Opening Bids Strong Club/Diamond
#1
Posted 2008-May-08, 15:39
♠KQxxx
♥x
♦KTxxx
♣xx
What do you do with this hand?
For my definitions of "constructive" vs. "weak" -- I'm calling an opening constructive if it includes some hands with 12-13 hcp, whereas an opening is "weak" if it is always less than 12 hcp. So most strong club/diamond systems have constructive one-level openings (even if the range includes some 8-counts it also includes some decent hands) whereas a few (like magic diamond) have weak one-level openings. Some people play constructive two-level openings (i.e. flannery, precision 2♣, Fantoni-Nunes two bids) but most systems have at least some weak two-level openings as well.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#2
Posted 2008-May-08, 15:45
AKTxx
x
Txxxx
xx
type of hands. If it were KQTxx I'd be a lot more tempted, and with KQJxx I'd do it.
#3
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:08
The other alternative is to open a weak two-suited 2♦ showing 5+ diamonds and a 4+ major, showing about 3-8 points. This isn't bad either since it won't lose the major like a one-suited bid weak 2♦ would.
My preference is for 1♠, on the grounds that I want the suit lead (more than diamonds), 1♠ is almost as preemptive as 2♦, and playing limited openings my partner won't as easily hang me for opening weak hands like this.
#4
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:28
- hrothgar
#5
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:43
#6
Posted 2008-May-08, 16:45
#7 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-May-08, 17:07
jdonn, on May 8 2008, 05:45 PM, said:
Ditto for me. Although this is reasonably close to a 1 bid in my current style.
#8
Posted 2008-May-08, 18:05
I guess most of you are going to wimp out changing it to:
KJxxx
-
KTxxxx
xx
Nick
#9
Posted 2008-May-08, 19:29
#10
Posted 2008-May-08, 19:32
NickRW, on May 8 2008, 07:05 PM, said:
Compare a 40% opening rate on an 8 count with no six card suit to the rate you would find in the general worldwide bridge playing population (except those for whom weak 2 suited opening preempts are the norm). I think bbo forums opens light!
#11
Posted 2008-May-08, 20:05
jdonn, on May 9 2008, 01:32 AM, said:
I'm just winding you guys up.
Nick
#12
Posted 2008-May-09, 03:09
In a strong ♣ context this doesn't look like 1♠.
#13
Posted 2008-May-09, 03:46
#14
Posted 2008-May-09, 04:08
--Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.
#15
Posted 2008-May-09, 12:07
Never mind your exact system methods and whether you can or can't open this example:
Axxxxx
-
Kxxxxx
x
What do make of the strength of this hand? (OK, I know 6610 shapes are uncommon).
Just so you can criticise me if you want, I'll tell you how I count points. 6421 for honours, 1 each for length in the longest suit, plus difference in the length of the secong longest and shortest. Like zar points, but instead of 2a+b-d for distribution, it is a-4+b-d which I find more workable. On this basis an average hand is 1xA, 1xK, 1xQ, 1xJ plus 2 for either 4432 or 5332 distribution = 15. Most rule of 20 hands will count to 17 or 18 and I can tell you that 36 (2 sound openings) will normally give play for game given that it isn't a bad misfit.
OK, so back to the example hand. 1xA, 1xK + 8 for 6610 = 18. So the example hand is comfortably worth an opening bid of some sort on this basis. But what to open? In the UK I know we have a restriction on a minimum 8HCP on openers and I think this true in the US as well - and I guess in other places too. But, if you play normal weak two - well - you do have a 6 card suit, but truly, the strength of this hand is in the fact that it has 2 suits - it isn't a one suiter - so you are serisouly risking playing in poor spade fit when you have an excellent diamond fit.
So what I hear you say. Well, under my methods, if you open all rule of 20 hands, then you are already opening 17s by my count. But if you open 17s then under my count then this is a one opener:
AJxxxx
Axx
xxx
x
In other words, a lot of weak 2s are actually strong enough for a one bid (whether this is sound tactically is open to question - but, if the suit is a major, then arguably it is OK as you are likely to out rank the opps anyway).
I guess what I am saying is that loads of bridge players:
a) under value aces quite grossly
under value distribution
c) in particular have geared their systems around their misassessments of strength and have not given proper consideration to the true strength of 2 suiters
Nick
#16
Posted 2008-May-09, 18:13
Axxxxxx Kxxxxxx - - is much stronger than Qxx Qxx Qxx Qxxx. I'd also rather have AT9876 KT9876 - T then A65432 K65432 - J but the second one is the only one I'm allowed to have an agreement to open at the 1 level in playing in the highest of high level ACBL competition.
I voted 1♠ in the original poll, although upon reflection and noticing first seat and red I'd pass. Thirds seat or white and I'd very likely open it.