What would you open and why.

[VixTD]

by the definitions in UK this does not meet the criteria for an Acol 2♠ opener

 

<_<

Yes it does, comfortably.

 

It has at least 16 points and satisfies the rule of 25, so that's 2 of the criteria met, it hasn't got 8 clear cut tricks, but the rule is any of the above not all of them.

 

I think you are confusing what "Oof" meant by "criteria" for an Acol 2 with the minimum acceptable legal requirement for an artificial strong opening bid in the EBU.

 

When the EBU introduced a minimum requirement for opening one of a suit as "rule of 19", I came across many players who assumed this somehow defined an opening bid, and used it as a guideline to decide which hands to open. Then the EBU changed it to rule of 18....

 

I don't know where or even whether the criteria for an Acol 2 are officially defined; I think of it as something like "a powerful hand that expects to take at least eight tricks with the main suit as trumps, one that's just short of a game-force, and has some defensive potential, maybe two or more tricks".

 

I think we're all agreed this hand doesn't measure up to that.

[655321]

I don't know where or even whether the criteria for an Acol 2 are officially defined; I think of it as something like "a powerful hand that expects to take at least eight tricks with the main suit as trumps, one that's just short of a game-force, and has some defensive potential, maybe two or more tricks".

 

I think we're all agreed this hand doesn't measure up to that.

?

 

Everyone agrees that the hand is not worth a game force, but possibly you and old york are the only two people who agree that it is not even worth an Acol two, so not sure where "we're all" comes from.

[Cyberyeti]

I think you are confusing what "Oof" meant by "criteria" for an Acol 2 with the minimum acceptable legal requirement for an artificial strong opening bid in the EBU.

 

When the EBU introduced a minimum requirement for opening one of a suit as "rule of 19", I came across many players who assumed this somehow defined an opening bid, and used it as a guideline to decide which hands to open. Then the EBU changed it to rule of 18....

 

I don't know where or even whether the criteria for an Acol 2 are officially defined; I think of it as something like "a powerful hand that expects to take at least eight tricks with the main suit as trumps, one that's just short of a game-force, and has some defensive potential, maybe two or more tricks".

 

I think we're all agreed this hand doesn't measure up to that.

Not at all.

 

On the odd occasions I play acol 2s I would open this one like a shot.

 

My reasoning would be as follows:

 

I have one club trick and one heart trick, give partner 2 spades and a 3-2 break (is this most likely ? I think so), I have 6 spade tricks so that's 8. Playing tricks are not clear cut tricks.

 

Partner and I do more or less apply the rule of 19 to opening bids also, only not opening those that we consider aren't worth their full count.

[gwnn]

I think I've heard of non-forcing strong twos someplace? if 2S was non-forcing I would be reluctant to bid it since this is so close to a Standard American 2C opening.

[VixTD]

Everyone agrees that the hand is not worth a game force, but possibly you and old york are the only two people who agree that it is not even worth an Acol two, so not sure where "we're all" comes from.

Yes, you're quite right, I withdraw my comment.

 

I wouldn't open it an Acol 2, but I wouldn't criticize anyone who did.

[bucky]

I will show the whole deal in a while. However let me ask this question:

 

If this hand is not strong enough to open 2♣, why are we taught the idea of counting losers.

 

From what I have learned, the hand only has three losers.

 

(Of course, it would be nicer if the ♥Ace was a ♣Ace)

Loser count is more meaningful if you can be assured of fit. For example, if partner has red suits instead, you may have more losers in spades and clubs. That being said, this is not a terrible 2♣ opener, although I still prefer 1♠.

[bftboy]

There still a few around who show the # of controls they have over a 2♣ opener. If playing that, then open 2♣. If I had 7♠, I think I'd open 2♣ regardless. :D

[nige1]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakq762ha3d10ckq92]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Holding this hand, as dealer and playing 5-card majors, what would you open?

Please give your reasons.[/hv]

Partners have brain-washed me into opening 1♠ but there is a good argument for 2♣. In the UK, it is legal to open 2♣ with this. The LTC is a simple effective hand-evaluation method. Who will laugh last when LHO leads to 1♠ and partner puts down something like

♠ J ♥ xxxx ♦ Jxxxx ♣ Jxx

[jdonn]

Coming late to this, of course this is a 1♠ opening. I'm a bit surprised at the suggestions of 2♣ if a small club was the jack, it doesn't seem far off to me then but I would still expect 1♠ to be an obvious and clearly majority bid.

[murray884]

The hand has 3/4 losers. I would open 2C

[murray884]

When it comes to opening 2C, I count my losers and if they are 1 more than game, I will open 2C

[blackshoe]

I voted for 1♠, but I do recall reading somewhere the suggestion that a hand like this, with more quick tricks than losers (this hand has 5 quick tricks and 3 losers) should open 2♣, at least in SA or 2/1.

[P_Marlowe]

I will show the whole deal in a while. However let me ask this question:

 

If this hand is not strong enough to open 2♣, why are we taught the idea of counting losers.

 

From what I have learned, the hand only has three losers.

 

(Of course, it would be nicer if the ♥Ace was a ♣Ace)

Hi,

 

#1 The LTC was developed to evaluate hands in the presence of a fit.

#2 Using the LTC to evaluate the playing strength of a hand in absence of a fit,

works also reasonably well, although one needs to be cautious, the LTC

overstimates shape.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jdonn]

It's not just about how good the hand is. With this combination of suits you would much rather have the bidding go

 

1♠ 1NT 3♣

 

than

 

2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 3♦/♥ ?

 

Also it's easy to think of these spades as solid, but they are not. If partner has a void they never run, if he has a singelton they run less than 40% of the time, and even if he has a small doubleton they only run about 2/3 of the time.

[pooltuna]

It's not just about how good the hand is. With this combination of suits you would much rather have the bidding go

 

1♠ 1NT 3♣

 

than

 

2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 3♦/♥ ?

 

Also it's easy to think of these spades as solid, but they are not. If partner has a void they never run, if he has a singelton they run less than 40% of the time, and even if he has a small doubleton they only run about 2/3 of the time.

Amen! It is really remarkable how much the mere addition of the T♠ instead of an x improves this holding. Now your suit can run opposite partner's void albeit still against the odds plus you move to over 50% if pard has a small singleton.

[mikeh]

Thinking about 2 ♣ is an overbid.

Hey, that line about thinking being an overbid is copyrighted by me!!!!!!!

[fred]

Last week Claudio Nunes surprised me by opening 2C with this hand:

 

void

KQJxxx

AK

Kxxxx

 

It should be noted that he was playing in the "individual" segment of the Buffett Cup (ie with someone other than his regular partner).

 

He ended up in 4H opposite 10x of hearts and 10xx of clubs.

 

Hearts were 3-2 and he was able to play clubs for 2 losers, but he still lost control after repeated spade leads by the defense (only reason I am mentioning this is because I found it amusing - I am not suggesting that this proves anything about the wisdom of Claudio's decision to open 2C).

 

But maybe if such a great player thought that this hand was worth 2C, we shouldn't be so quick to condemn the concept of opening 2C on the hand that was the subject of this thread?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

Last week Claudio Nunes surprised me by opening 2C with this hand:

 

void

KQJxxx

AK

Kxxxx

 

It should be noted that he was playing in the "individual" segment of the Buffett Cup (ie with someone other than his regular partner).

 

He ended up in 4H opposite 10x of hearts and 10xx of clubs.

 

Hearts were 3-2 and he was able to play clubs for 2 losers, but he still lost control after repeated spade leads by the defense (only reason I am mentioning this is because I found it amusing - I am not suggesting that this proves anything about the wisdom of Claudio's decision to open 2C).

 

But maybe if such a great player thought that this hand was worth 2C, we shouldn't be so quick to condemn the concept of opening 2C on the hand that was the subject of this thread?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

well, while a sample of one is hardly strong evidence of anything the fact that opening 2♣ on this hand led to a poor result is not exactly an endorsement of the light approach to bidding. It is only one data point, and plotting it on a graph would be unhelpful (I only mention this to show Hanp that I read his signature), but to the extent it shows anything it shows that 2♣ was a poor choice.

 

I also have difficulty with the notion that opening 2♣ on that hand would actually accomplish anything that opening 1♥ wouldn't. Maybe he hoped to preempt the opps, who might overcall 1♠ over 1♥ but stay out over 2♣? If so, that's a novel (to me) approach to opening 2♣....for its preemptive value!