2C 18+

[micsfyuen]

Partner and I have not played competitive bridge for a long time and joined a local tournament recently, in an attempt to simplify the bidding system, we decided to make 2C 18+ instead of the more common 22+. In the tournament we played altogether 66 boards, 2C appeared 2 times and we got average results with it, but we gained more comfortable bidding in the 1-level opening and got satisfactory overall result. Partner and I are inclined to keep 2C 18+ in our partnership, but seems nobody is playing this way, is it good or bad idea after all?

 

our system overview:

NT ladder:

15-17 bal: open 1NT

18-19 bal without 5M: open 1m and jump NT

18-19 bal with 5M: open 2C rebid 2M

20-21 bal: open 2C rebid 2NT

22-24 bal: open 2NT

 

1m: 11-19, 3+cards (18-19 must be bal)

1M: 11-17, 5+cards (responder can pass with ugly 6-7)

 

Opener reverse bid/jump bid shows max (16-17) but can be passed, and no Lebensohl/Ingberman convention

1M - 1NT - 2 lower: limit to 11-15 instead of the more common wilder range

 

2C: 18+

 

2C - 2D: 0-7

2C - others: 8+ natural

2C - 2D - 2H/2S/3C/3D: 18-21, 5+cards, can be passed

2C - 2D - opener jump with really big hands

[yunling]

I think it is unplayable. Your 22+ hands are too high. Finding slams over 2♣-2♦-3M/4m is almost impossible and often you cannot find your major fit below 3NT.

[akwoo]

It's inferior in that you'll have trouble bidding really big hands and end up too high when partner has nothing opposite your 19 count, but if it saves you some bidding disasters with complicated reverse or jump shift auctions, I think it's a perfectly playable system at matchpoint scoring.

Make sure you alert both your reverses and your 2C opening along with followups (but not the 2D response).

 

I think though, that if you go down this route, you should really look at (simplified) Precision systems. They accomplish much of the same simplicity with fewer of the downsides. The big minus are two:

 

1) All 12-14 balanced hands get opened 1D, so you lose the information about longer minor with those. (But 2C is natural, so actual club hands won't have trouble.)

 

2) Opponents will find it easier to come in over an artificial 1C than over a light-ish artificial 2C.

[glen]

If you do this, play 2♣ as 18 to near GF, and 2♦ opening as any GF

[PrecisionL]

Did you see this thread on Bocchi-Duboin 2♣ opening = 18-20 hcp and balanced?

 

http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry774465

 

Finally got their book from Rome: IL SISTEMA by Bocchi-Duboin, 2010.

I have been playing this for 4 weeks now. No major boards to report yet.

[micsfyuen]

Thanks for the advice!

We play mainly match point, so we look for a system that works fine on the balance of probability, instead of a system that works perfectly in every scenario. Also, I may be a system geek but partner is a KISS style, partner can probably handle a few conventions but not a switch to precision.

 

Apparently we have two major issues that we need to tackle:

1) 22+ unbal vs 0-7: 2C-2D-jump is too high

2) 18-19 unbal with minor vs 0-5: 2C-2D-3m is too high

 

and we have 2 solutions to these:

for 1) have both 2C and 2D as strong bid, may study Bocchi-Duboin's style

for 2) open 1m with these hands

 

Issue 1 is rather low frequency (I guess 0.1% to 0.2%), we probably could just live with it.

Issue 2, I think open 1m with these will be fine, anyone could suggest the frequency of this?

[Zelandakh]

Seems to be strictly worse than a strong or Polish Club system. One obvious issue is that Opener cannot stop in 3NT with a GF hand and a minor as the longest suit; having to rebid 4m on such a hand really sucks and can easily be a disaster.

 

As glen points out, it would not be a bad idea to look at recruiting the 2♦ opening a la Benji (or reverse). But then this structure is generally seen as worse than 3 weaks or Dutch beyond low intermediate level.

 

For the record, if you are willing to put up with a natural 2♣ opening an easy structure is:

 

2NT = anything you like

2♣ = 11-14 5♣4M or 6+ clubs

1NT = 12-14 bal or 4414

1♦♥♠ = nat, up to 17

1♣ = 15+ nat/bal or 18+ any

... - 1♥+ = GF

... - 1♦ = non-GF hand

... - ... - 1♥ = 18-20 any or 23-24 bal

... - ... - 1♠ = any unbal GF or 18+ 3-suited

... - ... - 1NT = 15-17 bal or 4414

... - ... - 2♣ = 15-17 5♣4M or 6+ clubs

... - ... - 2♦ = Acol 2 in a minor

... - ... - 2M = Acol 2

... - ... - 2NT = 21-22

 

Obviously PC works too if you want to go for a strong NT set-up.

[helene_t]

I think you should still open 1♣ or 1♦ with unbalanced hands up to about 20 or 21 points with primarily a minor suit. Then 2♣ followed by 3m would be forcing.

 

Putting the 18-point hands, or at least some of them, with 5+ in a major, into the 2♣ opening makes a bit more sense but it is a dilema whether 2♣ followed by 2M is forcing or not. You might consider responses to 2♣ like this:

2♦: don't worry I am not going to pass below game.

2♥: If you have 18-20 with hearts then 2♥ is enough.

2♠: If you have 18-20 with spades then 2♠ is enough, but I do have enough heart support for game if that is your suit.

[ahydra]

I used to play 2C = 18-21 with one or two suits (5-5), and 2D GF, plus some cunning 1x-...-2NT stuff to show 6-4 or better shapes. This then means that the 1x openings are still very wide-range, but if opener jump-bids on the second round he has exactly 5-4 and no better, which helps responder make best use of the cramped auction.

 

As others have suggested a strong club system is probably easiest if you want to play limited 1x openings. If done well you can be extra-aggressive, e.g. regularly opening 10 counts with a major, to keep opponents out.

 

Edit: for this 2C=18+, helene's structure is pretty good too. Minors aren't worth worrying about a lot of the time since you're normally just going to play 3NT.

 

ahydra

[P_Marlowe]

 

2C: 18+

 

2C - 2D: 0-7

2C - others: 8+ natural

2C - 2D - 2H/2S/3C/3D: 18-21, 5+cards, can be passed

2C - 2D - opener jump with really big hands

Just 1-2 remarks

 

As a response to 2C you have lots of bids, that deal with good hands, I recommend to

increase the bids, that deal with hands, that have no game interest vs. a min 2C opening bid,

in the end this goes in the direction of Helene's post.

 

The range 0-7 for the 2D response is to large, partner has an expected value of holding 6 2/3

HCPs, when you open 2C, and if he does, you want to be in game, so you should lower this range,

so that the opener can look for the safes part score vs. a neg. response, that will reduce the risk

of getting too high.

 

You already weakened your req. for 1 level openings, to 11, you can reduce this to 10, or brilliant

looking 9, that way, you will add. precision to your preempt openings, and get something back in return

for the problems you will have, if you hold strong hands.

The problem with a strong 2C opening is, that you have problems bidding good hands, those problems get

larger, if the frequency of the 2C opening goes up.

If you are willing to pay the price make sure, you get something in return.

 

In general: If it works for you, with regards to the tournaments you play, go for it.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[PrecisionL]

Thanks for the advice!

We play mainly match point, so we look for a system that works fine on the balance of probability, instead of a system that works perfectly in every scenario. Also, I may be a system geek but partner is a KISS style, partner can probably handle a few conventions but not a switch to precision.

 

Apparently we have two major issues that we need to tackle:

1) 22+ unbal vs 0-7: 2C-2D-jump is too high

2) 18-19 unbal with minor vs 0-5: 2C-2D-3m is too high

 

and we have 2 solutions to these:

for 1) have both 2C and 2D as strong bid, may study Bocchi-Duboin's style

for 2) open 1m with these hands

 

Issue 1 is rather low frequency (I guess 0.1% to 0.2%), we probably could just live with it.

Issue 2, I think open 1m with these will be fine, anyone could suggest the frequency of this?

(1) 22+ hands unbalanced is hard to calculate as many 19+ hands qualify. 22+ = 0.4%

 

(2) 18-19 balanced = 1.3%, thus unbalanced would be ~1.3% and majors or minors only = ~5% of those. (Ignoring 0-5 responding hands)

 

NOTE: 42 pages of notes on Bocchi 2♣ and 2♦ openings: www.bridgewithdan.com

[Vampyr]

 

and we have 2 solutions to these:

for 1) have both 2C and 2D as strong bid

 

 

This is fairly popular here in England; search for "Benji Acol".

[Lovera]

I increase 2♣ bidding in this way: you valutes the hand with LTC and moltiply for 5 this number. If MW points + only longness (1 point from 5th card and so on) is more of number of losers x 5 you can open with 2♣. But you can consider also shortness ulheriorly and not only longness that should take at 18(Usually with 4 losers we must have almost 20 points(=pair) to open.) In this way is more delimited space for reverse but i suggest to retain 2♦ If partner has not more of 1,5 controlls (3 kings or 1A +KQ in other suit),.(Lovera)

[Vampyr]

You can't really give yourself credit for length and shortness in the same hand. Anyway if you want the use the above requirements for your 2♣ opening, you might want to consider playing Benji, as mentioned above many times, or putting various strong hand types into a Multi.

 

But it sounds like you really would prefer to be playing a strong club system.

[Lovera]

You can't really give yourself credit for length and shortness in the same hand. Anyway if you want the use the above requirements for your 2♣ opening, you might want to consider playing Benji, as mentioned above many times, or putting various strong hand types into a Multi.

 

But it sounds like you really would prefer to be playing a strong club system.

This rule (LTC x 5) is not mine but i have found it in a book of G. Barbone ("Il libro completo del bridge") as i have already said in another post. I have taken only the variation for longness that allows to use it more frequently (en passant i use Stayman system).