[bd71]

---

Pairs. 2/1.

[rhm]

bd71, on 2013-April-30, 22:07, said:

---

Pairs. 2/1.

Opening 2N (an underbid) or 2C/2N will never get you to 6♣ when that is the right contract. When 6N is a good contract 2C/2N might at least get you there.
So open 1♣
Over 1♦ or 1♠ bid 3N, giving the right encouragement to reach slam in clubs. I do not believe that this necessarily shows a solid suit, provided you have compensation like here.
Over 1♥ I would reverse with 2♦.
I consider having to play 1♣ highly unlikely and if I do, I doubt that any number of notrumps would be a great contract.
If partner passes but opponents bid, you can rebid 1NT or 3♣ with a fair chance playing 3♣ should partner be broke.

Rainer Herrmann

[ggwhiz]

I agree very much with keeping a 6♣ contract in play at imps but would open 2nt at mp's for the positional value. Mp hands where 5♣ is the par contract should be banned and many slam tries will land you there.

I'm not worried about the underbid missing game playing with MY pard and 4 of either major could be the winner if played from my side.

ps. I can super accept a xfer to hearts with a live chance to get to that slam (from my side) that may be tough to find after a 1♣ opener or be wrong sided.

[Antrax]

Can the 2♣->2NT people explain what's so awesome about this balanced 20-count to make you upgrade it by 2 HCP?

[Cyberyeti]

Antrax, on 2013-May-02, 05:39, said:

Can the 2♣->2NT people explain what's so awesome about this balanced 20-count to make you upgrade it by 2 HCP?

The trick taking potential of the 6 card suit.

This will make a good slam opposite say:

xxx, KJxx, Qxx, Kxx or
KQ10xx, xxx, xxx, Kx
Qxx, xx, QJ10xx, KJx

so is worth way more than 20.

[fromageGB]

As I voted for 1♣ I must give my rebids and reasons.

With partner playing a weak 2M that might be a 5 card suit, I do not think I am missing a major game. If he :
passes : I'm happy
1♦!(=hearts) : 3NT
1♥!(=spades) : 3NT
1♠!(relay) : 3NT
2M : pass. 6 card, but too weak for a weak 2.

[P_Marlowe]

1C/3NT => Usually showes a good 6 card suit, and a singleton in responders suit,
hence not a good discription.

1C/something else => we play a 2NT jump rebid as forcing, which is nice to have,
but if you dont play this, you will have a ugly rebid problem.

Selling the hand as 22-23 will land you in 6NT everytime, partner happens to have
11HCP, 10HCP with 2 Aces, this can certainly make, but always?

I would sell the hand as 20-21, I have lots of honors in my short suits, and "only"
20HCP, facing a passed hand. The later dumpens my enthusiasm towards 6??? anyway.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-May-02, 05:49, said:

The trick taking potential of the 6 card suit.

This will make a good slam opposite say:

xxx, KJxx, Qxx, Kxx or
KQ10xx, xxx, xxx, Kx
Qxx, xx, QJ10xx, KJx

so is worth way more than 20.

Sure, ... as long as partner happens to have the King of clubs,
which he may or may not have.
Of course partner will have no clue, that the King of clubs is special,
if I dont show a good club suit, but going via 2C, rebidding 2NT does
not show the clubs either.

[gszes]

stick me with the

2c followed by 2n group.

The trick taking ability of the clubs plus all side suits
controlled plus the downside of having to find rebids
if i were to decide to open 1c Plus being able to assure p
I have at least 2 cards in each major all point to this
hand being opened some form of nt and this control
laden 20 count with a great club suit is every bit worth
a 2c followed by 2n rebid and possibly a tad more.

There are almost zero downside rebids with the only
headache being something like 2c 2d 2n 6n where we
have to seriously consider 7n and hate it since we might
be missing as ace:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[Cyberyeti]

P_Marlowe, on 2013-May-02, 07:07, said:

Sure, ... as long as partner happens to have the King of clubs,
which he may or may not have.
Of course partner will have no clue, that the King of clubs is special,
if I dont show a good club suit, but going via 2C, rebidding 2NT does
not show the clubs either.

Btw I'm a 1♣ opener, with an artificial GF 2N rebid but I was trying to explain the logic, there are plenty of hands with partner having ♣J(x)(x) or xxx where slam is a coin flip or better too, ♦AQJxx and ♣Jxx is a coinflip on a spade lead, add in Q♠ and it's cold, add Q♠ and make the clubs xxx and it's not bad. The only time slam is a complete disaster is opposite a small stiff club with partner not having 5♥ or missing A♦ and KJ♣.

[ggwhiz]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-May-03, 05:31, said:

The only time slam is a complete disaster is

When pard responds 1♥ or 1nt and East finds the ♠/♥/♦ lead to beat us?

[Cyberyeti]

ggwhiz, on 2013-May-03, 09:01, said:

When pard responds 1♥ or 1nt and East finds the ♠/♥/♦ lead to beat us?

If partner responds 1N he has 4♣ in a 3334 and <10 points in my system so I'm likely playing 6♣, so that isn't a big issue.

If partner responds 1♥ with less than 5 of them I will be declaring again, I have an artificial 6+♣/3♥ GF bid over this.

[mikl_plkcc]

1♣ - 3♣ (semi-forcing)

however, if partner responds with NT, then I would rebid NT. This hand is not balanced at all. It has a strong preference in ♣s. However, if the honours are concentrated in the short suits, I would consider opening 2NT.

[Codo]

1♣ 3 ♣ can be right in a polish or strong club system, but here it is ridicolous. You have a gf opposite any response from partner...

If 1 ♣ 3 NT (or an artifical 2 NT) shows this hand, I would choose it. I would be sceptical with a pick up partner, but I can bid this way with my standard partners.

[wyman]

For me, 1C-3N shows better clubs, and 1C-2N/3C are underbids, so I'm endplayed into either opening 2N or 2C-2N. I don't particularly care which, since this is pretty close to the border. I guess a third option is 2C-3C. If you have a flexible 2C-<suit rebid> style, this may work, but I'd prefer to have more. Honestly I'll probably just open 2N and hope we aren't cold for 6C.

[rhm]

P_Marlowe, on 2013-May-02, 07:02, said:

1C/3NT => Usually showes a good 6 card suit, and a singleton in responders suit,
hence not a good discription.

wyman, on 2013-May-06, 12:02, said:

For me, 1C-3N shows better clubs

Both agreements are common but do not explain what to do with good minor suit hands not meeting this criteria.
In standard where a 2NT shows 18/19 balanced and is not forcing (same for 3♣), the solution seems to be to ignore the club suit outright and live with the consequences.

I dare say : Silly system agreement. Not well thought out, leaving holes in the system.
Cater for the likely (in context), not for the dream hand, which occurs every other leap year.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

I used to play a strong club in 4th seat only in long teams matches, this type of hand is part of why.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-May-07, 07:44, said:

I used to play a strong club in 4th seat only in long teams matches, this type of hand is part of why.

I am not so sure this is a great idea since it gives up one of the advantages (opening light) and accentuates one of the disadvantages (nebulous 1m openings can be disturbed). Did you ever consider a Fantunes-style system for 4th seat intead? That might have more going for it.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-07, 07:51, said:

I am not so sure this is a great idea since it gives up one of the advantages (opening light) and accentuates one of the disadvantages (nebulous 1m openings can be disturbed). Did you ever consider a Fantunes-style system for 4th seat intead? That might have more going for it.

And of course learning a completely different system, to practice the few times you get to open in fourth seat.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-May-07, 07:44, said:

I used to play a strong club in 4th seat only in long teams matches, this type of hand is part of why.

Do not understand what this has to do with 4th seat.
If this hand would be in any other seat would the problem be any different?

Rainer Herrmann