[inquiry]

jdonn, on May 29 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

inquiry, on May 29 2008, 10:10 PM, said:

Strong two suiters are frequently opened one of a suit, becauae of the difficulty of dealing iwth the loss of bidding space if you open 2C. This is one reason I play misiry (outlined in my first post). However, without misiry, some strong two suited hands are just too darn strong to risk a one of a suit bid. This is one of those hands even for those who believe in opening in one of a suit with a stong hand.

What auction would lead to that difficulty on this hand?

None.. .
2♣=2♦
2♠=3♠ (or second neg then raise spades)
6♠ (or some forcing bid to get to it)

This hand works fine on 2♣ bid.... not all strong two suiters do, however.

[georgeac]

do u remember what his partner had? was that an obvious pass over 1♠, just curious.

[babalu1997]

kfay, on May 29 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

Don't imagine I'll get many more responses. Harmon Edgar opened 1♠ with this hand, which was passed out.

1♠+6

I don't mean to call attention to what I thought was a terrible bid by a player who I obviously respect. I just thought this was taking an idea way too far. Was wondering if anyone shared his philosophy about strong 2-suiters.

yeah i open that hand 1 spade and know a few people who do.

i stray a little bit and open 2 clubs to rebid 2nt if the hand is balanced and stopped.

i am glad to find out there are wc players who actually bid like that.

i always thought max hardy was exaggerating to propose that in his book.

and yes it hurts to play 1 sapdes when everyone else is in 4s

[neilkaz]

georgeac, on May 30 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

do u remember what his partner had? was that an obvious pass over 1♠, just curious.

I'd like to also see it ! In reply to babalu...it hurts lots worse to be passed out at the 1 level in a slam !

[kfay]

babalu1997, on May 31 2008, 08:28 AM, said:

kfay, on May 29 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

Don't imagine I'll get many more responses.  Harmon Edgar opened 1♠ with this hand, which was passed out. 

1♠+6

I don't mean to call attention to what I thought was a terrible bid by a player who I obviously respect.  I just thought this was taking an idea way too far.  Was wondering if anyone shared his philosophy about strong 2-suiters.

yeah i open that hand 1 spade and know a few people who do.

i stray a little bit and open 2 clubs to rebid 2nt if the hand is balanced and stopped.

i am glad to find out there are wc players who actually bid like that.

i always thought max hardy was exaggerating to propose that in his book.

and yes it hurts to play 1 sapdes when everyone else is in 4s

Actually everyone else is in 6♠. I think this happens to be quite a good argument against it. Seriously if you think this is an argument for why 1♠ is the correct opening I don't think you've understood this thread at all.

[kfay]

georgeac, on May 30 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

do u remember what his partner had? was that an obvious pass over 1♠, just curious.

I think partner had 4 spades and the ♣Q. Not much else of interest. 3 diamonds.

If this is supposed to be some argument against why partner has a bad pass you're looking in a bad spot. Partner has their pass and then some.

[mikeh]

I am a very, very conserative 2♣ opener, and I would open 1♦ if my long suits were the minors. But with spades as my main suit, this is easy for me.

I play, as do many but far from most, that 2♥ is an immediate second negative, which makes this borderline if my highest suit was hearts, but with spades, the risk of jamming myself after 2♣ is far less than the risk of playing 1♠ cold for slam in my second suit. I wouldn't worry too much about missing a spade slam..... unless partner is old-school about responding.

[EricK]

Presumably this was systemic for the pair in question, and presumably they do also use 2♣ for some strong hands. So it is not enough to consider just the chances of languishing in the wrong contract on this hand type, but also the potential benefits their more restrictive approach enjoys when one of the hands they would open 2♣ turns up.

[han]

Why do you presume that this was systemic for the pair in question? I doubt that.

[inquiry]

The partner had 4 spades to the nine (spades 2-2) and doubleton's in both red suits (diamonds 3-3). So pull trumps and two ruffs did it. Also had Qxxxx of clubs... so the hand opposite was something like this...(don't remember all the spots)...

---

[EricK]

han, on Jun 1 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

Why do you presume that this was systemic for the pair in question? I doubt that.

Because if it wasn't, why would he have done it?

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Jun 1 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

The partner had 4 spades to the nine (spades 2-2) and doubleton's in both red suits (diamonds 3-3). So pull trumps and two ruffs did it. Also had Qxxxx of clubs... so the hand opposite was something like this...(don't remember all the spots)...

---

Just making the point that even if people think this hand should respond, it could have been a diamond fit instead of a spade fit (which would make the opponents even less likely to save you).

[babalu1997]

[quote name='kfay' date='May 31 2008, 10:29 PM'] [/QUOTE]
Actually everyone else is in 6[sp]. I think this happens to be quite a good argument against it. Seriously if you think this is an argument for why 1[sp] is the correct opening I don't think you've understood this thread at all. [/quote]
well there are also many many hands where i am 1 sapdes making 3 and everyone else in 4s down 1, so i get the score back, on average.

i am no expert but happen to play that as a system bid.

and no this 6s thing has never happned to me-- in fact i mostly get crappy hands

[TimG]

EricK, on Jun 1 2008, 07:56 AM, said:

han, on Jun 1 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

Why do you presume that this was systemic for the pair in question? I doubt that.

Because if it wasn't, why would he have done it?

I play bridge with Richard. I know he is prone to open some hands 4M that should systemically be opened something else. That is, he deviates from systemic agreement from time to time. I suspect this is not unusual in other partnerships.

[han]

Sometimes people make mistakes. I know I do.

[EricK]

Unless it was a systemic agreement, what exactly is the point of this thread? If it was a mistake - a slip of the hand/tongue/brain - it is obviously irrelevant. If it was just a flight of fancy ("let's see what happens if I open this at the one level, instead of the normal 2♣"), then we can comment on how unlucky he was to try it on this hand; but I don't think we can say that trying an experiment is either right or wrong (as long as partner accepts that you sometimes do it, or the game you are playing in is purely for fun).