Do You Agree With the 2 Club Opening Bid?

[rhm]

Rainer, I find this interesting. I have a great amount of respect for the depth of your analysis, and you are 2nd to none on play problems, but the things you say in bidding problems are like nails to a chalkboard to my ears. Why are you out of touch with modern bidding trends, in your opinion?

Out of touch is a bit strong, but I disagree with some trends like the over-restrictive requirements on a 2♣ opening bid, which at the moment is almost universally accepted and rarely questioned.

The arguments for this practice look weak to me and it is at least counter intuitive to the current trend of lowering opening bid requirements.

The result is that one level bids are even more wide ranging than they used to be. That this gap is closed is often cited as a main advantage of one-club systems.

 

I also gave a definition for 2♣, which I consider sensible.

(Note, I am not arguing for a "semiforcing" or weaker 2♣ opening bid. I believe the 2♣ bid should be forcing to game. I just don't care so much for HCP or defensive potential)

Most (like you), simply said they strongly disagreed, but gave no real arguments and the counterarguments there are seem to me refutable and unconvincing.

For example, why I should tell the opponents with my 2♣ opening, that they can not make anything constructively and that they should switch into obstruction mode, escapes me completely. It helps their strategy and this simply cannot be in my interest.

It seems to annoy Fluffy, that my opponents will not know whether they can make 6♠ when I open 2♣.

Of course I believe in full disclosure when I depart from mainstream.

 

To clarify my view:

 

I am not claiming that opening such hands with 2♣ will come out ahead every time. Nothing really does.

It is true that you conceivably can get too high with a 2♣ opening.

Sometimes opening 4♥ will be the winner.

 

My claim, however, is that opening 2♣ with this hand has more to gain than to loose and I also explained why I believe this.

Partner will consider slam options much more readily, which I believe is a clear winner overall with such an offensive hand.

 

When playing a standard system like 2/1 the purpose of a 2♣ opening bid is to put an upper limit on one-level bids and this strength can not be measured in HCP alone. If you do not agree on this you are better of playing Fantunes.

Otherwise you will miss many lay-down slams and this is as expensive as missing cold games, where people seem to accept this point. (Fear of getting passed out)

The argument goes if I will not get passed out, it is okay to open at the one-level.

But the fear of languishing in game is shrugged off. This happens at least as often and I consider this attitude inconsistent.

 

I can understand people opening with a one-level bid when a 2♣ opening would lead to insurmountable rebid problems.

Bad enough, but this is a very convincing argument.

 

Not the case here. My arguments simply contradict mainstream. That's all.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ahydra]

lol?

 

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

 

 

1♥- 1X - 4♥ is different from 1X - 1♥ - 4♥

 

These replies puzzle me a bit. If you have x AK10xxx KQx AQx how do you bid after 1H-1S? 3H is an underbid, 2NT is silly with a 6cM and suit is not solid for 3NT. Maybe I'm behind the times - certainly in old-fashioned (Acol) bidding this is a 4H call.

 

Or do people jump-shift into a fake 3C (ugh)?

 

edit: and sailorranch, I wouldn't open 1-not-hearts if I had 6 hearts...

 

The hand I've given above and the OP's 8-4 are hardly similar, but both have 4 losers, and more importantly, both don't want to play in game unless partner can respond to 1H, but do if he can.

 

ahydra

[phil_20686]

These replies puzzle me a bit. If you have x AK10xxx KQx AQx how do you bid after 1H-1S? 3H is an underbid, 2NT is silly with a 6cM and suit is not solid for 3NT. Maybe I'm behind the times - certainly in old-fashioned (Acol) bidding this is a 4H call.

 

Or do people jump-shift into a fake 3C (ugh)?

 

So the traditional way (at least when I was learning, eight years ago or so :P) to deal with these hands was to bid 3N to show `a hand to good to rebid 3h' which protects the integrity of your jump shifts. Alternatively, you can fake a jump shift, or the third alternative, is to use the 2N rebid as a generalised GF, and fold these hands into it. Of course, this means GF with all 2N rebids, but that is a small loss imo.

 

All of those are much preferable to rebidding 4H on these hands.

[ahydra]

So the traditional way (at least when I was learning, eight years ago or so :P) to deal with these hands was to bid 3N to show `a hand to good to rebid 3h' which protects the integrity of your jump shifts. Alternatively, you can fake a jump shift, or the third alternative, is to use the 2N rebid as a generalised GF, and fold these hands into it. Of course, this means GF with all 2N rebids, but that is a small loss imo.

 

All of those are much preferable to rebidding 4H on these hands.

 

Thanks - I've never heard of that; for me 3NT was either 19 BAL (realllllllly old fashioned) or a solid suit (the modern method).

 

2NT = 18-19 BAL for us, so I guess that's close enough to GF that the loss from getting too high when partner responded on Ace-and-out is small. The problem is in a 4cM system whether you can now distinguish between this hand and a 18-count 2533 (or even 3433!)... I'll think about this some more and discuss with my partner.

 

ahydra

[sailoranch]

These replies puzzle me a bit. If you have x AK10xxx KQx AQx how do you bid after 1H-1S? 3H is an underbid, 2NT is silly with a 6cM and suit is not solid for 3NT. Maybe I'm behind the times - certainly in old-fashioned (Acol) bidding this is a 4H call.

 

Or do people jump-shift into a fake 3C (ugh)?

 

edit: and sailorranch, I wouldn't open 1-not-hearts if I had 6 hearts...

 

The hand I've given above and the OP's 8-4 are hardly similar, but both have 4 losers, and more importantly, both don't want to play in game unless partner can respond to 1H, but do if he can.

 

ahydra

 

Haha, my point was that one auction shows a strong balanced hand with a fit, whereas the other would not. My understanding is that it would show a one-suited hand too strong to open at the four-level. With your example, I would fake the jump shift.

[y66]

This is a 1H opener for me. I don't play Namyats and until now it never occurred to me to define 2C along lines proposed by rhm. Interesting idea.

[awm]

I wouldn't open 2♣ on this hand.

 

It's not all about whether I miss a game (which, as others have pointed out, won't happen after a 1♥ opening on this hand).

 

Give partner a nice hand like ♠Axxx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣Kxx. Of course we are icy cold for 4♥... but if we open 2♣ and rebid hearts, partner will be thinking this is an awfully good hand. Seems quite likely that we will get to 5♥ if not six... but we will need some luck to make even eleven tricks and will never make twelve. Give partner ♠Axx ♥x ♦Kxxx ♣KQxxx; is partner really letting us out below slam if we open 2♣? I very much doubt it, but slam prospects are iffy at best. There are many more examples like this.

 

It's also possible that opponents get in the auction. Say the bidding goes 2♣-2♠-Pass (values)-4♠. Having opened 2♣ we are in a forcing auction. Can we really afford to pass partner's double ever? Not only do we have to bid 5♥ here, but if the opponents compete to 5♠ we will probably have to bid 6♥ (or are we leaving partner's penalty double that could be based on zero defense in)? Not to mention that partner might hold one of the hands up above and when he hears 2♣-2♠-Pass-4♠-5♥-Pass, there is no way he's finding a pass.

 

Anyway, my preference is to open these with a namyats type bid (I like 3NT = good major suit preempt). This describes the hand well and makes life hard on the opponents. Without such a bid, I like to open 4♥ more than most, but this hand is a little too strong for me and I'd stick with the one-level.

[Fluffy]

Out of touch is a bit strong, but I disagree with some trends like the over-restrictive requirements on a 2♣ opening bid, which at the moment is almost universally accepted and rarely questioned.

The arguments for this practice look weak to me and it is at least counter intuitive to the current trend of lowering opening bid requirements.

The result is that one level bids are even more wide ranging than they used to be. That this gap is closed is often cited as a main advantage of one-club systems.

 

I also gave a definition for 2♣, which I consider sensible.

(Note, I am not arguing for a "semiforcing" or weaker 2♣ opening bid. I believe the 2♣ bid should be forcing to game. I just don't care so much for HCP or defensive potential)

Most (like you), simply said they strongly disagreed, but gave no real arguments and the counterarguments there are seem to me refutable and unconvincing.

For example, why I should tell the opponents with my 2♣ opening, that they can not make anything constructively and that they should switch into obstruction mode, escapes me completely. It helps their strategy and this simply cannot be in my interest.

It seems to annoy Fluffy, that my opponents will not know whether they can make 6♠ when I open 2♣.

Of course I believe in full disclosure when I depart from mainstream.

 

To clarify: I don't think opening this 2♣ has to be banned for violating whatever and making opponent's game unplayable, I am all in for no sytem restrictions. And this (light) 2♣ opener can be good constructively on certain hands*, however as you (kind of) pointed out yourself, another advantage is that it is good for its preemptive effect, and this preemptive effect is something your opponent do not expect, and are not prepared to deal for, this gives to you an unfair advantage, and that's why in my opinin you should prealert such agreements.

 

*In my opinion and others it is very wrong on average, but I leave it up to Timo, he explains it better than me.

[MinorKid]

I will choose 1♥. 2♣ is no on my mind cz it won't go P-P-P . If partner have ♦KQxxx and nothing opponents will surely bid something.

I don't want 4♠XX nor 5♣XX on the opposite side.

 

I will see what comes up next round. If the auction is likely to continue i bid ♦ on lowest level. If it looks dying i will force my partner to bid. (In this case if he bid ♦ I will raise 4♦, ask partner to start cue-bidding. If he bid somthing else, i revert to ♥)