[BabsG]

It was the last hand of the tourney - the first points that we got all night. Total brain freeze.

♠ A5
♥ AKJ109542
♦ 5
♣ K9

My partner opened 1♥. We are now thinking 2♣. Any suggestions for a couple of bumbling beginners?

[ArtK78]

I would never open this hand 2♣. You could be preempted into a high-level decision very easily. Not enough high-card power to keep the opps out of the auction. Also, not enough defense to insure that a partner's high-level decision will be correct. A 2♣ opener should have more defense than this hand.

If I was playing NAMYATS, I would open 4♣. This hand meets the requirements for NAMYATS as I play it with my regular partner - 8.5 to 9 playing tricks, and I do not have two quick losers in more than one side suit (in this case, I don't have two quick losers in any side suit).

While NAMYATS describes this hand well, it may wrongside the contract. But a 2♣ opener could wrongside the contract as well if you play 2♥ as a negative response, as many do.

Not playing NAMYATS, I would open 1♥.

[masse24]

1♥

[CSGibson]

I'm ok with opening 2♣ on this, assuming you don't have a more descriptive bid like Namyats. You will never be able to catch up if you just open 1♥, and its not like you'll be less likely to be preempted by opening a level lower, or more likely to be able to trust partner's high level decision.

[JLOGIC]

It is absolutely absurd to not open this hand with 2C. You have 9 and a half tricks, including some honor tricks. One suiters are not hard to bid, what "decision" am I going to be preempted into? Gee, I'll compete to 5H, how is that not a possibility if I open 1H?

I play namyats, and I would never open namyats with 9 and a half tricks including a side Ax and Kx. I mean, come on, that's what 2C is for, Namyats shows less than a 2C opener.

[ArtK78]

Deleted.

[Cthulhu D]

Two clubs, but you have to agree with partner in advance (and probably put on your convention card) that 9+ playing tricks is OK for a 2♣ opening.

[Cyberyeti]

Too many low point count hands make game opposite this to open 1♥ ideally, vulnerability might have some impact, opps less likely to come in over 2♣ if they're vul and you're not. 1♥ vul v not might attract less preempting than 2♣. I can live with either action, 1♥-P-P-P is not much of a worry here, I have too few points and too many hearts to worry too much about that.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the question is, what is your next 2nd bid.

It does not really matter, what you open, you will have a 2nd
bid, the risk of 1H being passed out is fairly low, but what
is your 2nd bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[JLOGIC]

FWIW was at a dinner party tonight, and Fred, Hampson, and Levin all said they would open 1H. Hampson and Levin said they didn't feel strongly about it, and Fred said (in reply to me saying something about "***** Canadians" not opening 2C") that 2C was "too weird for him" (background being Canadian, Kokish being the prominent theorist and not opening 2C very much at all). I tried to argue my point persuasively, but I didn't seem to convince any of them. All 3 are better at bridge than me as well as much more successful so I will keep an open mind but I did not get immediately convinced either. I will admit that my "absolutely absurd" comment seems wrong based on that, apologies.

We did have some funny sarcastic "2C with 15 points?" "1H with 9.5 tricks?" commentary as well as "I see why you play strong club" lol.

[mike777]

JLOGIC, on 2012-February-19, 04:10, said:

FWIW was at a dinner party tonight, and Fred, Hampson, and Levin all said they would open 1H. Hampson and Levin said they didn't feel strongly about it, and Fred said (in reply to me saying something about "***** Canadians" not opening 2C") that 2C was "too weird for him" (background being Canadian, Kokish being the prominent theorist and not opening 2C very much at all). I tried to argue my point persuasively, but I didn't seem to convince any of them. All 3 are better at bridge than me as well as much more successful so I will keep an open mind but I did not get immediately convinced either. I will admit that my "absolutely absurd" comment seems wrong based on that, apologies.

We did have some funny sarcastic "2C with 15 points?" "1H with 9.5 tricks?" commentary as well as "I see why you play strong club" lol.

Thank you Justin.....


these posts will make a book, when you write it that I will buy.

add in Kimmel, Hugh, Chip or Alan...stories and just tell me now where to send my bbo bucks to you.

[whereagles]

If you don't open this 2C, you might as well play 2C as a weak 2.

[bluecalm]

Easy 2C in "standard".
I mean, if I open 1H and partner bids 1S/1N what's my next bid ? I sure hope it's not 4H which closes all the chances of getting to slam.
If I am playing some decent system I would open 1H but in decent system there is a way to show very strong hands at reasonably low level.

Quote

FWIW was at a dinner party tonight, and Fred, Hampson, and Levin all said they would open 1H

I hope you didn't miss the follow up: "what do you bid after the most likely 1S/1N response from partner" ?

[JLOGIC]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-19, 04:22, said:

Easy 2C in "standard".
I mean, if I open 1H and partner bids 1S/1N what's my next bid ? I sure hope it's not 4H which close all the chances of getting to slam.
If I am playing some decent system I would open 1H but in decent system there is a way to show very strong hands at reasonably low level.

If partner bids 1N you bid 4C. I still maintain that does not show a hand this good, as 9.5 tricks opens 2C! You could easily bid that way with 8.5 tricks or 9 tricks imo. As I pointed out to Hampson, it is unlikely to go 1H p 1N p with this hand. He pointed out that even 1H p 1N X or 1H p 1N 2C allows you to bid 4C. I am not sure that that is better than 2C followed by hearts. Sure you show your shortness, but not necessarily a hand this good. To me if the auction gets competitive I am happy to bid 2C followed by lots of hearts. Their argument was largely that partner might drive on a hand that has a lot of HCP and is off 1 KC but is not good for slam. IMO when I hold this hand if partner drives to slam, I'm happy, that's why I'm opening 2C. I feel that you will miss way more slams with 1H than you will get to bad slams with 2C.

That said, they are all better than me and it is basically impossible to win a bridge argument with Hampson so it was good food for though I was clearly wrong in saying that 2C was auto.

[bluecalm]

Yeah, ok 1H - 1N is somehow manageable but what about 1H - 1S, if they bid or not doesn't change our pitiful situation, for example:

1H - p - 1S - 2X
?

[MrAce]

Imo if we are going to open this type of hands 2♣ (which i do), should we find a way to tell pd that we opened by trick count rather than bean count ?

Such as

2♣-2x
4♥ maybe ? Telling pd that we have a namyat hand that is too good to open namyat due to side values ?

[BabsG]

Thanks for the input everyone and no apologies needed Justin.

As it turned out my hand:

♠ KQ9743
♥ 8
♦ AK964
♣ 2

1♥-P-1♠-P-4♥-P-P-P

[ArtK78]

4♥ is a reasonable contract. So is 6♥. It all depends on whether the ♥Q drops.

I would rather be in 6♥ than 4♥, but it is not the end of the world to miss this slam.

[JLOGIC]

Its better than the normal 52 % because they might not lead a club. Of course any auction to slam will probably induce a club lead as I imagine partner would bid spades and diamonds! Obv 6H is the correct opening bid

[the hog]

I would open 1H on this, not 2C. I believe I can handle any continuations.