6-5 majors and strong

[bid_em_up]

2♣ for me. I don't foresee any trouble describing this hand after a strong opening...

 

2♣ 2♦

2♠ 2/3x

4♥

 

etc..

Really?

 

You don't forsee auctions like:

 

2♣-(3♣)-p-(5♣)

 

2♣-(2N minors)-p-(5m)

 

2♣-(4♦)-p-6♦

 

awaiting your future on these hands?

[whereagles]

I usually don't think in terms of worst-case-scenarios :)

 

Besides, I can always dbl for take out on those auctions.

[pclayton]

2♣ for me. I don't foresee any trouble describing this hand after a strong opening...

 

2♣ 2♦

2♠ 2/3x

4♥

 

etc..

Really?

 

You don't forsee auctions like:

 

2♣-(3♣)-p-5♣

 

2♣-(2N minors)-p-(5m)

 

2♣-(4♦)-p-6♦

 

awaiting your future on these hands?

Are we really that better placed if we opened 1♠ and we get to take our next call at the 5 level? Are our vulnerable opponents more or less likely to interfere over a 1 level opening than a 2♣ opening?

[mikeh]

 

Are we really that better placed if we opened 1♠ and we get to take our next call at the 5 level? Are our vulnerable opponents more or less likely to interfere over a 1 level opening than a 2♣ opening?

I don't know about your experience, but mine suggests that opps, whether vul or not, are more prepared to interfere on long suits with weak hands after 2♣ than 1♠. While the risk has gone up for them, so too has the potential gain.

 

A 3rd seat 1♠ opening is rarely seen as threatening a making slam. A 3rd seat 2♣ opening may easily be en route to slam and is surely going +620 or more.

 

So that argument fails.

 

On the given hand, I admit that my choice of 1♠ would likely work out very poorly. I am an aggressive responder, but I also play BART over a semi-forcing 1N that fetches a 2♣ response, so I have no way to find and stop in 2♦, which really adversely affects the decision to respond.

 

As it is, I bid 1♠, lose 10 imps and move on to the next hand, unrepentant.

 

Now, if I have a similar experience relatively soon and in the meantime see no perceptible gain from my approach, I will consider lowering my 2♣ requirements. But one hand is an insufficient sample.

[pclayton]

 

Are we really that better placed if we opened 1♠ and we get to take our next call at the 5 level? Are our vulnerable opponents more or less likely to interfere over a 1 level opening than a 2♣ opening?

I don't know about your experience, but mine suggests that opps, whether vul or not, are more prepared to interfere on long suits with weak hands after 2♣ than 1♠. While the risk has gone up for them, so too has the potential gain.

 

A 3rd seat 1♠ opening is rarely seen as threatening a making slam. A 3rd seat 2♣ opening may easily be en route to slam and is surely going +620 or more.

 

So that argument fails.

 

On the given hand, I admit that my choice of 1♠ would likely work out very poorly. I am an aggressive responder, but I also play BART over a semi-forcing 1N that fetches a 2♣ response, so I have no way to find and stop in 2♦, which really adversely affects the decision to respond.

 

As it is, I bid 1♠, lose 10 imps and move on to the next hand, unrepentant.

 

Now, if I have a similar experience relatively soon and in the meantime see no perceptible gain from my approach, I will consider lowering my 2♣ requirements. But one hand is an insufficient sample.

And next time my 2♣ opening may get bombarded with preemption and I end up in the wrong strain at the 5 level and, as a result, I'll reconsider my approach.

 

We are all the sum-total of our experiences. :)

[inquiry]

You guys have misIrable choices... do you open 1♠, do you open 2♣, how about 4♠... Oh the MisIry. Chalk another one to maybe the opponents will keep the auction open for you, or open 2♣ where you can not stop short of 4♥ even if that is an overbid. Too bad there isn't some other choice on hands like this, that reduces the chance for intereference, and even if it comes, it is less effective, that while forcing you to 3 level, allows you to stop there, and doesn't require the opponent to save you when your partner passes your 1 bid and you have game on.

[bid_em_up]

2♣ for me. I don't foresee any trouble describing this hand after a strong opening...

 

2♣ 2♦

2♠ 2/3x

4♥

 

etc..

Really?

 

You don't forsee auctions like:

 

2♣-(3♣)-p-5♣

 

2♣-(2N minors)-p-(5m)

 

2♣-(4♦)-p-6♦

 

awaiting your future on these hands?

Are we really that better placed if we opened 1♠ and we get to take our next call at the 5 level? Are our vulnerable opponents more or less likely to interfere over a 1 level opening than a 2♣ opening?

Personally, I think so, for basically the same reasons Mike mentions.

 

Opps are much more likely (imo) to preempt aggressively opposite a 2C opener than they are vul against vul over a 3rd seat (or even 1st/2nd seat) 1S opener. This would be even more probable if they were favorable.

 

Another point I would make is that I would much rather have both of my suits named when making my second call at the 5 level, if forced to do so. Certainly, this has to be a big two suited hand.....you are not bidding it as a sacrifice.

 

I ask you Phil, wouldnt you bid 3C with LHO's holding over 2C on the hand in question (Or double to show clubs)? I know I would be likely to do so. What does North do? Pass or bid 3D, probably. Now East may well bid 5C. Back to you....

 

Now yes, your penalty of 5C is a better result than playing 1S (and so is 5H). But effectively, you had no chance of playing 4S to begin with.....and if you open 2C, you will never be able to bid 5H (which has play, as opposed to 5S which doesnt).

[bid_em_up]

what kind of hand passes in first seat and then preempts over a 2 ♣ opening?

This one's easy.

 

4th seat hasnt bid yet :rolleyes:

 

It's likely to be his hand that preempts, or bids and gets raised by his partner.

 

And there are still some people who play some semblence of discplined preempts who may not have a preemptive opener, but would certainly make a preemptive bid over a 2C opener.

[bid_em_up]

I usually don't think in terms of worst-case-scenarios :rolleyes:

 

Besides, I can always dbl for take out on those auctions.

Oh, thats nice.

 

Since when is X by a 2C opener for takeout at the 5 level? (Or the 6?)

 

How often do you think partner is actually going to take it out? After all, you have a big hand, its probably better to defend, no matter what his hand is.

 

What if he takes the X of 5D out to 6C? Do you really a 6H/6S bid now shows 6-5 in the majors?

 

Sorry, I fail to see your logic here.

[Finch]

I'm surprised at the amount of passion this hand generates.

 

I would open it 1♠, but I think it is right on the edge. For all the arguments against a 2C opening on this type of hand, you eventually arrive at a hand that is so strong you open it 2C anyway. Give opener the ace of spades in addition, and everyone would open it 2C. Give opener the SA instead of the SQ and I would open it 2C although I don't know if mike would. In fact, give me any three of the top 4 spade honours and I think it becaomes a 2C opening. The spades are just ratty enough that I'm unhappy about having to go to the 5-level in them opposite a doubleton.

 

There are two risks associated with opening this hand at the 1-level, and only one has been mentioned: the first is you play in 1♠; the second is that you get too high. Opener may feel obliged to do more bidding just to get across how strong his hand is. Suppose you start

 

1S - 1NT

3H(say) - 3NT

 

now what?

If you bid 4H, partner will pass with hands where slam is making.

If you bid 4C you have shown a 5413 or 5404, not a 65 in the majors.

 

At least if you open 2C, partner will suitably appreciate the major suit jacks.

 

Anyway, compared to some actions I've seen analysed on BBO, if the worst my partner ever did was open 2C/1S (take your pick) we should all be happy....

[whereagles]

Opps are much more likely (imo) to preempt aggressively opposite a 2C opener than they are vul against vul over a 3rd seat (or even 1st/2nd seat) 1S opener. This would be even more probable if they were favorable.

Well, I could argue that out of the suits opps might have, clubs isn't that much of a problem since opps would need to overcall 3♣. In other words, what was

 

1♠ (2♣)

 

might now be

 

2♣ (pass)

[whereagles]

I usually don't think in terms of worst-case-scenarios :rolleyes:

 

Besides, I can always dbl for take out on those auctions.

Oh, thats nice.

 

Since when is X by a 2C opener for takeout at the 5 level? (Or the 6?)

 

How often do you think partner is actually going to take it out? After all, you have a big hand, its probably better to defend, no matter what his hand is.

 

What if he takes the X of 5D out to 6C? Do you really a 6H/6S bid now shows 6-5 in the majors?

 

Sorry, I fail to see your logic here.

All dbls are for take-out until a suit is found, at any level. What's the problem? :P

 

If it goes

 

2♣ (2/3♦) pass (5♦)

dbl (pass) 6♣ (pass)

 

I now bid 6♥ asking pard to select another suit. Simple, no?

[mikeh]

I'm surprised at the amount of passion this hand generates.

 

I would open it 1♠, but I think it is right on the edge.  For all the arguments against a 2C opening on this type of hand, you eventually arrive at a hand that is so strong you open it 2C anyway.  Give opener the ace of spades in addition, and everyone would open it 2C.  Give opener the SA instead of the SQ and I would open it 2C although I don't know if mike would.  In fact, give me any three of the top 4 spade honours and I think it becaomes a 2C opening.  The spades are just ratty enough that I'm unhappy about having to go to the 5-level in them opposite a doubleton.

 

There are two risks associated with opening this hand at the 1-level, and only one has been mentioned: the first is you play in 1♠; the second is that you get too high.  Opener may feel obliged to do more bidding just to get across how strong his hand is.  Suppose you start

 

1S - 1NT

3H(say) - 3NT

 

now what?

If you bid 4H, partner will pass with hands where slam is making.

If you bid 4C you have shown a 5413 or 5404, not a 65 in the majors.

 

At least if you open 2C, partner will suitably appreciate the major suit jacks.

 

Anyway, compared to some actions I've seen analysed on BBO, if the worst my partner ever did was open 2C/1S (take your pick) we should all be happy....

Agree absolutely (despite the language employed by me earlier). This is on the cusp: I would open 2♣ with KQJxxx AKQxx void Ax. It is precisely the weakness in the ♠ suit that dissuades me from opening 2♣. If ♠ are to be trump, I want to maximize the chance that partner will at some point be able to make a clear raise/strong preference... which probably cannot happen after a 2♣ auction even without interference.

 

I also agree absolutely that if anyone's worst error was opening this hand either 2♣ (if 1♠ is 'right') or 1♠ (if 2♣ is right), then they can partner me anytime, in any event.

[neilkaz]

...

Agree absolutely (despite the language employed by me earlier). This is on the cusp: I would open 2♣ with KQJxxx AKQxx void Ax. It is precisely the weakness in the ♠ suit that dissuades me from opening 2♣. If ♠ are to be trump, I want to maximize the chance that partner will at some point be able to make a clear raise/strong preference... which probably cannot happen after a 2♣ auction even without interference.

 

I also agree absolutely that if anyone's worst error was opening this hand either 2♣ (if 1♠ is 'right') or 1♠ (if 2♣ is right), then they can partner me anytime, in any event.

The initial hand is right on the cusp of 1S or 2C for me. I'd try 1S in first or 2nd seat, but am a bit concerned about a pass out in 3rd seat and have no preference between 1S and 2C. In 4th seat, both opps have passed and if they can drum up preemption over 2C vulnerable..well, heaven help them when they are wrong if I hold something else for my 2C opener since I am afraid of being passed out and missing game.

 

With Mike's stronger hand above I open 2C all day in any seat since game looks like almost 100% opposite anything and I can make a slam if PD has a couple cards.

 

With the initial hand I wouldn't criticize a PD for 1S or 2C in any seat if playing a standard "American" 2C sys.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[keylime]

I choose 1♠, happily.

 

If they are going to bid minors, so be it. Pard will be a lot better off than if I open 2♣, and the auction comes back to me at 5♦ knowing that the only thing I have is a good playing hand. I need to involve pard immediately. If pard finds a 1NT call, I have the easiest 4♥ rebid (or 3♥ is that is considered G/F).

 

The other problem is, opening this hand with some sort of strong opening makes you one step behind in the auction. This is a hand where a slam is opposite almost any 6 count pard tables as long as the primary honor cards aren't diamonds.

 

I feel the premise that because I open 2♣ to deter competition, is asking for a five of a minor to be dropped in your lap with this hand when pard and you probably have not discussed how to cope with interference of 2NT for minors. Pass being positive, double being negative is of absolutely no help to this fine hand.

[the hog]

Phil, I totally disagree with you here. I think a 2C opening is poor for a number of reasons - 2 suiters, even if they are Ms are notoriously difficult to show over a 2C opening, and yes I agree with Mike that good players will strive to pre empt a 2C opening much more readily than a 1S opening.

[whereagles]

good players will strive to pre empt a 2C opening much more readily than a 1S opening.

Well, that goes both ways. If, on the one hand, 1♠ shows something about shape, there's a lot to tell about the hand (especially if you open 1♠ on 2-loser hands...), on the other hand, the 2♣ opener may contain the dreaded 23+ balanced hand, which is an aggressive preempter's worst nightmare and something the 1♠ opener could never show.

 

In short, while it's more attractive to preempt 2♣ than 1♠, it's definitely scarier to do so. Whether or not that evens it out, it's anyone's guess.

[the hog]

"In short, while it's more attractive to preempt 2♣ than 1♠, it's definitely scarier to do so. "

 

Actually I don't agree with this coment at all. I tend to find good players try to get in at all costs. You may well be right though in that mediocre ones seem to let you have a free run

[inquiry]

In my BridgeBrowser study of strong two suiters (while developing MisIry) I found a surprizing bit of data: Opening 2♣ gave better results than opening one of a suit. That surprized me, so I resticted to strong two suiter WITHOUT CLUBS, to see if strong club systems did better (on average) than opening one of the long suits. Again the answer was yes. This raises a lot of issues, is this due too vigerous competition after 1C/2C opening, is it due to less missed games (ie, 1suit-ppp), are on average --- people who play a strong club system better players than those who do not, etc. For strong hands with 17-18 hcp, only 1♣ opening bids averaged better than "average'. as the hands get stronger, opening 2♣ became the clear statistical winner. That was a huge surprise to me.

[whereagles]

"In short, while it's more attractive to preempt 2♣ than 1♠, it's definitely scarier to do so. "

 

Actually I don't agree with this coment at all. I tend to find good players try to get in at all costs. You may well be right though in that mediocre ones seem to let you have a free run

Well, just because they try to get in at all costs doesn't mean they don't sweat hard until the dust settles ;)

 

But you're right that weaker players tend to let 2♣ openers undisturbed.

[HeartA]

In my BridgeBrowser study of strong two suiters (while developing MisIry) I found a surprizing bit of data: Opening 2♣ gave better results than opening one of a suit. That surprized me, so I resticted to strong two suiter WITHOUT CLUBS, to see if strong club systems did better (on average) than opening one of the long suits. Again the answer was yes.  This raises a lot of issues, is this due too vigerous competition after 1C/2C opening, is it due to less missed games (ie, 1suit-ppp), are on average --- people who play a strong club system better players than those who do not, etc. For strong hands with 17-18 hcp, only 1♣ opening bids averaged better than "average'. as the hands get stronger, opening 2♣ became the clear statistical winner. That was a huge surprise to me.

Ben,

 

Thanks for your job well done. In my opinion, 2C opening not only make game bidding easier, but also let his partner treasure his few HCPs, especially when those HCPs are the key ones.

 

For the hand posted on this thread, pd would (almost) NEVER have interest in slam, holding Axx, xxx, xxxx, xxx, while grand has a good chance. And some responder would pass 1S opening.

 

I agree that one should foresee the interruption from opps, but to over-emphasize the interruption by reducing the accuracy of bidding would certainly reduce the pleasure of the game.

[cherdano]

I'm surprised at the amount of passion this hand generates.

 

(...)

 

There are two risks associated with opening this hand at the 1-level, and only one has been mentioned: the first is you play in 1♠; the second is that you get too high. Opener may feel obliged to do more bidding just to get across how strong his hand is. Suppose you start

 

1S - 1NT

3H(say) - 3NT

 

now what?

If you bid 4H, partner will pass with hands where slam is making.

If you bid 4C you have shown a 5413 or 5404, not a 65 in the majors.

 

At least if you open 2C, partner will suitably appreciate the major suit jacks.

 

Anyway, compared to some actions I've seen analysed on BBO, if the worst my partner ever did was open 2C/1S (take your pick) we should all be happy....

That risk is what I was trying to get to when I asked above how Mike would show he has this hand, not some prime 17hcp 5521-hand after 1S-1N-3H-3S.

 

FWIW, I haven't really picked my side on this issue, but the discussion here (and similarly earlier threads) hasn't really been helpful in making up my mind, as the discussion always stops before the 3rd round of bidding, where it starts to get interesting.

 

I remember a quote from Justin in an earlier discussion, where he said he is now opening 2♣ more often, because he doesn't want to guess whether to bid slam. The 1♠ supporters haven't even scratched the surface about how they avoid this guess.

[Guest Jlall]

I remember a quote from Justin in an earlier discussion, where he said he is now opening 2♣ more often, because he doesn't want to guess whether to bid slam.

Indeed, I would now open this hand 2C not out of fear that 1S will be passed out (a very rare event) but that I will not be able to show my playing strength having opened 1S and will later be forced to guess what to do in the auction. Instead I would like to show partner my enormous playing strength by opening 2C and then show a 2 suiter. The downside is obviously that I may not be able to comfortably show my suits if they preempt but in my experience the opps to not always preempt to 5 of a minor by the time the auction gets back to me. If they preempt to 4 of a minor I won't get hearts in but I'll be better off than those who open 1S first and then have to deal with 4 of a minor since they'll feel obliged to jump maybe to 5H and might be too high. There is an argument that they preempt more when you open 2C than 1S which is true but I think that on most of the hands where they bid over 2C they bid over 1S as well so it's not that big of a difference.

[mike777]

I love to open 2c more open than most even with 2 suited hands but I open one spade here. Need room to find my fit or nonfit.

[mikeh]

The question has been asked, appropriately, about how I (as a 1♠ opener) plan to show my true strength after 1♠ 1N 3♥ 3♠

 

Obviously, I have a problem to which there is no readly apparent answer (in my methods). I'd like to say: well, I'd cue 4♣ of course, but is it clear that this is a cue-bid rather than patterning out, still in the hunt for the best denomination? If I held AKJxx AKxx void AQxx I'd sure argue that 1♠ then 3♥ then 4♣ was a good description of my hand: and if I hate opening two-suiters 2♣, I hate three-suiters even more, altho I will treat 4441's with a stiif Q or higher as balanced.

 

I would bid 4♥ over 3♠ and then probably 5♣ over 4♠...or pass... I suspect that which I chose would depend on my frame of mind at the time: it is that close. Of course, this approach risks disaster no matter which way I go.

 

However, are we any better off after 2♣ 2♦ (waiting) 2♠?

 

A lot depends on methods, of course. Some play control showing responses, some play 2♦ waits with cheaper minor second negative and some (me for one) play 2♥ immediate second negative.

 

On that method, the fact that responder chirped 2♦ helps me no more than responder's 1N to my 1♠.

 

Let's say he bids 3♠ over my 2♠. Now am I better off at this 3♠ level than I am if he gives me preference over a jump shift?

 

Playing 3rd seat 4 card majors, as I do, 1N sure doesn't deny 3♠, so I cannot even say that I know more about his ♠ length on the 2♣ auction: yes, on that auction he will have longer ♠ on average but that is not that helpful. Jx will be as good as xxx. Ax will be much better than Jxx.

 

I suspect that I will actually be ahead after 2♣ IF he raises ♠s right away because I think that turns 4♣ into a cue bid rather than a suggestion of an alternate trump suit. But if he responds 4♠, can I pass any more safely than after the jumpshift auction where he corrects 4♥ to 4♠? I doubt it. Should he be bidding beyond 4♠ with Axx xxx xxxx xxx?

 

One could spend hours trying to analyze the likely paths that auctions take after other responses to 2♣ or other developments after 2♠. But I think that the truth is that neither opening can lay claim to a decided advantage in end result.

 

As for Ben's analytical work, I really don't give much credence to it. While other studies have interested me, this one is fundamentally flawed by the wide range of expertise of the players sampled.

 

Bad players really fare very badly in the area of bidding big hands that don't start with 2♣. Maybe that is one reason that (in my experience) bad players tend to have lower requirements for 2♣ opening bids. As I commented early on this thread, many less-experienced players lack the confidence in themselves and/or partner to bid accurately to game if they don't open 2♣.

 

I think what Ben has discovered is evidence consistent with this lack of confidence: poor players routinely screw up big hands when they don't open 2♣. Their partner passes with a decent 5 count and they play the 1-level, or their partner passes the strong jumpshift, or they open the lower ranking suit in order to 'reverse' into the higher but equal (or longer) suit and so on. At least, with 2♣, they generally get to the right suit and to game, which is usually a good spot opposite even a light 2♣ opening bid.

 

There are many ways to screw up auctions, so bad players will do better on short auctions than on long ones, and 2♣ auctions (that end in game) are usually shorter than after a 1-level opening.

 

Now, if he could filter the results to include only hands played by (say) star players, that would be of some use, even tho there are non-star players as good as many stars and at least a few stars whose stars should be revoked based on things I have seen them perpetrate (of course, maybe I live in a glass house in that regard, so I don't actually advocate star-ectomies :) :rolleyes: ) I don't think that this analysis can be done, however.