Opening 20+ point hands
New
2NT & 2C on strong hands?
- Points
- Balanced/Unbalanced
- Length of suit
Also, I guess 2C is always forcing while 2NT isn't.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> What are your requirements for bidding
> 2NT & 2C on strong hands?
> - Points
> - Balanced/Unbalanced
> - Length of suit
I am not a strong player, but here is my system:
2NT:
20-21, no 5-card major, at most one doubleton, no singleton
(even distribution).
Responses: Stayman and Jacoby
2C:
either 22+ any distribution or
8˝ play tricks with an unknown 6-suit
Responder bids 2D (relay) after which opener shows his hand:
A suit bid with a jump reveals the hand with playing tricks
and a long suit.
A bid with no jump reveals the 22+ hand and a 5-suit.
2NT means even distribution and 22-24
3NT means even distribution and 25-27
> Also, I guess 2C is always forcing while 2NT isn't.
Right.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
Gerben Dirksen
I play similar, except that 2NT is 20-22 and 8½ play tricks with an
unknown 6-suit only counts for a MAJOR, for a minor I require 9½.
Gerben
boblipton
Opening 2C requires a STRONG hand (could theoretically be as low as
17 HCP) that is no more than one trick short of game in itself (by my
own losing trick count) and which I have no reasonable fear that the
opponents are going to be able to jump higher than game without some
fear of being doubled.
2NT openers are 20-21 HCP with NT shapes.
2C-2D-2NT is 22-24 HCP with a NT shape.
Bob
Nick France
2nt should depend on your notrump range. Most common is the USA is
20-21HCP and a balanced hand (5332,4432, or 4333). 2C for a
relatively new player should be 9 playing tricks and 4 Quick Tricks in
at least 3 different suits. The 2C standard came from "5 weeks to
winning bridge" and is still a good critieria to start with.
Nick France
Barry Margolin
<2b0e7c17-a476-48cf...@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
boblipton <bobl...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 5:30�am, New <n...@new.com> wrote:
> > What are your requirements for bidding
> > 2NT & 2C on strong hands?
> >
> > - Points
> > - Balanced/Unbalanced
> > - Length of suit
> >
> > Also, I guess 2C is always forcing while 2NT isn't.
>
>
> Opening 2C requires a STRONG hand (could theoretically be as low as
> 17 HCP) that is no more than one trick short of game in itself (by my
> own losing trick count) and which I have no reasonable fear that the
> opponents are going to be able to jump higher than game without some
> fear of being doubled.
There's very little reason to open 2C with hands as weak as 17 HCP. The
reason to open 2C is that you don't want to miss game if your opening is
followed by 3 passes. But if you have only 17 HCP and extreme
distribution, it's almost certain that either partner or an opponent
will have enough to bid, so you'll get a second chance.
Only poor players go by the rule that they open 2C whenever they have
8.5 tricks in their hand. Partner should be able to expect you to have
a decent amount of defensive tricks as well as a bunch of playing tricks.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
ttw...@att.net
> In article
> <2b0e7c17-a476-48cf-9b33-1af3e74a8...@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
For me, 2NT=21-22 (combined with weak 12-14 1NT and 1x-1y-1NT=15-16
and 1x-yy-2NT=17-17 and 1x-yy-3NT=19-20).
2C requires 21+HCP, 4 1/2 QT and be no more than 1 trick short of
game. (Also using 2H/2S as Acol.)
Fred.
2NT balanced 4333, 4432 or 5332, a good 20 to a quacky 22 HCP, HCP in
at least 3 suits, 5-card major OK.
Responses: Baron, Jacoby
2C
Balanced, good 22 HCP or better.
Major 1 suiter, 4QT+, 8.5+ playing tricks.
Minor 1 suiter, 5QT+, 10+ playing tricks.
2 suiters and 3 suiters almost always opened 1 of a suit.
Fred.
Michael Angelo Ravera
You don't say where you live and that is an important point. In the
"Monern British" system, it gets pretty easy. With 19/20+ points, one
opens 2C, if the hand is unbalanced or more than about 22 HCP and 2NT
otherwise.
In the "Standard American" system, there may be some unbalanced 20-21
HCP hands with lots of queens and jacks that need to be opened one of
a suit, but there aren't many. Some players shoehorn in a lot of
slightly offshape 20-21 hands into 2NT.
My personal requirements for 2NT are a liberal interpretation of
"19-21" and a liberal interpretation of "balanced". Neither one
worthless doubleton, nor two doubletons, nor a 6-card minor will stop
me, but I frown on singleton honors, and avoid hands with good 5-card
majors. If you put those 5 criteria to enough players, I am sure that
you will get all possible answers. Some players even build an inquiry
into their responses to determine, if opener has one of those.
My criteria for opening 2C involve a metric known as "Losing Trick
Count" plus any metric required by your regulating authority.
In all cases, I NEVER open a strong 2C without at least 13 HCP. This
is a the WBF requirement for a bid to be considered "strong".
Technically, the ACBL has *NO* HCP requirement and the EBU requires
the "Modified rule of 25" (which they waive, if you have 16+HCP). I
suspect that most hands that have 13 or more HCP and 4 or less losing
tricks and less than 16 HCP meet the "Modified rule of 25" anyway
(they almost always have 11 or more cards in the two longest suits)
With a balanced hand, I require 22+ total points (that might count one
point for a 5-card suit)
With an unbalanced major dominated hand, I require no more than 4
losing tricks.
With any other unbalanced hand, I require no more than 3 losing
tricks.
Steve Willner
> What are your requirements for bidding
> 2NT & 2C on strong hands?
For _balanced_ hands, different partnerships use different ranges, but
generally you just count points and open according to your agreed range.
Experienced players will adjust the raw point count, adding a bit for
aces, tens, and honors in long suits and subtracting a bit for kings,
queens, and honors in short suits, but straight point count is pretty good.
For _unbalanced_ hands, the traditional rule is that to open 2C, you
should have more quick tricks than losers. If you have lots of playing
strength but don't meet this requirement, just open your best suit at
the one level. I think an improvement is "Steve's rule," which says
that if opponents bid higher than the highest contract you expect to
make, you should expect to beat it. This takes into account actual
defense and suit rank. For example, AKQxxxxx x Ax Ax has 4 QT and 3
losers, so the traditional rule lets you open with 2C. I might do that
myself, depending on system details. However, if the majors were
switched, you couldn't expect to beat 4S nor make 5H, and Steve's rule
tells you to open 1H. The advantage of bidding your suit right away is
that partner can cooperate if opponents bid.
> Also, I guess 2C is always forcing while 2NT isn't.
Opening 2C is a one-round force, though some responders might choose to
pass with long clubs and a zero-count. Don't complain to me if you do
that and partner is upset about it!
After the first round, methods vary, but usually opener's next bid is
forcing except in the specific sequence 2C-2D-2NT. After that, methods
vary even more, but in the US, the 2C bid is usually not in itself
forcing to game. The 2C bid does mean (for nearly everyone) that either
the opening side plays the contract or opponents play it doubled. Thus
if opponents bid something and opener or responder passes next, the
player in the passout seat must bid or double.
It's helpful to agree that all doubles by the initial 2C bidder are
penalty. Responder can pull but should do so only with a seriously
unbalanced hand. Responder's doubles should show any balanced hand, not
necessarily a trump stack. Some pairs agree that a first-round double
by responder shows weakness; others agree it shows strength but balanced
distribution. Make sure you and partner agree.
Opening 2NT is not forcing, nor (in standard methods) are the opening
side's passes forcing unless responder has shown positive strength.
I've often wondered whether that's best. There's an argument to be
made, especially at matchpoints, that after 2NT, opponents should never
play the contract undoubled. I've never seen a convincing study of this
question. No doubt it depends on the exact 2NT range you play.
My personal preference (in a standardish system) is to avoid all this by
playing 2C as a weak two-bid, but not everyone can tolerate that!
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Douglas Newlands
> On 7/21/2011 5:30 AM, New wrote:
>> What are your requirements for bidding
>> 2NT & 2C on strong hands?
>
> Opening 2NT is not forcing, nor (in standard methods) are the opening
> side's passes forcing unless responder has shown positive strength. I've
> often wondered whether that's best. There's an argument to be made,
> especially at matchpoints, that after 2NT, opponents should never play
> the contract undoubled. I've never seen a convincing study of this
> question. No doubt it depends on the exact 2NT range you play.
The other similar assertion is that (2N)-P-(P)- should always be
doubled. This was always averred at the rubber bridge table and
seemed true more often than not but I never met anyone with the
courage of their convictions to actually do it.
> My personal preference (in a standardish system) is to avoid all this by
> playing 2C as a weak two-bid, but not everyone can tolerate that!
Ditto but I prefer it as weak 5+4+ in the majors.
If partners insist on a strong 2 then we slip it into the multi-2D.
doug
Adam Beneschan
> On 28/07/11 9:16 AM, Steve Willner wrote:
>> On 7/21/2011 5:30 AM, New wrote:
>>> What are your requirements for bidding
>>> 2NT & 2C on strong hands?
>
>>
>> Opening 2NT is not forcing, nor (in standard methods) are the opening
>> side's passes forcing unless responder has shown positive strength. I've
>> often wondered whether that's best. There's an argument to be made,
>> especially at matchpoints, that after 2NT, opponents should never play
>> the contract undoubled. I've never seen a convincing study of this
>> question. No doubt it depends on the exact 2NT range you play.
>
> The other similar assertion is that (2N)-P-(P)- should always be
> doubled. This was always averred at the rubber bridge table and
> seemed true more often than not but I never met anyone with the
> courage of their convictions to actually do it.
Well, if the guy on my left believes that he should always double in
this auction, and he does have the courage of his convictions, then
obviously I should pass partner's 2NT no matter what I hold--even with a
12-count or more.
Of course, he'll have to change tactics and start doubling 2NT just some
of the time, so that if I do pass 2NT with a good hand I risk playing it
there.
This raises a couple interesting game theory questions: just what
percentage of the time should a player double 2NT in the passout seat to
maximize their gain, and what percentage of the time should a 2NT player
who has enough for game pass out 2NT to try to get doubled overtrick(s).
Unfortunately, figuring out the answer to this is way over my head.
-- Adam
Martin Ambuhl
The requirements for 2C & 2NT depend to a large extent on what your
other 2-bids mean. If you have some other action to describe hands just
short of game-forcing, then the 2C bid can be held to fairly strict
standards (Traditional Acol, C.A.B., "Utility", and Butler's "Official"
are British Systems which used 2D, 2H, 2S as either one-round forces or
as strong but not forcing bids; Benjaminized Acol uses 2C for these and
_2D_ as the strong bid, although some reverse these; systems using a
multi-2D opening can have quite complex distinctions between various
strong bids.) If you use 2D, 2H, 2S as weak 2-bids, there is a strong
tendency to debase 2C. Edgar Kaplan is recognized as the first to
influentially propose lowering the requirements for 2C with 1-suited
hands with a major as the dominant suit, although he would be aghast
(and was) at the garbage that most club-level players open 2C on now.
Normally, apart from the systems that distinguish between hands opened
with artificial 2C and artificial 2D bids, 2C followed by a 2NT rebid
shows a range like 22-24 or 23-24 and that 2NT rebid is not forcing.
2NT openings, then, usually show hands just short of 2C with a 2NT
rebid. All of 20-21, 20-22, 21-22 are common. The 2NT opening is not
forcing. Both 2NT and 2C...2NT bids show balanced hands. The presence
of 5-card majors, weak doubletons, 5-4 patterns, singleton honors are
matters for partners to discuss. Some players would disallow hands with
any of these characteristics, while others have no problem with one or
more of them.
Consider for a moment that the archetypal suit-based 2C bid is defined
in terms of hands having one dominant suit, and that a major. However
you describe the requirements for such a bid, consider:
1) Hands with a dominant minor suit begins to have its pattern described
only at the 2-level; this is similar to opening 3C or 3D to show strong
minor-suited hands. And 5C/5D require a trick more than 4H/4S. Of the
old-fashioned US standard writers, Goren was one of the few that made a
point of this, requiring 2 more points to open naturally 2C or 2D than
to open 2H or 2S. When you start showing your pattern at the 3-level
(as with an artificial 2C bid), 2 points more may be too few. Opening 2C
on minor suit hands of fewer than 10 tricks or so may often require you
to suppress the minor, treating the hand as a NT type.
2a) Every new suit you bid adds another round of forcing bids.
Additional forcing rounds require additional strength. One of the big
errors of many players (including several posters to r.g.b.) is to open
2C too readily on 5-4-4-0 and 4-4-4-1 hands. More suits to bid require
more values.
2b) If your second suit is higher ranking, the same sorts of
considerations hold as when you considered an opening 1-bid. Bidding
secondary, higher ranking suits requires additional strength.
2c) With a true 2-suiter (5-5 or longer), there is a very real
possibility that the opponents will force the auction to an
uncomfortably high level before you bid even _one_ of your suits. There
is a sizeable group of experts who will not open this type with 2C at
all (students at the Honors Bridge Club are taught this). In any case,
if you open on 2C on this type, keep the high-card content fairly high,
at least 21+ HCP and perhaps more.
[Note that traditional strong 2-bids are less subject to the above
problems than is the artificial 2C bid, and Acol 2-bids, but not
Benjaminized Acol, handles 2-suiters well.]
3) Several posters to r.g.b. describe their requirements for
distributional 2C bids in terms of playing strength alone, and that
requirement is often some debased value like 8 1/2 playing tricks. That
is simply an error. There is an old bridge maxim worth committing to
memory: After a 2C bid (or strong 2-bid) the opponents should not be
allowed to play a contract undoubled. To stay true to this, our 8 1/2
playing trick friends will need to keep bidding well beyond their means
or else double out the opponents in their cold contracts. Notice the
emphasis on defensive tricks in
i) Ely Culbertson's first Blue Book and early Gold Book standard:
Honor tricks (not quick tricks)) + playing tricks should add to at
least 13.
ii) Ely Culbertson's later Gold Book standard (adopted because he found
students to have trouble counting playing tricks):
There should be more honor tricks (not quick tricks) than losers
(not the Losing Trick Count).
iii) The old Acol high card standard for 2C:
In addition to sufficient playing strength, there should be at least
5 honor tricks (not quick tricks).
Since no one counts honor tricks any more, I would suggest as a dead
minimum that the 2C bid based on a major suit have at least 4 Quick
Tricks, and the 2C bid based on a minor suit should have somewhat more.
4) Evaluation.
Living in the point-count age since at least the early 1950s, people
like to have things boiled down to this one-dimensional yardstick. Here
are some. They differ greatly in which hands they allow, so feel free
to tinker, try, and discard any of them.
a) Jo Culbertson's point count, used in the last of Ely Culbertson's
(posthumous) Gold Book, and popular for a while in Britain.
High cards: Count Ace=4, King=3, Queen=2, Jack =1, except:
count any King, Queen, or Jack not accompanied by another of the
top 4-cards in a suit as 1 fewer point,
count having 4 or the top 5 cards in any suit as 1 point more, or
all 5 honors in suit as 2 more.
Pattern: count 2 for each card over 5 (this is better suited to
natural strong 2-bids)
A sum of 24 is sufficient for a strong 2-bid.
b) Goren:
High cards: count Ace=4, King=3, Queen=2, Jack=1, except
completely devalue isolated Queens or Jacks,
count one fewer for singleton King or doubleton QJ.
Pattern: count shortness (void=3, singleton=2, doubleton=1),
adding 1 for the 5th card in a suit and 2 for each card over 5 in
a suit.
A sum of 26 suffices for a major-suit 2-bid, 28 for a minor suit
2-bid.
c) Roth-Rubens: Note that Roth in most of his writing avoids relying
too heavily on point count. This was especially true of his later
book _Picture Bidding_. I think we can blame Rubens for this.
High cards: count Ace=4, King=3, Queen=2, Jack=1, except
count one fewer for singleton King, Queen, or Jack, any doubleton
containing the Queen or Jack but not the Ace.
Pattern: count 2 for any 6-card suit with 4 of the top 5 honors,
4 for any 7-card or longer suit with 3 of the top 4
honors.
1 for any lesser 6-card major suit or minor suit with
2 of the top 3 honors,
2 for any lesser 7-card or longer major suit or minor
suit with 2 of the top 3 honors,
A sum of 24 suffices.
d) Roland Smith:
High cards: count Ace=4, King=3, Queen=2, Jack=1.
Pattern: count 1 for a 5-card or 6-card suit,
2 for any longer suit
1 for a singleton unless it is the King, Queen, or
Jack
2 for a void.
A sum of 24 suffices, and 22 will do with a 6+ card major.
5) For Losing Trick Count fetishists:
Except for happy accidents, LTC overstates the trick-taking power of
a hand. I suggest that at least the following adjustments be made:
Roman honor adjustment: add 1/2 LTC for any Queen trebleton or
longer without the Ace, King, or Jack.
Add 1/4 LTC for any King doubleton or longer without the Ace,
Queen, or Jack
Partial Blue Team length adjustment: add 1/2 LTC for 4-card suit
(4th card an x), 1/4 LTC for 5-card suit (5th card an x).
6) For our 8 1/2 playing trick friends. Since you seem to miss Acol
2-bids, debasing 2C to include them, might I suggest that you give
Benjamin a try?
OldPalooka
wrote:
> The other similar assertion is that (2N)-P-(P)- should always be
> doubled. This was always averred at the rubber bridge table and
> seemed true more often than not but I never met anyone with the
> courage of their convictions to actually do it.
> doug
Like most game theory propositions, always doubling is a big loser.
Occasionally doubling is [probably] a winner, particularly if you have
support for all leads. But even occasionally doubling with full
disclosure will cause opps to adjust and pass on prior break even
decisions so it becomes very dicey.
-- Bill
Steve Willner
> The other similar assertion is that (2N)-P-(P)- should always be
> doubled. This was always averred at the rubber bridge table and
> seemed true more often than not but I never met anyone with the
> courage of their convictions to actually do it.
Barry Crane used to do it from time to time, I hear, though I don't
think it was always. I don't know what his criteria were.
It would be interesting to see a simulation of how often it's right to
double if you think responder isn't allowing for it. As Adam says, it's
an interesting game theory problem to determine the best strategies
overall, but the simple calculation is a place to start.
KWSchneider
<snipped>
Impressive response, Martin.
Kurt
derek
> Only poor players go by the rule that they open 2C whenever they have
> 8.5 tricks in their hand. Partner should be able to expect you to have
> a decent amount of defensive tricks as well as a bunch of playing tricks.
I agree. When the bidding goes 2C (2M) and double by me, I expect
partner to have the values to set almost anything they bid - because
_I_ don't have values. If partner is routinely opening hands where I
can't contribute a trick, and he has only 8.5 tricks, we're going to
be doubling them into game pretty often.
ttw...@att.net
Sometimes it seems like the Roman Club method of having all one-bids
forcing has some real advantages. Both one and two-suited big hands
can be shown at low levels.
Martin Ambuhl
> Sometimes it seems like the Roman Club method of having all one-bids
> forcing has some real advantages. Both one and two-suited big hands
> can be shown at low levels.
Almost true. If you need no more than a random 3-count in a 4333
pattern, you'd better open 1C in Roman. With that hand partner can pass
an opening 1D, 1H, or 1S bid. The raise is nominally 4-7 with 4-card
support and the negative step followed by a preference to the first suit
shows 8-9 with 4-card support.
Douglas Newlands
1. the step bid is 0-9 without a fit
2. the raise is 0-9 with a 4 card fit
3. pass is not an option
Since the book I am quoting is written by Belladonna and Avarelli, I
assume it is authoritative.
doug
Martin Ambuhl
You are looking at the 1959 edition (reflected by Kaplan's 1959 book on
the Italian Systems). I always mean the Roman Club of the 1960s &
1970s, which is found in Belladonna & Avarelli's 1969 revision (and
refected in Kaplan's monograph on the Roman System).
Douglas Newlands
please so I can see if it is available.
I only have (possibly relevant) world championship books for 1965, B&A
still playing Roman as I understand it and 1972 when they are playing
Precision. Did they play the revised system in between those times?
doug
Martin Ambuhl
The Kaplan monograph was published by Bridge World as mimeographed pages
(as were KS updated and Kaplan's monographs on New South Wales, Arno,
and Il Quadri Livorno systems). The 1969 revision (actually the 3rd
edition) of _Il sistema fiori romano_ was, I believe, published by
Bridge d'oggi. Mursia published the 1976 _Il Nuovissimo Fiori Romano_,
available from <http://www.bergogliolibri.it> for 10 euro. Brossura
published the (post-Super Precision) 1988 version _Il moderno Fiori
romano_, available from <http:/www.amazon.it> for 6.90 euro.
There are English translations of both the 1969 revision
(<http://bridgegraz.kilu.de/lizit/1969IlSistemaFioriRomano.pdf> is a
translation. <http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/Roman.doc> is a
summary) and a 1986 preliminary verion of the 1988 version on the web at
<http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/86RomanClub.zip>.