[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

---

You are dealer. What's your plan?

[rogerclee]

I would open 1D. If I am lucky enough to bid uncontested I will bid hearts then jump in diamonds to try and put emphasis on partners heart holding. More likely the auction will be contested, but I will still bid hearts if possible and correct to diamonds, or bid 5D next (depending on how the auction times out).

[han]

Not so sure yet that I'm going to introduce hearts. It seems a bit early to make a plan yet, there are too many different kinds of auctions that are fairly likely. The only reasonable alternative to 1D is 5D imo and I don't do that with hands this strong. It could definitely work out well though.

[Echognome]

han, on Oct 24 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

The only reasonable alternative to 1D is 5D imo and I don't do that with hands this strong. It could definitely work out well though.

Perhaps I will get a strong objection because of the term "reasonable", but isn't 2♣ an alternative with 9 sure tricks in diamonds?

[han]

No, doesn't seem reasonable to me.

[mikeh]

Echognome, on Oct 24 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

han, on Oct 24 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

The only reasonable alternative to 1D is 5D imo and I don't do that with hands this strong. It could definitely work out well though.

Perhaps I will get a strong objection because of the term "reasonable", but isn't 2♣ an alternative with 9 sure tricks in diamonds?

I forget who first suggested this test, but I have always liked it: never open 2♣ on a hand on which a non-silly lie of the cards means you can't beat a slam. Give either opp a diamond void and....

So, no, it is not reasonable to open 2♣

[hotShot]

I'll lie a 3NT opening.

[hrothgar]

5♦ here

(Yes, I know... folks are SO shocked)

[han]

Can't even fake being shocked Richard because I already wrote I think it is reasonable.

[kfay]

5D isn't my style but I don't frown upon it.
I'd bid 1D and hope to get a heart bid in somewhere.

[kfay]

Double post... trying to forum from my phone.

[Echognome]

han, on Oct 24 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

No, doesn't seem reasonable to me.

mikeh, on Oct 24 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

I forget who first suggested this test, but I have always liked it: never open 2♣ on a hand on which a non-silly lie of the cards means you can't beat a slam. Give either opp a diamond void and....

So, no, it is not reasonable to open 2♣

Ok. I'll take the bate. I agree that the hand does not have the defense that a traditional 2♣ opener has, but I would argue that it has more offense than one would have. Most 2♣ openers cannot produce 9 tricks in their own hand. We may have to do make different decisions later in the auction than if we opened 1♦, but I guess the only reason I've heard that 2♣ is "unreasonable" is an indirect reference to it not having enough defense. I think it's pretty clear that the auction may work out well for us if we start with 2♣. It's less likely the opponents will interfere, etc.

Now, I'm not advocating that I would open this 2♣, but I'd certainly give it some more serious consideration than above. I would reason, maybe, that opening 2♣ will tend to work well when we have the auction to ourselves as I can set the trump suit easier, and get partner cuebidding. I don't consider this hand a 2-suiter in any way, so will be calling this a 1-suited diamond hand regardless. If I open at the 1-level, it's a lot easier for the opponents to come in and compete. I might also have trouble later on describing my hand. However, the big downside of opening 2♣ is that partner will play me for more defense than I actually have.

However, I still maintain that because of all the positive things that may happen, I personally find 2♣ to be reasonable.

[Lobowolf]

Echognome, on Oct 24 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

han, on Oct 24 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

No, doesn't seem reasonable to me.

mikeh, on Oct 24 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

I forget who first suggested this test, but I have always liked it: never open 2♣ on a hand on which a non-silly lie of the cards means you can't beat a slam. Give either opp a diamond void and....

So, no, it is not reasonable to open 2♣

Ok. I'll take the bate. I agree that the hand does not have the defense that a traditional 2♣ opener has, but I would argue that it has more offense than one would have. Most 2♣ openers cannot produce 9 tricks in their own hand. We may have to do make different decisions later in the auction than if we opened 1♦, but I guess the only reason I've heard that 2♣ is "unreasonable" is an indirect reference to it not having enough defense. I think it's pretty clear that the auction may work out well for us if we start with 2♣. It's less likely the opponents will interfere, etc.

Now, I'm not advocating that I would open this 2♣, but I'd certainly give it some more serious consideration than above. I would reason, maybe, that opening 2♣ will tend to work well when we have the auction to ourselves as I can set the trump suit easier, and get partner cuebidding. I don't consider this hand a 2-suiter in any way, so will be calling this a 1-suited diamond hand regardless. If I open at the 1-level, it's a lot easier for the opponents to come in and compete. I might also have trouble later on describing my hand. However, the big downside of opening 2♣ is that partner will play me for more defense than I actually have.

However, I still maintain that because of all the positive things that may happen, I personally find 2♣ to be reasonable.

Not to mention, if the opponents have a making 6♠, they're less likely to find it after my 2♣ opener than my 1♦ opener!

Quick preempt, since I'm going out of town soon: The above sentence should be construed to read that I would open 2♣, or that I think that 2♣ is the best bid with this hand.

[helene_t]

If I open 5♦ I can respect partner's penalty double of 5♠. If I open 2♣ I can't.

I think I will go with 6♦ with an understanding partner and 5♦ otherwise. Of course I have no objections to 1♦. Surprised that some otherwise reasonable people would open 2♣. Also surprised that Richard thinks he would shock anyone by opening 5♦.

[effervesce]

5♦. Don't want to allow the opps to be able to bid their suits safely at a low level and find a cheap sac or double-game swing.

[cherdano]

This isn't only about defensive strength, 2♣ also isn't very good for constructive auctions. There are many hands where partner should force to slam opposite a 2♣ opener where we have no play.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Oct 24 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

This isn't only about defensive strength, 2♣ also isn't very good for constructive auctions. There are many hands where partner should force to slam opposite a 2♣ opener where we have no play.

Ok. I call BS on this statement. I think as far as offensive strength goes, this hand *IS* a 2♣ opener. Maybe responder should force to slam because you and your partner have agreed X or Y, but that is a style question of course. I certainly know plenty of players that have agreed that a strong and artificial 2♣ opener can be this hand.

Edit: Not that it will change your mind in any way, but in the K&R evaluator, this hand is 23.

[effervesce]

Echognome, on Oct 24 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 24 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

This isn't only about defensive strength, 2♣ also isn't very good for constructive auctions. There are many hands where partner should force to slam opposite a 2♣ opener where we have no play.

Ok. I call BS on this statement. I think as far as offensive strength goes, this hand *IS* a 2♣ opener. Maybe responder should force to slam because you and your partner have agreed X or Y, but that is a style question of course. I certainly know plenty of players that have agreed that a strong and artificial 2♣ opener can be this hand.

Edit: Not that it will change your mind in any way, but in the K&R evaluator, this hand is 23.

The problem is, when partner holds an unsuitable 10+ count, he will not stop short of slam. This sort of hand is exactly what he doesn't expect you to hold for a 2♣ opening.

Opening 1♦ then reversing into hearts then rebidding 5♦ describes the hand without distorting the overall high card strength.

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Oct 24 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 24 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

This isn't only about defensive strength, 2♣ also isn't very good for constructive auctions. There are many hands where partner should force to slam opposite a 2♣ opener where we have no play.

Ok. I call BS on this statement. I think as far as offensive strength goes, this hand *IS* a 2♣ opener. Maybe responder should force to slam because you and your partner have agreed X or Y, but that is a style question of course. I certainly know plenty of players that have agreed that a strong and artificial 2♣ opener can be this hand.

Edit: Not that it will change your mind in any way, but in the K&R evaluator, this hand is 23.

You won't have room to tell partner that his spade and club honors are wasted. Even if this hand is possible in your 2♣ style, with a couple of good black cards the odds (from partner's point of view) will be in favor of forcing to slam. How often it will happen depends on your style and partner's judgment, but claiming that it will never happen is BS.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Oct 24 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

You won't have room to tell partner that his spade and club honors are wasted. Even if this hand is possible in your 2♣ style, with a couple of good black cards the odds (from partner's point of view) will be in favor of forcing to slam. How often it will happen depends on your style and partner's judgment, but claiming that it will never happen is BS.

Never claimed that opening 2♣ would never get you to a bad slam. Nothing is guaranteed.

Let me make this clear, because it seems that I'm backing the longshot horse. I think 1♦ is a completely normal action. I'm only extolling the virtues of opening 2♣ in my claim that it is not "unreasonable". I respect your opinion may differ. Where I disagree with you is the notion that we do not have enough strength to open 2♣.

1. Opening 2♣ will also mean that you won't play in 1♦.
2. We can set trumps easier by opening 2♣. 2♣ - 2♦; 4♦ and off we go. We have no such luxuries opening 1♦. (although I do like 1♦ - 1♠/N; 2♥ - Any; 4♦ if it shows this hand...)
3. 2♣ is less likely to get interference than opening 1♦.
4. Partner is better suited to show us specific controls when we open 2♣.
5. How much do we really care about partner's shape? How do we expect the auction to go that we will actually find out useful information about partner's shape?

All that being said, I readily agree that we do not have the defensive strength partner would expect and I do like the sequence mentioned above after starting with 1♦.