[microcap]

Playing pairs today, Rex held these two consecutive amazingly similar ♣ ♠ two suiters!

The question is: What do you open with these hands? Are they 2 ♣ openers? Regardless of your answer, I would appreciate comments on your normal standards for 2 ♣ as [and I know this will shock you], Rex and I disagree heartily!

Board 3:

---

Board 4:

---

[billw55]

Put me down for 1♣ on both. Two suiters are often hard to describe in a 2♣ auction. If the hand is strong enough I must do so anyway, but not here.

[ArtK78]

1♣ on both hands. I intend to bid spades and more clubs on the first, and spades and more spades on the second, while showing a BIG hand on both.

Both are 3 loser hands, which, by loser count, qualifies each for a 2♣ opening. But, as said previously, if one can find an excuse for opening one of a suit on a strong two-suiter, that is the way to go. Here, the chance that either hand will be passed out is next to zero. But the chance that the opponents may enter with a preempt is significant. So we want to get our suits into the auction as soon as possible.

[benlessard]

board 3 is a clearcut 1C since it has very close to 0% odds of going AP.

B4 I would also open 1C but I dont blame 2C that much.

[nige1]

microcap, on 2015-June-11, 14:04, said:

Playing pairs today, Rex held these two consecutive amazingly similar ♣ ♠ two suiters!
The question is: What do you open with these hands? Are they 2 ♣ openers? Regardless of your answer, I would appreciate comments on your normal standards for 2 ♣ as [and I know this will shock you], Rex and I disagree heartily!

Board 3: IMO 1♣ = 10, 2♣ = 8.
I open 2♣ rather than a 1-bid, If game is possible opposite some flat Yarboroughs and there's a realistic chance of a 1-opener being passed out. That's least likely when the opening bid is 1♣. If you slightly change these hands, so that a 1♠ opener is the main alternative, then a 2♣ opener becomes more attractive.

---

Board 4: IMO 1♣ = 10, 2♣ = 9.

---

[fromageGB]

A 2♣ open is a hand no worse than a trick short of game on its own, or loads of hcp, and while board 3 qualifies on that basis, I don't want to subsequently describe it as a 2-suiter. Very happy to open 1♣.
Board 4 is a two-suiter and 2♣ is automatic if you can show both suits. Rebid spades first then 3♣ over a 2NT relay.

[microcap]

Thanks for the answers.

Let's say for argument's sake that both hands were ♠ ♦ two suiters , so just mentally switch the clubs and diamonds in each hand.

Would that change your mind?

[gordontd]

microcap, on 2015-June-14, 09:24, said:

Thanks for the answers.

Let's say for argument's sake that both hands were ♠ ♦ two suiters , so just mentally switch the clubs and diamonds in each hand.

Would that change your mind?

It's always awkward to show a strong hand starting with 2♣ when the longer suit is a minor, so I still would do that. The only difference is that 1♦ is a little more likely to get passed out than is 1♣.

[benlessard]

I am more likely to open 2C with C+M than with D+M.

1-wrongsiding D contracts.

2- over 2C-??-3C- a 3D rebid by responder can be a punt. After a 3D rebid by opener 3H got to be natural.

[mcphee]

The first hand I would not fault 2C but prefer 1C. Even if youwere to land on a 4/4 !S fit life things can be dismal.
This second hand is not a 2C bid IHO.

[Zelandakh]

benlessard, on 2015-June-14, 15:13, said:

2- over 2C-??-3C- a 3D rebid by responder can be a punt. After a 3D rebid by opener 3H got to be natural.

A common method is to play this 3♦ rebid as Staymanic. 2♣ - 2♦; 3♣ - 3♦; 3♠ is not an unreasonable description of Hand 3. With diamonds exchanged, you get a similar effect by using the sequence 2♣ - 2♦; 3M to show the major bod and longer diamonds. Playing this, 2♣ - 2♦; 3♠ is again not such a bad way of beginning with the adjusted Hand 3.

The problem is that whichever approach is taken I doubt we are going to be able to check everything using natural methods. That is just normal for hands with xx in a side suit and a void and it is made even more difficult by the long suit being clubs.

As for the question in the OP, whether they are 2♣ openers might have something to do with how old you are. 40 years ago I would have expected both of these hands to start with a strong opening. The modern way is to open 2-suiters such as Hand 4 at the one level. Hand 3 can go either way but is weak enough on pure power that opening 1♣ is probably going to be preferred by the majority. The problem here is not so much showing both suits, as described above, but rather the opps ramping it up to 4 or 5 of a red suit when the tray comes back to us with neither us having gotten a suit into play. There's something to be said for recommending 2♣ in a novice game and 1♣ at an expert table.

[gszes]

hand 1 really needs p to hold at least 4 spades to make 4s a plausible game so opening 1c seems like the way to go there. Hand 2 essentially needs nothing more than xxx in spades to give us a good game chance so it is entirely too risky to open 1c. Much better and safer to open 2c show spades and settle for clubs if no spade fit.

[benlessard]

Quote

A common method is to play this 3♦ rebid as Staymanic. 2♣ - 2♦; 3♣ - 3♦; 3♠ is not an unreasonable description of Hand 3. With diamonds exchanged, you get a similar effect by using the sequence 2♣ - 2♦; 3M to show the major bod and longer diamonds. Playing this, 2♣ - 2♦; 3♠ is again not such a bad way of beginning with the adjusted Hand 3

Yes I agree and do like this scheme but its still not always equivalent.

2C-2D-3S (D+S) here responder cannot show a H suit etc...

2C-2D-3C is just a better start than 2C-2D- and you have long D.

So I think that all others things being equals you are more likely to open 2C with primary clubs than with primary diamonds.