2 club opening

[snillrik13]

Do you see any big disadvatage with having both 6C and 5C4M as possible hands after a 2C opening?

[mgoetze]

Of course there's a disadvantage, the question is just whether it outweighs the disadvantage of including some of those hands in other parts of your system.

[awm]

The main issue is that sometimes you want to fish for a major suit fit and/or possible game on hands without GF values or a good club fit. If 2C is six, then you can do this and play a reasonable partial in 3C (even 6-1 fits play okay) if you don't find what you're looking for. Five club hands don't offer this safety.

[mikestar13]

I'm a late-comer to the Precision/Polish 2♣ requires 6 camp, but I'm convinced that (for once--the contrary is usually the case) the North Americans (who mostly insist on 6♣) have it right and the Europeans (who usually allow 5♣-4M) have it wrong. Getting to a playable partial when no major suit fit is found really sucks when opener will often have only five clubs, passing 2♣ with a stiff (or void!) when too weak to investigate is also not a source of lasting happiness.

[steve2005]

This question depends on your entire system. The people who guarantee 6+♣ open 1♦ or 2♦ on 5♣4M hands. 2♦ can get you too high and 1♦ you may lose the ♣ are just some of the problems.

 

If you open 2♣ including 5♣4M your 1♦ is less ambiguous and you can use 2♦ for something they think is more useful or fill a whole in their system. However its not as safe to bid over 2♣.

 

this is simplistic but is the general theme.

[snillrik13]

This question depends on your entire system. The people who guarantee 6+♣ open 1♦ or 2♦ on 5♣4M hands. 2♦ can get you too high and 1♦ you may lose the ♣ are just some of the problems.

 

If you open 2♣ including 5♣4M your 1♦ is less ambiguous and you can use 2♦ for something they think is more useful or fill a whole in their system. However its not as safe to bid over 2♣.

 

this is simplistic but is the general theme.

[snillrik13]

So what you are afraid of is a penalty opening also with 5-4? Then the next question is how do you bid non-reverse 5-4 hands?

 

Calub hands is a weak Point in all big club systems.That is main reason for this topic. Btw in oursystem (see fanfantunes@n.nu) we use 2NT as a Classic preempt in D or C, 3m as a strong preempt, 7 tricks to search 3NT or higher and we also experiment with 3C based on points and some 7 tricks to be integrated in Multi 2D. On top of this we also have Acol bids 1C - 1X > 3C.

 

This might well boil down to using 5C4M (or weak6C4M)ONLY and not 6-carder in clubs when we open 2C......To me it seems the ultimate solution :)

[whereagles]

I've played 5♣-4M for a long time and can attest it can *really* put you into some trouble once in a while. Having a long experience helps here, but even then you're bound to get a few zeros on its account.

 

HOWEVER...

 

the "2♣ = 6 cards" alternative requires dumping 5♣-4M into 1♦, overloading what is an already problematic opening. I've also played that for a long time and it's not much better.

 

There's no way out of this except changing the system radically (as in go strong pass or something). You just have to pick the style you prefer and discuss stuff with partner. If I had to choose between the two, I'd say the "5♣-4M" is better in an experienced partnership.

[mycroft]

The other benefit of 2♣ promising 6 is that, as a semi-preemptive opening, the raise to 3♣ is *amazing*, and can be done on pretty much anything that has xxx or Qx or better. It can also be done after 2♣-(2M), and now the pairs that are responding at the 1 level everywhere else (after (1♣)-1M-(X,P, 1NT, whatever) ) are now responding at the 3 level. You will win more of these guesses than you lose.

 

The downsides are many, I agree - having to put the 5♣-4M hands into 1 or 2♦, and of course the fact that when you do go looking for a 4-4 major fit, the chance of you actually having one (even with a "safe" return to 3♣) is much lower.

[Shugart23]

I think the answer might be dependent upon whether you are playing matchpoints (real bridge) or imps (party bridge)

[whereagles]

that's a somewhat reductive definition lol

[Shugart23]

Being a match point player I think the 2C showing 5C, 4 card Major or 6+ clubs is superior. I think maybe for IMPS, 2C promising 6 Clubs might be better. This is a gut feeling, as I don't vary my style currently for this specific bid when playing match point vs. IMP. But maybe I should ( I vary other bids IMPS vs. Match point)

[Oof Arted]

<_<

 

What is wrong with 2♣ opener being either 6 or a GOOD 5 card suit Thus leaving the 1♦ opener as the "Bucket" bid either ♦ or 4 CM

[hrothgar]

There's a reason some of us prefer canape based 4 card majors in conjunction with strong club...

[Free]

Being a match point player I think the 2C showing 5C, 4 card Major or 6+ clubs is superior. I think maybe for IMPS, 2C promising 6 Clubs might be better. This is a gut feeling, as I don't vary my style currently for this specific bid when playing match point vs. IMP. But maybe I should ( I vary other bids IMPS vs. Match point)

My experience is the opposite: when playing MP it's quite silly to play 2♣ when you have an 8 (or 7) card fit in a Major... In imps it's not as problematic.

[Shugart23]

I think a canope style bid offers some good possibility and after the NAOPs, I may completely revamp what I do. Free, I don't really disagree with you as I only really play the one style whether IMPS or MP....I really can't remember the last time the bidding went 2C -P-P-P though, ....But you may be right...I may be right that theoretically you should bid different MP vs IMPs

[whereagles]

My experience with 54 at MP is that one should use and abuse the 2♦ relay (ask for side major). Reason is if you play clubs when there's a major fit, you're gonna get a zero. If there is no major fit, maybe 2NT/3♣ makes, maybe you'd go down anyway, etc.

 

A friend of mine tried a canapé style a long time ago, but he ended up evolving from that. I don't like what he evolved to, so I might give the canapé a try one day.

[NickRW]

Well, I've played Precision, which I generally was quite comfortable with. But the 2♣ opener at 6 or 5♣4M was not a strong point of the system IMO. Of course, making it 6 only beefs up the opening, at the cost of putting the 5/4 hands somewhere else (not my cup of tea either).

 

I've also played Blue Club (canapé(ish), 4cM) which has the 2♣ opener as 12-16 6+ cards or possibly 15-16 5 cards with 4 elsewhere. That is a whole lot more playable IMO. It does mean that your 1x-1y-2♣ sequence is ambiguous as to which suit is longer (not ideal, but I can live with that - or at least I can live with it if I ever really get used to canapé in general!)

[Shugart23]

getting off topic, but Modified Italian Canape System by Ken Rexford looks like a good place to start if living in ACBL land

[snillrik13]

Hi again

 

Did you guys miss my second proposal?

 

Club hands is a weak Point in all big club systems.That is main reason for this topic. Btw in oursystem (see fanfantunes@n.nu) we use 2NT as a Classic preempt in D or C, 3m as a strong preempt, 7 tricks to search 3NT or higher and we also experiment with 3C based on points and some 7 tricks to be integrated in Multi 2D. On top of this we also have Acol bids 1C - 1X > 3C.

 

This might well boil down to using 5C4M (or weak6C4M)ONLY and not 6-carder in clubs when we open 2C......To me it seems the ultimate solution :)

 

What do you say???

[foobar]

This might well boil down to using 5C4M (or weak6C4M)ONLY and not 6-carder in clubs when we open 2C......To me it seems the ultimate solution :)

 

As others on the thread have noted, the main issue is that the opening doesn't *guarantee* the sixth club, which makes it difficult to safely fish for the major fit. In addition, it makes it difficult for responder to raise opener with 2-card support (at the right vulnerability).

 

In context of your system, you likely get a lot of mileage for the trade-off, but my guess is that most classic strong clubbers on the forum will lean towards a 6+ 2♣ opening.

[Trick13]

We progressed from 2♣ = 11-15 5♣+4M or 6+♣ --> 11-15 6+♣ no 4M --> 9-13 6+♣ no 4M --> 6-8 4♠ + 4 or 5 in a red suit. Each time it seemed to be an improvement.

 

This is in the context of 1NT = 11-13 can be off shape all the junk goes in here, 2♦ = multi.

Our 1♦ = 0+♦, either 14-16 NT or 11-15 5+m.

 

We open 1♦ frequently and look forward to it. Paradoxically it seems much less nebulous that the 2+♦ variations.

[Trick13]

But to answer your question. I think the worst part of the standard 2♣ is when you have 5♣+4M and partner is too weak to invite. The best part is when you have 6♣ and partner can make a weak raise to 3♣. I think you have it the wrong way around.

[the hog]

I've played 5♣-4M for a long time and can attest it can *really* put you into some trouble once in a while. Having a long experience helps here, but even then you're bound to get a few zeros on its account.

 

HOWEVER...

 

the "2♣ = 6 cards" alternative requires dumping 5♣-4M into 1♦, overloading what is an already problematic opening. I've also played that for a long time and it's not much better.

 

There's no way out of this except changing the system radically (as in go strong pass or something). You just have to pick the style you prefer and discuss stuff with partner. If I had to choose between the two, I'd say the "5♣-4M" is better in an experienced partnership.

 

There are a couple of outs.

You can play 4 card Majors.

You could have your 2H/S openings showing 4 in the M and 5+ in Cs with 11-15. This was quite common amongst some expert English Pairs many years ago.

[whereagles]

1. You can play 4 card Majors.

2. You could have your 2H/S openings showing 4 in the M and 5+ in Cs with 11-15.

 

1. I tried that, but without canape. It doesn't get much better. I have to try canape one day.

 

2. Also tried, and even got as far as making it 4M-5m (any m). This so-called "velociraptor" is surprisingly effective. The downside is you weak 2s must use the multi 2♦ and I somewhat dislike that convention lol.