Do You Agree With the 2 Club Opening Bid?

[32519]

This unusual hand recently came up at the table. East was the dealer and chose to open the bidding with 2♣. The final contract was 4♥ which went down 2. On the lie of the cards 4♥ was going down regardless of the opening bid.

 

My question is simple: Do you agree with the 2♣ opening bid?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt984hqt4dq6caq9&w=sak632hdt52cj7632&n=sj75h52dkj98ckt84&e=shakj98763da743c5]399|300[/hv]

[MrAce]

I disagree with 2♣ but i wouldn't be able to stop b4 4 anyway.

[Yu18772]

No. 2♣ should show either any 22+ or one suited hand with 9 playing tricks and 17+ point - this hand doesn't fit either.

The reason to have strong openings is so that the bidding would not go 1x-P-P-P, on a hand that is comitted to play game opposite partner that may not have enough to answer 1 level opening. When you hold 12 HCP and void in spades the bidding will never go 1H-P-P-P...In dealer seat I would open 1♥, in 3rd or 4th I would open 4♥, but in any case I think 4♥ would be a standard contract in the room.

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

[Rossoneri]

Disagree with 2♣, this hand is too weak to open 2♣, it's just misleading for partner.

[rhm]

I would not criticize 2♣.

Of course the hand is exceptionally weak in HCP for 2♣. But the alternatives to 2♣ are just as problematic.

Despite the result you will never stop below game. Of course you are not worried about being dropped below game with this hand.

But this is not the only reason why one might want to open 2♣.

2♣ if unbalanced is about slam potential, not about HCP strength.

With three first round controls, a lot of tricks and a singleton in the fourth suit this hand has great slam potential.

Bidding 1♥ followed by 4♥ may easily miss slam. What is worse it invites competition.

In fact of the alternatives I rate 1♥ worst. The alternative to 2♣ is 4♥, giving more or less up on slam.

After 2♣ there are no rebid problems.

Partner might have had ♠xxxx,♥-,♦KQxxx,♣xxxx, in which case 6♦ would have been a great contract.

The risk that 2♣ will mislead partner is small. You are far more likely to gain by making partner aware of the slam potential than by limiting your HCP strength.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

east psyched the opening, if partned didn´t have ♠AK I think NS would be entitled to find their cold 4♠ if your NBO forbids psyching artificial opening bids.

[hrothgar]

When I get dealt a hand with a lot of offensive strength, little defense, and I know the strain I'm playing in, I preempt...

A 2♣ opening is complete inane

 

I have some vague sympathy for a 1H opening, but 2C boggles the mind

[Quantumcat]

The reason to have strong openings is so that the bidding would not go 1x-P-P-P, on a hand that is comitted to play game opposite partner that may not have enough to answer 1 level opening.

I agree. If you have your nine tricks but in a weak shapely hand, there is absolutely no way the auction is going to get passed out at the one level (the cards in your short suits have to be somewhere)

[Zelandakh]

east psyched the opening

You have written this before and it is as wrong this time as last. If E-W have the agreement to open hands with opening strength and lots of playing tricks 2♣ then it is not a psyche. Of course they also have to disclose this to the opponents. Some authorities also have additional restrictions on their strong openings - that might make the agreement illegal. Let's assume the opponents are not playing an illegal agreement and do disclose accurately unless told otherwise though.

 

Note that for some pairs this hand would qualify for a 3NT or 4♣ opening. Similarly, when playing Benji Twos (or SEF) one might well consider opening this hand 2♣. Assuming that the choice was simply between 1♥ and 2♣ and we were playing 2♣ in an orthodox way, I much prefer 1♥. The reason is because I do not want to force partner to double them with shrott. Those that play that a 2♣ opening can be bid with a shapely but weakish hand typically do not play (or usually even know of) forcing passes.

[Fluffy]

You have written this before and it is as wrong this time as last. If E-W have the agreement to open hands with opening strength and lots of playing tricks 2♣ then it is not a psyche. Of course they also have to disclose this to the opponents. Some authorities also have additional restrictions on their strong openings - that might make the agreement illegal. Let's assume the opponents are not playing an illegal agreement and do disclose accurately unless told otherwise though.

 

Note that for some pairs this hand would qualify for a 3NT or 4♣ opening. Similarly, when playing Benji Twos (or SEF) one might well consider opening this hand 2♣. Assuming that the choice was simply between 1♥ and 2♣ and we were playing 2♣ in an orthodox way, I much prefer 1♥. The reason is because I do not want to force partner to double them with shrott. Those that play that a 2♣ opening can be bid with a shapely but weakish hand typically do not play (or usually even know of) forcing passes.

If this is a 2♣ opening you should pre alert it just the same as multi, you need a defence against this. When opponents open 2♣ you need to talk about constructive methods if it is possible for your side to have a cold slam without anything spectacular happening.

[rhm]

The reason is because I do not want to force partner to double them with shrott. Those that play that a 2♣ opening can be bid with a shapely but weakish hand typically do not play (or usually even know of) forcing passes.

I do not really understand this concern.

When partner doubles you take it out, which you would have done anyway. You are allowed to take a second look at your hand and your defensive prospects after you opened 2♣.

The only time I might pass is if I opened 4♥, next hand bid 4♠ and partner doubled.

Even then I would not be sure whether Christmas has arrived early.

 

Of course you play pass as forcing after 2♣.

If opener has as you claim a "shapely but weakish(???)" hand, why would anyone want to pass?

Sounds to me masochistic.

By the way my definition of weak does not include hands with long major suits and 3 losers.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

If this is a 2♣ opening you should pre alert it just the same as multi, you need a defence against this. When opponents open 2♣ you need to talk about constructive methods if it is possible for your side to have a cold slam without anything spectacular happening.

I disagree that people have to pre-alert just because they do not share your idea (and some others) what constitutes successful bidding.

My definition of a 2♣ bid is any hand too strong to preempt with game in hand near certain and good slam prospects.

It is a matter of Bridge judgment whether this hand meets this criteria.

If you have other exalted ideas what criteria a 2♣ hand must meet besides, that's up to you.

But you make a good point why your criteria may have severe drawbacks. (opponents can go into obstructive mode)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ahydra]

east psyched the opening, if partned didn´t have ♠AK I think NS would be entitled to find their cold 4♠ if your NBO forbids psyching artificial opening bids.

 

I agree 2C is the wrong bid for that hand. But there's no way that 2C can be ruled a psyche, surely? The hand is very strong for play in hearts.

 

Using EBU rules it's not a legal "strong" opening (only 7 clear cut tricks, not rule of 25 and not 16+ HCP). But I'd never rule it a psyche.

 

What would I open? 1H planning to rebid 4H, I guess. 4H in fourth.

 

ahydra

[billw55]

There is no reason to distort this hand so severely by opening 2♣. You can open 1♥ (my choice), or maybe 4♥, maybe an acol 2, or a conventional opening such as namyats, etc. There is always a much more accurate bid, and in this sense Fluffy may have a point about it being considered a psyche.

 

Also some people may play that opening 2♣ immediately establishes a forcing auction (buy contract or double them). In that case 2♣ is obviously absurd.

[phil_20686]

Using EBU rules it's not a legal "strong" opening (only 7 clear cut tricks, not rule of 25 and not 16+ HCP). But I'd never rule it a psyche.

 

Counting AKJ98 to 8 as only 6 tricks seems harsh. AKQTxxx is usually counted as seven clear cut tricks, despite the fact that it may be no more than four if they are 0 0 6 around the table.

[Zelandakh]

Counting AKJ98 to 8 as only 6 tricks seems harsh. AKQTxxx is usually counted as seven clear cut tricks, despite the fact that it may be no more than four if they are 0 0 6 around the table.

The definition is the number of tricks opposite a void with partner and the second best suit break from opponents, in this case 4-1. AKQTxxx should only be 6 CCTs if I read the regulation correctly (4-2 break assumed).

[billw55]

IMO regulations have gone too far when they start telling us how to count tricks when evaluating a hand.

[SteveMoe]

I would't open this 2♣. I prefer to have 4 losers or better and 4 QTs or better. This hand is short on QTs. I would however use the strongest 4♥ bid I have: either a Reverse Namyats 4♥ or 1♥ - any - 4♥. Like MrAce I am bidding 4♥ on this hand regardless how I start.

[neilkaz]

I have only 8 tricks and 12 HCP. Why would I open 2♣?

 

EDIT: RHM is correct that this is worth more and to me closer to 9 tricks than 8, but for me I still don't open 2♣.

[rhm]

I have only 8 tricks and 12 HCP. Why would I open 2♣?

Simply because you will miss slam quite frequently with any other opening.

Not in this forum of course but at the Bridge table and not only small slams but grands as well.

I trust that your visualization technique is good enough that any examples for partner's hand are superfluous to prove that point.

And HCP are not everything.

Why this last point needs to be stressed in a forum for players past the beginner stage escapes me.

Also claiming this hand has 8 tricks is ridiculously conservative. Why not 7? Give all the remaining hearts to LHO and you may do well taking 7 tricks.

Opposite a balanced yarborough this hand has 9 tricks at least.

 

The Rubens Kaplan evaluator, known to be good for suit contracts, puts the value of the hand at 22.1.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

Sorry but you sound like a good salesman who is trying to sell a bad product on this one. I thought for a second that you will end your post with "If you call now and purchase this type of 2♣ opener, you will recieve a free seat in Bermuda Bowl. Just call now !! "

 

 

Simply because you will miss slam quite frequently with any other opening.

 

Also you will play 7 going down when pd drags you with hands where grandslam is laydown if you had anything close to 2♣ opener.

 

Also you will go slams where game was your best spot. Not even mentioning stopping with jake brakes at 5 level.

 

Also if you train your pd not too get too excited, then you will pay off your due in some other hands for being extremely cautious, missed slams, grands, missed doubles etc etc

 

I trust that your visualization technique is good enough that any examples for partner's hand are superfluous to prove that point.

 

<_<

 

 

And HCP are not everything.

Why this last point needs to be stressed in a forum for players past the beginner stage escapes me.

 

Welsaid, but it doesnt mean HCPS worth nothing either.

 

Opposite a balanced yarborough this hand has 9 tricks at least.

 

Opposite a balanced yarbarough hand x x x KQJTxxxxxx also takes 9 tricks, are we supposed to open this 2♣ too ?

 

 

.

 

The Rubens Kaplan evaluator, known to be good for suit contracts, puts the value of the hand at 22.1.

 

The Rubens Kaplan evaluator also values x Qx xx KQJTxxxx as 12.35 points, with your logic are we supposed to open this 1♣ ?

[helene_t]

IMO regulations have gone too far when they start telling us how to count tricks when evaluating a hand.

I dunno. What alternative would you suggest? The ACBL practice of "if they call it strong, it is strong" is pretty ridicolous and I wouldn't like "if the TD thinks it looks strong, it is strong" either.

 

In discussions like this I always suggest that it should be as simple as possible, for example "15+ HCPs. Period". But then everybody say that that is ridicolous, too.

 

It is this discussion that sometimes make me think that maybe it would be better just not to have any system regulations at all. But then there are those who are strongly opposed to that idea as well.

 

You just can't make everybody happy.

[MrAce]

 

It is this discussion that sometimes make me think that maybe it would be better just not to have any system regulations at all. But then there are those who are strongly opposed to that idea as well.

 

Thats exactly my feelings Helene.

 

As much as i don't like 2♣ with this hand, i think those who believes it is strong enough should be allowed to open. Of course with full disclosure on their cc (or perhaps warning that says their 2♣ can be very low in hcp.

[ahydra]

Sorry but you sound like a good salesman who is trying to sell a bad product on this one. I thought for a second that you will end your post with "If you call now and purchase this type of 2♣ opener, you will recieve a free seat in Bermuda Bowl. Just call now !! "

 

:D

 

It is true that 1H-?-4H sounds closer to a semi-balanced hand with 6 hearts and 18 HCP than it does an 8-4 with 12 HCP. But provided you insist hearts are trumps, the playing strength of the two hands should be fairly similar. And of course, if partner tries for slam, you accept without a second thought.

 

ahydra

[phil_20686]

It is true that 1H-?-4H sounds closer to a semi-balanced hand with 6 hearts and 18 HCP

 

lol?

 

That would practically be a psyche. Seriously, does anyone bid that way?