responses to 2c open - strong

[bluenikki]

The best approach to 2C forcing is to not play it! B-)

 

 

2C forcing takes up a LOT of bidding room. Therefore, decisions must be made when constructing the system. I would advise as much as possible to incorporate semi-balanced hands and 4441 hands into a NT bid.

Have you tabulated your results treating 4441 , 5431 , and 5440 as balanced?

[blackshoe]

In his recent book Optimal Hand Evaluation, Patrick Darricades suggests that his method is better than all the others, and that it leads to the conclusion that one should play a forcing one club system.

[gwnn]

So a positive hand can show shape with a long minor and if it is balanced, but not with a major?

 

I suppose you will have methods to show you major afterwards, then, for example Jacoby/Smolen transfers if opener rebids 2NT. But what about

2♣-2♦

3♦-3♥

Does this show 5?

Yes, as per the rest of my post (opener denied a 4cM).

 

And 8-10 is a rare hand (it's an important hand - almost but not quite enough for slam). It's just a choice - we just liked the idea of a more well-defined response ie denying a 5cM.

[Winstonm]

 

 

 

2C forcing takes up a LOT of bidding room. Therefore, decisions must be made when constructing the system. I would advise as much as possible to incorporate semi-balanced hands and 4441 hands into a NT bid.

 

Have you tabulated your results treating 4441 , 5431 , and 5440 as balanced?

 

No, I haven't.

 

My suggestion was for someone who wants to simplify a system. My personal choice is to bite the bullet and not open some strong hands with 2C. My 2C opening is pretty tight with the most likely hand types, i.e., single suited, nt, and 5-5 or longer 2-suiters.

[gwnn]

In his recent book Optimal Hand Evaluation, Patrick Darricades suggests that his method is better than all the others, and that it leads to the conclusion that one should play a forcing one club system.

Maybe have a system where 1♣ shows a balanced weak hand or a strong hand?

 

1♣ = 12-14 bal/22+ any

1NT = 15-17 bal

 

Hmm we might as well make the 1♣ a bit more frequent - we are always annoyed with those 18-20 hands. Too much jumping.

1♣ = 12-14 bal/18+ any

1NT = 15-17 bal

 

Well, maybe have clubs there as well.

1♣ = 12-14 bal/12+ with clubs/18+ any

 

Although that might be overloaded, and 2♣ is now free, so what about:

1♣ = 12-14 bal/15+ clubs/18+ any

1NT = 15-17 bal

2♣ = 10-14 with 5+ ♣

 

That sounds a bit convoluted, but maybe we can Polish it some more.

 

(sorry, just having fun!!)

[Zelandakh]

Well, maybe have clubs there as well.

1♣ = 12-14 bal/12+ with clubs/18+ any

Instead of Polishing this, you could also make it somewhat more Unassuming by switching to a Weak NT and making the balanced range within 1♣ 15+. ;)

 

(Some might say that doing both together would be even better but I couldn't possibly comment.)

[Winstonm]

Maybe have a system where 1♣ shows a balanced weak hand or a strong hand?

 

1♣ = 12-14 bal/22+ any

1NT = 15-17 bal

 

Hmm we might as well make the 1♣ a bit more frequent - we are always annoyed with those 18-20 hands. Too much jumping.

1♣ = 12-14 bal/18+ any

1NT = 15-17 bal

 

Well, maybe have clubs there as well.

1♣ = 12-14 bal/12+ with clubs/18+ any

 

Although that might be overloaded, and 2♣ is now free, so what about:

1♣ = 12-14 bal/15+ clubs/18+ any

1NT = 15-17 bal

2♣ = 10-14 with 5+ ♣

 

That sounds a bit convoluted, but maybe we can Polish it some more.

 

(sorry, just having fun!!)

 

Sounds like the original Roman Club system.