[nigel_k]

I think this is borderline but would slightly prefer 2♠.

This is really just based on overall hand strength. I think there is enough defence for a 1♠ opening and conversely the side ace doesn't put me off opening 2♠. But at the vulnerability it's more likely we get too high if I open 1♠ and rebid 2♠ than we stop too low if I open 2♠. And anyway I like to preempt.

[mike777]

I agree with those posters who worry about getting too high or partner doubling the opp if you open on junk. One does need to think of an entire system of responses based on what you are going to open.

Likewise if you open pretty sound you need to make sure you bid high enough and double often enough.


In general this is easier than it sounds.

[Winstonm]

At this vulnerability, I believe 2x opening should be a descriptive bid and not an obstructive bid, therefore even the range of the bid should be pretty tight.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Jan 14 2010, 12:45 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 14 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

I wonder if changing the hand to

♠KQT943 ♥J43 ♦4 ♣A75

would change any of the 2♠ votes to 1♠.  (That is, does the change from 1.5 QT to 2 QT make a difference?)

I would still bid 2. Probably 1 if I wasn't vul though.

2S in either case, but I am a stoggy old unimaginative type who thinks that any bid which takes away the whole 2-level and at the same time reasonably describes the hand to partner can't be all bad. Even at favorable vul, it might cause the opps to miss a game or get to a bad one.

[Winstonm]

Quote

2S in either case, but I am a stoggy old unimaginative type

You are not even worthy to untie my stodgy sandals Imagination-Boy. I thought the question was whether to open 2S or PASS.

[jikl]

And this brings the question that any partnership should answer. Is there, or should there be a hand that is too weak for a 1♠ opening yet too strong for a weak 2♠ opening. Personally my answer is no, because partner will never pick you for the hand.

Sean

[Lobowolf]

jikl, on Jan 15 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

And this brings the question that any partnership should answer. Is there, or should there be a hand that is too weak for a 1♠ opening yet too strong for a weak 2♠ opening. Personally my answer is no, because partner will never pick you for the hand.

Sean

Not really the question, though, because there are hands that are too weak to open 1♠, and shouldn't be opened 2♠ not because they're "too strong," but because they're unsuitable. Yes, even some hands containing six spades.

[Jlall]

1S

[Fluffy]

My problem with opening 1♠ with this is that then you have to jump to 3♠ lighter as well to catch up, with like an ace more, and I am not comfortable jumping on that.

[Vilgan]

Too strong for 2♠, too weak for 1♠, so I just pass.

Just kidding

Easy 2♠ for me. I love to open appropriate 10 counts (and even 8/9 counts) at the one level but there is nothing that says "open this at 1♠" to me. Even not vuln I'd probably open 2, but the KQT9xx example I'd open 1 if not vuln.

[Siegmund]

Sentiments like this one have been expressed several times in the thread:

Quote

I'd probably open 2, but the KQT9xx example I'd open 1

I think y'all have this backwards.

If you hold ♠KQT9xx ♥xxx ♦x ♣Axx, you hold a hand that is clearly focused on spades, and is moderately unlikely to take more than one trick defending. That's a perfect textbook maximum 2♠ bid with the vulnerability against you (at favorable and perhaps equal I'd open 3♠.)

The original posted hand, ♠KJTxxx ♥Qxx ♦x ♣Axx is overall a slightly less powerful hand, yes; but more to the point, it is a lot less spadecentric. Along with the spade suit being between 1/4 and 1/2 trick weaker, it has a trick in defense of an opponent's heart contract, and an extra cover card in support of partner's hearts. In 3rd seat, open it 2♠ anyway if you want, fine -- but it doesn't scream "preempt!" at me, and in 1st seat I think it's simply a question of pass vs. 1♠ and I wouldn't give 2♠ serious consideration at all.

As lobowolf put it - not because you are too strong, because you are unsuitable.

[Winstonm]

Siegmund, on Jan 16 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Sentiments like this one have been expressed several times in the thread:

Quote

I'd probably open 2, but the KQT9xx example I'd open 1

I think y'all have this backwards.

If you hold ♠KQT9xx ♥xxx ♦x ♣Axx, you hold a hand that is clearly focused on spades, and is moderately unlikely to take more than one trick defending. That's a perfect textbook maximum 2♠ bid with the vulnerability against you (at favorable and perhaps equal I'd open 3♠.)

The original posted hand, ♠KJTxxx ♥Qxx ♦x ♣Axx is overall a slightly less powerful hand, yes; but more to the point, it is a lot less spadecentric. Along with the spade suit being between 1/4 and 1/2 trick weaker, it has a trick in defense of an opponent's heart contract, and an extra cover card in support of partner's hearts. In 3rd seat, open it 2♠ anyway if you want, fine -- but it doesn't scream "preempt!" at me, and in 1st seat I think it's simply a question of pass vs. 1♠ and I wouldn't give 2♠ serious consideration at all.

As lobowolf put it - not because you are too strong, because you are unsuitable.

This is a rather strange argument to me. On the one hand, KQ109xx, xxx, x, Axx holds 2 quick tricks whereas KJ109xx, Qxx, x, Axx only holds 1 1/2 quick tricks. As for the first being slightly more play-oriented than the second, I would agree, but the KQ109 and the KJ109 make both hands pretty strongly spade-centric.

The difference seems to be in the value of the heart holdings - and to me both are the type hands that would play better in a 6-2 spade fit than a 5-3 heart fit so that is fairly unimportant.

I believe the ability to adequately describe the hand in a single bid strongly favors a 2S opening with either hand unless one has the advantage of playing a limited opening system such as Precision.