[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-12, 13:51, said:

Because I don't think it's a cue after 3♠, I think it is after 2N-3♦(precisely 4-4 minors)-3♠ which is how we would bid it.

And since 2N is GF anyway in modern Acol, it actually requires very little work to use it for unbalanced hands as well, just that N/B don't think to agree to do it.

So you just have a different route with exactly the same effect on this hand.

[gordontd]

StevenG, on 2016-June-12, 12:14, said:

Assuming EBU, is it even legal to open this hand 2♣? Is doesn't seem to conform to ER25. Banning it as a Benji 2♣ seems crazy,

It doesn't conform to ER25. It would if DQ were the SQ.

[GrahamJson]

Liversidge, on 2016-June-12, 09:11, said:

Swop the ♠J for the ♠Q and I have 9 playing tricks but only 15 HCP. I feel a bit stupid asking this as I know it would be a bad bid, but not why, so that I can explain to partner why it's not a good idea.

The problem with opening 2C on this sort of hand is that partner, holding something like X KQxx xxx KQxx will add his ten points to your assumed twenty odd and start heading for an unmakable slam. And you can't really get around this by having agreements that a 2C bid can be this weak as this would take away much of the advantage of the bid. This is that, holding a big hand you can open 2C and then sit back, knowing that partner will bid on if he has a few values. If you were to open this hand 2C how do you bid a hand like AKJ10xx AKx AQx KQ where just X QJxxxx Kx xxx opposite is enough for six.

I still prefer Acol twos (or, better, Tartan Twos in which 2M is two way; strong or weak 55). It's not so much that Acol twos are great in themselves, but they take a lot of strain off opening one bids.

[Liversidge]

Really helpful, everyone. I now have a very different mindset. Until now I have had to resist the impulse to open 2♣ with 9 playing tricks in a minor or 8 PTs in a major holding AKQxxxx, but now have a better understanding about why, and can discuss it with partner. We need to spend more time studying modern Acol rebids - for example, the meaning (length and strength) of jump rebids after 1 level and 2 level response) that convey what I have been wanting to show with the 2♣ bid, but a lot more efficiently, allowing room for us to describe our hands at a low level.

I hadn't fully appreciated that the 2♣ is not necessarily the exciting bid we should yearn for, but in some ways is a cautious bid to make sure that partner doesn't pass with 5 points when all I may need from him is one trick to make game. If I am two playing tricks short of game and he can't respond to my 1 level opening then it's less likely I would have made game anyway, so nothing lost by opening at the 1 level.

I hadn't thought either about interference, where opps may be sacrificing and partner bids on thinking I have a better hand, or doubles, etc..

Plenty to think about still. Thanks again.

[Cyberyeti]

Another thing you need to know is around disclosure. If you do agree to open 2♣ on some hands with the offence but not the defence opps would expect, then you need to explain this. Acol - big is no longer sufficient.

[Caitlynne]

In first or second chair, I would never consider 2C or 4S for more than a yoctosecond.

There are 5 losers and 14 HCP. 5 losers is too many for 2C. What's more, I think you really have to have substantially more HCP than 14 - if you don't partner can never judge when it is right to defend if the opponents get frisky. (In fact, they may very well make whatever they bid!) In general, I think 19 HCP would be the absolute minimum for a 2C opening (at least as far as what is typically envisioned by experienced players).

4S is wrong since there are many hands that produce a virtually ironclad slam on which partner will pass - e.g., xxxx, AKx, Kxx, xxx or Qx, Axx, KJxx, Jxxx. For this reason, I would be hesitant to consider 4S even in third or fourth seat.

1S seems right in most any widely played system - though I would not quibble too much with a 1C opening in a strong club system like Precision.

[notproven]

Open 1♠. You have the shape and strength, and the rebid problems are minor because you have so much offense.

Opening 2♣ is a travesty. First, the classic definition of that bid includes "4 defensive tricks". This hand isn't even close, because you can't count defensive tricks in a long suit at full value. The defensive component becomes crucial when deciding whether to saw off a high level sacrifice.

As for NAMYATS, there is a system where you open 3NT instead if 4 of a minor. The downside is that it's complicated (a lot of responses to investigate a possible slam) and it gives up the gambling 3NT.

[Cyberyeti]

Caitlynne, on 2016-June-13, 07:46, said:

4S is wrong since there are many hands that produce a virtually ironclad slam on which partner will pass - e.g., xxxx, AKx, Kxx, xxx or Qx, Axx, KJxx, Jxxx. For this reason, I would be hesitant to consider 4S even in third or fourth seat.

There are not a lot of these hands but there are some, this is counterbalanced by the hands where partner doesn't have much, and it's in fact the opps' hand in hearts with LHO holding a good hand and you give him much more of a problem by getting 4♠ in first. I'm easy with 1 or 4 in 3rd.

It's not standard, but I'd consider agreeing to open strong 2s in 4th seat if you are used to them rather than the more usual intermediate.

[neilkaz]

Requirements for 2♣ here in 2/1 land may be a bit more stringent that in Acol land but anyhow, a good rule of thumb is to look for reasons to not open 2♣ rather than to look for reasons to stretch to open 2♣

[Liversidge]

neilkaz, on 2016-June-13, 09:00, said:

a good rule of thumb is to look for reasons to not open 2♣ rather than to look for reasons to stretch to open 2♣

That's where I am at as of now!

[johnu]

neilkaz, on 2016-June-13, 09:00, said:

Requirements for 2♣ here in 2/1 land may be a bit more stringent that in Acol land

LOL, basically there is no requirement in the ACBL except that opener thinks his hand is strong, whether anybody else agrees or not. No point count requirement, no quick trick requirement, no trick taking requirement. There is a requirement that you have 13 cards.

As a practical matter, good players do have standards because their partners expect them to have something really good.

[neilkaz]

johnu, on 2016-June-13, 10:56, said:

LOL, basically there is no requirement in the ACBL except that opener thinks his hand is strong, whether anybody else agrees or not. No point count requirement, no quick trick requirement, no trick taking requirement. There is a requirement that you have 13 cards.

This is true but I am talking about generally accepted bidding standards. 8 or even 8.5 hoped for tricks isn't enough for most at least here in my part of ACBL land.

[maartenxq]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-12, 08:41, said:

1st/2nd seat, 1♠, 3rd seat I have much less of a problem with 4♠, there is a pretty narrow selection of hands where 6 makes but partner can't open.

Your problems aren't over, what are you going to do over 2♣ or 2♥ from partner ?

If p can say 2 C or H problems are over. U bid 3 S fixing suit and ask p to start cueing. I wi

[maartenxq]

wank, on 2016-June-12, 10:46, said:

opening 2 clubs shows more than what's required to make game. it shows a lot of defence, essentially plenty of points outside your long suit.

as for 4 spades, that's a pre-empt. it should be a hand lacking the defence for a 1 opener (different kettle of fish in 3rd/4th).

as others have said, it's basically a 1S 3S rebid hand.

You can play 2 ♣- anything 4♠promises hands like this. Unorthodox not without risk but p knows he can count on lots of tricks and point shortage.

[Liversidge]

neilkaz, on 2016-June-13, 11:02, said:

8 or even 8.5 hoped for tricks isn't enough for most at least here in my part of ACBL land.

Often the advice in references just says "23 HCP balanced or 9+ playing tricks". My partner and I have agreed 9 for majors, 10 for minors. Is that sensible? It seems logical (need to be within one trick of game)

[sfi]

Liversidge, on 2016-June-13, 07:13, said:

Really helpful, everyone. I now have a very different mindset. Until now I have had to resist the impulse to open 2♣ with 9 playing tricks in a minor or 8 PTs in a major holding AKQxxxx, but now have a better understanding about why, and can discuss it with partner. We need to spend more time studying modern Acol rebids - for example, the meaning (length and strength) of jump rebids after 1 level and 2 level response) that convey what I have been wanting to show with the 2♣ bid, but a lot more efficiently, allowing room for us to describe our hands at a low level.

Indeed. Broadly speaking, opening 2C is a bad thing for your side. You are a level higher and you haven't started to describe your hand's shape. Aggressive opponents will also see this as an opportunity to take further room away if they can, since they don't have to worry about constructive bidding.

As a result, you should have some idea of where you are heading when you open 2C, and a hand where partner can have some expectation that slam will be on with the right couple of cards. 2C works best when you have a strong one-suited hand, since you get to describe the nature of your hand next round. Two-suited hands are harder, so the hand should be really strong - not just one that will miss game if partner passes the perfect 5 count, but one that is genuinely game-forcing - to make up for what you are giving up with the opening.

Particularly on distributional hands, it's often right to open at the one level even on hands that might qualify for a 2C bid. It's not so likely everyone will pass if some of your strength is in distribution rather than high cards, and if you do get another chance to bid you can be much better off. Strength can be shown later in the auction (assuming there is a later) - distribution can be harder to do so.

[Cyberyeti]

maartenxq, on 2016-June-13, 11:34, said:

If p can say 2 C or H problems are over. U bid 3 S fixing suit and ask p to start cueing. I wi

3♠ does not show that in my book in Acol, I think you only cue with a suitable hand, there are plenty of hands that won't cue where a slam is on. All 3♠ shows is enough to force to game and 6 spades.

[Liversidge]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-13, 15:02, said:

3♠ does not show that in my book in Acol All 3♠ shows is enough to force to game and 6 spades.

My Acol books say likewise. Also 4♠ shows a pretty solid 7 card suit and around five losers.

[forgo]

1 spade is the bid. if we r non vun and
oponents are red I would consider opening 4 spades if p has passed!!

[Liversidge]

Do the criteria for opening 2♣ change with a two suited hand. For example, S AKTxx H AK D AKxxx C x has (I think) 10 playing tricks and 6 defensive tricks. Are all the fourth and fifth cards in the long suits reliable playing tricks. And the fit might turn out to be in diamonds.