Is this a 2 Clubs opening bid?

[Hanoi5]

MP, Both red:

 

♠AKTxx

♥K

♦Ax

♣AKQJx

[inquiry]

MP, Both red:

 

♠AKTxx

♥K

♦Ax

♣AKQJx

 

I very much don't like opening 2♣ with two suiters. In fact, I dislike it so much I try to play the misiry convention with hands like this. Having said that, it would not surprise me if the field opens 2♣ on this hand. When not playing misiry, I wouldn't mind opening this 1♠ because with a spade fit, my partner will not pass and without a spade fit, we might not make game, but I suspect if I wasn't allowed to open misiry 3♣, I would open 2♣ with most partners.

[nigel_k]

Easily worth 2♣ for me. I try to avoid it with two suiters, especially non-touching ones, but this is far too good for a one level opening.

[ArtK78]

I am about the most conservative player when it comes to opening 2♣.

 

This is a 2♣ opening.

[mike777]

MP, Both red:

 

♠AKTxx

♥K

♦Ax

♣AKQJx

 

 

 

roughly a 2 loser hand..I will risk 2c here.

 

pard could have zero hcp and slam could be cold.

 

 

Sometimes you just need to take a risk and open 2c.

[Yu18772]

Nominally yes - you have 24 points, and 2♣ what the field would open.

However - personally - I prefer opening 2 suited hands with 1x unless there is a good reason not to - namely only when I am very much afraid of 1x to be followed by 3 passes. I find that once you get over the 1x-P-P-P barrier, it is much easier to describe the hand that way. I dont have lots of experience (like most people here), but my impression that even when it goes 1x-P-P-P its not necessarily a bad score. Also I dont like assigning full weight to K single....so for me this is a 1♠ opening.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

[the hog]

2C for me also.

[awm]

2♣ for me. It's the two-suiters where the longest suit is a minor that are hard to bid.

 

If I open 1♠, I'm afraid everyone will pass and partner puts down ♠xxx ♥xxxx ♦xxx ♣xxx.

 

If a flat zero makes game, I prefer to open with a forcing bid (or a game bid, depending on the hand type).

[frank0]

2♣ to avoid missing game, there are only 16HCP left in the deck and partner usually needs 6 to response, it's very likely partner may pass and your opp is not strong enough to save you.

[marcD]

although i hate opening strong two suiter with 2♣, opening 1♠ is playing against the field and against the odds. If not 2♣,I would rather open 1♣ which is less likely to go all pass and then describe my hand as a superstrong 6-5 which is close to what i have. Tougher problem at imps

[HighLow21]

I cannot understand opening this hand at the one level. There are 3 losers, assuming there is a black suit fit. There are 24 HCP, all prime (except for the loner K♥). The probability of having a 1-level bid passed out when game (or slam!) is on is much, much greater than that you will get too high by opening 2♣.

 

The only thing that scares me is that partner will make a positive response in diamonds (3♦), in which case I may never be able to show my club suit. But this hand can sometimes make a spade game even if partner has the K♦ only, and a spade void!! Besides, if partner does make a positive response of any kind, you will have a making game somewhere even in a total misfit scenario.

 

I can understand if players have a specific conventional bid for this type of hand (such as Ben's misiry bid), but I cannot see how a 1-level opening can possibly be right.

[aguahombre]

I think the general line of reasoning whether to open 2♣with big 2-suiters should not be LTC or some rule about what the hand might make if you fall into the right strain. The factors should be:

 

---Is there really a likelyhood a 1-bid will end the auction? If not, will I be better off getting to the right strain with a 1-opening and my next bid?

---Because of our continuation style after 2♣, are we unable to gain by that opening?

 

Pairs without Misiry, or Kokish in their bag of tricks are highly unlikely to have an effective search for strain. Pairs with 2♥ bust have additional burdens with 2-suiters if 2♠ can then be passed.

 

That damned worthless heart King is the problem, here. It is 3 points someone else doesn't have, greatly increasing the likelihood a 1-bid will be passed out.

 

Without that heart King, I would choose a 1-bid and try to beat all the pairs who screw up their 2C sequence.

[r_prah]

Indeed, two suiters are best opened with a one-bid. But 2C for me here. This is 24 count the last time I checked, rich in controls.

[HighLow21]

 

Pairs without Misiry, or Kokish in their bag of tricks are highly unlikely to have an effective search for strain. Pairs with 2♥ bust have additional burdens with 2-suiters if 2♠ can then be passed.

2♣, 2♦, 2♠, followed by:

- spade support (decide whether to check on slam)

- 3♣, 2nd negative. At this point opener rebids 4♣ and then partner can choose which game for us to play in.

 

I don't get it. What's the problem? :huh:

[the_dude]

You can have game opposite a yarborough with xxx of spades. You have a good slam opposite Qxxx xxx xxx xxx. Still want to play 1♠?

 

You can't risk 1♠ being passed out (and with the opponents only having 16hcp, it is a real possibility).

[ArtK78]

You have game opposite a yarborough with xxxx of spades. You have a good slam opposite Qxxx xxx xxx xxx. Still want to play 1♠?

 

You can't risk 1♠ being passed out (and with the opponents only having 16hcp, it is a real possibility).

Not the opponents - all 3 other players, partner included.

[Phil]

Paul Soloway had some rule about about taking the number of tricks in your hand and then adding the number of QT's. It might have been 13. The actual hand has 10 tricks plus 5, so its more than enough.

 

2♣ for me. It's the two-suiters where the longest suit is a minor that are hard to bid.

 

Very true. Furthermore, partner will strain to bid over 1m, although occasionally he will pass a forcing bid afterward.

[CSGibson]

If I don't open this 2♣, then I'll never be able to catch up later. Additionally, this should have an easy rebid sequence. In my opinion, 2♣ is standout, and 1♠ is awful.

[Vampyr]

2♣, 2♦, 2♠, followed by:

- spade support (decide whether to check on slam)

- 3♣, 2nd negative. At this point opener rebids 4♣ and then partner can choose which game for us to play in.

 

I don't get it. What's the problem? :huh:

 

The problem is for people who play what I think is called "Roth", where responder's 2♥ does not promise a second bid.

[neilkaz]

With all due respect, a more interesting question is to ask if this is still a 2♣ opener if the K♥ is changed to be the 2.

[lalldonn]

Um, doesn't it even have an extra king? And forget that partner might pass out 1S, what if he doesn't, how will we ever show our strength if we start with 1S?

[mikeh]

I would argue with Art's claim to be the most conservative 2♣ opener :P

 

But even I would open 2♣.

 

I have opened 2♣ with 23 hcp twice.....both times with success....but this hand is just too much, plus I have far fewer rebid problems after 2♣....I can never show this much sheer hcp strength after 1♠ no matter how the auction proceeds.

 

I am prepared to run the slight risk of getting too high after 2♣, which to me is far less than the significant risks of 1♠ being passed out or having a confused and inaccurate auction when 1♠ doesn't end the auction.

[HighLow21]

With all due respect, a more interesting question is to ask if this is still a 2♣ opener if the K♥ is changed to be the 2.

 

Good point. I still open 2♣ in my methods, standout. Still 3 losers, still 5 QTs. Others wouldn't, and that's fine, but I still think if the K♥ is the 2♥, a cold game will be passed out more often than 2♣ gets us too high.

 

In fact I would still open 2♣ if the K♥ were the 2♥ and the A♣ were the 6♣. I am certain that many people will disagree with me on this now, but my basic rule for opening 2♣ is: max 4 losers (or 22+ balanced), min 4 QT's. Very easy to remember.

[HighLow21]

I would argue with Art's claim to be the most conservative 2♣ opener :P

 

But even I would open 2♣.

 

I have opened 2♣ with 23 hcp twice.....both times with success....but this hand is just too much, plus I have far fewer rebid problems after 2♣....I can never show this much sheer hcp strength after 1♠ no matter how the auction proceeds.

 

I am prepared to run the slight risk of getting too high after 2♣, which to me is far less than the significant risks of 1♠ being passed out or having a confused and inaccurate auction when 1♠ doesn't end the auction.

MikeH for the win, as always. B-)

[han]

Apologies in advance for hijacking this thread.

 

I play that 2C - 2D - 3S is gameforcing with 5 spades and 5 clubs. (similarly, 2D - 2M - 3M would show a 5-card major and 5 diamonds, also gameforcing). It hasn't come up often yet. One advantage of the method is that if it goes something like

 

2C - 2D

2S - 2NT

3C,

 

responder knows that opener has longer spades than clubs.

 

Are there others that play something similar? Is this advantage worth all the room you take up by jumping to 3M?