Would you open 2C?

[Bertil]

As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.

Bertil
USA

[sbt]

In article <26e30447-021e-4371...@googlegroups.com>,

No, I would not even think of opening that hand 2C. I wouldn't open it
2NT, either, due to it having two flaws...a good five-card major and an
unstopped suit. It's a 1S opening bid in my methods, and in those of
the people with whom I play.

--
Dennis Cohen

[Adam Beneschan]

If I open 2C it's with the intent of rebidding 2NT (showing 22-24 balanced). That's probably what I'd do since I think it's good enough to upgrade, and I don't worry as much as Dennis about the flaws (not that I think he's wrong, it's a matter of style). But when opening 2C when I intend to rebid a suit, I count how many tricks I think the hand is likely to take, not QT or losers. I can only get up to 8 (five spades, two aces, and the other honors in the red suits look like about one trick to me on average), and I need 8.5 if my suit is a major (9.5 for a minor).

-- Adam

[Nick France]

Its either a 2NT opener or a 2C followed by a 2NT rebid. I'm
indifferent as to which to choose.

Nick France

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 9, 10:37 am, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

If it is a 2C bid, then the intention is to rebid 2NT. I would sooner
just OPEN 2NT and that is my first choice. One Spade is my second
choice.

But "does it qualify in ACBL land" might mean do I think it would be
legal and yes, it would be legal. It would be legal to treat the hand
as a Strong Two and rebid 2S over a 2D response or to rebid 2NT.

--
Will in New Haven

[Stu Goodgold]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 7:37:50 AM UTC-8, Bertil wrote:

No. The LTC is too high as you note. Game is unlikely opposite a flat hand with one ace.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Co Wiersma]

Op 9-11-2012 16:37, Bertil schreef:

If 2NT is 20 - 22 points then this is in range for 2NT
Tbh, I dont have a clue where LTC or QT come in.

Co Wiersma

[Bertil]

Are you not familiar with the LTC and QT concept.
If so, you need to upgrade your knowledge of basic bridge.
In the USA it is often recommended that QT should be greater
than LTC with a 2C opener. Also, a 2C bid should have less than 4LTC.

Bertil
USA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <36718aa5-4233-4beb...@googlegroups.com>,

Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:34:20 PM UTC-5, Co Wiersma wrote:
> > Op 9-11-2012 16:37, Bertil schreef:
> >
> > > As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
> >
> > > Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
> >
> > > It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Bertil
> >
> > > USA
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > If 2NT is 20 - 22 points then this is in range for 2NT
> >
> > Tbh, I dont have a clue where LTC or QT come in.
>

> Are you not familiar with the LTC and QT concept.
> If so, you need to upgrade your knowledge of basic bridge.
> In the USA it is often recommended that QT should be greater
> than LTC with a 2C opener. Also, a 2C bid should have less than 4LTC.

I think he's saying that these standards generally only apply to
unbalanced hands. If you're planning on bidding NT, these QT vs LTC
criteria don't apply.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[sbt]

In article <36718aa5-4233-4beb...@googlegroups.com>,
Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bertil,

I believe he is saying that for NT openers, neither QT nor LTC have
much bearing. For most players, if they are going to open 2C in order
to rebid 2NT, they consider high-card points and distribution and don't
look at QT or LTC.

--
Dennis Cohen

[mc110...@gmail.com]

3NT seems to be 50% opposite a flat hand with one ace.... But my partners respond with an ace, so I'm still OK.

The advantage of opening 2C or 2NT (depending on your 2NT range) is not wrong-siding NT. The advantage of opening 1S is not getting to 3NT when you are supposed to be in 4S.

I wouldn't complain whichever partner did. However, all of my partners would open 2C...and I probably would, too...because it's what they expect. But I think 1S is just as reasonable.

Christopher Monsour

[RonfromLao]

2NT opening for me.
Ron

[RonfromLao]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:37:50 PM UTC+7, Bertil wrote:

Bertil, no decent player I know pays any attention to QT. This is a 2NT opening for me as i have stated. I do not understand the comment about "flaws". In my opinion such a view is about 30 years out of date. I don't object too much to 2C followed by 2NT. I think 1S is a bit of a joke.
Ron

[psug...@gmail.com]

I think the AQ doubleton is a big flaw, too. That holding can really gobble up honors in your partner's hand. E.g. if partner has Kxxxx in hearts and no side entry, it is a wasted value and yet partner will be counting 3+ points for it. Axx might be better than AQ tight.

[Mich Ravera]

"Bertil" <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:26e30447-021e-4371...@googlegroups.com...

> As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
> Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
> It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.

Legally, it qualifies. The ACBL doesn't require a specific number of HCP or
any other objective criteria in order to open a strong artificial 2C or 2D.
The rules only require that, unless you alert, that you be willing to
_pursue_ game opposite a mildly fitting, but otherwise worthless hand. The
particular "Watch out" hand is one with a large pile of diamonds where you
might consider passing a negative 2D response. (You can play this as a MC-2
convention, but you have to pre-alert it).

This is a tough hand to bid using StdUS methods. Two small spades and the DQ
give a good play for 4S. A decent break in spades and a block in clubs are
all that is needed for 3NT.

If you open 1S, it won't be too surprising to have it passed out.You are not
unbalanced enough to be sure that someone will overcall and you are too
strong to supppose that, if opponents can't overcall, that partner will be
able to drudge up a response. If you open 2NT, opponents might be able to
run off 6 clubs. If you open 2C, you have to decide about where to play
opposite a bust (or a constructive heart response for that matter).

It's not going to be a lot prettier in strong 1m systems either. The only
advantage is that you _might_ be able to show both spades and a balanced 21+
count below 2NT. Opponents may do you a favor and show clubs, if they are
likely to be a problem for you, so that you will know not to play in no
trump.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 9-11-2012 22:15, Bertil schreef:

I dont know what is a QT concept. Please explain.
(I thought that QT meant quick tricks, sorry)
I do know what is LTC and I sometimes use it to help me (re)evaluate my
hand.

Co Wiersma

[axm...@hotmail.com]

The hand is not tough to bid in stupid american. The question as to
who will be pleased with the outcome necessarily needs to be dealt
with on a case by case basis. I can construct deals where 2S will go
for 800 and 1100. The advice is to not worry about all those straw
men, but to focus upon dealing with what happens.

Personally, I prefer to start with 1S and see what develops.

regards
axman

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 10, 3:25 am, "Mich Ravera" <michrav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bertil" <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:26e30447-021e-4371...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
> > Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
> > It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.
>
> Legally, it qualifies. The ACBL doesn't require a specific number of HCP or
> any other objective criteria in order to open a strong artificial 2C or 2D.
> The rules only require that, unless you alert, that you be willing to
> _pursue_ game opposite a mildly fitting, but otherwise worthless hand. The
> particular "Watch out" hand is one with a large pile of diamonds where you
> might consider passing a negative 2D response. (You can play this as a MC-2
> convention, but you have to pre-alert it).
>
> This is a tough hand to bid using StdUS methods. Two small spades and the DQ
> give a good play for 4S. A decent break in spades and a block in clubs are
> all that is needed for 3NT.
>
> If you open 1S, it won't be too surprising to have it passed out.You are not
> unbalanced enough

Comment suppressed with difficulty.

--
Will in New Haven

[mc110...@gmail.com]

Yes, after a negative 1D response to a strong club, you will probably have to jump to 2NT to show this hand (depending on your system), but this hand is still *much* easier to handle in a strong club system, for two reasons:

After 1C-1D-2NT, responder's hand is much more limited than after, say, 2C-2D-2NT, and certainly much more limited than after a 2NT opening. All sequences can focus on getting to the right game...Nothing responder does after 1C-1D-2NT is going to sound like a slam try.

More importantly, when responder does NOT bid 1D, you are in much better shape. You have had a descriptive bid from partner and are now in a game-forcing auction where you can either describe your hand or ask for more information about partner's hand while the auction is still at a low level. Chances are much better that you will get to the right strain and make the right decision on game vs slam if it's a close one, than if you had opened 2C or 2NT in std.

Christopher Monsour

[Bertil]

Assuming you don't have the ACBL Encyclopedia.
I suggest you go to the post "How many QT for an opening bid?"
on Oct.28 and look up D.Stevenson's comment on Oct.29,
where he compares QT with Culbertson's Honor trick count.

Bertil

[Bertil]

A variety of opinions have been offered, but few are based on any attempt to
take into consideration that partner can hold any one of 8 billion diffferent
hands varying from 0 to 19 HCP, wit many hand patterns.

Most 'opinions' are based on assumption that partner has some 'useful' points,
for which there is some support in theory. E.g the probability that the \partnership holds at least 24 HCp is 90% and for 25HCP it's 81%, for 26 HCP it's 71%,and it gradually decreases to 5% for 33 HCP.

But the only objective way of deciding if 1S, 2C or 2NT would be the best
opening in Std. Am. type bidding, would be to do a DD analysis of at least
100 random deals, but better yet 1000 deals.

Lacking the abitlity to do this I decided to look at 50 deals using the free
generator at "Play Bridge" and manually counting HCP in partner's hand.
I found an average of 5.9 with a std.dev. of 3.1. Thus it was not surprising
to find 2 deals with 0 HCP, but startling to see one of each with 13 and 15 HCP.
Admittedly this is a very small sample,but it's worth noting that 20 deals
had less than 6 HCP.

Just looking at the 50 deals I get the feeling that 1S would be the best opener.

I would welcome a DD analysis of at least 100 deals to show what one might
expect to happen in terms of makable bids.

Bertil

[Bertil]

>Correction: change 1S to 2C

[Co Wiersma]

Op 10-11-2012 18:11, Bertil schreef:

> Assuming you don't have the ACBL Encyclopedia.
> I suggest you go to the post "How many QT for an opening bid?"
> on Oct.28 and look up D.Stevenson's comment on Oct.29,
> where he compares QT with Culbertson's Honor trick count.

Thats all nice and good, but what does it have to do with bidding 2NT or
not?

Co Wiersma

[Will in New Haven]

I don't think he's interested in opening 2NT. He's deciding between 1S
and 2C. I don't think he ever mentioned what he would rebid after
opening 2C and it might not be 2NT.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 11-11-2012 1:14, Will in New Haven schreef:

The hand is not strong enough to force to game, and the spades are not
long enough to be played opposite a void and maybe not opposite a stiff
spades either.
Imho the shape of the hand is not suited for opening 2C with the intend
to rebid 2S.

On the other hand, the fivecard spades is so exceptionally good that, it
may work.

But I still do not understand why QT and LTC would be the most suited
tools to evaluate this hand for opening.

Co Wiersma

[Will in New Haven]

Only one person thinks that they are.

[ttw...@att.net]

Playing Acol Twos (in a natural canape system), we would have opened
1S. It's a very strong 1S, but 2S suggests a longer (if not stronger)
suit; 2C suggest fewer losers or more HCP; 2NT should show better
stoppers (I think). The hand clearly cannot guarantee game (or even a
trick less).

[Charles Brenner]

On Nov 10, 5:45 pm, Will in New Haven

Myself, I like the rule - "more quick tricks than losers" - as a
criterion for showing a strong two-bid (i.e. opening 2C with the
intention of following with a suit bid which is probably game
forcing). I gather this puts me in the minority. I've noticed that I
open 2C more than most. We do not all agree when to open 2C or not.
Opening 2C on every hand with QT>LTC is too rich for many.

But notice that the rule quoted above is really, like any if-and-only-
if statement, two different rules:

1. If QT>LTC, hand qualifies for a strong two.
2. If not, hand does not qualify.

It is only #1 that is controversial, but only #2 that is pertinent to
the given hand since its QT falls way short of its LTC. Hence to make
the argument that that the whole rule, #1+#2, is too lenient, seems to
me an irrelevant digression for the purpose of the given hand. Maybe
others would give a different explanation for not treating it as a
strong two, but isn't rule #2 above an ok explanation why not?

Charles

[Nick France]

The concept of QTs is important in consideration of a 2C bid to go to
an extreme to say that if QTs> LTC that the hand is a 2C opeining is
taking it too far. Consider the following hand AKxxx AKxxx Axx --
This is obviously a good hand and by my count you have 5QTs and an
unadjusted LTC of 4. The problem is two fold on this hand. First it
lacks playing tricks which is important. Second its a two suitor that
is too hard to show many times after a 2C opener.

Stig is on a kick for exact rules and seems now to keep quoting the
ACBL Encyclopedia. Why I'm not sure. Almost any good guideline on 2C
bids will talk about playing tricks unless the hand is balanced and
Notrump will be the rebid. As for the hand, I look at it as a notrump
hand. As I stated in a previous post its borderline between 2NT and
2C followed by 2NT. A good 5 card spade suit argues for an upgrade, a
weak 3 card club suit argues against it. In neither case do I want to
be in game if partner is broke or nearly broke.

Nick France

[Nick France]

You seem to think you are the only one that considers other things.
What exactly have you shown us here. With reasonable bidding what
were the various final contracts? Nor have you even started to
consider the problems you have after a 1S opener, like partner
passes. Take your 50 hands to a good player and see where they think
the contract ends up.

As a point of education for you on DD. It only comes into real play
when the final contract is reach or when estimating which final
contract might do better and therefore trying to devise a bidding
strategy to head that way.

Nick France

[John Crinnion]

On Friday, 9 November 2012 15:37:50 UTC, Bertil wrote:
> As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986. Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land? It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT. Bertil USA

I would be inclined to shade the LTC to 5 1/2, hoping the King is on-side.

The idea of being left in 1S is too ghastly to contemplate.

Not good enough for 2C.

Really, it is a 2S STRONG opener.

Assuming you play 2S weak, all you can do is tell the lie that best approximates the truth: 2N.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 11-11-2012 5:21, Charles Brenner schreef:

> Myself, I like the rule - "more quick tricks than losers" - as a
> criterion for showing a strong two-bid (i.e. opening 2C with the
> intention of following with a suit bid which is probably game
> forcing). I gather this puts me in the minority. I've noticed that I
> open 2C more than most. We do not all agree when to open 2C or not.
> Opening 2C on every hand with QT>LTC is too rich for many.
>
> But notice that the rule quoted above is really, like any if-and-only-
> if statement, two different rules:
>
> 1. If QT>LTC, hand qualifies for a strong two.
> 2. If not, hand does not qualify.
>
> It is only #1 that is controversial, but only #2 that is pertinent to
> the given hand since its QT falls way short of its LTC. Hence to make
> the argument that that the whole rule, #1+#2, is too lenient, seems to
> me an irrelevant digression for the purpose of the given hand. Maybe
> others would give a different explanation for not treating it as a
> strong two, but isn't rule #2 above an ok explanation why not?
>
> Charles

So you like that rule. But can you give me some idea as to why?
Like give me a link to a place where that rule is explained and shown
how it works in practice?
Do you have to adjust the LTC count (is AKxx the same as AQxx?)

And more importantly, is anyone going to play better, have more fun
playing and/or score higher if they gonna learn this QT list that David
Stevenson displayed earlier and also learn a similar list for LTC and
then every time they have-a-strong-hand start counting LTC and QT and
then make the calculation ?

Co Wiersma

[Charles Brenner]

I agree. Despite my "rule" I'm sure I wouldn't make the mistake of
opening that hand 2C. I guess in practice I only invoke the rule when
I have a lot of playing tricks.

>  Second its a two suitor that
> is too hard to show many times after a 2C opener.

Your caution about 2-suiters seems right as well but now you are
goading me to think which is where headaches come from. Would I want
to open 2C with AKJ10x AK109x, xx, A? And by the way is the relative
attractiveness of opening 1 vs 2 different if the majors are reversed?

> Stig is on a kick for exact rules ...

Yes, I've noticed that. If some suggested rule doesn't work for hands
with three voids, in the world of mathematics that would be proof
that it's a bad rule and I think he has tried to invoke that kind of
reasoning in bridge. Puzzling.

Charles

[dake50]

An easy one for WEASEL: hesitate long before opening 1S.
Partner will know big points, so won't pass with 4-5 points.

[Charles Brenner]

On Nov 11, 5:32 am, Co Wiersma <W...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Op 11-11-2012 5:21, Charles Brenner schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Myself, I like the rule - "more quick tricks than losers" - as a
> > criterion for showing a strong two-bid (i.e. opening 2C with the
> > intention of following with a suit bid which is probably game
> > forcing). I gather this puts me in the minority. I've noticed that I
> > open 2C more than most. We do not all agree when to open 2C or not.
> > Opening 2C on every hand with QT>LTC is too rich for many.
>
> > But notice that the rule quoted above is really, like any if-and-only-
> > if statement, two different rules:
>
> > 1. If QT>LTC, hand qualifies for a strong two.
> > 2. If not, hand does not qualify.
>
> > It is only #1 that is controversial, but only #2 that is pertinent to
> > the given hand since its QT falls way short of its LTC. Hence to make
> > the argument that that the whole rule, #1+#2, is too lenient, seems to
> > me an irrelevant digression for the purpose of the given hand. Maybe
> > others would give a different explanation for not treating it as a
> > strong two, but isn't rule #2 above an ok explanation why not?
>
> > Charles
>
> So you like that rule. But can you give me some idea as to why?

On the "only if" hand, it is a reasonable place to draw the line. For
example opening 2C without QTs will disappoint the partner who,
holding a good suit and a few cards, reasonably imagines there is
almost surely a slam and/or that the opponents can safely be penalized
if they poke their noses high in our auction.

As to whether the rule is stringent enough, I find it playable. But I
should have said, as Nick pointed out, that the rule only applies to
hands with a lot of playing strength.

In general it is useful to have rules because

1 - they prevent your standards from eroding over time
2 - (related) partner knows how to judge
3 - they allow partner to make exact calculations on defense.

In this case I think #1 is valid. #3 is virtually irrelevant since
we're so unlikely to defend. #2 isn't very important either in my
view.

> Like give me a link to a place where that rule is explained and shown
> how it works in practice?

I can't. I guess it's "in the old books."

> Do you have to adjust the LTC count (is AKxx the same as AQxx?)

I wouldn't. My feeling is that I have gotten adequate results by using
this rule to decide whether to open 2C when I have a lot of playing
tricks. It avoids over-burdening 1-bids (even if I survive the first
hurdle, not being stranded in 1S, I want my subsequent jump shift to
have a reasonable upper limit).

Relaxing the rule, i.e. opening 2C on a hand where QT exactly equal
losers, would be very loose though, allowing a lot of unexpected and
undesirable 2C openings.

> And more importantly, is anyone going to play better, have more fun
> playing and/or score higher if they gonna learn this QT list that David
> Stevenson displayed earlier

My count of QTs is very simple: A=1, K=1/2 unless accompanied by A or,
I suppose, by Q, Q=1/2 with the A.

My count of losers is also simple, and while I wouldn't stress the
distinction between losers and LTC I think this rule predates the LTC
and hence putting too fine a point on the counting would be
anachronistic.

Charles

[axm...@hotmail.com]

> Nick France

I think you have been unduly harsh in criticizing Bertil’s intuition.

Theory has its place, so does empirical data:

On Jan 20, 1990 I personally banned the use of 2C SAF [strong
artificial and forcing]. I once broke that ban in the spring of 1993
for political reasons [partnership harmony, so to speak] holding 25
hcp- for a bad score; and as a result have since had an unbreakable
resolve.

In that light I have played some 200000 deals in the intervening 23
years where dozens** of v v strong hands were passed out- four of
which resulted in bad scores. It may be worth juxtaposing that many
hundreds of non v v strong hands were passed out for mostly good
scored.

You are encouraged to draw you own conclusions.

There is some further noteworthy data. During that same time I
witnessed over 800 2C SAF auctions. 90% did not get to good spots;
while 25% got good scores over half of those scores can be attributed
more to unfair play than fair play and another 5% got the rub of the
green. Yes, most of the bad scores were due to bidding too high and
or not finding the right strain.

Again, draw you own conclusions.

Certainly, if a partnership can bear to dispense altogether with 2C
SAF, then 2C can be used with excellent scores when holding good long
clubs with at least two of the three top honors with less than 12 hcp.

**on a memorable occasion a balanced 27hcp with seven solid hearts
opened 1H and responder had a working K with heart support. The
entire field took eleven tricks but only one declarer had a plus
score.

regards
axman

[mc110...@gmail.com]

For what it's worth, I think Karen Walker did a nice job of explaining it in her series of bidding articles in the ACBL Bulletin.

Christopher Monsour

[Andrew B]

On 11/11/2012 15:35, Charles Brenner wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:32 am, Co Wiersma <W...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Like give me a link to a place where that rule is explained and shown
>> how it works in practice?
>
> I can't. I guess it's "in the old books."

http://home.comcast.net/~kwbridge/bb/b_2c.htm suggests that "QT>LT" is a
useful tiebreaker if you're unsure whether a hand is worth a 2C opening.

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 11, 8:26 am, John Crinnion <jcrinn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 9 November 2012 15:37:50 UTC, Bertil wrote:
> > As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986. Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land? It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT. Bertil USA
>
> I would be inclined to shade the LTC to 5 1/2, hoping the King is on-side.
>
> The idea of being left in 1S is too ghastly to contemplate.

Really? It doesn't bother me at all.

>
> Not good enough for 2C.
>
> Really, it is a 2S STRONG opener.

If you mean in the context of 2C stronger but 2X strong, I think it is
close. The other person who talked about a strong-two of that type
decided that the hand is too balanced.

>
> Assuming you play 2S weak, all you can do is tell the lie that best approximates the truth:  2N.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 11-11-2012 16:35, Charles Brenner schreef:

> My count of QTs is very simple: A=1, K=1/2 unless accompanied by A or,
> I suppose, by Q, Q=1/2 with the A.
>
> My count of losers is also simple, and while I wouldn't stress the
> distinction between losers and LTC I think this rule predates the LTC
> and hence putting too fine a point on the counting would be
> anachronistic.

I imagine my partner contemplating on thinks like
how many losers is AJT
or
is AKQ 2 or 3 QT's
instead of thinking about his second rebid or how we reach game if its
there and how to stay low if need be.

Now for you it may be a simple calculation, but its still a calculation
and as such it costs a tiny amount of energy.
But there are thousands of things to think about while playing bridge.
(and I dont mean the pretty woman that is behind the bar, no I mean
bridge things)
And all those things together make us tired. And when tired we make
mistakes.

So when we make rules that need serious calculations we better make sure
they improve our game. And so far I am not convinced that anybody will
play better with this rule then without.

Co Wiersma

[Charles Brenner]

I agree with the sentiment about wasting computational effort (though
it can go both ways can't it? -- sometimes a simple computation is
easier and almost as accurate as deep and difficult thinking).

Now that I have opened 1NT so many times in my life that I can judge a
NT opening by feel, counting my HCP to decide if they are within range
is probably a wasteful bad habit. However, for many years it was
necessary, and checking my QT when contemplating a marginal 2C opener
still seems helpful to me, mainly for rejecting an overly exuberant
temptation.

Charles

[Nick France]

Your example is a good example to test whether or not someone really
believes 2 suitors shouldn't be openned 2C. I would open it 1S but
with a sick feeling in my stomach if it got passed out.

Nick France

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den fredagen den 9:e november 2012 kl. 16:37:50 UTC+1 skrev Bertil:
> As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
>
> Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
>
> It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.

I usually play either strong club or acol 2:s.

This hand has 17 missing points - a strong 2 opening should have max. 14 MPs.
(True, you may upgrade it to 16 MPs, as AQ and AJT is somewhat valuable).
You can also count 7 tricks on your hand, or 7.5 tricks and you should have 8 tricks.
6 losers is also too much, a strong 2 typically means max. 4 losers.

SO, in all, this hand is too weak for a strong 2-opening, and too weak for a 2C opneing (if you have that convention).

So I would open 1S, and if partner passes I wouldn't be too worried.
Give partner a hand with
xx xxxx Qxx Kxxx - a hand where he even might call 1 NT, and you can have a possible loser in hearts, a possible in diamonds and three possible losers in clubs.

[Charles Brenner]

And rightly so. For what it's worth I took a look at a small sample of
5 deals and twice one spade would be the contract, missing thin
games.
dummy: xxx, xx, Jx, KJxxxx. RHO: Qxx, Qxx, A109xx, 10x
dummy: x, Jxx, Jxxxxx, xxx. RHO: Qxxx, Qx, A10, 987xx

Twice the two bid gives a slightly better chance to end in the better
contract between 3NT and 4M, in my opinion.
dummy: Q9, Jxx, xxx, KQxxx. RHO: xxx, xx, QJ7x, 108xx
dummy: xx, Jx, AJx, J10xxxx. RHO: xxx, Qxx, xxx, KQxx

On the remaining hand the one bid looks better for getting to 7S:
dummy: Qxxxx, xx, Ax, Jxxx. RHO: --, Jxx, KQJxxx, K9xx.

Only one of the five RHO hands would protect if offered the chance.

Charles

[judyo...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, Bertil wrote:

> As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
>
> Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
>
> It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.
>
>
>

> Bertil
>
> USA

In Schenken's 1968 book, he discussed the hand xx AKx AKJxx AKQ as follows:

You say you would force to game on it? Well so might I, but the fact remains: I asked a number of expert players and almost without exception they replied "one diamond."

Their reason? "Unless partner can peep, the hand may not produce a game."

"What if partner can peep?" I asked. "Then we probably have a slam," was the answer.

.... Several players admitted that [if partner responded 1S] they would make a series of forcing jump rebids that might include ... Blackwood .... This would land them at the five-level at least, before opener found out there was no slam.

I did not notice that any of the 1S openers to the present hand said how they would rebid. Can they avoid the five-level?

Carl

[Bertil]

Yow the bidding progresses after a 1S opener will depend on what LHO bids
and how partner responds.
You might also ask how would the 2C opener rebid if LHO doubles. The 3rd
hand that came up in my simulation had 6 clubs headed with AKQ.

Go to the Bridgeguys and notice that they show three pages of responses to 2C.
Without specifying which one you use , it's meaningless to say how to rebid.

Bertil

[judyo...@gmail.com]

Regardless of your methods after 2C, responder will press to slam if there is one.

Not so after 1S.

Carl

[derek]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:37:50 AM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
> As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
>
> Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?

Of course it does. A 2C opening is whatever you agree it to be, provided it's forcing or it's alerted.

I'd open it 1S with one regular partner, and 2N with another. Both believe in opening hands of that shape and strength 2N, but the first doesn't like me to do it with that good a suit.

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 12, 3:26 pm, "judyorc...@verizon.net" <judyorc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If I open 1S I intend to make raise 1NT to 3NT but make more noise if
partner responds in any strength-showing way. But I probably open
2NT.

I haven't noticed whether Bertil, if he opens 2C, intends to rebid. A
2S rebid would be a joke.

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 12, 4:10 pm, "judyorc...@verizon.net" <judyorc...@gmail.com>

Not at all typical of people I have played against over the years.
Even A pairs, even in the Blue Ribbons, responder did not take
captaincy unless opener rebid in NT showing a balanced hand.

On this hand, if you open 2NT partner will get you to any likely slam
and if you open 2C/Rebid 2NT you are likely to get to one too many
slams.

--
Will in New Haven
>

> Not so after 1S.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, Bertil wrote:
> As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
>
> Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
>
> It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.
>
>
>
> Bertil
>
> USA

Really?

If you have AKK, will you really accept a sign-off, unless you have unambiguously shown 4 control points?

Carl

[Barry Margolin]

In article <50772989-7557-44c6...@googlegroups.com>,

"judyo...@verizon.net" <judyo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, Bertil wrote:
> > As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
> >
> > Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
> >
> > It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.
>

> Really?
>
> If you have AKK, will you really accept a sign-off, unless you have
> unambiguously shown 4 control points?

Huh? Who is the "you" that you're talking to? You seem to be responding
to one of the many followups, not the original post that you quoted.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-11-10 11:21 PM, Charles Brenner wrote:
> But notice that the rule quoted above is really, like any if-and-only-
> if statement, two different rules:
>
> 1. If QT>LTC, hand qualifies for a strong two.
> 2. If not, hand does not qualify.

Agreed about the logic, but I've only ever heard of rule 2 (which I
think goes back to Culbertson, but I'm not sure). That is, if rule 1
means "open a strong two on any hand with QT>losers," I don't think
that's common. If "qualifies" means something weaker than that, then
why do you need rule 1 at all?

You might like to consider "Steve's Rule" for strong twos: for any bid
the opponents could make, you have to be able either to bid something
over it and expect to make or to double and expect to beat their
contract. This is very close to rule 2, but it takes account of suit
ranks and the low defensive value of honors in long suits. Not all
hands that pass Steve's Rule are suitable for a strong two; it's just a
minimum requirement.

Or you could adopt Steve's real preference and give up strong twos
altogether. Steve never gets dealt hands that strong. :-(

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 13, 3:01 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <50772989-7557-44c6...@googlegroups.com>,

>
>  "judyorc...@verizon.net" <judyorc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, Bertil wrote:
> > > As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
>
> > > Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
>
> > > It has 6 LTC but only 4.5 QT.
>
> > Really?
>
> > If you have AKK, will you really accept a sign-off, unless you have
> > unambiguously shown 4 control points?
>
> Huh?  Who is the "you" that you're talking to? You seem to be responding
> to one of the many followups, not the original post that you quoted.
>

I think he may have inadvertently snipped when responding to:

He had said that if you opened 2C partner would get you to a slam if

one was good and I said:

"Not at all typical of people I have played against over the years.
Even A pairs, even in the Blue Ribbons, responder did not take
captaincy unless opener rebid in NT showing a balanced hand."

This response may be to that:

> > If you have AKK, will you really accept a sign-off, unless you have
> > unambiguously shown 4 control points?

And I have to admit that I haven't seen responders with all of those
Aces and Kings fail to take over and bid a slam. But that is because I
haven't seen a responder with that many Aces and Kings and his partner
opens 2C.

--
Will in New Haven

sadly "I have never, in my entire life, found the Scuse in the talon"
snort "That is because you have never bid without it."

[Carl]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:56:50 PM UTC-5, derek wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:37:50 AM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
>
> > As dealer you look at AKQJ7--AQ--AJT--986.
>
> >
>
> > Does it qualify for a 2C opening bid in ACBL-land?
>
>
>
> Of course it does. A 2C opening is whatever you agree it to be, provided it's forcing or it's alerted.
>

AFAIAC, this is the right answer to the question. Bertil did not ask if you'd open it, or how, or why. He asked, without specifying any system, if the hand qualifies under ACBL jurisdiction. And yes, it does.

If you want to offer any sort of judgment on the sensibility of opening the hand, you do this at your own risk. I recommend Kevlar.