Are these FG 2 Clubs openings?

[Hanoi5]

The first hand could be a choice from three:

 

♠A7

♥KQJ865

♦AK

♣K95

 

This is more likely to be a 2♣ opening, but then how do you treat it? Do you have a special sequence for this kind of hands?

 

♠A6

♥AKQT98

♦A6

♣K75

 

Finally two which are pretty similar:

 

♠AKJT9842

♥5

♦A8

♣A5

 

♠A7

♥5

♦AJ

♣AKT9xxxx

 

Can you elaborate why you would/wouldn't consider each of these hands a 2♣ opening bid? Would the conditions (vulnerability, seat, scoring, partner) affect your decision?

[awm]

The first two hands (with six good hearts and 20 hcp) seem reasonable for 2♣ openings. One-suited hands usually lead to decent auctions after 2♣, you have enough points to fear 1♥ passing out (and missing a game), plenty of defense if you end up defending. You're also likely to have a somewhat awkward sequence after 1♥-1♠/1N, either rebidding 3N or 3♣, both of which consume a lot of space and give only a vague description of the hand.

 

The third hand you have 4♠ making opposite partner with xx xxx xxxx xxxx or the like, so opening 2♣ seems normal.

 

The last hand is not a 2♣ opening. You have only 16 hcp (so not enough points to make 2♣ mandatory). You also don't have game in hand, because game in a minor is eleven tricks and you have nine or ten -- you have no real expectation of making game opposite a yarboro. Further, a 1♣ opening on only 16 hcp and this long of a suit will virtually never pass out.

[nige1]

1. ♠ A7 ♥KQJ865 ♦ AK ♣ K95
2. ♠ A6 ♥ AKQT98 ♦ A6 ♣ K75
3. ♠ AKJT9842 ♥ 5 ♦ A8 ♣ A5
4. ♠ A7 ♥ 5 ♦ AJ ♣ AKT9xxxx

An old criterion was more honour tricks than losers. IMO, however, the first two are too strong in high cards to risk a one bid. The third has only 16HCP but is worth game opposite a balanced Yarborough, so a 2♣ opener seems reasonable. The fourth might not make game unless partner can reply to 1♣ and 1♣ is unlikely to be passed out. Nevertheless, IMO, there is still a tactical case for a 2♣ opening

[losercover]

We would open the first 3 2c and the last 1c. Our 2C is 19+ and 4-5 losers, 16+ and 4 or fewer losers or a freak. The suit is good enough. The last hand is a minor suit so the hand needs to be better to opne 2C,

[kenberg]

Hand 1: I open 2♣. I hope I have an escape opposite a bust, and if I am playing Kokish I hope I know what it is.

 

Hand 2: I open 2♣. It's tempting to try3NT even if partner indicates a bust. But I suppose I will allow a stop in 3♥.

 

Hand 3: 2♣ and I will be in game at least.

 

Hand 4: 1♣. I have never figured out how to bid these hands. 5♣ probably makes as often, or more often, than 3NT. And 6♣ is certainly possible. But I need something from partner. On shapely hands like this usually everyone gets into the act. I expect to get to 4♣ on my own if necessary before I shut up.

[nigel_k]

I would open 2♣ on all of them though 1 and 4 are close.

 

I prefer to play 2♣ as forcing to game except for a 2NT rebid. Certainly you might wish to stop in 3♥ on hand 1 if partner has nothing, but it's quite rare that partner has absolutely nothing and he'll never know if the little he does have is useful, e.g. J10x xx xxxx Qxxx vs xxx xx J10xx Qxxx. So I don't think the gain from being able to stop in a partscore outweighs the cost.

[Flameous]

First 2 ones are easy 2♣ openers.

Third one I open 1♠, I don't consider to have even close enough defense for 2♣ opening and I'm not afraid of it being passed out.

4th is hard one, cause I'm lacking good bids after opening 1♣ but I think I'd have the same problems after 2♣.

I hope partner responds 1♥ so I can give fairly good picture of my hand with 3NT.

[Free]

The first two are easy 1♥ openings imo, I don't like 2♣ on these. Opposite a complete bust we'll be down in game.

 

3rd is an obvious 2♣, you have 10 tricks all the time except with some unlucky ♠ split. You want to be in game opposite a complete bust.

 

I don't have strong feelings about the 4th hand, I guess I'd probably open 1♣ but wouldn't mind if someone opened 2♣.

[gwnn]

yes

yes

yes

no, but there's not much wrong with it

 

you need more for minors than majors.

[gordontd]

The last hand is not a 2♣ opening. You have only 16 hcp (so not enough points to make 2♣ mandatory). You also don't have game in hand, because game in a minor is eleven tricks and you have nine or ten -- you have no real expectation of making game opposite a yarboro. Further, a 1♣ opening on only 16 hcp and this long of a suit will virtually never pass out.

 

Without wishing to disagree with what you say, this last point is only part of the issue: the other important question is what your rebid will be, and whether you will be able to adequately describe your hand after, for example, a 1♦ response.

[gnasher]

[nonsense deleted]

[gnasher]

[duplicated nonsense deleted - maybe I should do something different]

[marcD]

it probably depends on what are your other options / follow ups if you do not open 2♣.

For me only #3 is an obvious 2♣. I'll take my chances with 1♥ on 1&2 (and expect to be able to desribe my hand as I play 2♣ relay/Gazzilli over 1♥-1x). I would not dream opening #4 anything but 1♣

[gnasher]

I prefer to play 2♣ as forcing to game except for a 2NT rebid. Certainly you might wish to stop in 3♥ on hand 1 if partner has nothing, but it's quite rare that partner has absolutely nothing and he'll never know if the little he does have is useful, e.g. J10x xx xxxx Qxxx vs xxx xx J10xx Qxxx. So I don't think the gain from being able to stop in a partscore outweighs the cost.

Are you planning to play it in 3NT from the strong hand?

[whereagles]

Can you elaborate why you would/wouldn't consider each of these hands a 2♣ opening bid? Would the conditions (vulnerability, seat, scoring, partner) affect your decision?

 

I would consider all of them to be 2♣ openers. Reason: I firmly belive one should have an upper bound of about 20-21 HCP (or equivalent in playing tricks) on 1-level openers, even if the hand is strongly 1 or 2 suited. This has two advantages:

 

1. It takes some pressure off responder, who would otherwise feel reluctant of passing 1x on very marginal hands.

 

2. Makes it easier for responder to evaluate the combined potential when opener is in the top region of 18-21 HCP.

 

The downside is that it makes 2♣ openers rather lightish, complicating subsequent bidding. But since those are rather rare openings, even if lighter, the problem shouldn't be too frequent.

[Hanoi5]

The downside is that it makes 2♣ openers rather lightish, complicating subsequent bidding. But since those are rather rare openings, even if lighter, the problem shouldn't be too frequent.

 

 

But those are the hands where more points can be lost or won, aren't they?

[pooltuna]

yes

yes

yes

no, but there's not much wrong with it

 

you need more for minors than majors.

 

This gets my vote. Those worrying about going down in game on the first two, need to remember that sometimes you need to take uncomfortable risks where this is not odds averse.

[Zelandakh]

Hand 1 is an obvious 2C opening...if playing Benji. If playing 3 weak 2s then it is close but assuming I have a way to show a strong 1-suiter (such as a 3NT rebid or other artificial call) then I would prefer a 1H opening. If you happen to play Paradox-style responses to 2C, where 2H shows zero tricks opposite hearts, then you have an easy 2C opening and a pass of 2H.

 

Hand 2 is also 8.5 tricks but now 3NT has play even opposite a balanced bust so 2C (or Benji 2D) seems to be the best description.

 

Hand 3 is an obvious 2C (Benji 2D).

 

Hand 4 is not a 2C opening for me. Game is not there and the bidding is unlikely to die in 1C. Again, playing Benji this would be a clear 2C opener.

[whereagles]

But those are the hands where more points can be lost or won, aren't they?

 

Either

- you open 2♣ and live with the loss of bidding space, OR

- open 1x and guess to underbid/overbid at bid 1 (as responder) or guess (as opener) whether to go for slam after responder's 2nd bid.

 

In any case you'll have guesswork to do. The only way to bid those hands more intelligently is to play a different system, like strong club or relays.

[blackshoe]

Play Romex. Then you can open them all 1NT. :ph34r:

[Phil]

1. 1♥. I think its extreme and misleading to call this a balanced 22-23, but some would.

 

2. Can I 2♣ - 2♦ - 3N with a hand like this?

 

3. Completely obvious 2♣ opener.

 

3. Completely obvious 1♣ opener.

[MrAce]

1- I prefer to open 1♥ playing gazilli otherwise 2♣ . Even if pd response to 1♥ it will be messy without gazilli.My pd opens this 2♣

 

2- Definetely 2♣ for me, as Phil said 3 NT looks more appealing than 4♥.

 

3- 2♣, but we have to let partner know we opened it with tricks instead of loaded hcps. I open 2♣ and bid 4♠ over 2♦.

 

4- To me this is 1♣. I like the low path when suit is minor.

[ewleongusa]

The first hand could be a choice from three:

 

♠A7

♥KQJ865

♦AK

♣K95

 

This is more likely to be a 2♣ opening, but then how do you treat it? Do you have a special sequence for this kind of hands?

 

♠A6

♥AKQT98

♦A6

♣K75

 

Finally two which are pretty similar:

 

♠AKJT9842

♥5

♦A8

♣A5

 

♠A7

♥5

♦AJ

♣AKT9xxxx

 

Can you elaborate why you would/wouldn't consider each of these hands a 2♣ opening bid? Would the conditions (vulnerability, seat, scoring, partner) affect your decision?

 

A strong 2C bid is defined as a balanced 22+ or a suit oriented hand that can take at least one trick below game on your own with about four defensive tricks. The first two hands are not a strong 2C bid. Clearly, if partner could contribute one trick for you game would not be cold.

If fact, in many cases you would need a little luck. However, if partner has a minimum response game would be more or less cold.

The third hand qualifies for a strong 2C bid because if you would expect to make at least nine tricks in spades.

The fourth hand doesn't qualify for a strong 2C bid because you can't make at least ten tricks in clubs on your own.

 

Eric Leong

[mtvesuvius]

Clear 2♣ on the first three. Clear 1♣ on the last IMO.

 

No rebid problems on the first two, and the third is just a powerhouse.

 

The fourth has no fear of being passed out in 1♣, and isn't enough for a 2♣ opening anyway.

[Finch]

I would open all of them at the 1-level unless I was playing Acol 2s (2H - 2S neg - 2NT on both the first two, a 2NT opening with a 6-card heart suit).

 

If I had no way of showing a forcing 3M rebid after 1M - 1NT I might think differently, but I do, so I don't.

I play 2C as game forcing (other than 2C - 2D - 2NT) and the heart hands are not worth driving to game opposite nothing.

 

The closest to a 2C opening is the spade hand which clearly is worth game, but it is sufficiently light on high cards that 1S feels more descriptive.