rogerclee Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Matchpoints, All White, First Seat ♠QJx ♥QT98xx ♦Jx ♣xx Would you open this 2♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 I think I wouldn't, the hand is too flat and has too many queens and jacks. It's white at MPs though, tempting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 It is for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Yes I would definitely open 2♥ at all white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASkolnick Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 It depends on style. If that is a 2♥ opener, is this also a 2♥ Opener? KxxKQJTxxxxxxx I don't like wide style preempts, but I have no problem playing constructive or destructive preempts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Agree it's completely a style question and also something that should be disclosed.* This would probably be a weak 2H playing with Jason at these colors and position. Playing with Phil, we have a mini multi (for which this would definitely qualify) but that doesn't really answer the question. *By disclose I mean by whatever is appropriate where you play and to be very open with a description of your style to your opponents should they inquire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 I hope when I will be older I'll stop opening these hands, until then I'll just settle for all the good results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 If that is a 2♥ opener, is this also a 2♥ Opener? KxxKQJTxxxxxxx Does anybody open 2H with that???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 It depends on style. If that is a 2♥ opener, is this also a 2♥ Opener? KxxKQJTxxxxxxx I don't like wide style preempts, but I have no problem playing constructive or destructive preempts. This is a TD call... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vuroth Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 It depends on style. If that is a 2♥ opener, is this also a 2♥ Opener? KxxKQJTxxxxxxx I don't like wide style preempts, but I have no problem playing constructive or destructive preempts. This is a TD call... What if I just put the club in my pocket, and open 1♥? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 I'd open 2♥ but I open everything 2♥ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 No. (my vote) Yes. No. Yes. ... With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Too many quacks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jikl Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Not for me, but swap the ♦J into ♥s for the same distribution and same points etc and I don't think I could stop myself. Even though it is still very quacky. Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 If that is a 2♥ opener, is this also a 2♥ Opener? KxxKQJTxxxxxxx No, that's 3♥. Just stick with the program, okay it's probably anti-field but that's true for the opponents too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcyk Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 No. Too many values outside of hearts. I am old school. I want three of the top five honors to preempt white against white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryallen Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 No. Too many values outside of hearts. I am old school. I want three of the top five honors to preempt white against white. :P some of the best results I have seen at the table with weak 2's have occurred with 1st or 2nd seat holding a 6 card suit headed by the J. You only have to look at the statistical success of garbage 5-4 holdings opened with 2 bids to see the benefit. But like yourself, something that does not come naturally to me. On this hand I would open 2♥ every time nv. Out of interest, does anyone still vary the requirements of a weak 2 with the vulnerability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 On this hand I would open 2♥ every time nv. Out of interest, does anyone still vary the requirements of a weak 2 with the vulnerability? I do and I don't think I'm alone in this regard (or even wrong). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASkolnick Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Yes, your right I had 14 cards in that example. But I do think that people who constantly open on Jxxxxx empty wind up getting caught in higher levels of competition. Pros:1) Blocking bids2) Partner sometimes has a fit Cons:1) Can go for number2) Interferes with constructive bidding if you have that hand. I think KQJxxx and an outside K is NOT an opening hand, but I have no problem preempting it 2 Hearts. But I usually play rather constructive preempts. If I do that, how can partner tell the hand QxxJxxxxxKxxx versus the one I mentioned. I am not saying either style is better, just I don't think its wise to play both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 On this hand I would open 2♥ every time nv. Out of interest, does anyone still vary the requirements of a weak 2 with the vulnerability? Everybody does. The extent to which people vary their requirements varies enormously, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeegan Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 :) Yes and HELL YES. Of course this depends on ones philosophy about preemption. Imho, the important considerations are strength, suit length for those who believe in one suited 6-7 baggers and 'purity'. This hand is pure. It has a six bagger - the proper suit length. Finally, it is weak - suitable for those who believe that higher level openings are better for preemptive purposes than for constructive bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Matchpoints, All White, First Seat ♠QJx ♥QT98xx ♦Jx ♣xx Would you open this 2♥? I thought this hand =4 tricks so I pass 2h is fine if 4 tricks are enough or you value hand better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Its a minimum but it is 2♥ for me. 1st seat is made for pre-empting. Having said that I am happier at these colours playing a more constructive style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.