[portslade]

As a UK player I normally use varieties of ACOL but with one partner play Standard American. An issue arose last week which prompted this query. How do you bid a strong hand (containing 8 playing tricks) which is not really game-forcing and therefore not appropriate for 2C opening. For example:
♠AKQJ752
♥4
♦AK
♣QJ7

[hrothgar]

portslade, on 2019-September-26, 08:08, said:

As a UK player I normally use varieties of ACOL but with one partner play Standard American. An issue arose last week which prompted this query. How do you bid a strong hand (containing 8 playing tricks) which is not really game-forcing and therefore not appropriate for 2C opening. For example:
♠AKQJ752
♥4
♦AK
♣QJ7

You decide whether 1♠, 2♣, or 4♠ is the smallest lie

In this case, you have a three loser hand.
You have nine tricks in hand.
You have 10 if partner has either the A,K, or 10 of clubs...

I know what i would do

[barmar]

Few people play that opening 2♣ requires that you have game in your own hand. A common style for unbalanced hands is at most 4 losers if your primary suit is a major, 3 or 3.5 losers if it's a minor. So your hand is fine.

[Stephen Tu]

portslade, on 2019-September-26, 08:08, said:

As a UK player I normally use varieties of ACOL but with one partner play Standard American. An issue arose last week which prompted this query. How do you bid a strong hand (containing 8 playing tricks) which is not really game-forcing and therefore not appropriate for 2C opening. For example:
♠AKQJ752
♥4
♦AK
♣QJ7

• It's "Acol", not all caps, as it's a name not an acronym
• Your example hand has like 9.5+ tricks and is an easy 2c opener. 2c is 22+ balanced, or ~9+ tricks in a major. It is not 100%GF, it's merely nearly GF. You can generally stop in 3M if opener bids a major twice and responder has a trickless hand, depending on methods. Or if opener shows the 22-24 balanced hand.

If you weaken the hand to only 8 tricks, generally one opens the major, and choose between rebidding:

• jump shift into fragment
• 4M with more distribution, less high cards than the jump shift hands
• 3nt if by agreement shows long running major over 1nt (sometimes 3nt easier to make than 4M, partner can judge when to pull)
• if partner makes a GF 2/1 bid, usually 3M if the major is solid.

A minority of players may also employ "Namyats", 4c/4d openings showing ~8.5 tricks in hearts/spades respectively for near 2c hands/strong preempts.

[HeavyDluxe]

hrothgar, on 2019-September-26, 08:16, said:

You decide whether 1♠, 2♣, or 4♠ is the smallest lie

That's about it... Agreements and style matter.

That said, the groupiest group of people I played with consistently played 2♣ as all 22+ or any 'distributional within a trick-ish of game in your best suit'.

[akwoo]

Most standard american partnerships have 2♣ not quite game forcing.

For example, it's common to play that the following auctions are allowed:

2♣ - 2♦
2M - 3♣
3M - P

where 3♣ is an artificial second negative, denying an ace or a king.

[FelicityR]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-September-26, 08:58, said:

• It's "Acol", not all caps, as it's a name not an acronym
• Your example hand has like 9.5+ tricks and is an easy 2c opener. 2c is 22+ balanced, or ~9+ tricks in a major. It is not 100%GF, it's merely nearly GF. You can generally stop in 3M if opener bids a major twice and responder has a trickless hand, depending on methods. Or if opener shows the 22-24 balanced hand.

If you weaken the hand to only 8 tricks, generally one opens the major, and choose between rebidding:

• jump shift into fragment
• 4M with more distribution, less high cards than the jump shift hands
• 3nt if by agreement shows long running major over 1nt (sometimes 3nt easier to make than 4M, partner can judge when to pull)
• if partner makes a GF 2/1 bid, usually 3M if the major is solid.

A minority of players may also employ "Namyats", 4c/4d openings showing ~8.5 tricks in hearts/spades respectively for near 2c hands/strong preempts.

As a British player myself, my understanding of SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card) is similar. 2♣ is not unconditionally game forcing, even with a one-suited hand. The opener can stop in 3 of a major or 4 of a minor opposite a total Yarborough. I have even seen that written in a book on SAYC from many years ago. Even strong ♣ systems like Precision would have similar difficulty identifying one small card such as the ♣10 that would make game a realistic proposition. Here most players would bid 2♣ - 2♦ (waiting or negative) - 2♠ - 2NT/3♣ (second negative depending on your methods) - 4♠ and hope for the best.

In the play the opponents could set up the extra trick in ♣ for you by leading the suit, or alternatively on any other lead you could run your trumps and hope for the opponents to defend incorrectly, or possibly find partner with a trump entry such as the ♠10 and the ♦Q for a potential loser discard.

There's another way to look at this hand also, even if partner has nowt and you cannot make 4♠ and go one down: the opponents can probably make a part score possibly in ♥s, though realistically that is never going to be bid as you have the higher-ranking suit and will always outbid them. So scoring-wise it may not be a total disaster. Both non-vulnerable, and especially vulnerable, games are there to be bid, and it would be 'wussy' (as my husband says) not to be in game on the above hand.

[johnu]

portslade, on 2019-September-26, 08:08, said:

As a UK player I normally use varieties of ACOL but with one partner play Standard American. An issue arose last week which prompted this query. How do you bid a strong hand (containing 8 playing tricks) which is not really game-forcing and therefore not appropriate for 2C opening. For example:
♠AKQJ752
♥4
♦AK
♣QJ7

Why is this hand not game forcing? As little as ♣10 or a club lead against 4♠ on most hands makes game the odds on favorite. You've got 9 1/2 winners in hand. 2♣ seems like a pretty automatic bid playing weak 2's and strong 2♣. Even if 2♣ was played as game forcing, I would not stop short of game with this hand.

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-September-26, 08:58, said:

A minority of players may also employ "Namyats", 4c/4d openings showing ~8.5 tricks in hearts/spades respectively for near 2c hands/strong preempts.

There's a significant difference between an 8 1/2 trick hand and this hand which has 9 1/2 tricks. This hand is too strong for a Namyats bid IMHO.

[Stephen Tu]

johnu, on 2019-September-26, 22:08, said:

There's a significant difference between an 8 1/2 trick hand and this hand which has 9 1/2 tricks. This hand is too strong for a Namyats bid IMHO.

Maybe you forgot to read the part of my post where I stated the given hand was 9.5 tricks and a clear 2c opener? And that the Namyats section was in the part of the post dealing with "if you weaken the hand ..."

[thepossum]

portslade, on 2019-September-26, 08:08, said:

As a UK player I normally use varieties of ACOL but with one partner play Standard American. An issue arose last week which prompted this query. How do you bid a strong hand (containing 8 playing tricks) which is not really game-forcing and therefore not appropriate for 2C opening. For example:
♠AKQJ752
♥4
♦AK
♣QJ7

I know I'm a fairly ordinary intermediate level player but if any partner didn't open that with a game force (in any system) I may be rather upset.

[cleveritis]

Most people play 2c is NOT a game force - if you rebid your suit.
2c - 2d (wait)- 2S - 2N or 3c (double neg) - 3S can be dropped
Acol 2s are forcing for a round - so you are in the same spot

[barmar]

HeavyDluxe, on 2019-September-26, 09:58, said:

That said, the groupiest group of people I played with consistently played 2♣ as all 22+ or any 'distributional within a trick-ish of game in your best suit'.

What makes one group "groupier" than another?

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2019-September-27, 09:06, said:

What makes one group "groupier" than another?

Choice of bands

[HeavyDluxe]

barmar, on 2019-September-27, 09:06, said:

What makes one group "groupier" than another?

Serious reply: There were a half-dozen of us that were being mentored by an older player. We were all in a similar life stage, so we were online constantly together. "Time and togetherness" makes some groups groupier.

Oh...

hrothgar, on 2019-September-27, 09:12, said:

Choice of bands

... and that.

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-September-26, 22:11, said:

Maybe you forgot to read the part of my post where I stated the given hand was 9.5 tricks and a clear 2c opener? And that the Namyats section was in the part of the post dealing with "if you weaken the hand ..."

Sorry, I did miss that part. For me, you'd have to change the ♦K to ♦x to have a Namyats opener, so a king difference is really a pretty big difference and the hands would be very different.

[dsLawsd]

The most important thing in my view is that we start with the HCP value but then award extra point value for each length beyond 6 (and sometimes 5 when the criteria is just needing 1 point.

Also playing with most people there is the solidity of the suit.
If 3S shows a solid suit and is still forcing (my usual agreement) then do that. Otherwise just bid 4S over the wait bid of 2♦.
That is why many prefer to use a 2nd negative up front for 0-3 or to answer controls in steps (A=2 K=1).
On this hand if opener just bids 2♠ then even over a second negative you have 10 likely tricks so you go 4♠.

Responder: over 2M raise to 3 with something like a trick plus support in spades and bid 4 denying a trick. That leaves the second negative as showing dreadful support no ruffing value etc...

[rmnka447]

FelicityR, on 2019-September-26, 18:41, said:

As a British player myself, my understanding of SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card) is similar. 2♣ is not unconditionally game forcing, even with a one-suited hand. The opener can stop in 3 of a major or 4 of a minor opposite a total Yarborough. I have even seen that written in a book on SAYC from many years ago. Even strong ♣ systems like Precision would have similar difficulty identifying one small card such as the ♣10 that would make game a realistic proposition. Here most players would bid 2♣ - 2♦ (waiting or negative) - 2♠ - 2NT/3♣ (second negative depending on your methods) - 4♠ and hope for the best.

Exactly!!

HCP aren't as important as trick taking ability in strong unbalanced hands. Disciplined Standard American bidders will open a strong 2 ♣ with a 4 loser Major hand or a 3 loser Minor hand. I would anticipate the auction that Felicity suggests for this hand. The operative thing is responder's second bid since 2 ♦ is usually waiting. The partnership has to agree on a second negative over opener's rebid. Originally, that was 2 NT. But it's more common now for either cheapest suit or cheapest minor to be the negative with cheapest minor more prevalent.

The hand in question is a 3 loser Major hand so definitely qualifies for a SA 2 ♣ opener.

Sometimes SA bidders might choose to open 1 of a suit with 2 or 3 suited hands that could qualify for a 2 ♣ opener to facilitate easier bidding. Usually these are hands on the cusp of being 2 ♣ openers.

[blackshoe]

thepossum, on 2019-September-26, 22:47, said:

I know I'm a fairly ordinary intermediate level player but if any partner didn't open that with a game force (in any system) I may be rather upset.

Precision doesn't have a game forcing opening bid. It's not the only such system, either.

[thepossum]

blackshoe, on 2019-September-27, 23:42, said:

Precision doesn't have a game forcing opening bid. It's not the only such system, either.

Are you really incapable of basic comprehension. Why do some of you have the need to travel threads to find something to have a go at me over. Clearly I bid the forcing bids in whatever system I play, all of which use a game force 2C. Obviously in a different system my comment means to force to game in whatever way is appropriate for that system. What is you people's problem. I don't notice anyone else unnecessarily specifying systems to be excluded from their sentence. They would be long and boring sentences wouldn't they

It's a case of let's have a go at The Possum whatever he says. You only make yourselves look stupid