[relknes]

Not sure where to post this, so sorry if it is too "standard" for this forum.

With one of my partners, I am considering making a change to our 2♣ opening. We normally play a pretty vanilla system (a variation on Standard American), but we were curious to try 2♣ showing either a minimum opening hand with 0-2 clubs, 3-5 diamonds, and 3-4 in both majors, OR a normal strong 2♣ opening.

The perceived benefits are:
1. Our 1♦ opening can be 4+
2. Preemptive value on competitive hands
3. Easy for partner to know when to double for penalty compared to opening those hands 1♦
4. Fixes the frequency problem of the 2♣ opening.

The perceived drawbacks are:
1. Might end up in a sub-optimal 2 level contract
2. Skips over 1N when that mitt be the best contract
3. Reduces the frequency of the 1♦ opener (not bad in and of itself, but might reduce it too much)
4. Makes auctions with legitimate GF hands a bit more awkward

What are people's thoughts? Is it playable?

[rbforster]

3 suited hands short in clubs aren't a problem to open 1D - if you've got 3-4 in both majors you can at worst raise to 2M if partner responds 1M (and pass 1N response if min). The only hand with only 3♦ is 4432 exactly which seems too rare to worry about corrupting an otherwise 4+ opener. I guess it depends on your response scheme to the proposed 2♣ opener, but if responder just bids his preference among non-club suits, that seems like it will be getting in the way of the strong hand trying to describe itself when you do actually have a strong 2♣.

Better it seems would be to play a precision style 2♦ as 3-suited short diamonds (rather than short clubs), and then you could play 2C as a weak two in diamonds or strong. That way when partner almost always bids 2D in response, you strong hands are basically at the same place they would be under standard methods continuing over a 2D waiting.

[Vampyr]

rbforster, on 2016-February-14, 14:02, said:

3 suited hands short in clubs aren't a problem to open 1D - if you've got 3-4 in both majors you can at worst raise to 2M if partner responds 1M (and pass 1N response if min).

A 2♣ response can be a big problem, depending on your methods.

[rbforster]

Vampyr, on 2016-February-14, 19:01, said:

A 2♣ response can be a big problem, depending on your methods.

But at least 2C will be typically stronger, invite or better. That gives you enough values and space to get to 2N, especially if it denies a 4M unless it has GF values. My preferred methods may not be suitable to OPs goals, but over 1D-2C, I play 2D is a minimum without 4 clubs and can be passed if responder has diamond tolerance and doesn't want to continue to 2N or 3C based on strength or shape.

[fromageGB]

This certainly comes in the "loony abnormal ideas" category, so I guess this is the right forum as we don't have one of that title.

I don't see how it eases partner's penalty decisions, and I can see your drawbacks and others you have not mentioned, but before I can comment critically I need to see what your replies to 2♣ would be, and how you develop the bidding when used for a normal 2♣ opening. It seems pretty impossible to me at the moment.

[Vampyr]

If you want to open 2♣ more frequently, why not just play it as weak with diamonds or strong. You can do this with 2♦ and 2♥ too; weak in the next suit combined with some strong or intermediate hand types.

Oops first sentence mentioned above. If you want to play a 2♦ opener as some kind of mini-Roman, you can actually have shortness anywhere -- 2NT asking, with submarine rebids.

[relknes]

fromageGB, on 2016-February-15, 16:33, said:

This certainly comes in the "loony abnormal ideas" category, so I guess this is the right forum as we don't have one of that title.

I don't see how it eases partner's penalty decisions, and I can see your drawbacks and others you have not mentioned, but before I can comment critically I need to see what your replies to 2♣ would be, and how you develop the bidding when used for a normal 2♣ opening. It seems pretty impossible to me at the moment.

As far as easing partner's penalty doubles, when you open 1♦ and the opponents compete in a major, partner doesn't know much of anything about your length. If partner can count on you for 3+ in the opponent's suit and 12-15 points, it is hard to imagine they are not better off.
I had imagined that, because of the greater frequency of the weaker hand type, responder would usually bid with that hand in mind. The exception being when responder had a very weak hand (i.e. a hand that would normally pass a 1♦ opener) where they bid 2♦ and possibly run to a major if doubled.
So initial responses would be something like:
2♦ = 5-9 points, prefers diamonds, OR 0-4 points any
2♥ = 5-9 points, prefers hearts
2♠ = 5-9 points, prefers spades
2N = Club stopper, balanced or semi-balanced, inviting 3N
3♣ = GF asking bid
3♦ = club stopper, 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, inviting 3N if partner has both majors stopped
3♥ = invitational
3♠ = invitational
3N = to play opposite 12-15
After a 2x response, opener either passes with 12-15, raises to 3x with a a good fit and a hand now worth 16-18, or bids something else with a GF hand.
If responder bids anything other than 2x and opener has a strong 2♣ opener... well then there is a lot of room to explore, since we seem to be safe at the 6 level...

[helene_t]

If you want to put weak variants in the 2♣ opening they should be really weak so that you don't get a positive response from partner when you hold the strong hand. Suppose it starts:
2♣-3♠
?
and you hold some strong hand.

2♣ as 5-9 with six diamonds OR a strong hand is a better idea. If you hold a strong hand then partner is unlikely to hold the 16+ points required for a positive response. Note that it is reasonably safe to play the popular responses to 2♣:
2♦ = not bust
2♥ = bust
since if you hold a weak hand and partner has a bust, opps would probably have bid something, and otherwise a silly 2♥ contract is ok as long as it isn't doubled, opps may well have a slam on.

[fromageGB]

Your sequence 1♦ (1♠) X for penalty is not viable when opener can be a 12 count flat hand with 3 spades, because if partner is that good you will score more in 3NT or game elsewhere, I feel, and it will also be so rare it is a waste of a bid. If you are talking about a penalty double later, then normal bidding will give you a feel for the hand, what your fits and strengths are, so knowing of 3 spade cards is not so important.

Your 2♣ open when strong certainly has no problem finding the slam when responder has a 2NT or upwards reply, but this is so rare I've probably never had one of those. When you do have a (normal) strong 2♣ you are going to get a reply like 2♠. This is not much help to you, and it has taken away a lot of your room to describe your hand. For example, if you were two-suited you can no longer describe that.

I think the detriment to the handling of the strong hand outweighs any benefits you may think accrue elsewhere, and when you do have the weak version of 2♣ your contract finding is destroyed by the fact that you have lost a whole level of bidding compared with opening 1♣. For example, 2♣ 3♥. Is this 4 or 5 cards? With normal methods for an invitational hand you know the answer to that at the level of TWO hearts. If it must be 5, then it seems impossible to find the 4-4 part score. Etc.