Opening Two Clubs

[c_corgi]

I agree with gnasher regarding the damage issue.

 

West's argument is that his defence against "strong, artificial 2C openings" varies according to the exact composition, analagous to playing a different defence to 1NT depending on the range. It seems optimistic to play alternative defences in a situation where the opponents agreements are likely to be insufficiently defined for you to determine which one applies. In this situation for instance, it seems that N/S do not really know whether the hand is a valid 2C opener; what are the borderline hands, the inclusion of which in the 2C range will cause you to switch to defending against a 'weak' bid? Do you expect the opponents to have such a detailed agreement?

[Trinidad]

One last point.

 

One of the problems with dealing with Acol 2♣ openings is that if players play them as they were designed then the defenders will never have a strong hand, ok, very rarely [Gilbert & Sullivan comes to mind], and many pairs play that any defensive bid is weak. I do myself actually. If I happen to get a strong hand - for example a balanced 16 count - I pass and await developments.

 

Now, it is not unreasonable to have an agreement that this is a worthwhile defence to an Acol 2♣ which has a lot of top card strength, but that a different approach should be made to a Benjamin 2♣, where the hand is likely to be a lot weaker in top cards but with compensating distribution [in Benjamin players open 2♦ with an Acol 2♣].

 

I realise that a lot of posters do not believe there was MI, but let us suppose for a moment that we decide there was MI. Given that as a premise, do you think the claim of damage has any basis? The idea being that over a traditional Acol 2♣ West would pass with his hand, but over a Benjamin 2♣ he might bid?

Yes, in that case there would be a basis for a claim of damage. However, IMO, it is not more than a basis.

 

After all, if it was so important to West to know whether the 2♣ opening was his favorite "strong = HCP" version or whether it could be the "strong = HCP or playing tricks" version, West could have asked a follow up question. Assuming that NS actually have an agreement, he would have gotten the explanation in the way he wanted it.

 

Let's not forget that West was well aware that there are players out there who play that 2♣ could be based on distribution. It is given in the OP:

West said he was getting more and more annoyed with players opening distributional two-bids and calling them strong. It is an abuse that the EBU L&EC has been worrying about for some time.

So, yes, there would be a basis. But if it is important for West to know the precise NS style, he could have protected himself by asking the next question. So, I think I would not adjust.

 

(Maybe I am somewhat biased. I am used to explanations of 2♣ as: "Weak with both majors or something strong" or "weak two in diamonds or something strong" or "weak with five spades and a 4+ minor or something strong". In those cases the "something strong" is specified on the convention card, but opponents are rarely interested in the strong variations. I realize that this maybe different in a context where 2♣ always only is something strong, and the only variation is in how "strong" is defined.)

 

Rik