[neilkaz]

We'll assume S/A here. If I open 2♣, PD usually bids 2♦ and then I have to bid 3♦ and ♥ can get lost. I do have a swan so that may not be so bad, but I prefer to start with 1♦ here since I don't expect this to be passed out very often.
I also think I prefer the given hand be declarer in a ♦ contract rather than dummy after a likely 2♦ response to 2♣.

Give me just one more HCP and the chances for pass out when we have game increase and I'll open 2♣ then.

EDIT: Oops forgot to mention that I voted 1♦ but don't mind 2♣ all that much.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on Jan 9 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 9 2009, 04:20 PM, said:

So, two votes for 2♦, for different reasons and using different systems. No, I didn't make up my 2♦ bid eiher. It's Romex's Mexican 2♦. 

I believe that the Mexican 2♦ opening as developed by George Rosenkranz showed a balanced hand of 19-20 HCP.

There is a variation of the Mexican 2♦ opening developed later by others which included three types of hands: (1) a balanced hand of 21-22 HCP; (2) a super-strong balanced hand of 27-28 HCP; or (3) a strong hand with primary diamonds. It is this third variety which you must be referring to.

I don't know if this variation was a part of the Romex system. Then again, I haven't played the Romex system in about 20 years.

The latest books on Romex were written in the 1990s - by Rosenkranz and Phillip Alder. Those books describe as "Mexican 2♦" the opening I mentioned. I have a write up on my website.

It would surprise me greatly if Rosenkranz didn't have a hand in the development of these later versions of the Mexican Two Diamonds. Not just because his name is on these books, but because of the way in which they refer to him.

[mr1303]

The last pair I met who played Romex played the 3 way 2D opening as described in an above post. Nice in theory to have two strong bids, but there's quite a large cost involved (i.e. not having 2D available as something pre-emptive).

Agree with the Gnome and others about my 2C methods having a great deal to do with my decision what to open here. If fairly standard (i.e. not thought through properly) then I open 1D.

[barryallen]

ArtK78, on Jan 9 2009, 12:37 PM, said:

2♣ despite the awkward shape. Just too much strength to represent the power of this hand with a 1♦ opening and get partner to cooperate intelligently. Also, with half the deck and all but one of the aces, I have a legitimate fear of 1♦ being passed out despite the 1-4-7-1 shape. 3NT is likely to be cold opposite most hands with 5-4 or 4-5 in the blacks, and 5♦ is a likely make opposite any hand with a heart card of J or higher, and some hands without that good of a heart holding.

I voted 2♣, with 1♦ being inferior. In all likelihood, you can get away with opening 1♦ on this hand. But for the reasons stated I believe that 2♣ is better.

With the singletons held, I doubt 1♦ would get passed out, but I fully agree with every thing else. When you require so little points wise for slam, showing your strength at a later point may not be fully possible. Opening 2♣ allows any further bids over interference greater clarity, something which could easily be lost with interference?
If you are opening 1♦, what chance has p got in even getting near understanding that his holding of 2 small ♦ and the KJ♥ will guarantee slam?
If you can go through any auction without serious interference and the knowledge that p will not pass 1♦, you can do anything you wish, but what will happen in actuality and how difficult will it then be?

[Codo]

neilkaz, on Jan 10 2009, 07:24 AM, said:

We'll assume S/A here. If I open 2♣, PD usually bids 2♦ and then I have to bid 3♦ and ♥ can get lost. I do have a swan so that may not be so bad, but I prefer to start with 1♦ here since I don't expect this to be passed out very often.
I also think I prefer the given hand be declarer in a ♦ contract rather than dummy after a likely 2♦ response to 2♣.

Give me just one more HCP and the chances for pass out when we have game increase and I'll open 2♣ then.

Given your start 2 ♣ 2 ♦ 3 ♦ , your partner may bid 3 ♥ with some hearts?

[orlam]

jdonn, on Jan 9 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds. Not because I want to play in hearts, but to help partner evaluate. If not I'll open 1♦ even though I think it's worth 2♣. It's easy to say we have slam opposite (for example) the heart king, but that only helps us if we reach it opposite the heart king and not another king or no kings.

You could open 2♣, jump to 4♦, and drive to 6♦ if partner cues 4♥. (And bid 5♦ over any other cue.)

[manudude03]

orlam, on Jan 11 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 9 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds. Not because I want to play in hearts, but to help partner evaluate. If not I'll open 1♦ even though I think it's worth 2♣. It's easy to say we have slam opposite (for example) the heart king, but that only helps us if we reach it opposite the heart king and not another king or no kings.

You could open 2♣, jump to 4♦, and drive to 6♦ if partner cues 4♥. (And bid 5♦ over any other cue.)

That assumes that partner won't cue shortness. Though, having said that, slam will make opposite ♠xxxx ♥x ♦Txx ♣xxxxx if you avoid a diamond lead and hearts are 4-4 or other lucky layouts.

There's also the issue of what does partner do if he has the ♦A. Maybe 4NT should give this message?

[orlam]

True it's not perfect but will it do worse than opening 1♦?

[jdonn]

orlam, on Jan 11 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

True it's not perfect but will it do worse than opening 1♦?

Maybe or maybe not. I don't think it's unreasonable, but it could go wrong in lots of ways. Maybe we belong in 3NT. Maybe partner is void in diamonds. Maybe we have a 5-4 heart fit. Maybe he cuebids heart shortness without much diamond support at all. Maybe he is absolutely broke and we have no game at all. There are plenty of ways for 1♦ to work better.

Anyway when I made my original post, I was thinking in particular of methods that could show four hearts with longer diamonds below 3NT, since if partner then bid that I would be happy to play it. Also if he raises hearts and I try to play in diamonds anyway, he can overrule me if the difference is extreme (my comment that I don't want to play in hearts was lazy, I mean I don't want to play in a 4-4 heart fit.) So I don't think your suggestion is just an automatic substitution.

[MFA]

Thanks for the answers.

We had a discussion on a national discussion board, where there was a huge vote in favour of 1♦. But everybody hates 2♣ there with anything resembling a two-suiter, so I wanted to test the opinion elsewhere.

I think that 2♣ is best.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Jan 9 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds.

lol, I will open 1♥ (or 1NT) as long as I have a way to describe my hand after that opening

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jan 12 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 9 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds.

lol, I will open 1♥ (or 1NT) as long as I have a way to describe my hand after that opening

Well clearly if you had to choose any opening bid after which you would be able to describe this hand it would be 2♣, for obvious reasons.

[jillybean]

1♦ Keep it simple

[whereagles]

jillybean2, on Jan 12 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

1♦ Keep it simple

1♦ pass pass pass

I'm sure it will be a simple contract to make

[jillybean]

whereagles, on Jan 12 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Jan 12 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

1♦ Keep it simple

1♦ pass pass pass

I'm sure it will be a simple contract to make

I used to have a fear of these hands being passed out so I’d often open 2♣ and have a struggle to describe my hand. Now I find it better if I describe my hand, trust my partner and together we find the best spot. IMO 2♣ is over used. I’m sure 1♦ its not the right bid 100% of the time but as a general rule I bid my suits when I have 2.

[whereagles]

Well, in this case if you do open 2♣, it's very simple to show your hand. Just rebid diamonds and, if pard doesn't bid hearts, follow-up with 5♦.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I will open 2♣ as long as I have a way to show four hearts with longer diamonds.

I agree with this. Very simple, really. 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♥

If opps get loud you cannot show ♥, you counter? Be honest. Were you going to bid ♥ after something like

1♦ (2♠) p (4♠)?