[DavidKok]

Great comments as always mikeh. Thank you for the level of detail and for explaining the rationale behind system choices instead of just giving the resulting bidding system. I agree with everything you said but would like to add some small notes.

mikeh, on 2021-December-05, 20:51, said:

Anyway, my approach has always been to open 1C with the vast majority of 4=5 hands ill-suited to a 1N opening, because of strength.

Once in a while I have to rebid a poor suit if I can’t bid notrump due to the opps. That’s a negative

The alternative, in my view and experience is worse. 1D 1M 2C leaves responder in a terrible position with hands such as a 5=3=2=3 9 count. The 2C rebid could be minimum or just short of a gf jumpshift, so responder strains to keep the auction alive, and will commonly do this by bidding 2D. This is fine if opener is weak with 5=4, since it’s a 7 card fit, which is likely the best one can do. But if he can be 4=5, you can see that the end result is unlikely to be happy.

So I open 1D only with an inability to rebid 1N (including anticipating a 1M overcall) AND with a very good diamond suit and a weak club suit. AKQx Jxxxx is exaggerated but shows what I mean.

I play short club and unbalanced diamond, so 1♦-1M; 1NT is not in use in my system. We use this to show exactly 4♦5♣ and insufficient strength to open 1♣ and reverse into 2♦. It is NF. By contrast, 1♦ into 2♣ shows an unambiguous 5=4 minors or longer (even over 1♠, we open 1♣ with 1=4=4=4).
In my experience the main downside of opening 1♦ on xy45 with weak hands is that responder will often compete with only 3-card support (one of the upsides of unbalanced diamond) or bid higher than 'the law' with 4-card support. Also we might lose a 5-3 or even 5-4 club fit, similar to how we sometimes lose a 5-3 diamond fit if we open a 3=3=5=2 with 1♣.
I think on balance this is playable but not great. Weak xy45 hands are a seam in most methods, opening 1♣ and rebidding them is also not ideal, especially if the suit is weak.

mikeh, on 2021-December-06, 01:40, said:

I think that simply playing ‘short club’ doesn’t offer any net theoretical benefit in and of itself

It works well in a Walsh style approach, in which. 1D response denies a 4 card major unless diamonds are longer than the major and responder has a good hand. Some play that a ‘good hand’ means invitational or better: I prefer that responder has to have game values.

Very much so! And of course this is slightly 'chicken and the egg' - the short club is beneficial in combination with a Walsh structure, but it is precisely because showing majors early is a good idea in and of itself that short club can get an edge.

mikeh, on 2021-December-06, 01:40, said:

No major fit is ever missed since responder won’t have a major unless strong enough to bid over 1N

[...]

Bypassing a major in order to rebid 1N with a balanced minimum has enormous benefits and no discernible downsides.

It is possible to lose a 4-4 spade fit with this approach, but it is rare. For example ♠KQxx, ♥Qxx, ♦xx, ♣AKxx opposite ♠Jxxx, ♥AKxx, ♦xx, ♣xxx, where the auction will (presumably) go 1♣-1♥; 1NT-P. I chose my example to be maximally disturbing with a wide open diamond suit. On balance I much prefer bypassing the major suits in a balanced hand though, I fully agree with the other points.

mikeh, on 2021-December-06, 01:40, said:

Finally, ignoring Walsh altogether, there is a modest competitive advantage if 1D promises at least 4 diamonds…say it goes 1D (1S) and responder has a modest hand with 4 diamonds. It can be dangerous to raise diamonds if partner might have only 3. Of course, the converse is true…when opener could have as few as two clubs, raising clubs is dangerous. The good news is that diamonds outrank clubs so it is very slightly better to improve your diamond bidding than your club bidding.

However, I’d advise against opening 1C on a singleton, so for me ‘short club’ should be 2+ and I wouldn’t do it if we bid up the line.

There are two more theoretical reasons to prefer to have a more descriptive 1♦ opening at the cost of muddying the 1♣ opening.

• Balanced minima are just awful in competition, to the extent it is beneficial to rule them out as soon as possible. Weak NT bidders have a significant advantage here, but balanced club in a strong NT system approximates the same approach. If most balanced minimum hands open 1♣ regardless of minor suit holding you can compete freely if partner opens 1♦ (showing, for example, 5+ or 4=4=4=1), at the cost of having to cater to the dreaded balanced minimum if the opponents compete over 1♣. But the high frequency of a balanced minimum in 1♣ is also something of an upside. It makes splitting rebids into "balanced minimum" and "other" worthwhile (incidentally, this is exactly what happens if you bypass a major suit to show a balanced minimum).
  
• Using 1♣ as the dumping ground for balanced minima instead of 1♦ saves one valuable step, which allows for systems such as Transfer Walsh or Dutch Doubleton. In fact, in a vacuum we would prefer to open 1♣ significantly more often than 1♦ (I think the theoretically best value is something like 40% more?) to make optimal use of our bidding space. However, this is only true if the opponents are silent.

AL78, on 2021-December-06, 03:07, said:

There is a pair at my club that played 1♦/♥/♠ opening showed five cards so a 1♣ opening could be as short as one. It is the only time I have seen a short club system that short.

One pair at my local club play this as well, but they only open 1♣ on a singleton with exactly a 4=4=4=1 hand. For all intents and purposes it is the same system as a 2+ 1♣ (but keep in mind there are many different "2+ 1♣" systems). I think they just love alerting 1♣ as "1+". However, if you start to add other hand types with a singleton club to your 1♣ opening (I don't know, maybe (43)=5=1?) then I think the system would quickly descend into chaos.

[nullve]

mikeh, on 2021-December-05, 20:51, said:

So it’s naive to argue that one always opens 1C on minimum 2245 hands, because you can rebid 1N over a 1M response.

Qx xx AJxx KQxxx. After 1m (1S) x (p) it seems misguided to rebid 1N, lol.

1N is dangerous?

2♣ is not dangerous?

[mikeh]

nullve, on 2021-December-06, 06:35, said:

1N is dangerous?

2♣ is not dangerous?

It’s funny. I post. You can’t help yourself. You have, it seems, a pathological need to make a critical comment, usually revealing a failure of comprehension. Get some help….lol.

[Stephen Tu]

mikeh, on 2021-December-06, 10:01, said:

It's funny. I post. You can't help yourself. You have, it seems, a pathological need to make a critical comment, usually revealing a failure of comprehension. Get some help….lol.

Well, I also don't comprehend your comment. Are you saying that rebidding 1nt is misguided, and that one should rebid clubs (or reverse into 2d without extras), or not?

We are asking you for help, to explain yourself more. Because some of us see significant advantages in rebidding 1nt without stopper or half stopper after a negative double on a somewhat routine basis. Here our 2c bid more reliably implies 6, we don't get stuck in 5-1 fits as often. Our reverse can promise extras. With a half stop, lead in their suit comes up to us, from the overcaller, which is often better when partner has help in the suit. We aren't stuck for a decent rebid with something like xxx Qxx AJx AQxx. If 1nt is our best scoring contract when partner isn't taking another bid, we get to declare it rather than some lower scoring 2m. In my experience with opponents not raising and only holding 2, partner often has length and help in NT. If we declare 1nt, the opponents might run the suit, but we aren't down yet, and still might have 7 after they take the first 5 or 6. The only big downside as far as I can tell is that partner has to have stopper or first confirm we have stopper if his next intention is to bid 3nt.

I don't see why you should attack criticism so harshly and tell people to get help. Your posts are usually chock full of very good, accurate information. Mostly I think the bulk of us are nodding silently in agreement. But occasionally IMO you make strong statements that reveal an inflexibility of thought, lack of thorough thinking about possible methods and tend to dismiss things as misguided/fundamentally unplayable or something like that when there are perhaps advantages that you haven't fully considered or haven't tried.

[DavidKok]

Stephen Tu, on 2021-December-06, 11:33, said:

The only big downside as far as I can tell is that partner has to have stopper or first confirm we have stopper if his next intention is to bid 3nt.

At IMP scoring there is a significant downside. 3NT will frequently be wrong-sided, or even be reached when 4M in a 7-card fit or 5m is better. At MPs the 'race to 1NT' is arguably more important, but at IMPs bidding 1NT is more of a stepping stone to 3NT than a suggestion of the final contract. Or, to put it differently, we can always bid NT later if that turns out to be correct.
There is a secondary downside of suggesting we have that dreaded 'balanced minimum'. If the opponents do take further action partner might not compete aggressively enough. The example hand was ♠Qx, ♥xx, ♦AJxx, ♣KQxxx on the auction 1♣-(1♠)-X-(P); ? (some partnerships will open 1♦ instead, e.g. I systematically have to). Both 3♣ and 3♦ might be fine contracts based on the auction thus far. Plus partner needs significant extras for the double to make 3NT a good proposition, so if that is the best contract we can always bid it later. With a minimum hand like 3=4-(42) partner won't move over 1NT nor over 1NT-(2♠).

[Stephen Tu]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-06, 11:43, said:

At IMP scoring there is a significant downside. 3NT will frequently be wrong-sided

That hasn't been my experience. When opener has the half stop you are right-sided. When responder has the only stop, it requires 4th hand advancer to have a good spade holding over the stop *and* not a raise. So IMO it is extremely infrequent. It is also IMO very infrequent that 4M in 4-3 fit or 5m is making & better in the absence of raises. People like to raise with fit on very few values these days.

[DavidKok]

I think the second part of the sentence is more important - the part you cut out. The wrong-siding is infrequent but does happen, but 3NT without a stopper in their suit is awkward. Partner will raise 1NT to 3NT on any excuse. I think having to ask about the quality of the stopper will often give away unnecessary information. The quick route to 3NT should be the most frequent one.

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on 2021-December-06, 11:33, said:

Well, I also don't comprehend your comment. Are you saying that rebidding 1nt is misguided, and that one should rebid clubs (or reverse into 2d without extras), or not?

We are asking you for help, to explain yourself more. Because some of us see significant advantages in rebidding 1nt without stopper or half stopper after a negative double on a somewhat routine basis. Here our 2c bid more reliably implies 6, we don't get stuck in 5-1 fits as often. Our reverse can promise extras. With a half stop, lead in their suit comes up to us, from the overcaller, which is often better when partner has help in the suit. We aren't stuck for a decent rebid with something like xxx Qxx AJx AQxx. If 1nt is our best scoring contract when partner isn't taking another bid, we get to declare it rather than some lower scoring 2m. In my experience with opponents not raising and only holding 2, partner often has length and help in NT. If we declare 1nt, the opponents might run the suit, but we aren't down yet, and still might have 7 after they take the first 5 or 6. The only big downside as far as I can tell is that partner has to have stopper or first confirm we have stopper if his next intention is to bid 3nt.

I don't see why you should attack criticism so harshly and tell people to get help. Your posts are usually chock full of very good, accurate information. Mostly I think the bulk of us are nodding silently in agreement. But occasionally IMO you make strong statements that reveal an inflexibility of thought, lack of thorough thinking about possible methods and tend to dismiss things as misguided/fundamentally unplayable or something like that when there are perhaps advantages that you haven't fully considered or haven't tried.

Sometimes posts come across as more rigid or dogmatic than intended.

As for nullve, a great many of his posts are written specifically in a critical and often misguided response to a snippet of a long post I’ve made, so I vented. Me bad.

For example, I didn’t say that rebidding 1N with xx in the opps’s suit was dangerous. I said I thought it was misguided. I didn’t say that rebidding clubs on KQxxx was perfect, and I sure as heck didn’t suggest or hint at a reverse…I have no idea why you’d think that. Maybe for you the negative double shows the two unbid suits. It doesn’t for me. After 1m (1M) x is about the other major.

I was very careful not to say that 1N promises a stopper. I don’t believe it need do so.

I’d rebid 1N without any real misgivings with say xxxx and no better rebid. I’d rebid 1N with xxx if stuck for a bid.

I draw the line at having xx and a decent 5 card suit. Imo, and that’s all I ever intend to convey in any of my posts, rebidding 1N with xx and a 5422 hand is misguided.

I would have hoped that readers would understand that EVERY post I make reflects opinion and that I’ve never claimed to be infallible nor the ultimate bridge authority

I’ve changed my ideas innumerable times over the years, including on a number of occasions because of discussions here, where others have persuaded me that my opinions were sub-optimal. Admittedly, this sometimes takes a number of posts back and forth because I’m not immune to being stubborn and resistant to change😀

Oh, and I admit that I sometimes state views in a very dogmatic fashion. Occasionally it’s because I haven’t considered all of the relevant arguments…in those cases I welcome pushback, provided it’s by way of putting forward those arguments…that’s one way for me to learn. I apologize if my style rubs people the wrong way. I suspect it’s the result both of my innate character (a flaw, to be sure) and my 40 years as a trial and appellate counsel….combined with a perhaps difficult to believe reluctance to make my long posts even longer.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

I draw the line at having xx and a decent 5 card suit. Imo, and that’s all I ever intend to convey in any of my posts, rebidding 1N with xx and a 5422 hand is misguided.

Maybe if you draw the line at having xx, you shouldn't present a hand with Qx as the example .

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on 2021-December-06, 13:08, said:

Maybe if you draw the line at having xx, you shouldn't present a hand with Qx as the example .

Lol, at me


I thought I’d given us xx with Qx in partners major

With Qx in their suit, and no raise or xx on my right, I’d bid 1N. So I screwed up. Sorry.

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2021-December-06, 03:07, said:

There is a pair at my club that played 1♦/♥/♠ opening showed five cards so a 1♣ opening could be as short as one. It is the only time I have seen a short club system that short.

Increasingly common in higher level competition in northern Italy: but then it was fashionable 80 years ago and never really caught on. I too am curious to hear precise evaluation of the pros and cons of this approach.

DavidKok, on 2021-December-06, 03:58, said:

One pair at my local club play this as well, but they only open 1♣ on a singleton with exactly a 4=4=4=1 hand. For all intents and purposes it is the same system as a 2+ 1♣ (but keep in mind there are many different "2+ 1♣" systems). I think they just love alerting 1♣ as "1+".

I think there must be a bit more to it than this. For instance, after a 1♣ opening with vanilla "2+ 1♣" (only 2 cards with 4=4=3=2) it is unlikely that opener has 4 cards in diamonds and almost impossible that he also holds 4 cards in a major, here not so. I imagine there are useful inferences when and after responder rebids 2♣ or 2♦ (inverted or not) too.

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2021-December-06, 16:20, said:

I think there must be a bit more to it than this. For instance, after a 1♣ opening with vanilla "2+ 1♣" (only 2 cards with 4=4=3=2) it is unlikely that opener has 4 cards in diamonds and almost impossible that he also holds 4 cards in a major, here not so. I imagine there are useful inferences when and after responder rebids 2♣ or 2♦ (inverted or not) too.

DavidKok, on 2021-December-06, 03:58, said:

One pair at my local club play this as well, but they only open 1♣ on a singleton with exactly a 4=4=4=1 hand. For all intents and purposes it is the same system as a 2+ 1♣ (but keep in mind there are many different "2+ 1♣" systems). I think they just love alerting 1♣ as "1+". However, if you start to add other hand types with a singleton club to your 1♣ opening (I don't know, maybe (43)=5=1?) then I think the system would quickly descend into chaos.

I have highlighted the part you seem to have missed. To spell it out: the right claim is that if you take the "1+ 1♣" system I have encountered, then move the 4=4=4=1 hands away from the 1♣ opening, then you end up with a "2+ 1♣" system without changing (m)any of the responses. Furthermore, since this 4=4=4=1 hand type is infrequent, the full systems can be treated similarly.
You seem to be suggesting something different entirely: that you can choose your favourite "2+ 1♣" system (and for some reason you chose the least sensible choice in context, since it fails the request to have 1♦ promise 5, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence), move the 4=4=4=1 hands from whatever they are opened with in that system to 1♣, and then get a sensible approximation of what these opponents play. That is not at all the claim I am making.

However, if there are hands that are all of: 1) not 4=4=4=1, 2) have a singleton clubs, 3) are systematically opened 1♣ in the system you are considering, 4) 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ all promise at least five in the suit bid, then the bidding system is truly different from what I am thinking of. Magic Diamond has properties 1-3, for example, but it fails the criterion that 1♦ shows at least five. As I previously stated I think systems like this quickly become very chaotic.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-06, 17:04, said:

I have highlighted the part you seem to have missed. To spell it out: the right claim is that if you take the "1+ 1♣" system I have encountered, then move the 4=4=4=1 hands away from the 1♣ opening, then you end up with a "2+ 1♣" system without changing (m)any of the responses. Furthermore, since this 4=4=4=1 hand type is infrequent, the full systems can be treated similarly.
You seem to be suggesting something different entirely: that you can choose your favourite "2+ 1♣" system (and for some reason you chose the least sensible choice in context, since it fails the request to have 1♦ promise 5, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence), move the 4=4=4=1 hands from whatever they are opened with in that system to 1♣, and then get a sensible approximation of what these opponents play. That is not at all the claim I am making.

However, if there are hands that are all of: 1) not 4=4=4=1, 2) have a singleton clubs, 3) are systematically opened 1♣ in the system you are considering, 4) 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ all promise at least five in the suit bid, then the bidding system is truly different from what I am thinking of. Magic Diamond has properties 1-3, for example, but it fails the criterion that 1♦ shows at least five. As I previously stated I think systems like this quickly become very chaotic.

Thanks, but I wasn't wrestling for a position to nit-pick, just trying to understand what 2+ scheme you must have in mind.
I highlight below the parts you seem to have missed

pescetom, on 2021-December-06, 16:20, said:

Increasingly common in higher level competition in northern Italy: but then it was fashionable 80 years ago and never really caught on. I too am curious to hear precise evaluation of the pros and cons of this approach.

I think there must be a bit more to it than this. For instance, after a 1♣ opening with vanilla "2+ 1♣" (only 2 cards with 4=4=3=2) it is unlikely that opener has 4 cards in diamonds and almost impossible that he also holds 4 cards in a major, here not so. I imagine there are useful inferences when and after responder rebids 2♣ or 2♦ (inverted or not) too.

The "some reason" for which I chose what I call vanilla 2+ (1♣ is only 2 cards with exactly 4=4=3=2, otherwise always 3+; 1♦ is always 4+ and might be 4-4 minors) is that this is what I play and is the normal scheme with 5-card majors here, not some academic scheme construed to defeat your argument.

What interests me (as I said) is how a 5+ diamonds scheme fares in comparison to such a 4+ diamonds scheme: I imagine that the possible 1 card 1♣ opening is only a small part of that evaluation.

[DavidKok]

The "2+ 1♣" scheme I propose is the "1+ 1♣" scheme minus the 4=4=4=1 hands