[jdeegan]

First seat, both vul, BBO 'expert' partner of unknown quality, playing BBO SAYC:

---

First hand of the session. Your bid?

[ArtK78]

I would pass. It is too good for a preempt, and it is quite possible that you belong in spades and not in clubs.

Further, with two aces, you have more defense than a typical preempt, so a 3♣ opening might mislead partner if a competitve auction ensues.

Having said all that, I can see that a 3♣ opening bid could be the winner on any given hand.

EDIT: I would not open the bidding 1♣. This could also mislead partner who would expect more high card strength rather than purely distributional values, and you might get to a no play 3NT.

[jillybean]

Ignore the skill level of your random partner, most bbo'ers play inverted skill level.

I used to open "all" 6-4 or better hands but now I pass with this, change the spade jack to the king and it is an easy 1♣ opening for me.

[MrAce]

In the conditions you posted i would definetely pass for so many reasons.

Playing with someone that i know i would % 100 open 1♣

Was it MP or IMP pairs individual ?

[hrothgar]

I would pass

1. The hand is badly flawed for a preempt (two bullets, a side 4 card major, a void)
2. Not enough texture in the primary suit
3. Not quite strong enough for a 1C opening

The only reason that I would consider opening was if this was the first bid in a long team match and I wanted the opponents on edge. Even here, I suspect that I would pass...

[jdeegan]

MrAce, on 2013-July-20, 04:09, said:

In the conditions you posted i would definetely pass for so many reasons.

Playing with someone that I know, I would 100% open 1♣

Was it MP or IMP pairs individual ?

It was IMP pairs. I think it was an indy. Partner claimed to be a BBO 'expert' so I did as you would have done playing opposite an actual, real, competent bridge player and opened 1♣. Partner held:
AKxx
Kxxx
xxx
Kx

so we reached an easy, makable 4♠.

What made it so odd was that after the hand, my erstwhile partner insisted again and again on giving me a bridge lesson. Evidently in his world, my hand was a clear 3♣ preempt. Resulting is one thing, but is there an appropriate term for anti-resulting?

Seriously, these 'tweener' hands do come up once in a while. I was always taught to look at quick tricks and playing tricks. IMHO, this one is not even close. As the late, great Charles Goren would have said: "Count 9 high card points, plus 3 for your void and one for your doubleton. Does this add up to the 'magic' 13? Do you have at least two quick tricks? Then you must open the bidding."

Just having that alone might have made me slightly nervous. I was more than a little happy to have the ♠ 10 and another nice ♠ spot plus the good interior ♣ spots to spare. Dios mio, just how bad are some of these BBO 'experts'?

[Fluffy]

its pass or 1♣ other options are nuts, whatever you feel like.

[jdeegan]

Well, a 4-4 ♠ fit with the side 6 or 7 bagger can play wretchedly, esp. with skinny HCP values. Should my auction go one ♣, pass (or whatever), 1♥ or one ♦, I plan to ditch the spade suit and bid this thing as a minimum hand with long clubs.

[rmnka447]

Let's see - 9 HCP, 2 QT, satisfies rule of 20, and you have 4 ♠. That's offset by a very mediocre holding in the long suit.

Close call, but in any reasonably aggressive partnership, I bid 1 ♣. If pard likes to bid a bit more conservatively, I'll pass and try to intervene later.

[Codo]

The opening is somewhere between 1 ♣ or 1 club....
I would choose this opening opposite any level of partner...