[Kalvan14]

Scoring: MP

---

An easy hand, and an easy question: do you open this hand? If yes, which is your choice?

[hrothgar]

Depends completely on system

Playing a standard sound opening system like BBO Advanced I'm passing.

The hand is too weak for a 1 level opening
The hand is too badly flawed for an opening preempt

I'll probably regret this later since many auctions where I might like to introduce Spade are going to be interpreted as fit showing.

Playing a light opening system like MOSCITO, I'm going to open at the one level

[Kalvan14]

Playing SAYC

[hrothgar]

Kalvan14, on Mar 31 2006, 03:59 AM, said:

Playing SAYC

Shouldn't SAYC threads be in the Beginner/Intermediate forum? ;-)

Playing SAYC, I'll probably open 1♠ and make minimum spade rebids there on

[pbleighton]

Depends on what pd expects. If she can expect this on 1S, I bid 1S. Otherwise, I bid 2S.

I am not as disciplined a bidder as Richard. No way I pass this one, in any system I would choose to play.

Peter

[Codo]

Easy 1 Spade bid. Simply too much to pass, too bad suit for a preempt, just 7 loosers, easy rebid....

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pass.

It depends on the req. regarding
a 1S opening bid and regarding a
preempt.

For me the hand is to weak to open,
... and I agreed, that a preempt does
not contain 2 Aces, hence pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joker_gib]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 31 2006, 07:44 AM, said:

Hi,

Pass.

It depends on the req. regarding
a 1S opening bid and regarding a
preempt.

For me the hand is to weak to open,
... and I agreed, that a preempt does
not contain 2 Aces, hence pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I have the same partnership agreements so I agree totally.

Alain

[whereagles]

Easy 1♠ in any system except strong pass

[Free]

1♠, wtp?

[inquiry]

I am going to buck the trend here. This is an opening hand, but there is a key point missing in the discussion. We are vulnerable. When I open a vulnerable weak two, it is better than a non-vulnerable one. How does this apply to this hand?

If I open 1♠ and then rebid spades, partner will naturally assume I have long spades and a hand too good for a weak two. Since the "bar" has been raised on what a weak two is (due to the vulnerability), partner will assume I have a better hand than I actually hold.

I am not fond of weak twos with poor quality suits, I am not fond of weak twos with side Aces, I am not fond of weak twos on a seven card suit (makes it hard for parnter to judge level to compete). Having said all of that, on this hand I would open 2♠ (or the equivlant if playing multi). For offense, the seventh spade makes up for the lack of a second spade honor, and the second ace gives me roughly the amount of defense partner will expect. Perfect solution, no. But then what is?

[mikeh]

I am opening 3♠. I am glad I am vulnerable... at least so far: I may end up regretting the whole thing. I just can't quite bring myself to open 1♠: give me the ♠J and I would be happy doing so. If you think that the ♠J is insignificant, consider the implications of finding a stiff honour in dummy... that J will be very important.

As for a weak 2: count me out... maybe in 2nd seat but not in first.

Tough problem: I can sympathize with any plausible call but pass: we are going to be very unhappy if the opps get to the 3 or 4 level in ♥ before we get a second chance to bid (amongst other awkward sequences)

[luis]

1♠ automatic, two defensive tricks.

Luis

[jdonn]

1♠ is sick in my opinion.

Count me down for 3♠, having two aces doesn't bother me at all. One potential disadvantage is not enough reason to lose all the advantages that preempting gives you. At least after 3♠ you don't have to make further difficult decisions. After 1♠ you will have all sorts of guesses later about whether to pull partner's eventual 3NT bid, whether to bid again if the opponents start interfering in hearts, etc.

[joshs]

I am a 2S bidder. 3S would be my second choice but I don't like the suit quality.

[awm]

I'll pass. Usually hands like this don't pass out, and I feel I will be able to judge whether to enter the auction later.

Between the two aces and the bad suit quality, I don't think this hand is right for a preempt. It's too likely to go down if partner doesn't have much of a spade fit, on hands where opponents are not particularly making anything. Now, this isn't to say that I would never preempt with two aces or a bad suit, but these are both negatives, as is the vulnerability.

What about a one-level opening? I generally try to think about what will happen if partner game forces on a non-fitting hand. I know this is an unpopular view in this day where people just assume a fit and open on a prayer, and claim that if they end up somehow in a 22-hcp misfit 3nt (down several) it was just unlucky. But my feeling is that if I open and partner game forces when we can't make any game, I'm 100% stuck. If I pass and we have some magic fit, it is often the case that someone else (maybe an opponent) will open and we may well manage to get to a good spot anyway. On this hand, if I open and partner has some 13 count with a singleton spade, I expect that we will not make a game...

[jdonn]

joshs, on Mar 31 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

I am a 2S bidder. 3S would be my second choice but I don't like the suit quality.

It's not totally unreasonable and I know why you did it, but I have gotten really bad results from doing this. This isn't one of those times where people say that something (like for example weak notrumps) gives them bad results when really they don't have a clue and are just biased, I truly can remember several terrible scores that were directly attributable to weak two bids on seven card suits.

Besides you have to admit, isn't 2♠ the kind of bid you want your opponents to make on this hand?

[joshs]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

joshs, on Mar 31 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

I am a 2S bidder. 3S would be my second choice but I don't like the suit quality.

It's not totally unreasonable and I know why you did it, but I have gotten really bad results from doing this. This isn't one of those times where people say that something (like for example weak notrumps) gives them bad results when really they don't have a clue and are just biased, I truly can remember several terrible scores that were directly attributable to weak two bids on seven card suits.

Besides you have to admit, isn't 2♠ the kind of bid you want your opponents to make on this hand?

Do I? I really don't like passing with long suits, and my pre-empts tend to be very conservative red, so partner knows I have a decent hand. It does depend on partnership style...

Note, of course, that both of my regular partnerships play intermediate 2's (9-12 or 10-13 with 6/7 cards) so this hand certainly qualifies there and wouldn't be a problem hand, but I wasn't assuming this treatment, but I was asssuming that partner knew my pre-empting style.

I had seen disasters with P, 1S,2S and 3S with this hand type. We seem to have a different view of what were the bigger or more frequent disasters.

[han]

inquiry, on Mar 31 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

I am going to buck the trend here. This is an opening hand, but there is a key point missing in the discussion. We are vulnerable. When I open a vulnerable weak two, it is better than a non-vulnerable one. How does this apply to this hand?

If I open 1♠ and then rebid spades, partner will naturally assume I have long spades and a hand too good for a weak two. Since the "bar" has been raised on what a weak two is (due to the vulnerability), partner will assume I have a better hand than I actually hold.

I am not fond of weak twos with poor quality suits, I am not fond of weak twos with side Aces, I am not fond of weak twos on a seven card suit (makes it hard for parnter to judge level to compete). Having said all of that, on this hand I would open 2♠ (or the equivlant if playing multi). For offense, the seventh spade makes up for the lack of a second spade honor, and the second ace gives me roughly the amount of defense partner will expect. Perfect solution, no. But then what is?

I'm shocked Ben.

[han]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

This isn't one of those times where people say that something (like for example weak notrumps) gives them bad results when really they don't have a clue and are just biased, I truly can remember several terrible scores that were directly attributable to weak two bids on seven card suits.

I can truly remember several terrible scores that were directly attributable to weak notrumps.

Seriously, anybody who plays weak notrumps regularly for several years should be able to remember both good and bad scores that are a a direct consequence of opening 1NT.