A "Tweener" or a clear choice?

[jikl]

And this brings the question that any partnership should answer. Is there, or should there be a hand that is too weak for a 1♠ opening yet too strong for a weak 2♠ opening. Personally my answer is no, because partner will never pick you for the hand.

 

Sean

[Lobowolf]

And this brings the question that any partnership should answer. Is there, or should there be a hand that is too weak for a 1♠ opening yet too strong for a weak 2♠ opening. Personally my answer is no, because partner will never pick you for the hand.

 

Sean

Not really the question, though, because there are hands that are too weak to open 1♠, and shouldn't be opened 2♠ not because they're "too strong," but because they're unsuitable. Yes, even some hands containing six spades.

[Jlall]

1S

[Fluffy]

My problem with opening 1♠ with this is that then you have to jump to 3♠ lighter as well to catch up, with like an ace more, and I am not comfortable jumping on that.

[Vilgan]

Too strong for 2♠, too weak for 1♠, so I just pass.

 

Just kidding :P

 

Easy 2♠ for me. I love to open appropriate 10 counts (and even 8/9 counts) at the one level but there is nothing that says "open this at 1♠" to me. Even not vuln I'd probably open 2, but the KQT9xx example I'd open 1 if not vuln.

[Siegmund]

Sentiments like this one have been expressed several times in the thread:

 

I'd probably open 2, but the KQT9xx example I'd open 1

 

I think y'all have this backwards.

 

If you hold ♠KQT9xx ♥xxx ♦x ♣Axx, you hold a hand that is clearly focused on spades, and is moderately unlikely to take more than one trick defending. That's a perfect textbook maximum 2♠ bid with the vulnerability against you (at favorable and perhaps equal I'd open 3♠.)

 

The original posted hand, ♠KJTxxx ♥Qxx ♦x ♣Axx is overall a slightly less powerful hand, yes; but more to the point, it is a lot less spadecentric. Along with the spade suit being between 1/4 and 1/2 trick weaker, it has a trick in defense of an opponent's heart contract, and an extra cover card in support of partner's hearts. In 3rd seat, open it 2♠ anyway if you want, fine -- but it doesn't scream "preempt!" at me, and in 1st seat I think it's simply a question of pass vs. 1♠ and I wouldn't give 2♠ serious consideration at all.

 

As lobowolf put it - not because you are too strong, because you are unsuitable.

[Winstonm]

Sentiments like this one have been expressed several times in the thread:

 

I'd probably open 2, but the KQT9xx example I'd open 1

 

I think y'all have this backwards.

 

If you hold ♠KQT9xx ♥xxx ♦x ♣Axx, you hold a hand that is clearly focused on spades, and is moderately unlikely to take more than one trick defending. That's a perfect textbook maximum 2♠ bid with the vulnerability against you (at favorable and perhaps equal I'd open 3♠.)

 

The original posted hand, ♠KJTxxx ♥Qxx ♦x ♣Axx is overall a slightly less powerful hand, yes; but more to the point, it is a lot less spadecentric. Along with the spade suit being between 1/4 and 1/2 trick weaker, it has a trick in defense of an opponent's heart contract, and an extra cover card in support of partner's hearts. In 3rd seat, open it 2♠ anyway if you want, fine -- but it doesn't scream "preempt!" at me, and in 1st seat I think it's simply a question of pass vs. 1♠ and I wouldn't give 2♠ serious consideration at all.

 

As lobowolf put it - not because you are too strong, because you are unsuitable.

This is a rather strange argument to me. On the one hand, KQ109xx, xxx, x, Axx holds 2 quick tricks whereas KJ109xx, Qxx, x, Axx only holds 1 1/2 quick tricks. As for the first being slightly more play-oriented than the second, I would agree, but the KQ109 and the KJ109 make both hands pretty strongly spade-centric.

 

The difference seems to be in the value of the heart holdings - and to me both are the type hands that would play better in a 6-2 spade fit than a 5-3 heart fit so that is fairly unimportant.

 

I believe the ability to adequately describe the hand in a single bid strongly favors a 2S opening with either hand unless one has the advantage of playing a limited opening system such as Precision.