Sanity check

[OleBerg]

Imps, all red, your move:

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=skj9854hq4dq86cqj]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

?

[Hanoi5]

It's the Boss suit. I would. I might regret it but I would.

I suppose we're talking about opening 1♠ anyway...

[Jlall]

Pass man...

[Codo]

2 ♠? Ok 6 card suit and the HCP strength - but this hand is by no means a weak two, the points are totally wrong placed.

 

1 ♠ 6 cards and a 11 bean counter points- but is this an opener?

 

pass? And how to show this hand later?

 

I go with pass and hate it, but I hate anything else even more.

[effervesce]

Pass, and I'd consider myself a light opener. The hand is quacky, balanced, QJ tight and Qx doubleton...

[mike777]

easy one spade but then partner knows we open at the one level with all 11 hcp hands and a six card suit. that means we could have worse than this.

 

Pass would look like:

 

KJx....Qxxx...Qxx....QJx

 

If you prefer to open more sound npp, just tell me!

[gnasher]

1♠. I don't pick up so many 6-card spade suits that I'm prepared to pass this.

[billw55]

The way I learned is that there's no such thing as a tweener. Six card majors and appropriate shape open 1 or 2, but never pass. Otherwise how to possibly show this later? I call this one 2♠, but I see I am all alone.

[hotShot]

Tough hand, but I would travel the 2♠ road.

[Old York]

Not enough to open 1♠ aceless and vulnerable

Too much to pass

I would also open 2♠, partner can expect a fair hand 1st seat red vs red, the weakness in spades is a problem, but the queens are some compensation

 

Tony

[655321]

1♠, yes I know it is not a very good hand.

[Jlall]

bleh you guys are sickos

[pooltuna]

The way I learned is that there's no such thing as a tweener. Six card majors and appropriate shape open 1 or 2, but never pass. Otherwise how to possibly show this later? I call this one 2♠, but I see I am all alone.

no you're not ;)

[Jlall]

The way I learned is that there's no such thing as a tweener.  Six card majors and appropriate shape open 1 or 2, but never pass.  Otherwise how to possibly show this later?  I call this one 2♠, but I see I am all alone.

no you're not ;)

Pretty sure this is one of those things that lots of people teach that is absolutely terrible advice. The flaw in the thinking is that whether or not to preempt is determined by points, which it is not. So the thought process should be:

 

1) Is my hand good enough to open at the 1 level? If yes, open. If not...

 

2) Should I preempt with my hand? If you solve this based on how many points you have, then yes, there is no in between hand. If you play bridge and evaluate based on suit quality, spots, shape (6322 bad), vulnerability, position, how much values you have outside, etc etc, then I think you will judge that this hand is NOT suitable for a preempt so...

 

3) Pass.

[billw55]

2) Should I preempt with my hand? If you solve this based on how many points you have, then yes, there is no in between hand. If you play bridge and evaluate based on suit quality, spots, shape (6322 bad), vulnerability, position, how much values you have outside, etc etc, then I think you will judge that this hand is NOT suitable for a preempt so...

Yes that is what I meant, for a hand that is otherwise suitable for a preempt, there is no tweener.

 

In this case, I did judge it suitable for a preempt. Could be wrong judgement, I suppose.

[whereagles]

a sicko 1♠ here.

[Fluffy]

Can't pass, or partner will take my 2 spades bid later as a fit-bid

 

2♠ looks right to me, but its more like apartnership agreement, with some partners I'd bid 1♠.

[jdonn]

I think the advice is good that no hands are in between 1 and 2. But that doesn't mean you never pass since a hand can be in the strength range for 1 or 2 but otherwise unsuitable. I never realized the advice could be interpreted to mean never ever pass with a 6 card suit?

 

Pass or 1♠ on this hand I don't care much.

[dellache]

Pass (bad suit, bad dist, lots of outside quacks, bad vul).

[Siegmund]

1S with most my partners, but pass with the ones who expect sound opening bids.

 

Anybody's vote different in 3rd seat? (I ask because I saw an almost spot-for-spot identical hand in 3rd seat in a team match earlier this week. The person holding the cards bid 1S, which I think was obvious, but the kibitzers were criticizing him for not opening 2.)

[nigel_k]

I wouldn't open 1♠.

 

Whether you open 2♠ is a question of style and tactics. If you want to make a bid that describes your hand in a way that allows partner to make the right decisions then 2♠ is wrong for the reasons Justin gave. But if you open 2♠ in order to make life hard for opponents and accept that sometimes partner will have a problem, then I think 2♠ is ok on this.

 

In third seat I think it's good to vary your preempts as the downside of finding partner with a good hand is removed so I would definitely open 2♠ in third.

[Finch]

The hand is a lot further away from a 2S opening than a 1S opening. Compared to a 2S opening it has a poor suit, too many HCP and way too much outside defensive stuff. Compared to a 1S opening it's a bit light in playing strength. I don't mind either 1S or pass, but I hate 2S unless trying to randomise.

[dake50]

What is left for reopening 2S (assuming the chance occurs) if this hand is a 1S or 2S opener? Never 6xS? Never every quack in the deck?

 

Surely 1S openers aren't fearing we miss 4S when partner doesn't open?

Or getting to 2S if this hand is a partial? Even maybe 3S partial if a revealing auction and 3S makes?

 

What do ya'all think the upside is?

[Bende]

I play 2M = 10-13 to I open 2♠.

[MFA]

I would open 2♠ if we have agreed my preferred range of 8-11 (combined with a bandit multi). My main point with this is that I certainly don't think 2♠ is too ugly a bid as such, 2-bids don't need to be absolutely pure - but they have to be in range of our agreements or we should really change our range to something else.

 

As it happens I'm used to a strong club base with quite aggressive openers, so this hand is a little above a minimum 1♠ for us (take away 1 point somewhere and we will still be there).