Opening Bids

[awm]

Playing your favorite strong club or diamond methods, you hold in first seat all vulnerable:

 

♠KQxxx

♥x

♦KTxxx

♣xx

 

What do you do with this hand?

 

For my definitions of "constructive" vs. "weak" -- I'm calling an opening constructive if it includes some hands with 12-13 hcp, whereas an opening is "weak" if it is always less than 12 hcp. So most strong club/diamond systems have constructive one-level openings (even if the range includes some 8-counts it also includes some decent hands) whereas a few (like magic diamond) have weak one-level openings. Some people play constructive two-level openings (i.e. flannery, precision 2♣, Fantoni-Nunes two bids) but most systems have at least some weak two-level openings as well.

[jtfanclub]

We do allow weak 2s with 5-5 first seat, but I dunno, this one doesn't appeal to me too much. It's more for the

 

AKTxx

x

Txxxx

xx

 

type of hands. If it were KQTxx I'd be a lot more tempted, and with KQJxx I'd do it.

[rbforster]

In my methods, one choice is opening an 8-15 1♠, although it's clearly on the low end of what we open (rule of 18, low end discretionary).

 

The other alternative is to open a weak two-suited 2♦ showing 5+ diamonds and a 4+ major, showing about 3-8 points. This isn't bad either since it won't lose the major like a one-suited bid weak 2♦ would.

 

My preference is for 1♠, on the grounds that I want the suit lead (more than diamonds), 1♠ is almost as preemptive as 2♦, and playing limited openings my partner won't as easily hang me for opening weak hands like this.

[han]

I'd pass.

[hrothgar]

this is an absolute minimum 1♥ opening playing MOSCITO. (1♥ show 4+ Spades) The fact that the hand contains 10+ cards in the two longest suits permits a constructive opening with 5 slam points.

[jdonn]

I don't play any methods that would allow me to open this hand at the 1 level. KQxxx does not suit my idea of a vulnerable weak two bid, but not vulnerable I would open 2♠.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't play any methods that would allow me to open this hand at the 1 level. KQxxx does not suit my idea of a vulnerable weak two bid, but not vulnerable I would open 2♠.

Ditto for me. Although this is reasonably close to a 1 bid in my current style.

[NickRW]

Wow. I thought this was a forum for people who liked to open light, but it is 60% pass as I write this.

 

I guess most of you are going to wimp out changing it to:

 

KJxxx

-

KTxxxx

xx

 

Nick

[Echognome]

I pass as well. However, once you make it strong enough to open (say by adding the ♠J instead of an x), then it's a mandatory 1♠ opening. Given my preferred strong club method is relay, our choices of bids are fairly restricted by shape requirements.

[jdonn]

Wow. I thought this was a forum for people who liked to open light, but it is 60% pass as I write this.

Compare a 40% opening rate on an 8 count with no six card suit to the rate you would find in the general worldwide bridge playing population (except those for whom weak 2 suited opening preempts are the norm). I think bbo forums opens light!

[NickRW]

Compare a 40% opening rate on an 8 count with no six card suit to the rate you would find in the general worldwide bridge playing population (except those for whom weak 2 suited opening preempts are the norm). I think bbo forums opens light!

I'm just winding you guys up. :P

 

Nick

[Gerben42]

I'd only open this strength on the 1-level in Magic ♦, but that has put the 5 - 5 hands on the 2-level. In that system you'd open 8 - 12 HCP, 5 - 5 distribution with 2♠ in the non-brownsticker variation.

 

In a strong ♣ context this doesn't look like 1♠.

[Free]

2♠ showing a weak hand with 5♠ and 4+m.

[effervesce]

Make one of the kings an ace and I'd open it.

[NickRW]

How about busting this thread open to something a bit more meaningful than simply discussing one particular hand.

 

Never mind your exact system methods and whether you can or can't open this example:

 

Axxxxx

-

Kxxxxx

x

 

What do make of the strength of this hand? (OK, I know 6610 shapes are uncommon).

 

Just so you can criticise me if you want, I'll tell you how I count points. 6421 for honours, 1 each for length in the longest suit, plus difference in the length of the secong longest and shortest. Like zar points, but instead of 2a+b-d for distribution, it is a-4+b-d which I find more workable. On this basis an average hand is 1xA, 1xK, 1xQ, 1xJ plus 2 for either 4432 or 5332 distribution = 15. Most rule of 20 hands will count to 17 or 18 and I can tell you that 36 (2 sound openings) will normally give play for game given that it isn't a bad misfit.

 

OK, so back to the example hand. 1xA, 1xK + 8 for 6610 = 18. So the example hand is comfortably worth an opening bid of some sort on this basis. But what to open? In the UK I know we have a restriction on a minimum 8HCP on openers and I think this true in the US as well - and I guess in other places too. But, if you play normal weak two - well - you do have a 6 card suit, but truly, the strength of this hand is in the fact that it has 2 suits - it isn't a one suiter - so you are serisouly risking playing in poor spade fit when you have an excellent diamond fit.

 

So what I hear you say. Well, under my methods, if you open all rule of 20 hands, then you are already opening 17s by my count. But if you open 17s then under my count then this is a one opener:

 

AJxxxx

Axx

xxx

x

 

In other words, a lot of weak 2s are actually strong enough for a one bid (whether this is sound tactically is open to question - but, if the suit is a major, then arguably it is OK as you are likely to out rank the opps anyway).

 

I guess what I am saying is that loads of bridge players:

a) under value aces quite grossly

B) under value distribution

c) in particular have geared their systems around their misassessments of strength and have not given proper consideration to the true strength of 2 suiters

 

Nick

[Mbodell]

Sure, I hate the 8 hcp restriction on opening 1 bids.

 

Axxxxxx Kxxxxxx - - is much stronger than Qxx Qxx Qxx Qxxx. I'd also rather have AT9876 KT9876 - T then A65432 K65432 - J but the second one is the only one I'm allowed to have an agreement to open at the 1 level in playing in the highest of high level ACBL competition.

 

I voted 1♠ in the original poll, although upon reflection and noticing first seat and red I'd pass. Thirds seat or white and I'd very likely open it.