[jdonn]

mikeh, on Sep 24 2010, 06:02 PM, said:

And when partner responds, we have lots of ways to force and to describe our freak.

Such as?

[pooltuna]

for those who strongly favor a first level opening call why not kill 2 birds with one stone ....open 1♦

[manudude03]

So partner can convert all our "signoffs" into 7♦ when he has 2263?

Anyway, part of the reason I'm opening 1♠ is so partner doesn't insist on NT with say AJT in both minors.

[rduran1216]

I think 2C is awful

how bout if it goes 2C 5D p p ?

[TylerE]

You bid 6♠ like you were always planning to anyway?

[rogerclee]

I would bid 1S and then 6H. Seems like a really good description of my hand actually!

Not particularly worried about a passout, I actually think that is LOL unlikely.

[the hog]

1S followed by 6H sounds like a sensible auction. Let the kiddies play with 2C if they like.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Sep 24 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 24 2010, 06:02 PM, said:

And when partner responds, we have lots of ways to force and to describe our freak.

Such as?

how about this: you show me how you think the auction would go after 2♣ and various possible developments, and I'll show you how I think it would go after 1♠

Obviously, a lot depends on how the other 3 players bid, but I will almost certainly be bidding 5 or 6♥ at some stage, after (in all non-preempted auctions) showing a gf major 2-suiter...replete with jumps and or cuebids in their suit(s).

Will my auction paint a perfect picture...no...will yours.....even more resoundingly, not a chance.

[jdonn]

Even more resoundingly not a chance? Exaggerate much? Let's just pretend for a moment the opponents don't preempt to the 6 level every time we open 2♣. They can't exactly see I have two voids yet.

2♣ 2♦
2♠ 2NT
3♥ 3NT
4♥ makes me relatively happy. I could miss a slam opposite something like Tx Qx in the majors but I'm not too worried about a perfect minimum. Even then he would likely bid 3♠ on the third round and I could then decide how excited I want to get. Note that the forum peanut gallery advocates against opening 2♣ on 2 suiters, so when we do so it should show an even better hand than the normal minimum strength for 2♣.

1♠ 1NT
3♥ 3NT
5♥ (as I think you suggest) makes me a lot less happy. Not just that I'm a level higher but now partner has to guess a lot.

Sometimes when partner doesn't have a fit for either suit all you can make is 4, which seems to be very overlooked here. I mean seriously why can't he just be 1-2 in our suits or something, is that so wild and outrageous? His average shape in our suits is 2-2 so anything worse than that is not so unlikely. Even 2-1 is bad if higher than 4♠ if they lead a trump, as you might expect when we show an extreme 2-suiter. In fact, 2-2 on a trump lead requires hearts to break to make 5!

1♠ then 6♥ makes me wonder if some people know they have a partner, or see a bunch of JT9's in our suits that I don't see.

Now, I notice my question went unanswered. What are these lots-of-ways you have after 1♠ to describe this hand? That was your claim after all. I mean if you are just going to guess to bid slam or something then ok, you're far from alone. But you said you have "lots of ways to force and describe our freak".

[bucky]

jdonn, on Sep 24 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

1♠ then 6♥ makes me wonder if some people know they have a partner, or see a bunch of JT9's in our suits that I don't see.

When dealt with freak hands, you can never describe it accurately down to JT9 level, you have to make bids that least torture partner, meanwhile have a decent chance to work reasonably well.

1♠ then 6♥ tells partner that you have a freak hand, and that his honor cards in major suits will be treasure, and that his value in minor suits (including aces) will likely get wasted. How can you possibly describe the hand more accurately (and more importantly, help partner make better decision)? Of course it may not work out, partner may be sitting there with 2 stiffs in the majors (or worse yet, 0067 shape!!), but I deem it a reasonable bet that one of the major suits will be playable, at 6+ level.

[CSGibson]

rduran1216, on Sep 24 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

I think 2C is awful

how bout if it goes 2C 5D p p ?

Easy 6♦, wtp?

[manudude03]

I think the real problem hand with 2♣ is when partner has a good hand with both minors "covered". Especially at matchpoints, will partner know not to convert with AKJ KQJ in the minors?

[the hog]

CSGibson, on Sep 25 2010, 08:38 AM, said:

rduran1216, on Sep 24 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

I think 2C is awful

how bout if it goes 2C 5D p p ?

Easy 6♦, wtp?

Extreme canape?

[gszeszycki]

jillybean, on Sep 24 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ KQJxxxx ♥ AKJxxx ♦   ♣

My regular partner and I would both open this 1♠ however I am discussing this hand with another player. Help my argument why this shouldn't be opened 2♣, or why it should if that's your plan.

[QUOTE]

Jdonn sticking to his guns here and is doing a decent job defending his position.
My personal opinion is open 2c and try to show both majors below game level then jump to 5h. This should let p know I need a trick in hearts or spades to make 6. I would not worry about the generally rare circumstances where I cannot make 5 (sorry jdonn). This sequence should also keep p from trying to improve the bidding since we are showing a 2 suited hand. The advantage of the 2c opener is the ability to show both majors at a low level (most of the time) and the 5h bid will allow p to evaluate major suit cards ie p having either spade A or heart Q should bid 6 of a major and if they have both they should bid 7 of a major.

I can see a huge number of 1s openers and the risk (of getting passed out) is not worth it. 2c might also keep stronger opps at bay rather than jumping in with overcalls etc.

Once you open 1s it is almost inconceivable that p can imagine you with an essentially 11 trick hand. Later bids made by you might just sound like sacrifices (unless you intend to jump to 6h and gamble)

[peachy]

Opening 2C with offensive two suiter and two voids is asking for trouble; trouble may not always materialize but typically it will, in one form or another. Usually, we get too high too soon to conduct a proper investigation of strain and level.

If the hand had so many HCP that it is easy to imagine it could go 1S-P-P-P, then there is no remedy other than open it 2C, but this hand IMO is not it.

I open 1S, GF with 3H, and see what develops. It is a good agreement to have that responder must not pass if he holds one ace (and nothing else) or a KQ in one suit (and nothing else). Many are afraid of a sudden pass and therefore strain to open 2C with distributional play-strong hands.

[eyhung]

I've always treated these types of hands as 1S/6H and have been reasonably successful doing so, but I admit my sample size is not large. I have never been passed at the 1-level, but the argument that slam may not be making is a reasonable one. Let's see what a sim says.

In 1000 hands (no constraints on the unseen hands)

608 make slam in spades
544 make slam in hearts
270 have no slam in either major
2 may be passed out (defined as North has 0-5 HCP and 0-1 controls, and neither East/West have a 2-level overcall (although that definition is not robust)).

I don't think the risk of a passout is very high, especially given that we are unfavorable. Looking at the hands with no slams in either major, some are slams you want to be in single-dummy, but fail due to a foul break, while others are just bad.

[Phil]

By the way, isn't it serendipitous that 7=6=0=0 turns into a score of -7600?

[jdonn]

eyhung, on Sep 25 2010, 12:34 AM, said:

I've always treated these types of hands as 1S/6H and have been reasonably successful doing so, but I admit my sample size is not large. I have never been passed at the 1-level, but the argument that slam may not be making is a reasonable one. Let's see what a sim says.

In 1000 hands (no constraints on the unseen hands)

608 make slam in spades
544 make slam in hearts
270 have no slam in either major
2 may be passed out (defined as North has 0-5 HCP and 0-1 controls, and neither East/West have a 2-level overcall (although that definition is not robust)).

I don't think the risk of a passout is very high, especially given that we are unfavorable. Looking at the hands with no slams in either major, some are slams you want to be in single-dummy, but fail due to a foul break, while others are just bad.

How many hands make 11 tricks in a major, and how many make 10 or fewer?

[nige1]

manudude03, on Sep 24 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

I think the real problem hand with 2♣ is when partner has a good hand with both minors "covered". Especially at matchpoints, will partner know not to convert with AKJ KQJ in the minors?

Manudude03 has hit the nail on the head. If there is high level competition, partner, with lots of points, is likely to judge notrump to be the safest and highest scoring resting place (but I'd still open 2♣)

[pooltuna]

pooltuna, on Sep 24 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

for those who strongly favor a first level opening call why not kill 2 birds with one stone ....open 1♦ 

Alternatively you could show what you are made of and pass initially. Planning on a Michael's qbid where you will raise partner's response to the 6 level . I hear most of the 1 level opener's saying they will not be passed out this is just one step further down the path