Clustering strong openers in one bid

[Syl20]

Hi,

 

With the increase of agressivity, people want to have as many weak openings as possible (such as Micky's 2♦/♥/♠ Siege for instance).

 

I like the idea of using all the 2 level opening bids for preemption and dedicate one bid (2♣) for strong hands (this of course applies to non strong club systems).

I wonder how well we can then handle all those strong meanings in one bid without interference.

For instance, if 2♣ clusters all strong two's, balanced 21+Hcp and GF hands,

do you think it is possible to bid constructively, what scheme would you design?

 

After little thoughts, I am thinking of:

2♦ = GF (5-6+Hcp), any shape

other = (0-4H) pass/correct style

but some further developments shall be awkward.

 

Any thoughts welcome,

[Gerben42]

For an idea on this, have a look at this site:

 

http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/two/clubs.htm

 

That doesn't really include Acol Two in a minor hands but these can be put into Multi 2♦ or simply opened 2♣ or 1m anyway.

 

However, I am a strong proponent of protecting the strong 2♣ opening bid with a weak two in ♦, as in Siege. This can be done without much loss of precision for our side, and opponents cannot really preempt you as effectively as an "only strong" 2♣.

[whereagles]

Sly, I've been playing like this for a long time. Unfortunately, I haven't settled in a lengthy response scheme because such a 2♣ opener is STILL very rare. I just use one of the standard sayc-2/1 response schemes after 2♣.

 

Another idea, which you might want to look at, is to dump this type of 2♣ opener into 1♣ (making it forcing, responder bidding 1♦ if weak 0-4) and free up the 2♣ opener to a weak 2.

[han]

In North America it is standard to have only one forcing opening (2C). Of course, this doesn't say anything about the best response structure, but it does suggest that it is playable.

[han]

Another idea, which you might want to look at, is to dump this type of 2♣ opener into 1♣ (making it forcing, responder bidding 1♦ if weak 0-4) and free up the 2♣ opener to a weak 2.

Sounds like a primitive Polish-club system.

[Echognome]

In North America it is standard to have only one forcing opening (2C). Of course, this doesn't say anything about the best response structure, but it does suggest that it is playable.

I think the main difference that is being proposed is to include the 2NT opening bid into 2♣ as well. I.e. making 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT = 20-21 (22?) bal. Of course then you have to figure out how to bid your other big balanced hands. I think that is why this works with a strong 1♣ better than a strong 2♣. (I'm not saying that it doesn't have other problems!)

 

But e.g.:

 

1♣ (16+) - 1♦(<9) - 1♥(19+) - 1♠ (<6) - ?

 

1NT = 19-21 bal

2NT = 22-23 bal

2♣ = ART GF (including 24+ bal)

 

So the several extra steps help immensely. Over 2♣ you just don't have the room.

[han]

2C commonly includes balanced 22+, now Syl wants to include 21+.. is that the big deal?

 

Ah, I notice now that Syl also wants to include strong 2's. I assume that means 8+ trick hands. That seems a bad idea to me. You will have so many different kinds of hands that it will be very hard to sort out. Compare this for instance with inquiry's system. He allows strong 2's for the 2C opening, but never opens 2C's with 2-suiters or strong balanced hands, which makes the opening managable.

 

If you want to play all opening bids of 2♦ and higher as purely preemptive then I'd open at the 1-level with the old fashioned strong 2's, and play the 2C bid as strong balanced or GF unbalanced.

[hotShot]

Getting all sorts of strong hands into one bid is playable, but not with the structure you have given.

 

You need to play the 2♦ relay as very weak.

This way you can stop in 2♦,2♥ and 2♠, if you just have a semiforcing. If you have a strong hand with a 6+ length in one of these suits. You can bid and stop in 2NT with balanced hands. Only problem is in ♣, you must find a different solution there (e.g. 3♣).

If your rebid is above 3♣ you have a full GF.

Any other bid from partner should show more than minimum strength and be GF.

[inquiry]

Gerben42 has already given you a link to Chris Ryall 2♣ bidding structure which is what I use with the double paradox responses of 2♥ and 2♠. I incorporate all of those ideas (from the cavendish homepage) into my 2♣ structure plus additional ideas.

 

1) This allows 2♣ to be opened more frequently. For instance, all ACOL two bids in a major are opened 2♣. This dramatically alters the upper limit on your 1H and 1S opening bids and meaning and the stregth of your jump rebids etc in the major you opened.

 

2) I include the roman three suiter hand type in the 2♣ opening bid. The lower limit on hcp range can creep pretty low, 15 or 16 with the right spots. So far, so good with this bidding structure. Once again this has some dramatic effects on openers hand where he shows a three suiter but didn't open 2♣.

 

3) Just as Chris suggest on his web page, I use multi 2♦ for the big balanced hand (very good 22 or 23-24) and ACOL two in a minor. Thus if I open 2C with a balanced hand or with a minor one suiter, they are both 100% game force stregth. These hands are very rare, but easily bid when they come up.

 

4) As Hannie pointed out, I don't open 2♣ with ANY strong two suiters (no matter how strong). This is nearly typical of most strong 2♣ players as these hands get hard to bid, but there are some hands taht are so strong, others will revert back to 2♣. I use that Misriry convention for these strong hands (I do not consider 6-4, 5-4, 7-4 two suiters, also note, if I open 2C and then bid two suits, second one is NEVER MORE THAN 4 cards).

 

5) I use naymats for some hands with lot of potential in a major but too few controls.

 

Taken together, this structure removes from opening bid of one of a suit,

1) Acol two bids in any suit - (2c or 2D)

2) Distributional monsters with lots of tricks for a major (4C or 4D)

3) Strong two suiter with 4 or less "losers" (2N, 3C or 3D - misiry)

4) "strong" three suiters - (2C), as well as

5) any GF hand without two suiter (2C)

 

This structure, does a few things. First, it allows 2♣ to be opened more often (the acol two in major and the strongish three suiters), it compartmentalizes the hand patterns, and it greatly limits the upper stregnth of 1C to 1S opening bids (hand not strong two suiter, hand not Acol 2 bid, hand not one of the strong three suiters), making the subsequent auction (after the 1 of suit bid) easier to define. For instance,

 

1x-1y-3z, openers jump shift will always be a second suit (not jumping on three card suit to create a force), and will always be LESS than the misiry opening bid so in fact, it is not even forcing although highly constructive.

 

1M-any-Jump 3M = will always be less than an acol 2 in the major, etc.

 

So rather than combine all the strong bids into one opening (2C), the approach I took (based largely upon the ideas of Chris Ryall) was to pull out some strongish hands and place them in bids with multiple meaning (2D, 2N, 3C, 3D), to place constraints on the type of hands that are opened 2C.

[blackshoe]

About half a century ago, George Rosenkranz observed that playing 2♣ as the sole forcing opening bid creates several problems. One of them has to do with bidding strong minor suit oriented hands - it takes a bit of room, in standard methods, to describe a two suited hand, particularly when the primary suit is a minor. His solution was to take the GF ♦ hands, and all the "almost GF" hands, out of 2♣ and put them somewhere else. Romex has four strong openings: 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, and 2NT. Doesn't help much with the modern tendency to weaker bids*, but there you are.

 

*At a recent sectional I held

 

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sakqj8642hj54dcj2]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

My RHO opened 2♦, I bid 2♠ (should have bid 4), they ended in 5♦ doubled, down 1. At the other table, my team mate holding East's cards declined to open, and the opponent holding my cards bid 2♣. They got to 4♠, and made it when my team mates, expecting more high card strength in declarer's hand, misdefended. The TD's comment was "people are opening 2♣ with weaker and weaker hands these days". Feh. Play EHAA, then (EHAA has no strong opening bid).

 

Some interesting Romex auction fragments:

 

2♣-2♦-3♣ --- GF, two suited, primary clubs. 3♦ asks for the second suit.

2♣-2♦-3♦ --- GF, one suited, clubs.

2♦-2♥-3♣ --- GF, two suited, primary diamonds. 3♦ asks for the second suit.

2♣-2♥-3♦ --- GF, one suited, diamonds.

[hrothgar]

My RHO opened 2♦, I bid 2♠ (should have bid 4), they ended in 5♦ doubled, down 1. At the other table, my team mate holding East's cards declined to open, and the opponent holding my cards bid 2♣. They got to 4♠, and made it when my team mates, expecting more high card strength in declarer's hand, misdefended. The TD's comment was "people are opening 2♣ with weaker and weaker hands these days". Feh.

I'd be interested in knowing where you were playing.

 

The EBU White Book has an example that deals with this exact issue (A player opening 2♣ with a single suited hand in Spades). The White book clearly indicates that the partnership opening 2♣ is guilty of one of two possible infractions:

 

1. The partnership has an illegal agreement regarding the definition of their 2♣ opening bid because the bid does not conform to the "Rule of 23".

 

or

 

2. The player opening 2♣ has psyched a strong, artificial, and forcing opening

 

I believe that the ruling in the ACBL would be similar.

 

For what its worth, the EBU has gone to a lot of time and effort creating the White Book and the Orange Book. Personally, I think that this was time well spent. I hardly ever play in Britain, but I feel genuinely comfortable regarding the most issues that I might rn into across the pond. (members of the forum may have noted that I often quote the White/Orange books in cases like this one. Personally, I think that its some of the best document for TDs available in English)

 

Associated with this, I think the the EBU does a good job debating various proposed changes in the regularotry structure with the membership. I can think of a couple good example whether senior members of the EBU posted on rec.games.bridge and the Bridge laws mailing list asking for comments about different proposed changes. (One dealt with EBU regulations surrounding "random" bids. The other focused on whether the "Law of 18" was a absolute standard or whether players had the option of applying judgement)

[glen]

Romex has four strong openings: 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, and 2NT.

Fantoni-Nunes have four forcing openings: 1♣, 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠.

 

Based on frequency, I would not invest much of system resources to hands that are game forcing on their own.

 

I was not certain what "Clustering strong openers in one bid" was compared to sayc - is this just moving the 2NT opening hand types into 2♣? If so, freeing up 2NT has limited value.

[blackshoe]

The ruling in the ACBL would, unfortunately, not be similar to one from the EBU with the same situation. That hand I spoke of was in an ACBL Sectional Tournament in New York State, USA. The General Convention Chart (GCC) was in effect. That chart says a 2♣ opener must be either "strong" or a three suiter with 10+ HCP. The problem is that (a) the ACBL nowhere defines "strong" and (B) the ACBL has apparently decided that if a player believes a hand with any eight playing tricks qualifies as "strong" then so be it. B)

 

I got that last, BTW, from Rick Beye, ACBL CTD.

 

Me, I'm gonna ask lots of questions from now on when opponents open 2♣. B)

[Syl20]

For an idea on this, have a look at this site:

 

http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/two/clubs.htm

 

That doesn't really include Acol Two in a minor hands but these can be put into Multi 2♦ or simply opened 2♣ or 1m anyway.

 

However, I am a strong proponent of protecting the strong 2♣ opening bid with a weak two in ♦, as in Siege. This can be done without much loss of precision for our side, and opponents cannot really preempt you as effectively as an "only strong" 2♣.

I suppose you are right.

 

Reason wants to include strong two in minors or balanced within 2♦ (that I wanted to play mini-Multi) to lighten the 2♣.

 

Could you please tell responder's actions after 2♣ if they also include the weak 2 in diamond variant (in case they differ from Siege)?

 

Thanks all :P