slam

[the hog]

I do not see why a beginner or int player wants to play a system that most top players do not play and most books recommend against.

Huh... maybe because it's easy to learn?

 

In any case then you miscount LTC according to my ltc books.

Only if you forget to look at the hand after you count. The hand has 5 raw losers, but look at the plus-values: spade tenace, good controls, extra queen, SEVEN diamonds. Perfectly worth an upgrade to 4 losers and a 2♣ opener if you feel like it.

I guess based on your previous posts whether YOU open this 2C depends on what you had for dinner, not on any agreements you have, (or do not have), with your "partner".

 

By opening this hand with 2C I would suggest that your dinner consisted of 2 bottles of wine.

[sceptic]

By opening this hand with 2C I would suggest that your dinner consisted of 2 bottles of wine.

 

that sounds like my lunch before my last 2 club post where I passed a 2 club bid :D

[zasanya]

I know the original question was regarding 2/1 or sayc.Yet cant resist commenting that most beginners using any form of precision club would bid the slam without breathing hard.Nothing like good old precision for bidding slams in uncontested auctions.

A topic for a new thread but perhaps it has beeen discussed before.

[whereagles]

You need a fit to use LTC, that is rule number one.

Hum.. look, I think we're talking about different things. When one hand has a very long suit, hcp count fails. The method of counting losers on the long suit hand + cover cards in pard's hand works better. That's what I'm talking about. Not the usual LTC method where one player counts losers, adds pard's losers and subtracts from 24.

[Echognome]

I know the original question was regarding 2/1 or sayc.Yet cant resist commenting that most beginners using any form of precision club would bid the slam without breathing hard.Nothing like good old precision for bidding slams in uncontested auctions.

A topic for a new thread but perhaps it has beeen discussed before.

I'm not so sure it's easy in Precision. The auction would be something like:

 

1♣ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♥

3♦ - ?

 

And here I'm guessing it will then go:

 

... - 3♠

3NT - ?

 

Where 3♠ is probably not even a natural bid. Opener will now feel obliged to show his spade stopper and will responder push on with no fit?

 

Or it might go:

 

1♣ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♠

3♦ - 3♥

?

 

And what is opener to do now? Perhaps in this auction it may continue:

 

4♣ - etc...

 

Note that if responder is 3415 or 4315, diamonds will play at least as well as clubs. That is if diamonds break 32 the slam will be cold.

 

Now, of course that is why 4405 hands are sometimes bid directly as shape showing after a 1♣ opener (such as 3♥ in Meckwell). After which I'm guessing they will relay for the rest of the hand.

 

My point is that in box standard Goren precision, this hand is not much easier than after a strong 2♣.

[whereagles]

nearly everyone on this board appears dubious regarding your requirements for making such an opening...

That cannot be true. I have never said what my requirements were in the first place :D

[whereagles]

As for justin, well.. maybe I wait until you calm down first.

[whereagles]

To hog: yes, you are completely right. Whether or not I open 2♣ on that depends more on what I had for dinner than on what I agreed with pard. But I guess that's something you'll never understand.

[the hog]

To hog: yes, you are completely right. Whether or not I open 2♣ on that depends more on what I had for dinner than on what I agreed with pard. But I guess that's something you'll never understand.

No Whereagles, I totally agree with you here - I don't understand. In my opinion Bridge is a partnership game and this is something that your posts make clear that you don't understand.

:D

[whereagles]

Yes, it's a partnership game. But dialogs can be flexible, and can depend on each player's style.

 

There is a dogma around that says that there is only one good course of action. This dogma is wrong, and even dangerous. But I guess...

[Rebound]

An alternative precision auction I suggest:

1♣ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♥

3♣* - 3♥**

3♠** - 3NT

4NT*** - 5♥

6♣

 

 

*My policy here is to support clubs as soon as partner does not support ♦

**cuebid.

***With my regular precision partner, this is keycard for clubs.

 

But it's ugly and I don't like it lol... I agree it would not be easy to bid. Finding a slam with a long suit opposite a void is always going to be difficult because the person holding the void will be constantly devaluing partner's cards.

[mike777]

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> East </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> NS </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> T9643 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 8742 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 86 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> J9 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KJ72 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AT95 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KT875 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AQ </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Q </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AK97532 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> A63 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 85 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> KJ63 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> QJT4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Q42 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

 

West  North East  South

 

 -     -     2♣    Pass

 2NT   Pass  3♦    Pass

 4♣    Pass  5♣    Pass

 5♥    Pass  5♠    Pass

 6♣    Pass  Pass  Pass

 

 

2nt shows 7+

 

what do you think of this bidding

 

what do you think of this bidding if 2 C is supposed to = a 4 loser hand

 

what alternative ways can you bid it using 2/1

 

and what percentage is this slam please, I am not sure how to work it out

Wayne what does your opening 2c mean?

 

If I read your post correctly you are only mentioning 4 ltc hand? No mention of HCP or other requirements?

 

AKQxx

x

xx

AQxxx

 

=4 LOSER HAND?

[hrothgar]

You're advocating a 2♣ opening on this hand...

[sceptic]

Wayne what does your opening 2c mean?

 

OK, believe this one if you will

 

1 open usually 22/3+ HCP or 4 loser hand or less

 

I wont open 22+ with 2 or 3 suits even if it has 4 losers or less (well never say never)

 

I dont play2 Clubs as game forcing after a 2D response

 

 

mypard on the other hand seems to play SEF style 2!C opener in our 2/1 (which causes some confusion) ourbidding from 2clubs is usually a disaster, she may kill me for saying that LOL

[mike777]

Wayne what does your opening 2c mean?

 

OK, believe this one if you will

 

1 open usually 22/3+ HCP or 4 loser hand or less

 

I wont open 22+ with 2 or 3 suits even if it has 4 losers or less (well never say never)

 

I dont play2 Clubs as game forcing after a 2D response

 

 

mypard on the other hand seems to play SEF style 2!C opener in our 2/1 (which causes some confusion) ourbidding from 2clubs is usually a disaster, she may kill me for saying that LOL

Per what you wrote then you open 2clubs with; take a look at your definition.

 

you said 22 hcp OR 4 loser hand

you said you would not open with 2 suited AND 22 hcp , this hand IS 2 SUITER AND LESS THAN 22 HCP. So you open it?

 

AKQXX

X

XX

AQXXX

 

To not open with 22+ hcp and any 2 suiter or even most seems just wrong. Keep in mind a 2 suiter can be 5-4 by definition.

[mike777]

You need a fit to use LTC, that is rule number one.

Hum.. look, I think we're talking about different things. When one hand has a very long suit, hcp count fails. The method of counting losers on the long suit hand + cover cards in pard's hand works better. That's what I'm talking about. Not the usual LTC method where one player counts losers, adds pard's losers and subtracts from 24.

You are defining losers and cover cards ala LTC theory.

Losers and cover cards comes out of LTC theory. LTC is based on fits and specifically says do not use it to determine opening hands.

 

If you want to use another theory OK, but tell us what it is and how it is developed? On what basis? I only see losers and cover cards defined ala LTC theory.

 

Just saying count losers and cover cards when you have a long suit is not a theory of bidding :D It is just some statement with no explanation :). How can just saying this helps beginners and int. players?

[Winstonm]

I know Mary Bergen argues in favor of opening these types of hands with 2C but I'm not as yet convinced.

 

In 2/1, this is a nightmare hand. In SAYC it is a little better. In Precision, it's a no-brainer.

 

2/1: 1D-1H

?

 

As Justin pointed out, the next bid by opener will either propel us to slam or only get us to game.

 

SAYC: 1D-2C

 

Now the club fit is found quickly but opener still has some rebid problems.

 

Precision: 1C-2C. Game force with clubs. That's easy.

 

I'd have to say that with the methods employed, this pair did very well to reach a difficult but good slam. I doubt if I would have made it in 2/1.

 

Winston

[whereagles]

You are defining losers and cover cards ala LTC theory.

Losers and cover cards comes out of LTC theory. LTC is based on fits and specically says do not use it to determine opening hands.

 

If you want to use another theory OK, but tell us what it is and how it is developed? On what basis?

Well, I learned the long suit + cover card concept from Klinger's book :D In which case fit or no fit doesn't make that much of a difference - it's the nr. of cover cards that is crucial.

[sceptic]

no one has mentioned Kokish over 2Club bid what do you think of that as response structure over 2 club

 

only for 2/1, I usually play basic sayc now, except with a few pards I still play 2/1 out of my depth system :D

[han]

Whether you play Kokish over 2C has little to do with what system you play, 2/1 or sayc. The 2C is still the same, right?

 

I like Kokish, but it needs some extra discussion. I think it meshes well with playing 2C-2H as a 2nd negative. You should discuss with which hands responder does not bid 2S over 2C-2D-2H.

[POJC]

That hand is definately not a 2♣ opener. I found that when i first found out about the 2♣ openings i used them far to often. Then i read this: http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/b_2c.htm

Small excerpt:

 

"Playing tricks -- at least 8 ½ to 9 tricks if your long suit is a major; 9 ½ to 10 tricks if it's a minor.

Defensive strength -- a minimum of three (preferably four) quick tricks.

Loser count -- your hand's quick tricks should outnumber its losers.

The "two-queens" test -- Do you want to be in game if partner has two queens and nothing else?

Rebid problems -- How difficult will this hand be to describe if you open it with a one-bid instead of 2C?"

 

The hand fails on most of these questions. Also having diamonds is often the most expensive when u have to rebid since after a 2♦ u have use a lot of biding space.

My plan in a natural system would be 1♦-1M-3♣ since a 3♦ rebid would be to little and 4♦ takes us beyond 3NT.

 

I agree totally with Jlall that 2♣ is a judgement bid (but a very bad one). Don't abuse the 2♣ openings.

 

I play controls after 2♣, an normally it works out fine since after the negative 2♦ response there is plenty biding space.

2♥ 2controls

2♠ 3controls

2NT 4 controls

 

After a strong opening there will usually be slam interest after a 2♠ bid (9 tricks + 3 controls) so biding space will not be an issue. If one plays control showing responses responder needs to have some sort of relay bid avaible with bad hands to conserve biding space. Eg 2♣-2♥,3♣-3♦ (relay).

[whereagles]

How interesting. I think that bidding the hand like

 

1D 1x

3C

 

is a far more ill-judged solution than opening 2C and hoping for the best.

[hrothgar]

How interesting. I think that bidding the hand like

 

1D 1x

3C

 

is a far more ill-judged solution than opening 2C and hoping for the best.

Because its SO much easier to show a 2 suited hand with the minors after a two level opening...

[han]

I think wereagles was suggesting that we'd bid 1D-1X-3C with the given hand. It is true that this is quite ugly.

 

Over 1H however (partner's most frequent call) you can just jump to 3NT, showing long strong diamonds and stoppers in spades and clubs.

[POJC]

How interesting. I think that bidding the hand like

 

1D 1x

3C

 

is a far more ill-judged solution than opening 2C and hoping for the best.

The more i look at this hand the less i like it. It's really nasty to bid. That however does not make it right to destroy the meaning of a strong 2♣ opening.

I imagine something like an auction like 2C-2D-3D-3S-3NT when partner has flat distrib and only ace of spades not being the best contract...

The biggest problem is that we dont have enough tricks for the strong opening. =Solution don't open with a strong two. Just like in bridge....

 

After a 1♦ opening we have ways to discribe our hand more accurately without knowing nothing about p's hand. Fx i like Hannie rebid of 3NT after 1♥.

After spades JS to clubs (better to lie about shape than strength) and rebid 3♦(which must be forcing) after 2♣.

This makes our exchange of information much better, than opening strong.

But true it's still ugly