[nickf]

Last night my pd sprung this 2C opener on me (12-14NT, 5443)

nil, MP

AKQxx
Q
QJxx
AKx

I probably lean towards those that think it's a bit filthy for 2C but pd whose opinion I respect argued at the time that he hated the thought of jump shifting to 3D over a possible 1NT response from me.

Who's for 1S or who is for 2C?

nickf
sydney

[rogerclee]

1♠ OBV.

[Gerben42]

This hand is worth a semiforcing in ♠. If your system explicitly includes these in a 2♣ opening, it's worth one (for example using Ryall negatives). If you don't, then it's 1♠.

If the auction goes:

2♣ - 2♦ (promising a trick for ♠) then we don't have a problem, except if the trick is unluckily ♥K of course.

Playing "standard" responses to 2♣ (whatever those may be, I dunno I "always" bid 2♦ with a pickup), this is worth 1♠.

[Codo]

19 F and a singelton Q? 1 Spade, no problem.
I would open 2 Club if this is 20+ if you make it AKQxx,x, QJxx,AKQ.

[P_Marlowe]

Gerben42, on Sep 23 2008, 03:50 AM, said:

This hand is worth a semiforcing in ♠. If your system explicitly includes these in a 2♣ opening, it's worth one (for example using Ryall negatives). <snip>

Agree.

You dont have too, but you can.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

I don't see any reason not to open 1♠.

[andy_h]

I'm all in for 1S. If I had to choose to open 2C on this hand or the other one in the other thread I would definitely choose the other one as that had a lot of playing strength (even though irl I won't). This one just looks like an ordinary decent hand. I'm not afraid of missing any game because if my partner really passes I highly doubt game can make. I also agree that 1M-1NT-3x auctions can get a bit tough, I guess that's why (?) some people play 1M-1NT-2NT as any GF to distinguish some hand types like 5-4, 5-5 etc.

[mcphee]

I feel 2C opening is a poor choice and strongly prefer 1S intending to j/s in D if pard bids 1N. This seems to be a better stroy of what I have than making a stretch to open 2C.

[P_Marlowe]

andy_h, on Sep 23 2008, 04:35 AM, said:

I'm all in for 1S. If I had to choose to open 2C on this hand or the other one in the other thread I would definitely choose the other one as that had a lot of playing strength (even though irl I won't). <snip>

True, but the other is a 3-suiter with a spade
void, hence after a spade bid from partner
your are dead, the other one has spades, hence
a spade bid by partner wont kill you in this case.

And the 2nd suit of the actual hand is diamonds, not
hearts, but it is better than clubs.

With regards
Marlowe

[han]

It's a 1S opening.

[pclayton]

I will be surprised anyone around here will suggest 2♣. Add a 6th spade, and it gets closer.

[jdonn]

Certainly obvious 1♠ but I sympathize that rebidding 3♦ indeed can be undesirable. It makes it very hard to get to clubs when you belong there, and is a bad suit after all. Still 2♣ seems just wrong, it isn't good enough.

[uday]

Most will claim that this isn't a 2C bid w/o prior agreement, and they're probably right.

For me, this is a marginal 2C opener bec. I'd rather deal w/cumbersome followups in a GF than in a non-GF. Plus I dislike missing games (1S-all pass) more than I dislike getting too high (2C opposite filth).

Naturally, most of my Ps know this, and won't expect

AKQJxx AKx AK AK for a 2C bid.
They know they're more likely to fetch
AKJxxx AKxx xx x

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 10:03 AM, said:

Certainly obvious 1♠ but I sympathize that rebidding 3♦ indeed can be undesirable. It makes it very hard to get to clubs when you belong there, and is a bad suit after all. Still 2♣ seems just wrong, it isn't good enough.

precisely my thinking

[ArtK78]

uday, on Sep 23 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

Most will claim that this isn't a 2C bid w/o prior agreement, and they're probably right.

For me, this is a marginal 2C opener bec. I'd rather deal w/cumbersome followups in a GF than in a non-GF. Plus I dislike missing games (1S-all pass) more than I dislike getting too high (2C opposite filth).

Naturally, most of my Ps know this, and won't expect

AKQJxx AKx AK AK for a 2C bid.
They know they're more likely to fetch
AKJxxx AKxx xx x

Wow.

I know that I would never expect AKJxxx AKxx xx x for a 2♣ bid, although in many respects it is actually a better hand than the one suggested in this thread.

[neilkaz]

Looking at the stiff Q this is not near a 2♣ bid for me and I'll open 2♣ a bit more freely than some others here. Where are my 9 tricks ?

1♠

[skjaeran]

1♠, it's a 4-loser hand.