[cloa513]

A few threads come through with choose 1X or 2C and maybe the question should if you use a strong artificial 2C what is its purpose? Always to force to game or for hands where partner is likely to pass but the combined strength and fit gives game- these are not the same. If the latter then a major or NT focus would more sensible hands with at least 4+ of the major , minors need more strength to make game against weak partner hands- say you have

♠xx
♥AKx
♦AKQJxxx
♣x
one respondent said he would open 2C- sure he has 9tricks but what are the chances his partner couldn't respond to 1♦ and they still had game? I'd say not very high.

[helene_t]

2♣-2♦
3♦*
is forcing although some partnerships can still stop in 4♦. So on a bad day partner has nothing and you go down. I agree that if 1♦ is passed out you probably won't have game. Another issue is that 1♦ is not that likely to be passed out. If p is broke, one of the opps can probably bid 1♠ or something.

But it is difficult to show the strength of this hand after a 1♦ opening. If partner responds 1♠ I suppose the smallest lie is 2♥ but obviously that can lead to problems. And if he responds 1♥ it is worse.

I suspect most experts would open 1♦ but I don't think 2♣ is bad.

[P_Marlowe]

1D with example hand.

Open 2C, if you need at most a King or an Ace to make game,
with the sample hand, you need stopper in two suits.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mcphee]

This is just not a 2C opening. There is a good number of playing tricks of course but tell me please after opening 2C and the opps bid 4S now what?

[pooltuna]

GF 2♣ hand should be 1 trick short of game and only need 1 of 2 cards from partner to make game NV at IMPs (i.e. you cross the 50% threshhold for being in game) and still lower odds for V at IMPS. So the hand you showed does not meet the criteria however just changing the suits with the same cards you get a 2♣ bid. i.e.
♠xx
♥AKQJxxx
♦AKx
♣x

now you have a practically auto 2♣ call as any of A♣,A♠,K♠, Q♦ produce an apriori probability of >85% chance of game

[Free]

You need more from partner than just 1 trick to make game. You either need 2 black suit stoppers for 3NT, or shortness ♠ for 4♥/5♦. So I wouldn't open this 2♣.

[Rodney26]

mcphee, on Sep 21 2010, 06:49 AM, said:

This is just not a 2C opening. There is a good number of playing tricks of course but tell me please after opening 2C and the opps bid 4S now what?

I would open 1♦, but I think this argument against 2♣ in general is overplayed with a one suiter. You're faced with a nasty guess over the first auction as well.

1♦-(2♠)-p-(4♠)
2♣-(2♠)-p-(4♠)

Partner's pass on the latter auction might actually be more well defined than on the first depending on your agreements (we double with a bust).

Opening 2♣ with diamonds should be avoided if at all possible; these are very rare hands.

[Cyberyeti]

♥Qxxxx and out is sufficient for game to be worth bidding, even ♥QJ10x has good play.

That said I would also open 1♦, but partly because I have an artificial GF 2N to follow if I need it, and if partner passes there's a decent chance of a 1♠ balance or a double given how many diamonds I hold.

[mikeh]

Nobody as yet has mentioned one of the realities of bridge that allows one to restrict 2♣ to powerhouses rather than just very good playing hands.

If I pick up xx AKQJxxx AKx x and open 1♥ there is a small possibility that partner has so little that he will pass, and yet that little amount is enough for game...he holds Qxx(x)(x) in diamonds, for example.

Ok...so maybe I 'need' to open 2♣?

Nonsense.

If the opps have about half the deck and at least one of them is moderately short in my long suit the odds are overwhelming that they will compete, and allow us ample opportunity to show a very strong playing hand.

I see a lot of players ignoring the fact that bridge is played by 4 people, not just opener and his partner...and the opps aren't gifted with knowledge that this is a hand on which they should stay mute.

I also see, not merely in this thread but in many threads, that a lot of players ignore partner as a thinking player. Thus they focus, in questions such as 'should I open 2♣' on whether partner will pass a 1 bid and thus miss game.

There is another end of the continuum of responder hands....those on which he has a good hand.

Let's say I pick up Axxx xxx Qx KQJx and partner opens 2♣ and then shows hearts. I cannot imagine allowing partner to stop short of slam, even if off a keycard, as we would be. In fact, until I found we were off a keycard, I'd be thinking grand was probably close to laydown.....opposite me, I'd hold at a minimum something like x AKQxxx AKxx Ax, and we have 14 aces in 7N.

As it is, on the likely spade lead, we are held to 11 tricks.

And there is another issue, briefly touched upon by an earlier poster.....if we open 2♣, we promise ownership of the hand. Say I open 2♣ on my 2=7=3=1 17 count, and they bounce to 4♠ right away. They cannot play 4♠ undoubled, so I am left with either taking a save, which may well be a phantom, or doubling what may be an unbeatable contract......and I may well have no indication as to which losing alternative to avoid. This is a problem after either a waiting (could be negative) 2♦ or an immediate 2nd negative 2♥....especially since I suspect that it is common to play that opener's pass is forcing.

2♣ is not all about opener....it should be reserved for hands that have defence as well as offence...so that partner can bid intelligently...now, true freaks can be exempted from the defence requirements, but I am speaking of powerhouse freaks that are interested in slam from the get-go, not just near game one or two suiters. Partner should be encouraged for slam bidding if he has as much as an A and a King, and some fit or source of tricks....and a balanced opening hand for responder should make slam virtually laydown. And partner should be able to choose to double with minimal values because he can count on our having defence as well as offence, should we choose to defend.

Played otherwise, the 2♣ opening tends to preempt the auction too much for a strong responder to be able to slow the hand down.....or for opener to be able to distinguish whether he holds a decent 21 or a good 23, etc...he's too busy showing he only held 17 or 18!

Finally for those still obsessed over the question of missing game after a 1-bid, I have played 'strong' strong 2♣ bids for 30+ years, and while I can't say I've never missed a game that way, I can say that I don't remember it happening...so if it happened, it was a long time ago. Meanwhile I have seen a lot of B/I and advanced (not to mention self-professed expert) players get hopelessly confused after a sub-minimum (by my standards) 2♣ opening.

[hanp]

For the record, while I disagreed with the strong "thinking about 2C is an overbid" in the other thread, here the thought of opening 2C would not even cross my mind. I completely agree with mikeh and others, there is very little danger in opening this hand with 1D, and it will probably put us in a better position should the auction become competitive.

With the hand I mentioned in the other thread AKQxxx x Ax KQJx, I think the downsides of opening 2C are much smaller. There we have more defense and holding spades we are less likely to be embarrassed by our opponent's bidding. I think that 1S - p - 1NT - p - 3C does not cover the full strength of this hand.

We are also a bit more likely to be passed out in 1S making game because (1) we need far less from partner for game to be good, and (2) the opponents are less likely to bid over our 6-card 1S opening than 7-card 1D opening.

[gwnn]

I think xx AKQJxxx AKx x is a 2♣ opener, and if partner forces to slam knowing I have a 2♣ opener with hearts I expect usually to make it. If partner has KQJx in my singleton and opps find the right lead, I expect to go down.

[quiddity]

mikeh, on Sep 21 2010, 11:39 AM, said:

If the opps have about half the deck and at least one of them is moderately short in my long suit the odds are overwhelming that they will compete, and allow us ample opportunity to show a very strong playing hand.

This works both ways of course. They are more likely to compete over 1♥ than 2♣ and so they are more likely to make our life difficult, find a good sacrifice, etc. Maybe they can even make 4♠ and yet be unwilling to bid over 2♣, who knows? I think there is some merit in bidding 2♣/4M as a kind of semi-preempt with this sort of hand.

[jdonn]

Am I just in a disagreeable mood lately? I would never open the hand in the other thread 2♣ but this one I think is clear. It has 9 tricks for notrump, and after 1♦ I have serious rebid problems over both 1♥ and 1♠.

[Cyberyeti]

jdonn, on Sep 21 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

Am I just in a disagreeable mood lately? I would never open the hand in the other thread 2♣ but this one I think is clear. It has 9 tricks for notrump, and after 1♦ I have serious rebid problems over both 1♥ and 1♠.

How would you feel if you didn't have the rebid problem ?

If you played 1♦-1♠-2N-3♣-3♦ as 8-9 tricks one suited with ♦.

It's 9 tricks for NT but that's a long way from making 3N, you need 2 stops barring a load of small cards in one of the blacks.

[gwnn]

here is a thread this thread reminded me of:

http://forums.bridge...topic=32895&hl=

not saying the hands are equally good! all I'm saying is this thread reminded me of that thread.

[Rodney26]

mikeh, on Sep 21 2010, 11:39 AM, said:

Nobody as yet has mentioned one of the realities of bridge that allows one to restrict 2♣ to powerhouses rather than just very good playing hands.

If I pick up xx AKQJxxx AKx x and open 1♥ there is a small possibility that partner has so little that he will pass, and yet that little amount is enough for game...he holds Qxx(x)(x) in diamonds, for example.

Let's say I pick up Axxx xxx Qx KQJx and partner opens 2♣ and then shows hearts.

You've come up with a nasty hand, but are you sure standard auctions will clarify it?

1♥-1♠-4♥-4♠-5♦-??
1♥-1♠-3♦-3♥-4♦-4♠-5(♣, ♦)-??
2♣-2♦-2♥-3♥-4♦-4♠-5(♣, ♦)-??

As responder, you're always going to know you're off the club ace and have a hard time finding out about the spade king. I don't think opening 2♣ creates the guess.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Sep 21 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

Am I just in a disagreeable mood lately?

Eh! Probably not. But I'll guess you'll disagree with my comment: We have a lot of threads about this type of hand - and they are pretty much all a wtp Acol two!

Nick

[Zelandakh]

I would open the example hand 2C....but only if playing Benjamin 2s. The hand seems to be an obvious Strong 2D opening so you choose whichever route your system has designed for that hand type.

[neilkaz]

With the OP hand I prefer 1♦ playing S/A systems (2/1 or SAYC) since while I do have 9 tricks I have only 17 HCP and there's little chance of a passout and a missed game if partner can't respond to 1♦.

The other important issue with my decision to not open 2♣ is that I have to rebid 3♦ and then if PD does have a double negative we may be set in 4♦. I also cannont guarantee good play for game if PD has a minimal hand that is just a bit stronger than a double negative unless all suits are stopped for 3NT or he fits ♥.

Now, lets add a black king to my hand and then I'll go for 2♣ since 1) my hand is better and 2) with 20 HCP a passout of 1♦ is more likely vs opps that don't overcall on minimums.

.. neilkaz ..

[cloa513]

P_Marlowe, on Sep 21 2010, 06:05 AM, said:

1D with example hand.

Open 2C, if you need at most a King or an Ace to make game,
with the sample hand, you need stopper in two suits.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Any ace
At most
♥xx
At least
♦xx
any distribution of black suits assuming nothing too hazardous in opponents' hands would be enough for 5♦- I didn't say impossible with the given hand to make game just unlikely.

Of course while opponent could come in and given most types of LHO would overcall, its always possible that 4th responder decides that its too risky to give you another bidding chance.