[rhm]

ArtK78, on 2014-December-04, 09:42, said:

The idea of opening 1♥ on this hand repulses me.

If I were playing a light opening system, then this hand would be a borderline choice between 1♥ and 2♥. But that is only because my weak 2 bids tend to be very aggressive (often on 5 cards), and this hand is an absolute maximum weak 2 bid in a light opening system. At IMPs, where it is less likely that I would be opening a bad hand or a 5 card suit with a 2 bid, I would be more willing to open this hand with a 2 bid.

If I were playing any "normal" system, with the usual strength requirements for an opening one bid, this hand is not a one bid. It is not even borderline.

As someone else has pointed out KNR values this hand as 13.05 and therefor an opening bid.
I always maintained that KNR is better suited to suit contracts than notrumps.
If this deal turns out to be misfit all those who are conservative will be right.

So what is the potential of this hand?

First of all aces are underrated for high level contracts, so I would consider this hand more like 10 HCP than 9 and whatever that means this hand fits the rule of 20.
(I am prepared to do the opposite on quacky hands)
What are our chances of finding a fit?
When you hold a 6421 distribution chances of having at least an eight card fit are better than 92% and chances having a nine card fit are still better than even.
Guess where this fit is likely to be.
I am prepared to pay off in the remaining 8% of the deals.
I simulated this scenario:
Opposite 2 cards in hearts in dummy (randomly dealt) you will need to find on average 13 HCP opposite to have a better than 50% chance making 4♥.
Opposite 3 cards in dummy you need only 11 HCP.

In neither case would I expect to reach 4♥ if this hand is opened as a weak-two non vulnerable.

I am not claiming that 1♥ is clear and 2♥ is wrong with this hand, but opening 1♥ is surely not silly, even though you might get too high on occasion.
What surprises me most is that there are many who would not dream of opening this hand with a one bid, yet will routinely open all balanced twelve or eleven counts.
Count me out on this philosophie. They got it backwards in my opinion.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

doh, the hand is an obvious ZAR 1-opener

[jallerton]

the hog, on 2014-December-04, 05:53, said:

This 2M and 2D weaker weak 2 style was very popular in Australia for a while until strong players started doing a comprehensive analysis of their results. Practically no one plays it now.

What do the strong players in Australia now play instead?

[Cthulhu D]

A review of the 2013 playoffs Division 1 teams convention cards has has:

2 x 3 weak 2s
2 x Multi 2D + muniberg
2 x 2D: Garbage multi + 2 weak 2s in 1st/2nd otherwise 3 wide ranging weak 2s
2 x Ekrens + wide ranging weak 2s.

Fantunes (2X = 10-13 constructive)
Multi 2D + CROs (5/5 two suiters)
Constructive 2C+2D and 2 weak 2s (MOSCITO)
Multi 2D and 2M = 5M with 8-11

Division Two has:

2 x 3 weak 2s
5 x different flavours of garbage multi + 2 weak 2s
Mexican 2C, 2D GF, 2 weak 2s.
2 x Multi 2D + muniberg
2DHS = spades and the suit bid 1-2st, 3 weak 2s in 3rd/4th
Something completely weird: http://www.abfevents...on_Reynolds.pdf
2CD constructive, 2HS weak (Strong club relay context)

It is the most popular single style, but does comprise less than 33% of the field. Lots of good pairs playing it though.

[beatrix45]

Playing SAYC or 2/1 I don't think any expert players have ever advocated a system with a gap between an opening one bid and an opening weak 2 bid. I suppose one might do it, but it doesn't seem to make any sense. How do you show it later?

This particular example hand is right on the borderline. I like 1♥, but 2♥ is OK.

[the_clown]

With my favourite partner I can happily open 2♥ to show 9-12 6♥s. (Playing multi)

If not I would probably open 1, but dont mind pass.

I will open a weak 2 only opposite someone like JEC, but thats ok since his preempts are closer to a strong 1♣ opener than to my typical weak 2♥.

[mikeh]

the_clown, on 2014-December-15, 10:46, said:

I will open a weak 2 only opposite someone like JEC, but thats ok since his preempts are closer to a strong 1♣ opener than to my typical weak 2♥.

I don't know who you are, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that you probably aren't nearly as accomplished at bridge as is JEC, even adjusting for his ability to pay world class players to play with him.

I love it when posters boast about how aggressively they bid, and the forum is full of aggressive bidders, who post as if being aggressive is the only way to be a good player. Meanwhile, back in the real world, events are routinely being won by players whose style would, here, be ridiculed as too conservative.

I'm not arguing that all WC players are (relatively) conservative. In particular, it is clearly right to be aggressive as an auction develops, but that isn't at all the same as saying that it is right to play a light opening bid style, outside of a strong club method. I am arguing that imo a lot of players could benefit from being a little less confident that being aggressive in opening bid methods is the only way to win.

[the_clown]

mikeh, on 2014-December-15, 11:18, said:

I don't know who you are, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that you probably aren't nearly as accomplished at bridge as is JEC, even adjusting for his ability to pay world class players to play with him.

I love it when posters boast about how aggressively they bid, and the forum is full of aggressive bidders, who post as if being aggressive is the only way to be a good player. Meanwhile, back in the real world, events are routinely being won by players whose style would, here, be ridiculed as too conservative.

I'm not arguing that all WC players are (relatively) conservative. In particular, it is clearly right to be aggressive as an auction develops, but that isn't at all the same as saying that it is right to play a light opening bid style, outside of a strong club method. I am arguing that imo a lot of players could benefit from being a little less confident that being aggressive in opening bid methods is the only way to win.

Sry I didnt want to even remotely suggest that I know more about the game than JEC or that I could possibly play better than him. As we all know playing his style he is able to compete with the best in the world.

[Jinksy]

mikeh, on 2014-December-15, 11:18, said:

I love it when posters boast about how aggressively they bid, and the forum is full of aggressive bidders, who post as if being aggressive is the only way to be a good player. Meanwhile, back in the real world, events are routinely being won by players whose style would, here, be ridiculed as too conservative.

As far as I can see, competing aggressively should have lower expectation the stronger you are (relative to the field), and aggressive constructive bidding the reverse. That doesn't imply that either is necessarily a good/bad idea on any strength disparity, but does leave room for people's 'boasts' to be honestly based on a different set of premises than those someone as strong as you would start from.

That doesn't apply to me, of course - I just bid aggressively to impress the ladies.

[whereagles]

you impress the ladies by winning, not with aggressive bidding lol

[Jinksy]

I'll take what I can get.

[Vampyr]

beatrix45, on 2014-December-15, 06:31, said:

Playing SAYC or 2/1 I don't think any expert players have ever advocated a system with a gap between an opening one bid and an opening weak 2 bid.

I am unaware of what experts have advocated, but while they may not advocate a "gap" in terms of high card points, there will definitely be hands not opened with a weak two based on suit quality/purity.

[Lovera]

"... formulation of two rules that are the pillars of the preempt [ 3 or higher level] declaration: a) the hand should not contain more than 1 and a half likely tricks defensive; b) .."(pag. 198 of Stayman system) ... The requirements for the two weak opening bidding are: 1) a hand that is not good for a bidding of one suit,* [When, in the face of a declaration to NT, the value of the hand goes to13 points] 2) a good suit , generally of six cards; 3) form five to seven tricks on according of vulnerability. ... Example 23: South ♠ KQ10864 ♥ 9 ♦ A742 ♣ 63 North ♠ A7 ♥ K953 ♦ KQ86 ♣ 542 Bidding 2 ♠ - 2 NT, 3 ♦*- 4♠ *3♦ bidding shows a good hand . With this sureness being force in diamonds of rilevant value for South partner gets directly manche in spade. (pagg. 206, 207 and 208 of Stayman system). About valutation i prefer to consider Losing Tricks Courtney and (eventually) plastic valutation of hand (+/- 1 point, +/- 1 card) instead rule of 19 or 20.(Lovera)