2C Opening - GF or weak both majors?

[dorisga44]

Anyone have any experience of playing a 2♣ opening as Game-forcing OR weak with both majors?

 

If so, I would like to hear your structure please! This is context of a 2/1, 5 card major system, strong NT. 2♣ opening should cover the usual 23+ balanced and other strong hands!

 

Thanks in advance.

[gszes]

GL with that in any ACBL game. Last I heard there are significant minimal (HCP) qualifications to open 2c.

[nullve]

https://www.chrisryall.net/bridge/weak.two/assumed-fit.htm#flemish

[dorisga44]

GL with that in any ACBL game. Last I heard there are significant minimal (HCP) qualifications to open 2c.

 

Who said I was part of the ACBL? ;)

[gwnn]

I played it for several years. I didn't like it, but my partner swore by it, and I admit it wasn't as bad as I expected.

[helene_t]

This is very popular in the Netherlands. I suppose it requires the strong hand to be very well defined, either by allowing most unbalanced 22 counts to be opened at the 1 level or by having 2♦ as a strong bid also. If 2♣ is just any GF hand, it is horrible as it forces opener to start describing his shape at the 3-level.

 

Much better to play 2♣ as weak with diamonds or strong.

[pescetom]

This is very popular in the Netherlands. I suppose it requires the strong hand to be very well defined, either by allowing most unbalanced 22 counts to be opened at the 1 level or by having 2♦ as a strong bid also. If 2♣ is just any GF hand, it is horrible as it forces opener to start describing his shape at the 3-level.

 

Not sure I understand this: if as I imagine there is a 2♦ waiting relay, surely they could describe strong single majors naturally at 2-level as 2♥ and 2♠, at least when NV?

Maybe somebody could outline typical developments of this convention.

[helene_t]

Not sure I understand this: if as I imagine there is a 2♦ waiting relay, surely they could describe strong single majors naturally at 2-level as 2♥ and 2♠, at least when NV?

Maybe somebody could outline typical developments of this convention.

If you rebid 2♥ or 2♠ you are showing a weak hand and bidding your longer major. So to show a strong hand you have to rebid 3♥ or 3♠.

 

The exception is when partner responds 2♥ and you have spades, now you can bid 2♠ showing a strong hand.

[steve2005]

Sounds like if you have a strong hand you will have to show it starting at 2N or higher, pre-empting your own strong bids.

If you are responder and weak you won't be able to pre-empt as high as you want.

Also, with major fits you often have game with less than normal pts required. With 2♥/2♠ response listed as up to 13 seems possible to miss.

Agree with Helene if you trying something like this weak diamonds works better. Weak with both majors is better as 2♦, 2♥ or 2NT on it's own.

[nullve]

I suppose it requires the strong hand to be very well defined, either by allowing most unbalanced 22 counts to be opened at the 1 level or by having 2♦ as a strong bid also. If 2♣ is just any GF hand, it is horrible as it forces opener to start describing his shape at the 3-level.

If a goal is to keep as much of the standard structure as possible on strong hands, maybe

 

2♣-?:

 

2♦ = S preference, no preference or INV+ opposite 5-10

...2♥ = Kokish or 5-10

......2♠ = to play opposite 5-10

.........P = 5-10

.........2N+: as in Kokish

......2N = INV+ relay opposite 5-10

......(...)

...2♠+: same as in standard with Kokish over 2♣-2♦

2♥ = H preference and < INV opposite 5-10

...2♠-3N: same as in standard without Kokish over 2♣-2♦

...4♣+ = 5+ H, unbalanced, sets H as trumps

(...)

 

?

[helene_t]

If a goal is to keep as much of the standard structure as possible on strong hands, maybe

 

2♣-?:

 

2♦ = S preference, no preference or INV+ opposite 5-10

...2♥ = Kokish or 5-10

......2♠ = to play opposite 5-10

.........P = 5-10

.........2N+: as in Kokish

......2N = INV+ relay opposite 5-10

......(...)

...2♠+: same as in standard with Kokish over 2♣-2♦

2♥ = H preference and < INV opposite 5-10

...2♠-3N: same as in standard without Kokish over 2♣-2♦

...4♣+ = 5+ H, unbalanced, sets H as trumps

(...)

 

?

Makes sense, but it does mean that we can't play 2♥ opposite a no-preference answer.

[gwnn]

This is very popular in the Netherlands. I suppose it requires the strong hand to be very well defined, either by allowing most unbalanced 22 counts to be opened at the 1 level or by having 2♦ as a strong bid also. If 2♣ is just any GF hand, it is horrible as it forces opener to start describing his shape at the 3-level.

 

Much better to play 2♣ as weak with diamonds or strong.

I agree it's better to have weak with diamonds or strong. I disagree that it requires the strong hand to be very well defined, all it requires is that the partners don't care about accuracy after 2♣ auctions. Once I had a 10-count with 7 clubs and I just passed over 2♣. It was IMPs but knew that my partner wouldn't mind - worst case scenario, we'd change the system, which I would have loved. B-)

[PhilG007]

Anyone have any experience of playing a 2♣ opening as Game-forcing OR weak with both majors?

 

If so, I would like to hear your structure please! This is context of a 2/1, 5 card major system, strong NT. 2♣ opening should cover the usual 23+ balanced and other strong hands!

 

Thanks in advance.

In any bidding system,you need a device to show a game going hand. In Acol and SAYC this is the cypher bid of 2 Clubs

In both systems,a rebid of 3 Clubs doesn't show 23+ points but rather a powerful club suit at least 8 + cards in length

Although not showing the same strength as a 2 Club opener,the 3 Club rebid is still FORCING TO AT LEAST GAME.

How many of us here have been in the situation where you opened 2 Clubs then rebid 3 Clubs and found to your disappointment

(and fury) partner passing(?) Novices and intermediates take note(!)

[msjennifer]

Presently using a standard natural system with 5 card majors,a 2D multi opening shows a weak major or 20/22 NT(subject to correction).So I,Personally ,donot see any advantage to change that .Keeping 2C opening as at present certainly has immense advantages which all or most will disappear or appear at an unpleasant high level.From the nature of question asked I feel that OP either plays 2D as weak in diamonds or perhaps as a Flannery bid.Far too many strict limits and definitions will have to be observed to devise the 2C bid the OP wants .Instead,I shall make one just a suggestion.Make a 2D opening a game force in either minor or a weak 2 in either major,r This May take out the strong NT type of hands which then may be opened 2NT ,perhaps,,with a little flexibility.An opening of 2C then will be devoid of minor suits GF bids.

Finally ,the subject is not easy at all to develop.

[Joe_Old]

In any bidding system,you need a device to show a game going hand. In Acol and SAYC this is the cypher bid of 2 Clubs

In both systems,a rebid of 3 Clubs doesn't show 23+ points but rather a powerful club suit at least 8 + cards in length

Although not showing the same strength as a 2 Club opener,the 3 Club rebid is still FORCING TO AT LEAST GAME.

How many of us here have been in the situation where you opened 2 Clubs then rebid 3 Clubs and found to your disappointment

(and fury) partner passing(?) Novices and intermediates take note(!)

 

I don't know about ACOL, but that is definitely not true for SAYC. That 8 card Club suit requirement? Not in the U.S. Also, a 2 Club opener is forcing to 2 NT or 3 or a major (when opener bids then rebids his major) only. How you play when opener rebids a minor is open to discussion, depending upon how responder shows a bust hand (2 hearts, 2 NT, second negative)

[cherdano]

Interesting. Seems great for the weak hands, awful for the big hands. Maybe big hands just don't matter.

 

Still, if I were to play it, I would consider adapting some form of MisIry - http://inquiry2over1.blogspot.co.uk/2005/07/new-misiry-2nt-through-3d.html?m=1 - to take two-suited hands out of the 2C opening. Eg 2D = weak in H or strong with S+minor, etc.

[hamish32]

This is a terrible idea. We play 2!C as 9-12 at least 54 in the majors eitherway. The strongest thing about this auction is being able to raise agressivly wgen you have a good fit for 1 major. For example the other day i raised to 4!S with KJTx x kJTxx xxx. Partner had a 12 count with a singleton !C so this was a game swing.

 

Once you include all the gf hands into 2!C you destroy the good parts of both methods.

[dorisga44]

Thanks for all your replies, yes currently I do have 2♣ as GF or weak 2 in ♦, I just wanted to have a good/bad weak 2 structure, as well as a way to show an ekren type hand!

[dokoko]

Thanks for all your replies, yes currently I do have 2♣ as GF or weak 2 in ♦, I just wanted to have a good/bad weak 2 structure, as well as a way to show an ekren type hand!

 

Ekren 2♥ is far more embarrassing to defend against, so this would be my choice, eg:

 

2♣ = wk2♦ or strong

2♦ = wk2♥ or strong

2♥ = wk both majors

2♠ = wk2♠

[Kungsgeten]

Thanks for all your replies, yes currently I do have 2♣ as GF or weak 2 in ♦, I just wanted to have a good/bad weak 2 structure, as well as a way to show an ekren type hand!

 

So you want Ekren, as well as two tiers of weak opening bids in the majors? In that case I think putting the Ekren hand type in 2C might be the best solution, and I think nullve's response scheme looks nice. Another possible solution could be something like below (in this case I assume the "good weak two" is 10-13 hcp):

 

2C = Weak with diamonds, or 10-13 with hearts, or 22+ NT, or GF with primary major.

2D = Weak with hearts, or 10-13 with spades, or GF with primary minor.

2H = Ekren.

2S = Weak.

2NT = Strong.

 

Over 2C you could play:

 

2D = Non-forcing relay.

...Pass = Weak with diamonds.

...2H = 10-13 with hearts.

...2S = Natural GF.

...2NT = 22-24 NT

...3C/D/H/S = GF with hearts.

...3NT = 25-27 NT...

2H = Forcing relay. INV+ vs weak hand with diamonds.

...2S = Strong with a major.

...2NT = Strong.

...3C = Diamonds max.

...3D = Diamonds min.

...3H = 10-13 hearts min.

...3S = 10-13 hearts max.

[dorisga44]

So you want Ekren, as well as two tiers of weak opening bids in the majors? In that case I think putting the Ekren hand type in 2C might be the best solution, and I think nullve's response scheme looks nice. Another possible solution could be something like below (in this case I assume the "good weak two" is 10-13 hcp):

 

2C = Weak with diamonds, or 10-13 with hearts, or 22+ NT, or GF with primary major.

2D = Weak with hearts, or 10-13 with spades, or GF with primary minor.

2H = Ekren.

2S = Weak.

2NT = Strong.

 

Over 2C you could play:

 

2D = Non-forcing relay.

...Pass = Weak with diamonds.

...2H = 10-13 with hearts.

...2S = Natural GF.

...2NT = 22-24 NT

...3C/D/H/S = GF with hearts.

...3NT = 25-27 NT...

2H = Forcing relay. INV+ vs weak hand with diamonds.

...2S = Strong with a major.

...2NT = Strong.

...3C = Diamonds max.

...3D = Diamonds min.

...3H = 10-13 hearts min.

...3S = 10-13 hearts max.

 

Very nice Kung. Will make a few adjustments but this looks very playable. Thanks

[nullve]

Very nice Kung. Will make a few adjustments but this looks very playable. Thanks

The 2♣ and 2♦ openings are brown stickers according to the WBF Systems Policy, so will you be able to play them?

 

Another possibility (without brown stickers):

 

2♣ = bad Weak Two in a major OR strong (GF if unBAL) without 5+M4+OM

2♦ = Ekren, either weak or GF

2M = constructive Weak Two

 

2♣-?:

 

2♦ = relay, can stand the 3-level opposite a bad Weak Two*

...2♥ = Kokish OR bad Weak 2♠ (NB!)

......2♠ = relay, not exactly INV opposite bad Weak 2♠

.........2N = BAL

.........3♣ = strong, 5+H4+C

.........3♦ = strong, 5+H4+D

.........3♥ = strong, 6+ H

.........3♠ = bad Weak 2♠ (NB!)

.........(...)

......2N = INV+ opposite bad Weak 2♠, relay

......(...)

...2♠ = strong, 5+ S, unBAL OR bad Weak 2♥

......2N = relay, not exactly INV opposite bad Weak 2♥

.........3♣ = strong, 5+S4+C

.........3♦ = bad Weak 2♥ (NB!)

.........3♥ = strong, 5+S4+D (NB!)

.........3♠ = strong, 6+ S

.........(...)

......3♣ = INV+ opposite bad Weak 2♥

......(...)

...2N+: same as 2N over 2♣-2♦ in standard

2♥ = P/C

...P = bad Weak 2♥

...2♠ = bad Weak 2♠

...2N+: not sure*, but maybe

...2N = strong, 5+ H, unBAL OR BAL

......3♣ = Puppet Stayman-like

.........3♦ = BAL, not 5 S

.........3♥ = 6+ H (unBAL)

.........3♠ = BAL, 5 S

.........3N+ = 5 H, unBAL

......3♦ = 5+ S

.....(...)

...3♣ = strong, 5+ C, unBAL

...3♦ = strong, 5+ S, unBAL

...3♥+ = strong, 5+ D, unBAL

...?

2♠ = P/C

...P = bad Weak 2♠

...2N+: not sure*, but maybe

...2N = strong, 5+ S, unBAL OR BAL

......3♣ = Puppet Stayman-like

.........3♦ = BAL, not 5 H

.........3♥ = BAL, 5 H

.........3♠ = 6+ S (unBAL)

.........3N+ = 5 S, unBAL

......3♦ = 5+ H

.....(...)

...3♣ = strong, 5+ C, unBAL

...3♦ = strong, 5+ H, unBAL OR bad Weak 2♥

...3♥+ = strong, 5+ D, unBAL

...?

(...)

 

* It helps a lot if 2N over 2♣-2M is GF, but then the 2M response has to promise some values. So maybe the 2♦ response should also include very weak hands regardless of 3-level safety?

Edited March 4, 2018 by nullve