[MrAce]

Sorry but you sound like a good salesman who is trying to sell a bad product on this one. I thought for a second that you will end your post with "If you call now and purchase this type of 2♣ opener, you will recieve a free seat in Bermuda Bowl. Just call now !! "

rhm, on 2012-September-11, 02:11, said:

Simply because you will miss slam quite frequently with any other opening.

Also you will play 7 going down when pd drags you with hands where grandslam is laydown if you had anything close to 2♣ opener.

Also you will go slams where game was your best spot. Not even mentioning stopping with jake brakes at 5 level.

Also if you train your pd not too get too excited, then you will pay off your due in some other hands for being extremely cautious, missed slams, grands, missed doubles etc etc

rhm, on 2012-September-11, 02:11, said:

I trust that your visualization technique is good enough that any examples for partner's hand are superfluous to prove that point.

rhm, on 2012-September-11, 02:11, said:

And HCP are not everything.
Why this last point needs to be stressed in a forum for players past the beginner stage escapes me.

Welsaid, but it doesnt mean HCPS worth nothing either.

rhm, on 2012-September-11, 02:11, said:

Opposite a balanced yarborough this hand has 9 tricks at least.

Opposite a balanced yarbarough hand x x x KQJTxxxxxx also takes 9 tricks, are we supposed to open this 2♣ too ?

rhm, on 2012-September-11, 02:11, said:

.

The Rubens Kaplan evaluator, known to be good for suit contracts, puts the value of the hand at 22.1.

The Rubens Kaplan evaluator also values x Qx xx KQJTxxxx as 12.35 points, with your logic are we supposed to open this 1♣ ?

[helene_t]

billw55, on 2012-September-10, 09:41, said:

IMO regulations have gone too far when they start telling us how to count tricks when evaluating a hand.

I dunno. What alternative would you suggest? The ACBL practice of "if they call it strong, it is strong" is pretty ridicolous and I wouldn't like "if the TD thinks it looks strong, it is strong" either.

In discussions like this I always suggest that it should be as simple as possible, for example "15+ HCPs. Period". But then everybody say that that is ridicolous, too.

It is this discussion that sometimes make me think that maybe it would be better just not to have any system regulations at all. But then there are those who are strongly opposed to that idea as well.

You just can't make everybody happy.

[MrAce]

helene_t, on 2012-September-11, 04:12, said:

It is this discussion that sometimes make me think that maybe it would be better just not to have any system regulations at all. But then there are those who are strongly opposed to that idea as well.

Thats exactly my feelings Helene.

As much as i don't like 2♣ with this hand, i think those who believes it is strong enough should be allowed to open. Of course with full disclosure on their cc (or perhaps warning that says their 2♣ can be very low in hcp.

[ahydra]

MrAce, on 2012-September-11, 04:03, said:

Sorry but you sound like a good salesman who is trying to sell a bad product on this one. I thought for a second that you will end your post with "If you call now and purchase this type of 2♣ opener, you will recieve a free seat in Bermuda Bowl. Just call now !! "

It is true that 1H-?-4H sounds closer to a semi-balanced hand with 6 hearts and 18 HCP than it does an 8-4 with 12 HCP. But provided you insist hearts are trumps, the playing strength of the two hands should be fairly similar. And of course, if partner tries for slam, you accept without a second thought.

ahydra

[phil_20686]

ahydra, on 2012-September-11, 04:23, said:

It is true that 1H-?-4H sounds closer to a semi-balanced hand with 6 hearts and 18 HCP

lol?

That would practically be a psyche. Seriously, does anyone bid that way?

[billw55]

helene_t, on 2012-September-11, 04:12, said:

I dunno. What alternative would you suggest?

...

It is this discussion that sometimes make me think that maybe it would be better just not to have any system regulations at all.

Asked and answered

MrAce, on 2012-September-11, 04:17, said:

As much as i don't like 2♣ with this hand, i think those who believes it is strong enough should be allowed to open. Of course with full disclosure on their cc (or perhaps warning that says their 2♣ can be very low in hcp.

Yessir.

[sailoranch]

ahydra, on 2012-September-11, 04:23, said:

It is true that 1H-?-4H sounds closer to a semi-balanced hand with 6 hearts and 18 HCP than it does an 8-4 with 12 HCP. But provided you insist hearts are trumps, the playing strength of the two hands should be fairly similar. And of course, if partner tries for slam, you accept without a second thought.

ahydra

1♥- 1X - 4♥ is different from 1X - 1♥ - 4♥

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2012-September-11, 04:03, said:

Sorry but you sound like a good salesman who is trying to sell a bad product on this one. I thought for a second that you will end your post with "If you call now and purchase this type of 2♣ opener, you will recieve a free seat in Bermuda Bowl. Just call now !! "

Bla Bla Bla...

Let's proceed to arguments...

Quote

Also you will play 7 going down when pd drags you with hands where grandslam is laydown if you had anything close to 2♣ opener.

Also you will go slams where game was your best spot. Not even mentioning stopping with jake brakes at 5 level.

Also if you train your pd not too get too excited, then you will pay off your due in some other hands for being extremely cautious, missed slams, grands, missed doubles etc etc

Bridge is a game of opportunities and risks.
Take the conservative route and you will rarely get too high and if you do you will have company. But you will miss many opportunities.
Take the aggressive route and sometimes you will get too high, but you will not miss many opportunities.
So one objective of a successful bidding philosophy is to try to maximize opportunity and minimize risks like getting too high.
A good way of doing so is limiting your hands as early and as narrow as possible, not only in HCP but also in distribution.

Now let us look at this particular hand. Say in 2/1 there are 3 options for opening this hand 1♥, 4♥, 2♣.

If you open 4♥ you will almost never get too high, but you will miss many slams including grand slams.
if you open 1♥ you will rarely get too high, but opponents will have it easiest to get into the auction and you will still miss quite a few slams.
If you open 2♣ you might get too high on your own, but you maximize your chances finding your slam.
As you point out the risk is dependent to some extent how we define 2♣.
I have given a definition ,which I consider sensible (repeated for your convenience):

"A 2♣ bid is any hand too strong to preempt with game in hand near certain and good slam prospects."

If your definition of 2♣ is say any hand if unbalanced of at least 20 HCP, irrespective of distribution, your risk of getting too high with this hand would be much higher, because you would be violating your agreements if you opened this hand with 2♣.
Of course making your 2♣ opening extremely restrictive will help your slam bidding whenever you can open 2♣ within your agreements.
Does this prove your agreements are optimal? Of course not. The real problem are your almost unlimited one bids and you almost always open with one bids;
Like here of course. And just ignoring the problem when opening such hands with one bids will not improve your bridge scores.
Modern trends have made this problem worse, because the standard requirements for opening the bidding has gone down substantially.
Few nowadays insist for example that a minimum opening should have 2 quick tricks.
But the standard minimum requirement for opening 2♣ has not gone down likewise. If at all it seems to have gone up over the years.
I have my doubts that this is optimal. It is partly compensated that nowadays there are better agreements and conventions.

Admittedly opportunity versus risk is difficult to measure.

I ran a couple of simulations (1000 deals each) on this hand:

If you specify no restrictions on the remaining hands, slam in hearts alone is on roughly 40% of the time (10% are grands). On average you have 11 tricks and game makes about 90% of the time. Some of the time your partner will bid slam no matter what you will open, but my estimate is this will happen at best on one slam out of four if you open 4♥.

If you open 1♥ you are in (reasonably) good shape if partner responds with a game forcing 2/1.

So I ran a simulation specifying for partner a maximum of 11 HCP (no minimum and no other restriction) as a proxy that partner is likely to respond 1♠ or 1NT. Most would rebid 4♥ now.

Under those conditions, slam in hearts alone is still on nearly 25% of the time and you are very unlikely to get there.
Game makes roughly 80% of the time.

Compared to these figures, and I have not even looked how often you might make slam in diamonds, the risk of getting too high by a 2♣ opening bid looks to me manageable. My guess is this risk is about an order of magnitude lower, but it is certainly far smaller. Normally the 2♣ opener is in charge anyway.

Quote

Welsaid, but it doesnt mean HCPS worth nothing either.

I never claimed so. But it is my impression that it plays far too big a role in hand evaluation. Some seem to use it almost exclusively.

1) HCP were originally designed for balanced hands.
2) The higher the contract, the more unbalanced the hand, the less precise HCP tends to be.
3) First round controls and fit do matter there.

Quote

Opposite a balanced yarbarough hand x x x KQJTxxxxxx also takes 9 tricks, are we supposed to open this 2♣ too ?

No first round controls, no slam potential. I never claimed playing tricks alone matter. Read my definition before making silly examples.

Quote

The Rubens Kaplan evaluator also values x Qx xx KQJTxxxx as 12.35 points, with your logic are we supposed to open this 1♣ ?

No I never claimed so. I am not claiming the Rubens Kaplan is my sole criteria, but it gives in general a sensible evaluation of the offensive prospects of your hand when played in your best suit contract.
I tend to look it up when others disagree with my hand evaluation on unbalanced hands.
I like first round controls when minimum. Besides when another bid describes my hand better I will neither open 1♣ nor 2♣.

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2012-September-10, 05:27, said:

If this is a 2♣ opening you should pre alert it just the same as multi, you need a defence against this.

Side note: I do not think that most NBOs have pre-alerts, however good an idea they are (very good, in my opinion).

[Fluffy]

adding to MrAce thoughful post of why 2♣ with this hand is plain wrong, there are other factors to consider, not only going too high on attack, but also on defence:


2♣-(2♠)-3♣-(3♠)
4♥-(4♠)-double

and now you need to guess what to do. You feel like bidding 5♥ as a sacrifice. It makes me laugh, you open 2♣ and then sacrifice? isn't that a strong clue that 2♣ opener is a psyche?

Or imagine this for example:

2♣-(2♠)-pass*-(pass)

pass* negative


and now you do know that opponents have missed their cold 4♠ or even more, aren't you going to pass a forcing bid when you know it is right? when else do you remember passing a forcing bid? oh yes! when you psyched the previos strong bid!

[semeai]

rhm, on 2012-September-11, 06:57, said:

Under those conditions, slam in hearts alone is still on nearly 25% of the time and you are very unlikely to get there. Game makes roughly 80% of the time.

I question your conclusions from this. Don't you often take 12 tricks in normal 4♥ contracts (even aside from the fact that these are presumably double dummy statistics)?

Even when it really is a good slam, it'll often be hard to suss out over 1♥ or 2♣. Notice that the percentage that go down, 20%, and the percentage that make slam, 25%, are pretty close. I think these are probably just normal amounts (at least for this sort of hand) to be too low/high on.

[Quantumcat]

It is easier to get to slams when you start showing your suits at the one level, as opposed to the two or three level. Don't we hate it when the opponents pre-empt? Why would you do it to yourself?

[the hog]

This hand is not a 2C opening unless you have decided to play Benjamin 2 bids. Calling a 2C opening a psyche is silly though as you can see from this thread that there are some misguided people who would open 2C.

[CSGibson]

I disagree strongly with 2C because the hand only has an expected 2 defensive tricks, but l don't think its a psych, so much as a very misguided description of the hand. I would prefer some namyatsy convention to describe strong single-suited hands with not enough defense to open 2C. Obviously OP doesn't have that option, but in lieu of that I'd just open 1♥, planning on jumping to 4. The risk of doing so is overstated - partner is likely to respond 1S if given the opportunity, which might keep the opponents out of our auction more readily than a 4H initial call, or a 2C call would have done.

[rhm]

CSGibson, on 2012-September-11, 19:48, said:

I disagree strongly with 2C because the hand only has an expected 2 defensive tricks, but l don't think its a psych, so much as a very misguided description of the hand. I would prefer some namyatsy convention to describe strong single-suited hands with not enough defense to open 2C. Obviously OP doesn't have that option, but in lieu of that I'd just open 1♥, planning on jumping to 4. The risk of doing so is overstated - partner is likely to respond 1S if given the opportunity, which might keep the opponents out of our auction more readily than a 4H initial call, or a 2C call would have done.

So the bidding goes

1♥-1♠
4♥

or your partner opens NAMYATS and you hold

♠KJTx
♥xx
♦Jxxx
♣Axx

or you hold

♠Jxxx
♥xx
♦KJTx
♣Axx

How is partner supposed to know that the first hand offers almost no play in 6♥ and the second offers a 50% chance for 13 tricks?

Both of your bidding recommendations simply preempt your partner and while that can always happen when you preempt, this is hardly a surprise here when you are so strong.
The truth is you have to because you insist you can not go slow via 2♣ because of some dogmatic defensive requirements this hand does not meet.

If I would open 1♥, I would never close shop with a 4♥ bid, but force to game by jumping to 3♦ over a 1♠ response.
Whether this would entice partner, however, is dubious. But at least it might.

I admit I am out of touch with modern bidding trends, which seems at the heart of our disagreement:

When you hold a minimum opening hand few people nowadays seem to care much for defensive tricks. There are numerous examples for this in this forum alone.
The old rule was you should have at least 2 quick that is defensive tricks, so that partner can rely on your opening bid for something if he chooses to defend.

But when it comes to opening 2♣ suddenly the very same people ridiculing the above rule insist that 2♣ needs above all defensive potential.
I find this illogical. Instead of parroting what some so called experts espouse simply start thinking: Where is the problem?
If partner suggests defense and I have a very offensive hand for opening 2♣ I will simply continue bidding in spite of partner's suggestion to defend.
This is much less dangerous than considering a minimum hand for opening the bidding because you will never have that many playing tricks.

For me 2♣ is about our potential (slam that is), not about that of my opponents.
Probably we need another 10-20 years before people will come around to acknowledge that this does not make sense at all, because it forces you to overload your one bids for no good reason.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Quantumcat, on 2012-September-11, 17:15, said:

It is easier to get to slams when you start showing your suits at the one level, as opposed to the two or three level. Don't we hate it when the opponents pre-empt? Why would you do it to yourself?

The answer is simple: Because I may hold very different strength. If I choose the uncomfortable way (say doubling instead of overcalling directly) I am confident I can outbid the opponents and I want to make partner aware that I have a very strong hand.
It is not true that it is always bad for us when opponents preempt.
If opponents preempt in spades here it makes it easier for us to reach slam when that is a good contract.
Partner can at least anticipate one of my shortages and whether his few values may work.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Fluffy, on 2012-September-11, 14:37, said:

adding to MrAce thoughful post of why 2♣ with this hand is plain wrong, there are other factors to consider, not only going too high on attack, but also on defence:


2♣-(2♠)-3♣-(3♠)
4♥-(4♠)-double

and now you need to guess what to do. You feel like bidding 5♥ as a sacrifice. It makes me laugh, you open 2♣ and then sacrifice? isn't that a strong clue that 2♣ opener is a psyche?

I wish I had your problems in this game.
Show me the expert, who would consider this a guess.
Show me the expert, who would consider bidding 5♥ intended as a sacrifice?
You are living on a different planet. Any player past the beginner stage will bid on. It is odds on that either

5♥ or slam will make

and only in the unlikely and unexpected event that 5♥ will go down 4♠ will likely make.

Besides consider the alternative:

1♥-(2♠)-Pass-(3♠)
4♥-(4♠)-double

and now you need to guess what to do just as much. Where is the difference?
That you find the first sequence laughable can be left to your strange sense of humor. I could not care less.

Quote

Or imagine this for example:

2♣-(2♠)-pass*-(pass)

pass* negative

and now you do know that opponents have missed their cold 4♠ or even more, aren't you going to pass a forcing bid when you know it is right? when else do you remember passing a forcing bid? oh yes! when you psyched the previos strong bid!

What is the big difference to

1♥-(2♠)-pass-(pass)

Do you seriously even consider passing out 2♠?

I can give you one advice which might do wonders for your bidding judgment:
Do not try to outguess your opponents what they can make.
Your opponents will not always get it right, but your chances of getting it right on their behalf are far worse.
There are exception to this rule,but they are few and far between.
If they believe they can not make 4♠ you should trust them!
Give this hand to a bidding panel. There will be some who will not agree with the 2♣ bid, but not a single expert would pass out 2♠.

Rainer Herrmann

[phil_20686]

I imagine most experts have something sensible to do with this hand over 1h-1s. I would bid 2N GF, and then I can show my heart suit. Partner will know I have a v good hand less than 2C, and there is some more bits after that.

I know some v good english players play jump rebids as transfers.

Obviously, in the case where partner responds a NT, or the opposition bid spades, you are living the dream with an auto splinter.

[rhm]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-12, 03:29, said:

I imagine most experts have something sensible to do with this hand over 1h-1s. I would bid 2N GF, and then I can show my heart suit. Partner will know I have a v good hand less than 2C, and there is some more bits after that.

I know some v good english players play jump rebids as transfers.

Obviously, in the case where partner responds a NT, or the opposition bid spades, you are living the dream with an auto splinter.

Detailed agreements always help, provided you can memorize them.
I guess even you are not always playing solely in a long standing top level partnership.
4♣ can be played as an auto splinter. 3♠ is a different matter.
There exist also 5♠--6(+)♥ hands over a 1NT response with various shades of strength.

Rainer Herrmann

[billw55]

Out of curiosity, what do multi players use 2♥/2♠ openings for? Is there any value to using them for hands like this?