[straube]

1S

I think this hand illustrates why the partnership should consider 1S-1N, 2N as an artificial GF. This rebid denies a 2-suited (5/5 or 6/4) hand (else jump rebid) but doesn't promise a balanced pattern. Most likely the hand is 6331 or 5431 but other patterns (such as this 6322) pattern are possible.

1S-1N, 2N allows opener to uncover a 6-2 spade fit. I think this favors a 1S opening over a 2N opening. 2C should promise more imo.

[peachy]

Siegmund, on Jan 22 2010, 06:15 PM, said:

" 5 losers = not a 2♣ opener " is about as close to a bidding rule with no exceptions as bidding rules get, IMO.

I don't particularly like my rebid options over 1♠-1NT either... or I didn't until I read another thread wherein many 2/1ers played 1M-1N-2N as forcing, a treatment I am liking more and more.

1S-1NT-2NT is the same as 1H-1S-2NT. It is not forcing (18-19 if playing 15-17 NT opening) but in reality seldom passed. I suppose one could agree it is forcing but I haven't seen that treatment.

[aguahombre]

Hmm, us old simple souls just respond with responses and are willing to find a game with 18 opposite six. It eliminates Wolf signoffs, and makes followups after a 2NT rebid natural and uncomplicated.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Jan 22 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

I don't love 1♠ because I would be forced to rebid 3♣, which despite what codo may think I do because I have to not because I want to. So I would open 2♣ which is a slight overbid the way I play, and rebid 2♠. But wow I really hate rebidding 2NT, talk about masterminding.

1s and then 3c. Expect it be unanimous in the forum.

I open 2c more often than most on the forums. I am surprised.


2c=2d
2nt would be my second choice.

[mike777]

Siegmund, on Jan 22 2010, 06:15 PM, said:

" 5 losers = not a 2♣ opener " is about as close to a bidding rule with no exceptions as bidding rules get, IMO.

I don't particularly like my rebid options over 1♠-1NT either... or I didn't until I read another thread wherein many 2/1ers played 1M-1N-2N as forcing, a treatment I am liking more and more.

side note...not sure this is a 5 loser hand in LTC.


i need to pull out my book and check out section under adjustments.

Klinger p.110. Dont use ltc as primary source in deciding an opening bid.

Use as an adjunct on borderline hands.

1) tend to upgrade AKJ
2) QX is an upgrade in close decisions.
3) Control values:
a=2 k=1
multiply by 3.5
count your hcp
subtract
+2 deduct 1/2 loser
+6 deduct one loser


Bottom line looks like a 4 loser hand with an upgrade star


move me to 2c=2d=2nt now.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on Jan 23 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

1s and then 3c. Expect it be unanimous in the forum.

uninhibited by reading other posts, which might shed doubt on whether it is unanimous.

[Old York]

dealmegold, on Jan 22 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

♠AKxxxx
♥AKJ
♦Ax
♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?
or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

Tony

[blackshoe]

1NT (artificial, forcing, 4-5 losers, usually 18-21 HCP, or 19-20 balanced).

Over a negative 2♣ (0-5 HCP, 2♠, not forcing. Over a GF 2♦ (0-4 ctrls, 6+ hcp, if <4 ctrls, < 3 cover cards) or 2♥ (3 ctrls, 3+ cover cards), 2♠. over 2♠ (4 ctrls), or 2NT (5 ctrls), 3♠, and then look for slam. Actually, we might have a slam over 2♥ too, or even 2♦.

No, it's not SAYC or 2/1. Neither are Acol twos.

[helene_t]

Old York, on Jan 25 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

dealmegold, on Jan 22 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

♠AKxxxx
♥AKJ
♦Ax
♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?
or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

Tony

No

[NickRW]

Old York, on Jan 25 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

dealmegold, on Jan 22 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

♠AKxxxx
♥AKJ
♦Ax
♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?
or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

Tony

Not in the SAYC + 2/1 section of the forums they don't.

I may be no SAYC or 2/1 expert - but I think I'm on safe ground there.

Nick

[Codo]

Old York, on Jan 26 2010, 02:31 AM, said:

dealmegold, on Jan 22 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

♠AKxxxx
♥AKJ
♦Ax
♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?
or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

Tony

No, but there are many in continental Europe who use 2 ♣ for this hand and 2♦ for a stronger one....

[gwnn]

yes but they all live in France

[bftboy]

1st choice 2♣/2♦/2NT. If P bids 2♥ negative, I have an easy 2♠ bid. 2nd choice is 1♠/1NT/3NT whether it shows 6 ♠ or only 5.

[Old York]

NickRW, on Jan 26 2010, 03:10 AM, said:

Old York, on Jan 25 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

dealmegold, on Jan 22 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

♠AKxxxx
♥AKJ
♦Ax
♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?
or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

Tony

Not in the SAYC + 2/1 section of the forums they don't.

I may be no SAYC or 2/1 expert - but I think I'm on safe ground there.

Nick

Is this purely because of ACBL regulations?

2♦ as a weak two is not a particularly useful or pre-emptive usage of the bid, so players (esp outside USA) must have other agreements

Tony

[aguahombre]

Perhaps another forum would serve to express people's opinions (predict they won't be favorable) about using 2D that way or strong 2M --this is a SAYC 2/1 hand discussion.

[blackshoe]

Old York, on Jan 26 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

Is this purely because of ACBL regulations?

No. In the case of SAYC, it's because the system definition restricts optional agreements to a very few cases, and 2♦ as other than a weak two isn't one of them. In the case of 2/1, an agreement such as you suggest is certainly possible, but virtually no one in North America, I feel it safe to say, plays it that way (some do play other methods, e.g. Flannery (mini-)Roman or Mexican).

Quote

2♦ as a weak two is not a particularly useful or pre-emptive usage of the bid, so players (esp outside USA) must have other agreements.

Some do, I"m sure. OTOH, I do agree that a weak 2♦ is not particularly useful, but none of my regular partners are willing to take on anything else. Also, Anderson and Zenkel (Preempts From A to Z) talked about this, and asserted that most experts, having tried other things than a weak 2♦, have eventually returned to the weak opening. Of course, that may have changed in the two or three decades since the book was written.

[Old York]

aguahombre, on Jan 26 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

Perhaps another forum would serve to express people's opinions (predict they won't be favorable) about using 2D that way or strong 2M --this is a SAYC 2/1 hand discussion.

Could I direct your attention to the ACBL website?

Specifically:

http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html

"Opening Two-Level Bids in a Suit and Responses
1/ Other conventional and/or artificial bids
2/ Natural 2D, 2H or 2S, if intermediate or better"

It is also quite conceivable that OP was bidding in 4th seat

Could I also thank Blackshoe for his non-arrogant reply, seems quite rare to find a true gentleman on BBO Forums

Tony

[Mbodell]

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2010, 10:08 AM, said:

Old York, on Jan 26 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

Is this purely because of ACBL regulations?

No. In the case of SAYC, it's because the system definition restricts optional agreements to a very few cases, and 2♦ as other than a weak two isn't one of them. In the case of 2/1, an agreement such as you suggest is certainly possible, but virtually no one in North America, I feel it safe to say, plays it that way (some do play other methods, e.g. Flannery (mini-)Roman or Mexican).

I know of at least one ACBL pair who play a strong artificial 2♦ bid in a 2/1 context. But it certainly is a rare treatment. I'd say around me weak two >>> mini-roman > flannery > precision > multi > natural strong 2 > strong non-monster.

Quote

Quote

2♦ as a weak two is not a particularly useful or pre-emptive usage of the bid, so players (esp outside USA) must have other agreements.

Some do, I"m sure. OTOH, I do agree that a weak 2♦ is not particularly useful, but none of my regular partners are willing to take on anything else.

I actually think the 2♦ preempt can be quite effective as it doesn't instantly focus on one major (the way a 2M preempt does) and does take up some space. Obviously, regulations have some effect as a multi 2♦ or wilkosz or what ever might be more popular if it were allowed more places.

[NickRW]

Old York, on Jan 26 2010, 05:56 PM, said:

Is this purely because of ACBL regulations?

Benji and reverse Benji seem quite compatible with American methods - they just don't seem to do it - or even experiment much - for whatever reason - probably inertia mainly. I hear of more English pairs opening at the 2 level American style than the other way round.

Nick