[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BP0-001-C
Your bid as dealer?

---

[hrothgar]

1H. What's the problem? BBO Advanced doesn't include NAMYATS so I don't need to consider a 4C opening. 4H is too much of a position and 2C is an abomination.

[luke warm]

1♥

added by edit: phil asked about the 1♥ opening... my thinking is, there are bunches of defenses to a strong 2♣ (for example, we play suction) *and* i have no defense to almost any contract the opps bid, whether to make or as a sac

This post has been edited by luke warm: 2005-May-05, 17:12

[mike777]

1H

Expect alot of bidding on this by opp and want to get my suit in first.
Expect P to respond on many junky hands but not all.


Another unanimous poll.

But look foward to seeing what 2c bidders say .

[pclayton]

Well, I'll be the 1st to make the 2♣ abomination.

I'm too heavy for Namyats and 1♥ opener with my 9 tricks.

I have safety in 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♥. Either pointed King give me a good play for 4 and pard will pass with these hands.

Frankly, I'm more curious on why the 1♥ openers make their choice.

[awm]

I like 2♣ here also. It will be simple to set the suit in hearts and create a cuebidding auction after the 2♣ opening. Let's look at some cases of what can happen after a 1♥ opening:

(1) Partner responds at the one-level. This is probably the most likely thing to happen. But now 4♥ shuts partner out of the auction when slam could still be good. 3♥ is not even forcing. So I am forced to manufacture a 3♣ bid and follow it up with a heart call. It is not unlikely that this heart call will be at the four-level, and if partner has raised my clubs (1♥-1NT-3♣-4♣-4♥) it is not clear that partner will know that we can play in hearts if he has a void. Certainly I am unlikely to be able to set hearts AND start a cuebidding auction at the three level or below.

(2) Opponents overcall (probably in spades). I am not eager to hear the auction 1♥-(1♠)-P/1NT-(4♠). I will have to decide what to do at the five level. Of course, the same thing could happen after 2♣... but this forces opponents to make a more risky overcall at the two level against a strong hand, so they could easily pass through the auction. Also, unless partner miraculously has a raise of hearts, I do not think partner's action after 1♥-(1♠) will be exceedingly useful to me in making the high-level decision.

(3) The hand passes out. Probably not a good result as many hands where partner couldn't find a bid will make game.

(4) Partner bids at the two-level. Great, we probably have slam, and I can set the suit with 3♥. But most likely a 2♣ auction would be just as easy after 2♣-2♦-3♥ we have the same cuebidding sequence.

I'm probably less eager to open 2♣ in general than a lot of players, but this hand seems easier to describe after the strong opening than it is after the one-level open.

[Free]

I also voted for 2♣, it describes my hand very well, and I don't have any voids so p can't have lost aces...

[jillybean]

well, I'd bid 4♥ ...correction 1♥

[Fluffy]

We had a similar hand with 2 more clubs earlier, and there opening 2♣ was wrong, but could be comprehensilbe, but here, you cannot beat 5♠!. If you open 2♣ you promise at least more defensive tricks than offensive, you cannot open 2♣ here because parter will double 4♠ with either balanced minimum hands, adn long ♠.

[HeartA]

I voted for 2♣.

[Double !]

One more for the "abominable" 2♣

I have 9 tricks in hand. I play 2♣ as forcing to 2NT or 3 of major. I can get out at 3♥. I doubt I would ever be able to catch up if I opened 1♥.

[P_Marlowe]

2C, wtp?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gerben42]

Sorry but 2♣ on a 17-count is just yucky.
1♥, nothing else appeals.

[Chamaco]

Fluffy, on May 5 2005, 09:38 PM, said:

We had a similar hand with 2 more clubs earlier, and there opening 2♣ was wrong, but could be comprehensilbe, but here, you cannot beat 5♠!. If you open 2♣ you promise at least more defensive tricks than offensive, you cannot open 2♣ here because parter will double 4♠ with either balanced minimum hands, adn long ♠.

Ditto.
I voted 1H, not enough defense for 2C, too strong for a namyats.

[whereagles]

I can't remember what I bid.. lol. But given my style, it was probably 2C.

[Free]

Double !, on May 6 2005, 01:21 AM, said:

One more for the "abominable" 2♣

I have 9 tricks in hand. I play 2♣ as forcing to 2NT or 3 of major. I can get out at 3♥. I doubt I would ever be able to catch up if I opened 1♥.

It doesn't really matter what you play, the system has been given in another thread Would you still bid the same way?

[han]

1H for me. I try to only open 2C with 1-suiters if I am afraid it get's passed out if I open at the 1-level.

[olegru]

1♥

I would think about 2 ♣ oppening if I had any detailed system after it , but

Quote

2♣ = Strong, Artificial
  2♦=Waiting
2♥=Negative

is not enoght to risk get in darkness after ♠ preemptive. I have much less deffence, then my partner would expect after 2♣ opening.
Good hand for 4♥ opening if we are playing it as a good hand (and 4♣ opening as a week transfer preemptive in ♥, but it is not in bridge base advanced)

[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BP0-001-C
Your bid as dealer?

---

This would be a reasonable namyats hand, except that convention is not on the Bridge Base Online – advanced convention card. So it becomes another, what does the panel consider minimum for an initial action. Hand A was for fourth seat opener based upon Pearson Points, hand B was for minimum count, poor suit, but good distribution, and now this one, for with a nice seven card suit, 9 “sure” tricks in hearts and the protection of playing a responding system where 2♣-(pass)-2♥ is immediate double negative (I have no tricks), be enough for the panel to choose a 2♣ opening bid with 17 hcp and 6 controls?

Once again, the panel divided 5/4 over the issue, with the majority choosing to bury their heads in the sand with a 1♥ bid and hope to be able to catch up on the next round of bidding (if there is a next round). Speaking for the majority, are Kraft, ng, and Waldkk. Let’s start with Kraft as she addressed the 2♣/1♥ bid straight on. She said, “1♥, not 2♣ and not 4♥. I don't actually see either of those as real alternatives. . Roland opened 1♥ as he lamented lack of Namyats (yes perfect hand for it), and actually suggested that “ I don't like opening 2C if I can avoid it. My intention is to rebid 3♣ over a 1♠ response and go back to hearts later. Alternatively, 4♥ on my next turn, a serious 4♥.” This of course assumes you get another opportunity to bid. Ng also noted the lack of naymats and planned instead of a jump to 3♣ or a serious 4♥, after he opened 1♥ he planned, “my second bid will be 4♦ (self-splinter, solid hearts, 9 tricks).” But he also consider that a “2♣ opening is also possible, but I don’t have enough defensive tricks.” Jlall also agreed with the majority, going with the 1♥ bid because he figures the opponents are about to get busy in the auction, stating“I like to get my suit in on hands like this. Opening 2C could work but in my experience bidding your longest suit first works better on a hand like this, mainly if the opponents are about to get active.”

While the 1♥ bidders were busy explaining the logic for their choice, the 2♣ bidders took a more what’s the problem approach. Phicro way of saying this was, “ 2♣; game forcing in our standards, isn't it?”. Well. No. 2♣ is not truly game force, but it is clearly at least one round force with a very good hand. He went on to add, “In french system, over 2♦, GF, partner will respond his Ace(s). Interesting, no?”. The French system with GF 2♦ is interesting, but of course, we are playing BBO advanced here. Still, Phicro logic on this one seems essentially perfect to me. Also realizing the need for a “GF” bid Cascade began with 2♣, explaining “If 1♥ gets passed out there is too much chance we will regret it. No other number of hearts appeals so I will force with 2♣.

On the first two hands, Luis and Justin used exactly the same logic for their choices. Here they parted company. While Justin bid 1♥ because the opponents are about to become active, Luis choice between the bids were based on the same concept, but he choose a different bid because of it. Luis said, “2♣ Not 1♥ because I don't want to play 1♥, not 4♥ because I will miss a slam in many layouts, that leaves me with a simple 2♣ opening that is even better if you take in consideration the tactical advantage of
reducing the chances of a sacrifice in spades by the opps.”

On this hand, I side with the 2♣ bidders. I suspect no one will stop short of game after opening 2♣ and those who open 1♥ are not stopping either, assuming they get another chance to bid. But I wonder if there would be a hand where opener might start with 2♣ and then pass a 2♥ instant double negative response?

I scored 4♥ worth 40 despite the lack of panel votes because at least you will not miss game. Anyone voting for 4♣ is using naymats. Maybe that should be part of the system (something to discuss), but as of now, it is not. The risk of playing 4♣ if you open that is just too high, so that gets a zero.

The scores on this hand are…
Votes, scores, Panel, Members
1♥      100       5   
2♣    90       4   
4♥        40       0   
4♣         0       0   

[luis]

It's interesting to know that both Justin and me were concerned about intervention and that we choose a different bid :-) 1♥ shows your suit if the auction gets competitive and 2♣ tries to prevent the auction from getting competitive :-) who knows... :-). I have the feeling that when you open 2♣ they will pass unless somebody has a very special hand while a 1♥ opening seems to attract 1♠ overcalls from all sorts of holdings that's the theory behind my bid.

While I do understand Justin's reasoning behing the 1♥ opening and I think it's quite valid I really don't understand arguments such as "I don't like opening 2C if I can avoid it." Is this serious? Like I don't like to open 1♦ or I don't like to double on Mondays... or "2♣ opening is also possible, but I don’t have enough defensive tricks." Defensive tricks? Why do you need defense to open 2♣?
I respect all the bids but can't resist the debate :-)