Is this strong 3361 worth a 2C opening?

[bd71]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak7hkq6dkqj742c7]133|100[/hv]

 

Matchpoints.

 

What do you open W/R 1st seat?

[helene_t]

1♦ for me, but the rebid after a 1M response is a well-known problem. I need just a little bit more for a 2♣ opening. After 2♣ you can show a semiforcing with a major, but with a minor you can only show gameforcing hands.

[Codo]

This is one of the hands why some people invite tools to handle the Bridge world death hands... or to have openings that are made for hands between a strong NT and a GF....

[Cyberyeti]

1♦, I will GF anyway over 1M, which I can do with an artificial 2N rebid the way I play. ♥ AJxx and ♦ 10x/xxx is enough to make 5♦ excellent for example.

[bd71]

I need just a little bit more for a 2♣ opening.

 

Are there (semi) objective standards here, or is it just a feel? Is the hand not strong enough offensively?...defensively?...something else?

 

Not trolling, just trying to delve a bit deeper into how good players think about the 2C threshold.

[helene_t]

Are there (semi) objective standards here, or is it just a feel? Is the hand not strong enough offensively?...defensively?...something else?

I expect 3+ defensive tricks which is fine, I would occasionaly open 2♣ with a bit less than that. But if dummy is broke I count only 8 tricks in a diamond contract and for 3NT I need some help also.

 

Basically I need to be very close to having game in my own hand. If partner doesn't have enough to respond to 1♦ then I will rather be in 1♦ than in game, and that is the main reason why I open 1♦.

[blackshoe]

You didn't mention system, so I choose Romex, and I open 1NT. :P

[Cyberyeti]

You didn't mention system, so I choose Romex, and I open 1NT. :P

Not unhappy with a benji or reverse benji 2♣/♦ or a multi or acol 2♦ showing the hand as 8 playing tricks in diamonds either.

[mikeh]

The main problem with 2♣ is that most (all I know, but I don't know all) would play that even over an immediate negative response (and many don't use that) a rebid by opener of 3♦ is forcing.

 

If we knew that opening this hand 2♣ would allow us to play 3♦ opposite a bad hand, we'd probably be reasonably happy, but it doesn't.

 

Of course, opening 1♦ has its own considerable downside should partner respond 1M. But sometimes the opps bid before partner, and sometimes partner surprises us pleasantly and sometimes we land on our feet anyway.

 

Of course, a number of partnerships do have methods for this hand-type, which became known as the Bridge World Nightmare hand. The BW has an expert poll every month and variants on this hand would show up once or twice a year for many years. The posters were constrained to using a method known as Bridge World Standard, which was in turn based upon surveys of readers every few years. It has traditionally been close to whatever constituted East Coast Expert Standard in the US, and thus has never had a gadget that would handle this nightmare.

[lalldonn]

If I couldn't open 1♦ my second choice would be 2NT.

[Thiros]

Of course, opening 1♦ has its own considerable downside should partner respond 1M.

 

Depends on the M. If the response is 1♠ then a fake reverse will usually be okay. However, if it's 1♥ then we do really have a serious problem. It's worth noting that a lot of the Bridge World Nightmare Hands, when partner's response is 1♠ and we have three-card support, can be handled with fake reverses.

 

Opening 2♣ here would be beyond the pale.

[mgoetze]

Are there (semi) objective standards here, or is it just a feel? Is the hand not strong enough offensively?...defensively?...something else?

 

Not trolling, just trying to delve a bit deeper into how good players think about the 2C threshold.

To be honest, for me, this hand is only "close" to 2♣ insofar as I would grit my teeth and do it with an extra ace. At a rough count, I have about 8 tricks in diamonds, and NT is even iffier than that. Since I play 2♣ as actually game-forcing unless I rebid 2NT, I want to be a lot closer to actually being able to make a game than that. Semi objective standards? Well, I would like to be able to count at least 9 tricks (by a somewhat but not very pessimistic estimate, i.e. assume your partner has a small doubleton in your long suit and it breaks normally) in a major or 9½ tricks in a minor (AQx for instance would be 1½ tricks, but of course you need entries so KJTx really needs to be discounted more).

 

Less objectively but perhaps more usefully, try to visualise some hands partner might have, concentrating on ones with which he would pass a 1-level opening. Say he has a small singleton in your suit and a random Q and a J. How do you like getting to 3NT?