|
Two Club Openings
These hands cover various aspects of Two Club auctions ... when to open 2♣ ... when to give a positive response ... follow-up sequences ... what to do when the opponents interfere.
1st September, 2010 None Vul
After opening 2♣, and hearing a 2♦ “waiting” bid from West, what would be your rebid as East? The three obvious possibilities are: - 2♠: This keeps the bidding low and is a reasonable choice. - 3♠: This sets Spades as the trump suit and asks Partner to start cue-bidding. But East does not really have the kind of hand where controls are all-important … there is also the small matter of those slow Heart losers to consider. - 4♠: Shows a self-sustaining suit and a minimum 2♣ opening, which is pretty much what East has. But it’s hardly an informative bid and consumes a huge amount of space.
So, our suggestion is a simple 2♠.
3rd November, 2010 E-W Vul
Is the North hand good enough for a 2♣ opening? We don’t think so. Our own rule of thumb for major suit hands is to open 2♣ if we have at least as many “very quick” tricks (Ace is one, AK is two, KQ is none) as losers (so this hand has 4 of each and therefore qualifies). But, for a minor suit hand such as this, we like more “very quick” tricks than losers, so here, as North in minor-oriented, we’d open 1♣.
If you are wondering why we make the distinction between minor- and major-oriented hands it’s because: - Minor suit auctions tend to work badly after a 2♣ opening, hands up those who feel comfortable after: 2♣ 2♦, 3♣? And hands up those who feel comfortable after 2♣ 2♦, 2♥? - More tricks are required for minor suit games, hence more strength is needed to force to game.
1st December, 2010 Both Vul
Is West good enough for a 2♣ opening? We don’t see anything wrong with opening 1♥ and rebidding 3♦, and that might well be the majority choice. But opening 2♣ is fine, also, in our opinion. Our own rule of thumb for major suit hands is to open 2♣ if we have at least as many “very quick” tricks (Ace is one, AK is two, KQ is none) as losers. But, for a minor-oriented hand, we like more “very quick” tricks than losers.
Of course, this is actually a two-suiter, but as West will be bidding the Hearts first it qualifies as a major suit hand. Some like to avoid opening 2♣ with a two-suiter, but that’s really only an issue when the longest suit is a minor (2♣ 2♦, 3♦ is a very crowded and inefficient auction) or when the second suit is Clubs (it will be awkward for Opener to show his second suit if Responder bids a “second negative” as in 2♣ 2♦, 2♥ 3♣).
1st December, 2010 Both Vul
What is your choice? - Bid 2♠? No, we’d prefer to show immediate support, the hand will no doubt be played in Hearts and those Spades are merely a distraction. - Raise to 4♥? No, that would deny any controls and this hand actually has two (the Spade King and the Club singleton) - Raise to 3♥? That’s better but does not do anything to show the true character of the hand. - 4♣ Splinter? Yes, that’s the ticket! If this excites Partner we can later cue-bid our Spades and then we’ll be done.
5th January, 2011 N-S Vul
What are the criteria for a suit-oriented 2♣ opening bid? We like the “very quick tricks” method, which works as follows: - Count up the losers (here there are four, one in each suit). - Count up the “very quick tricks” (Ace is one, AK is two, and KQ is none), of which this hand also has four. - If Opener’s suit is a major and there are as many very quick tricks as losers, then it’s a 2♣ opening. - If Opener’s suit is a minor then the 2♣ opening requires more very quick tricks than losers. By this criterion, North has a 2♣ opening but, if we were to swap the red suits, for example, then North would open 1♦.
2nd February, 2011 N-S Vul
Let’s assume that you are playing natural responses to 2♣ (not controls) and that 2♦ is a waiting bid. In that case, what are your requirements for a positive response to the 2♣ opening? Some say that “two of the top three” are required in the bid suit, and we wouldn’t object to that constraint if the suit were a minor. But it seems to us that a little latitude is appropriate when the bid suit is a major, the reason being that bidding 2♥ or 2♠ does not crown the auction so much and so can be used more freely. Surely ♠KJ987 and an outside King and a singleton are worth a positive noise.
5th August, 2009 N-S Vul
After 2♠, North had a choice of bids: - 4♠? No, that would show a weak hand (one common agreement is that it denies even as much as a first- or second-round control in any side-suit). - 4♥? That would show Spade support and Heart shortness, but the hand is too good for that. If South were now to bid 4♠ over 4♥, we would not think we had done enough and would feel compelled to bid again. Splinters ask Partner a question (“How do you like your hand opposite my shortness?”), so there is no point in splintering if we intend to disregard the answer to our question. - 3♠? Yes, a simple raise is best, setting the trump suit and announcing some values.
5th August, 2009 None Vul
East does not quite have game in his own hand, but 9 rock-solid winners in Spades is close enough for a 2♣ opening. After all, East would hate 1♠ to be passed out with Partner holding the ♣Q and out. So East opens 2♣, Partner makes a “2♦ waiting” response and it’s East to bid. What’s your choice?
Many partnerships play that 3♠ here shows a solid suit and demands that Partner starts cue-bidding. It might seem that East’s hand is tailor-made for such a bid, but let’s think again. If we bid 3♠, and Partner bids 4♥, what have we achieved? Partner has shown the ♥A, telling us that our side does indeed have 10 tricks, but giving us no inkling as to whether we belong in slam. The point here is that, just because we have available a suit which shows a solid suit, does not necessarily mean that we have to use it. Our suggestion here is to bid a mere 2♠, giving Partner a chance to express his opinion. Sure, we’ll end up playing this is Spades eventually (or, conceivably, in No Trump), and we’ll make sure that happens, but in the meantime we want to go slow and get Partner’s opinion on matters.
18th June, 2008 Board 25
After South throws in that 2♦ bid, West clearly cannot show a rotten Spade suit with a weak hand, so her choices are to pass or to double. A common treatment here is for Pass to show some values and for Double to show a weak hand. What is the definition of “some values”? Some partnerships define that as an Ace, or a King, or a couple of Queens. If that is the case then West has the weakest Pass imaginable.
4th June, 2008 Board 19 E-W Vul
South has 21 HCP’s and a 3-loser hand, enough for some players to open 2♣. But opening 2♣ when our long suit is a minor often leads to an extremely cramped auction, so much so that we are prepared to open 1♣ or 1♦ with extremely strong hands. And so it is here, we’d open this 1♦. But, swap around those red suits for example, and we’d open 2♣ with no qualms, as 2♣ 2♦, 2♥ is a much more comfortable start to the auction.
28th February, 2007 Board 25 E-W Vul
Quite a hand! We don’t need much more than a useful Ace from Partner to be able to make slam. Does this mean that we should open the hand 2♣? We certainly have the playing strength, but nonetheless we don’t like 2♣ here, for a number of reasons: - For a 2♣ opener, we’d prefer more HCP’s and more defense. - With such an extreme two-suiter, we’d prefer to start bidding our suits right away at the one-level, all the better to convey our extreme shape. - There is virtually no danger of getting passed out in 1♥, there are just too many HCP’s out there, and too much distribution.
So, we’d open 1♥, planning a reverse into 2♠.
11th July, 2007 Board 5 N-S Vul
Do you open this hand 2♣? We certainly do. Not quite enough for game opposite a broke Partner, but we would force to game anyway, starting with 2♣ is the best way to get things started. The problem with opening 1♥ is that we’ll be stuck if Partner now bids 1♠ or 1NT. Now, bidding 4♥ seems like an underbid, and making a fake jump shift to 3♣ risks a confusing auction.
16th May, 2007 Board 5 N-S Vul
No arguments with a 1♠ opening but our own preference would be to stretch it into a 2♣ bid. Perhaps it is a slight overbid, but we can just about count 8½ tricks, which is a measure used by some. And 2♣ sequences work quite well for major-oriented hands, better, in our experience, than opening 1♠ and making a fake jump shift into a 2- or 3-card suit.
But, we are talking personal preference here, if opening 1♠ here works for you then fine. However, we would certainly draw the line at opening 2♣ with this hand if the long suit were a minor, let’s say: ♠ 74 ♥ AJ6 ♦ AQ ♣ AKQT64 The same hand with the black suits switched, but those 2♣ openings just don’t work efficiently when the long suit is a minor.
19th July, 2006 Board 4 Both Vul
East might start with 4♥, but, even opposite a passed hand, he’s really too good for that, slam is still a possibility. So his real choices are 1♥ or 2♣. Much as we avoid minor suit 2♣ openings, when it comes to the majors, we very much lean in the other direction. Why? Simply because major suit 2♣ auctions are quite efficient … what is there not to like about an auction that starts 2♣ 2♦, 2♥? Plenty of room for slam investigation, if that is what West's hand calls for.
7th March, 2007 Board 2 N-S Vul
Some partnerships have strict rules about their suit requirements for a positive response to a Two Club opening, for example “2 of the top 3”. That’s a matter of personal taste, of course, our own preference is to be a little more relaxed on the subject. It’s still important to have a reasonable suit, though, and if pushed for a rule we’d say “2 of the top 3, or, failing that, 3 of the top 5”. Even that may be a bit rigid, who would not want to make a positive response holding QJ9xxx in a major and an outside Ace?
Anyway, whatever your rules are, we do heartily recommend that you change them if they do not allow you to give a positive response on this hand.
14th March, 2007 Board 26 Both Vul
We had a hand just last week (Board 2) where we discussed the requirements for a positive response to a 2♣ opening. Then we said:
Some partnerships have strict rules about their suit requirements for a positive response to a Two Club opening, for example “2 of the top 3”. That’s a matter of personal taste, of course, our own preference is to be a little more relaxed on the subject. It’s still important to have a reasonable suit, though, and if pushed for a rule we’d say “2 of the top 3, or, failing that, 3 of the top 5”. Even that may be a bit rigid, who would not want to make a positive response holding QJ9xxx in a major and an outside Ace?
Our words were prophetic because we here we have that very QJ9xxx and an outside Ace opposite a 2♣ opening! Last week we were careful to say “QJ9xxx in a major”, because whatever our requirements for a positive response, it’s advisable to make them more rigorous if our suit is a minor, as 2♣ 3♣ or 2♣ 3♦ is such a space-consuming auction.
Nonetheless, our own choice would be to respond 3♣ with this hand, all the more so because if we bid 2♦ (waiting), and Partner then bids the expected 2♥, we still cannot show our Clubs, because 3♣ is generally used as a “second negative”. But, if we did not have that singleton we’d downgrade the hand to 2♦. In other words, this one is quite borderline for us, and we know many players who would bid 2♦ instead of 3♣, preferring a better suit before they use up so much bidding space.
13th June, 2007 Board 23 Both Vul
North’s 2♦ bid was the so-called “waiting” response. It did not necessarily show a bad hand, simply one which did not meet the requirements for a positive response, those requirements typically being some combination of “good suit and good hand”. Some pairs play that a “good suit” is 5+ with two of the top three honors, and that a good hand is one with at least an Ace and a King. That’s a pretty rigid set of requirements, we think, but there is a lot to be said for making that cheap waiting bid unless we have a really good reason to do otherwise, and a robust suit is the best reason of all.
Anyway, let’s say that we bid our waiting 2♦ and Partner now bids 2♥. No great surprise there! What next? If we are playing 2♦ as “waiting”, then it’s common that the “cheaper minor”, in this case 3♣, is used artificially to show a weak hand, with weak typically being defined as less than a King or less than two Queens. Rats! We still cannot show our Club suit, our hand is way too good.
This auction is not going well! In the circumstances, all that we can suggest is a rebid of 2NT, and we would further suggest that this shows a hand which is too good for 3♣ but which has no other convenient bid. Life would be intolerable if we had to have all of the unbid suits stopped, if that were the case then the bid would come up less than once a year.
So, 2NT it is! And, as we make this bid, perhaps we will also make a mental note to discuss with Partner whether or not we should be allowed to make a positive response of 3♣ over 2♣ with this hand. That would be our preference, we’re probably in a minority on this one.
17th January, 2007 Board 3 E-W Vul
Clearly we’ll be playing this one in Spades, and we’ll be raising Spades here. To 3♠ or to 4♠? South’s sequence (at least as it is most commonly played) is game-forcing, so the question is: “What is the difference between 3♠ and 4♠?” According to the Principle of Fast Arrival, 4♠ here is weak, and 3♠ is at least slightly encouraging. This is only logical if we think about it … with a promising hand we bid slowly which permits Partner to investigate further if she is of that mind … with a wretched hand we go straight to game, discouraging such thoughts.
That’s a generally accepted approach in this situation, perhaps it would we more useful if we somehow defined what we mean by “wretched hand”. It’s a partnership choice, of course, our own style is that we would not bid 4♠ with any hand that contained a first- or second-round control … yes, even holding ♠ xxxx, ♥ xxxx, ♦ x, ♣ xxxx we would show some signs of non-wretchedness (in this case via a 4♦ Splinter).
11th October, 2006 Board 2 N-S Vul
It’s “standard” in this situation for a Double to be for penalty (presumably with a trump trick or two) and for Pass to be nebulous (no biddable suit, no desire to penalize, almost any hand strength). However, in tournament play at least, a more popular approach is for the Double to show a bad hand … one reasonable definition of a bad hand is “less than a King” and/or “less than 2 Queens”. An extension of the treatment occurs when 2♣ is doubled by the opponents … now a Redouble shows a bad hand.
This treatment works well on the actual hand. After East’s weakness-showing Double, West, who is balanced without game in his own hand, simply passes to collect the penalty. On the actual hand, it was no doubt disappointing when E-W collected only 200, but that was plenty considering that they did not have a game.
21st May, 2008 Board 8 None Vul
What are your methods here? As usual there are choices available, here is the commonly used treatment: Dbl: A bad hand. How bad? One that might have been about to make a “waiting 2♦” followed by a so-called “second negative”. In other words, less than a King or Ace, probably less than two Queens also. Pass: Some values (too good for a Double) but also a hand with nothing useful to say (no good suit in other words). Other: A suit worth bidding as well as some values.
If these were our methods, then the South hand looks like a Double to us, it’s not quite good enough for a value-showing Pass.
11th April, 2007 Board 5 N-S Vul
After the 2♠ overcall, as North, what are your methods? Nowadays, many tournament players use Pass here as a way to show values … Double would show a bad hand … and a bid of a new suit or No Trump would show values and something worth saying. So, let’s say that North’s Pass shows some values but nothing particular to say. For our rebid we could not bid our originally planned 2NT without a Spade stopper, so we doubled. Now what do we do when the bidding comes back to us?
The real question here is what does 3♠ show? One of two things, surely: - Either, we have Diamond slam aspirations, in which case we’ll bid on if Partner bids 3NT next; - Or, we are trying for 3NT.
Partner won’t know which type of hand we have, but for the time being he should assume that we are angling for 3NT (as in fact, we are). The next question is whether we are asking for a half-stop, such as Qx, or a full stopper. We’d say that a half-stop should be sufficient. After all, Partner has already had the opportunity to show a full stopper directly following the 2♠ overcall, but instead he made an uninformative Pass. He also could have bid 2NT after our Double, but instead chose to bid Diamonds. It really doesn’t look like Partner has a full stopper, does it? So, surely 3♠ here is asking for a half-stop.
© BES, Inc All Rights Reserved | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
