[DDFalk]

You have: QJ♠,A86532♥,A86♦,J4♣> How many points and do you open it, 1st or 2nd seat?

[gwnn]

3+4+4+1=12. You can downgrade for QJ tight but you have a 6 card suit and two aces, that should mostly make up for it. http://www.jeff-gold...J+Axxxxx+Axx+Jx says 11.9 (yes, I have previously vowed not to use this site again, I hope nobody remembers).

Yes, yes.

Please use the hand editor or (for lazies like me)

QJ
Axxxxx
Axx
Jx

Suit symbols are not necessary and in this case merely serve to confuse.

[RunemPard]

I would open it in just about any system. If we are vulnerable and playing disciplined, I may choose 2♥- I like this as an intermediate 2♥ though if we are playing it.

[Codo]

This hand is really a very interessting 1 ♥ opening in nearly any system...

[billw55]

RunemPard, on 2012-October-16, 07:47, said:

I would open it in just about any system. If we are vulnerable and playing disciplined, I may choose 2♥- I like this as an intermediate 2♥ though if we are playing it.

I don't think this hand is what "disciplined" means with respect to weak twos. It should mean the suit quality, not the total points in the hand.

I open this hand 1♥ in my sleep. With a 12 count I need a very good reason to not open. ♠QJ tight is poor, but not nearly a good enough reason to not open.

[RunemPard]

billw55, on 2012-October-16, 07:52, said:

I don't think this hand is what "disciplined" means with respect to weak twos. It should mean the suit quality, not the total points in the hand.

I open this hand 1♥ in my sleep. With a 12 count I need a very good reason to not open. ♠QJ tight is poor, but not nearly a good enough reason to not open.

Not exactly what I mean't, but yes. I mean if partner is expecting a decent suit, the points may make up for that. I could be wrong...that wouldn't be surprising.

We could miss game, but the preempt may pay off anyways.

[Zelandakh]

Hello and welcome to the forums. Which hands to open is a matter for agreement and system. Most BBF posters open lighter than the average club player and I suspect this is a clear opening for almost everyone that posts here regularly, myself included. For many ordinary BBO players this is not an opening. If you and a regular partner are wondering whether it is a good style to open this kind of hand then I would strongly encourage this. On the other hand, if you mean to chastise someone for opening/not opening the hand then that is entirely misplaced. It is possible to play good bridge with conservative one level openings.

[ggwhiz]

It is much easier to survive opening 1♥ and making required minimum noises afterwards than to pass and deal with 1♠ - p - 2♠ back to you.

[aguahombre]

Yep, all of the above. Alvin Roth and Fantunes would disagree, for different reasons; but they don't post here, for different reasons.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-16, 09:11, said:

Yep, all of the above. Alvin Roth and Fantunes would disagree, for different reasons; but they don't post here, for different reasons.

Fantunes would still open this hand, but 2♥.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-16, 13:33, said:

Fantunes would still open this hand, but 2♥.

Yep, that would be their reason.

[CarlRitner]

billw55, on 2012-October-16, 07:52, said:

I don't think this hand is what "disciplined" means with respect to weak twos. It should mean the suit quality, not the total points in the hand.

In my partnership, disciplined (as it refers to weak twos and other preemptive bids) doesn't mean suit quality or points; it means staying within the partnership agreements.

[aguahombre]

CarlRitner, on 2012-October-16, 18:08, said:

In my partnership, disciplined (as it refers to weak twos and other preemptive bids) doesn't mean suit quality or points; it means staying within the partnership agreements.

That is a form of discipline, true. Not particularly useful when describing what those agreements are in a forum.

[CarlRitner]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-16, 18:56, said:

That is a form of discipline, true. Not particularly useful when describing what those agreements are in a forum.

True. Disciplined (paraphrasing Ron Andersen here) used to mean the traditional 3 of the top 5 honors, no 4-card major, no void, etc -- in other words, strict, adhering to sound methods. Now, it means (to me, anyway) strictly adhering to partnership agreements. What those agreements are (sound, aggressive, nuts) is a matter of opinion, but certainly to be fully disclosed.

If you do not stay disciplined, confidence goes away, quickly.

[jillybean]

As one infamous poster would say ♥ for me, just one.

[mikestar13]

A clear though minimum 1♥. I'd pass a limit raise from partner. 2♥ is not in the picture, suit is bad (strike one), too many side quacks (strike two) and two aces (strike three and out, even if you favor wide-ranging preempts).

[aguahombre]

mikestar13, on 2012-October-16, 20:09, said:

too many side quacks (strike two).

This is the biggy, IMO; it is what we (pard and I) call discipline. Voids, side 4-baggers, etc., pale in the face of these scattered quacks which prevent CHO from evaluating after we preempt (take space away from all 3 of the other people at the table).

[rhm]

I do not mind either 1♥ or 2♥.
2♥ has the advantage of limiting your hand, but the hand is an absolute maximum for a weak two and you could miss game.
Against that there are many ways 2♥ could work out in your favor.
Because being maximum the weak suit is one reason not a hindrance to open 2♥.
If you open 1♥ you are practically forced to rebid the suit next over almost any response of your partner and the suit does not get any better that way.
What I would not do is to Pass.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

rhm, on 2012-October-17, 04:03, said:

Because being maximum the weak suit is one reason not a hindrance to open 2♥.
If you open 1♥ you are practically forced to rebid the suit next over almost any response of your partner and the suit does not get any better that way.

The point is not that you make your suit better by rebidding it. The point is if you have a weak suit but a lot of points outside, the benefits of preempting are less: if you move points from hearts to other suits, we are less likely to make 2H and they are less likely to make 2S (say). I'm sure you are familiar with this argument, though, so why do you think it does not apply here?

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2012-October-17, 04:11, said:

The point is not that you make your suit better by rebidding it. The point is if you have a weak suit but a lot of points outside, the benefits of preempting are less: if you move points from hearts to other suits, we are less likely to make 2H and they are less likely to make 2S (say). I'm sure you are familiar with this argument, though, so why do you think it does not apply here?

Agreed.
But for me a weak two is something of a hybrid between a preempt and a constructive bid.
I show a hand with some values, normally a six card suit and less than an opening bid. It just happens to have a mild preemptive effect, which often turns out useful.
A 1NT opening also has this effect.
Given that some have started to open a weak two with a 5 card suit, this six card suit cannot be that bad.

Nevertheless you are right. From a purely preemptive perspective I would not open 2♥. We do have good defensive values.
If partner has a singleton heart we may belong somewhere else. Nevertheless the odds are against that happening and even if we might survive.

Rainer Herrmann