Another What Would You Open?

[awm]

You pick up this hand, all vulnerable at matchpoints. You are playing 2/1 without any conventional two-suited openings (so 2♦ and 2♠ are weak two bids). What's your opening call?

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sat854h7dkjt865cq]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

[Guest Jlall]

pass for me

[the hog]

Given the system I pass. If you forced me to open I would open 1S. Certainly not 1D which could easily leave me in a position to either never show my S or else totally overstate the strength of my hand by reversing.

 

Btw this shows the value of 2 suited openings, doesn't it? I am surprised more in the US don't use them. Is this due to system restrictions, eg you can't open 2S showing 5/5 S+m

[655321]

1♦

[mikestar]

Given the system I pass. If you forced me to open I would open 1S. Certainly not 1D which could easily leave me in a position to either never show my S or else totally overstate the strength of my hand by reversing.

 

Btw this shows the value of 2 suited openings, doesn't it? I am surprised more in the US don't use them. Is this due to system restrictions, eg you can't open 2S showing 5/5 S+m

I suspect that system restrictions are the issue. Constructive 2-suited openings must have 2 known suits to be legal on the ACBL General Convention Chart which governs over 90% of the duplicate bridge played in North America. The requirement that both suits be know limits the utility of these bids, so they are not much played (except Flannery in some circles).

[whereagles]

I'm sure Ben votes for a ZAR 1♠ :)

[Roupoil]

I would pass. If I open, it will be 1♠. I am quite surprised ACBL doesn't allow 2♠ bid with spades and unspecified minor. I play it frequently in france without problem and I thought we were one of the most restrictive countries concerning conventions...

[Guest Jlall]

Given the system I pass. If you forced me to open I would open 1S. Certainly not 1D which could easily leave me in a position to either never show my S or else totally overstate the strength of my hand by reversing.

 

Btw this shows the value of 2 suited openings, doesn't it? I am surprised more in the US don't use them. Is this due to system restrictions, eg you can't open 2S showing 5/5 S+m

I believe you can use 2M M+m preempt in all events here, but you cannot use multi except in top bracket regional or higher. I could be wrong about this, but obviously no one would play the 2 suited preempts if they had to give up on a weak 2 bid.

[Fluffy]

its a clear 1♠ opening.

[hrothgar]

Given the system I pass. If you forced me to open I would open 1S. Certainly not 1D which could easily leave me in a position to either never show my S or else totally overstate the strength of my hand by reversing.

 

Btw this shows the value of 2 suited openings, doesn't it? I am surprised more in the US don't use them. Is this due to system restrictions, eg you can't open 2S showing 5/5 S+m

I believe you can use 2M M+m preempt in all events here, but you cannot use multi except in top bracket regional or higher. I could be wrong about this, but obviously no one would play the 2 suited preempts if they had to give up on a weak 2 bid.

As I recall, Mike Flader or Rick Beye or some such issued some ruling that a 2M opening that shows 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is natural. Therefore, it is legal at the GCC level.

 

I was completely flabberghast by this ruling. However, I never managed to get any kind of rational explanation. In particular, no one was ever able to explain to me why the ACBL's Defensive Database which, in theory, only applies to Midchart methods, contains a suggested defense to a GCC legal method

 

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2g.htm

 

In any case, if I actually believed that this was legal in a GCC level event, I'd happily trade in my standard weak 2M openings (showing a 6 card major) for a Muiderberg type opening showing a 5+ card major and a 4+ card minor.

 

1. These openings are a lot more common that a traditional weak 2 opening, which is good because I think that opening like Muiderburg are positives in their own right.

 

2. Having a weak 2 suited opening helps to discipline my one level openings

[Guest Jlall]

Fair enough, I think most people would rather use weak 2s but maybe not. I think it is GCC legal though.

[pclayton]

Given the system I pass. If you forced me to open I would open 1S. Certainly not 1D which could easily leave me in a position to either never show my S or else totally overstate the strength of my hand by reversing.

 

Btw this shows the value of 2 suited openings, doesn't it? I am surprised more in the US don't use them. Is this due to system restrictions, eg you can't open 2S showing 5/5 S+m

I believe you can use 2M M+m preempt in all events here, but you cannot use multi except in top bracket regional or higher. I could be wrong about this, but obviously no one would play the 2 suited preempts if they had to give up on a weak 2 bid.

Technically you can play midchart if the average masterpoint holding per player in the bracket is 1,000 (I think, it might be 1,500 now).

 

By the way, I pass this hand. I'll have a better chance to get my suits in later.

[awm]

The legality of two-suited openings in general chart events is highly mysterious. Basically the issue boils down to:

 

(1) In addition to what's allowed by the general chart, we're obviously allowed to play bids that mean what they say. For example, a 2♠ bid showing six spades is obviously allowed, but I don't see it on the chart anywhere.

 

(2) It is not clear whether the exception implied by the first point applies to "any natural bid" or to "any non-conventional bid" nor whether in fact there is any difference between the two. It seems implicit by the way the general chart is written (i.e. definition of natural precedes rules about conventional methods allowed) that the first point may be for natural bids, but this is never specifically stated.

 

(3) It seems clear based on additional documents from ACBL that canape one-level openings are allowed. These would seem to fall under the "conventional but natural" definition especially if promising a longer suit (i.e. always canape, rather than majors-first-always). This further suggests that "natural bids" may be generally allowed.

 

(4) De facto (rules on the ground), a lot of people play weak two bids that deny a side four-card major. There are also people who play weak two bids that promise 2-3 cards in any unbid major (Bailey twos). All of these have consistently been ruled okay on the general chart, even though they are arguably "conventional" (strong inferences about suitability for play in a suit other than the one bid).

 

(5) The inclusion of a defense to a weak two-level opening showing 5M/4m in the defense database suggests that this method may not be general chart, as no suggested defense is needed for general chart methods.

 

(6) Flader and Beye have replied to emails by issuing conflicting rulings (Flader says it's allowed, Beye says not). This is typically non-useful.

 

(7) After talking to several top players in my area (some of whom are involved in laws committees and such) the consensus seems to be that this is "director's discretion" and that the right procedure is to clear the method with the director prior to any event you plan to play. This seems somewhat intolerable, since the choice of two-level bid structure might have substantial effect on your other opening calls.

 

Anyways, while this is all quite interesting (and frustrating) we should go back to the regularly scheduled hand. B)

[jdonn]

I think this is an easy pass. Especially if you play just 1 way drury (so you can bid 2♦ next round if partner opens 1♥), this will be a very easy hand to show after passing initially on almost any auction.

[mike777]

2d if we agreed to open sound

1d if we agreed to open lite

 

Pass is also fine I think.

[Guest Jlall]

I think this is an easy pass. Especially if you play just 1 way drury (so you can bid 2♦ next round if partner opens 1♥), this will be a very easy hand to show after passing initially on almost any auction.

I would bid 1S over partners 1H in this scenario fwiw. The thought of losing a five FOUR spade fit is too much for me.

[hrothgar]

(3) It seems clear based on additional documents from ACBL that canape one-level openings are allowed. These would seem to fall under the "conventional but natural" definition especially if promising a longer suit (i.e. always canape, rather than majors-first-always). This further suggests that "natural bids" may be generally allowed.

 

Canape is a treatment, not a convention (This is long standing policy)

 

As an analogy, consider the auction 1♥ - 3♥

 

Some people define this as a limit raise

Other people define this as forcing raise

yet others define this as a preemptive raise

 

None of these bids are conventions. They are separate and distinct treatments. In much the same manner, most people show two suited hands by first showing their longest suit and then showing their shorter suit. This is a treatment.

 

Other folks prefer a style in which they show their shorter suit and then their longer suit. This is a different treatment.

 

Neither style is considered conventional.

 

This dates back to Kaplan, if not before

[awm]

So if I open 1M, and it promises some cards in the major I bid but also guarantees length in some other suit, that's just a treatment?

 

But if I open 2M, and it promises some cards in the major I bid but also guarantees length in some other suit, that's conventional?

 

I don't get it.

 

I thought any bid that promised length in some other suit (besides the one bid) was automatically supposed to be conventional. Apparently "conventional" has something to do with how old an approach is?

[grrigg]

Canape means that you are allowed to have a longer minor than a major. Opening one major promises a 5-card suit with a possibility of a longer minor. The opening bid doesnt promise another suit, but you might have it. Is there really a system that makes 1M a two suited opening?

 

2M as major + minor actually shows two suits, not as possibility (you could also just decide to open 2M as weak 2 on 5-5) but as a guarantee. I think there is a clear difference.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

If I would open, 1D it would be.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[cjames]

I think I would go for passing..

[helene_t]

So if I open 1M, and it promises some cards in the major I bid but also guarantees length in some other suit, that's just a treatment?

 

But if I open 2M, and it promises some cards in the major I bid but also guarantees length in some other suit, that's conventional?

 

I don't get it.

I don't get it either, but maybe the Auken/vonArnim major suit openings are treatments and the Napolitan major suit openings are conventional. Not sure about Muiderberg, then, but reverse Muiderberg (4M5+m) would surely be conventional. Something like that. On a Canape-scale where 0 is longest-always-first and 100 is 2nd-longest-always-first, everything above 61.5347 is conventional :)

[hrothgar]

So if I open 1M, and it promises some cards in the major I bid but also guarantees length in some other suit, that's just a treatment?

 

But if I open 2M, and it promises some cards in the major I bid but also guarantees length in some other suit, that's conventional?

 

I don't get it.

 

I thought any bid that promised length in some other suit (besides the one bid) was automatically supposed to be conventional. Apparently "conventional" has something to do with how old an approach is?

You're confusing a "canape" bidding style with a bidding style where a given set of openings shows a two suited hand.

 

As a practical example, lets assume that you are playing Blue Club (one of the best known canape style systems). You get dealt the following:

 

♠ QJT964

♥ K54

♦ A42

♣ K2

 

This is a clear 1♠ opening. You intend to rebid 2♠ over 1NT or 2X.

 

For what its worth, I'd argue that an agreement that a 1M opening guarantees length in some other suit is conventional. In a similar vein, an agreement that a 2M major opening guarantees length in another suit is also conventional.

 

However, none of this discussion applies to canape.

[pclayton]

Yesterday in the KO's I picked up ATxxx QJTxx xx K. I passed and Hamish Bennett at the other table opened 1S. He got to a hopeless 4H opposite pards 10 count. Gene Simpson at my table didnt think this was an opener either.

[skjaeran]

I'd pass this.

If I was going to open, I'd bid 1♦.