How do you open this hand?

[aguahombre]

1s and then 3c. Expect it be unanimous in the forum.

uninhibited by reading other posts, which might shed doubt on whether it is unanimous.

[Old York]

♠AKxxxx

♥AKJ

♦Ax

♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?

or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

 

Tony

[blackshoe]

1NT (artificial, forcing, 4-5 losers, usually 18-21 HCP, or 19-20 balanced). :angry:

 

Over a negative 2♣ (0-5 HCP, 2♠, not forcing. Over a GF 2♦ (0-4 ctrls, 6+ hcp, if <4 ctrls, < 3 cover cards) or 2♥ (3 ctrls, 3+ cover cards), 2♠. over 2♠ (4 ctrls), or 2NT (5 ctrls), 3♠, and then look for slam. Actually, we might have a slam over 2♥ too, or even 2♦.

 

No, it's not SAYC or 2/1. Neither are Acol twos. :D

[helene_t]

♠AKxxxx

♥AKJ

♦Ax

♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?

or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

 

Tony

No :angry:

[NickRW]

♠AKxxxx

♥AKJ

♦Ax

♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?

or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

 

Tony

Not in the SAYC + 2/1 section of the forums they don't.

 

I may be no SAYC or 2/1 expert - but I think I'm on safe ground there.

 

Nick

[Codo]

♠AKxxxx

♥AKJ

♦Ax

♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?

or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

 

Tony

No, but there are many in continental Europe who use 2 ♣ for this hand and 2♦ for a stronger one....

[gwnn]

yes but they all live in France :)

[bftboy]

1st choice 2♣/2♦/2NT. If P bids 2♥ negative, I have an easy 2♠ bid. 2nd choice is 1♠/1NT/3NT whether it shows 6 ♠ or only 5. :)

[Old York]

♠AKxxxx

♥AKJ

♦Ax

♣QT

Does anyone use an artificial 2♦ bid to include hands like this?

or a strong 2♠ opening? (8+ playing tricks)

 

Tony

Not in the SAYC + 2/1 section of the forums they don't.

 

I may be no SAYC or 2/1 expert - but I think I'm on safe ground there.

 

Nick

Is this purely because of ACBL regulations?

 

2♦ as a weak two is not a particularly useful or pre-emptive usage of the bid, so players (esp outside USA) must have other agreements

 

Tony

[aguahombre]

Perhaps another forum would serve to express people's opinions (predict they won't be favorable) about using 2D that way or strong 2M --this is a SAYC 2/1 hand discussion.

[blackshoe]

Is this purely because of ACBL regulations?

No. In the case of SAYC, it's because the system definition restricts optional agreements to a very few cases, and 2♦ as other than a weak two isn't one of them. In the case of 2/1, an agreement such as you suggest is certainly possible, but virtually no one in North America, I feel it safe to say, plays it that way (some do play other methods, e.g. Flannery (mini-)Roman or Mexican).

 

2♦ as a weak two is not a particularly useful or pre-emptive usage of the bid, so players (esp outside USA) must have other agreements.

 

Some do, I"m sure. OTOH, I do agree that a weak 2♦ is not particularly useful, but none of my regular partners are willing to take on anything else. Also, Anderson and Zenkel (Preempts From A to Z) talked about this, and asserted that most experts, having tried other things than a weak 2♦, have eventually returned to the weak opening. Of course, that may have changed in the two or three decades since the book was written.

[Old York]

Perhaps another forum would serve to express people's opinions (predict they won't be favorable) about using 2D that way or strong 2M --this is a SAYC 2/1 hand discussion.

Could I direct your attention to the ACBL website?

 

Specifically:

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertchart.html

 

"Opening Two-Level Bids in a Suit and Responses

1/ Other conventional and/or artificial bids

2/ Natural 2D, 2H or 2S, if intermediate or better"

 

It is also quite conceivable that OP was bidding in 4th seat

 

Could I also thank Blackshoe for his non-arrogant reply, seems quite rare to find a true gentleman on BBO Forums :)

 

Tony

[Mbodell]

Is this purely because of ACBL regulations?

No. In the case of SAYC, it's because the system definition restricts optional agreements to a very few cases, and 2♦ as other than a weak two isn't one of them. In the case of 2/1, an agreement such as you suggest is certainly possible, but virtually no one in North America, I feel it safe to say, plays it that way (some do play other methods, e.g. Flannery (mini-)Roman or Mexican).

I know of at least one ACBL pair who play a strong artificial 2♦ bid in a 2/1 context. But it certainly is a rare treatment. I'd say around me weak two >>> mini-roman > flannery > precision > multi > natural strong 2 > strong non-monster.

 

 

2♦ as a weak two is not a particularly useful or pre-emptive usage of the bid, so players (esp outside USA) must have other agreements.

 

Some do, I"m sure. OTOH, I do agree that a weak 2♦ is not particularly useful, but none of my regular partners are willing to take on anything else.

 

I actually think the 2♦ preempt can be quite effective as it doesn't instantly focus on one major (the way a 2M preempt does) and does take up some space. Obviously, regulations have some effect as a multi 2♦ or wilkosz or what ever might be more popular if it were allowed more places.

[NickRW]

Is this purely because of ACBL regulations?

Benji and reverse Benji seem quite compatible with American methods - they just don't seem to do it - or even experiment much - for whatever reason - probably inertia mainly. I hear of more English pairs opening at the 2 level American style than the other way round.

 

Nick