[kfay]

---

[l milne]

You give me the choice to start describing my hand at the 1-level in what is likely going to be an uncontested auction, or start describing my hand at the 3-level and wrong-siding diamonds?

1♦ WTP

[andy_h]

If you play 2C-2D-3H as 4H6+D then 2C has a lot going for it although I'm not sure if we're able to show a fifth heart after say 2C-2D-3H-3NT-4H?

Otherwise if that's not available then I choose 1D. We "only" have 19 highs so once we get by this round we are in a perfect situation in describing our hand.

[kfay]

andy_h, on 2010-November-30, 21:59, said:

If you play 2C-2D-3H as 4H6+D then 2C has a lot going for it although I'm not sure if we're able to show a fifth heart after say 2C-2D-3H-3NT-4H?

Otherwise if that's not available then I choose 1D. We "only" have 19 highs so once we get by this round we are in a perfect situation in describing our hand.

I think that playing this method you can probably just bid 3♦ then 4♥, right?

[kfay]

l milne, on 2010-November-30, 21:45, said:

You give me the choice to start describing my hand at the 1-level in what is likely going to be an uncontested auction, or start describing my hand at the 3-level and wrong-siding diamonds?

1♦ WTP

Well the problem, potentially, is that you probably won't get partner too enthused about slam with ♥Qxxx and out, on some shapes.

[rduran1216]

this is a 3 loser hand. 2♣

[Siegmund]

Shame the poll didn't offer 1H as a choice. Not that 1H followed by a jump shift in diamonds is perfect but it's worth a passing thought.

[Phil]

Siegmund, on 2010-December-01, 01:37, said:

Shame the poll didn't offer 1H as a choice.

I suppose if KFay wanted to offer a lousy option, he could have included 1♥, true.

I agree with 1♦, and I am not loving it at all, however, I've never made an exclusion call after 1x - 1y, so maybe its time for that. It is very difficult to catch up 1♦-1♠-2♥, but maybe I will be able to show the 5th heart at some point.

@AndyH 3♥ is an interesting idea, but with out spade void, I am very worried about some spade interference. I might be able to bid 4N later, but that is hardly a great description.

[mikeh]

Siegmund, on 2010-December-01, 01:37, said:

Shame the poll didn't offer 1H as a choice. Not that 1H followed by a jump shift in diamonds is perfect but it's worth a passing thought.

I had a passing thought when I read this, but it's unprintable

[Fluffy]

You can say as much nonsense as you want, but it won't change that the best way to know what partner has in hearts is to open 1♥

[Phil]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-01, 10:26, said:

You can say as much nonsense as you want, but it won't change that the best way to know what partner has in hearts is to open 1♥

And if partner's heart length was the only important thing to consider, then we would agree.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-01, 10:26, said:

You can say as much nonsense as you want, but it won't change that the best way to know what partner has in hearts is to open 1♥

I suspect that you aren't even aware of the problem revealed by your choice of words....most experts don't think of bidding as primarily concerned with finding out what partner holds.

At least in the early stages of most auctions, the partnership is engaged in the exchange of information.

There are auctions in which one partner assumes captaincy very early on, but most auctions don't go like that.

Thus most experts would see this hand and think about how best to go about describing it to partner...and would very quickly realize that they can show a decent or better hand with 5 hearts and 6+ diamonds...by opening 1♦ and bidding and rebidding hearts.

They see this as more useful than concealing the 6th diamond in order to immediately find out how many hearts partner has.

We, who enjoy bidding as a dialogue, may never 'know' how many hearts partner has until we see dummy, but I assure you that we won't miss any 5-3 or 5-4 heart fits, unless it's right to do so (ie we have a better fit elsewhere).

To characterize the view of the overwhelming majority of experts (who open 1♦ with 5=6) as 'nonsense' is more than a trifle arrogant (and I know about arrogant postings )

[Fluffy]

just to clarify, I regard as nonsense the coments from Phil and you about opening 1♥, opening 1♦ is normal. Opening 1♥ anticipates and solves a common problem we will encounter later assuming some risks. Oh, and just to point, I didn't even say what I'd bid at the table. But it is not 2♣ for sure

[skjaeran]

This looks like a very obvious 1♦ opening to me.
By reversing into and rebidding hearts (if allowed), I'll be able to show my hand pretty well.
Over interference I'll be able to rebid 4/5♥.

[gordontd]

kfay, on 2010-November-30, 23:02, said:

I think that playing this method you can probably just bid 3♦ then 4♥, right?

I think that playing this method if you rebid 4♥ after, say 3♠, it is likely to be interpreted as a cue-bid in support of spades.

[gordontd]

Phil, on 2010-December-01, 09:53, said:

I've never made an exclusion call after 1x - 1y, so maybe its time for that.

I saw a player make an exclusion call with
♠Kxxxx
♥AKxxxx
♦xx
♣--

After 1♥ - 1♠

- but he did it by rebidding 5♦, and thereby got the club lead he wanted.

[Echognome]

Note that for some people, they agree that 5M/6m hands open 1M systemically. I'm sure we could spend hours arguing the merits of such an approach, but I don't see why we should do that here. I personally think it's just a different style and can work well.

I do think Kevin is asking about what one opens in more standard methods (note the intentional use of standard rather than natural). If we can use non-standard methods, I might say "1♣ WTP?" or "Forcing Pass WTP?".

To answer the original question, I think I would open 2♣, but I find it close.

[Phil]

gordontd, on 2010-December-01, 12:28, said:

I saw a player make an exclusion call with
♠Kxxxx
♥AKxxxx
♦xx
♣--

After 1♥ - 1♠

- but he did it by rebidding 5♦, and thereby got the club lead he wanted.

Tip of the day: Do not psyche exclusion when you are missing the trump Ace

[han]

Usually I am all for making fun of Fluffy, he takes any form of teasing very well. But one of the things that Fluffy is clearly not is arrogant. Mikeh's post once again shows his deep disrespect for logic. Wasn't it clear that when Fluffy posted

You can say as much nonsense as you want

he did not characterize the 1D opening as nonsense, but the stuff that some people posted in this thread?

Having said that, I think that 1H is a terrible call. I say that knowing full well that Fluffy plays internationally and I probably never will, but then, I never claimed that I am not arrogant.

[l milne]

Maybe I need to bind a key with *reply "agree with han" *post. 1♥ I really don't like. Lying to partner just seems unnecessary here.

Also, what would 1♦-1♠-3♥ be for most people?