshark]

I hate opening 2♣, but even I will open this hand 2♣.

[rogerclee]

I voted for 2♣, 1♦ doesn't seem terrible to me.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jan 9 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds. Not because I want to play in hearts, but to help partner evaluate. If not I'll open 1♦ even though I think it's worth 2♣. It's easy to say we have slam opposite (for example) the heart king, but that only helps us if we reach it opposite the heart king and not another king or no kings.

agreed.. josh's point about helping partner is something that (seems to me) is often overlooked or not sufficiently valued by those who open shapely hands, with fewer than the traditional hcp, with 2♣.

[Apollo81]

Some people playh 2♣-2♦-3M = diamonds and 4 in the bid major. That would be good for this hand. Otherwise I'll open 1♦, as I will have trouble showing x46+x after a 2♣ opener

[mtvesuvius]

I also am afraid of this getting passed out in 1♦. I open 2♣, maybe something create will arise to help me show my hearts, or extra ♦ length... I don't like any of my choices here

(Precision is so much better here )

[FrancesHinden]

2♦, Acol two. No reason to make system up!
Failing that I don't feel strongly between the two options.

[blackshoe]

So, two votes for 2♦, for different reasons and using different systems. No, I didn't make up my 2♦ bid eiher. It's Romex's Mexican 2♦.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on Jan 9 2009, 04:20 PM, said:

So, two votes for 2♦, for different reasons and using different systems. No, I didn't make up my 2♦ bid eiher. It's Romex's Mexican 2♦.

I believe that the Mexican 2♦ opening as developed by George Rosenkranz showed a balanced hand of 19-20 HCP.

There is a variation of the Mexican 2♦ opening developed later by others which included three types of hands: (1) a balanced hand of 21-22 HCP; (2) a super-strong balanced hand of 27-28 HCP; or (3) a strong hand with primary diamonds. It is this third variety which you must be referring to.

I don't know if this variation was a part of the Romex system. Then again, I haven't played the Romex system in about 20 years.

[Hanoi5]

The main difference from this hand and the other is that even though I'm missing only 20 HCP (instead of 25) I'm not as afraid of the bid being passed around because I have only one spade. People love bidding spades.