very simple question, no other options here.
strong 2 suiter hand
#2
Posted 2004-October-24, 17:28
2C for me.
#3
Posted 2004-October-24, 18:22
With this pattern, I can't see anything bad that can happen if I open 2♣. I have easy rebids after 2♦, and pard's expected 2nd negative after I bid 2♠.
There are SOME patterns that are a bear to bid after a 2♣ opener, but this isn't one of them.
#6
Posted 2004-October-24, 21:09
This hand was from an Abalucy tourney, 4th seat, red vul. Of those who got the chance to open this and who weren't playing a strong club, 8 chose 2♣, 4 chose 1♠.
What is worring is that only 5 of the 8 2♣ openers reached game. With a 2-1-4-6 shape, 2 passed openers 2♠ rebid and 1 passed opener's third bid of 3♦! Based on this, maybe a 1♠ opener is better
#7
Posted 2004-October-24, 21:30
MickyB, on Oct 24 2004, 10:09 PM, said:
This hand was from an Abalucy tourney, 4th seat, red vul. Of those who got the chance to open this and who weren't playing a strong club, 8 chose 2♣, 4 chose 1♠.
What is worring is that only 5 of the 8 2♣ openers reached game. With a 2-1-4-6 shape, 2 passed openers 2♠ rebid and 1 passed opener's third bid of 3♦! Based on this, maybe a 1♠ opener is better
Am I dinosaur here? 2C opening usually forced to 3 of majors or 4 of minors (and new suit is usually (always?) forcing). In the sequense, 2♣-2♦-2♠-?-3♦, responder can't pass 2S or 3D.
#8
Posted 2004-October-25, 01:15
MickyB, on Oct 25 2004, 03:09 AM, said:
This hand was from an Abalucy tourney, 4th seat, red vul. Of those who got the chance to open this and who weren't playing a strong club, 8 chose 2♣, 4 chose 1♠.
What is worring is that only 5 of the 8 2♣ openers reached game. With a 2-1-4-6 shape, 2 passed openers 2♠ rebid and 1 passed opener's third bid of 3♦! Based on this, maybe a 1♠ opener is better
What happened to the pairs where 1♠ was opened?
Eric (who is a 2♣ opener)
#9
Posted 2004-October-25, 05:15
If pard responds we will be better placed in the auction, and if not hopefully those nice opps will balance in for me.
#10
Posted 2004-October-25, 05:52
#11
Posted 2004-October-25, 06:19
#12
Posted 2004-October-25, 06:56
#14 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2004-October-25, 11:27
#15
Posted 2004-October-25, 11:52
But I bet none of those who have voted for 1♠ are using eg a weak 2 in ♣.
Why not?
Eric
#16
Posted 2004-October-25, 12:01
EricK, on Oct 25 2004, 05:52 PM, said:
But I bet none of those who have voted for 1♠ are using eg a weak 2 in ♣.
Why not?
Eric
2♣ opening is good for the hands that don´t have a good rebid: very strong balanced, and strong one siters.
#17 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2004-October-25, 12:02
#18
Posted 2004-October-25, 12:35
Jlall, on Oct 25 2004, 07:02 PM, said:
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.
#19
Posted 2004-October-25, 13:21
#20
Posted 2004-October-25, 14:05
MickyB, on Oct 25 2004, 10:35 AM, said:
Jlall, on Oct 25 2004, 07:02 PM, said:
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.