[ArtK78]

I don't understand why anyone would open 1♦ on these cards.

I am very conservative in my 2♣ openings. I will open one on many hands on which others open 2♣. But one rule of thumb that I have is that if partner has a 4333 zero count and I am a heavy favorite to make game, then I have to open 2♣.

If partner is 4333 in any order, I expect to make 5♦. If his 4 card suit is hearts, 4♥ is a heavy favorite and so is 5♦. Opposite a 4333 hand with the ♥Q, I am a strong favorite to make 6♦. But if I open 1♦, I may play it there.

I don't see any problem opening 2♣ and rebidding 3♦. Pard knows that a strong 2♣ opening based on a long diamond suit is a very strong hand. This hand qualifies.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Aug 6 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

I don't understand why anyone would open 1♦ on these cards.

I am very conservative in my 2♣ openings. I will open one on many hands on which others open 2♣. But one rule of thumb that I have is that if partner has a 4333 zero count and I am a heavy favorite to make game, then I have to open 2♣.

If partner is 4333 in any order, I expect to make 5♦. If his 4 card suit is hearts, 4♥ is a heavy favorite and so is 5♦. Opposite a 4333 hand with the ♥Q, I am a strong favorite to make 6♦. But if I open 1♦, I may play it there.

I don't see any problem opening 2♣ and rebidding 3♦. Pard knows that a strong 2♣ opening based on a long diamond suit is a very strong hand. This hand qualifies.

The problem with opening 2♣ with this hand is not so much that partner will be in the dark about this being a strong bid. The problem is one of strain and then value identification.

Suppose, for example, that you open 2♣. hear 2♦, and then bid 3♦. Presumably partner's 3♥ and 3♠ bids are natural, seeking strain. However, do these calls show four-card suits or five-card suits? If four-card, what does Opener bid with 3361 shape? If five-card, how does the heart fit get established, if that matters?

Suppose, instead, that partner has diamond support. What does he bid? 4♦ with anything? 4♦ with anything not meriting a 5♦ call?

Suppose he bids 4♦ to show promising values, whatever that means. What are your calls now? 4♥ as a cue? A suit? RKCB? Any ability to know or show anything useful here? Do you end up in quantitative punting if you are lucky enough to agree strain?

Suppose he bids 3NT. Now what? 4♦ as a quantitative punt?

The idea to opening 1♦ is not that the person cannot evaluate the hand. The problem is the inability to describe the evaluated values to partner effectively with a 2♣ opening, at least as most play strong openings these days.

[dbsboy]

How about...

2H=Ekrens
2S=Weak 2 Spades
2D=Weak 2 Hearts or FG DIAMONDS
2C=FG without DIAMONDS

rightsiding the contract + able to show your FG hands better

[skjaeran]

dbsboy, on Aug 7 2008, 06:04 AM, said:

How about...

2H=Ekrens

Why would you have Ekrens in your arsenal?
It's more than ten years since I quitted playing that convention, because the bad results was vastly more frequent than the good ones. (Of course around here everyone and their mother knows how to defend against Ekrens...) Btw, if I ever would agree to play Ekrens (abroad), I'd not use 2♥, rather 2♦. Then we can play there on some hands.

[Echognome]

skaeran, on Aug 7 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

Btw, if I ever would agree to play Ekrens (abroad), I'd not use 2♥, rather 2♦. Then we can play there on some hands.

It has been discussed on these forums a few times before, but I seem to remember that there was some discussion whether 2♥ or 2♣ for Ekrens was better (I think a few more 2♥ supporters than 2♣, which was my preference), but that most everyone felt that both were better than 2♦.

[kenrexford]

dbsboy, on Aug 6 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

How about...

2H=Ekrens
2S=Weak 2 Spades
2D=Weak 2 Hearts or FG DIAMONDS
2C=FG without DIAMONDS

rightsiding the contract + able to show your FG hands better

You are focusing the wrong suit for your strong bids.

[dbsboy]

Ekrens is just a suggestion

Definitely Flannery, or Muiderberg, are all okay.

Am I focusing the wrong suit for my strong bids? oh...I dont completely understand this.

How about 2D=Weak or Strong H, 2C=Strong without H? is that what you mean?


Despite all the negative?? comments i think this scheme is pretty useful.

According to my scheme,
2C-2D=Wait, 2H/2S/3C=Honours, 2N=D Honours

Then after 2H/2S<=3M sets suit, or 3C then 3D sets Clubs, or 2N then 3C=nat and 3D=sets suits...

and after 2C-2D-3D=FG PrimaryC+Secondary D, it works well

[the hog]

Ekrens is a very useful convention. Contrary to some posters, I have had excellent results playing this and that is agains people who know how to play against it, so not from unfamiliarity. However it does nothing to solve this posed problem and so isn't really relevant.

[1eyedjack]

It does occur to me that the objectors to opening 2C base their argument on shortfalls in the follow-up sequences. But it is possible that their methods after opening 2C may be inferior. If they are content with those continuations then their argument for opening 1D has some validity. But perhaps their time might be better spent developing or importing superior methods in response to 2C instead.

I am another of those who rarely open 2C but I would on this hand. And after 2D response rebid 3C as transfer to D.

[Tola18]

bid_em_up, on Aug 5 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

LHO doubles and it goes pass-pass, I bid 2D and thank LHO for giving us the opportunity to show diamonds one level lower.

Is there really a problem here?

Yes, may be.

If partner suspects me for the classical psyche - opening 2C with weak diamonds.

(some has it even declarer as a sort of mult: 2C either any strong or weak in diamonds)

[kenrexford]

dbsboy, on Aug 9 2008, 06:02 AM, said:

Am I focusing the wrong suit for my strong bids? oh...I dont completely understand this.

If you are going to split strong, forcing openings between two bids, it seems to me that the ideal split is, as you suggest, a focus on strain, as the largest first hurdle with natural systems and strong, forcing openings is strain resolution. The second hurdle is getting that resolution low enough to be able to effectively pursue "the rest of the story."

When you focus strain on diamonds, however, I think you lose out on a significant potential gain from your strain focus. Consider, for example, the difference between having a strong, forcing opening with a diamond focus and the converse of a dedicated strong opening with an anchor in one or the other major. If, for example, 2♦ focuses diamonds, then Responder ideally can make calls in such a way as to cater to the diamond suit. However, when do you usually want to focus diamonds, except after major-suit exploration? If, alternatively, 2♦ focused either hearts or spades, then you would be focusing a primary suit more rapidly.

A diamond focus initially might be OK when the level will be slam, but you lose somewhat on game-only sequences, I think. I think you are on the right path, in strain focus, then, but the focus should be on a major. Personally, I believe that spades is the ideal focal suit, for a complicated set of reasons. But, perhaps a heart focus would work well also.

As to improving the response structure over 2♣, I don't think much can be done. You could actually have a wildly detailed method as far as strain resolution if the primary focus switches to patern resolution for Responder, but this seems backwards and somewhat nonsensical. Without that, slight tweaking is possible, but there is little that can be done without such a strain divergence, IMO.

[blackshoe]

Romex methods:

2♣: balanced, 8 controls, normally 23-24 HCP OR unbalanced, 3 or fewer losers, 6 or more controls, not primary ♦.

After 2♣-2♦: 2NT shows the balanced hand, 2M shows an unbalanced hand with that major as the primary suit, 3♣ shows primary ♣, two suited (3♦ asks for the second suit), and 3♦ shows a single suited hand with ♣.

2♦: balanced, 7 controlas, normally 21-22 HCP OR 10 controls, normally 27-28 HCP OR unbalanced, 3 or fewer losers, 6 or more controls, primary ♦.

There are various possible response schemes over 2♦, but they all have 2♥ as, essentially, the "negative" response. After 2♥:
2NT shows the minimum balanced hand, 3NT shows the maximum one (and is forcing to 4NT).
2♠ shows a two suiter, ♦ and ♠, 3♣ shows a two suiter, ♦ and a round suit (3♦ asks, 3♥ shows ♥, 3NT shows ♣, 4♣ shows ♣, not willing to play in 3NT). 3♦ over the 2♥ response shows a diamond one suiter.

[kenrexford]

Romex looks silly, frankly. Sure, you get your control count out there, but the problem is strain, strain, strain. It probably works great when you have a five-card major as your longest suit, or a one-suited minor hand, or a balanced hand. Not so good with major-minor canape hands or 4441's.

Plus, even though the control count is set, without enhancement of the ability to set trumps low enough, and describe pattern somewhat, Responder might know whether he has the right number of possible covers but not necessarily whether his potential is working potential or non-working potential. The right Queen and a doubleton might be more contextually useful than two Kings.

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on Aug 10 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

Romex looks silly, frankly.

So far as I know, Dr. Rosenkranz never does anything without a good reason. So before you dismiss Romex as "silly", I suggest you read his books, and try the system out.