[dsLawsd]

An accurate and complete discussion.
Never always- your question on most hands is would you be unhappy if partner passed with 3/4 points? Bid 2♣ if yes.

2NT feels accurate, but in some cases I would open 1♠.
It might depend on what event I am in and who my partner is.
One of my now deceased fav partners voted for 14-16 NT and 19-21 2NT ranges making this hand too strong.

Thanks for giving us this hand to discuss.

[pescetom]

 msjennifer, on 2020-February-23, 16:08, said:

SIR,the requirements are NOT bizarre as you consider them to be .Hence I, politely, beg to differ.

There is no logical bridge requirement for a 2♣ 2NT opening to have a certain number of winners, or be game forcing, or whatever.
It just shows range of HCP superior to a direct 2NT opening and thus can perfectly well be 22+, or even less if 2NT does not reach 21.
If your RA has a regulation to the contrary (mine does not) then I understand your problem, although I, politely, beg to consider such a regulation bizarre

[msjennifer]

 FelicityR, on 2020-February-23, 11:47, said:

What I perhaps meant to say here when I say "a 2♣ opening is overstating the hand" is that the hand is 22 HCPs but it doesn't mean you should necessarily open it with 2♣ regardless of other factors.

First it is not a classic 'partner needs very little for game to be made' hand. A red suit king might add one trick to the tally, but it would still be difficult to make 10 tricks in a major or 9 tricks in no-trumps, obviously depending on what partner has precisely.

I was also always taught that a 2♣ opener should have 5 quick tricks available: this one has 4 and a half. And obviously again, distributional hands can be opened 2♣ without the requisite 5 quick tricks, but the nearer a hand is to a balanced distribution as this is, I would downgrade it slightly because it doesn't fit the quick trick criteria.

The forum poster asked all of us whether he felt that due to number of factors this hand, despite its 22HCPs, is worthy of a 2♣ opening? Looking at all the different ways of evaluating, I would still opt towards opening this 2NT (20-22) instead of 2♣. Others might state they see no reason why it shouldn't be opened 2♣. That's what bridge is all about: a matter of personal opinions

And, it would be interesting to see the whole hand, and what the outcome was.

Madam,I,personally,FULLY AGREE.

[bluenikki]

 pescetom, on 2020-February-23, 16:14, said:

There is no logical bridge requirement for a 2♣ 2NT opening to have a certain number of winners, or be game forcing, or whatever.
It just shows range of HCP superior to a direct 2NT opening and thus can perfectly well be 22+, or even less if 2NT does not reach 21.
If your RA has a regulation to the contrary (mine does not) then I understand your problem, although I, politely, beg to consider such a regulation bizarre

Actually, there is no logical bridge requirement for 2 followed by 2NT to be stronger than original 2NT. Rather than weaker, I mean.

[ruleof15]

 phoenixmj, on 2020-February-22, 15:37, said:

---

If you play a strong 2C is 22+ points OR 8.5 tricks, should you ALWAYS open 2C with any 22 point hand?


This hand came up and it was PPP to me. This hand has 22 HCP, but is also has a 6 LTC - although it might be better than a 6 with adjustments. The spade suit lacks "texture" and I know my partner does not have an opening hand. I probably only need 4 points and a spade fit to make 4 spades and the only forcing bid I can open is 2C.


Do you look at a hand like this and say - I can open 2NT (I am a point strong but i have 3 tenaces and the KQ of clubs. OR, do you say I am going to open 2C and then bid spades. Or, do you say this hand is really only "worth" 19 ish points so I will treat it as such.

I have frequently opened hands that have lower point counts but also fewer losers with a 2C open - so this is somewhat the reverse of that. IMHO weaker than its HCP.

As always - interesting hand and I look forward to hearing different opinions - or a universal opinion if there is one.
Thx in advance

[ruleof15]

Bridge is a game of percentages laced with ability. Some players can make 3NT with 24HCP balanced between the hands 85% of the time and others can't make 3NT with 26HCP 50% of the time. If you ability to play the hand is the former, then open the hand 2C and rebid 2NT if you play Puppet Stayman. If you don't play Puppet, then bid 2S. With the distribution the hand would play better in a suit than NT. Unbalanced distribution of HCP makes playing NT difficult sometimes.

[msjennifer]

 ruleof15, on 2020-February-23, 19:56, said:

Bridge is a game of percentages laced with ability. Some players can make 3NT with 24HCP balanced between the hands 85% of the time and others can't make 3NT with 26HCP 50% of the time. If you ability to play the hand is the former, then open the hand 2C and rebid 2NT if you play Puppet Stayman. If you don't play Puppet, then bid 2S. With the distribution the hand would play better in a suit than NT. Unbalanced distribution of HCP makes playing NT difficult sometimes.

Sir,you have accurately described the problem.Incidently ,I passed this hand to a ferw of my students,some playing a variety of ACOL (they opened this hand 2S strong and reached 4S )) a few of standard bidders opened 1S but reached 4S.Two of them opened it 2C and LHO made a preemptive bid of 4 hearts when the bidding went 2C-P-2D-P-2NT-4H-P-P-Double -ALL PASS. This was doubled as there was no room left to find the spade fit.There was no defence even double dummy and 4Hx was made comfortably .The 2C opener got only the three trump tricks. This was enough to teach them the value of winners in any hand to be considered along with a respectful consideration of HCP.As a matter of fact the Losing Trick Count theory might not have come into existence if winners and losers were not thought of and only the HCP count was considered.The other day in the Sillafu match South holding 23HCP had to pass throughout and in both rooms the auction was same ending in EW playing in TWO DIAMONDS UNDOUBLED. Come to think of it that they were all world class players.The South hand was Kx- KJx-AKxx-AKQx. LHO opened a 15/17 NT. and RHO bid 2C (Stayman).NS could not have made any contract .However this is not to belittle the worshippers of ONLY THE HCP holding.THANKS

[miamijd]

As I have stated on this board more than once, Jeff Meckstroth's advice to me 35 years ago was excellent. On opening bid, when faced with a decision whether to make a slight overbid or a slight underbid, always -- always -- choose the overbid. That is -- often upgrade, never downgrade. The reasons is that it's very easy to make minimum rebids from then on. It's much harder if you have to play "catch up."

If you play a standard 20-21 2NT opener, open 2C and rebid 2NT. WTP?

Cheers,
Mike

[Cyberyeti]

 miamijd, on 2020-February-24, 14:51, said:

As I have stated on this board more than once, Jeff Meckstroth's advice to me 35 years ago was excellent. On opening bid, when faced with a decision whether to make a slight overbid or a slight underbid, always -- always -- choose the overbid. That is -- often upgrade, never downgrade. The reasons is that it's very easy to make minimum rebids from then on. It's much harder if you have to play "catch up."

If you play a standard 20-21 2NT opener, open 2C and rebid 2NT. WTP?

Cheers,
Mike

It's far from a WTP, the question is "do you want partner to bid game on a fairly flat average 4 count", and I think you don't most of the time, the exception being if he has 4 spades.

[apollo1201]

 msjennifer, on 2020-February-23, 16:08, said:

SIR,the requirements are NOT bizarre as you consider them to be .Hence I, politely, beg to differ.

I think you’re both referring to 2 different things, 2C requirements’for NT follow-ups which are based on HCPs but for suit follow ups based on playing tricks / winners or whatever you call them.
Here, no one is considering to bid the hand as a strong S one-suited hand. And 1S clearly risks as pass-out with so much strength.
So it is basically between 2NT and 2C followed by 2NT depending on range and assessment of what the hand is worth. All other posters exposed their views on that.

[FelicityR]

 miamijd, on 2020-February-24, 14:51, said:

As I have stated on this board more than once, Jeff Meckstroth's advice to me 35 years ago was excellent. On opening bid, when faced with a decision whether to make a slight overbid or a slight underbid, always -- always -- choose the overbid. That is -- often upgrade, never downgrade. The reasons is that it's very easy to make minimum rebids from then on. It's much harder if you have to play "catch up."

If you play a standard 20-21 2NT opener, open 2C and rebid 2NT. WTP?

Cheers,
Mike

I respect both your own personal comment, Mike, and obviously, yes obviously! the advice a great player such as Jeff Meckstroth makes, but I tend to agree with Cyberyeti here: do you want partner to bid game on a fairly flat average four count?

When Mr Meckstroth gave you his sound advice, did he also say that both table position and bidding opposite a passed partner applies, too? As there's a big difference between describing a bid accurately in one bid and overstating the strength of your hand - or, maybe more conversely, understating the slight weakness of your hand - by opening 2♣?

Especially here it's more unlikely that the hand will be one where you will be in any 'catch up' scenario: the opponents have already passed vulnerable. Slam is a long way off, and it will only be on a smaller selection of hands where partner has a 9-10 HCP count, or unusual distribution with a lesser HCP count, where slam will be achievable.

I'm more concerned that partner will be pushed towards game with meagre values if you open 2♣ rather than 2NT.

[smerriman]

 FelicityR, on 2020-February-24, 22:27, said:

I respect both your own personal comment, Mike, and obviously, yes obviously! the advice a great player such as Jeff Meckstroth makes, but I tend to agree with Cyberyeti here: do you want partner to bid game on a fairly flat average four count?

I would bid game opposite a balanced 20-21 with a flat 4 count so that would make no difference vs a 22-24 range.

It seems it's really the cases where partner has a king and nothing else where there's a difference between the two ranges.

If partner has just a king, <= 3 spades, and <= 4 hearts, 3NT is making double dummy ~42% of the time. I would expect possible spade/heart fits and declarer advantage would lift that somewhat.

[Cyberyeti]

 smerriman, on 2020-February-25, 01:11, said:

I would bid game opposite a balanced 20-21 with a flat 4 count so that would make no difference vs a 22-24 range.

It seems it's really the cases where partner has a king and nothing else where there's a difference between the two ranges.

If partner has just a king, <= 3 spades, and <= 4 hearts, 3NT is making double dummy ~42% of the time. I would expect possible spade/heart fits and declarer advantage would lift that somewhat.

Really ? Ace of clubs and out 3N is terrible, ♥Kxx it's not great, ♦10 makes a huge difference, so does double dummy as you will pick up the spades every time you can pick them up, even if you wouldn't single dummy.

Flat 4 is an easy pass v 20-21, average 20 opposite average 4 rarely makes game single dummy and 20 is MUCH more common than 21.

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-25, 03:39, said:

Flat 4 is an easy pass v 20-21, average 20 opposite average 4 rarely makes game single dummy and 20 is MUCH more common than 21.

FWIW, Flat 5 or an Ace is our rule of thumb minimum opposite 20-21.
And yes the difference in probability between 20 and 21 is notable (0.0064 vs 0.0038).

[Zelandakh]

I find the whole thread here to be rather sad and, unfortunately, indicative of where BBF is in recent times. The OP asks a very simple question given a very specific bidding system. Most of the answers coming back are of the form "I would do this in my system". Who f***ing cares? If I write: "I would open this with a strong 1♣, wtp?", does anyone think this is helpful?

The OP has no requirement for a specific number of QTs for their 2♣ opening. The OP's system is not that a 2♣ opening shows 23+ if balanced. The OP is not playing Acol Strong Twos, nor did he specify awful opps that pass a 2♣ opening and then make a delayed preempt after Opener has shown their hand. A 2NT opening is 20-21, period. Not 20-22, not 19-21 and not 19.5-21.

If nothing else, at least the OP can look back at this thread with an eye to working out who to pay attention to in future threads. Basically skip first to mikeh and work from there (yes, I know some other posters said the same thing first) and be warned against posters that are simply incapable of answering a simple forum question. The hand is a balanced 22. You have a bidding sequence to show a balanced 22. Bridge is not rocket science. It might not work out. That is life.

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-February-25, 10:06, said:

I find the whole thread here to be rather sad and, unfortunately, indicative of where BBF is in recent times. The OP asks a very simple question given a very specific bidding system. Most of the answers coming back are of the form "I would do this in my system". Who f***ing cares? If I write: "I would open this with a strong 1♣, wtp?", does anyone think this is helpful?

The OP has no requirement for a specific number of QTs for their 2♣ opening. The OP's system is not that a 2♣ opening shows 23+ if balanced. The OP is not playing Acol Strong Twos, nor did he specify awful opps that pass a 2♣ opening and then make a delayed preempt after Opener has shown their hand. A 2NT opening is 20-21, period. Not 20-22, not 19-21 and not 19.5-21.

If nothing else, at least the OP can look back at this thread with an eye to working out who to pay attention to in future threads. Basically skip first to mikeh and work from there (yes, I know some other posters said the same thing first) and be warned against posters that are simply incapable of answering a simple forum question. The hand is a balanced 22. You have a bidding sequence to show a balanced 22. Bridge is not rocket science. It might not work out. That is life.

Many posters are saying this is a balanced 21 not a balanced 22, and I think it's really close, that is what most of this thread is about.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-25, 12:00, said:

Many posters are saying this is a balanced 21 not a balanced 22, and I think it's really close, that is what most of this thread is about.

Many? The only poster I can see (in either thread) that argued for treating this as a balanced 21 without also being insistent on playing 2NT as 20-22 is shermangao. You said it was close but that you would treat it as an average balanced 22. This is most assuredly not what most of this thread is about! It probably should be...but it isn't.

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-February-25, 17:23, said:

Many? The only poster I can see (in either thread) that argued for treating this as a balanced 21 without also being insistent on playing 2NT as 20-22 is shermangao. You said it was close but that you would treat it as an average balanced 22. This is most assuredly not what most of this thread is about! It probably should be...but it isn't.

I said that first time, then looked at K&R which said less than 21 in my second post

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-25, 17:32, said:

I said that first time, then looked at K&R which said less than 21 in my second post

I have to say I am somewhat disappointed in you in this argument CY. I am fairly sure that you yourself have called this argument out in previous threads where you were on the other side. It seems to happen in almost every evaluation thread for balanced hands. The simple truth is that while the 4C evaluation is extremely useful you have to be careful in using it in combination with traditional hcp ranges. A 20-21 balanced range is in 4C terms probably about a point lighter, so akin to perhaps 18.55-20.5. When seen in these terms, the 4C evaluation of 20.85 can be understood as being a completely normal 22- balanced hand, which is indeed its DK evaluation.

The point can be illustrated further by moving some cards around. Take that KQ bare in clubs, which is the main reason for downgrading. If we move a small spade to clubs, we find that the evaluation actually goes down, to 20.8 (for the 2) or 20.75 (for the 9). This in turn shows the point Tramticket made earlier, that the 5 card suit offsets the doubleton honour.

So sure, use the 4C evaluator but at least then have the decency to be honest about it and not give the impression that the number that pops out is directly comparable to standard balanced hcp evaluations. In short, if the NT ranges under discussion were 4C:20-21 and 4C:22-23 then it is quite clear that this hand, as well as many standard balanced Milton:22 counts, would be a 2NT opener. But the actual range is not expressed in 4C points. Your argument as to why this should only be evaluated as a 2NT opener on that scale therefore needs a little work.

[FelicityR]

I think we can all get bogged down in the minutiae of hand evaluation and whether it is a 2♣ opener or a 2NT opener, and whilst this thread has seemed to exhaust every possibility, the reality of the situation is if partner has nowt or near to nowt in his/her hand, the player holding this hand will have great difficulty making any contract as they will have to lead away from the strong hand regularly.

The OP asked our opinions: we gave them. If we play kitchen bridge it is a simple decision to say it is 22HCPs, and if we open all hands that have 22HCPs+ with 2♣ then that's what we will open, no ifs or buts.

Admittedly, it is a close decision, but so are many other decisions in bridge. I see the hand as good 21 count and a mediocre 22 count whatever the table position and vulnerability. The danger here is that partner has a hand that fits awkwardly with the opening bidder but is worth pushing towards game or slam. That's why I am a little bit cautious here.