Liversidge, on 2017-January-25, 06:43, said:
So playing 3 weak 2's with 9 PTs and a single suited long minor I would bid 2♣ even though I need two tricks from partner to make 5♣.
With two tricks wouldn't partner be unlikely to pass 1♣ - which gives more bidding space?
2♣-2♦-3♣with 9 PTs could be a two suiter with 5 clubs and and I would have to go to the 4 level to describe it.
2 tricks is a funny thing. xxx support and a side shortage can be 2 tricks; similarly xxxx or xxxxx can be a stopper for 3NT when the suit does not break unfavourably. As a general rule, if we are not off off the top, when Responder's hand provides 1 trick it usually will also provide some opportunity for a second. So I have no qualms about GFing with hands that are stronger than an Acol 2.
Whether we have more bidding space after 1m depends a little bit on system and agreements. It should be clear that there is usually no direct way of showing a 1-suiter too strong for 3m below 3NT after a 1 level response. Some use a little conventionality here, bundling this one-suiter into a reversing sequence or, like CY, using a gadget rebid for GF hands. If we have that then great - but it is unlikely for N/B pairs!
It is certainly true that 2
♣ - 2
♦; 3
♣ can be a number of hand types. My recommendation here is to play Responder's 3
♦ rebid as a Stayman-like enquiry to at least eliminate the hands with a 4 card major on the side. With diamond-based hands, a common modern refinement is to play 2
♣ - 2
♦; 3M as showing 4M and longer diamonds. This means that 2
♣ - 2
♦; 3
♦ denies a 4 card major and is usually a one-suiter. Naturally both of these are more advanced ideas though.
In the end, you of course have to decide each hand on its merits. If it is clear that there will be a better auction opening 1m and we are not scared of a passout, which is usually the case when we are distributional, then opening 1m is clear. What we are talking about here is the grey area where either approach will have its advantages and disadvantages. I come from an Acol background, in particular having played rather a lot with Reverse Benji methods. That colours my logic one way and that logic in turn got built into my strong club system to some extent. Those that have only played 5cM, strong NT, 3 weaks will likely have the completely opposite mentality and logic. And yet my experience from threads of this nature over the years is that the difference at the end of the day is extremely small. The real difference comes from those posters that I see quoting rules like this one "a trick short of game in hand" or one of the other such rules around such as "more QTs than losers", or "5 QTs".
Let's have a small thought experiment. Construct a 9PT diamond 1-suiter that you would be unhappy opening 2
♣ and post how you see the auction going for various responding hands. We can compare it at the end of the day with the 2
♣->3
♦ auction above. My guess would be that 1
♦ will come out ahead when game is not on (2
♣ openers cannot stop) and 2
♣ will make for easier auctions when game is there (1
♦ openers either rebid 3m, risking a pass or 3NT+ giving less bidding space) - but game will be available the vast majority of the time. Thus the 9PT guideline is more of a practical concept for where a GF hand starts than suggesting that 2
♣ should be opened with non-GF minor one-suiters. It
is possible to include some weaker minor suit hands here but it requires a lot of compromises to do and is impractical for most I/A pairs, let alone N/B! Hopefully I have not misled you in this respect!
Help
Add Reply
MultiQuote
