[whereagles]

Jlall, on Mar 6 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

The reason I would open 2C is not for fear that 1D will be passed out, this is very unlikely

I don't think it's that remote. You have 22 hcp, after all. It's enough for pard to have a bad 4 or 5 for him to pass. Unless, of course, you have the habit of responding to 1♦ on trash

Ok, so a pass to 1♦ won't happen most of the time, but it will happen more often than if you had less hcp

[Walddk]

I'm in mikeh's camp. If I can find any excuse at all, I do not open 2♣ when a minor is my long suit. 2♣ - 2♦ ; 3♦ is an awful start for our side.

1♦ is my choice. I don't fear that it will be passed out, and even if it does, there is nothing that suggests that we have missed a game. In my opinion, 2♣ is an opening one should use rarer than rarely. It takes up so much bidding space.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Mar 6 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

The reason I would open 2C is not for fear that 1D will be passed out, this is very unlikely, but out of fear that I will never be able to convince partner I'm this strong. I don't want to have to guess later whether to bid a slam or not. Admittedly this is a new philosophy for me, I'm sure a year ago I would have opened 1D.

The reason I would not open 2C is that I fear I will never be able to convince partner I am this weak.

Opening 2C may get us to a poor game. Well, I've played poor games before and they sometimes make. What worries me is that partner will bid on and we will go off in 4NT or 5D or 6NT when game (or partial) is the limit of the hand.

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on Mar 6 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

What do you guys have against 2♣ openings? Whenever I see a "2♣ or not" problem, almost everybody opens something other than 2♣...

If you never open 2♣, you might as well play that as WEAK.

I open 2♣ only with 1 suiters or balanced, to open a 2 suiter with 2♣ is to auto preempt yourself

[Fluffy]

luis, on Mar 6 2006, 04:26 PM, said:

To the 1♦ openers I wish you luck in your 1♦ contract but you probably don't need it :-)

I wish you luck on your 3NT contract... specially after opponents make first 5 tricks , its unlucky that ♥QJ dropped doubleton and 6♥ was cold hehe

[hrothgar]

I think that this is a quite good problem

For what its worth, I'm torn between 2♣ and 1♦. I see significant costs and advantages to both approaches. Ultimately, I suspect that I'd open 1♦ at the table. I have very easy descriptive rebids over any advance that partner choses. (Hell, if I'm lucky enough to hear partner advance 1♥ I get to trot out the much maligned 4♦ rebid). Yes, there is a risk that partner will pass 1♦, however, my short Spades make it likely that the opponents will take a bid.

On this same topic, part of the danger of a 2♣ opening is that the opponents are going to interfer over our strong 2♣ opening. (We're red, they're white. Equally significant, folks are learning that lots of pairs don't have any good agreements after interference over strong, artifical, and focing 2♣ openings)

[keylime]

If playing anything but control showing responses to 2♣, I open 1♦.

With control showing responses then I open 2♣; I pretty much have a near game in hand and am interested in a potential six diamond slam.

I had a similar hand in vein about a month ago; I held:

AKQJx
AKJ9xx
void
xx

I opened this 2♣ and pard found a 3 diamond (5 controls!) bid. Got to a superb seven of a major contract.

[keylime]

Justin,

I got crazy with the X's. :-)

For me, playing 2C-2D as a waiting bid and 2C-2H as a bust is punishing partner for having those types of hands. I rather know right off the hop what pard's main values are to steer the auction accordingly. I've never been a fan of the 2D -> G/F, 2NT -> heart, G/F, and 2H -> bust.

Pard after opener's rebid can identify their controls in passing (fwiw, I also use Kokish relays). Maybe it's a style thing but ever since I've starting playing controls, my 2♣ bidding is a lot easier on both sides.

[mikeh]

Control showing responses have never really caught on in the expert community, despite some noticeable exceptions (Steve Robinson, for one, from what I understand). Dwayne, your example, adjusting for 13 cards, proves less than nothing.

Less, because opposite a 5 control response, I would expect any competent pair to reach the optimum contract while your methods would be seriously impaired by, for example, a 3 control response. You then have to find your fit (bearing in mind that you have a two suiter and your fit, if any, may be in the second suit) and then discover whether those 3 controls have anything to do with the ♣ suit. As Justin pointed out, your example hand is actually a good example of why control showing responses are viewed as inefficient by most experts.

[keylime]

Mike,

If we play a 2H bust structure for example, then isn't opener forced to open 1H and hope that he/she isn't passed out?

(edit)

Responder on a non-descript 5 count with an Ace and Jack so to speak - then after 1H, many would not bid forcing NT not being able to withstand a jump response (which many play as G/F or G/I in the least) from opener.

[Kalvan14]

I play (over 2♣): 2♦, waiting bid at least semi-positive; 2♥ and 2♠ are paradox-style, with a bust in the bid major; the other bids are positive, and quite well defined.

In the posted hand, if you open 2♣, you hear 2♦.
What is your pleasure now? 2N or 3♦? I'd like a quick poll.

Over 1m, we bid with minimum hands too (1M promises 4-5 HCP)

[mikeh]

keylime, on Mar 6 2006, 04:17 PM, said:

Mike,

If we play a 2H bust structure for example, then isn't opener forced to open 1H and hope that he/she isn't passed out?

(edit)

Responder on a non-descript 5 count with an Ace and Jack so to speak - then after 1H, many would not bid forcing NT not being able to withstand a jump response (which many play as G/F or G/I in the least) from opener.

I have never seen a 2♣ structure that has no flaws: it is, in that regard, like every other bidding approach I have ever seen, or anticipate ever seeing.

I play 2♥ immediate negative, and in some partnerships, 2N is positive in ♥.

Playing 2♥ immediate negative requires that opener's rebid of 3♥ over 2♥ be forcing. Thus 2♣ opening bids force to 2N, 3♠ or higher.

This reflects a modest cost compared to cheaper minor second negative, but the advantages are huge, at least in my opinion.

Cheaper minor 2nd neg, allows the partnership to get out in 3♥, after 2♦ - 2♥- 3♣ - 3♥.

But at the cost of losing the natural, descriptive cheaper minor bid. They also lose the ability to use 3♦ as a form of stayman after 2♣ 2♦ 3♣: I and many others use 3♦ here to allow opener to pattern out with long ♣ and a 4 card major, or to allow opener a chance to bid 3N. Cheaper minor players are in real trouble on this auction, since they cannot begin to describe their suit holdings until they have completed their strength description: thus on weak hands they must bid 3♦. Now partner bids 3N and they cannot safely look for a major suit contract.

2♥ immediate negative means that, since 2♣ is now tantamount to a gf if based on primary ♥, 1♥ is wide range and it in turn means that responder should strain to keep the auction alive (I cannot imagine passing 1♥ with an Ace and a Jack, but that has nothing to do with this 2♣ style: I just think that passing with values is fundamentally unsound). This does represent a further modest cost.

This takes me back to where I came in: all systems and styles have costs. 2♥ immediate negative works extremely well for me. I have tried control, I have (many years ago) played cheaper minor 2nd neg. and so on, but I am very happy with my current approach.

[Kalvan14]

I agree 100% with Mikeh: 2♣ is a specialised bid, necessary to take some pressure off the 1-level openings. Either you restrict 2♣ pretty well, or otherwise you will never be able to bid it, starting from so high a level.

This is the rationale for the big club systems; obviously, since it is a zero sum game, you gain something (better definition on strong hands, and limited 1M openings) and you loose something else (1♦ is a kind of garbage bin, and often you need both 2m's to simplify a bit 1♦).

I've played Big Club systems for year; then I went back to natural systems.

[whereagles]

For the record, yesterday I played a tournament without any strong bids. 2♣ was weak with clubs, and any strong hand would open at the 1-level (non-forcing!), or perhaps at game level with game-in-hand.

Guess what? No strong hands came out, and we did get to open a weak 2♣ once for a good score (opps overbid to a hopeless game).

This, of course, is too small a sample for the methods, but it goes to say that it is perfectly playable to open any moderately strong hand at the 1 level and clear up 2♣ for something which does come out every now-and-then... The corollary is simple: why play a strong 2♣ opener if you never use it?

[Gerben42]

EHAA does not have a strong 2♣ bid but is a bit gambling. A solid system without a 2♣ bid is Fantunes.

Anyway, I prefer a direct 2nd negative 2♥ response to 2♣ (in fact 2♠ also 2nd negative).

Then you can bid this hand with 2♣ 2♦ 3♥ showing a 3♦ rebid with 4♥.

Quote

I had a similar hand in vein about a month ago; I held:

AKQJx
AKJ9xx
void
xx

I opened this 2♣ and pard found a 3 diamond (5 controls!) bid. Got to a superb seven of a major contract.

If partner has that much you were going to bid slam anyway, in which case you have a lot of room and I find it hard to believe one would not bid it otherwise. Also you had to start bidding your suits at the 3-level and still got there so I don't see how this is a commercial for control showing respponses.

Quote

I see Gerben, you are now responding with xxxx Jxxxx xx xx? smile.gif

Arend

1♦ is forcing in Fantunes!

Quote

What do you guys have against 2♣ openings? Whenever I see a "2♣ or not" problem, almost everybody opens something other than 2♣...

If you never open 2♣, you might as well play that as WEAK.

It's because if you need to ask there is another option, and since that other option takes less space or will be more descriptive it's usually taken!

[Gerben42]

For Arend:

---

1♦ (13+ 4+♦)
1♠ (0+ 4+♥ more ♥ than ♠)
1NT (18+)
2♦ (0 - 5, 4/5♥)
4♥ (Okay no slam then)

[cherdano]

Well, Gerben, my impression was that the question was assuming
1. no Fantunes system
2. no special rebid structure after 2♣ that allows showing hearts with longer diamonds.

Of course I could be mistaken, the original poster was assuming Fantunes, and just testing all of us whether we could remember the agreement.s

[Gerben42]

Quote

1. no Fantunes system
2. no special rebid structure after 2♣ that allows showing hearts with longer diamonds.

Sure, 1. can't be helped but 2. is just self-torture

Given the conditions I open 1♦.