2C or not 2C?

[hrothgar]

I think that this is a quite good problem

 

For what its worth, I'm torn between 2♣ and 1♦. I see significant costs and advantages to both approaches. Ultimately, I suspect that I'd open 1♦ at the table. I have very easy descriptive rebids over any advance that partner choses. (Hell, if I'm lucky enough to hear partner advance 1♥ I get to trot out the much maligned 4♦ rebid). Yes, there is a risk that partner will pass 1♦, however, my short Spades make it likely that the opponents will take a bid.

 

On this same topic, part of the danger of a 2♣ opening is that the opponents are going to interfer over our strong 2♣ opening. (We're red, they're white. Equally significant, folks are learning that lots of pairs don't have any good agreements after interference over strong, artifical, and focing 2♣ openings)

[keylime]

If playing anything but control showing responses to 2♣, I open 1♦.

 

With control showing responses then I open 2♣; I pretty much have a near game in hand and am interested in a potential six diamond slam.

 

I had a similar hand in vein about a month ago; I held:

 

AKQJx

AKJ9xx

void

xx

 

I opened this 2♣ and pard found a 3 diamond (5 controls!) bid. Got to a superb seven of a major contract.

[Guest Jlall]

With control showing responses then I open 2♣; I pretty much have a near game in hand and am interested in a potential six diamond slam.

 

I had a similar hand in vein about a month ago; I held:

 

AKQJx

AKJ9xxx

void

xx

 

I opened this 2♣ and pard found a 3 diamond (5 controls!) bid. Got to a superb seven of a major contract.

I don't really understand your reasoning here. In addition to having 14 cards, you have about the worst possible hand type for control showing responses. You want to know WHICH controls partner has, as well as try to find spades if partner has a stiff heart, or find out about the queen of hearts. Number of controls doesn't help you. Voids, uncontrolled suits, and trump suits that need minor honors or 2 suiters are the worst hand types for control showing responses. In natural methods where partner almost always bids 2D, you will be able to get both of your suits in relatively low and hopefully establish a fit and start cuebidding. That will deal with the main issues of this hand (strain, club control).

[keylime]

Justin,

 

I got crazy with the X's. :-)

 

For me, playing 2C-2D as a waiting bid and 2C-2H as a bust is punishing partner for having those types of hands. I rather know right off the hop what pard's main values are to steer the auction accordingly. I've never been a fan of the 2D -> G/F, 2NT -> heart, G/F, and 2H -> bust.

 

Pard after opener's rebid can identify their controls in passing (fwiw, I also use Kokish relays). Maybe it's a style thing but ever since I've starting playing controls, my 2♣ bidding is a lot easier on both sides.

[mikeh]

Control showing responses have never really caught on in the expert community, despite some noticeable exceptions (Steve Robinson, for one, from what I understand). Dwayne, your example, adjusting for 13 cards, proves less than nothing.

 

Less, because opposite a 5 control response, I would expect any competent pair to reach the optimum contract while your methods would be seriously impaired by, for example, a 3 control response. You then have to find your fit (bearing in mind that you have a two suiter and your fit, if any, may be in the second suit) and then discover whether those 3 controls have anything to do with the ♣ suit. As Justin pointed out, your example hand is actually a good example of why control showing responses are viewed as inefficient by most experts.

[keylime]

Mike,

 

If we play a 2H bust structure for example, then isn't opener forced to open 1H and hope that he/she isn't passed out?

 

(edit)

 

Responder on a non-descript 5 count with an Ace and Jack so to speak - then after 1H, many would not bid forcing NT not being able to withstand a jump response (which many play as G/F or G/I in the least) from opener.

[Kalvan14]

I play (over 2♣): 2♦, waiting bid at least semi-positive; 2♥ and 2♠ are paradox-style, with a bust in the bid major; the other bids are positive, and quite well defined.

 

In the posted hand, if you open 2♣, you hear 2♦.

What is your pleasure now? 2N or 3♦? I'd like a quick poll.

 

Over 1m, we bid with minimum hands too (1M promises 4-5 HCP)

[mikeh]

Mike,

 

If we play a 2H bust structure for example, then isn't opener forced to open 1H and hope that he/she isn't passed out?

 

(edit)

 

Responder on a non-descript 5 count with an Ace and Jack so to speak - then after 1H, many would not bid forcing NT not being able to withstand a jump response (which many play as G/F or G/I in the least) from opener.

I have never seen a 2♣ structure that has no flaws: it is, in that regard, like every other bidding approach I have ever seen, or anticipate ever seeing.

 

I play 2♥ immediate negative, and in some partnerships, 2N is positive in ♥.

 

Playing 2♥ immediate negative requires that opener's rebid of 3♥ over 2♥ be forcing. Thus 2♣ opening bids force to 2N, 3♠ or higher.

 

This reflects a modest cost compared to cheaper minor second negative, but the advantages are huge, at least in my opinion.

 

Cheaper minor 2nd neg, allows the partnership to get out in 3♥, after 2♦ - 2♥- 3♣ - 3♥.

 

But at the cost of losing the natural, descriptive cheaper minor bid. They also lose the ability to use 3♦ as a form of stayman after 2♣ 2♦ 3♣: I and many others use 3♦ here to allow opener to pattern out with long ♣ and a 4 card major, or to allow opener a chance to bid 3N. Cheaper minor players are in real trouble on this auction, since they cannot begin to describe their suit holdings until they have completed their strength description: thus on weak hands they must bid 3♦. Now partner bids 3N and they cannot safely look for a major suit contract.

 

2♥ immediate negative means that, since 2♣ is now tantamount to a gf if based on primary ♥, 1♥ is wide range and it in turn means that responder should strain to keep the auction alive (I cannot imagine passing 1♥ with an Ace and a Jack, but that has nothing to do with this 2♣ style: I just think that passing with values is fundamentally unsound). This does represent a further modest cost.

 

This takes me back to where I came in: all systems and styles have costs. 2♥ immediate negative works extremely well for me. I have tried control, I have (many years ago) played cheaper minor 2nd neg. and so on, but I am very happy with my current approach.

[Guest Jlall]

3D for me. I plan on missing hearts if partner doesn't bid them.

[Kalvan14]

I agree 100% with Mikeh: 2♣ is a specialised bid, necessary to take some pressure off the 1-level openings. Either you restrict 2♣ pretty well, or otherwise you will never be able to bid it, starting from so high a level.

 

This is the rationale for the big club systems; obviously, since it is a zero sum game, you gain something (better definition on strong hands, and limited 1M openings) and you loose something else (1♦ is a kind of garbage bin, and often you need both 2m's to simplify a bit 1♦).

 

I've played Big Club systems for year; then I went back to natural systems.

[whereagles]

For the record, yesterday I played a tournament without any strong bids. 2♣ was weak with clubs, and any strong hand would open at the 1-level (non-forcing!), or perhaps at game level with game-in-hand.

 

Guess what? No strong hands came out, and we did get to open a weak 2♣ once for a good score (opps overbid to a hopeless game).

 

This, of course, is too small a sample for the methods, but it goes to say that it is perfectly playable to open any moderately strong hand at the 1 level and clear up 2♣ for something which does come out every now-and-then... The corollary is simple: why play a strong 2♣ opener if you never use it?

[Gerben42]

EHAA does not have a strong 2♣ bid but is a bit gambling. A solid system without a 2♣ bid is Fantunes.

 

Anyway, I prefer a direct 2nd negative 2♥ response to 2♣ (in fact 2♠ also 2nd negative).

 

Then you can bid this hand with 2♣ 2♦ 3♥ showing a 3♦ rebid with 4♥.

 

I had a similar hand in vein about a month ago; I held:

 

AKQJx

AKJ9xx

void

xx

 

I opened this 2♣ and pard found a 3 diamond (5 controls!) bid. Got to a superb seven of a major contract.

 

If partner has that much you were going to bid slam anyway, in which case you have a lot of room and I find it hard to believe one would not bid it otherwise. Also you had to start bidding your suits at the 3-level and still got there so I don't see how this is a commercial for control showing respponses.

 

I see Gerben, you are now responding with xxxx Jxxxx xx xx? smile.gif

 

Arend

1♦ is forcing in Fantunes! :blink:

 

What do you guys have against 2♣ openings? Whenever I see a "2♣ or not" problem, almost everybody opens something other than 2♣...

 

If you never open 2♣, you might as well play that as WEAK.

 

It's because if you need to ask there is another option, and since that other option takes less space or will be more descriptive it's usually taken!

[Gerben42]

For Arend:

 

[hv=w=skhktxxdakqxxxcak&e=sxxxxhjxxxxdxxcxx]266|100|[/hv]

 

1♦ (13+ 4+♦)

1♠ (0+ 4+♥ more ♥ than ♠)

1NT (18+)

2♦ (0 - 5, 4/5♥)

4♥ (Okay no slam then)

[cherdano]

Well, Gerben, my impression was that the question was assuming

1. no Fantunes system

2. no special rebid structure after 2♣ that allows showing hearts with longer diamonds.

 

Of course I could be mistaken, the original poster was assuming Fantunes, and just testing all of us whether we could remember the agreement.s

[Gerben42]

1. no Fantunes system

2. no special rebid structure after 2♣ that allows showing hearts with longer diamonds.

 

Sure, 1. can't be helped but 2. is just self-torture :blink:

 

Given the conditions I open 1♦.

[reisig]

2♣ Using 2♣ 2♦ 3♥ showing 4+♥ with longer ♦s is what I'd suggest.

[jdulmage]

You have a 4 loser hand, you have 8.5 quick tricks and need half a trick from your partner to make 3NT. Open 2♣ all day. If you and your partner don't have a partnership agreement for 3NT (you don't play it 25-27 and you don't play it gambling, you just don't play it period like my partner and I), then you could open 3NT and watch it pass out - this prevents the opponents from having any sort of chance to find a lead by doubling or bidding.

 

3NT is almost a given anyways, you have 2 sure clubs and either a heart or a spade for 3 tricks and 6 diamonds for 9 total tricks. If partner has 1 diamond for you, it is 35% that they will split and if he has 2 diamonds for you, it is 67% that it will break. The odds are good enough in IMPs.

 

Any other bid would be suicide.

[Kalvan14]

3NT is 2 off: 6 spades loosers on the lead (pard has 2 small spades). Good result, considering that 6♦ is a lay-down.

 

Sorry guys: no one has convinced me. I'll go on opening 1m this kind of hands.