[zasanya]

Scoring: IMP

---

This hand came up in final of an important local tournament.My P playing acol opened 2♣.The expert (A real one- a star from my country) sitting in his position, playing 2/1 ,opened 1♥.
What is your opening bid?

[matmat]

i am missing half the deck and all the spades.

1♥, it will not pass out.

[Free]

1♥

[jdonn]

1♥ for sure. If you moved a club to diamonds I would open 2♣ but I may well be in the minority on that. Certainly I think on the actual hand the answer is fairly clear.

[hatchett]

1♥ not close for me. 3 suiters are hard to describe when you start with an artificial bid at the 2 level.

[P_Marlowe]

1H.

A 3-suiter is hard to describe after a 2C
opening.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

1♥ for me. Three suiters are a bear after 2♣, unless you are playing Ben's stuff.

[ArcLight]

pclayton, on Sep 23 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

1♥ for me. Three suiters are a bear after 2♣, unless you are playing Ben's stuff.

Thats not true, Ken Rexford must have a bid to handle this ...

[neilkaz]

A nice hand, but a simple 1♥ for me. Give me a 6th ♥ and 2♣ starts to make more sense. As it is, we are unlikely to get passed out missing game when we have only 20 HCP and no ♠. It could happen, but not terribly likely.

If we open 2♣ and the opps bid something in ♠ we had better have good agreements with PD about what now shows what !

[skjaeran]

1♥. Very hard to describe this hand after a 2♣opening.

[zasanya]

Scoring: IMP

---

Thank you all.This was the full hand.
After 2♣ West preempted with 3♠.We had not discussed this situation.I bid 3NT hoping P wud bid NT slam if he had 23+ balanced.I really expected 4♥ from him and was going to bid 5 ♥ to suggest a slam.He passed.We collected 650 when 3♠ dbl wud have been 1100 and 6♦ was making.
P is adamant he wud bid 2♣ with this hand in future too."I WILL BID 2 ♣ with a 3 loser, 20+,8 controls hand." thunders he.
What agreement do you recommend to handle this situation ?"Change Partner" is not a feasible option. We like each other too much. But we do need help.

[rogerclee]

zasanya, on Sep 24 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ KJ108 ♥ xx ♦ Q10xx ♣ QJx ♠   ♥ AKQxx ♦ AKxx ♣ Axxx

Thank you all.This was the full hand.
After 2♣ West preempted with 3♠.We had not discussed this situation.I bid 3NT hoping P wud bid NT slam if he had 23+ balanced.I really expected 4♥ from him and was going to bid 5 ♥ to suggest a slam.He passed.We collected 650 when 3♠ dbl wud have been 1100 and 6♦ was making.
P is adamant he wud bid 2♣ with this hand in future too."I WILL BID 2 ♣ with a 3 loser, 20+,8 controls hand." thunders he.
What agreement do you recommend to handle this situation ?"Change Partner" is not a feasible option. We like each other too much. But we do need help.

Double by either player would be takeout-oriented. With the north hand, I would have passed, hoping for partner to reopen (which would have happened).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

The 2C openening creates forcing pass, hence
South can pass, and pass partners reopening X.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[JoAnneM]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

1♥ for sure. If you moved a club to diamonds I would open 2♣ but I may well be in the minority on that. Certainly I think on the actual hand the answer is fairly clear.

On another board I participate in the concensus is that 2-suited hands are not handled well with 2C openings either.

What is the feeling here?

[P_Marlowe]

JoAnneM, on Sep 24 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

1♥ for sure. If you moved a club to diamonds I would open 2♣ but I may well be in the minority on that. Certainly I think on the actual hand the answer is fairly clear.

On another board I participate in the concensus is that 2-suited hands are not handled well with 2C openings either.

What is the feeling here?

Assuming partner always responds 2D to 2C,
2C would be ok, because you will be able to
show the diamond suit with no real problem.

Asuming 2H is an option (double neg or whatever),
in this case I dont think 2C is a good choice.

If we talk about a spade-heart 2-suiter, 2C is more or
less cost free.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: For this discussion preemption should be ignored
in the first place, it playes a role, but first one should
have a look at the undisturbed auction.

[pclayton]

JoAnneM, on Sep 24 2008, 08:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

1♥ for sure. If you moved a club to diamonds I would open 2♣ but I may well be in the minority on that. Certainly I think on the actual hand the answer is fairly clear.

On another board I participate in the concensus is that 2-suited hands are not handled well with 2C openings either.

What is the feeling here?

Definitely no two suiters for 2♣, unless the hand is the 'nuts'. Two suiters are very vulnerable to preemption, and its hard to get both of your suits in frequently.

Hopefully your other board has also seen the wisdom of responding to one bids with less than what is traditionally required.

[Lobowolf]

I frequently see (not saying that's the case here) the question posed as something like, "Is this hand good enough that I may open 2♣?" and it really should be thought of more as, "Is this hand so good that I must open 2♣? Strong 2♣ openers are a (sometimes) necessary evil.

[cherdano]

JoAnneM, on Sep 24 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

1♥ for sure. If you moved a club to diamonds I would open 2♣ but I may well be in the minority on that. Certainly I think on the actual hand the answer is fairly clear.

On another board I participate in the concensus is that 2-suited hands are not handled well with 2C openings either.

What is the feeling here?

3-suiters are worse than 2-suiters to handle after a 2♣ opening. But the reason Josh is switching to 2♣ with 0553 shape is that this makes the hand stronger.

[blackshoe]

With my luck, playing my preferred methods, if I open 2 :c:, partner will respond 3 :h: (essentially, a weak two in spades, GF). Now what am I gonna do? I might downgrade the hand a bit, and open 1NT (artificial, forcing, if unbalanced, 19-21 HCP and usually 4-5 losers). Now partner with the weak 2 in spades will still bid 3 :h;. Same problem. I think I better open 1 :h:. :-)

On the actual hands, partner would respond 2 : to 2 :c:, or 2 :c: to 1NT. Now I have room. But I don't know that'll happen when I'm choosing my opening bid.

[han]

cherdano, on Sep 24 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Sep 24 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 23 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

1♥ for sure. If you moved a club to diamonds I would open 2♣ but I may well be in the minority on that. Certainly I think on the actual hand the answer is fairly clear.

On another board I participate in the concensus is that 2-suited hands are not handled well with 2C openings either.

What is the feeling here?

3-suiters are worse than 2-suiters to handle after a 2♣ opening. But the reason Josh is switching to 2♣ with 0553 shape is that this makes the hand stronger.

Really? I thought Josh was switching because he could show both suits with the 0553 hand.