[Jinksy]

Here's a hand that just provoked a strong disagreement between me and a BBO partner. Both of us thought the call was completely obvious - naturally neither of us agreed which way it was obvious

Playing Standard American, three weak twos, 0 system discussion. 1st in all vul, IMP scoring.

What's your call - and why? How do you rate the alternatives?

AJT972
K5
QJ4
63

[phil_20686]

1♠. Because I have a 1♠ bid.

[broze]

Yes, 1♠ and I'm afraid it's not close.

[kuhchung]

as a non-expert I will bid 1S

[neilkaz]

I won't be surprised to see a near unanimous result for 1♠

[billw55]

1♠ for me, but close enough that I would not object to 2♠ by partner.

[ArtK78]

Goren would open 1♠ (but, of course, a 2♠ bid would have been a strong 2 bid).

The only alternative is a weak 2♠ opening, which I could open with a partner who played VERY sound opening bids. Otherwise, an argument can be made that this is a maximum 2♠ opening bid red vs. white in second seat.

[kenrexford]

Jinksy, on 2012-September-13, 11:44, said:

AJT972
K5
QJ4
63

Undoubtedly, the agreement was the standard agreement that a Weak Two shows 5-11 HCP. This always, then, leads to a debate as to what to do with exactly 11 HCP, as with any 6-card holding, you must perforce have enough to open at the one-level by the Rule-of-Twenty analysis (11 plus 6 plus at least 3 = 20).

You can actually find some discussions of this issue through Google, by the way. Also, as an aside, I actually had one partner pass because he could not decide! Weird.

Deciphering the line would be a function of style.

If your general style is old-school, you would probably look at the "Quick Tricks" available. Thus, with AK-A, you clearly have three quicks and should oipen one-level. Similarly, AK-K or AQ-A. With that analysis, this hand is 1 1/2 quicks and should be opened 2♠.

If your analysis is "value," you might look to whether the HCP holdings are "dubious," like Qx or Jx. All 11 HCP in this hand are working, so clear 1♠.

If your analysis is LTC, the "normal" opening with a six-card suit would be seven losers. Ax-AKxxx-xx-xxx, for example, is 11 HCP with 7 losers. This hand, however, is hard to read. Simply addressing missing cards, you have a 7-loser hand. But, the K-x is dubious. However, calling AJ109 as two losers is also dubious. The Q-J-x is slow and dubious. But, it seems like 7 losers, so 1♠ seems right.

I mean, I open 1♠, but I can see reason for another view. Calling this "clear" seems a stretch, even if you agree with my take, as this is CLEARLY NOT a 1♠ opening by Quick Trick anaysis.

[mikeh]

Stule matters: I suspect that most who play std american tend to be more traditional in their bidding than otherwise, and so this might well be a 2♠ call especially vulnerable.

I don't think it is demonstrably 'wrong' to open 2♠ or, my choice, 1♠...of course, when you have no agreements, and are playing on BBO, you can't know (until you've seen a few hands bid by partner) what his style is. Even today, a Grannovetter would probably shudder at 1♠..and he's a WC expert. I personally don't like 2♠ but, in my partnerships, partner wouldn't expect more than this for 1♠ then 2♠.

My style and I think the style of just about everyone who posts on BBF is 1♠, but (my guess is) a pickup BBO partner who plays std american isn't likely to be a poster here....so your poll is going to reflect a dislike for 2♠ that isn't really representative nor fair.

[dake50]

Take away S:10, without 3/5 tops, nor 2/top 3,
NOW it is OBVIOUS, but which way?

[aguahombre]

My 1♠ decision is because 6 of the 11 are among two other suits.

[Bbradley62]

Jinksy, on 2012-September-13, 11:44, said:

Playing Standard American, three weak twos, 0 system discussion.

Highly unusual for "Expert-Class Bridge".

[dboxley]

Three likely defensive tricks. I think most people would open 1S without the DJ, I certainly would. I would even feel guilty about opening a wk 2 with an A and a K but that is probably an extreme view. Roth and Stone originally treated a wk 2 as a descriptive bid but the modern (post 1980) tendency is to treat it as a preempt.

[the hog]

This is a 1S opening. I do not rate 2S at all playing SA.

[rhm]

Jinksy, on 2012-September-13, 11:44, said:

Here's a hand that just provoked a strong disagreement between me and a BBO partner. Both of us thought the call was completely obvious - naturally neither of us agreed which way it was obvious

Playing Standard American, three weak twos, 0 system discussion. 1st in all vul, IMP scoring.

What's your call - and why? How do you rate the alternatives?

AJT972
K5
QJ4
63

This is a style question. The big error is to claim that the call is completely obvious.
I prefer a 2♠ opening but would not object to 1♠.
I would open 1♠ if I held 6331 instead.
I consider the risk of staying too low by opening this hand 2♠ smaller than getting too high by opening 1♠ but it is close.
I also like the preemptive effect of 2♠.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

I'd open 1♠ even vul vs not and even in second position. Apart from the fact that the hand is worth it in my style, there is a small factor: AJ109xx is a decent side suit, if partner is for example 2-6 or 1-5 in the majors, hearts are probably best strain, if he has a mino, 3NT could be the winning contract. So I don't want to focus too much on spades opening 2♠. With KQ10 or QJ or even KJ10 opening 2♠ would be more appealing.

[ahydra]

1S - mainly because my weak 2s are "5-9", but also because this hand has too much defensively for a pre-empt.

ahydra

[Phil]

What is the point of "Expert Class Bridge" when problems like this creep in?

[phil_20686]

Phil, on 2012-September-14, 08:41, said:

What is the point of "Expert Class Bridge" when problems like this creep in?

Well presumably "an expert" criticised 1S opener.

[daveharty]

No love for pass?!?

1♠