[lalldonn]

Um, doesn't it even have an extra king? And forget that partner might pass out 1S, what if he doesn't, how will we ever show our strength if we start with 1S?

[mikeh]

I would argue with Art's claim to be the most conservative 2♣ opener

But even I would open 2♣.

I have opened 2♣ with 23 hcp twice.....both times with success....but this hand is just too much, plus I have far fewer rebid problems after 2♣....I can never show this much sheer hcp strength after 1♠ no matter how the auction proceeds.

I am prepared to run the slight risk of getting too high after 2♣, which to me is far less than the significant risks of 1♠ being passed out or having a confused and inaccurate auction when 1♠ doesn't end the auction.

[HighLow21]

neilkaz, on 2012-March-09, 11:27, said:

With all due respect, a more interesting question is to ask if this is still a 2♣ opener if the K♥ is changed to be the 2.

Good point. I still open 2♣ in my methods, standout. Still 3 losers, still 5 QTs. Others wouldn't, and that's fine, but I still think if the K♥ is the 2♥, a cold game will be passed out more often than 2♣ gets us too high.

In fact I would still open 2♣ if the K♥ were the 2♥ and the A♣ were the 6♣. I am certain that many people will disagree with me on this now, but my basic rule for opening 2♣ is: max 4 losers (or 22+ balanced), min 4 QT's. Very easy to remember.

[HighLow21]

mikeh, on 2012-March-09, 12:04, said:

I would argue with Art's claim to be the most conservative 2♣ opener

But even I would open 2♣.

I have opened 2♣ with 23 hcp twice.....both times with success....but this hand is just too much, plus I have far fewer rebid problems after 2♣....I can never show this much sheer hcp strength after 1♠ no matter how the auction proceeds.

I am prepared to run the slight risk of getting too high after 2♣, which to me is far less than the significant risks of 1♠ being passed out or having a confused and inaccurate auction when 1♠ doesn't end the auction.

MikeH for the win, as always.

[han]

Apologies in advance for hijacking this thread.

I play that 2C - 2D - 3S is gameforcing with 5 spades and 5 clubs. (similarly, 2D - 2M - 3M would show a 5-card major and 5 diamonds, also gameforcing). It hasn't come up often yet. One advantage of the method is that if it goes something like

2C - 2D
2S - 2NT
3C,

responder knows that opener has longer spades than clubs.

Are there others that play something similar? Is this advantage worth all the room you take up by jumping to 3M?

[mikeh]

han, on 2012-March-09, 16:48, said:

Apologies in advance for hijacking this thread.

I play that 2C - 2D - 3S is gameforcing with 5 spades and 5 clubs. (similarly, 2D - 2M - 3M would show a 5-card major and 5 diamonds, also gameforcing). It hasn't come up often yet. One advantage of the method is that if it goes something like

2C - 2D
2S - 2NT
3C,

responder knows that opener has longer spades than clubs.

Are there others that play something similar? Is this advantage worth all the room you take up by jumping to 3M?

My view is that this method gains only rarely while preventing one from using your given sequence for either of two alternatives.

The traditional meaning of 3♠ was to set trump, and showed a solid suit. This helped on the few occasions when it came up and also helped, by negative inference, when opener rebid 2♠ then 3/4♠...he denies the hand for a jump to 3♠ and that can be useful to responder.

The other relatively common usage I have seen, and one I played for a couple of years....in the sense that I had it on the CC but it never came up....was a jump to either major showed precisely 4 cards in the suit and longer diamonds. One doesn't need it with 4M and long clubs since responder can usually use 3♦ over opener's 3♣ as a waiting bid.

I suspect that your gadget will have similar frequency of usage.....and that while the traditional usage doesn't come up much, when you combine the frequency of the combination of the solid suit shown by the jump and the more common non-solid suit shown by bid and rebid, it probably comes up as much or more than your gadget, including the inference from bidding 2♠ then 3♣ (which presupposes that one is going to be able to bid 3♣). One would have to play one heck of a lot more bridge than I do, or ever did, to find out whether this gut view is correct.

This is thus one of those issues where I doubt that there is any meaningful cost-benefit argument based on frequency grounds.....if you like the gadget, you will get a warm, fuzzy feeling if it ever comes up, and that may be all the justification anyone needs

[Statto]

neilkaz, on 2012-March-09, 11:27, said:

With all due respect, a more interesting question is to ask if this is still a 2♣ opener if the K♥ is changed to be the 2.

Would be more inclined to open 1♣ in that case, as much less likely to be passed out.

[JLOGIC]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-09, 03:41, said:

I cannot understand opening this hand at the one level.

Amen

[akhare]

Easy 2♣ -- easily passes the "Will you feel sick if pard passes your opening 1-level bid?" test ..

[Free]

If it's not a 2♣ opening, what else should it be?

[han]

mikeh, on 2012-March-09, 17:46, said:

My view is that this method gains only rarely while preventing one from using your given sequence for either of two alternatives.

The traditional meaning of 3♠ was to set trump, and showed a solid suit. This helped on the few occasions when it came up and also helped, by negative inference, when opener rebid 2♠ then 3/4♠...he denies the hand for a jump to 3♠ and that can be useful to responder.

The other relatively common usage I have seen, and one I played for a couple of years....in the sense that I had it on the CC but it never came up....was a jump to either major showed precisely 4 cards in the suit and longer diamonds. One doesn't need it with 4M and long clubs since responder can usually use 3♦ over opener's 3♣ as a waiting bid.

I suspect that your gadget will have similar frequency of usage.....and that while the traditional usage doesn't come up much, when you combine the frequency of the combination of the solid suit shown by the jump and the more common non-solid suit shown by bid and rebid, it probably comes up as much or more than your gadget, including the inference from bidding 2♠ then 3♣ (which presupposes that one is going to be able to bid 3♣). One would have to play one heck of a lot more bridge than I do, or ever did, to find out whether this gut view is correct.

This is thus one of those issues where I doubt that there is any meaningful cost-benefit argument based on frequency grounds.....if you like the gadget, you will get a warm, fuzzy feeling if it ever comes up, and that may be all the justification anyone needs

Thanks for your thoughts Mike. We do have a way to show the 4M-longer minor hands. Open 2 of the minor and rebid 3C, this shows a 4-card side suit (3D asks). Rebidding 3D shows the minors without a side suit. We don't have a way to show a solid major, so the trade-off lies there. But I was even more skeptical, perhaps besides losing the bid for another purpose the bid is just not good. If you rebid 2M and then 3m then not only are you a level lower, partner has also made another bid which may be useful. On the other hand, if partner bids too high (for example raises the major) then you may not be able to show your side suit.