Strong two clubs
Bridge convention
Strong two clubs is a bridge convention that is an agreement to use an opening bid of two clubs to indicate a strong hand and a strong holding in the bid suit.
In most natural bridge bidding systems, the opening bid of 2♣ is used exclusively for hands too strong for an opening bid at the one-level. Typically, the bid is reserved for hands that are almost strong enough to bid to the game level on their own power, or even stronger. The exact requirements for the bid vary considerably depending upon the system used and partnership agreement.
In most early bidding systems, opening bids of two of a suit signified a very strong hand and were referred to as strong two bids. However, pioneer bridge inventors like Pierre Albarran and David Burnstine saw that the frequency of such bids is fairly low, and that a 2♣ bid can be used for all strong hands, leaving other two-level opening bids for other purposes (for example, weak two bids).
Bridge bidding systems that incorporate a strong 2 clubs opening bid include modern Standard American, standard Acol, 2/1 game forcing and many others.
Bid requirements
The strength requirements for the 2♣ bid differ slightly in different systems. In all cases they show a hand which is close to game forcing. For balanced hands, a 2♣ bid shows 22 or more points in Standard American (Yellow Card), and 23 or more points in standard Acol.
The public source identifies “Strong two clubs” as bridge convention. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Strong, clubs and Bridge.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Strong two clubs”, the useful work is to connect “bridge convention” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The strongest evidence will usually combine a dated visual record with documents produced by the authority responsible for the place. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7624594.
A single description cannot reconcile every naming convention, rebuilding phase or administrative transfer associated with a place. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Treat names, boundaries and functions as historically changeable. Maps, plans, inventories and administrative records can clarify what the place meant at different dates.
- Historic place names
- Jurisdictional context
- Routes into maps and plans
Contemporary maps, plans, listed-building records, estate papers and the responsible local or national archive.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Strong two clubs”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Strong two clubs primary sources, Strong two clubs archive and Strong research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Strong two clubs”?
- Which earlier names or jurisdictions may reveal additional records?
- What physical evidence or contemporary plan supports the description?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Strong two clubs” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.