BPO-001-C

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=a&s=s96hakqj753d3cak8]133|100|Scoring: IMP

BP0-001-C

Your bid as dealer?

[/hv]

[hrothgar]

1H. What's the problem? BBO Advanced doesn't include NAMYATS so I don't need to consider a 4C opening. 4H is too much of a position and 2C is an abomination.

[luke warm]

1♥

 

added by edit: phil asked about the 1♥ opening... my thinking is, there are bunches of defenses to a strong 2♣ (for example, we play suction) *and* i have no defense to almost any contract the opps bid, whether to make or as a sac

Edited May 5, 2005 by luke warm

[mike777]

1H

 

Expect alot of bidding on this by opp and want to get my suit in first.

Expect P to respond on many junky hands but not all.

 

 

Another unanimous poll.

 

But look foward to seeing what 2c bidders say ;).

[pclayton]

Well, I'll be the 1st to make the 2♣ abomination. ;)

 

I'm too heavy for Namyats and 1♥ opener with my 9 tricks.

 

I have safety in 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♥. Either pointed King give me a good play for 4 and pard will pass with these hands.

 

Frankly, I'm more curious on why the 1♥ openers make their choice.

[awm]

I like 2♣ here also. It will be simple to set the suit in hearts and create a cuebidding auction after the 2♣ opening. Let's look at some cases of what can happen after a 1♥ opening:

 

(1) Partner responds at the one-level. This is probably the most likely thing to happen. But now 4♥ shuts partner out of the auction when slam could still be good. 3♥ is not even forcing. So I am forced to manufacture a 3♣ bid and follow it up with a heart call. It is not unlikely that this heart call will be at the four-level, and if partner has raised my clubs (1♥-1NT-3♣-4♣-4♥) it is not clear that partner will know that we can play in hearts if he has a void. Certainly I am unlikely to be able to set hearts AND start a cuebidding auction at the three level or below.

 

(2) Opponents overcall (probably in spades). I am not eager to hear the auction 1♥-(1♠)-P/1NT-(4♠). I will have to decide what to do at the five level. Of course, the same thing could happen after 2♣... but this forces opponents to make a more risky overcall at the two level against a strong hand, so they could easily pass through the auction. Also, unless partner miraculously has a raise of hearts, I do not think partner's action after 1♥-(1♠) will be exceedingly useful to me in making the high-level decision.

 

(3) The hand passes out. Probably not a good result as many hands where partner couldn't find a bid will make game.

 

(4) Partner bids at the two-level. Great, we probably have slam, and I can set the suit with 3♥. But most likely a 2♣ auction would be just as easy after 2♣-2♦-3♥ we have the same cuebidding sequence.

 

I'm probably less eager to open 2♣ in general than a lot of players, but this hand seems easier to describe after the strong opening than it is after the one-level open.

[Free]

I also voted for 2♣, it describes my hand very well, and I don't have any voids so p can't have lost aces...

[jillybean]

well, I'd bid 4♥ ...correction 1♥

[Fluffy]

We had a similar hand with 2 more clubs earlier, and there opening 2♣ was wrong, but could be comprehensilbe, but here, you cannot beat 5♠!. If you open 2♣ you promise at least more defensive tricks than offensive, you cannot open 2♣ here because parter will double 4♠ with either balanced minimum hands, adn long ♠.

[HeartA]

I voted for 2♣.

[Double !]

One more for the "abominable" 2♣

 

I have 9 tricks in hand. I play 2♣ as forcing to 2NT or 3 of major. I can get out at 3♥. I doubt I would ever be able to catch up if I opened 1♥.

[P_Marlowe]

2C, wtp?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

Sorry but 2♣ on a 17-count is just yucky.

1♥, nothing else appeals.

[Chamaco]

We had a similar hand with 2 more clubs earlier, and there opening 2♣ was wrong, but could be comprehensilbe, but here, you cannot beat 5♠!. If you open 2♣ you promise at least more defensive tricks than offensive, you cannot open 2♣ here because parter will double 4♠ with either balanced minimum hands, adn long ♠.

Ditto.

I voted 1H, not enough defense for 2C, too strong for a namyats.

[whereagles]

I can't remember what I bid.. lol. But given my style, it was probably 2C.

[Free]

One more for the "abominable" 2♣

 

I have 9 tricks in hand. I play 2♣ as forcing to 2NT or 3 of major. I can get out at 3♥. I doubt I would ever be able to catch up if I opened 1♥.

It doesn't really matter what you play, the system has been given in another thread :) Would you still bid the same way?

[han]

1H for me. I try to only open 2C with 1-suiters if I am afraid it get's passed out if I open at the 1-level.

[olegru]

1♥

 

I would think about 2 ♣ oppening if I had any detailed system after it , but

2♣ = Strong, Artificial

  2♦=Waiting

2♥=Negative

is not enoght to risk get in darkness after ♠ preemptive. I have much less deffence, then my partner would expect after 2♣ opening.

Good hand for 4♥ opening if we are playing it as a good hand (and 4♣ opening as a week transfer preemptive in ♥, but it is not in bridge base advanced)

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=a&s=s96hakqj753d3cak8]133|100|Scoring: IMP

BP0-001-C

Your bid as dealer?

[/hv]

 

This would be a reasonable namyats hand, except that convention is not on the Bridge Base Online – advanced convention card. So it becomes another, what does the panel consider minimum for an initial action. Hand A was for fourth seat opener based upon Pearson Points, hand B was for minimum count, poor suit, but good distribution, and now this one, for with a nice seven card suit, 9 “sure” tricks in hearts and the protection of playing a responding system where 2♣-(pass)-2♥ is immediate double negative (I have no tricks), be enough for the panel to choose a 2♣ opening bid with 17 hcp and 6 controls?

 

Once again, the panel divided 5/4 over the issue, with the majority choosing to bury their heads in the sand with a 1♥ bid and hope to be able to catch up on the next round of bidding (if there is a next round). Speaking for the majority, are Kraft, ng, and Waldkk. Let’s start with Kraft as she addressed the 2♣/1♥ bid straight on. She said, “1♥, not 2♣ and not 4♥. I don't actually see either of those as real alternatives. . Roland opened 1♥ as he lamented lack of Namyats (yes perfect hand for it), and actually suggested that “ I don't like opening 2C if I can avoid it. My intention is to rebid 3♣ over a 1♠ response and go back to hearts later. Alternatively, 4♥ on my next turn, a serious 4♥.” This of course assumes you get another opportunity to bid. Ng also noted the lack of naymats and planned instead of a jump to 3♣ or a serious 4♥, after he opened 1♥ he planned, “my second bid will be 4♦ (self-splinter, solid hearts, 9 tricks).” But he also consider that a “2♣ opening is also possible, but I don’t have enough defensive tricks.” Jlall also agreed with the majority, going with the 1♥ bid because he figures the opponents are about to get busy in the auction, stating“I like to get my suit in on hands like this. Opening 2C could work but in my experience bidding your longest suit first works better on a hand like this, mainly if the opponents are about to get active.”

 

While the 1♥ bidders were busy explaining the logic for their choice, the 2♣ bidders took a more what’s the problem approach. Phicro way of saying this was, “ 2♣; game forcing in our standards, isn't it?”. Well. No. 2♣ is not truly game force, but it is clearly at least one round force with a very good hand. He went on to add, “In french system, over 2♦, GF, partner will respond his Ace(s). Interesting, no?”. The French system with GF 2♦ is interesting, but of course, we are playing BBO advanced here. Still, Phicro logic on this one seems essentially perfect to me. Also realizing the need for a “GF” bid Cascade began with 2♣, explaining “If 1♥ gets passed out there is too much chance we will regret it. No other number of hearts appeals so I will force with 2♣.

 

On the first two hands, Luis and Justin used exactly the same logic for their choices. Here they parted company. While Justin bid 1♥ because the opponents are about to become active, Luis choice between the bids were based on the same concept, but he choose a different bid because of it. Luis said, “2♣ Not 1♥ because I don't want to play 1♥, not 4♥ because I will miss a slam in many layouts, that leaves me with a simple 2♣ opening that is even better if you take in consideration the tactical advantage of

reducing the chances of a sacrifice in spades by the opps.”

 

On this hand, I side with the 2♣ bidders. I suspect no one will stop short of game after opening 2♣ and those who open 1♥ are not stopping either, assuming they get another chance to bid. But I wonder if there would be a hand where opener might start with 2♣ and then pass a 2♥ instant double negative response?

 

I scored 4♥ worth 40 despite the lack of panel votes because at least you will not miss game. Anyone voting for 4♣ is using naymats. Maybe that should be part of the system (something to discuss), but as of now, it is not. The risk of playing 4♣ if you open that is just too high, so that gets a zero.

 

The scores on this hand are…

Votes, scores, Panel, Members

1♥      100       5   

2♣    90       4   

4♥        40       0   

4♣         0       0   

[luis]

It's interesting to know that both Justin and me were concerned about intervention and that we choose a different bid :-) 1♥ shows your suit if the auction gets competitive and 2♣ tries to prevent the auction from getting competitive :-) who knows... :-). I have the feeling that when you open 2♣ they will pass unless somebody has a very special hand while a 1♥ opening seems to attract 1♠ overcalls from all sorts of holdings that's the theory behind my bid.

 

While I do understand Justin's reasoning behing the 1♥ opening and I think it's quite valid I really don't understand arguments such as "I don't like opening 2C if I can avoid it." Is this serious? Like I don't like to open 1♦ or I don't like to double on Mondays... or "2♣ opening is also possible, but I don’t have enough defensive tricks." Defensive tricks? Why do you need defense to open 2♣?

I respect all the bids but can't resist the debate :-)

[inquiry]

Well, I like to open 2♣ as much as possible. I play my 2♣ bids as recommended by Chris Ryal and open on any ACOL 2 in a major and 4441 and 4450 hands with 5 controls and 5 or fewer losers. This way, I open 2♣ a lot more than standard 2/1 people. With 2♥ as an instant double negative (or whatever you want to call it), opening 2♣ in BBO advanced still should be encouraged, imho.

[mike777]

Well, I like to open 2♣ as much as possible. I play my 2♣ bids as recommended by Chris Ryal and open on any ACOL 2 in a major and 4441 and 4450 hands with 5 controls and 5 or fewer losers. This way, I open 2♣ a lot more than standard 2/1 people. With 2♥ as an instant double negative (or whatever you want to call it), opening 2♣ in BBO advanced still should be encouraged, imho.

My impressions from reading the literature is that the strong one clubbers love to open 2c very often and the 'only 2/1 players' love to open one level and respond very light, Kokish may with zero hcp.

[Gerben42]

Agree with Beverly Kraft. 1♥.

 

Only open 2♣ on hands that you fear will be passed out. If you are unbalanced enough regardless of how many tricks, 1x will not be passed out. My record so far is 1♥ - ignore what everyone else does - 6♣.

[cherdano]

1H for me. I try to only open 2C with 1-suiters if I am afraid it get's passed out if I open at the 1-level.

I understand your reasoning when you need to know about partner's shape, or when you need to describe your shape to partner. But here you need to know a) whether partner is completely bust, and b) which controls he has.

To me, it seems like both are easier to find out with 2♣ (assuming no competition).

 

Arend

[awm]

My impressions from reading the literature is that the strong one clubbers love to open 2c very often and the 'only 2/1 players' love to open one level and respond very light, Kokish may with zero hcp.

This is interesting, because I'm a long-time precision player and have noticed the exact opposite. Some of the reasons people (including me) like playing precision:

 

(1) The 2♣ opening in standard is often awkward. It's very frustrating to be dealt a rare good hand, and then be forced to preempt your own side out of the best contract.

 

(2) Opening light is encouraged! An opening range of 8-15 is MUCH more manageable than a range of 8-21, don't you think?

 

(3) Precision players are often obsessive about saving space on good hands, trying to keep the auction as low as possible and get as much information as possible.

 

When I play standard, I HATE opening 2♣. I will virtually never open 2♣ on a three suited hand, or a two-suiter with the longest suit being a minor. I try to avoid opening 2♣ (or 2NT) on balanced hands with a small doubleton. The fact is, it's hard to explore for the best strain when your constructive bidding starts at the three level.

 

On the other hand, the biggest problem with precision is, your opponents rarely stay silent after you open the strong 1♣. I'd bet that in a bidding contest, with opponents silent, precision with relays would win over standard or 2/1 hands down. But precision players in real life often find themselves in dilemmas arising from high-level interference after their 1♣ openings.

 

Anyways, despite my dislike for opening strong 2♣, I will open it on this hand. My feeling is, opening 2♣ is fine when (1) you know the strain and (2) you know you want to be in at least game. Most of the problems with strong 2♣ come when you try to negotiate the strain, or you want to stop below game opposite some hands. Strong 2♣ has a big advantage in hindering interference -- it's hard to bid at the two level when there's often a 22 balanced sitting next to you.