[alibodin]

Maybe its the heat here, playing 5 card majors strong NT system, TWalsh over 1C, 3 weak twos, I am wondering about ignoring GF opening hands as they are rare and having 2♣ as weak bid of some sort, so we may lose out when we get the rare strong GF hands, but we will be more aggressive with the more frequent 2C. I know that Polish Club Expert does this, and some experts play 2♣ is GF or a weak 2 in diamonds. Why not forget the GF 2♣ particularly as people seem to be responding lighter these days anyway? I guess when they crop up and partner does respond it will be tricky to force at a low level.

[mike777]

One option is to play 2C as strong but not gf or as you suggested put it into some variation of 1C.

[DavidKok]

There's a few reasons that I have run into:

• People are terrified of missing games. Setting aside frequencies and probabilities, most people are unhappy with a system where we miss some amount of basic 26-point (or even stronger) games by having to make a cheap NF opening with a strong hand. There's some attempts to remedy this, e.g. by making 1-suit openings forcing despite potentially being a normal minimum opening (e.g. Fantunes) or overloading the 1♣ opening in particular (e.g. Polish), but the idea is the same: having unlimited NF openings is scary.
  
• It is not clear how to use the 2♣ opening as a preempt. I've looked into this myself a bunch because I was interested in this in context of a system based on Dutch Doubleton but eliminating the fragile 2♣ opening (and merging it into 1♣, making that forcing - essentially a version of Polish with different ranges and followup structures). However, there are few suggestions out there, and almost no reports from experience.
  
• As you say, it can be difficult to convey just how strong your hand is after a 1-of-a-suit opening. Expect to have several rounds of opener going 'no really, I am strong' and responder going 'seriously, partner, I was just making a courtesy bid now stop torturing me'. This is not conductive to good exploration of the final contract, even if you start a level lower.
  
• People do it this way out of habit, because people have always done it this way. The idea simply hasn't gained much traction, despite plausibly being profitable on average.

[P_Marlowe]

EHAA (Every hand an adventure) does it.

Assuming you survive the first round, e.g. you respond light:
You have some trouble getting the overly strong hands across, you still would force with 19+,
via jump shift by opener, this may mean, openers 2nd bid will be at the 3 level.

You can add. artificial stuff, and it my help, but it will get messy.
Space is tight, even when you happen to play 2C as strong.

In the end you may exchange the results you gain from a club w2 with the results missing slam,
I dont think missing some games would be the main issue, loosing some controlled slam auctions
will be more frequent.
And you always could open the club w2 at the 3 level.

[mycroft]

I've played this (in an EHAA framework) for years.

I would argue it is a matchpoint strategy. You need the club "weak 2" not only to be significantly more frequent than the "massive hand", but also to win more often than the losses you get from the massive hand somewhere else. Does it? Well, I know I got many more 2♣ openers "weak" than "strong" - probably 3 times as many (but note, "EHAA weak 2s" are - a thing. IIRC, 30% of hands are opened with a "weak 2"). And frequently we got good results from it (but again, how much of that was "EHAA weak 2 style", or "how do I bid over a weak 2♣?" lack of familiarity?) So, in EHAA, at MPs, it's the right thing to do. But there is *so much different* with EHAA that trying to take the gains and losses from 2♣ hands in isolation would be - difficult.

And at IMPs, that needs to be approximately double the rate, as your losses are 10 and 13 IMPs and your wins are (usually *) 5 or 6. And those double-digit losses happen both ways - missing cold games and slams the 2♣ opener would have got you to, and getting to hopeless games and slams because there's no limit.

And while some people think that 2♦ is the most effective weak 2 (because the opponents don't know which is their major fit), and you have the same happy with 2♣, it is also the most "not played" weak 2, because those that don't think the above do think that their replacement is worth more. And 2♣ doesn't take the diamond suit away either. Many, in fact, are willing to just "weak 2" at the 3 level in the minors instead (Listening to one player last week continuing to explain to his partner that 'he had to open 3♦ [with a crappy 6-card diamond suit that absolutely didn't get in our way, as it turned out] because we play Flannery" after *everyone* heard him was enjoyable.) That also has costs; they may be lower than either option (don't play strong 2♣, pass with weak 2s in clubs).

I don't mind it playing EHAA - but there are safeguards built into the system to help when it comes up. It certainly isn't the *worst* part of the system (frankly, that's the NT ladder. Okay, some of the NT ladder would 'normally' open 2♣). But I just don't get 2♣ openers (yeah, I know, survivor bias), so - not a big loss for me. In standard - well, if someone asks, I'll think about it.

* sure, some 10s and 13s when *they* misguess game/slam, but also a bunch of 1s and 2s (both ways) from overtricks. So, for argument's sake, "double partscore swings".

[bluenikki]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-July-17, 10:59, said:

EHAA (Every hand an adventure) does it.

In the 70s at least, 3♣ was strong artificial and forcing.

Also, one-bids were ultra-sound if not psychic. So responses were light.

As to frequency, 2-bids were 5-card.

[P_Marlowe]

One a side note: Even Polish Club / Precision dont use 2C to show a weak2 type hand,
they use 2C as showing opening a hand with clubs.

[bluenikki]

alibodin, on 2026-July-17, 08:30, said:

Maybe its the heat here, playing 5 card majors strong NT system, TWalsh over 1C, 3 weak twos, I am wondering about ignoring GF opening hands as they are rare and having 2♣ as weak bid of some sort, so we may lose out when we get the rare strong GF hands, but we will be more aggressive with the more frequent 2C. I know that Polish Club Expert does this, and some experts play 2♣ is GF or a weak 2 in diamonds. Why not forget the GF 2♣ particularly as people seem to be responding lighter these days anyway? I guess when they crop up and partner does respond it will be tricky to force at a low level.

Now that I think about it, original Roth-Stone had no strong artificial opening, and all two-bids were weak.

[pescetom]

 P_Marlowe, on 2026-July-18, 00:28, said:

One a side note: Even Polish Club / Precision dont use 2C to show a weak2 type hand,
they use 2C as showing opening a hand with clubs.

A pair I encountered earlier this week played it as 14- HCP 5+ clubs 4+ major, which led to a good 3H making for them (Opener was 5-5).

[alibodin]

DavidKok, on 2026-July-17, 08:38, said:

There's a few reasons that I have run into:

• People are terrified of missing games. Setting aside frequencies and probabilities, most people are unhappy with a system where we miss some amount of basic 26-point (or even stronger) games by having to make a cheap NF opening with a strong hand. There's some attempts to remedy this, e.g. by making 1-suit openings forcing despite potentially being a normal minimum opening (e.g. Fantunes) or overloading the 1♣ opening in particular (e.g. Polish), but the idea is the same: having unlimited NF openings is scary.
  
• It is not clear how to use the 2♣ opening as a preempt. I've looked into this myself a bunch because I was interested in this in context of a system based on Dutch Doubleton but eliminating the fragile 2♣ opening (and merging it into 1♣, making that forcing - essentially a version of Polish with different ranges and followup structures). However, there are few suggestions out there, and almost no reports from experience.
  
• As you say, it can be difficult to convey just how strong your hand is after a 1-of-a-suit opening. Expect to have several rounds of opener going 'no really, I am strong' and responder going 'seriously, partner, I was just making a courtesy bid now stop torturing me'. This is not conductive to good exploration of the final contract, even if you start a level lower.
  
• People do it this way out of habit, because people have always done it this way. The idea simply hasn't gained much traction, despite plausibly being profitable on average.

I think you are correct it is FOMO we Brits call it Fear of missing out, though some stats might be interesting but quite complex for me to work out.

My thoughts are use the 2♣ pre-empt as weak 5 clubs and a 4 card major a weaker version of the older Precision method, and one my parnter and I plan to use in our simple precision system.

I doubu I would find a partner willing to try and I have asked a few to try and they looked at me as if to say are you mad, was sort of expecting that here, but please not the case.

[alibodin]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-July-18, 00:28, said:

One a side note: Even Polish Club / Precision dont use 2C to show a weak2 type hand,
they use 2C as showing opening a hand with clubs.

In Polish club expert 2020 book they use 2C as weak both majors a bit like Ekren. 1C is heavily loaded though. Some nice features in the system but finding a suitable partner locally would be hard.

[alibodin]

bluenikki, on 2026-July-18, 05:13, said:

Now that I think about it, original Roth-Stone had no strong artificial opening, and all two-bids were weak.

Roth Stone were before my time only just though, so are you suggesting my idea is an old one like me

[alibodin]

mycroft, on 2026-July-17, 11:21, said:

I've played this (in an EHAA framework) for years.

I would argue it is a matchpoint strategy. You need the club "weak 2" not only to be significantly more frequent than the "massive hand", but also to win more often than the losses you get from the massive hand somewhere else. Does it? Well, I know I got many more 2♣ openers "weak" than "strong" - probably 3 times as many (but note, "EHAA weak 2s" are - a thing. IIRC, 30% of hands are opened with a "weak 2"). And frequently we got good results from it (but again, how much of that was "EHAA weak 2 style", or "how do I bid over a weak 2♣?" lack of familiarity?) So, in EHAA, at MPs, it's the right thing to do. But there is *so much different* with EHAA that trying to take the gains and losses from 2♣ hands in isolation would be - difficult.

And at IMPs, that needs to be approximately double the rate, as your losses are 10 and 13 IMPs and your wins are (usually *) 5 or 6. And those double-digit losses happen both ways - missing cold games and slams the 2♣ opener would have got you to, and getting to hopeless games and slams because there's no limit.

And while some people think that 2♦ is the most effective weak 2 (because the opponents don't know which is their major fit), and you have the same happy with 2♣, it is also the most "not played" weak 2, because those that don't think the above do think that their replacement is worth more. And 2♣ doesn't take the diamond suit away either. Many, in fact, are willing to just "weak 2" at the 3 level in the minors instead (Listening to one player last week continuing to explain to his partner that 'he had to open 3♦ [with a crappy 6-card diamond suit that absolutely didn't get in our way, as it turned out] because we play Flannery" after *everyone* heard him was enjoyable.) That also has costs; they may be lower than either option (don't play strong 2♣, pass with weak 2s in clubs).

I don't mind it playing EHAA - but there are safeguards built into the system to help when it comes up. It certainly isn't the *worst* part of the system (frankly, that's the NT ladder. Okay, some of the NT ladder would 'normally' open 2♣). But I just don't get 2♣ openers (yeah, I know, survivor bias), so - not a big loss for me. In standard - well, if someone asks, I'll think about it.

* sure, some 10s and 13s when *they* misguess game/slam, but also a bunch of 1s and 2s (both ways) from overtricks. So, for argument's sake, "double partscore swings".

I’ve read about EHAA and it looks like a blast to play.

On a different note, I really enjoyed Bill Jacobs’ Fantunes book — a great read — though of course the later rumours suggested the magic might not have been entirely in the Fantunes system 😉