[PrecisionL]

Food for the critics:

Marty Bergen (the wild pre-emptor) in Chapter 4 of Slam Bidding Made Easier (2008):

The Bergen Gold Standard for opening 2♣:

(a) If the hand is balanced (4333 or 4432) open 2♣ only if you have 22 hcp. Opener intends to rebid 2NT

(b) If the hand is semi-balanced (5332) or unbalanced only open if the hand has 4 or fewer losers and the hand also has 4 or more quick tricks.

Note: If you have only 4-losers, then you have 9 winners. Does that sound familiar?

[aguahombre]

PrecisionL, on 2012-May-29, 07:36, said:

Food for the critics:

Marty Bergen (the wild pre-emptor) in Chapter 4 of Slam Bidding Made Easier (2008):

The Bergen Gold Standard for opening 2♣:

(a) If the hand is balanced (4333 or 4432) open 2♣ only if you have 22 hcp. Opener intends to rebid 2NT

(b) If the hand is semi-balanced (5332) or unbalanced only open if the hand has 4 or fewer losers and the hand also has 4 or more quick tricks.

Note: If you have only 4-losers, then you have 9 winners. Does that sound familiar?

Don't confuse Losing Trick Count with being the inverse of winner count. Also don't assume that all competent players would agree with Bergen's "quick trick" rule, even though nearly all would agree with the 4-loser part.

[Statto]

LTC should not come into effect until you have found a fit. The opening hand has about 8 playing tricks, and doesn't know where any additional tricks may lie. The fact that it has only 3 losers is immaterial. Do you really count your 4th card in a suit as a winner?

[Zelandakh]

Statto, on 2012-May-29, 20:46, said:

Do you really count your 4th card in a suit as a winner?

Culbertson's rules for Playing Tricks: If your trump suit is of length 4-7, the 4th card and each subsequent card should be counted as a winner; if your trump suit is 8 or more cards long then each card after the second should be counted as a winner. In a side suit, the 4th and 5th cards are each half a winner; the 6th card counts as a whole winner. No fit required. Some more modern PT counters are more aggressive and, for example, count a side 5 card suit as 2 length winners. Even though they are around 80 years old, I think Culbertson's rules in this are still pretty good for a simple metric. As for the LTC, my advice is not to use it even when you do have a fit!

[Lurpoa]

32519, on 2012-May-26, 00:11, said:

This hand was dealt at IMPs. Dealer = North with N/S vulnerable.
North opened the bidding with a strong artificial 2♣.

---

How would you find the cold ♣ slam using every one the more popular methods for responding to a strong artificial 2♣ opening bid listed below? If you use something else, e.g. Kokish, then include it so that we can see how you would find the ♣ slam.

1. Albarran
2. Cheaper Minor as a Second Negative
3. Control Showing Responses
4. Natural Responses
5. Oswald Jacoby Step Responses
6. Two Diamonds as "Waiting", Two Hearts as "Negative"

I am trying to convince myself which of these methods is better to use.

Thanking you all in advance.

♥ ♥ ♥

One advice,
don't choose on the basis of this one example....

Other criteria: simplicity, robustness vs interference, frequency.....

♥ ♥ ♥

[Statto]

Lurpoa, on 2012-May-31, 00:39, said:

don't choose on the basis of this one example....

Too true. And applies to reviewing any hand where you did not do so well. I recommend also a healthy degree of reviewing hands where you did do well, not just to give yourself a pat on the back, but also to remind yourself why you play the methods you do...

[Codo]

I would open 1 ♥, but for a general advice:

I guess your problem is the second negative. Don't play it.

I join the two posters who play 2 ♥ as a bust and 2♦ as gf with no one suiter. (For my standards the club suit is far too weak for Zels 2 NT)
So I would start with 2♣ 2 ♦ 2 ♥ 3 ♣ 4♦ (Splinter) and take it from there...

[squealydan]

I really liked this hand and my partner and I had a good chat about it. We would have an easy beginning : we're in the 2H as absolute negative camp, and a five-card suited by KJ is easily enough to reply 2D, so it's 2C-2D-2H-3C to start with.

Then what? 4D-5C-5NT (pick a slam) or 5D Exclusion Blackwood followed by 5NT pick-a-slam both tell partner I'm interested in major suit queens not diamond values. Or I might just bid 4C and see if he'll bid 4H with Queen-doubleton? Really not sure which I'd have picked at the table.

[mikl_plkcc]

For me:

playing control responses:
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♣
5♣

playing HCP responses:
2♣ - 2♥
3♥ - 4♣
5♣

playing cheapest minor negative:
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 4♣
5♣

playing 2♥ immediate negative:
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♣
4♣ - 5♣

playing natural responses:
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♣
4♣ - 5♣

For my artificial system:
1♦ (12+, 3-suited) - 2♣ (4+ ♣, sign-off)
3♦ (I have shortness in ♦ and want to go game!) - 4♣
5♣

In all of my methods, the opener has no clue about the ♣K. The problem is, no one risks going past 5♣ for investigating a slam!

[RedSpawn]

PrecisionL, on 2012-May-29, 07:36, said:

Food for the critics:

Marty Bergen (the wild pre-emptor) in Chapter 4 of Slam Bidding Made Easier (2008):

The Bergen Gold Standard for opening 2♣:

(a) If the hand is balanced (4333 or 4432) open 2♣ only if you have 22 hcp. Opener intends to rebid 2NT

(b) If the hand is semi-balanced (5332) or unbalanced only open if the hand has 4 or fewer losers and the hand also has 4 or more quick tricks.

Note: If you have only 4-losers, then you have 9 winners. Does that sound familiar?

Yes this sounds very familiar.

This hand has a void and is 3 suited which demotes its candidacy for strong 2 club opening. You are going to need extra bidding space to describe THREE fit possibilities to your partner and opening 2 clubs removes a whole level of descriptive bids.

Also when the cards talk, pay attention. When you have a ♦ void, that means the board distribution is off. Somebody must have extra to balance the distribution equation. You should give yourself as much bidding space as possible to help with the identification of potential distribution landmines.

What this question is really getting at is where does one draw the line between 1 of a suit opens and 2♣ especially for unbalanced hands consisting of long suits and at most 4 losers per LTC.

[RedSpawn]

gwnn, on 2012-May-26, 04:09, said:

And why is 22 such a magic number anyhow?

Yes why the novel fascination with 22 total points? This is just an arbitrary number or guideline.

[barmar]

Playing in a team game over the weekend (our district's GNT qualifier), the opponent at our table opened a hand like this with 2♣. They got to a reasonable slam (they had a double fit in the majors), but it didn't make. At the other table our teammate opened it at the 1 level and played there when partner passed with 5 HCP, making 12 tricks on a different lead.

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-April-25, 08:16, said:

Playing in a team game over the weekend (our district's GNT qualifier), the opponent at our table opened a hand like this with 2♣. They got to a reasonable slam (they had a double fit in the majors), but it didn't make. At the other table our teammate opened it at the 1 level and played there when partner passed with 5 HCP, making 12 tricks on a different lead.

These hands are quite the conundrum. You want to open 2♣, but it's best to be conservative with these 3 suiters and give yourself as much bidding space as possible. Open 1 of suit followed by a reverse bid . . .provided your partner responds to your opening bid.

You also mentioned partner passed his teammate's open with 5 HCP. That is blasphemous in today's modern bridge. Pass doesn't quite describe a 5 HCP hand's potential. You gotta bid something! Just kidding.

Also, you have revealed quite nicely how opening leads do matter and can make or break a contract.

Thanks for the feedback.

[rmnka447]

2 ♣ with cheapest suit as a second negative, the bidding would start off --

2 ♣ - 2 ♦ (waiting)
2 ♥ - 3 ♣

with 3 ♣ showing a ♣ feature. After that it's simply a matter sorting out controls and trump honors.

With our specialized cueing agreements, opener's next bid would be

4 ♠

showing 1st and 2nd round controls in ♦, ♥, ♠ and a high ♣ honor. Responder now knows enough to see that at least 6 ♣ is a good contract.

[Vampyr]

All hail ye, Necro King!