Strong opening when playing 3 weak 2's

[Liversidge]

My partner and I have been playing Benji, but partner has another regular with whom he plays on a different evening, who has persuaded him to play 3 weak 2's, so I have agreed to play it too, to make life simpler. Their understanding about the minimum strength for a 2♣ opening bid is lower than I feel comfortable with. Partner is OK about playing two different strengths on different evenings. I'd welcome thoughts before finalising our agreement on this point.

 

Should the guide minimum for a 2♣ opening be either 23+ HCP balanced, or

a) 8 playing tricks M/m (with the rule of 25 etc)

b) 8/9 playing tricks M/m

c) 9/10 playing tricks M/m

 

Partner's other partner plays a). My concern about it is that it asks the 2♣ bid to cover a lot of territory at both ends. A 2♦ response might be a bust with partner holding just 8 playing tricks in clubs, in which case what is my bid after 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣? Yet partner might have 11 playing tricks.

 

(The Multi 2 Diamond is something for the future!!)

[Vampyr]

What I like is GF unless in the smallest balanced range included. So roughly c), but obviously minor suit hands will often be considered semi-balanced.

[helene_t]

You need to be able to bid the game forcing hands efficiently. If you can put a few not-quite-gf hands into the 2♣ opening as well then it is an added bonus but not a major objective, with the possible exception for the balanced (22)23-24 hands.

 

So 2-suited hands and hands with a long minor should only open 2♣ with game forcing strength.

 

With balanced hands, if your 2NT opening is 20-21 then 2♣ followed by a 2NT rebid is 22-23 so that is obviously not game forcing.

 

You can agree to open 2♣ with some not-quit-gf one-suited hands with a major. This is not just 8 playing tricks, though, since if you have only 8 tricks you can just open at the 1-level. What it means is that you need some help from partner - a king, or the jack of trumps, or 3-card support (even in a yarb). If partner has absolutely nothing for you then he can pass you in 3♥ or 3♠ whenever it is clear that it is nonforcing.

[Cyberyeti]

The fact that you bid a hand as a GF, doesn't mean you can actually make it in your own hand. You have to compromise a little to be able to bid the really big hands.

 

We play 2♣ GF unless followed by 2N (22-23 bal) or 2♥ Kokish then 2N (24-25 bal). I would seriously recommend looking up Kokish if you're only playing one strong bid.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

If you make the 2C a bit more wide ranging, you need to invest

a bit into the response structure, not much, but a little bit.

 

we play

a 2D as semi pos., i.e. 1-1.5 tricks and forcing to game,

a 2H response as at best 0.5 tricks,

anything else as 2+ tricks forcing to at least 4NT,

you have the option to include the semi forcing major single suiter

in the 2C opening and still being able to play 2M / 2NT.

You may wrong side 2H / 3H in some cases.

 

This is simple and works most of the time.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mgoetze]

2♣ should be GF unless 2NT is rebid, so basically your ©, and please don't get hung up on the possibility that responder might have 0-2 points or whatever.

[Liversidge]

 

we play

a 2D as semi pos., i.e. 1-1.5 tricks and forcing to game,

a 2H response as at best 0.5 tricks,

anything else as 2+ tricks forcing to at least 4NT

 

I had come across an approach similar to this and am thinking about suggesting it to partner:

 

2♦ = 1+ playing trick, no strong suit (5+ & two top honours), maybe balanced

2♥ = 0 playing tricks, no king, no two queens

2♠/3♣/3♦ = 2+ playing tricks, with a “strong suit”.

2NT = Positive heart suit - 2+ playing tricks with a “strong suit”

3♥/♠ = 6/7 card ONE loser major suit (KQJxxx, AQJxxx, AKJxxx)

 

This also avoids the 2♣ -2NT - 3NT sequence where the strong hand is on the table.

[Vampyr]

I had come across an approach similar to this and am thinking about suggesting it to partner:

 

2♦ = 1+ playing trick, no strong suit (5+ & two top honours), maybe balanced

2♥ = 0 playing tricks, no king, no two queens

2♠/3♣/3♦ = 2+ playing tricks, with a “strong suit”.

2NT = Positive heart suit - 2+ playing tricks with a “strong suit”

3♥/♠ = 6/7 card ONE loser major suit (KQJxxx, AQJxxx, AKJxxx)

 

This also avoids the 2♣ -2NT - 3NT sequence where the strong hand is on the table.

 

Roth is pretty good. As far as 2♣-2NT, I doubt anyone has played that as balanced with some scattered values in a long time. One possible use for the bid is some kind of Leb.

 

You could do a kind of combination Benji where 2♣ is weak in diamonds with strong options, and 2♦ is strong options.

[nekthen]

FWIW I prefer b to a. 8 playing tricks in a minor can be opened at the one or 4 level depending on other factors. 2 suited hands should be opened at the one level unless you are really GF.

 

I agree with the principle of semi positive 2♦. I try to cater more to the major single suited hands by making

2♥ negative or semi- positive opposite 8 playing trick hand with ♠ (maybe passed)

2♠ negative opposite ♠ and semi- positive opposite 8 playing tricks in ♥ (may be passed).

I do not like to bid more unless I am showing an AKQxxx or better suit. Let opener show his hand. Most of the time he will be bidding 2N and we do not want to take that away as we all have a bidding structure to deal with that

 

AKQxxx Axx KQx x

xxx xxx x xxxxxx

 

2♣ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

pass

 

A 2♦ bid can be made on a ruffing value provided you can stop at the 3 level. Note that if you swap the red suits game becomes a good shot as the ruffing value must be in a minor and opps have not bid their clubs

Edited May 4, 2016 by nekthen

[ahydra]

AKQxxx Axx KQx xx

xxx xxx x xxxxxx

 

2♣ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

pass

 

Even with 14 cards, that hand isn't strong enough for a 2C opening. I'd open 1S and rebid 3S (if feeling wimpish) or 3NT.

 

Additionally, I feel like "3S stronger than 4S" (PFA) is a useful tool to have in this situation; you don't really want to spend such a useful bid on an invite when opener has game or near-game in his own hand.

 

ahydra

[P_Marlowe]

I had come across an approach similar to this and am thinking about suggesting it to partner:

 

2♦ = 1+ playing trick, no strong suit (5+ & two top honours), maybe balanced

2♥ = 0 playing tricks, no king, no two queens

2♠/3♣/3♦ = 2+ playing tricks, with a “strong suit”.

2NT = Positive heart suit - 2+ playing tricks with a “strong suit”

3♥/♠ = 6/7 card ONE loser major suit (KQJxxx, AQJxxx, AKJxxx)

 

This also avoids the 2♣ -2NT - 3NT sequence where the strong hand is on the table.

If you have a source, that describes the structure in detail, follow the source.

I also think, that it is important to define upfront, how far a given response is forcing,

a 2+ trick response should be forcing up to 4NT, this allowes you to differentiate between

min bal. hand, stronger bal. hand, still having the option to use Stayman / Transfer over

a 3NT bid by opener.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I agree with Michael, that you should not worry to much about 0-2 point responding hands,

but this depends a bit, how strong / weak the hands have to be / could, that go via 2C.

 

Simplicity is worth something - and you wanted to drop the 2C / 2D diff to make live simpler

for your partner.

 

PSS: There is one big difference between the structure I outlined, and the structure you outlined,

in my structure the 2D is limited, in contrast to your structure, which is a difference.

I believe, that without detailed agreements, you should have easy agreements, how one side can limit

his hand.

[fromageGB]

I agree that 8 playing tricks is not a sufficient strength for 2♣, as you can open at the 1-level and most probably not miss a game if reponder passes. (But you do need to agree forcing continuations after a 1-open.) Equally, needing a game in opener's hand without anything from partner makes 2♣ too restrictive.

 

Many play a practically obligatory 2♦ response, and now you come unstuck if the opening hand is not GF but the bid is. You need to accept that sometimes you will go off, and this is unavoidable because if you try something like "if opener makes a cheap rebid it is not forcing, and jumps if GF" then the jump destroys your slam finding ability.

 

A simple compromise is that the opening is either truly GF or a trick short of game, AND ~20 hcp or more, or ~22/23+ balanced. So this will be 9/10 tricks depending on long suit. Respond 2♦ with an ace or a king in any suit, respond 2♥ otherwise. 2♦ sets up a GF. Over 2♥, as responder is not likely to make an opening hand that is not GF suddenly become slam material, that less-than-GF hand can bid in a non-forcing way (say a rebid at the 3-level (simplest)) and this can be passed, or any other bid is GF. Responder with any number of queens and jacks responds 2♥ initially, but with general strength can bid game if opener does not force. Aces and Kings help slam decisions, so it is good to know of their presence or absence immediately.

 

This simple 2-way response can then be extended to more complicated treatments later, if desired, but a simple method to start with is preferable, I think, if perhaps your partner's other partner may be persuaded to play the same method to avoid confusion.

[Zelandakh]

I think Stephanie's method (GF unless min balanced) is the best and simplest for N/B players and this is what I would suggest. The other easy way of playing that you have not mentioned is to add 8 PTs in hearts to the mix and use the 2♥ response as a double negative, to be passed by that hand type, with any other sequence (except min bal) being GF. It is also fairly painless to include an Acol 2 in spades but it requires using some advanced concepts that I think are best avoided at N/B level. Including all Acol 2 bids in 2♣ is much more difficult and probably not a good idea at any level.

[Vampyr]

A 2♦ bid can be made on a ruffing value provided you can stop at the 3 level. Note that if you swap the red suits game becomes a good shot as the ruffing value must be in a minor and opps have not bid their clubs

 

A response that is an artificial semi-positive or better should be forcing to game. Fast arrival was mentioned above, and the difference between raising to 3♠ and raisin to 4♠ can be that the former includes a key card while the latter does not.

[nekthen]

Even with 14 cards, that hand isn't strong enough for a 2C opening. I'd open 1S and rebid 3S (if feeling wimpish) or 3NT.

 

Additionally, I feel like "3S stronger than 4S" (PFA) is a useful tool to have in this situation; you don't really want to spend such a useful bid on an invite when opener has game or near-game in his own hand.

 

ahydra

 

Thanks for pointing out my inability to count :)

Take a card out of one of the short suits and you can see how close you are to game opposite a hand that would pass 1♠ without pausing for thought. Which shows how dangerous it is not to include these hands in your two level scheme.

[dave_beer]

I play that 2♣ is forcing to

• 2NT if opener rebids 2NT *
  
• 3M1 if opener rebids 2M1 and I make a 2nd negative **
  
• Game if opener rebids 3m1
  

I use 3♣ as 2nd negative over 2M1 and don't have a 2nd negative over 3m1. Opener's rebid of 2M1 shows a hand that may need an unbiddable value to take 9 tricks; 3m1 shows either a hand that may need an unbiddable value to take 11 tricks or has 9 tricks in NT.

 

* you can also play that

2♣-2♦

2♥-2♠

2NT is not forcing if you aren't using Kokish and you play 2♠ as the 2nd negative

** if you play 2♥ as Kokish this is difficult without any additional stuff and if 2♦ is waiting or automatic instead of negative then replace "2nd negative" with "negative"

[Liversidge]

Roth is pretty good.

 

Do you mean that the response system I have described is called 'Roth', presumably after Alvin Roth? Could you point me to a link please.

Thanks

[Vampyr]

Do you mean that the response system I have described is called 'Roth', presumably after Alvin Roth? Could you point me to a link please.

Thanks

 

I can't find a link. Try Bridge Guys.

 

One advantage of the system which seems relevant to you is that after the 2♥ immediate double negative, responder does not promise another bid. Of course this causes other problems.

[rmnka447]

One big problem with 2 ♥ as an immediate second negative is that it sometimes gives opener a difficult rebid decision especially with 2 suited hands. This is not a trivial issue. I've seen more than my share of great results from opener guessing wrong on the rebid knowing partner was likely to pass whatever was bid, or, from opener being unable to complete describing his hand resulting in a missed fit. So, it's pretty important to be clear about how the auction can proceed after a 2 ♥ response.

 

The alternative is to play 2 ♦ as a awaiting bid and then have an agreement on a 2nd negative bid. Typically, these are either cheapest minor or cheapest suit. The only drawback is that sometimes you can't show a feature in the 2nd negative suit.

 

I'm sure either a 2 ♦ waiting scheme or a 2 ♥ negative scheme can work so long as you've got clear agreements on the bidding.

 

One other thing that's important is to define exactly what a "positive" response shows. I've also seen a lot of good results from misunderstandings about what they promise.

[Vampyr]

I don't think second negatives are very popular these days.

[Zelandakh]

Typically, these are either cheapest minor or cheapest suit. The only drawback is that sometimes you can't show a feature in the 2nd negative suit.

The traditional second negative after 2♣ - 2♦; 2M is 2NT and that still seems to me to hold up as well as the alternatives. It is more difficult after a 3m rebid, which is one (more) reason for treating minor suit hands differently from hands based on a major suit.

[Cyberyeti]

The traditional second negative after 2♣ - 2♦; 2M is 2NT and that still seems to me to hold up as well as the alternatives. It is more difficult after a 3m rebid, which is one (more) reason for treating minor suit hands differently from hands based on a major suit.

 

It wrongsides 3N, using 3♣ with 2N showing clubs can be better.