[gwnn]

"I have a hand 1 trick short of game" is a very poor criterion to pick between 2♣ and not 2♣.

I like:

-balanced 22+ or equivalent
-if you can imagine a balanced yarborough (a hand with no A K Q J or T) that makes game cold opposite your hand, open it 2♣.
-however, if you can imagine a sequence after you opened 2♣ where you think you should bid 6 over 6 with your hand because you think they might make, you should not open 2♣.

I think the first one is fulfilled.

For the second one I offer

xxxx
xxx
xxx
xxx,

albeit not quite 50%.

The third one is clearly true.

BUT all this talk of criteria is a little bit of nonsense. Bam.

The point is that I think that no matter much much I jump shift and cuebid and everything, I will not be able to convey how many points I have with this hand. Also when I jump shift and cuebid a lot, I would like partner to believe that I have a little more shape than this.

[zenko]

Those were fairly predictable poll results, the modern top-level bridge style is to open 2 clubs only if you absoutely have to, as well as to almost never pass level one suit openings, which works together quite nicely, especially if you adopt some kind of Gazilli-like gadget too.

IMO by far the best feature of 2 clubs opening is that it comes up so rarely.

[P_Marlowe]

2C.

Since we have spades, I have an easy response, and I am not overly
concerned, if they start preempting.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikegill]

I'm pretty conservative about opening 2♣ but I think I would here. There are going to be tons of hands where partner passes 1♠ and game is good, especially given it's red IMPs.

[Apollo81]

2NT is particularly awful.

[whereagles]

As usual, I'm ok with either 1♠ or 2♣, though I prefer the later.

[Free]

Looks like a normal 1♠ opening to me

[bluecalm]

Quote

as well as to almost never pass level one suit openings, which works together quite nicely, especially if you adopt some kind of Gazilli-like gadget too.

Well if you play this style (which I like) then 1♠ is much compelling. In "standard" though you will have to jump to 3♦ or something after hearing 1NT which is awful as there is no way you will explore any slam after this start. Playing 3NT will not be easy either.
Opening 2♣ and rebidding say 2♠ (or 2NT if playing puppet) at least position you much better for choicing the best game/occasional slam.

2♣ may not be the best opening but opening standard 1M planning to jump with 4 (or sometimes 3) card suit after positive response is much worse imo. Gazilli solves this problem nicely but it's not yet standard.

[billw55]

precpj, on Jun 13 2010, 10:08 AM, said:

btw, the partner had is  XXXX  JXXXXX  K   XX  at the table I kib this East pass the 1S open by his partner; wich I cud yell him back to bridge school . 

LOL. Maybe he would raise if his partner opened 2♣ and rebid 2♠.

I see this hand as better for spades than NT. Because of the suit quality, 4♠ should play reasonably well opposite a small doubleton. Club taps could be a problem, but in that case NT won't be better.

So my only choice is between 1♠ and 2♣ -> 2♠. I think that's a close call.

[rbforster]

2♣ for me, since showing the diamonds isn't a huge priority, and the likely 2♣-2red-2♠ seems like a fine start to the bidding.

For the responding hand given, I think I would bid

2♣-2♦(positive)-2♠-4♠

where responder shows a bad hand with a fit. Should make 4-5♠, and certainly more than NT.

[jdonn]

2♣ seems fine to me, clearly this is worth more than 21 with how well the honors are working together and the JT9 of diamonds.

[mikeh]

This is for me a minimum 2♣ opener, and a year ago I would happily have opened 1♠.

Anyone who thinks that this hand should be described as a strong notrump hand is way off base. Not only will you usually miss 5-3 spade fits (perhaps failing in notrumo when spades is making) but you will almost never find a 4-4 or even most 5-4 diamond fits.

When you get a hand this good, you should focus on laying the foundation for accurate slam bidding should partner have a little more than his fair share of hcp and some degree of fit. You don't do that by pretending to be 4432 when you are 5422 with most of your points in your long suits.... not to mention a side xx holding.

[hanp]

Good hand for playing a version of puppet stayman where you can show a 5-2-4-2 shape.

[gwnn]

hanp, on Jun 16 2010, 09:35 AM, said:

Good hand for playing a version of puppet stayman where you can show a 5-2-4-2 shape with a 7 hcp discrepancy between hearts and clubs.

Agree.

[hanp]

Very true gwnn.

Most Dutch players have never heard of puppet stayman, but many play what they call "Niemijer", which is pretty much the same. I was playing against Niemijer at the club two weeks ago and he held a hand a little stronger than this and rebid 2NT, showing 24-25 HCP. His partner bid Niemijer, he showed 5 hearts, and his partner bid 6NT with a 3244 shape. They missed a pretty good 7C, and Niemijer later pointed out that in their version his partner could still have asked for a four-card minor.

Anyway, they missed a good but not great 7C so my team lost 17 IMPs on that hand. Of course those 17 IMPs were still in the back of my mind when I saw the hand in this thread, hence my post.

[OleBerg]

Also a good hand for:

2♣ - 2♦
2♠

[neilkaz]

Minimum 2♣ opener for me. I have no rebid problems and can bid 2♠ and then 3♦ often. I don't care for a 2NT opener here with a pure hand that seems worth more than 21 pts. and a wide open ♣ suit.