[gwnn]

Jxxx
Qx
KT9xxx
x

first favorable imps. 2♦ is a weak 2.

[Echognome]

Although the diamond suit is good enough for a weak 2, the four card major, combined with our heart holding sway me towards passing. The fource card major is weak, but it'd have to be something more like xxxx x KQT9xxx Jx before I'd eschew the spade suit.

[Phil]

I would open 2♦ without reservation w/r. I am closer to a 3♦ bid than a pass.

[P_Marlowe]

yes, 2D.

I would not bid 3D in the current position, but 3D
would be a serious consideration in 3rd pos.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nigel_k]

2♦. Not close to passing. If 2♦ was not available then I'd open 3♦, but in that case pass would be a decent second choice.

I'll consider not preempting if I have more than one flaw. A flaw being a main suit that is weak or a card short, four card major, void or outside ace, or just being at the upper or lower limit of the action. Even with two flaws I may still do it.

This is not a bad suit for me at this vulnerability so I have only one flaw.

[kenrexford]

2♦.

Better question is:

2♦-2♥-P-P-
?

[Cascade]

I bid 2♦ but I don't know where the style is in that.

[TimG]

2♦ for me.

[Jlall]

2D, prefer pass to 3D.

[Hanoi5]

No.

[rd6789]

No I am for pass - the majors are too good - even in H I have Qx and a ruffing value. In 3rd this doesn't apply and 3D would be good.

I think it is a style thing - not to preempt with 4 of a major - it is a good style imho.

[gnasher]

Pass. Too many things wrong with it: length in the majors, defensive values, and a suit that will need two honours to make it run. Of course, I'm quite conservative when it comes to preempts.

[mich-b]

Pass.

Having a side 4 card ♠ suit is a bigger flaw than a 4card ♥ suit, because we are more likely to be able to outbid them when we have ♠s.

[pooltuna]

It is close but 64 with a major can be a strong hand if partner has the right cards. change my ♣ and ♠ and I would bid 3♦...when you have a license to steal...

[Codo]

no way.

[helene_t]

We are in 1st seat w/r at IMPs, that is the best position for a preempt. With only one flaw the only question is whether it's 2 or 3. Indeed that depends on style. With Shogi this 2♦ is constructive and 3♦ is trash, this hand is borderline.

[aguahombre]

Yes, in first seat you get to mess up the auction for all three of the other people at the table. Must take advantage of every opportunity. In fact, whatever 2D used to mean in our system, it should be scrapped in case I have this hand.

[goodwintr]

Apart from feeling that you are accomplishing something positive by preempting on this sort of hand, can anybody actually show (via real-world statistics, simulation, whatever -- something close to objective) that it is winning bridge? My suspicion is that opening 2D (or 3D) on that hand is losing tactics in the long run, but I certainly cannot prove it. A poll certainly won't prove it, or its opposite.

[ArtK78]

Purely a matter of partnership style. I would pass, but I know plenty of players who would open 2♦ (3♦ at IMPs? I don't think so).

[TimG]

goodwintr, on Aug 13 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

Apart from feeling that you are accomplishing something positive by preempting on this sort of hand, can anybody actually show (via real-world statistics, simulation, whatever -- something close to objective) that it is winning bridge? My suspicion is that opening 2D (or 3D) on that hand is losing tactics in the long run, but I certainly cannot prove it. A poll certainly won't prove it, or its opposite.

That strikes me as very difficult, rather than showing that 2♦ wins IMPs over the long run, you'd likely have to start by showing that opening 2♦ with this hand loses fewer IMPs than passing and (possibly) giving the opponents a free run. Next, you'd have to figure out some way to quantify how much better your weak 2♦ fares if these types of hands are removed, and how removing these hands from the 2♦ opening bid changes life for the opponents when you do open 2♦. Even the, you might not be done.