[zasanya]

In different threads, many experts have expressed the view that 2 club should not be opened on 2 suiter hands.With 21 points 4 loser 5/5 minors its better to open 1♦ rather than 2♣ opine the experts.I have also seen comments like such a hand will not be passed out .RHO is sure to balance if P passes.
3 Questions ( Perhaps I should have posted this in beginners section )
1. Whats wrong with opening strong 2 suiters with 2 ♣ opening?
2.If it is wrong to open 21 points 2 suiter hands with 2 ♣, how does one handle 23 points 4-4-4-1 hands?
3.Should one's bidding system be based on opponents actions?(" They are sure to overcall" or "RHO is sure to balance?" )

[helene_t]

1. Whats wrong with opening strong 2 suiters with 2 ♣ opening?
If you have a nice shape opps will often have that too, so they will preempt. This means that you will have to begin describing your shape at the 4-level or something like that. Also, if partner makes a positive response, you may run out of bidding space. So it makes sense to limit the number of hand types that can open 2♣, especially when it comes to unbalanced hands.

2.If it is wrong to open 21 points 2 suiter hands with 2 ♣, how does one handle 23 points 4-4-4-1 hands?

4-4-4-1 is unbidable so you must tell the smallest lye. Probably you describe the hand as balanced.

3.Should one's bidding system be based on opponents actions?(" They are sure to overcall" or "RHO is sure to balance?" )

No. This will create misunderstandings when opps play some strange style which you interpret as X-style while partner interpret it as Y-style. Besides, opps will adapt yo your openings so you get a cat-and-mouse-game. Finally, opening schees that adapt to opps overcall style are ilegal (at least in the Netherlands).

[whereagles]

> 1. Whats wrong with opening strong 2 suiters with 2 ♣ opening?

There's nothing wrong with it, except that it might mess up your bidding once in a while. However, since 2♣ openings happen once in a blue moon, it is perfectly playable to dump any kind of strong hand into it. That's what 2♣ was meant for! The advantage of this is that you can play 1x as 11-20 instead of 11-30, which takes a lot of pressure off your side.


> 2. If it is wrong to open 21 points 2 suiter hands with 2 ♣,
> how does one handle 23 points 4-4-4-1 hands?

You get rid of 4441s by saying they are balanced hands. It is a pragmatic approach which works well, and gives you the chance to make otherwise meaningless bids like:

1NT 2♥
4♣ = 4441, good hand for suit play, singleton club.


> 3. Should one's bidding system be based on opponents actions?
> ("They are sure to overcall" or "RHO is sure to balance?")

Only a purist would say "no". There are 4 at the table, not just 2. If in practice opps always bid something, it is prefectly reasonable to base your system upon that fact. Since it works, why not doing it?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

as always: it depends on your methods.

If you play a lot of asking bids, i.e. you play
a system where opener asks about
responders hand, than you can open any hand
with 2C, if you play natural methods, but 2D
is always responders 1st answer, you will be
ok most off the time as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

When you open 2♣ with a 2 suiter you can be sure than atleast 50% of the time you won't be able to show both suits.

If you open at the 1 level you wil be passed out 10-20% of the time at most.

[inquiry]

zasanya, on Apr 5 2006, 02:28 AM, said:

1. Whats wrong with opening strong 2 suiters with 2 ♣ opening?
2.If it is wrong to open 21 points 2 suiter hands with 2 ♣, how does one handle 23 points 4-4-4-1 hands?
3.Should one's bidding system be based on opponents actions?(" They are sure to overcall" or "RHO is sure to balance?" )

1) Two suiters...

The problem with opening with 2 suiters with 2♣ is that the bidding gets very high very fast. You make an artificial bid (2♣) and odds are your partner will make one in reply (2♦) so your third bid you describe your first suit. Your partner may then make an inconvient bid (cheaper minor second negative, or a suit above your second suit). Let me give an example.

2C-2D-2S-3H, now your second suit is clubs or diamonds. Do you bid past 3NT? Would 4 of a minor be some kind of fit/cue-bid for hearts? Is it just a forcing bid with GREAT spades? This gets very difficult and that is WITHOUT opponents bidding.

The general solution to this problem is to open one of a suit and then jump in the second. I have a different solution involving transfer preempts that are real preempts or strong two suiter that handle the strong two suiter while introducing some additional potential problems.

2) What to do about 4441 hands.

I actually like Chris Ryal's solution for these hands. He rolls them into 2♣ opening bids and then uses an artificial 2NT rebid to show a three suiter. To "get away" with this bid, you need a way to show the very strong balanced 2NT hands, his solution which I also use is to play multi-2♦ that includes strong balanced hands normally reserved for 2♣-2♦-2NT

3) Bidding system based on opponents bidding?

You should always gear your methods for opposition bidding. Try to make it harder on them and make it easier on you. This is true of all your bids (not jsut your strong ones). If you do not have systemic agreements about the meaning of auctions in competition then you will be a loser in the long run. I very much like the discussion in Robson/Segal book dealing with "potentially competitive auctions" (I may not be quoting his words exactly, but this was the theme). Very insightful for how best to describe your hand BEFORE your opponents start bidding.

[cherdano]

While I agree with most that has been said, I don't go as far as others:

I don't like opening at the one-level with super-strong 2-suiters. If your strength is based on some shape (lets say 5-5 or 5-4-3-1) AND lots of hcp (say, 21+), then you will never be able to convince partner that two queens are enough for a grand. Also, when you have lots of hcp, the chance of opponents interfering over 2C is not as high.

Arend

[pigpenz]

all intersting, but just like pre empts too many people are opening hands 2♣'s that dont even begin to come close.

[whereagles]

I define a 2♣ opener as this. Any hand that..

1. being 1-suited, has 18+ hcp
2. being balanced, has 22+ hcp
3. being 2-suited, has 20+ hcp

So to me

AJTxxx
x
AKx
AQx

is already worth a 2♣ opening.

Withe these definitions, not only you get to open 2♣ every now and then, it also makes it a lot easier on hands like the above, whose 'canonical' way to bid is a somewhat misdescribing

1♠ 1NT
3♣

[pigpenz]

now statistically would you expect 2♣ openings on 18-20hcp to be a winner or not?

My database search came up with 11878 hands opened up 2♣ on BBO in tourney play.

imps 7994 -0.16 per hand
mps 3884 48.79% per hand

[mikeh]

1. Strong 2-suiters with 2♣:

Obviously some 2 suiters have to be opened 2♣: and which ones they are depends not only on just how strong they are but also on the suits held: thus one would usually require more for a 2♣ opening on a minor-oriented hand than for a major 2-suiter. This is in part because of the bidding space devoured by most methods of bidding after a 2♣ opening bid and in part because game in a minor requires a full trick more than in a major.

As for the reluctance of most experts to open 2-suiters with 2♣, the main problem is bidding space: bidding space is a concept that is not always fully appreciated by the average player, but anyone who spends any time analyzing bidding theory soon begins to understand how critical this concept is.

Complex hands take several bids to describe, absent special gadgets, and we are discussing an essentially 'standard' approach in this thread. Opening 2♣ destroys the entire 1-level and at least half of the 2-level without conveying any suit information to either partner.

If you play that 2♦ is a waiting response, that can include many positive hands and all negative hands, then you should have a 'second negative' step for responder after opener's suit rebid, else the partnership has no realistic way of defining responder's strength. This causes further problems and is why many experts and others adopt a 2♥ response to 2♣ as an immediate negative, reserving 2♦ for most positives. This is a significant advance in terms of conservation of bidding space, but you can see that the partnership is beginning its description of shape at 2♥ (over 2♦) or 2♠ (over a 2♥ negative).

And that assumes that opener's first suit can be shown at the 2-level. Give opener a 5-5 minor hand and you can see that the bidding gets very high, very quickly, on hands in which responder has been able to say very little of use to opener.

2♣ 2♦ 3♦ 3♠ 4♣ is a typical auction, in which opener has 5-5 in the minors and responder has some cards and a 5+ ♠ suit of indifferent quality (no immediate ♠ positive) In fairness, for me and a number of others, responder may have a wider hand type, including a good ♠ suit but, if so, he has a complex hand with extra values: all simple hands with a good suit are shown over 2♣.

So you can see that the auction has reached 4♣ with no fit established, no way to reach 3N, complete uncertainty as to respective values. What would 4N be by responder? Natural? How does responder agree on ♣ as trump while keeping the bidding alive? What does 4♥ mean? How does responder know how good opener is if opener will bid this way with A Kx AKxxx AKxxx and x A AKQxxx AKQxx?

The partnership has voluntarily consumed a huge amount of bidding space while leaving very important issues outstanding.

Major suits are less of a problem, but are still cumbersome even in uncontested auctions.

Major-minor 2-suiters occupy a mid-point on the spectrum, assuming that the major is as long or longer than the minor: hands with longer minors than majors are almost as tough as pure minor 2-suiters.

And of course there is the question of preemption. Now, preemption can be difficult to overcome even when opener has at least named one suit before the bidding is jammed: having to start your description of a 2-suiter at the 3 or 4 level is a horrible problem for those who open 2♣.

I suspect that virtually everyone would agree with these points, but there will be some who say that the 2♣ opening has an important compensating value: it alerts partner to your considerable strength and allows partner to properly value working, altho modest, cards. They will also argue that on some hands, opening at the one-level risks playing there: this ties in with your question about whether you should assume, in making your decisions, that the opps will or will not bid.

As to the proper valuation issue, this is a problem for less-than-expert players. One of the most difficult aspects of bidding is to learn to value working and non-working cards, and to appreciate the information coming to you from partner. I have played a lot of bridge at a lot of levels, and I would estimate that 90% of those who play some amount of duplicate over-value big hands and under-value small hands in complex auctions.

I have absolute confidence in the ability of my regular partnerships to bid complex, 21 or 22 hcp 2 suiters with accuracy after a 1-level opening: at least, to bid them as well or better than anyone opening 2♣. One of my favourite hands dates back more than 20 years: I was playing with a friend, with whom years later I was to form my most successful partnership, but I had not played with him at that time since university days in the 1970's. I opened a 4=1=4=4 23 count with 1♦.

We reached a cold 7♠, and (it was a small tournament) we were the only pair in the room to reach grand. When the hand came up over dinner and later that night at a perty, everyone I spoke to had either opened 2♣ or had their opps open 2♣. Now,. one hand proves nothing, or very little, but I have always treasured that result.


As for the opps: the truth is that you are hiding your head in the sand if you do not recognize that the opps exist. While it may seem foolish to count on the opps balancing or competing, the reality is that they almost have to. You open, say, 1♦ on a 4=1=4=4 23 count and it goes pass pass to RHO who is holding a 8 count with 5 ♥ and shortish ♦. How can he pass? Sure, you MAY have your actual hand, but, statistically, you rate to have a much weaker hand and it is his partner who has values but was unable to bid: maybe a 13 or 14 count without the requisite shape to overcall or double, or maybe a weaker hand with a ♥ fit, so that they can make 2 or 3 ♥.

Add to this the tendency amongst experts to respond very light at the 1-level, and the chances of being passed out with a cold game are vanishingly small. I am well aware that we tend to remember our good results and to forget our bad ones, but I have no memory of being passed out at the one-level with a 'good' game available to our side.

I could go on, but I suspect that I have already exhausted most readers

[Impact]

What has been described is an accurate summation of current standard expert practice.

Actually, I believe that the current expert practice of responding to a 2♣ opening with a semi-automatic 2♦ waiting bid is a retrograde step compared wtih the control responses of a decade ago (which usually provided the opener with an indication of likely level to be reached.

In fact, given the ability to open 4441 with 1m, the worst hand for the superstrong opening is long ♦ with a second suit (whetehr partner makes a waiting bid or a control response the bidding will start at an uncomfortable level...and if control responses, he will be robbed of his 2nd negative - usually cheaper minor).

Of course, you can cheat by calling 5422 balanced (which frequently understates slam potential) or 5431 with singleton Honour that engages additional risks but then attempting to convince partner that his Hxx in an unbid suit was what you needed for slam might be a touch obscure

There are 3 relatively obvious "fixes":-

a) jumps to 3M over a waiting or negative 2♦ can be specified as 4M with longer ♦; OR

utilise an opening 2♦ (frequently a make-weight or toy in standard) for the puropose - which may fruitfully be combined as a multi with various options including say a weak 2♥ or Flannery if that suits your style;

c) arguably more interesting is to play 2♥ as the strong ♦ 2-suiter with an alternative meaning of weak in H/Flannery.

I will leave those interested to work out the continuations to suit themselves in either or c), but the principle should always involve that responder assumes the weak option, and if opener rebids he describes as far as possible his strong option. THe other advantage is that it can allow you some chance of describing long ♦ with secondary ♣ in a huge hand below 3NT (a hand traditionally just behind the good 6 card suit with 3 card support for partner as MSC/CTC nightmare).

Oh yes - there is a valuable by-product/dividend of adopting one of htese fixes if it excludes primary ♦ from your 2♣ opening: as opener's rebid of 3♦ over responder's first bid can be used to show primary ♣ with secondary ♦ : the other hand which always faces a guess at whatever level you set your minimum criteria for opening with your strong bid with this shape!!!

regards,

fred

[zasanya]

pigpenz, on Apr 5 2006, 04:13 PM, said:

My database search came up with 11878 hands opened up 2♣ on BBO in tourney play.

imps 7994  -0.16 per hand
mps  3884  48.79% per hand

Could you please find out statistics about 21+ hands with 5-5 or longer minors 4loser hands?

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Apr 5 2006, 10:54 PM, said:

I suspect that virtually everyone would agree with these points, but there will be some who say that the 2♣ opening has an important compensating value: it alerts partner to your considerable strength and allows partner to properly value working, altho modest, cards.

That is not the main advantage of the 2♣ opening. There is another advantage which is far more precious: the ability to truncate the 1-level openings to an upper range.

In any case I do agree the 2♣ opening sucks. But I think it is the lesser evil on most of strong hands. There are, however, ways to do away with the strong 2♣ and still be able to force responder into game. (Fantunes, forcing club, polish club, etc.)