The 2C bid? Useless? What do you think?

[Quantumcat]

Here's what I think. 2C openings mostly serve as an ego boost for those who open them and don't serve much purpose besides this.

 

Indeed, most people seem to open them with really really shapely hands ("I had five losers, partner") but not particularly HPC intensive, so not only would it be very unlikely that partner will pass due to having few HCP, but it's also likely there will be a LOT of bidding (if you're shapely, so are the opponents and/or partner).

 

The only point of the strong bid is to stop your partner passing when a 3 count could still land you a cold game, isn't it?

 

In addition, must people get confused in 2 club auctions, even partners who play a lot together, because they come up so infrequently. It's quite likely that even though you got your partner to not pass, you still end up in the wrong spot. This can be remedied by having a normal, natural auction. It helps of course to understand what bids are forcing and gameforcing in your system but any competent pair can do that.

 

It seems much better to use 2C as a pre-emptive bid, which would come up fairly often compared to a "true" 2C.

 

I like: 2C = C&S (2D=D&S, 2H=H&S and 2S=S) and third seat 2C=C&H (2D=D&H, 2H=H and 2S=S)

 

So anyway what do others think? (I have no idea if this has been discussed before)

[gwnn]

Try Fantunes?

[hotShot]

Each bid in your bidding system has 2 useful aspects.

 

The first is of cause it's direct use.

The 2nd is it's effect on the other bids.

If you have a strong forcing opening in your system, it limits all other openings and allows partner to pass an opening bid.

 

Playing Precision you limit your other bids to 15HCP, Polish Club limits other bids to 17HCP and SAYC puts the limit at 22HCP. Pushing the limit up reduces the frequency of its direct use and reduces the limiting effect on the other bids, making it less useful.

 

So I agree that a simple SAYC 2♣ opening is not very useful, but if you remove it from the system, you will have to do a lot of redefining.

Your 1suit openings will now be 12-37 HCP, how strong should responder be?

[Quantumcat]

Responder always responds as per normal. Only when you are extremely strong and not shapely but somehow couldn't bid 2NT or 3NT is the auction likely to go out. Shape means other people are going to bid! It doesn't matter that your p will pass. If you lose out it would have to be very unlucky circumstances, couldnt happen more than once a year. And this losing out doesn't take into account the fact that even on these hands, other people will have misunderstandings (esp likely with a 2C open) and get into the wrong slam or game, or the slam that seems cold has no play and you stay out of it accidentally. You only lose out on the hands where these sorts of things don't happen as well!

[han]

I don't agree, you need a forcing opening.

[Quantumcat]

Tell me exactly why! Or better, come up with 5 or 10 hands where you lose out (and keep in mind with the bidding I only play with and against fellow youthies).

[benlessard]

At MP im pretty sure that a a sensible use for 2C (5C+4/5 in other suit) will compensate enough for the guessing youll make with a strong hand. But in IMPs too much imps are at stakes on big hands.

 

I know a pair that doesnt use forcing opening and he told me that he was saved by a reopening X.

 

1S------(P)--------P----------X

6H------(P)--------7H making.

 

I was pretty sure he was joking , but ive asked and it did happen !

[hotShot]

Tell me exactly why! Or better, come up with 5 or 10 hands where you lose out (and keep in mind with the bidding I only play with and against fellow youthies).

Many hands that fits this description:

 

HCP distribution 22 - 7 - 5 - 6 (Your partnership has 27 HCP, and you won't get an overcall or reopening dbl.)

Where opps don't have a weak 2 in 2nd seat.

Partner can't raise your opening .

[PrecisionL]

Examples won't convince (there are so many for either side of the argument). Theoretically there needs to be one forcing opening. However, try EHAA if you want all weak 2-bids (it has NO forcing opening).

[hotShot]

Of cause you can do without a forcing opening, but you need agreements:

 

1) About a lot of ways opener can force additional bidding, if he holds 20-37 HCP. Strong hands with 4-5 loser come up about once an evening (20-26 boards). They are more frequent than a strong NT opening. This is frequent enough to teach responder to keep the bidding open for one more round. While you might miss a game each round, you'll easily lose more overbidding on the other hands.

 

2) You will have to live with a few "pass out" boards, where game is on for your side.

 

There are solutions for all problems.

 

I think Fatunes added the weaker regular openings to the weak two's, to make the 1inSuit openings stronger.

[rbforster]

EHAA doesn't have a forcing opening as I recall - although all their 2N/3N openings are big balanced and have wider ranges than standard. It's not the end of the world, but without one you might need to blast game/slam on some hands or give up some game level preempts to be "natural".

[glen]

My wife and I have been playing BRASS for close to two years - love it but this is from the inventor and I hope you hate it since I don't want to play against it - put generally you need to have more hand types in 2♣ to make it useful.

 

2♣ Brass: Brass

 

Another option:

1) Put all 2♣ hand types into 1♣ - opening is now forcing

2) Put all very strong, but less than a game force, ♦+♣ hands into 1♦

3) Play 1♣-1♦ as diamonds or negative

4) Play 1♣-any;-2♦ as standard 2♣ opening like

5) Use 2♣ for something else - for example since everybody likes Flannery, use 2♣ as Flannery, as little as 10 points (since 2♦ can ask) - this is ACBL GCC legal but you might want to call it Clannery

[han]

Tell me exactly why! Or better, come up with 5 or 10 hands where you lose out (and keep in mind with the bidding I only play with and against fellow youthies).

Exactly is too much to ask for, but I will give you two reasons:

 

Without a forcing opening you will not do well on very strong hands. You often won't be able to show the strength of your hand below game level, and by going past game you will be too high. Your slam bidding and even your game bidding will suffer on those hands.

 

Your 1X openings will have a wider range. Your partner will trust your jumpshifts less because you might have a huge hand that can't be described in any other way.

 

I think it isn't a good idea at MPs but you'll often survive. At IMPs it will be a really big loss. Look at any system that's commonly played, be it SAYC, ACOL, Polish club, precision, Fantunes, Romex, some Swedish club, anything. It will have a way to show strong hands and that is not a coincidence.

[awm]

At MP I think it's generally a winner. I have some friends who've tried this and do well with it.

 

With no strong bid, you will occasionally have trouble bidding the big hands. However, these big hands are pretty infrequent (maybe one every two or three sessions). And sometimes you will survive the auction in any case (partner might scrape up a response or opponents might bid). In fact occasionally you will do better on a strong hand due to bidding it naturally.

 

So while there is a net loss on the occasional big hand, you're likely to win a bunch of boards by having 2♣ available as a weak bid.

 

At IMPs the tradeoff changes, because while the strong hands are still infrequent they often have a very large number of IMPs riding on making correct decisions. Many of the hands you win because of the preemptive 2♣ will be smaller swings.

[mike777]

Reminds me in a big way what Barry Crane said...forgot about slam bidding. Of course he mainly played MP or short teamgames.

[H_KARLUK]

It all depends partnership agreements. I am not a system maker. I just try to follow the people climbed the hill before me. They are many steps ahead and their traces mostly sign helpful hints.

 

Meanwhile new ideas are welcomed. For me worths to read. What i know from Poker "size is not important, seize is the matter" :blink:

[glen]

Here's an example of a standard system modified for no 2♣ opening - the pair was on the strong Turkish team in the open world championships:

 

Turkey: Koksoy-Ozgul.pdf

[P_Marlowe]

Here's an example of a standard system modified for no 2♣ opening - the pair was on the strong Turkish team in the open world championships:

 

Turkey: Koksoy-Ozgul.pdf

...

 

The convention cards states, that the pair uses the 1C

opener as forcing opening bid.

 

Similar Fantunes opening bids are forcing for one round,

hence they dont need a 2C opening bid, and because the

level opening bids are forcing, to open with a 1 level bid,

you need to have a fairly good hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Tell me exactly why! Or better, come up with 5 or 10 hands where you lose out (and keep in mind with the bidding I only play with and against fellow youthies).

#1 General remarks:

 

Please keep in mind, that I am not going to

defend a strong 2C opening, if you dont like

opening 2C openings, play strong club systems,

or 2-way club systems or ...

Also a forcing opening bid, does not need to force

the partnership to game.

But depending on the level the bid occurrs, the bid

should promise more strength the higher the level.

 

#2 Why do you need a forcing opening bid?

 

Sometimes you happen to hold a hand with 23 or

more points, hence you need to buy time to get the

hand across, if you dont have a forcing opening you

need to guess.

Because we are talking about big hands, swings which

occur on those hands will be expensive, and it may or

may not cost the match.

 

#3 Do system exist, without forcing opening bids?

 

Yes, EHAA, the idea is, that you gain from the preemption

enough to be able to pay for the loses.

But EHAA is not played a lot, a pair I do know played it,

but they played it with an forcing opening bid of 1C,

the system is called EHAA+

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[glen]

The convention cards states, that the pair uses the 1C opener as forcing opening bid.

It actually does not state it, just implies it by stating 1♣ is natural or 22+ - one would hope an opening that can be 22+ would be forcing.

 

They use 1♣-1X;-2♦ to show the strong hand type, as I discussed in system mods above.

[MFA]

The convention cards states, that the pair uses the 1C opener as forcing opening bid.

It actually does not state it, just implies it by stating 1♣ is natural or 22+ - one would hope an opening that can be 22+ would be forcing.

1♦ reply to 1♣ is 0-5...

 

...

Surely one needs a forcing opening or it will be impossible to handle the strong hands reasonably.

[glen]

Surely one needs a forcing opening or it will be impossible to handle the strong hands reasonably.

I agree (and as I noted the cc implies 1♣ is forcing), but the first question I would ask this pair if I sat down against them would be: "is 1♣ 100% forcing - never/ever passed?", just to ensure we could employ the right defense against their opening.

[P_Marlowe]

Here's what I think. 2C openings mostly serve as an ego boost for those who open them and don't serve much purpose besides this.

 

Indeed, most people seem to open them with really really shapely hands ("I had five losers, partner") but not particularly HPC intensive, so not only would it be very unlikely that partner will pass due to having few HCP, but it's also likely there will be a LOT of bidding (if you're shapely, so are the opponents and/or partner).

<snip>

Just because you encounter peoble, who use

the 2C opening in a way you dont agree, does

not mean you dont need the bid.

 

There is a saying, "it is not the car, which kills the

driver".

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[glen]

I should add the story of what occurred more than once when we played 1♣ much like the Turkish pair.

 

Partner opens 1♣

I alert

RHO asks

I explain "artificial, either a standard 1♣ opening, but not a hand that would open 1♣ and reverse to 2♦, or a standard 2♣ opening - 22+ artificial, often balanced. Over 98%* of the time opener has a standard 1♣ opening"

 

* from our simulations with Bridge WorkBench

 

Now RHO digests this, studies his hand, considers options, studies his hand some more, and finally passes.

 

You have something like a 3=3=4=3 4 count. You sign for the telegram from RHO, and then pass 1♣, allowing LHO to determine the UI considerations.

 

And that's why I would ask if 1♣ was 100% forcing, never ever passed.

[MFA]

I should add the story of what occurred more than once when we played 1♣ much like the Turkish pair.

 

Partner opens 1♣

I alert

RHO asks

I explain "artificial, either a standard 1♣ opening, but not a hand that would open 1♣ and reverse to 2♦, or a standard 2♣ opening - 22+ artificial, often balanced.  Over 98%* of the time opener has a standard 1♣ opening"

 

* from our simulations with Bridge WorkBench

 

Now RHO digests this, studies his hand, considers options, studies his hand some more, and finally passes.

 

You have something like a 3=3=4=3 4 count.  You sign for the telegram from RHO, and then pass 1♣, allowing LHO to determine the UI considerations.

 

And that's why I would ask if 1♣ was 100% forcing, never ever passed.

It seems to me that you are spending too much energy on the opponents' system.

I couldn't care less if 1♣ is passable.

Clearly one should defend against this 1♣ opening as against a normal 1♣ opening.

If the opponents are willing to take such dubious inferences from your pauses and make such huge violences of partnership system on that basis, the more the better!