[nige1]

I like a modified 2♣ opener that includes BAL 20-21 HCP, with reverse Kokish. i.e.

• 2N = BAL. 22-23.
• 2♣ = ART. GF. OR BAL 20-21. OR BAL 24+.

Replies to 2♣ show controls

• 2♦ = ART. 0-1 Control. At most a K.
• 2♥ = ART. 2 Controls. A or 2 Ks.
• 2♠ = ART. 3 Controls. A & K.
• 2N = ART. 3 Controls. 3 Ks. (Hence right-siding).
• 3♣ = ART. 4 Controls. and so on.

Opener's rebid after 2♣ - 2♦ -;

• 2♥ = PUP. Reverse Kokish. BAL 20-21 or F/G 5+ ♥s.
• 2♠ = F/G 5+ ♠s.
• 2N = BAL. 24+.
• 3m = F/G. 5+ bid suit.
• 3M = NAT. Canapé . 4 bid suit & 5+ ♦s.

After reverse Kokish 2♣ - 2♦ -; 2♥ -

• 2♠ = ART. Normal forced response.
• 2N = ART. 0-4. 5+ ♣s & 5 + ♦s
• 3m = NAT. 0-4. 6+ suit.

Thus, when responder has a weak hand, sometimes, we can stop a the 3-level.

[fromageGB]

In the context of no Kokish, and a 2♦ open that includes 3-suiters, 2♣ openings are single or two-suited, or 23 balanced. I like a positive 2♦ that shows at least an ace or a king, and a negative 2♥. Any higher bids are 6+card transfers.

After a positive and opener has bid a suit, I like a method where next step denies 3 cards, to allow opener to show a second suit, while any other bid (that shows 3+ card fit) shows number of ace/kings in steps. Plenty of room to ask for strength, or cue beneath game. Knowing the number of ace/kings allows opener to check on aces then desist knowing of lack of kings, or check which, as the number is already known.

[cartruck]

steve2005, on 2017-June-21, 10:29, said:

Don't say what to do with 1 King, presume 2D.
Many consider Flannery one of the worst conventions (myself included lol)

Gotta have 2 Kings or you can't play. Don't know how to fit 1 King into that system.

[cartruck]

To clarify:

2♣ opener in my system shows 22+ Points (Our points system is heavily modified, Aces = 4 1/2 points (usually - have to deduct at times), etc.

When my father and I open 2♣ (very rarely) we got the goods.

[cartruck]

Opening 2♣ on weak hands is Fool's Gold. Don't do it.

[RedSpawn]

cartruck, on 2017-June-21, 10:12, said:

I would have opened that hand 1♠. I don't open 2 suited hands 2 Clubs, unless I have more HCP than that. That hand is not good enough.

Swap the J of Spades for the Queen and I would.

We are putting 2♣ on too high of a pedestal. Let's evaluate the hand in question. It has:

• 21 HCP RAW;
  
• 2 length points for a 6 card spade suit;
  
• 1 quality point for hand having THREE aces and a 10;
  
• 1 quality point for ♠ suit containing 3 of 5 honors; and
  
• 1 quality point for ♦ having 4 of 5 honors.

This hand is functionally equivalent to a 26 point hand so why am I treating it like an allegedly weak 21 HCP hand? If you have a hand that can be revalued at 26 points all things considered, start the bidding at 2♣ because 1♠ is a huge understatement.

Give 2♣ its just due!

[nullve]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-June-21, 10:05, said:

---

cartruck, on 2017-June-21, 10:12, said:

I would have opened that hand 1♠. I don't open 2 suited hands 2 Clubs, unless I have more HCP than that. That hand is not good enough.

Swap the J of Spades for the Queen and I would.

Ok, not enough hcp the way you play.

cartruck, on 2017-June-23, 12:33, said:

To clarify:

2♣ opener in my system shows 22+ Points (Our points system is heavily modified, Aces = 4 1/2 points (usually - have to deduct at times), etc.

When my father and I open 2♣ (very rarely) we got the goods.

So why isn't the hand worth 22+ hcp? Or is there some other reason why you can't open 2♣?

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2017-June-21, 20:15, said:

I like a modified 2♣ opener that includes BAL 20-21 HCP, with reverse Kokish. i.e.

We play this. Why do you call it reverse Kokish?

Quote

Thus, when responder has a weak hand, sometimes, we can stop at the 3-level.

Consider playing major-suit negatives. Then you can sometimes stop at the 2-level.

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-27, 03:21, said:

We are putting 2♣ on too high of a pedestal. Let's evaluate the hand in question. It has:

• 21 HCP RAW;
  
• 2 length points for a 6 card spade suit;
  
• 1 quality point for hand having THREE aces and a 10;
  
• 1 quality point for ♠ suit containing 3 of 5 honors; and
  
• 1 quality point for ♦ having 4 of 5 honors.

This hand is functionally equivalent to a 26 point hand so why am I treating it like an allegedly weak 21 HCP hand? If you have a hand that can be revalued at 26 points all things considered, start the bidding at 2♣ because 1♠ is a huge understatement.

Give 2♣ its just due!

You are counting "quality points" for your ♠ and ♦ honours over and over.

[RedSpawn]

Vampyr, on 2017-June-27, 06:30, said:

We play this. Why do you call it reverse Kokish?


Consider playing major-suit negatives. Then you can sometimes stop at the 2-level.



You are counting "quality points" for your ♠ and ♦ honours over and over.

We are putting 2♣ on too high of a pedestal. Let's evaluate the hand in question. It has:

• 21 HCP RAW;
  
• 2 length points for a 6 card spade suit; [Length points are an indication of trick-taking potential -- a 6 card ♠ suit has more trick taking potential than a 4 card spade suit--this is irrespective of honor holding]
  
• 1 quality point for hand having THREE aces and a 10; [Aces and 10's are undervalued so having a total of 4 of them should count as 13 points instead of indicated 12 points].
  
• 1 quality point for ♠ suit containing 3 of 5 honors; and [The ♠ suit having 3 of 5 honors further increases the trick taking potential -- that is inherently different than the 6 card suit itself]
  
• 1 quality point for ♦ having 4 of 5 honors. -- This suit is basically 4 tricks and is worth more than 9 points. If two aces are allegedly worth 8 points, then I am inclined to believe that AKQ10♦ is worth more than 2 aces and a mere J♦]

I want you to honestly tell me how much you think AKQ10♦ is worth in point values because to me, saying it is worth 9 points is an understatement.

All things considered, this hand is worth 26 points, but if you want to subtract off the length points for ♠, no problem--we are at 24 points, so why are we still downgrading this hand to a 1♠ open with a revalued 24 points? Under NO circumstances is this just a 21 point hand! This hand is too well controlled from the rooter to the tooter to be downgraded to 1♠

Give 2♣ its just due.

[Vampyr]

Obviously I read your other post, because I responded to it. Why did you repeat it? You had nothing more to add.

You are boring.

[RedSpawn]

Vampyr, on 2017-June-27, 09:34, said:

Obviously I read your other post, because I responded to it. Why did you repeat it? You had nothing more to add.

You are boring.

Because you were suggesting that I had overcounted the hand value and it's not so; either way you slice it, that hand is a 2 club open. I would love to hear how many points you consider this hand to have...

[benlessard]

I dont care too much if the hand is too good for 1S or not enough good for 2C.

I look at how the auction might unfold.

std jump-shift
1S--1NT--3D

std 2C
2C-2D(wait)-2S-??-3D

look pretty equivalent to me


With my system it might go like

1S-1NT-2C(♦)--2D (5-11 pref)--??

3H= exactly 6142 18-21. So with a relay system or systme with artificial rebid the incentive to open 1S are greater.

Without any gadget i would open 2C because all thing being equal why risk 1S--all pass.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2017-June-20, 20:43, said:

We play 2♥ and 2♠ as wishing to play there opposite 20-21(22) balanced. After the Kokish relay we play 2NT as both minors, and 3m to play there opposite 20-21. We have a lot of idle bids that we are thinking about. Hate controls a lot.

Vampyr's version seems simple and clever.

[RedSpawn]

nullve, on 2017-June-27, 04:12, said:

Ok, not enough hcp the way you play.


So why isn't the hand worth 22+ hcp? Or is there some other reason why you can't open 2♣?

No one wants to commit to a hand value for this hand. This hand is worth 22 points if not more once you evaluate its features. I look at TOTAL points. This hand is by no means weak and has more total points than 21 points. I am still waiting to hear a full on point value on this hand for its features. Is it just a 21 point hand for opening purposes?

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-06, 06:54, said:

No one wants to commit to a hand value for this hand. This hand is worth 22 points if not more once you evaluate its features. I look at TOTAL points. This hand is by no means weak and has more total points than 21 points. I am still waiting to hear a full on point value on this hand for its features. Is it just a 21 point hand for opening purposes?

Not everyone is a Walrus and requires a point count for everything. For unbalanced hands above a certain strength it is very often easier to think in terms of playing tricks. This hand has ~10 PTs, which easily qualifies it for a 2♣ opening. The only poster that has said otherwise is the OP who also wrote that he has a special agreement. Playing my own system I would also not open it 2♣ - it's a strong 1[clubs instead (!) - but that is hardly relevant to whether it is a 2[clubs] opener in American standard methods. It is not particularly helpful to assign a single number beyond that so why bother?

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-06, 07:53, said:

Not everyone is a Walrus and requires a point count for everything. For unbalanced hands above a certain strength it is very often easier to think in terms of playing tricks. This hand has ~10 PTs, which easily qualifies it for a 2♣ opening. The only poster that has said otherwise is the OP who also wrote that he has a special agreement. Playing my own system I would also not open it 2♣ - it's a strong 1[clubs instead (!) - but that is hardly relevant to whether it is a 2[clubs] opener in American standard methods. It is not particularly helpful to assign a single number beyond that so why bother?

Cartruck referred to opening this hand as 2 clubs as "fool's gold" -- that is being a walrus. I haven't heard a sound reason for starting the bidding at a conservative 1♠ which he recommended.

Cartruck stated that a Q♠ was needed instead of J♠ before a 2 ♣ bid should be made. Why do we need 11 playing tricks for a 2 club open? That pedestal seems a bit too high.

[pescetom]

ahydra, on 2017-June-20, 20:33, said:

Controls works well when opener has a shapely hand with self-supporting suit(s) and only needs top cards for slam. Unfortunately that's a very small subset of 2C openers.

Here in Italy a large percentage of club players still ask for controls or Aces as the initial reply to 2C.
I'm usually grateful as more often than not it fizzles out leaving them with little idea of how to proceed.
Having said that, we are still working on 2C replies and developments, for now we tend to see 2D as the least of all evils.

If opener only needs top cards for slam then he can of course use other openings.
Even Sabine Auken uses the good old ACOL 4NT opening to ask for specific Aces.
We extend it to ask (with limitations) for specific Kings too.

[GrahamJson]

I find it difficult to believe that an expert forum is discussing how may points a hand of AKJ853 7 AKQ10 A6 is worth. Anyone who needs to count points in order to determine whether it is a 2C bid is surely playing the wrong game.

My preferred sequence I think someone has already suggested; 2C-2H-2S-3D etc. I don't think that a 2D "waiting" bid is appropriate when holding a good heart suit as a 2H response is descriptive without taking up any bidding space.

[nullve]

GrahamJson, on 2017-July-08, 15:45, said:

I find it difficult to believe that an expert forum is discussing how may points a hand of AKJ853 7 AKQ10 A6 is worth. Anyone who needs to count points in order to determine whether it is a 2C bid is surely playing the wrong game.

Why do pairs think they need a strong 2♣ opening in the first place? I can only think of two reasons:

1) fear of being passed out if they open something else, e.g. 1x;
2) lack of methods after 1x-1y/N.

But for pairs using gadgets like Gazzilli or transfer rebids, only 1) remains. So for them, the problem is to determine when it becomes too dangerous to open 1x. And good players understand that that has much more to do with hcp than playing tricks, don't they? E.g. it's more dangerous to open 1♠ on ♠AKJxx ♥AKJT ♦AQx ♣x than on ♠AKQJxx ♥AKJTx ♦x ♣x, although the latter hand has much greater playing strength.

FWIW, I don't open 2♣ (strong) on unbalanced hands unless they meet the rule of 31.

[GrahamJson]

I agree that you shouldn't be opening 2C on wildly distributional hands just because you have lots of playing tricks (something that I have seen happen many times on BBO); responder needs to know that if he has a few values then a slam is likely. However the example hand does not fall into that category and is an easy 2C opener. No matter how good your methods are after a one bid, if you stretch the range too far you are certain to lose accuracy. Personally I still like Acol Twos, albeit played as Tartan Two Bids, largely because they take some of the weight off one bids and 2C openings.