[CamHenry]

Third in hand, unfavourable, you hold:

---

Two passes to you. Your call? System is Acol with strong but NF 2-openers.

[Zelandakh]

The hand has enough winners for an Acol 2♦ opening but the auction is likely to be easier if we start 1♦. This is not going to be passed out. If the bidding comes back at 4♠ we can rebid 4NT. I would consider opening 2♦ against duffers who always pass over a strong opening but even then I am not sure if it is going to be better than 1♦ (and might lead to a TD call and a bad atomosphere at the table, since such players also cannot envisage that a 13hcp hand might be considered strong).

[helene_t]

1♦ and then bid hearts a couple of times (or 4NT over 4♠ as Zel suggests).

If p then bids 3NT (over my 3♥ it is) I am correcting to 5♦.

[gszes]

CamHenry, on 2013-November-29, 03:11, said:

Third in hand, unfavourable, you hold:

---

Two passes to you. Your call? System is Acol with strong but NF 2-openers.

If p were unpassed I would open 1d but opposite a passed partner I want to know ASAP if we have a heart fit
and the best way to know that is to open

1h


opening 1h does not force us to play 4h we might still be able to settle in 6d even but having or not having a
heart fit will go a longggggggggggggggggggg way toward deciding if we belong in game/slam or not with this hand.

[CamHenry]

If you open 1♦:
1♦-2♦-3♦-4♠
?

If you open 1♥, I suspect LHO passes, partner bids 1♠, RHO passes.

[akwoo]

If I opened 1♦ with the given auction, I will usually bid 5♦. However, if LHO will bid Michaels on complete junk (not that unlikely at this vulnerability) and our agreements are such that partner actually promises some strength with 3♦, I break the rules and bid Blackwood with a void.

If I opened 1♥, I now jump shift to 3♦.

[CamHenry]

At the table, I chose the pragmatic 5♦ opening. We don't have enough agreements for me to ask about the relevant cards (though a specific ace-ask wouldn't have gone too far amiss).

LHO doubled for takeout; this was left in. Partner came down with the perfect hand: Jxxx/-/JTxx/Qxxxx, and I rolled in an overtrick when I could ruff out the ♥A.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-29, 04:34, said:

(and might lead to a TD call and a bad atomosphere at the table, since such players also cannot envisage that a 13hcp hand might be considered strong).

I don't understand this. Suppose 2♦ was the most sensible bid in your system for this hand. Would you really open something else for the reason above?

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-01, 11:50, said:

I don't understand this. Suppose 2♦ was the most sensible bid in your system for this hand. Would you really open something else for the reason above?

No, but in that case I would also give a different explanation of the opening.

[CamHenry]

The hand meets the Rule of 25, so it's legal in the EBU to describe it as "strong". I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable describing it just as strong; I'd probably say something like "Strong, but could be based on extreme distribution as well as honours".

[wank]

why do you care about the legality of calling it a 2c opener? bidding 2c on this would be ridiculous. just start bidding your suits.

[Zelandakh]

Dave Stevenson has consistently written in these forums that simply describing "strong" or "game-forcing" is not adequate disclosure of you include weak distributional hands as standard within your strong opening(s). So you should not only feel more comfortable about giving the extended description but also compelled.

[CamHenry]

I'm talking about an Acol 2 (2♦) here, not 2♣. 2♣ would indeed be a strange choice of call.

As for the disclosure on the strong 2: we play them "Strong, non-forcing"; the given hand doesn't feel like a strong 2 to me, but it probably (technically) meets the agreed standards.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd open 2♦, expecting to bid 4N over 4♠ on the next round.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-December-02, 05:43, said:

Dave Stevenson has consistently written in these forums that simply describing "strong" or "game-forcing" is not adequate disclosure of you include weak distributional hands as standard within your strong opening(s). So you should not only feel more comfortable about giving the extended description but also compelled.

I was under the impression that such a description was not necessary as long as the agreement is to keep within the extended rule of 25.