[alphred]

Hi all,
With 2 four card minors, in a 5 card majors system, which suit do you bid first?
Regardless of systems, which is the better choice?
Thx all,
Alphred

[hrothgar]

alphred, on 2016-February-23, 14:40, said:

Hi all,
With 2 four card minors, in a 5 card majors system, which suit do you bid first?
Regardless of systems, which is the better choice?
Thx all,
Alphred

Traditionally, one would open 1♦ (and I believe this is probably still standard)

In more recent times, especially since the introduction of transfer responses to one club openings, people often prefer to open 1♣

[SteveMoe]

Check this out - http://bridgewinners.../view/1c-or-1d/

[wank]

assuming no transfers, there was still a debate. most people prefer 1 diamond, but the arguments are these:-

1 club: saves space so you can support diamonds to 2 immediately if partner bids 1D. obviously if you open 1D you can raise 2C immediately too, but you're saving almost a whole level. you also don't get pre-empted out of your fit by 4th hand (if it goes 1D-1NT you don't know what partner's got in the minors)

1 diamond: gives you an easy club rebid if partner makes a negative double. the 1 club openers downplay the importance of this by saying you can rebid no-trumps to show your shape and let partner cuebid their suit to check you really have a stop (though this would give you a further problem)

personally i open 1 club.

[fromageGB]

Certainly I prefer balanced club with transfers, and unbalanced diamond, but without that and playing a natural method, you need to be able to open a minor that can be less than four cards. This affects what you do with xx44. If your style is "diamonds is always four cards" then there is no point in opening 1♣ when xx44. Partner will not take you for four. Therefore open 1♦ and convey that information. If your style is that neither minor is guaranteed, then you have a choice, but why have two meaningless bids?

[mgoetze]

alphred, on 2016-February-23, 14:40, said:

Regardless of systems, which is the better choice?

This question is impossible to answer, because it's not "regardless of system". What I open with which minor holdings is a core tenet of a bidding system for me, I want to know what partner is going to do and I want to design the response structure with such things in mind.

In my currently preferred bidding system I open 1♣ with 3=3=5=2 distribution, feel free to guess what I do with 3=2=4=4 distribution...

[rhm]

mgoetze, on 2016-February-23, 19:02, said:

This question is impossible to answer, because it's not "regardless of system". What I open with which minor holdings is a core tenet of a bidding system for me, I want to know what partner is going to do and I want to design the response structure with such things in mind.

In my currently preferred bidding system I open 1♣ with 3=3=5=2 distribution, feel free to guess what I do with 3=2=4=4 distribution...

While I understand your response, it shows a lack of understanding what has been asked. The opener did not use the expert forum either.
Though it says "regardless of systems" the question is not raised for a T-Walsh system nor for an unbalanced diamond opening with lots of gadgets.
Most will know what the answer is there and we know this is currently popular at top level Bridge.
It is also unlikely that systems like Fantunes should be implied.
The question was apparently raised in context of a standard natural 5 card major system with few conventional responses.

SteveMoes link above is much more to the point.
If you read the discussion there carefully, you may come to the conclusion, there are lots of arguments for either side and there is no simple answer.
In the end you will have to make your own decision, which arguments you find more convincing,.

Rainer Herrmann

[mgoetze]

rhm, on 2016-February-24, 05:29, said:

While I understand your response, it shows a lack of understanding what has been asked. The opener did not use the expert forum either.
Though it says "regardless of systems" the question is not raised for a T-Walsh system nor for an unbalanced diamond opening with lots of gadgets.
Most will know what the answer is there and we know this is currently popular at top level Bridge.
It is also unlikely that systems like Fantunes should be implied.
The question was apparently raised in context of a standard natural 5 card major system with few conventional responses.

SteveMoes link above is much more to the point.
If you read the discussion there carefully, you may come to the conclusion, there are lots of arguments for either side and there is no simple answer.
In the end you will have to make your own decision, which arguments you find more convincing,.

Rainer Herrmann

But it was not in the beginner forum either, and people should learn as soon as possible that bridge bidding systems are in fact quite diverse.

Anyway, you have missed my main point entirely, which is that this should be itself a matter of system, rather than a matter of personal style within a system. I don't "have to make my own decision", I have to come to an agreement with my partner.

[jodepp]

Players will be debating this until the end of time. There are advantages and disadvantages to both choices, so you 'pays your money and you takes your choice.'

What I find fascinating is that proponents of both choices vehemently defend them.

I finally decided to take Matt Granovetter's advice - don't have an agreement in this area. Open whatever you want. If you want to bid the better minor, fine. If you want to bid the weaker minor to inhibit the lead, fine. This approach also has the advantage of giving the opponents no information; if asked 'which minor do you open with 4=4', you can honestly reply 'we have no agreement.'

[GrahamJson]

jodepp, on 2016-February-26, 03:43, said:

Players will be debating this until the end of time. There are advantages and disadvantages to both choices, so you 'pays your money and you takes your choice.'

What I find fascinating is that proponents of both choices vehemently defend them.

I finally decided to take Matt Granovetter's advice - don't have an agreement in this area. Open whatever you want. If you want to bid the better minor, fine. If you want to bid the weaker minor to inhibit the lead, fine. This approach also has the advantage of giving the opponents no information; if asked 'which minor do you open with 4=4', you can honestly reply 'we have no agreement.'

Maybe I'm being pedantic but you can only say that you have no agreement if you have never discussed the situation. That would not be the case in this case if playing with a regular partner as which minor suit to open would be a pretty basic issue. What you could say is that you have no rule; the choice depends on tactical matters and could be either suit. Certainly the oppo should be aware that you may open the weaker suit in order to inhibit a lead if partner is.

[PhilG007]

alphred, on 2016-February-23, 14:40, said:

Hi all,
With 2 four card minors, in a 5 card majors system, which suit do you bid first?
Regardless of systems, which is the better choice?
Thx all,
Alphred

It would really depend on the pointage With a hand like ♠Jxx ♥xx♦AQxx ♣KQxx I would favour opening
1♦ partially because the suit can potentially yield 1.5 quick tricks as opposed to just 1 in clubs. It also makes the
rebid easier if partner responds in a major. But what if you held ♠AKx♥AK ♦xxxx♣xxxx ?
Does it really matter which minor you open? I would choose to open 1♣ on this hand,keeping all my options open and hope
partner might respond 1♦ when you can rebid 2♦ with a clear conscience..

[mycroft]

You are being pedantic. But "we have agreed to open whichever one we think best for this hand" is a correct description of your agreement.

Like all of these "random" agreements, however, you *will* develop knowledge of partner's habits, which are implicit agreements and disclosable. After two or three years, people are going to get less likely to accept "I've never noticed what partner's decisions are".

But after two or three years, they're really not going to take "no agreement". You have an agreement, even if it's "agree to disagree" or "agree to 'all of the above'" or even "we've agreed to explicitly not discuss it".

[Edit to add: "we have never discussed it" is not the same as "we've agreed to not discuss it"; but it is also, at least with a regular partner, not the same as "no agreement". Using the latter when the former is correct is also misinformation (because of the potential for "implied agreements".]

[fourdad]

Completely depends on whether the hand is strong enough for a reverse.

[hrothgar]

fourdad, on 2016-February-26, 15:39, said:

Completely depends on whether the hand is strong enough for a reverse.

Please tell me that you aren't suggesting reversing on 4-4 hands...

[fourdad]

hrothgar, on 2016-February-26, 16:10, said:

Please tell me that you aren't suggesting reversing on 4-4 hands...

generally not...but it happens

[hrothgar]

fourdad, on 2016-February-26, 18:07, said:

generally not...but it happens

I've never seen a hand where I couldn't find a better way to lie

[Zelandakh]

The last 2 suggestions, apparently 1♦ - 1M; 2♣ on a 3=2=4=4 and 1♣ - 1M; 2♦ with (3-2)=4=4 have seriously lowered the level of the debate. Sometimes it is better just to keep quiet once other posters have covered the main aspects rather than trying to make a point that simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

[xeno123]

So which style tends to work better with GIB as your partner? I have noticed some top players opening 1♣ on occasion with only two clubs, which might point to going with the club choice here.

[mgoetze]

xeno123, on 2016-February-26, 21:34, said:

So which style tends to work better with GIB as your partner? I have noticed some top players opening 1♣ on occasion with only two clubs, which might point to going with the club choice here.

I suspect that is less about GIB as your partner and more about GIB as your opponent - slight misdescriptions of your shape sometimes lead to spectacular misdefense.

[fourdad]

hrothgar, on 2016-February-26, 18:22, said:

I've never seen a hand where I couldn't find a better way to lie

never say never!