Is this hand worth opening?

[MickyB]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqxhaq85xxdqjcxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

I think this is clear, but many disagree with me...what say you?[/hv]

[jtfanclub]

I'd seriously consider opening it at the 2 level, depending upon my partner.

 

I'd open it at the 1 level playing Precision.

[pclayton]

2♥ - 8-12 in my system. Weak 2 otherwise. I wouldn't open this with a one bid, unless I'm playing a limited opening style and a 2♥ opening means something else besides weak.

[skjaeran]

I'd open 2♥ with my regular partner, 8-11. Playing weaker 2-bids than this I'd open 1♥ (in a natural system).

[han]

Not having some bid available that shows exactly this hand I'd open 1H.

[hatchett]

I'm a light opening bidder but I don't really fancy this with a short Q and QJ doubleton and a 6322 shape,and weakish heart pips. Equally a weak 2 might miss a 3NT opposite a fitting minimum. I quite fancy an initial pass.

[jdonn]

I think clearly not worth opening by normal standards, although the way most people open now it would be fine for them. I would always open 1 or 2 on it, passing is out of the question to me. You deserve 1♠ p 3♠ back to you if you pass, with partner about to lead a club from Qxxxx instead of Kx of hearts.

[keylime]

2H with me as well, but with concerns.

[mikeh]

Not a one-level opener for me: too many losers, not enough controls. But the suit is good enough for a weak 2 bid, and partner will never expect a hand like this if I pass. I like being red v white when I open 2♥ on this hand type. This would be a lot tougher for me if we were white v red: still not an opening bid, and now I'd be worried that 2♥ might miss a game. The problem is that my quacks may or may not be very useful. I'd still weak 2, however: I like to preserve what integrity my one bids still have.

[vang]

1 or 2 depending on style, with myself i'll choose 2♥

i don't see how an initial pass can help to recover 'a fitting 3NT'...

[MickyB]

Okay, I'm clearly out of step here, but I haven't read anything that persuades me to change my mind.

 

I think an initial pass is fairly clear. The Qx and QJ mean that this hand is worth far less than its 11 HCP, it seems comparable to a lot of nice but unexceptional nine counts. If you open those, then fine, but I don't.

 

I certainly couldn't stomach a weak two at unfavourable. My ODR is awful - Qx and QJ suggest defending, and if one of the opponents has four hearts that's a lot of trump losers to take care of. I'm not the sort who lives in fear, but when 1100 against a part-score seems plausible, the chance of going for a number (possibly a few hundred undoubled) looks worthy of consideration. To me, Qx AJ7xxxx Qx xx is a weak two at these conditions, with the 7th heart counteracting the otherwise defensive nature of the hand.

 

So...yeah. My hand isn't very good, and isn't keen on declaring. Why the need to bid?

[Guest Jlall]

People always call me crazy when I pass this hand, but I continue to think it's right. I can't believe mikeh is happy to be red/white to open a weak 2 with this piece of crap. 6322 with a crappy suit and a crappy hand is not a "sound" weak 2 to me. As far as opening 1, the hand is just not good enough for a 1 bid to me.

[pclayton]

Okay, I'm clearly out of step here, but I haven't read anything that persuades me to change my mind.

 

I think an initial pass is fairly clear. The Qx and QJ mean that this hand is worth far less than its 11 HCP, it seems comparable to a lot of nice but unexceptional nine counts. If you open those, then fine, but I don't.

 

I certainly couldn't stomach a weak two at unfavourable. My ODR is awful - Qx and QJ suggest defending, and if one of the opponents has four hearts that's a lot of trump losers to take care of. I'm not the sort who lives in fear, but when 1100 against a part-score seems plausible, the chance of going for a number (possibly a few hundred undoubled) looks worthy of consideration. To me, Qx AJ7xxxx Qx xx is a weak two at these conditions, with the 7th heart counteracting the otherwise defensive nature of the hand.

 

So...yeah. My hand isn't very good, and isn't keen on declaring. Why the need to bid?

Mike: I am hard pressed to think of a hand with a decent 6 card suit where I'm not opening either 1 or 2 on. For many of us, there is no such thing as an in-between hand.

[Guest Jlall]

Would anyone really open 2H with this hand without the QJ of diamonds and the SQ? I find that hard to believe. To some the QJ+Q are not a positive thing for preempting.

 

No offense Phil but I find the thought of opening 2H red/white with any "decent" 6 card suit revolting. What ever happened to you being such a strict believer in the rule of 2/3/4?

[mikeh]

People always call me crazy when I pass this hand, but I continue to think it's right. I can't believe mikeh is happy to be red/white to open a weak 2 with this piece of crap. 6322 with a crappy suit and a crappy hand is not a "sound" weak 2 to me. As far as opening 1, the hand is just not good enough for a 1 bid to me.

I'm not 'happy' to have this hand at all ;) It is just that I won't pass it: I will usually be completely unable to catch up if I do. And I won't open 1♥. So 2♥ is the only call left to me.

 

My quacks are crap UNLESS partner has values. If he has values in my quacky suits, then my hand becomes quite good.. and if he has either a really good hand or a hand with some fit, then I want him to bid. When I am red v white in 1st seat, he will take me for a good weak two and thus will respond on some hands on which he would, at other vulnerabilities, pass... and on most of such hands, my quacks become valuable.

 

That's why I said I am happy to be red v white... I am actually unhappy about the hand, but less unhappy at this heat than at others....

[MickyB]

Okay, I'm clearly out of step here, but I haven't read anything that persuades me to change my mind.

 

I think an initial pass is fairly clear. The Qx and QJ mean that this hand is worth far less than its 11 HCP, it seems comparable to a lot of nice but unexceptional nine counts. If you open those, then fine, but I don't.

 

I certainly couldn't stomach a weak two at unfavourable. My ODR is awful - Qx and QJ suggest defending, and if one of the opponents has four hearts that's a lot of trump losers to take care of. I'm not the sort who lives in fear, but when 1100 against a part-score seems plausible, the chance of going for a number (possibly a few hundred undoubled) looks worthy of consideration. To me, Qx AJ7xxxx Qx xx is a weak two at these conditions, with the 7th heart counteracting the otherwise defensive nature of the hand.

 

So...yeah. My hand isn't very good, and isn't keen on declaring. Why the need to bid?

Mike: I am hard pressed to think of a hand with a decent 6 card suit where I'm not opening either 1 or 2 on. For many of us, there is no such thing as an in-between hand.

I agree entirely. If you give me a reasonably offensive hand, say KTx AQTxxx xxx x, I'll probably open it 1♥. Swap the spades and the diamonds and I'll probably open it 2♥. It's borderline either way.

 

I'm not passing the original hand because I consider it in-between 1 and 2, I'm passing it because I consider it to be too weak for 1♥ and grossly unsuitable for 2♥.

[mike777]

pass seeems just fine, unless you agree to open 100% all 11hcp hands and many unbalanced ten hcp hands.

 

I do not like 2H on this hand....too flat..too many hcp outside of my suit.

 

I did not see that agreement posted so I pass.

[hrothgar]

Not a one-level opener for me: too many losers, not enough controls. But the suit is good enough for a weak 2 bid, and partner will never expect a hand like this if I pass. I like being red v white when I open 2♥ on this hand type. This would be a lot tougher for me if we were white v red: still not an opening bid, and now I'd be worried that 2♥ might miss a game. The problem is that my quacks may or may not be very useful. I'd still weak 2, however: I like to preserve what integrity my one bids still have.

What he said

[whereagles]

People always call me crazy when I pass this hand, but I continue to think it's right.

You're crazy B)

 

Seriously, though.. I don't think there's such a thing as "a hand too good for a weak 2, but not good enough for a 1 level opener"

[han]

lol

[Guest Jlall]

Seriously, though.. I don't think there's such a thing as "a hand too good for a weak 2, but not good enough for a 1 level opener"

good, we're in agreement.

[awm]

Agree with Justin, I would pass unless playing a style where virtually all ten-counts are opened.

 

It's not an issue of whether there are hands "too good" for a weak two and "not good enough" for a one-level opening. The criteria for these bids are different. A weak two bid, especially at vulnerable, needs to have a good suit. The presence (or absence) of outside cards is not all that relevent. A one-level bid promises some overall strength, a good suit is a plus but not a requirement. This hand falls into the hole of "not enough overall strength for a one bid, not a good enough suit for a weak two." Give me the ♥T and I would certainly find some opening call on this hand (now the suit is good enough for a weak two; the overall hand is also somewhat better).

[P_Marlowe]

2H.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[dake50]

Give me a 3rd spade then pass.

But with 2 card spade, it's 60% opponents have spades so obscure/obstruct this hand. 1H to leave ambiguous HCP or 2H to take space for their 2S/4S decision. 2H for me --that even increases my chances to win SQ on defense -- preemptor having side Q? ?

[TepidCress]

(Assuming 1♥/2♥ = just ♥):-

 

No-one seems to have raised the issue of it going something like 1♥ - (1♠) - 4♥ - (4♠) - P - P -? Something about that issue about having a couple of defensive tricks to open at the one level. It's also an 11 count with no singleton but with quacks - when I play in ♥ sometimes these will be useful, sometimes irrelevant & sometimes they will turn out to be the cards that would have scored in defence but are worthless (ie a hinderance) to me now. So clearly the hand doesn't qualify as a proper 11 count but valuing them as worthless seems just as crazy.

 

Ergo I can't see any justification for 1♥ but AQ to 6 with (albeit "on average") a bit of stuff outside seems easily good enough (normal?) to open 2. So occasionally I'll go for 800 against 110 - that's bridge. Far more often if I pass I'll let the opposition play in the right level (usually ♠) contract when getting the first punch in would've given them problems that a fair percentage of the time means IMPs/matchpoints to my side (1♠ - 3/4♠ being an obvious example). Not that if I picked up this hand I'd go through this analysis. It's a trivial 2♥ opening.