[kereru67]

---

Nice hand, but how to bid it? East is dealer, both vul. This hand is obviously too strong for a pre-empt, but it contains 5 losers, meaning it's a trick short of a 2♣ opening. On the other hand a 1♠ opening risks partner passing when 4♠ is making.

This hand would be a perfect Acol strong 2 opening, but even most Acol players don't use those anymore. Assuming this bid is not part of your system, how do you bid a hand like this?

[akwoo]

kereru67, on 2026-April-09, 11:15, said:

---

Nice hand, but how to bid it? East is dealer, both vul. This hand is obviously too strong for a pre-empt, but it contains 5 losers, meaning it's a trick short of a 2♣ opening. On the other hand a 1♠ opening risks partner passing when 4♠ is making.

This hand would be a perfect Acol strong 2 opening, but even most Acol players don't use those anymore. Assuming this bid is not part of your system, how do you bid a hand like this?

These days, everyone (possibly except those who play a strong 1♣ system, and maybe even them) open this 1♠.

What hands could partner have that would pass when 4♠ is making? How specific (and hence unlikely) does it have to be? And if partner has that hand, will opponents both pass with 24 hcp between them?

(I do play a system where, after a 2♣ opening, it is possible to stop in 3♠. But I don't think this is worth a 2♣ opening even playing that.)

[apollo1201]

Some systems have 2 strong openings, one for almost GF hands and one for GF. They lose some possibilities to preempt and have become less popular.

Some use a 2C strong that does not necessarily (depending on some rebids) drive to game.

In all cases here with only 14 HCP the risk of 1S all pass is virtually nil. So 1S is plenty enough (for now). I guess you will follow with 3S then.

This 22 HCP hand (with a sg honor to discount a little) could be trickier at 1S, though as I guess it does not meet your 2C criteria.

AKJxx
AQx
Q
KQJx

[HardVector]

With just 14 hcp, don't worry about it going 1s-p-p-p, it won't happen. Just open 1s planning to rebid 4s when it comes back to you.

[pescetom]

Seems a fairly obvious 1♠ opening with almost any agreements.
Here in Italy people accept a "strong" 2♣ with anything that is willing to force to game, but I don't see how you might gain from that, in particular if partner can find a 2/1 in hearts you are off to the races.

[mikeh]

Imo what those who like to open 2C on strong playing hands with low hcp forget, or simply don’t understand, is that partner should be allowed to think and play a role in the auction.

I suspect everyone who plays this method plays with partners who are as weak as they are…that their partners generally don’t think or make decisions.

Most good players require at least a lot of hcp for 2C because they expect partner to base his or her bidding on the notion that 2C shows more than just a lot of tricks laying in ‘my suit’.

When partner is passive (ie non thinking) you can get away with opening 2C on playing strength but if your partner is truly your partner and not just your dummy then you will get too high when he has a strong hand with no good mesh or you’ll stay too low when he decides that you don’t really hold a 2C bid but, this time, you do hold 22 hcp and a 6 card suit

Meanwhile, as everyone has said…though more politely than I’m being….wtf are you talking about when you say opening 1S could lead to playing in 1S? Do you have anyone with a pulse sitting at the table?

Many bad players fixate on their hand to the exclusion of actually thinking about how the game is played.

We have 14 hcp and a seven card suit. In what universe is 1S getting passed out?

[johnu]

Partner will have to provide 2 winners to make 4♠. How often will partner pass 1♠ (and both opponents pass) with a hand that can provide 2 tricks to you?

On the other hand, if you open a strong 2♣, partner may raise you to 4♠ on a hand that will provide 0 or 1 trick to you in 4♠ based on some random honor cards. Or worse, partner will make a slam try and get too high with a smattering of honor cards in the minors and maybe ♥Q and/or J.

It looks to me that 2♣ has a lot more downsides than opening 1♠.

[kereru67]

OK I'm convinced, 1♠ is not going to get passed out, if partner doesn't bid the opponents will. It's unlikely that partner will raise ♠ or bid a 2/1, so if partner is bidding at all it's probably 1NT, and a direct 4♠ is justified if partner has 6 points. I suppose the more marginal cases are hands with more hcp, say 18-19, but still a trick short of a 2♣ opening.

[DavidKok]

I agree with the previous comments (and feel more strongly about it than others, and would likely have failed to be as polite).

You should think of 2♣ as a necessary evil in a standard system. It is a self-preempting nebulous bid, starting the hand description at the top of the 2-level or sometimes even at the 3-level. If your partnership has the (in my opinion inferior) agreement to include certain weak hands in the 2♣ opening the pressure is greater still. Auctions after 2♣ are complicated and crude, involving guesswork and praying that you didn't miss a slam or didn't end up in the wrong strain. Despite all that, sometimes we want to open it anyway because the following two conditions simultaneously hold:

• If we open at the 1-level, there is a significant chance of being passed out.
  
• Despite this, we might well make game in the scenario where everybody passes.

I think it is common to misinterpret these two conditions as "if I can give partner a 5-count with a side singleton and 3-card support and be a favourite to take 10 tricks in my major, I must open 2♣". Of course partner never holds that hand, and when partner does the opponents have a fit and strength and would have bid. I think a more relevant condition is whether you can distribute the remaining strength over the three unseen hands in a way that nobody would enter the auction. Roughly this means that if you have a long suit (e.g. 6(+) cards), it is almost always safe to open at the 1-level. Someone will most likely strain to get their suit in, and then you get to bid again. I've opened 1♣ on a 25-count and 1♦ on a 24-count before (in Dutch Doubleton), though this was extreme.

Further driving home the point, the 2♣ doesn't say anything about distribution. If you have a very shapely hand it is critical to describe your shape to partner along with your strength. With these 'high playing strength but low hcp' powerhouses you should expect the auction to be competitive. If you open 2♣ you may find yourself on the wrong end of a 4♥ bid in no time at all - obviously you bid 4♠, but how is poor partner to know when to pass and when to bid on? Use the bidding space you have to show your shape by opening at the 1-level, and then show the strength later by bidding again.

My rule of thumb is that I want 22 hcp for a 2♣ opening. I have opened 2♣ before on certain 21-counts, of course, but only on a low fraction. It's not meant as another 'rule of X' though - it's just that opening at the 1-level is almost always better, especially with some shape. When in doubt, with hands in the 19-21 range, I would strain to open 1-of-a-suit. I do have the advantage of playing a system that caters to these hands slightly better than standard, but I take the same action in standard systems. Usually, if the cards really are distributed in a way that all three other players pass, game wasn't making anyway (we might have 21-opposite-5 or so but there's no communication between the hands, but the much more likely scenario is 21-opposite-3 misfitting as the opponents didn't overcall and everything is a bust). I don't understand or support the fearmongering of a perfect pass opposite, especially in the modern bidding landscape of aggressive overcalls and straining to respond - though even without those opening 1-of-a-suit is simply offering you favourable odds compared to 2♣.

[bluenikki]

HardVector, on 2026-April-09, 15:27, said:

With just 14 hcp, don't worry about it going 1s-p-p-p, it won't happen. Just open 1s planning to rebid 4s when it comes back to you.

Yes, of course.

But what might partner do now? 1 then 4 _should_ mean just this hand. But will they take it that way?

[kereru67]

After 1♠ scenarios include:

(a) opps bid, partner passes, bid 3♠ which is about 50-50, take a one trick defeat (might get away with not being doubled) or push them into a dodgy 4 contract.
(b) Partner bids 1nt, bid 4♠ directly. Same in the unlikely event of a 2♠ response.
© Partner shows points with a 2/1 or 2nt bid. In this case you can investigate slam but have to be careful because Blackwood/RKCB can backfire with 3 ♥ losers. Maybe just 4♠ is safer.

[Cyberyeti]

We don't play it, but would you consider 4♦ if this was a "good" 4♠

[kereru67]

Transfer openings? Interesting. Being vulnerable that's a potential 500 penalty, but I guess that's rare. Maybe it's worth giving up the 4 level minor pre-empts, a 3 level minor pre-empt is kind of a 3nt invite anyway.

[DavidKok]

kereru67, on 2026-April-10, 05:14, said:

Transfer openings? Interesting. Being vulnerable that's a potential 500 penalty, but I guess that's rare. Maybe it's worth giving up the 4 level minor pre-empts, a 3 level minor pre-empt is kind of a 3nt invite anyway.

This depends a lot on partnership style. Personally I play very different preempts, and largely independently from that I do not like the Namyats 4m openings at all. However, other people really like this approach. If you enjoy it I would look into it, but beware that opinions on this are divided to say the least.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2026-April-10, 05:36, said:

This depends a lot on partnership style. Personally I play very different preempts, and largely independently from that I do not like the Namyats 4m openings at all. However, other people really like this approach. If you enjoy it I would look into it, but beware that opinions on this are divided to say the least.

Fair comment, also 3N opener as good 4M has some followers.