2C?

[nige1]

These are 2 hands that I held last night. My actual bidding choices resulted in disaster. With an expert but unfamiliar partner, what would you do and why?

[han]

You are joking about the second one right? I wouldn't open 2C on either but the first one is a lot closer.

[jdonn]

You are joking about the second one right? I wouldn't open 2C on either but the first one is a lot closer.

Ditto. I think there is a plausible style that opens 2♣ on the first, but it's minority and certainly not mine, indeed most of my friends would probably laugh at me for even saying opening 2♣ is plausible.

[effervesce]

Two-suiters are notoriously hard to handle after a 2♣ opening, as it is difficult to show both suits. They're much easier to bid by showing the two suits. To open the first hand as 2♣ I'd need a king extra. For the second hand I'd need an AK extra.

 

1♠ opening then jump-shifting in hearts for the first hand, and opening 1♦ jump-shifting to clubs on the second hand if partner responds 1♥ or 1NT or rebidding 2♣ if partner responds 1♠.

[neilkaz]

You are joking about the second one right? I wouldn't open 2C on either but the first one is a lot closer.

I'm close to 2C on the first but won't do it either.

[kenrexford]

I might open 2♣ in third seat as a desperation move, because my 16th point allows a plausible(?) argument that this is not actually a psychic. :)

[han]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is merit to psyching with that 16-point hand or is this your way of pointing out that 2C is way off?

[Finch]

It depends a bit on your oppponents.

 

Against people who think it's bad manners to come in over a strong 2C opening, a psychic 2C on the second may be surprisingly effective, you play in 3NT off lots with them cold for 4M. And the "16 points" remark may get you round the ACBL rule that you aren't allowed to psyche a 2C opening, as you can argue it's sufficiently strong.

 

I can't think of any other reason to open 2C.

[kenrexford]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is merit to psyching with that 16-point hand or is this your way of pointing out that 2C is way off?

I'm suggesting that, if this is the last board of a KO, and my strong estimations place the team down by about 13-14, and I know this for a certainty, and I am in third seat white on red, and LHO looks really eager but concerned, and I have been drinking, then I might trot out am "aggressive" 2♣ as a pseudo-psychic to stir things up, maybe.

 

Or, in other words,

 

2♣ is so far off that it is closer to a psychic than to a legitimate bid. Duh!

[mcphee]

I would not be happy to see any partner of mind open either hand 2C. This is not what 2C bids look like.

[blackshoe]

It depends a bit on your oppponents.

 

Against people who think it's bad manners to come in over a strong 2C opening, a psychic 2C on the second may be surprisingly effective, you play in 3NT off lots with them cold for 4M. And the "16 points" remark may get you round the ACBL rule that you aren't allowed to psyche a 2C opening, as you can argue it's sufficiently strong.

 

I can't think of any other reason to open 2C.

If you psych a 2♣ opening, and then when called on it claim you didn't psych because 16 points is "strong", you're cheating.

 

OTOH, I'm told by the ACBL CTD that "srtong" means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means, so if you truly believe your hand is "strong", you aren't psyching. Deluding yourself, maybe, but not psyching. :)

[awm]

A 2♣ opening on the first hand seems fine to me.

 

If you open 1♠, you could easily miss a game opposite many hands. Partner could have as little as ♠xx ♥Txxx ♦xxx ♣xxxx and you have very good odds to make 4♥. If partner has three-card support for either major then you should have some outside shot at game even if partner has very few high cards. And if partner has something like ♣A+♥Kxxx, while you will certainly reach game after opening 1♠ it becomes somewhat difficult to get to the excellent slam (probably your auction is 1♠-1NT-3♥-4♥ and you have to guess whether to bid on). This is a three-loser hand with 19 hcp.

 

It is also not usually difficult to show your suits after opening 2♣ when you have both majors.

 

The second hand is ridiculous. You are nowhere near making game; even if partner has four-card support for one of your minors you probably can't make 5m (even 4m will be a struggle if partner has no high cards outside spades). And you need partner to control two suits for 3NT after which you still don't necessarily have the nine tricks. You have only 16 hcp and a lot of losers. In fact after opening 1♦, if partner responds 1♠ I'm not even forcing to game on this hand (I'd rebid 2♣)!

 

Even if you made this hand stronger by about an ace-queen, it would pay to avoid opening 2♣ on this shape because it is very hard to show your distribution at a reasonable level.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

If at all, the first, NA style, the answer is neither.

 

Neither hand is strong enough to insist on game,

unless you have a fit, and if you play 2/1 partner

will respond with 4-7 and 3 spades, hence the

risk of missing game, if you open 1? is not huge.

 

The first one has the adv. that you will be able to

bid both suits at a convinient level, opening the second

means, you have finished your description bidding

4C, which means, there is not a lot of room to look for

6 (and of course you bypassed 3NT).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[nige1]

1. North ♠ A K Q x x ♥ Q J x x x ♦ A K ♣ x
   South ♠ x x ♥ K x x x x ♦ x x x ♣ x x x
   
2. North ♠ ♥ x x x ♦ A Q J 9 8 ♣ A K Q 9 x
   South ♠ Q J x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x x x x
   

The above hands occured in an aggregate tournament (close enough to rubber bridge). My expert partner is teaching me 2/1. Like most polled, I opened 1♠ and 1♦ respecitvely. My expert partner passed (and I would have done the same).

 

Unfortunately, local players look at their hands before they protect. Also other pairs were stuck with stone-age Acol. So they had no trouble reaching game, after opening 2♠ and 2♦ respectively.

 

I posted these hands because they may have some bearing on two other current BBO topics

• Poll: The 2C bid? Useless? What do you think?. IMO Forcing openers can be useful.
  
• Acol advice Hamman claims that system is 20% or less of the game. IMO Acol is a fine system with the right protagonists. For example, the Sharples Brothers were unbeatable in bidding competitions.
  

[blackshoe]

Hamman claims that system is 20% or less of the game.

 

That's probably true — for Hamman. Most of us aren't him.

[jdonn]

Hamman claims that system is 20% or less of the game.

 

That's probably true — for Hamman. Most of us aren't him.

I believe in Rosenberg's book Hamman was quoted as implying it was less than 3%. The point is agreements are important, exact system is not. For all levels of player.

[awm]

I'll just comment that:

 

(1) Hands like these are why I opened 2♣ on the first hand.

 

(2) On the second hand, game isn't really all that good. To make 5♣ you need clubs not 4-0, the diamond finesse, and a good enough diamond break that you can establish the suit. For example if the minors are 4-2 and 3-1 respectively (and ♦K on) you probably go down. This is substantially less than 50% to make game. You could play in 3NT of course, but you are off at least six top tricks in that contract.

[maggieb]

A problem with opening 2♣ on the first hand is that your sequence is very likely to go 2♣, 2♠, 3♥, 4♥. If you routinely upgrade hands into the "too strong for the 1 level" category for fear of a passout, your slam bidding will suffer a lot on hands where you actually do have a strong 2 level opener. To me, that is just not worth the risk of missing a very small number of games by opening 1♠. Your hand also becomes a nightmare to describe after a preempt.

 

I agree with everyone that opening 2♣ on the second hand is not in the ballpark.

[kgr]

1. 
    
    
   
2. North ♠ A K Q x x ♥ Q J x x x ♦ A K ♣ x
   South ♠ x x ♥ K x x x x ♦ x x x ♣ x x x
    
   
3. North ♠ ♥ x x x ♦ A Q J 9 8 ♣ A K Q 9 x
   South ♠ Q J x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x  ♣ x x x x
    
   

The above hands occured in an aggregate tounrnament (close enough to rubber bridge). My expert partner is teaching me 2/1. Like most polled, I opened 1♠ and 1♦ respecitvely. My expert partner passed (and I would have done the same).

 

Unfortunately, local players look at their hands before they protect. Also other pairs were stuck with stone-age Acol. So they had no trouble reaching game, after opening 2♠ and 2♦ respectively.

In my system I have 3♣ being either:

- Preempt ♦

- GF with both majors

- GF with both minors

- GF with ♥

...Would you consider both hands GF and open them 3♣ in this system?

(PS: If 5♦ or 5♣ goes down on the second hand, what is your net result then of not opening strong with these hands?)

[Gerben42]

If you are unhappy either way, why not start playing Fantunes? B) It's not really that hard. Your decisions to not open on the 2-level were normal, and would you have been playing in a normal field, probably the norm rather than the exception.

[gwnn]

Pass opposite the first hand isn't automatic IMO.

[pclayton]

The first is close, and we eschew two suiters usually. The majors are different and you can usually get your suits in without too much problem. give me ♥KQxxx and I'll take the plunge. Maybe even a little less.

 

Still, if we don't catch a fit, even the first hand isn't that great.

[blackshoe]

Hamman claims that system is 20% or less of the game.

 

That's probably true — for Hamman. Most of us aren't him.

I believe in Rosenberg's book Hamman was quoted as implying it was less than 3%. The point is agreements are important, exact system is not. For all levels of player.

That's not what the OP claimed Hamman said. I agree that having (and knowing) agreements is more important than what those agreements are.

[han]

Pass opposite the first hand isn't automatic IMO.

Some would say 1S with the second hand is automatic but I wouldn't dare to say this while Gerben is reading.

[marcD]

I think it is a matter of being consistent . For me the 1st hand is a 2♣ opening (I do not want my partner to make creative 1NT calls) , 1♠ is far more likely to end the auction) while on the second 1♠ by responder feels automatic so I have no worry and open 1♦