[nigel_k]

I wouldn't open 1♠.

Whether you open 2♠ is a question of style and tactics. If you want to make a bid that describes your hand in a way that allows partner to make the right decisions then 2♠ is wrong for the reasons Justin gave. But if you open 2♠ in order to make life hard for opponents and accept that sometimes partner will have a problem, then I think 2♠ is ok on this.

In third seat I think it's good to vary your preempts as the downside of finding partner with a good hand is removed so I would definitely open 2♠ in third.

[FrancesHinden]

The hand is a lot further away from a 2S opening than a 1S opening. Compared to a 2S opening it has a poor suit, too many HCP and way too much outside defensive stuff. Compared to a 1S opening it's a bit light in playing strength. I don't mind either 1S or pass, but I hate 2S unless trying to randomise.

[dake50]

What is left for reopening 2S (assuming the chance occurs) if this hand is a 1S or 2S opener? Never 6xS? Never every quack in the deck?

Surely 1S openers aren't fearing we miss 4S when partner doesn't open?
Or getting to 2S if this hand is a partial? Even maybe 3S partial if a revealing auction and 3S makes?

What do ya'all think the upside is?

[Bende]

I play 2M = 10-13 to I open 2♠.

[MFA]

I would open 2♠ if we have agreed my preferred range of 8-11 (combined with a bandit multi). My main point with this is that I certainly don't think 2♠ is too ugly a bid as such, 2-bids don't need to be absolutely pure - but they have to be in range of our agreements or we should really change our range to something else.

As it happens I'm used to a strong club base with quite aggressive openers, so this hand is a little above a minimum 1♠ for us (take away 1 point somewhere and we will still be there).

[wank]

how would 2S openers feel when it went double - 4S - double?

i'm guessing sick and would fully expect to go 2 off when the opps struggle to make a part score

[Fluffy]

wank, on Jan 10 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

how would 2S openers feel when it went double - 4S - double?

i'm guessing sick and would fully expect to go 2 off when the opps struggle to make a part score

you can find worse scenario for anything, pass might lead to 1♥-p-4♥ from the opponents, and 1♠ might find partner doubling something that is making, this probes nothing.

[P_Marlowe]

If I decide against Pass, than I open 1S.

Technically and given the vulnerability the hand would fit, our req.
for either a 1S opening or a 2S opening.
But my partner does not like an 2S opening, when the points are so
much distributed.
All in all - if I wrote, that the hand full fills our technical req., than it
is only by the letter, not by the spirit.

And regarding 1S opening - the hand is garbage, but you have the
spades and an easy rebid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

I admit I would bid 1♠ on this. I am not proud of this at all.

2M is sick btw.

[MFA]

wank, on Jan 10 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

how would 2S openers feel when it went double - 4S - double?

i'm guessing sick and would fully expect to go 2 off when the opps struggle to make a part score

This is all backwards. I, who supported the idea of opening 2♠ with this, specifically pointed out that it has to be in our agreed range.
If we have agreed that 2♠ could be this hand then my partner won't suddenly hope for a perfecto and hang me.

[jdonn]

MFA, on Jan 10 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

wank, on Jan 10 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

how would 2S openers feel when it went double - 4S - double?

i'm guessing sick and would fully expect to go 2 off when the opps struggle to make a part score

This is all backwards. I, who supported the idea of opening 2♠ with this, specifically pointed out that it has to be in our agreed range.
If we have agreed that 2♠ could be this hand then my partner won't suddenly hope for a perfecto and hang me.

I don't think it's quite so simple. If this hand is on one end of your agreed range, he may sacrifice when it would only be successful over another portion of your agreed range and still bad over this hand. That should at least be acknowledged.

[chasetb]

I don't see how you can pass this hand- THAT'S the sick thing to do imo. If I am playing Ogust over a weak 2, then I am absolutely opening this 2♠, otherwise I am opening 1♠ and planning on a 2♠ rebid. I want to push the opps around, and opening is my way of doing it.

[mike777]

chasetb, on Jan 11 2010, 02:22 AM, said:

I don't see how you can pass this hand- THAT'S the sick thing to do imo.  If I am playing Ogust over a weak 2, then I am absolutely opening this 2♠, otherwise I am opening 1♠ and planning on a 2♠ rebid.  I want to push the opps around, and opening is my way of doing it.

I can understand a very very easy pass with this hand....


Just read Al roth...


Your comments make me wonder do you read about bridge...about bridge over last 60 years....


If you disagree ok...many good players do....but please read bridge..


Al Roth won alot...and he won with many partners.......

In fact I would have no problems playing with Al ...if he can read current bridge and play against you.

[the hog]

1S. If you want to pass, ok, but you do have the boss suit. 2S? No way!

[nigel_k]

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05

The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand. It just doesn't qualify unless your requirements are much lower than standard. The choices are 2♠ or pass.

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Jan 11 2010, 03:00 AM, said:

1S. If you want to pass, ok, but you do have the boss suit. 2S? No way!

welcome back
I choose pass, but 1S second choice --the boss suit is still there later, after pass.
"No way" is my feeling about 2S, too. Center opponent is the one I don't want to fool.

[gnasher]

nigel_k, on Jan 11 2010, 11:08 AM, said:

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05

The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

The Bowles evaluation method* values this as an opening bid. The people who suggest it's a pass are either Kaplan/Rubens addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

Doesn't that make just as much sense as what you posted?

* This method consists of looking at the hand and deciding how much I like it.

[billw55]

What an interesting thread.

One thing I find surprising are all the comments (from non-2♠ bidders) about the "weak suit" and the "outside values", even describing those values as "defensive". Personally I don't think a bunch of short suit quacks count for much value, and certainly not much defense. Which is my reason for not choosing 1♠ - shouldn't a first seat opener show something real on defense?

As for the "weak suit" - OK it's not great, but I have held a lot worse than KJ98xx. I would call that an average six card suit. True we are vulnerable, but still.

[helene_t]

Interesting thread. I would certainly have opened 2♠ at the table. The low O-D makes it important to make the relatively safe 2♠ opening bid rather than a risky 2♠ overcall at my next turn.

Maybe I should change my habits. Or at least discuss it with partners. Some partners like to raise my preempts on hands with a shockingly low O-D, say a balanced hand with Hx in my suit, or a 4333 with xxx in my suit. That is safe opposite a disciplined preempt but not opposite one of my preempts. Of course, sometimes I will have a textbook preempt and then it's a shame if p can't raise aggressively.

Agree with Nigel and the K-R evaluator that this hand is worth about the 9.05 HCPs. Even playing Precision I would not open this hand 1♠. Much less playing 2/1.

[hotShot]

gnasher, on Jan 11 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Jan 11 2010, 11:08 AM, said:

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05

The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

The Bowles evaluation method* values this as an opening bid. The people who suggest it's a pass are either Kaplan/Rubens addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

Doesn't that make just as much sense as what you posted?

* This method consists of looking at the hand and deciding how much I like it.

Actually Kaplan and Rubens supplied formulas for everybody to replicate their method.

So if I wished to adopt K/R i could do so.

If I where to believe that the Bowles evaluation method (BEM) is superior , I doubt I could replicate your evaluation.