[sfi]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-20, 02:49, said:

You do not need 4 of 5 ♦ honors to pad a decently established 7 card suit....to be 2 clubs eligible. I agree having 4 of 5 honors is nice, but that is a bit of overkill.

I think we are putting a 2 clubs open on too high a pedastal especially with the modern shift of "less HCP is more" bidding of 1 of a suit bids we are trending towards even from first and second seat.

The real problem with a 2C opener is that it uses up a level of bidding with no shape description. Opponents can bid aggressively to chew up more space, and we are often stuck guessing at an uncomfortable level. This is why the trend is more towards wider one-level openings with tools to sort it out the next round when you've exchanged some information about shape.

It's not just about whether the hand is strong enough - it's about whether you know where you are heading. A 2C opener really should have a clear plan about how to handle the auction, and this hand just needs too much input from partner to bid sensibly. The DJ does more than just add another trick to the hand, it significantly reduces the dependence on partner to come up with a fit for you - you would now have 6 pretty certain tricks with no fit, while before you had 4-6.

In a similar vein, you tend to want to be a fair bit stronger to open 2C when you have a two-suited hand than when you have one suit. Otherwise you get to the four-level too quickly and all of a sudden you have questions about whether bids are suits or support-showing, whether 4NT is natural or key-card, and so on.

Opening at the one-level doesn't solve all of these, of course, but you're a level lower and have already shown a suit so you're likely to be better off next round.

[Cyberyeti]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-20, 02:49, said:

You do not need 4 of 5 ♦ honors to pad a decently established 7 card suit....to be 2 clubs eligible. I agree having 4 of 5 honors is nice, but that is a bit of overkill.

I think we are putting a 2 clubs open on too high a pedastal especially with the modern shift of "less HCP is more" bidding of 1 of a suit bids we are trending towards even from first and second seat.

No you don't, but I would want that if I'm opening 2♣ 4-5 HCP shy of what most people would want.

I keep mine up to strength because it means I can have some other agreements I like. 2♣ consumes a lot of space, we play 2♣-positive response F4N unless a suit is known to be open to give us the space to develop, which means it needs to be kept up to strength, hence if we opened 2♣ we'd be unlikely to stop in anything that makes although could reach 5♦ which I suspect makes in practice.

Our auction 1♦-1♠-2N(GF unbal)-3N(there is a semi forced 3♣ here, this shows 5-5 blacks NF) then you have a choice of P/4♠/4♦ which will lead to 5♦

[RedSpawn]

As stated, the adjusted value of the hand with length points and suit quality points is 22 hcp and the LTC is no more than 4 losers so 2♣ it is for me.

Per BridgeGuy.com Losing Trick Evaluation Section

Please click this link and review Losing Trick Evaluation section that shows some partnerships play 2 clubs for 9 or 8.5+ winning tricks.

I play 8.5+ tricks which I admit has additional risk, but I am comfortable with such an approach. If, however, you feel 1♦ is the best descriptive bid for East's hand....have at it.

That's why I love the game.

I have asked several people about East's hand and some answered two clubs and others said 1♦. For those that answered 1♦, I asked about 2 clubs, they said, that's not their style but they have definitely seen some partnerships play an 8.5+ winning trick approach.

Enjoy!

[johnu]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-20, 00:58, said:

Considering the source, I accept this as your explanation for the auction

2♣ - 3♣
3NT

[Cyberyeti]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-20, 09:28, said:

As stated, the adjusted value of the hand with length points and suit quality points is 22 hcp and the LTC is no more than 4 losers so 2♣ it is for me.

Per BridgeGuy.com Losing Trick Evaluation Section

Please click this link and review Losing Trick Evaluation section that shows some partnerships play 2 clubs for 9 or 8.5+ winning tricks.

I play 8.5+ tricks which I admit has additional risk, but I am comfortable with such an approach. If, however, you feel 1♦ is the best descriptive bid for East's hand....have at it.

That's why I love the game.

I have asked several people about East's hand and some answered two clubs and others said 1♦. For those that answered 1♦, I asked about 2 clubs, they said, that's not their style but they have definitely seen some partnerships play an 8.5+ winning trick approach.

Enjoy!

You do not seem understand the simple fact that having 4 losers is not the same as having 9 winners or playing tricks. I would open this an 8 playing trick Acol 2♦ if playing one, but would consider it about 8-8.5 tricks given that partner can have quite a good hand without having an entry to his hand, so I may have to play the diamonds myself from hand.

[RedSpawn]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-20, 10:44, said:

You do not seem understand the simple fact that having 4 losers is not the same as having 9 winners or playing tricks. I would open this an 8 playing trick Acol 2♦ if playing one, but would consider it about 8-8.5 tricks given that partner can have quite a good hand without having an entry to his hand, so I may have to play the diamonds myself from hand.

This is a straight cut and paste from the link in my previous post:

Losing Trick Evaluation:

The parameters for a strong, artificial 2 Clubs opening bid include the understanding that the holding contains a minimum of 4 or fewer losing tricks. If the player is not familiar with this particular evaluation method, then it would behoove the player to acquaint himself with this supplementary method for evaluating the holding.

Note: Some partnerships have inverted this definition to the understanding that the holding contain at least 9 winning tricks or more. Some agreements also include a reduced total of 8.5 winning tricks.

In contrast to the balanced to semi-balanced holding containing a definite number of high card points, whereby the rebid is No Trump, the non-balanced holding can consist of a one-suiter or two-suiter. Some partnerships have included also a three-suited holding, which is quite rare.

Thus, the amount of high card points becomes irrelevant if the holding consists of four or fewer losing tricks (9 winning tricks). It is the shape and quality of the holding which decides whether a holding should be opened with a strong, artificial 2 Clubs.

Please click the link below:

http://www.bridgeguy...pening_bid.html

I do not agree with an 8 playing trick hand analysis; however, I will accept 8.5 and I think "spotlight7" referred to East's hand as an 8.5 winning trick hand, which I can agree with.

This hand is receiving a lot of downgrades. Can more people on BBO downgrade hands containing dubious honors trapped in doubletons and singletons when performing their initial hand counts or is that a bit "over the top"?

[RedSpawn]

 FelicityR, on 2017-April-16, 22:54, said:

The basic rule with misfits is to stop bidding as soon as possible but if you reached 3NT with the East/West cards you'll likely to be in the same contract as other players I feel.

Without knowing the bidding, if West decides to open (rule of 19 maybe) with his shapely but ultimately poor hand, East will be thinking slam slam slam. Stopping him will be extremely difficult.

It's awkward to decide upon the exact bidding on the hands as it's likely North/South will intervene in ♥ too.

If it is at all possible can you provide the auction on the above deal and then the forum members can comment on the bids made? That may be more productive in the long run, and then we can gently suggest alternatives.

South deals

---

QUALIFICATION: I am departing from the original poster's parameters about the auction and trying to understand a rationale here.

This is not to pick on Felicity, but this is what is making me scratch my head....

Why would West want to open his hand? He has 1.5 quick tricks and all of the working values are in clubs. The working values in Spades are . . .ummm. . . okay.

Rule of 19 says "If the number of High Card Points added to the total of the two longest suits totals 19, the bid is acceptable within the English bridge tournaments."

8+11 = 19 so based on the rules, West can open this hand, even though we know it is a very marginal hand and is one point away from a highly unusual method ruling per English standards.

We reached and scraped and found a way to open this hand at the one level when it doesn't conform to the traditional opening requirements (2 quick tricks and 13 points). So when the original requirement doesn't work for a 1 level opening bid, let's try some others. . .

DECISION TREE for West's hand:

• Does the hand have 13 points and 2 quick tricks; we can't open -- Ignore.
  
• Rule of 22, too stringent for West's hand; we can't open --- Ignore.
  
• Rule of 20, too stringent for West's hand; we can't open --- Ignore.
  
• Rule of 19, ahhh just right. It's acceptable and not highly unusual and as Felicity noted it will inadvertently set up East to have the wrong expectation about the placement of the final contract.
  
• Rule of 18, ahhh just right. It's acceptable and not highly unusual and as Felicity noted it will inadvertently set up East to have the wrong expectation about the placement of the final contract.

Felicity never said that West will open, but the possibility exists that he could have, and if he did, I bet no one would have even batted an eye.

My point being is that bridge is very relative. It's very easy to go opinion shopping for the answer we want. We bypassed three different guidelines that said do not open, to get to the rule of 19 or the rule of 18 as a guideline that says we can open.

We can find a rule to justify an opening bid if we look hard enough, but the better question is should we?

This applies to both 1 of a suit bids and 2♣opening bids.

We have really loosened our belts on the 1 of a suit bids and don't bat an eyelash because being the 1st to open allegedly pays handsome dividends in bridge. We have decided to accept all of the risk associated with the attendant overbids this process generates and have concluded that the collateral damage is simply unavoidable.

However, we have placed the 2♣bid on a holy grail of disciplined bidding, but this too shall eventually pass.

[eagles123]

wow a 3 page debate on whether AJ AK9 AQT7542 2 is a 2 club opener lol what has become of this forum!!

[RedSpawn]

 eagles123, on 2017-April-20, 12:28, said:

wow a 3 page debate on whether AJ AK9 AQT7542 2 is a 2 club opener lol what has become of this forum!!

Eagles123, thanks for the input.

Can you tell me the LTC on this hand?

And please see attached.

Lincoln Hills Suggested 2 Club Approach

Thanks.

This is straight cut and paste from the PDF:

THE SUGGESTED APPROACH
1. An opening bid of 2C shows 22+ HCP OR a hand containing a LTC of 4 or less.
ACBL REQUIRES THAT THE BID BE ALERTED BECAUSE THE HAND
COULD CONTAIN SEVERAL POINTS LESS THAN 22+

By the way, I have no problems with the alert requirement, but we still haven't gotten past the "that's patently absurd" viewpoint.

[RedSpawn]

 johnu, on 2017-April-20, 10:31, said:

Considering the source, I accept this as your explanation for the auction

2♣ - 3♣
3NT

Johnu, I don't care how the auction ends at this point or how accurate or silly my suggestion is.

How the auction progresses is contingent on the partnership agreement of how partner responds and the suit quality he needs to respond to strong 2♣.

I know, I know. I am a fool for even suggesting that 2♣ could be on the radar with a maximum LTC=4. That's not winning bridge.

Should we go the 1♦ route and reveal all of our controls in the auction or could we tidy up with a valid 2♣ open and keep some information hidden before the opposition decides to pre-empt.

These are all fair questions.

[RedSpawn]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-19, 04:04, said:

..... but if you open 2♣ on this you will have horrible issues when partner plays you for a real hand on a misfit, or if preemption happens, how are you going to enjoy a 2♣-(3♠)-4♣ start for example.

You know you present a plausible point, I seem to have the same issues when a partner reaches for rule of 18 or rule of 19 to justify opening a marginal hand in 1st or 2nd seat, and we have those horrible issues play out in the auction.

It usually results in my playing my partner for a real hand and our receiving a penalty double for that incorrect assumption.

My partner usually alleges that I should have known the opening wasn't a plain vanilla open and that it was marginal -- even though it was from 1st or 2nd seat. Or the questionable opening is conveniently dismissed as the unavoidable collateral damage of opening light in the modern bridge era.

[MrAce]

 eagles123, on 2017-April-20, 12:28, said:

wow a 3 page debate on whether AJ AK9 AQT7542 2 is a 2 club opener lol what has become of this forum!!

+1500

Someone says this is a 2♣ opener. 2 good players say it is not. Other player insists. I am fine up to here.
Why these two good players insist on convincing the other player is something beyond my imagination.
I was planning to participate in this topic until I saw the 2♣ suggestion.

[RedSpawn]

 MrAce, on 2017-April-20, 15:21, said:

+1500

Someone says this is a 2♣ opener. 2 good players say it is not. Other player insists. I am fine up to here.
Why these two good players insist on convincing the other player is something beyond my imagination.
I was planning to participate in this topic until I saw the 2♣ suggestion.

Uh oh, this one really hurts as I was sincerely looking for your approval and validation.

If you honestly think your whole "good player/bad player" determination is certified and verifiable, then I have news...it's just like bridge. . . all relative.

You have done this before with the 4♥ bid to then suggest the large amount of people who voted pass were "meh, bad players" not worthy of any intellectual merit. Only two of the players were actually good players by your assessment. How quaint how you can dismiss a huge count of players who don't ascribe to your bridge sensibilities.

The dart hit the dartboard, try again.

"So far 1 vote for 2h, 10 votes for 3h (3 very good players among them) 24 votes for pass (2 good players among them) 27 votes for 4h and many good players among them including Meckstroth and Diamond."

Oh yeah, and 24 of those people who voted Pass that I don't agree with, 22 of them are just "someone" and the other 2 are good players. Okay, yeah, right.

24 votes for Pass and 27 votes for 4♥. Well the Pass people are essentially fools, right? Dismiss them, they don't fit the profile. Next!

[sfi]

 MrAce, on 2017-April-20, 15:21, said:

Someone says this is a 2♣ opener. 2 good players say it is not. Other player insists. I am fine up to here.
Why these two good players insist on convincing the other player is something beyond my imagination.
I was planning to participate in this topic until I saw the 2♣ suggestion.

Which is a shame, because the original hand was interesting and is now mostly lost in a random tangent. There are still interesting and useful posts relating to the hand interspersed with the 2C hijack though.

[sfi]

 rmnka447, on 2017-April-19, 10:55, said:

If the auction is passed to East, East would normally open 1 ♦.

After an initial pass, West has a little more freedom in responding to East. The problem with West opening initially is that West may have problems stopping East who has 18 real and likely would have slam investigation in sight. West has two choices in responding, 1 ♠ or 2 ♣. 1 ♠ gets West's major suit in view immediately and keeps the bidding low. 2 ♣ is a bit more descriptive, but suppresses ♠. West does have a big playing hand IF a fit can be found but may not be worth so if there is a misfit.

I'd probably bid 2 ♣.

West has a bit more freedom, but East is still going to assume partner has a reasonable hand. This one has nice playing strength only if you have a fit, which makes your 2C risky.

Quote

After West's response, East has a choice of two bids. One is a jump rebid in ♦ usually showing 16-18 and s good 6 card suit. East is a little heavy for that bid, but West's 2 ♣ response has the initial markings of a misfit. The other choice is a reverse with a "hasty" 2 ♥ bid on a 3 card ♥ suit. It could cause a problem if West has a 4+ ♥ fit and raises ♥.

Assuming the partnership is aware that the reverse might be suspect (for hands just like this), the worst that will happen is West raises to 3H with 4 of them. Now when East retreats to 3S or 3NT, responder should be aware there is unlikely to be a 4-4 heart fit and not insist on hearts. It's one of the fairly common workarounds people use in Standard, and can be managed if the reverser considers what to do over partner's next bid.

Quote

After a 3 ♦ jump rebid, West could pass or push on. West hand just seems to have too much value to pass. So the likely bid is 3 ♠ after which East has an easy 3 NT call.

Passing would be anti-system on the auction you are proposing:

1D - 2C
3D

Opener has every right to expect this is forcing after a 2/1, since responder is showing invitational values. If you have a hand that wants to pass here, I would suggest you shouldn't have bid 2C initially.

[RedSpawn]

 sfi, on 2017-April-20, 16:25, said:

Which is a shame, because the original hand was interesting and is now mostly lost in a random tangent. There are still interesting and useful posts relating to the hand interspersed with the 2C hijack though.

Please note that whenever someone disagrees with you on the forum the word random enter the lexicon. First the hand was no where near a 2 club open and then it was transitioned to being called a random 22 point hand to demote its value. Now, the 2 club discussion itself has been called a random tangent with no intellectual merit.

Actually, the shame is when someone conducts a poll of roughly 60 people and cavalierly dismisses 22 of them as fools for not ascribing to his notions. But the 27 who voted the way he did....good people. How did he account for the sampling error if upwards of 22 people are bad players and how did he know that the 27 who voted 4♥ were mostly good people? The voting group of 24 and 27 are both statistically significant, so he can't just dismiss one group and co-sign the other in a lump-sum fashion.

He just waved a magic wand called professional opinion and slapped good and bad labels on 51 of the voters to add an air of legitimacy. How convenient. And anyone who voted pass was immediately relegated to the gutter. I'm shaking my head as I type this because this is basically what was presented to the forum and not one soul questioned the self-serving arbitrary determinations of good versus bad. Why should anyone do that when they like the 4♥ win?

Johnu who is the statistical guru didn't even highlight any of the concerns about the poll. Why should he? Because 4♥ was his vote and is the only legitimate answer. It doesnt serve his interests to be intellectually honest and disclose any of the polling method flaws or reveal how crude the invalidation of the statistically significant group who voted pass was. 4♥ won the race so who cares how it got over the finish line?

Good day all. Humpty Dumpty was right....a bid means just what he says it means-neither more nor less. And if the bid doesn't generate the outcome he likes, then just change its meaning. Well played, sir, well played.

[RedSpawn]

.

[MrAce]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-20, 15:48, said:

24 votes for Pass and 27 votes for 4♥. Well the Pass people are essentially fools, right? Dismiss them, they don't fit the profile. Next!

When you start to spit nonsense as you just did, instead of replying with same nonsense I will ask you to prove what you just said. Show me where I said that others are fools or show me where I said you should dismiss them. Please!

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-20, 16:42, said:

Actually, the shame is when someone conducts a poll of roughly 60 people and cavalierly dismisses 22 of them as fools for not ascribing to his notions. But the 27 who voted the way he did....good people. How did he account for the sampling error if upwards of 22 people are bad players and how did he know that the 27 who voted 4♥ were mostly good people? The voting group of 24 and 27 are both statistically significant, so he can't just dismiss one group and co-sign the other in a lump-sum fashion.

You are talking about this poll I think...

http://bridgewinners...m-2-nhbyore3be/

Now I will make 2 points about who I call "good players" and about the names I mentioned.

• The players I consider "good" are totally my own opinion. You may of course believe that this is because they agreed with me, as you did, however the records of BBF and BW will prove you wrong. I have many times debated and disagreed with both Cyber and SFI in this forum. I have been in disagreement with players who I believe to be much better than me, such as Gnasher, Justin Lall, Fred Gittelman, Frances Hinden, MikeH etc etc. So your entire point about me "dismissing them" or seeing them as "fools" when they disagree with me is an unfair nonsense at best.
• My opinions about them are due to my debates in forums and the games I played with or against them, the games I watched when they play and their records. There maybe very good players who voted for pass that I do not know. But this is all subjective opinion except the two names (only names I mentioned) which were Meckstroth and Diamond. I did not even spell the names of players with national wins. I only spelled the names who won the world title MANY times!

If you noticed in the topic you are referring to, I voted for 4♥ but did not even try to convince anyone for this option. That was my personal choice. All my argument in that topic was (you can go back and read) about passing vs bidding. I do not even count the 2♥ and 5♥ openers and the poll results show there are 68 bidders vs 34 passers. I was in disagreement with your opinions back in that topic as I am now. But I never said "bad player" or anything that says "fool" to the people with opposite view. In fact, if your memory serves well I was the first and only one to disagree with people when they chose to call you a "troll" and when they tried to measure your level looking at your BBO hand records. FYI, in this topic I still did not say anything about 2♣ opening. Although it is obvious that I strongly disagree with 2♣, the reason I decided not to participate in this was due to my experience in forums about where the topic was hijacked to. And I was right, it totally turned into whether E hand worth a 2♣ opener or not, when I strongly believe the auction would never be passed to East. South has a clear 2♥ opening to start with.

Anyway, you are writing things and basically telling me or us that our opinion of good-bad players are biased. A bias that exists due to being on the same side of the argument/debate. I tried to explain you this is not even remotely the case. Of course you are allowed to believe what you believe but please do not ever again put words in my mouth that I did not say.

[sfi]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-20, 16:42, said:

Please note that whenever someone disagrees with you on the forum the word random enter the lexicon.

Not true. I think I've used it this way exactly twice in 8 years here. Congratulations - you're special.

[RedSpawn]

 sfi, on 2017-April-20, 23:35, said:

Not true. I think I've used it this way exactly twice in 8 years here. Congratulations - you're special.

You're welcome and I don't mean you as in the 2nd person, I mean you as in the collective plural. I am referring to the techniques that the collective has employed to delegitimize certain individuals who don't conform to their bridge sensibilities.

For example, has anyone even talked to Msjennifer about how she said she felt attacked after voting for pass on the 4♥ winner hand or was that too just delusional posturing by another random?