open what?

[Fluffy]

IMPs, vul, first position.

 

♠76432

♥AK10973

♦104

♣

[P_Marlowe]

Pass, hoping that if the auction comes back to

me I am a little bit more enlightend.

 

I would choose 2D only, if it promises at

least 5-4, at least given the vulnerability, but

if 4-4 is still possible, than 2D is not an option.

 

If I bid hearts it will be 3H, I would not be happy,

but I am not happy with my choosen bid either,

because what ever I do later, partner wont give

me 6-5.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[joker_gib]

Pass and hope to act later too.

 

I don't want to loose the ♠ suit and if I open 2♦, partner will not expect this shape.

 

Alain

[Gerben42]

I don't want to loose the ♠ suit and if I open 2♦, partner will not expect this shape.

 

I'm sure he won't... BTW don't like the convention.

 

Anyway my choice is PASS, with 3♥ a distant second choice.

[Blofeld]

If I have an opening for weak majors[1], I make it ... I'm not sure what auction people are particularly afraid of here. I can certainly see a few possible bad outcomes, but also lots of good ones.

 

Else, pass is stand out.

 

[1] Whether I like the convention or not is another matter entirely. Here, this is what I'm playing.

[ArtK78]

Pass, hoping that I know what to do when the auction comes back to me.

[Guest Jlall]

pass

[han]

I voted for pass. There are hands with this shape that I would open with a preempt but not this one.

[Guest Jlall]

I voted for pass. There are hands with this shape that I would open with a preempt but not this one.

With 5-6 in the majors red/white in first seat? Which hands are those :)

[Echognome]

I wish we were playing either 2♣ or 2♥ as our weak both majors bid, but given I have a bid to show a preempt in the majors, why wouldn't I use it?

[MickyB]

I wish we were playing either 2♣ or 2♥ as our weak both majors bid, but given I have a bid to show a preempt in the majors, why wouldn't I use it?

I'd much sooner open *this particular hand* with 2♦ for the majors than 2♥ for the majors...2♥-AP scares me, I'd rather partner had to bid 2♥ over 2♦ so I could give it a raise.

 

The disadvantage of opening this hand 2♦ is that it might occasionally preempt the opponents into preempting me - 2♦-(5♣) on a hand that would have opened 1♣, say.

 

2♦-(3♣)-P-(5♣), where partner has had the chance to support at the three-level, will occasionally prevent us from diagnosing a double fit, but usually will be correct in suggesting we don't compete further.

 

I think it's fairly close whether to open 2♦ or pass.

[P_Marlowe]

I wish we were playing either 2♣ or 2♥ as our weak both majors bid, but given I have a bid to show a preempt in the majors, why wouldn't I use it?

If 2D would promise 5-5 than the bid

is fine, but usually peoble play 2D as

4+-4+.

 

And this means, partner will pass a lot,

when 4M is making your side, if you happen

to hold 65.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

IMPs, vul, first position.

 

♠76432

♥AK10973

♦104

♣

2H

 

I think there is alot of merit in opening weak two bids often with two suited hands. I assume partner knows I do this. I think it is a plus we are vul so partner should think I have a max or super max.

 

A bit too weak for one heart.

[Echognome]

I still don't get it. We can begin by telling partner where 8 of our cards are and then later showing that we have extra shape by bidding again (why else would we be bidding again?) if it's at a comfortable level.

 

As for Mike's worry, that seems even less of a concern, in particular the 2♦ - (3♣) - Pass - (5♣). There I'm a quite content passer. Partner couldn't even bid a major for us at the 3-level. To me, passing is a bigger concern. Imagine the simple auction P - (1♣) - P - (3♣); ? Are we comfortable acting now? Why not get in there and see what partner can do? What if it goes 2♦ - (Pass) - 4♠? That may shut the opponents out entirely.

 

Yes, 2♦ might only show 4-4 (we weren't told by the OP), but my experience with these bids is to get in there and then act later if it makes sense. Waiting for the opponents to exchange information first doesn't seem to make as much sense to me. Also, suppose that 2♦ showed at least 5-4 or it showed 5-5, wouldn't that be everyone's choice?

[whereagles]

I'd open 2♦ and follow up with some heart bid, even if it's at a silly level :P

[kenrexford]

A 1♥ opening, sick though it may be, and as difficult as it may be to explain to partner by correspondence when it fails, probably works out right more than not, IMO.

 

But, I want my partner to play with me again, so I'll keep that to myself (unless the start time was 11:30 P.M. or later).

[pclayton]

I'll pass lacking some gadget. Maybe I can describe later and maybe I can't.

[cherdano]

I still don't get it. We can begin by telling partner where 8 of our cards are and then later showing that we have extra shape by bidding again (why else would we be bidding again?) if it's at a comfortable level.

The problem I have with that approach is that my hand doesn't seem good enough to bid voluntarily at the 3 or 4-level vulnerable AFTER opponents have had a chance to show some shape and strength. (If a 3H opening would show 4=6 in the majors I would bid it, obviously.)

Of course this approach may work, but it seems dangerous as well.

[Trysalot]

Pass, hoping that I know what to do when the auction comes back to me.

Same here. If I played 2 diamonds shows weak majors, I would open 2 diamonds, but I don't play that and dislike the idea of playing that.

[neilkaz]

I pass, even with the 2♦ gadget as I have a strong 6 card ♥ suit and a weak 5 card ♠ suit. After passing I expect to get into the auction later unless the opps take it high quickly in which case it probably isn't out hand and we'd have to sac at the 5 level.

[Codo]

There are hands which fit into a system bid but you still decide not to use it.

 

But opposite to the majority, I would choose 2 Diamond with this hand and maybe I have a chance for a rebid to show the extra shape later.

 

For the idea that 2 Diamond shows 4/4: I played that and did not like it. Yes you can use the preempt a lot, but you get hammered too often and you sometimes play in the wrong partial. I strongly prefer 5/4, even if this is much less frequent.

 

For the idea that 2 Diamond is better then 2 Heart: This is nonsense. You give (like multi) the opponents two possibilities to bid instead of one which makes it much easier for them.

[Edmunte1]

Here you have a pretty similar board from BB Shanghai 2007:

http://www.sarantakos.com/bridge/vugraph/2007/2007-wtc.html, round 4, board 1

 

The bids:

Nystrom=pass

Brenner=2♥

L'Ecuyer=2♥ (majors 2 suiter, weak)

Bertens=Pass

Ahmadi=3♥

Gawrys=2♥ (55♥+other)

[skjaeran]

Pass.

Even playing Ekrens 2♦ (which I quit playing ten years ago) I'd pass this hand.

[jonottawa]

I agree with the 2♦ bidders. Ya, it's unfavorable, but it's also a red game. As long as the bidding isn't at the 5 level by the time it comes back to me, I'll be able to show this hand with a great deal of precision. Barring a horribly unlucky complete misfit, we'll get to a good spot.

 

I don't mind pass. If my first concern was risk-aversion (avoiding looking silly) I'd pass. It's my 2nd choice.

 

I prefer 4♥ to 3♥. You miss too many games with 3♥ and won't be able to get ♠ into the picture anyway, so while 2♥ makes some sense (you might get to bid 3♠ later,) I don't like 3♥ at all.