[dave_beer]

helene_t, on 2017-February-17, 10:03, said:

Can you stop in 2♣ (or 2NT) after a 2♥ opening?

I used the cheapest response to Acol 2 as negative.

After 2♦ or 2♥, 2NT by either partner showed the suit of the negative response. So 2♦-2NT showed a positive response in ♥ and 2♦-2♥-2NT showed that ♥ was opener's 2nd suit, typically 4-6 and was not forcing.

After 2♠, 2NT was negative so opener could take a view and pass it but was unlikely to do so.

[blackshoe]

I'd like to be playing Romex here. I'd then open 2♦: 21-22 HCP, 7 controls, or unbalanced GF, primary diamonds, the latter obviously not applying here.

[GrahamJson]

This may sound odd, but although I believe this hand is good enough for 2C, just, it is not good enough for an Acol 2H. That is because an Acol 2 requires at least 8 playing tricks when played in its own suit or suits. A better 2H bid would be Ax AKQxx x KQJxx. Fewer points but more tricks. More critically, showing a hand that needs to be played in its own strain. Here if you open 2H and rebid 3C you are showing a hand with no interest in the black suits, so responder should not be looking to play in spades unless he has a virtually self supporting suit. By contrast a 2C opener is usually a more all round hand, playable in several places.

Also sounding odd, I think that you stand less chance of getting too high if you open 2C rather than 1H. True, a 1H opener might get passed out when no game is on. However what happens if partner drags up a 1S response. Presumably you rebid a forcing 3C. Then what? Maybe partner will show preference by bidding 3H. You look far to good just to bid 4, so 3S? Whatever you do you will find it hard to get over the strength of your hand without taking the bidding past 4H. By contrast if it goes 2C-2D-2H-2S-3C-3H-3S you will be happy to pass either 4H or 4S from partner knowing you have already shown your hand.

[rhm]

GrahamJson, on 2017-February-18, 17:49, said:

This may sound odd, but although I believe this hand is good enough for 2C, just, it is not good enough for an Acol 2H.

The hand is unsuitable for an Acol 2♥, sinply because this bid shows either a one-suited hand or a two-suiter.
But 2♣ is simply the strongest bid in the system.
So you can not argue the hand is good enough for 2♣ but not strong enough for an Acol 2♥.

Just as there are strong hands you might not open 2♣, because you can not describe your main distributional features thereafter well, there are slightly weaker hands which can not be described well after an Acol two bid.
Opening this hand 2♣ is okay, though it is an overbid. You just assume you have game.
I still prefer 2NT, but I can see the merit of opening 2♣. We might find a good club fit that way, assuming of course we do not play lower minor as a second negative after 2♣-2♦-2♥, which many do.

Rainer Herrmann

[GrahamJson]

I didn't say it was not strong enough for an Acol 2, I said it was not good enough, which is slightly different. In brief, 2C show points whilst an Acol 2 shows tricks. This hand has enough points for 2C but not enough tricks for 2H. An Acol 2 is also used for distributional hands where an oppo pre-empt after a 2C would make it difficult for you to show your suits. In such cases you might have enough for 2C but for tactical reasons choose to open an Acol 2. Reese gives a good example in "Play These Hands With Me". "With hands like this I like to start with one of my suits..."

[msmaple]

It has always been my understanding that it is not aadviseable to open 2 NT with a singleton. However, I was recently informed that the ACBL suggests that you may open 2 NT with a singleton Ace, I can't find anything to substantiate this, does anyone know?

[rhm]

msmaple, on 2017-February-19, 08:42, said:

It has always been my understanding that it is not aadviseable to open 2 NT with a singleton. However, I was recently informed that the ACBL suggests that you may open 2 NT with a singleton Ace, I can't find anything to substantiate this, does anyone know?

As far as I understand it, Acbl recently allowed to have an agreement to open notrump with a singleton honor.
This happens because more and more want to do this even games governed by GCC and it is done by many experts.
This does not mean the ACBL recommends or suggests doing so.

Rainer Hermann

[msmaple]

Would this be alertable then? It is a departure from the norm and where I play it is usual to announce the point range if your partner opens 1 NT.

[661_Pete]

I read somewhere that, long before Benji was even thought of, someone proposed in Acol an opening of 2♦ to indicate a strong 3-suiter. 4-4-4-1's especially - always an awkward distribution to bid! I guess that - like so many early-day Acol conventions - it didn't stick.

Myself - and if I'm breaking any rules it doesn't really matter at the sort of level I play - I'd be happy to open 2NT with a singleton - honour or not - but not to open 1NT (12-14) with any singleton.

However I would be wary of raising NT - to play - with no guard in a suit the oppos have called. Surely that's just common sense?

Furthermore, the OP says that RHO overcalled. Is that a mis-type? Otherwise opener would have had a chance to show his strongest suit - ♥ - before partner comes in with 3NT. I know there's a mantra, that after opening in NT, one should not speak again until hearing from partner. I agree that certainly applies to 1NT, but 2NT is a bit more flexible.

[GrahamJson]

661_Pete, on 2017-February-19, 11:39, said:

I read somewhere that, long before Benji was even thought of, someone proposed in Acol an opening of 2♦ to indicate a strong 3-suiter. 4-4-4-1's especially - always an awkward distribution to bid! I guess that - like so many early-day Acol conventions - it didn't stick.

The Blue Blub, used by the Italian teams of the 60s and 70s, used a 2D bid to show 4441 and 17-23 Pts. The Roman club used it to show 4441 or 5440, with an opening 2C to show the same but weaker, 12-16 I think.

Crowhurst in Precision Bidding in Acol proposed a two way 2D bid showing either a one suited or a three suited, if I remember correctly. And yes, I don't think it really caught on. What did catch on was the Multi 2D showing two or three hand types. In the original version these were a weak 2H or 2S, a balanced 20-22 or 4441 17-23. It's still quite popular, although I'm not sure the 4441 option is used much.

[GrahamJson]

Blue Blub? I meant Blue Club.

[helene_t]

I think there is a considerable risk of missing a good game by opening 1♥. Last night, playing against GIB, opps had a very similar hand and played 1♥+3 while both boards from the vugraph archieve played 4♠+1 after a Polish 1♣ opening.

One hand proves nothing but nevertheless I think that this is a hand with which you would prefer to play a forcing club system. With that not being an option, you just have to open 1♥ and hope for the best. Opening at the 2-level won't allow you to describe you hand well enough unless you upgrade to a GF which I don't think is a long term winner since if partner has less than 5/6 HCPs you very likely would like to stop in a partscore, and not necessarily 2♥ (which you will play if you open a non-forcing strong 2♥, or NF rebid after 2♣ Benji, and partner is broke) or 2NT (which you will probably play if you open 2NT and partner is broke).

[NickRW]

I'm not sure that playing a strong 1♣ is necessarily a cure for hands like this. It all rather depends on exactly what strong club system and the exact nature of the distribution of the two hands of course. However, consider a generic strong club system which, for the hand in question, might start 1♣ (strong) - 1♦ (forced, weak), 1♥ (natural) - 2♦ (natural, not a complete bust) - now what? Guess 3NT maybe - probably work - or it might not!

[rhm]

NickRW, on 2017-February-20, 06:44, said:

I'm not sure that playing a strong 1♣ is necessarily a cure for hands like this. It all rather depends on exactly what strong club system and the exact nature of the distribution of the two hands of course. However, consider a generic strong club system which, for the hand in question, might start 1♣ (strong) - 1♦ (forced, weak), 1♥ (natural) - 2♦ (natural, not a complete bust) - now what? Guess 3NT maybe - probably work - or it might not!

Strong club systems are certainly better on game forcing and nearly game forcing hands.
This does not necessarily mean they will always find the best contract when one hand is very strong, but chances are much better.

I personally have devised a strong club system many years ago, which I still play with my wife, where after 1♣-1♦ a rebid of 1♥ by opener is artificial and strong while all other rebids by opener are limited to 16-18 or 17-19 if balanced.
The system does well when one hand is very strong and the other is weak. Natural systems handle this not uncommon scenario poorly. For example one hand has QJTxxx in a minor and nothing on the side and the bidding starts 2♣-2♦-2NT for example.

Rainer Herrmann

[blackshoe]

msmaple, on 2017-February-19, 09:26, said:

Would this be alertable then? It is a departure from the norm and where I play it is usual to announce the point range if your partner opens 1 NT.

Not alertable, but disclosable if they ask, and it should be on your system card. You still announce the point range.

A while back, one of my partners opened 1NT with a singleton king of hearts. I transferred her into hearts, and then bid game. She went down two. She had two comments after the hand: "I heard it's legal now" and "I'm never doing it again".

GrahamJson, on 2017-February-19, 12:47, said:

Crowhurst in Precision Bidding in Acol proposed a two way 2D bid showing either a one suited or a three suited, if I remember correctly. And yes, I don't think it really caught on.

The "multi-purpose" 2♦. An Acol 2 in any suit, or a Roman 2♦, strong and thee suited. I played it for a little while when I was in England, but only with one partner.

[Zelandakh]

Some points to clear up here.

Regarding an Acol 2 opener, several have stated that it shows 8 tricks and others have suggested it must always be one or two-suited. This is traditionally not the case. If you read old Acol books it will clearly say that it can also be a hand with too much general strength for a one level opening but not enough for 2♣. That arguably applies here. Some of the examples from those books are also rather flat and cannot be considered close to one or two-suited. Also, how many tricks does everyone think this hand has? 3 in spades, 4.5 in hearts, 0.5 in clubs - seems like 8 to me! Perhaps others count their PTs differently.

On the choice of opening hearts or NT, the argument that moving one card should make 2NT obvious is, frankly, ridiculous. One card makes a big difference - noone would suggest opening 1♣ with a 5(31)4 hand just because we would have done so with 4(31)5. Switching from a 5 card to a 4 card major is a huge difference!

Moving on to the response, Nige's claim that the majority of players using Strong 2s also play a Herbert Negative is one that I think worthy of comment. I have played with and against (mostly against) Strong 2s for 30 years and still have not actually met anyone using this treatment. Yes it exists but to suggest it is the system of the majority is over-egging things rather.

Finally, the Roman 2♦ is great when it comes up but it is just too rare to use such an important opening for. One reasonable Reverse Benji option that I played as a junior is to bundle the strong 3-suiter into 2♦ instead of that sequence showing a balanced hand type. That is somewhat better. This can also be done as part of a 2♣ opening of course, as well as a strong option in a Multi 2♦. All of these methods have disadvantages as well as advantages but are (IMHO) better than using up a dedicated opening for the purpose.

Oh yes, back to the hand itself. I am ok with an Acol 2♥ or a Benji 2♣ (but probably not a Reverse Benji 2♦) as well as a 1♥ opening. I like all of these much more than a 2NT opening. Changing a heart to a diamond would, as pointed out, change the answer but so would changing a heart to anything else. That is not surprising when discussing a 5 card major in an unbalanced hand!

[xavierf]

I would bid 2NT (2C - 2D - 2NT in my own sytem), also because we have the agreement that 2SA can be 5431 if singleton honor or no rebid. In our system we can't bid SF hand, which is an advantage because with the very strong hands you don't have to jump, and jumps to 3H/3S/3SA can be used to show two suited hands

[RedSpawn]

wank, on 2017-February-17, 06:18, said:

it's not close to 2C. it's either 2NT or 1H. personally i very much prefer 1H.

even playing strong 2s or benji or some such, opening at the 1 level doesn't deny a strong hand; it just denies a hand which can open something more specific.

your chances of missing a good game by opening 1H and partner passing are pretty much 0.

Agreed. I don't have an issue with the LTC being at most 4. I do however have an issue that the opposition could get 3-4 tricks in clubs and diamonds before the alleged strong 2 club holder gains control of the board.

That sir is an immediate sign that 2 clubs is not on the menu for lunch today.

The dubious K♦ is another problem that demotes the hands value. Depending on your partner's holding it could be worth either 3, 2, or 0.