[EricK]

pclayton, on Oct 25 2004, 08:05 PM, said:

MickyB, on Oct 25 2004, 10:35 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 25 2004, 07:02 PM, said:

because sometimes i am dealt 24 balanced. sometimes im dealt 11 tricks in my own hand. there is no way you can play a system with no strong bid. If you do this, all opening 1 bids must be 1 round forces

Wrong. If I believe I am gaining from using 2♣ as weak, then I'll accept the occasional bad result when I'm dealt a 24 count. Responding on 2 counts will lead to many more bad results than passing 2 counts.

Well, if someone can find a single convention card of the teams playing in Istanbul that doesn't have a strong forcing opening, then I'll agree. A weak 2♣ opening has been around for at least 25 years, but the idea has been pretty much discarded.

Yes, but I am sure that most of those playing in Istanbul (if not playing a strong ♣) will open the given hand 2♣.

There really does come a point when if a reasonably low level opening bid becomes too rare then you are almost certainly better off not opening it, but instead using it in some other way.

Eric

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Oct 25 2004, 10:21 PM, said:

One must draw a line somewhere. One can't just open a virtual slam-in-hand at the 1-level just because the hand is two-suited. And the lighter you open, the lower the line should be (I personally put it around 20-21 hcp).

EHAA manages quite well without a strong artifical and forcing opening
decent system, at that...

[pclayton]

EHAA is a lot of fun to play, but I'd rank it pretty low in its effectiveness to bid slams with hands like the one given. I can't think of another well-known system that doesnt have a strong forcing opening.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I open 2♣, but I would be much less afraid of an overcall if 2♣ contained one weak hypothesis, thereby preventing an overcall on less than 10 HCP.

If I should start with a one-bid, 1♦ allows one of the other players to introduce his hearts, so maybe it is also a reasonable option (?).

With a six-card weak two in a minor, systemically opening at the three level is right in my opinion. With a five-card weak two, you preempt your partner or give extra information to the opponents if it is their hand.

Nunes-Fantoni don't have a strong opening. Their two-bids are 10-13 HCP and their one-bids start at 14 HCP.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

You say the requirements for a response to an unlimited 1 bid will not change, this will lead to ridiculous results when you pick up the rare or semi-rare 22+ balanced or 10+ trick hands where you open a 1 bid and miss game.

So you open them at game level.

Playing MPs, there's often no advantage to trying for slam unless it's absolutely certain. Most people will bid to the level of a 50% slam (or less), so not even trying for slam will be right half the time. Use your bidding space for something else.

Quote

A common fallacy is the frequency of a convention is all important.

No, it's the frequency of the convention times the bonus it gives you. 2 Clubs may be OK in IMPs, but I suspect you're almost as well off passing in MPs.

Hmmm...somebody feel nice enough to check that for me? What % of hands opened 2♣ go down on that nifty database you guys have?

[EricK]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2004, 02:22 AM, said:

A common fallacy is the frequency of a convention is all important. Certainly a weak 2C would be more frequent than 2C showing a strong hand. Yet that leaves you with no possible bid for hands that would normally be opened a strong 2C. You say the requirements for a response to an unlimited 1 bid will not change, this will lead to ridiculous results when you pick up the rare or semi-rare 22+ balanced or 10+ trick hands where you open a 1 bid and miss game. Even if partner finds a response you will not have a way to catch up. You sacrifice all this for the "advantages of a weak 2C bid." I will not even argue how negligible these advantages are compared to the sacrifice, it should be obvious. And I know many experts who would not open the hand posted at the beginning of this thread with 2C. The fact that they do not draw the line at this hand does not mean the line should never be drawn.

I would open this hand 2♣ because there is a huge risk of playing in 1♠ instead of 4♠ or 5♦ or 6♦ or even 4♥.

My point is that if you stubbornly refuse to open 2♣ on two suiters simply because the opponents might intervene, then you are making the 2♣ bid much rarer and also overloading the other openings. If you are going to do that, than you really might as well go the whole hog and play a totally different system where you don't use a strong 2♣ at all, as the ( frequency x IMP/MP gain per hand ) becomes too small.

You could easily move the balanced hands into a scheme like

multi 2♦ = 22-23 balanced or 26+ balanced
2NT = 24-25 balanced

and open strong single suiters at the one level (or play a stronger than normal Namyats type convention). There is more chance of the auction staying open if you have a strong single-suiter than a strong two-suiter because both opponents are likely to be short, and there are usually more high cards out (as you have spot cards in your long suit instead of high cards in the other suits).

Eric

[jikl]

When I was much younger we used to play something called Myxomatosis 2s. They are fairly illegal now though. This was our structure:

2♣ Strong 2+ in ♣, or weak 2 in ♦, 2 suiter in ♥ and ♠ weak or strong, 21-22 bal or 29-30 bal

2♦ Strong 2+ in ♦, or weak 2 in ♥, 2 suiter in ♠ and ♣ weak or strong, 23-24 bal or 31-32 bal

2♥ Strong 2+ in ♥, or weak 2 in ♠, 2 suiter in ♣ and ♦ weak or strong, 25-26 bal or 33-34 bal

2♠ Strong 2+ in ♠, or 3♣ preempt, 2 suiter in ♦ and ♥ weak or strong, 27-28 bal or 35-36 bal

2NT 2 suiter in ♣ and ♥ or ♦ and ♠ weak or strong

3s were transfer preempts etc

Was a lot of fun to play because people were scared to bid over it and we could untangle the hands. Would be perfect for this hand

Sean

[EricK]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2004, 12:09 PM, said:

So now you lose flexibility from whatever you previously played 2D opener as, you still have no bid for a hand like AKQxxx AKxx AK x...except to open 4S. Basically all strong 1 and 2 suiters you are opening 1 or game. when you miss grand opposite xx QJxx xxx Axxx and partner asks if he should have bid over your 4S opener, what will you tell him? or will you open 6S and get to that opposite --- Qxxxx xxxx xxxx? Now you are giving up any hope of constructive bidding, you are playing strong options in multi 2D, and for what? to have a weak 2 club opener? are you REALLY serious about this? This is bordering on the edge of ridiculous at this point. a weak 2C offers no great gains, and its losing any hope of constructive bidding on the hands where slam is most likely. Just because one doesnt open a 5350 hand with 21 points with 2C, a very complex hand that is hard to describe even without preempting yourself with a 2C bid, doesnt mean they should abandon their strong bid.

Nowhere have I suggested opening strong 1 suiters with a game bid.

Playing multi 2D with one or more strong options is incredibly common.

2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 2NT 3♦ is no more or less pre-emptive on yourself than 1♠ (hope we don't get passed out) 1NT (phew!) 3♦.

There simply must be a better use for 2♣ than "only really, really, really strong hands and even then not 2 suiters" as that hand comes up about once every ten sessions at most. Whether it is a straightforward weak 2, or whether it some weak/strong combo I don't know. But I am sure that it must be wrong to waste it in the way some are suggesting.

Eric

[EricK]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2004, 04:29 PM, said:

so u have to open 11 trick 1 suited hands at the 1 level? thats great...and i dont think anyone opens NO 2 suiters with 2C.

But what do they do if the bidding comes back to them at the 5 level? (which is the common complaint voiced by people who don't want to bid 2♣ hands which are weak enough that you have a chance to actually pick up more than one of them in your lifetime)

Eric

[junyi_zhu]

Flame, on Oct 24 2004, 06:48 PM, said:

---

very simple question, no other options here.

2C here. It's actually an overbid, but since nobody play strong two, this hand is probably too risky to open 1S if your partner doesn't like to bid 1NT with 4-5 HCP, 3 spades with something like Kxx xxx Jxx xxxx, you might not make 6S which is a reasonable contract, but at least you want to play 4S. Also, facing xxx xxx xxx xxxx, you probably still don't mind 4S which needs some luck. Another bid problem is that if
you open 1S and jumprebid 3D, you still may miss an excellent 6D facing SKx HQxxx DJxx CQJTx, partner has no other choice here, but it's not clear for you to pull 3NT to 4D with your hand. If you overbid 2C, you'd probably find 6D in this layout:
2C 2D
2S 2N
3D 3S
4D 5D
6D.

2C is bad only when you find a misfit and broken hand from partner.

[LH2650]

Does opener know more about responder's hand on the above auction than he does after 1S- 1N (forcing) - 3D - 3S - 4D - 5D - ?? I think not.

[junyi_zhu]

LH2650, on Oct 29 2004, 01:22 AM, said:

Does opener know more about responder's hand on the above auction than he does after 1S- 1N (forcing) - 3D - 3S - 4D - 5D - ?? I think not.

They are completely different. For the 2C opening, the opener knows that partner doesn't have 3 card spade support, so responder can bid 3S as a false preference.
For the 1S 1N 3D sequence, 3S here should show 3 card support and invitational value,
so responder has to bid 3NT with a lot of semibalanced or balanced hands with some sort of support in diamonds, because if he bids 4D, they may get too high.

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2004, 04:29 PM, said:

so u have to open 11 trick 1 suited hands at the 1 level? thats great...and i dont think anyone opens NO 2 suiters with 2C.

Count me on that, depends on the 2 suiter, 5431 can be relaxed to balanced or even 1 suiters, but I wouldn´t open any 5-5+ with 2♣ unless I really was too strong (26 HCP I think ).

[Fluffy]

junyi_zhu, on Oct 26 2004, 04:47 PM, said:

2C 2D
2S 2N
3D 3S
4D 5D
6D.

mmm lovelly bidding, now try to bid after this ones:

2♣-X-pass-4♣


2♣-pass-2NT-pass

[LH2650]

junyi_zhu, on Oct 29 2004, 01:52 PM, said:

They are completely different. For the 2C opening, the opener knows that partner doesn't have 3 card spade support, so responder can bid 3S as a false preference.
For the 1S 1N 3D sequence, 3S here should show 3 card support and invitational value,
so responder has to bid 3NT with a lot of semibalanced or balanced hands with some sort of support in diamonds,  because if he bids 4D, they may get too high.

I consider 3S over partner's 3D on this hand as automatic as I do bidding 2S over partner's 2D rebid. If I had a limit raise, I would bid 4S over 3D. Partner may have invented a jump shift with 6 spades. If you rebid 3N, he has a guess.

[han]

I voted for 2C, but I think this is very close.

If partner has a positive response over 1S then the auction is more smooth if I opened 1S.

But after I open 2C, my partner will certainly not pass 2S or 3D, that is rediculous.

[goodwintr]

There are many good arguments for opening 2C on S-AQJxx H-AJ10 D-AKQxx C--, but fear of being dropped in 1S isn't one of them. There is virtually NO chance that this will happen, as you will discover if you generate a bunch of deals with this hand fixed and everything else random. Somebody "always" finds a bid.

Churchill (in "Churchill Natural Bidding Style At Contract Bridge") told about a hand he played with Roth in 1941. Roth held S-- H-AKQJx D-AQ10 C-KQ109x, and out of deference to Churchill (who played no strong forcing opening bid) opened one heart. It went P - P - P, and Roth immediately berated Church for not keeping the bidding open when he, Roth, had a game in hand. Church's hand was 109xx xx xxxx xxx, and a forcing defense held declarer to five trump tricks, one club, and one diamond -- making one heart on the nose! The deal actually belonged to the opponents in two spades. (Church said he got no thanks at the for keeping the side low, however. . . .)

How did Churchill utilize the 2C opening bid, then? The answer is that he didn't open 2C at all -- or any other two-bid (except 2NT), for that matter. I doubt if THAT part of the style would attract many adherents today!

TLGoodwin