Mutually Assured Destruction

[gwnn]

AT98xx

x

xx

A9xx

 

Favorable BAM 1st seat (if you choose something dramatically different in some other circumstances please comment) :(

 

(this is from an old thread)

[Fluffy]

not enough for 1 spade

too good for 2 spades

bad suit for 3 spades

 

I hate this problem.

 

If vulnerable I'd open 2♠, but since we are not it is out, and depending on partner I'd open 1♠, or maybe I would pass althou it is out of my book.

[Hanoi5]

I went with 3♠ because of the singleton heart. 2♠ would be my second choice. 1♠ always takes me places I don't like.

[hanp]

1s or 2s, both reasonable imo.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

A matter ot partnership agreement, but for us the hand would be

too strong for a green vs. red weak two preempt.

And I am not going to open 3S or 4S, due to the suit quality, so

there is only one bid left - which is in my bidding box: Pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[rogerclee]

2S, would rather pass than open 1S.

[Cyberyeti]

1S, we have a hard agreement that we don't open weak 2s with 2 aces.

[andy_h]

2♠, second choice 1♠. I don't feel so good passing with this hand at 1st favourable but I understand its risks.

[jjbrr]

I would just open 2♠ with this and not give it much thought.

[helene_t]

2♠ but don't object to pass. Would probably pass in 2nd seat at BAM. At IMPs I would preempt in any seat when favorable.

 

3♠ is nuts at BAM IMHO. Don't object to 3♠ at IMPs when favorable. Or 1♠ for that matter. But generally I would not open 1♠ with this hand. I suppose it's not a bad style to open 1♠, just not my style. At least not if playing 2/1.

[nigel_k]

Pass. Could live with any choice except 2♠. This is much too good at favourable.

[jdonn]

2♠>>P>1♠>>>>>3♠ seems right to me.

[655321]

1♠ for me.

[awm]

I agree with Josh here.

 

To see why opening 1♠ is poor, give responder a hand like:

 

♠xx

♥Axxx

♦Axxx

♣KQx

 

This is a very prime balanced 13-count. There's not a great spade fit, but it's not a total misfit hand either, and I haven't given partner "wastage" opposite opener's shortness. Yet game opposite this hand is really quite horrible. 3NT has basically no play, and 4♠ requires spades 3-2 and clubs 3-3, putting it well under the IMP odds for game.

 

I'd expect opener to force game with this hand. If we replace one of the aces with king-jack (or one of the spades with a small red card) then game becomes even worse (to the degree of having virtually no play on best defense).

 

Of course, you can often construct "worst-case" game forces opposite which game is bad for any minimum opening bid. But I don't think this is a worst-case partner hand at all...

 

Whether 2♠ or pass is better depends a little on your style. I like to play fairly wide-ranging weak two bids, so the defense in this hand (two aces) doesn't really scare me off. It's okay to have a maximum sometimes.

[MFA]

I agree with Josh here.

 

To see why opening 1♠ is poor, give responder a hand like:

 

♠xx

♥Axxx

♦Axxx

♣KQx

 

This is a very prime balanced 13-count. There's not a great spade fit, but it's not a total misfit hand either, and I haven't given partner "wastage" opposite opener's shortness. Yet game opposite this hand is really quite horrible. 3NT has basically no play, and 4♠ requires spades 3-2 and clubs 3-3, putting it well under the IMP odds for game.

Hmm. We win also with ♣3-3 and a stiff ♠H. Or righty having double club and three spades or HH in spades. Or lefty having double club and HH in spades.

 

That's not 'horrible'.

[MFA]

Opening 2♠ at favourable is unacceptable in my normal style. I would upgrade to 1♠ in a strong club context but pass otherwise.

[jdonn]

I strongly believe if you like to open 2♠ on dreadful hands favorable then you should still do it on 'normal maximum' hands and accept the wide range. Saying I open 2♠ on much worse hands so this hand is too good does not work for me as an excuse.

[MFA]

I strongly believe if you like to open 2♠ on dreadful hands favorable then you should still do it on 'normal maximum' hands and accept the wide range. Saying I open 2♠ on much worse hands so this hand is too good does not work for me as an excuse.

I agree with your thinking but for me this is not a 'normal maximum'. Shape, aces and secondary spades give it big potential. I would be very nervous at any position and vulnerability, but at favourable where our average strength is quite low, it's just too far off for me for a weak two.

[nigel_k]

I think this is too good for 2♠ even if you don't open on rubbish. It's 12.85 according to Kaplan/Rubens compared to something like KQJxxx xx xx Axx which is 12.3.

 

The problem is you might not make much when partner has short spades, but if he does have some spades and you give up control he'll often bid too little, e.g. Jxx Qxxx AKx QJx is an excellent game and you can make opposite less.

[peachy]

2S for me. I play a wide ranging weak two in this seat and vulnerability (1st, favorable) so it could be anywhere from 5-card suit and bad hand to a traditional weak two. If it were 6-5 with aces in the long suits, then it would be more of a problem.

[655321]

To see why opening 1♠ is poor, give responder a hand like:

 

♠xx

♥Axxx

♦Axxx

♣KQx

 

[snip]

 

Whether 2♠ or pass is better depends a little on your style.

 

I think this is a very naive post.

 

OK, MFA has shown that game is not as bad as you thought but it doesn't matter, I agree with your point that opening 1♠ will definitely lead to getting overboard sometimes.

 

But that fact does not automatically lead to your conclusion. Action A might turn +140 into -50 therefore Action B and Action C must be better? Bad results are possible after opening 1♠, but they are also possible after opening 2♠ or passing.

 

One thing I find in real life is that the -50 from overbidding is not always a disaster anyway. Perhaps the pass or 2♠ at the other table leads to teammates playing 3♥, going one down or making. The slower auction does not always mean you play in a making partscore. (Using your example hand, this effect does not really show up, 3♥ would likely be one down when spades makes 9 tricks, and 2 down when 4♠ is making, for -4IMPS and +6IMPS).

 

Anyway, I don't claim that I can prove 1♠ is best, I can't, and maybe I am wrong anyway. I just think that posting a hand, saying 'look, this proves that opening 1♠ is wrong!' is rather silly.

[Fluffy]

I hate 2♠ because of the 4th club, the hand is just too good. obviously 1♠ is wrong when partner is balanced or strong with spade shortage (3NT with this dummy won't be fun), but if the hand is shapy all around it will be a better description than 2♠

 

I am liking pass more, but it will suck if it comes

 

pass-(1♥)-2♦-(3♥)

 

since now 3♠ is a fit bid.

 

Any bid has huge downsides. Today I like 3♠ much more than yesterday not sure why. Still not my option, but I think I'd rate it above 2♠.

 

I think pass is the least committing action and best, because we have the spades, if we had the hearts we would have to act ASAP.

[awm]

My point is that I think on the vast majority of hands where partner has a minimum game force without three-plus spades, you will be overboard after opening 1♠. You will also reach many bad contracts when partner has a one-suited red invite, or an invite with 1-2♠. There are even a lot of bad game contracts when partner has a game-forcing three-card spade raise with some heart wastage.

 

I agree that posting a "worst-case" hand and arguing you will get too high is no big deal. But I don't think my example is even close to worst-case, with an eight-card spade fit and all working values. Opening 1♠ won't just get you overboard occasionally, it will get you overboard a lot.

[the hog]

2S, would rather pass than open 1S.

Yes. I agree.

[rogerclee]

My thinking is very similar to awm's. I am not willing to set myself up for a likely high-level minus score every time partner has a reasonable hand with fewer than 3 spades. I think his example hand makes sense, not in that it proves anything (no example hand really can), but that it is not cooked in any way and that his handtype (good hand with fewer than 3 spades) is very common and quite terrible for us if we open 1S.

 

I also want to add though that I love preempting at w/r matchpoints (or BAM in this case), so I will do so on a large range of hands. This is not the same as IMPs, and our goal isn't to bid every game. I will exchange accuracy in our constructive auction (that is, we will miss quite a few 4S games and occasionally will play a stupid spade contract when we are cold for something in clubs) by sticking it to the opponents right away and giving them a risky decision (acting or passing over 2S).

 

Another way of thinking about this is to just imagine what your expected score is based on how many spades are in partner's hand. I would think:

 

0 spades: Pass >> 1S > 2S (6%)

1 spade: Pass > 2S >> 1S (20%)

2 spades: 2S > 1S > Pass (31%)

3 spades: 1S > 2S >> Pass (26%)

4+ spades: 2S >> 1S > Pass (17%)

 

Feel free to disagree with my totally unscientific and qualitative guesses.

 

Frequencies are just binomial(7, 1/3); not exact, but should be approximately right, unless I'm dumb.