The only thing to fear, is fear itself. And snakes.

[daveharty]

[hv=pc=n&e=saqj9862hq3d3cakq]133|100[/hv]

[ArtK78]

Is this a trick question? 1♠.

 

I do not play a strong club system, so 1♣ is not an option.

 

The suit is not adequate for Namyats, and the hand is not necessarily a 1-suiter. AKQ in a side suit is a bit much. Now, if you changed the hand to:

 

AKQJxxx

Qx

x

AQx

 

Then I would open Namyats, as it is almost unthinkable that spades is not the correct strain.

 

As for 2♣, this hand is not strong enough for 2♣, although it is likely that the hand contains 9 playing tricks. The chances of 1♠ being passed out are next to zero, and if I open 2♣ partner will have the wrong idea about the defensive prospects of this hand. I believe that I will be able to control the auction better if I open 1♠.

[daveharty]

Is this a trick question? 1♠.

 

This was my knee-jerk response as well, and I think it's right, but it's pretty close, and I know it's the kind of hand that Marshall Miles advocates opening 2C on. Anyway it just came up in a teaching session I was watching and the teacher advocated 2C. I wondered if there was much support for this view.

[ggwhiz]

I wondered if there was much support for this view.

 

I doubt it...... and spiders.

[masse24]

Didn't we recently have a similar discussion? Somewhat unresolved?

 

Last Hand of The Tourney-What to open?

 

Fred, Hampson and Levin even made a cameo appearance!

I think Justin is now firmly planted in the "on the fence" camp? :huh:

 

I think Aquahombre summed it up nicely with: "The debate between the camp which looks for reasons to open 2C and the camp which looks for reasons not to open 2C on wild distributional hands will never be resolved" :P

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=pc=n&e=saqj9862hq3d3cakq]133|100[/hv]

If I calculate that "Rule-of-13" correctly, it says open 2C :

Defensive tricks:

AKQ = 3

  A = 1

 QJ = 1/2

      4-1/2 multiplied by 2 = 9

Add that to "all length cards greater than 3 in a suit " = 4

 

9 + 4 = 13

[mikeh]

Didn't we recently have a similar discussion? Somewhat unresolved?

 

Last Hand of The Tourney-What to open?

 

Fred, Hampson and Levin even made a cameo appearance!

I think Justin is now firmly planted in the "on the fence" camp? :huh:

 

I think Aquahombre summed it up nicely with: "The debate between the camp which looks for reasons to open 2C and the camp which looks for reasons not to open 2C on wild distributional hands will never be resolved" :P

I don't see any real similarity between the two hands. In the other thread, we hold a 15 count, which impacts the odds that we need 2♣ lest 1♥ be passed....there was no realistic likelihood that 1♥ would end the auction.

 

Here we have 18 hcp, and we have spades, which both make it slightly more likely that 1♠ could end the auction.

 

In addition, we are going to have a difficult time describing a hand with only 4 losers.

 

Also, we have some defence...to me a borderline 2♣ has to have defence, since you may well end up having to defend if the opps bounce.

 

I also reject the notion that this isn't a 1-suiter....even opposite length in clubs, it would be a rare day when we want to play in that suit, and rarer still that we can time the auction so as to show our incredible spades and still reach clubs.

 

I used to open these 1♠ but I would open 2♣. I don't think you could weaken the hand at all and get me still doing it....to me it is a rock bottom minimum, but since I can stop in 3♠ opposite a complete bust, and I basically have that made in hand, I don't see why I should choose otherwise.

 

Please note that I am a canadian and, while not in the same league as Fred or Geoff (Hampson), I too have suckled at the teat of Mr. Kokish (please....don't even try to think of that literally) and would have opened the other hand 1♥ with complete, tho maybe misplaced, assurance.

 

P.S. Ok, Art you ARE more conservative than me :P

[Flem72]

Defensive tricks:

AKQ = 3

 

 

They never let me cash AKQ.

[ArtK78]

P.S. Ok, Art you ARE more conservative than me :P

 

Now THAT made my day. :)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Didn't we recently have a similar discussion? Somewhat unresolved?

 

Last Hand of The Tourney-What to open?

This hand fails Rule-of-13....so no 2C.... it adds up to " 12 " .

[mycroft]

So - for the 2♣ bidders - do you do it if the major suits are reversed?

[mikeh]

So - for the 2♣ bidders - do you do it if the major suits are reversed?

1♥, not a problem

 

The main reason is that a 2♣ opening, imo, makes it impossible for us to allow the opps to play an undoubled game.

 

If I were 2=7, with these values, I would not want to see the opps bid 4♠, with a passing partner, and know that I had to choose between defending a possibly cold 4♠ x'd or play a possibly ugly 5♥, often doubled.

 

However, if I were 7=2 with these values, I'm always prepared to bid 4♠ over their 4♥, and I am comfortable with defending 5♥ x'd.

 

A secondary reason is that 1♥ is slightly less likely to end the auction than is 1♠....if, say, LHO is the one with the other major, he will far more readily overcall with 1♠ than he would with 2♥.

[HighLow21]

This was my knee-jerk response as well, and I think it's right, but it's pretty close, and I know it's the kind of hand that Marshall Miles advocates opening 2C on. Anyway it just came up in a teaching session I was watching and the teacher advocated 2C. I wondered if there was much support for this view.

There is from me. It is borderline, to be sure, and I do not have any qualms with anyone who does not open 2♣.

 

But I'm all about 2♣ on this hand. Here are some different rules I can apply:

1. 4+ QT's and 4- losers? Check. (Well, almost. Technically 3.5 QT's, but that wrongly ignores the 2 rounded queens and the j spades, any of which might be a quickie.)

2. Would I feel squeamish if a 1-bid were passed out all around? Check.

3. Will I make game on at least a substantial minority of the hands where partner would pass my 1-bid out? Check.

 

There are 4 cards I care about and any one of them with partner makes game a good bet: K♠, A♥, K♥, A♦. A priori, the odds that partner has at least one of these is about 70%, and even without any of them game might make (on a trump lead, or a singleton K♠, or a singleton heart, or a defensive error).

 

True, it is much less likely on this hand than on a "normal borderline 2♣ opener" that 1♠ will be passed all the way around. This is because I have so much shape AND because I have only 18HCP.

 

But I still think a passed out cold game is more likely than getting too high opposite a weak partner, unless both (1) you have a partner who is very savvy about revaluing bad hands and (2) your opponents are hyperagressive competitors. Plus, even if the auction comes back to me, but partner passed, I don't have any reason to think I'd have more information than if I had opened 2♣ originally.

 

Partner cannot possibly know his xx♠ Kxxx♥ xxxx♦ xxx♣ is enough for a spade game to be nearly on ice.

 

And actually, I probably open 1♥ if my majors are reversed. Here it is much more likely that the opponents (1) will overcall in spades, and (2) have a good spade contract or save, and I intend to walk the hand up to 4♥.

[Siegmund]

If the system sez that the way you show a 9-trick hand is 2C-then-4M, that's what I do. (Lacking an agreement about 2C-then-4M, I would be endplayed into 1M.)

 

I am actually happier about 2C on this hand than on, say, AKQxxxxx AJx x x, since I actually probably have enough defense that I won't be upset about being in a forcing pass if the opponents bid a bunch of the other major.

 

Doesn't mean I am happy about it. But it's a much stronger hand than partner will expect for 1M-then-4M.

[masse24]

"...I too have suckled at the teat of Mr. Kokish (please....don't even try to think of that literally)"

 

:blink: POKE OUT MIND'S EYE - POKE OUT MIND'S EYE - POKE OUT MIND'S EYE :blink:

[CSGibson]

Is this a trick question? 1♠.

 

I do not play a strong club system, so 1♣ is not an option.

 

The suit is not adequate for Namyats, and the hand is not necessarily a 1-suiter. AKQ in a side suit is a bit much. Now, if you changed the hand to:

 

AKQJxxx

Qx

x

AQx

 

Then I would open Namyats, as it is almost unthinkable that spades is not the correct strain.

 

As for 2♣, this hand is not strong enough for 2♣, although it is likely that the hand contains 9 playing tricks. The chances of 1♠ being passed out are next to zero, and if I open 2♣ partner will have the wrong idea about the defensive prospects of this hand. I believe that I will be able to control the auction better if I open 1♠.

 

This is in response to Art's example hand, not the OP.

 

You have 8 solid tricks, some queens, and you think that it's almost inconceivable for spades not to be the correct strain? How about opposite something like x Kxxx QJ98x xxx? What game do you want to be in? For me, I would want to be in 3N. Similarly, if partner held Jxx of hearts and the ace of diamonds as his only cards - I may make 4S, but 3N is still the better game at teams.

 

I recently lost a teams match where I had an opportunity to win a big swing with a 7 card solid major, an ace, and an outside K. I called it a namyats opening, which failed when 3N would have rolled. It would have been obvious for partner to pass 3N if I had shown my hand (with a sequence like 1♥-1♠-3N). So I understand the impulse, but losing that opportunity for a game swing made me reexamine my decision, and ultimately I came to the conclusion that those hands with 8 tricks may belong in NT also, and that we may want to bring partner in on the decision.

[Statto]

If I calculate that "Rule-of-13" correctly, it says open 2C :

Defensive tricks:

AKQ = 3

  A = 1

 QJ = 1/2

      4-1/2 multiplied by 2 = 9

Add that to "all length cards greater than 3 in a suit " = 4

 

9 + 4 = 13

Quick/defensive tricks are max 2 per suit. 'My' rule of 13 (QT+PT) is just shy of 13. Still, I voted 2♣, I've only got 1 suit to show.

[inquiry]

This answer is not for everyone. I play two bids based upon the concept that 2♣ opening bid may include a "typical" acol 2bid in a major (8 tricks, reasonable controls). So for both the hand in this thread, and the hand in the other thread with hearts, I would open 2♣. After my two club openings can die in precisely 2♠ or 2♥. Here is how:

 

Like many people these days, I use 2♣-p-2♥ as the instant double negative with a mild twist. This bid means, I don't have a trick for a heart contract (no ace, no king). If partner opened the hand shown on the other thread (long hearts), he can pass and responder could become declarer in hearts with a void. Over the 2♥ response, with the current hand (in this thread), I would bid 2♠, expecting partner to pass. Should he have a surprise trick in spades (say the spade queen), he could raise to 3♠.

 

I do, however, have one additional tweak, a 2♠ response to 2♣ says I have no trick for a spade contract, but do have a trick for a heart contract (generally the heart queen, but sometimes long hearts and shortness somewhere else). This means if I had heart queen only I would respond 2♠ to a 2♣ opening bid. With the hand in this post, I responer would get to play 2♠, with the hand in the other post, opener would bid 4♥ (opposite the heart queen (or entry with long heart)) there are 9 sure tricks on that one, and 50-50 chance for a club trick by leading up to the king).

 

This is not original to me, it is what I borrowed for inquiry2over1 from chris rydal. I can say that I love having this bid for hands like this....and.... to limit the meaning of hands where auction goes 1M-bid-3M (since a hand as good as acol two bid can not be held since no 2♣ opening).

[bluecalm]

As usual in this kind of situations:

If you have good system which allows you to establish 1 suited GF at reasonable level it's easy 1♠ opener. If you play vanilla standard it's easy 2C opener as bidding space will not be useful for you anyway after 1S because you either make jump shift on 3 cards after which bidding is pure roulette or you jump to game anyway. It must be better to open 2C and have all the benefits in comp auction and some hope for reasonable constructive auction too.

 

Btw I think opening this hand with 4S has merits. Sometimes you miss a slam, sometimes you nail them hard. I wouldn't be surprised if such style wes very profitable.

[whereagles]

Is this a trick question? 1♠.

 

Yes it is. Because the follow up is what to bid over 1NT. Oh I forgot you use the revolting 3♣ as the "solution".

 

The obvious alternative is to open 2C.

[ArtK78]

Yes it is. Because the follow up is what to bid over 1NT. Oh I forgot you use the revolting 3♣ as the "solution".

 

The obvious alternative is to open 2C.

Obviously you do not know my methods after 1♠ - 1NT.

 

I would bid 3♣, but not for the reason that you assumed. I play 3♣ as an artificial game force with a one or two suited hand. So, I don't have as much of a problem as others might.

[Zelandakh]

If I calculate that "Rule-of-13" correctly, it says open 2C :

Defensive tricks:

AKQ = 3

  A = 1

 QJ = 1/2

      4-1/2 multiplied by 2 = 9

Add that to "all length cards greater than 3 in a suit " = 4

 

9 + 4 = 13

 

You need to go get a copy of Culbertson out of the library Don! Defensive tricks (aka Honour Tricks) were popular back in the 1930s and 1940s and Ely described them in great detail. An AKQ counted as 2+, AQJ counted as 1.5+, and Qx was a +, where the + is something slightly above a quarter of a trick. That gives you 3.5+++ for this hand, so something above 4.25. Multiplying by 2 and adding 4 gives a Rule of 13 score of over 12.5 making this hand absolutely on the boundary. Offensively this hand has 9 playing tricks, since here AQJ9862 counts as 6 and AKQ count as 3.

 

In practise it seems to me that this hand is a minimum 2♣ opening. If you have a strong 2 in spades available in some form or another then you could of course choose to use it. But even that is not certain since this hand has more than it might for a strong 2. If you play Benji and happen to use the sequence 2♣ - 2♦; 3♠ for a 9 trick one-suited hand then this fits the bill nicely. Playing almost any other system just take the big club out of the bag.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Thx again, Zel ! !

[phil_20686]

Yes it is. Because the follow up is what to bid over 1NT.

 

The obvious alternative is to open 2C.

 

Wouldn't it be great if after 1s-1N there was a bit to show short diamonds in a (reasonably) self sufficient spade single suiter, and slam try strength?

 

Oh wait. I think they call that an auto splinter.

 

Partner bidding 1N over 1S is literally the best thing that can happen, it is much harder to bid this hand if partner starts with a 2/1. Especially in standard methods, as 1s-2c-3s would be self sufficient, and after 1s-2c-2s its going to be hard to describe your hand after partner raises, and at any rate you will end up spending a bunch of bids looking for a strain and it will be difficult to get across your extra strength etc.

 

If you had the heart K instead of the heart Q you could open 2C bid 3s next and then just bid keycard if partner shows any life. But with only the Q of hearts that will be tricky. I am in the 1S camp because I don't thjink that it will be that easy to get to slam if I open 2C, because I might easyil not be able to find out if partner has a heart control after the not unlikely auction 2c-2d-3s-4d. If the minors were reversed opening 2c has much more appeal. as after 2c-2d-3s-4c-4d- partner will basically be obliged to cue a heart control. Further, in my style, I would expect partner to be basically close to driving a slam if he has an ace and a K opposite a 2c opener, and I just dont see that working out here. If partner has kS AK diamonds and you open 2c he is pretty likely to just bid keycard at some point.

[FM75]

I would suggest 2♣ on two grounds. The hand has offensive strength and because of your shape and strength there is a reasonably high probability 1♠ gets passed out.

 

1. On average, each of the other 3 hands has 7.3 points.
   
2. The most probable shape of each hand is 4432.
   
3. 1♠ is fairly pre-emptive, given the likely card distributions and point distribution.
   
4. If partner were to pass 1♠ (fairly likely), opponents may balance in with 7-9 card fit.
   
5. If he doesn't pass, his most likely bid is 1NT, which does not tell you much.
   
6. 2♣ is significantly more preemptive than 1 ♠ and you probably do not want to defend against 2 red.
   

 

Yes, I would hope that I were playing with a precision partner were I to pick up this hand. It would be nice to have immediate low level control ask available.