![]() |
Bridge: Two level openings2 clubs as "strong unbalanced" |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Extending strong 2 clubs with ParadoX responses |
The Acol (or Standard American) game-forcing 2 is a bit of a
dinosoar. Its main purpose is to provide a top limit for your one level openings, allowing
partner to pass these with less than 5-6 points. The downside is that your partnership
starts strong auctions a full level higher.
In the 1930's traditions and methods diverged. In UK the 8-9 trick strong two
emerged - Terence Reese once likened these to the Battleships of old. "rarely used, but
reassuring by their presence". They took futher pressure off our 1 level openings, and
also off 2, as they dealt efficiently with these purer hand types.
Meanwhile Americans had developed Auction Bridge's preemptive weak two concept. This kept the ceiling high on their one bids and led to divergence of style. The 1950's saw UK players were making "Acol light openings" on hands that would have been 2 level preempts in ACBLland.
Elsewhere in the world other solutions were tried, with Strern's Austrian team using
the (so useful) 1NT opening as its power bid, and various strong 1
solutions. The latter are a technically efficient way to bid up big hands, and also permit
your one bid ceiling to fall to as little as 15-16 points. A great boon in competitive
auctions where openings can be light, with a naturally well defined hand type.
Is strong club the ultimate? Not quite - strong pass systems allow about twice the system "bandwidth" (but are generally banned). A more important point is that all these methods are vulnerable to preemption when there are real opponents at the table.
For many years UK players were jealous of the weak two's seen elsewhere.
A method of combining these into Acol was developed by the Scot,
Albert Benjamin 2 in the
1970's. The use of 2
as a game force, and 2
as 8-9 tricks is now hugely popular in UK. However auctions such as ..
.. are simply horrid! I did't like "Benji Acol" and sought for a means to put all such
hand types through 2, with the bonus of freeing
2
for further preempts
As seen above an intrinsic problem with 2 sequences is that
bidding space can to be used up too rapidly - limiting the information exchanged. The
partners can reach the 4 level in two rounds and no-one is quite sure when partner is
cue bidding, or perhaps showing a natural new suit.
A popular 50's method of Ace showing C.A.B responses
to 2 are fluent - when positive. But then there is usually
a slam on, so plenty of bidding space!
A 2 simple relay response also improves matters,
allowing the big hand to start showing majors at the two level. It can still
leave auctions such as 2
- 2
(neg);
3
rather awkward.
I wanted to combine 8-9 trick major hands into 2.
The problem is then to stop low (ideally at the two level) when responder has no
useful card. I got my inspiration from the "Multi" method. If game is
unlikely you make passable negatives in majors you don't like!
Your 2
response then becomes a light positive relay.
There is also some pleasure in auctions ..
Viable inclusions into strong 2 clubs with ParadoX | |
![]() |
The opening can now cover a much larger gamut of hand types.
|
ParadoX responses | |
![]() |
![]()
![]() |
Responder's suit, or suits | |
![]() |
What should 2![]() Gerben Dirksen posted a nice idea on rec.games.bridge that calls of 2NT-3
The above would reply 3 |
Slam suggestion | ||||
![]() |
Although this gives fantastic control of deals worth about game there is some loss
in more powerful auctions. Let's face it - 2![]()
|
Establishing forcing auctions | ||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Three suited hands and asking bids (optional extension) | |||
![]() |
![]() ![]()
|
When opponents intervene | |
![]() |
Worthy opponents will try to overcall, and if they can to preempt your strong club auctions.
Some purity of style can help considerably. Im my case 2
|
Tip |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Don't open these hands as 2![]() |
![]() |
www.chrisryall.net/bridge/two/clubs.htm © Chris Ryall 1987-2008
|