I open two clubs and partner jumps to five, but...

[Cyberyeti]

But here I disagree. I think 5♣ should show something like ♣QJTxxxxx and out. The solid club hand can start with 4♣.

 

This is the old fashioned treatment that we still use.

 

Our auction would probably be (If I was brought to the table after the 2♣ bid which I wouldn't make) 2♣-4♣-5N-6♣ The 5N bid says "I know your suit is solid, but is it REALLY solid ?".

[fourdad]

Given that neither you nor your partner had anything remotely resembling your bids, what do you expect us to say?

 

Let me start with the following: "Until you learn what a 2C opening looks like, you are not allowed to use words like Kickback"

 

Seriously, this may be the worst bid hand that I have seen in years.

 

I second this!

[PhilG007]

http://tinyurl.com/joe73uc

IMHO the 5♣ jump is ridiculous. Why waste bidding space like that? What's the rush???? A simple 3♣ response gives the

same message. It's game forcing and shows a good club suit. Over the 3 club bid,North can then start slam investigations by cue bidding his

first round controls. 6♣ would be a par contract on this deal.

[Caitlynne]

there is no solution for this hand, but there is a solution for you. Unless partner truly is a beginner or takes the position that he has been clueless with the 5C bid, it is time to end this partnership. Run, don't walk.

[PhilG007]

there is no solution for this hand, but there is a solution for you. Unless partner truly is a beginner or takes the position that he has been clueless with the 5C bid, it is time to end this partnership. Run, don't walk.

Agreed. An tennis doubles equivilant of this bidding is partner swooping to your side of the court screaming

"MINE PARTNER" poaching the ball and smashing it into the net.... Some players need reminding that they

are only half a partnership(!) :angry:

[kenberg]

There is some risk in opening this hand 1♠. Possibly it gets passed out when possibly you can make 4♥. But there is a bigger risk in opening 2♣. Obviously it takes up room, but also on a bad day you have no play for any game anywhere. Usually after a 2♣ opener there is some way to stop short of game, but with a two suited hand probably not. Eg 2♣-2♦-2♠ -3♣-3♠ may be passable but 2♣-2♦-2♠ -3♣-3♥ probably isn't, no matter how bad responder's hand is. So I, like just about everyone else, open this 1♠. This could go wrong. Not likely, but it could.

 

Now about the 5♣. I suppose some partnerships have discussed the auction 2♣-(P)-5♣. All those who have please raise their hands. So if any partner I had did it, I would waver between the extremes of: "I already said I had a big hand, if that sufficed for 6 or 7 partner should have bid it", so I pass or else "I never said I had any clubs, pard seems to not care, I have tricks and I have first round controls, so I will bid 7". I think I lean toward option 1. Ok, 6♣ is the winner, but I should know this how? I can see playing this 5♣ bid as a solid suit missing the AK and pretty much zip elsewhere, but I have never discussed this with anyone. I saw it in a book once, but I forget which one. If I were to set out agreements, I think that I would go with that. Advantages: It will rarely come up and it is unambiguous (if remembered).

 

I am interested in how the auction might go after a 1♠ opening. Assume 2/1, uncontested.

1♠-2♣ gf? Light on points, big on tricks if playing in clubs.

1♠-3♣ showing clubs and decent values, non-forcing?

1♠-1NT forcing? Somehow planning to bid 3♣ over partner's forced response seems way too mild. Of course here I imagine it would continue 1♠-1NT-3♥. Now we are in a gf, but I, as responder, have really not shown my hand at all.

 

I think, as responder, I would just hope for the best and bid 2♣ over 1♠. I would expect to be playing in clubs, and I have a lot of tricks in clubs as long as they don't have three tricks first.

Here, the continuation might be

1♠-2♣

2♥-3♣

3♥

 

Now at this point, as responder, I can look at my stiff diamond and decide that partner probably has at least some of the remaining twelve and so he is seriously short in clubs. It would be nice if 4♦ now showed a stiff diamonds and three card heart support, perhaps it does.If so, partner can now figure me for at most two spades, exactly three hearts, and one diamond. The rest is up to him.

[Zelandakh]

Agreed. An tennis doubles equivilant of this bidding is partner swooping to your side of the court screaming

"MINE PARTNER" poaching the ball and smashing it into the net.... Some players need reminding that they

are only half a partnership(!) :angry:

Have you ever played tennis? If you serve and partner does this on the return you congratulate them on their quickness and encourage them saying something along the lines of the next one being a winner. This is good doubles play and you will see it (without the shout) from every top doubles pair in the world. The bridge equivalent is making a good preempt in 1st but finding out the rest of the hands are distributed such that it leads to a bad score. The best tennis analogy I can think of to the 5♣ response would be standing in the middle of the court at the net but even that is so severely flawed that it is probably better not to make any comparison at all.

[tfoerster]

2C is a poor bid, in my opinion, not just because it is light but also because I have found 2-suiters to be difficult to bid after opening with 2C.

 

The jump to 5C is atrocious, aweful, pick the most pejorative term you can come up with. Why take up so much bidding space when you have no idea if the hand belongs at 3N, 5, 6 or 7 clubs, 5, 6 or 7 NT, or somewhere else. Respond 3C, which is game forcing, and go slow.

[Lovera]

When i heared duble jump bidding of my partner (you can click on nickname to know) had a while to think at the meaning of it. In 2♣ the development is slow for having better informations and usual bidding rules are off. The jump is among these and the one i knew and that is the why was maked is about Reese convention that i mentioned anytime and the bidding remind me of but one level more or also as an aggressive 5♣ bidding (and i had understood right seeing partner hand) then, but non excluding a top missing raised to six.

[steve2005]

you get 8 losers if you have no major suit fit then all your small major cards are possible losers.

sure loser count better with 1 suiter but say you have a nice non-solid suit if not a fit your gonna lose cards not counted as losers in LC.

now if you have a 7+card solid or semi-solid suit youll have 8 or 9 winners which what matters, yes by coincidence youll have 4 losers but its the quick tricks which matter

[Lovera]

I much prefer the 5♣ bid to the 2♣ opener. Add the ♥Q and I'm still not opening 2♣. The play was also pretty poor, the contract was never in any danger, and so you could just play 4 rounds of trumps throwing 2 hearts, a spade and a diamond, after which it costs nothing to try for 3-3 spades or West having 3+ hearts and 4+spades.

..or just play two rounds of trump (with a little thinking about shape 4-2 more probable of 3-3) then "it cost nothing to try for 3-3 spades" and do you see what 's happening ? The suit is estabilished ...!

[Lovera]

you get 8 losers if you have no major suit fit then all your small major cards are possible losers.

sure loser count better with 1 suiter but say you have a nice non-solid suit if not a fit your gonna lose cards not counted as losers in LC.

now if you have a 7+card solid or semi-solid suit youll have 8 or 9 winners which what matters, yes by coincidence youll have 4 losers but its the quick tricks which matter

Here is what G. Barbone suggest :" A good way to evaluate the unsuitability of a hand for the opening of 2, can be as follows: -for all the suits of at least three cards there are many losers as they are Aces, Kings and Queens that are missing; if a suit is represented by two cards and these are to be considered both as losers when the best of the two is only the Queen; if a suit is represented by a singleton this is to be considered as a loser when it is not the Ace; the combination of Ace, Queen and x and King and x are considered as a 1.5 losers" then this number is multiply for 5 and if it is minus of MW points you can open.

[GrahamJson]

One minor point. I think that some posters are taking the term "losers" a little too literally. In the old system of hand evaluation there is a maximum of 3 losers in any suit. So, for example, xxxxx xxxxx xxx - would be considered to have nine losers, not thirteen. Of course, the actual number of losers will depend on fit. But then the same applies to points; the value of any hand will go up or down as bidding proceeds, depending on fit.

[PhilG007]

...when i was thinking if i had to use kickback to have informations i saw once (or was the second time?) "Automated :Lovera is your turn bid please" so i bid 6♣ when, in a while, i was off the table and i was unable to return. Now i see bidding is 5♣ : what is happened ? I and my partner cannot play it (and i think also GIB) but the planning development is rich (almost 4/5 ways). The "trap" is no trump 'cause comunication and controls because is not the case to remain quite.

If this deal came from a tournament,I would be curious in learning what contract(s) the other tables

were in. It should make for interesting reading(!) ;)

[jordymil]

http://tinyurl.com/joe73uc

I couldn't see the hands

[Lovera]

If this deal came from a tournament,I would be curious in learning what contract(s) the other tables

were in. It should make for interesting reading(!) ;)

This one is from MyHands database on Relaxed Club.

[dave_beer]

Opening 2♣ with this hand is an atrocity.

This isn't a "minor" error. Choosing to open 2♣ on this hand shows a player who is clueless about very elementary bidding.

 

I would be shocked if you can find a single decent player who would support this opening...

The hand evaluation method commonly called KnR was developed by Edgar Kaplan to allow Jeff Rubens to program The Bridge World's computer to generate hands suitable for two club openings. The article gives AKxxx-AKxxx-Ax-x as one such hand and AKxxx-AKxxx-Axx-void is a bit stronger so Edgar Kaplan would have opened it 2♣ and I suspect he isn't the only one.

 

While a 3♣ response to 2♣ is positive and forcing, some players use a single jump response to show a solid suit. In either case you should end up in 6♣ which is cold if there is no trump loser (about 54% of the time) and has some play if there is one trump loser.

[hrothgar]

The hand evaluation method commonly called KnR was developed by Edgar Kaplan to allow Jeff Rubens to program The Bridge World's computer to generate hands suitable for two club openings. The article gives AKxxx-AKxxx-Ax-x as one such hand and AKxxx-AKxxx-Axx-void is a bit stronger so Edgar Kaplan would have opened it 2♣ and I suspect he isn't the only one.

 

I suspect that the 4C count is not the be all and the end all for Kaplan...

 

Case in point

 

Void

AKxxxxx

AJxxxx

Void

 

has a 4C count of 21.85. I'd be very surprised if Kaplan were to have advocated a 2C opening.

 

In a similar vein

 

♠ Ax

♥ AKxxx

♦ AKxxx

♣ x

 

Has the identical 4C count as one of your example hands. This hand is MUCH worse for a 2♣ opening that the original.

 

FWIW, I am sitting with a copy of The Kaplan Sheinwold System of Winning Bridge in my lap.

 

The examples of 2C openings with two suiters are significantly stronger than they ones that you are providing

 

♠ AKQxxx

♥ AKxxx

♦ A

♣ x

 

♠ AKQTxx

♥ AKQxx

♦ x

♣ x

 

These are both 25+ on the K+R scale rather than the 22 counts that you are claiming as minimum strength openings.

[kenberg]

If this deal came from a tournament,I would be curious in learning what contract(s) the other tables

were in. It should make for interesting reading(!) ;)

 

Indeed. There was a 7NT down 6.

I saw the results for 16 pairs, nobody was in 6C.

3 out of 16 pairs were in 6H, none of them made it. In 2 of those cases the auction began 1S-3C, not alerted but I suppose showing a passable hand with clubs. 2 pairs were in 4H making 6.

 

I had not looked at these when, earlier, I speculated as to how it would go after a 1S opening. Not very well, it seems.

 

Of the 16 shown times, 12 were opened 1S, in two cases W (the dealer) first opened diamonds (once 1D, once 2D) and in two cases the opening was 2C. The other 2C opener was from the pair who ended in 7NT, maybe we can skip over that one.

[zillahandp]

Oh dear, first your p is no expert, I sypathise with the 2c opening as I have found it best to use contols or quick tricks as a better guide than pure point count, how ver you need to agree this and the responses. In old acol a jump bid to an openly ng two show d a solid suit with the ace i.e. Akqjxxx, not missing the knave. Your p should learn slow arrival, indeed so should most of the commentators. And acol 2club players.

[1stpanda]

The auction 2!c - Pass - 5!c should show something like !cQJ1098765432 and no side winners. You can't contribute anything to that hand so you should pass.

 

The 2!c opening is poor, but the 5!c response is abominable.

[dave_beer]

I suspect that the 4C count is not the be all and the end all for Kaplan...

 

Case in point

 

Void

AKxxxxx

AJxxxx

Void

 

has a 4C count of 21.85. I'd be very surprised if Kaplan were to have advocated a 2C opening.

The Four C's article minimum for a 2♣ opening was 22 for a long major and 24 for a long minor. Aside from the problem of not having 22 (which is easy to fix), it has sub-minimum defensive tricks and is void in ♠. I'm pretty sure Edgar would have opened it 1♥

[masonbarge]

The hand is at least close to 2♣ in terms of strength. The reason not to bid 2♣ is that, with 18 HCP, you won't get passed out in 1♠ and will be able to bid your hand much more descriptively at a lower level, which with 5-4 in the majors is a huge consideration.

 

That 5♣ bid is terrible. In the first place, if you bid 5♣ to show a suit with the tops, you can't do it without AKQJxxx or AKQxxxxx. In the second place, I wouldn't do it anyway. Partner might have AKQxxx of hearts or better.

 

I will say, if I were holding that hand and partner bid 5♣ over a 2♣ opening (showing a self-sustaining club suit), I'd bid 7 without a second thought. But my partner would be holding the ♣J, so . . . .

[masonbarge]

The Four C's article minimum for a 2♣ opening was 22 for a long major and 24 for a long minor. Aside from the problem of not having 22 (which is easy to fix), it has sub-minimum defensive tricks and is void in ♠. I'm pretty sure Edgar would have opened it 1♥

 

There is actually an ACBL directive on this! The reason being, that it is illegal to open a game-forcing 2♣ bid with insufficient strength. In fact, psyching an artificial opening bid is forbidden on the SuperChart.

 

Most people use 8 1/2 or 9 tricks as the benchmark for a possible 2♣, and the hand in the original question qualifies. It's not the best bid, however, IMHO.

[masonbarge]

LTC is OK to use on single-suited hands. A common criterion is: at most 4 losers with a major suit or 3 with a minor suit = open 2C, otherwise open 1x.

 

I'm confused where you get 8 losers from. You're correct that LTC is somewhat meaningless without a fit, but assuming 5C showed a self-supporting suit (it should surely show a pretty good suit opposite what could be a void), that'll be fit enough; you can now use LTC just fine and have 4 losers, just like you would if you were playing in any of the other three suits.

 

The problem here is that it's unwise to open two-suiters (or in general shapely hands that don't have a definite trump suit) 2C unless they're truly massive (where e.g. a fit and a king somewhere will still make game). This hand could be shown just fine by opening 1S and rebidding 2H or 3H according to agreements.

 

BTW I also don't agree with 5C - 3C is forcing and saves a lot of room. You could belong in anything from 5C to 7NT. Perhaps 4C is OK, if it sets trumps.

 

 

 

I think South would be unwise to settle for hearts with such a wonderful club suit but no outside entries, unless perhaps he was playing matchpoints.

 

 

 

4 * 5 is not less than 18...

 

ahydra

 

That's all well said. There's a lot of strongly-stated nonsense going on here.

 

I wanted to add, for purposes of determining whether a hand is strong enough for a 2♣ opening, I count AKxxx as 3 1/2 to 4 winners. I wouldn't open this hand 2♣ because, as Max Hardy pointed out, when you have 19 or less HCP, a one-bid in a suit will almost never get passed out. Then you can show both your strength and your shape (usually) at the 3 level.