[Cyberyeti]

eagles123, on 2013-March-05, 02:19, said:

Thanks for that I have to say I agree with Chase is this not suitable for a 2♣ opening? I know it's 3 suited but I'd always open this kinda hand 2♣ to avoid the risk of 1♥ p p p

We apply the flattish Yarborough test, which in this case would be does it give decent play for game opposite the right Yarborough 4432 with 2 hearts, and this one fails that test although it's close because a 5233 Yarborough gives you chances.

The advantages of not opening it 2♣ are twofold.

1. People preempt far less over a strong 2 where you've already defined one of your suits, are you going to enjoy 2♣-(2♦)-P/X-5♦- and you double, partner doesn't know if you have a 20 count or a 26 count or have any clue what your long suit is. How does he sort out the difference between 109xx, xxx, Kxx, xxx (4 losers) and xx, Kxx, xxx, 109xxx (1.5 losers) ? at least if you've opened 2♥, he has a clue that the K♥ is a really good card.

2. It depends slightly how you arrange your system of responses to 2♣, but if you play old style N/B 2♦0-7 you can play 2♣-positive response forcing beyond 3N because you know you have the strength to do this. If you devalue your 2♣, you can no longer do this. Also note the difference between 2♣-3♦-3♥/N and 2♥-3♦-3N, responder is I think better aware of what you hold in the second auction.

[mycroft]

eagles123, on 2013-March-05, 02:13, said:

really? Surely white vs red and your LHO opens a strong 2 you're going to be quite aggressive with your pre-empts?

Absolutely. And having shown a "too good for 1♥, not a 2♣ opener, almost certainly one-suited" hand, I believe partner is better off when they *do* preempt hard - as I said above, even one level higher - than if I opened 2♣ with a "one-suited tricktaker with some defence, but only about 18 high" vs what else 2♣ could be, or than if I opened 1♥ which could be a 3=5=3=2 12 (or 11) count, but isn't this time.

An Acol 2 (not a North American "strong 2") is a very descriptive bid and, when it comes up, you are going to be ahead in almost every case. Also, not having those hands in our 1M bid makes life easier - that's almost the whole goal of Polish Club after all, to get rid of these hands from 1M. The downside, of course, is that it's rare - much rarer than even the most disciplined of weak 2s - and so even if we're big +EV when we do it, it may not make up for the lots-of-little -EV when we can't open the weak 2M.

[fromageGB]

Sorry - deleted - wrong forum

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2013-March-11, 11:10

[CamHenry]

eagles123, on 2013-March-05, 02:13, said:

really? Surely white vs red and your LHO opens a strong 2 you're going to be quite aggressive with your pre-empts?

I think you mean RHO :-)

The main advantage of Acol 2s is that they're very descriptive (played well). I prefer playing them non-forcing; we agree that 9.5 tricks is too many (9 is OK, but only just), and that the hand must have some defensive values (so AKQJxxxx and out is NOT suitable). A change of suit shows at least honour-fifth; a 2NT response promises one trick and no fit; a raise promises 2-card support and a trick somewhere.

Of course, given the choice, I find the frequency of weak 2s a great advantage. The main problem with strong 2s is that "they never come up" or "I had 16 points so I had to open a strong 2" (demonstrated by a friend of mine, who opened Qxxxx/AKx/AJ/xxx 2♠).