What would you open and why.

[Orla]

Holding this hand, as dealer and playing 5-card majors, what would you open?

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakq762ha3d10ckq92]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Please give your reasons.

[TylerE]

I♠.

 

Because A 6.5 trick hand with not all that much defense (relatively speaking) isn't a 2♣ opener.

[hrothgar]

I'd be shocked if anyone opened 2♣ with this hand.

 

I think that this is a 1♠ opening.

I don't consider it close

[neilkaz]

Easy and routine 1♠ opening playing S/A methods. I need considerably more to open 2♣.

 

When in doubt, don't open 2♣ noting that few players at the B/I level have anything resembling decent methods and if they do, their pd may play something else.

 

Here I see no doubt as this hand only takes 8 tricks if you can bring in the ♠ and with only 18 HCP it isn't that likely to get passed out when you have game.

 

Of course pd can have xxx,xxx,xxxx, Axx and an easy game is missed, but that also requires that the opps pass as well. Far more likely is that by opening 2♣ you get too high.

[JLOGIC]

1S

[the hog]

1S looks obvious.

[Codo]

Thinking about 2 ♣ is an overbid.

If you play the French style, or Acol twos, you had something to think about, but not in a standard system.

[Siegmund]

It's a better hand for 2C-then-2S than a lot of random 20 counts I see B/Is opening 2C with.

 

That's more a commentary on how bad some of the other 2C openings I've seen are, not a suggestion it's a great bid on this hand.

[P_Marlowe]

1S.

 

But playing Benjamin or Acol twos, the hand is strong

enough to open 2C or 2S.

 

Even playing SAYC, 2C wont cause too much of trouble

and is not a big misdescription of the playing power.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Partner should always try hard to find a way to respond,

holding an Ace, and if he does, the likelyhood of missing game

is reduced.

[mgoetze]

Playing a nice 5-card major system such as Polish Club or Precision, I'll open this hand 1♣.

[billw55]

In my opinion 2♣ is almost lol.

 

Although I did open 2♣ on 17 high card point a couple weeks ago. The hand was something like:

 

♠ x

♥ AKx

♦ AKQJxxxx

♣ x

 

... which is very different from the OP hand. Enough for 2♣?

[hanp]

I think 2C is almost reasonable and the question is good. If I had the club jack instead of a small one I would open 2C. Of course the club jack is a big card here, but I think the comments so far are overdone. I prefer mine medium.

[Orla]

I will show the whole deal in a while. However let me ask this question:

 

If this hand is not strong enough to open 2♣, why are we taught the idea of counting losers.

 

From what I have learned, the hand only has three losers.

 

(Of course, it would be nicer if the ♥Ace was a ♣Ace)

[hanp]

We are not taught the idea of counting losers.

[pooltuna]

We are not taught the idea of counting losers.

sure you are but more importantly you are taught about counting your winners :blink:

[neilkaz]

We are not taught the idea of counting losers.

sure you are but more importantly you are taught about counting your winners :blink:

Yes..count winners when considering opening 2♣ with unbalanced hands.

 

Han's modification to AKQxxx,Ax,x KQJx probably has 9 winners (♠ needs to come in) and is a clearly more reasonable 2♣ opening than the OP hand, although I expect quite a few S/A players to still open 1♠.

 

My modification to AKQJxx,Ax,x,KQJx is very likely to have 9 winners and I'd be quite upset if an S/A pd failed to open 2♣ here. My hand will be a favorite to make game opposite most anything (OK not everything) PD can have that is stronger than a double negative response and may make game opposite some double negatives.

 

With every added HCP, the danger of the opps passing if PD passes is increased since they may not have enough to scape up an overcall or balance. There's more chance that 1♠ floats around the table and is passed out with Han's hand and again more chance with my hand.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[gwnn]

Just want to throw it out there that it's better to open 2♣ (or strong ♣) with a strong hand when you have 6+ spades than hearts. I don't understand the big animosity against 2♣ either, albeit I would also open this 1♠. With the ♣J it is more interesting, but not if this was a hearts hand. Hearts have to be treated more carefully.

[billw55]

The ♣J and ♠J modifications are interesting and certainly improve the hand, although I would still open 1♠.

 

Now give me a seventh spade, and we're getting in the ballpark.

[Phil]

I'd open 1♠. The ♣J makes a 2♣ opener. The ♣10 is borderline for me.

[wank]

If this hand is not strong enough to open 2♣, why are we taught the idea of counting losers.

you may have been taught that, but the things to remember about bridge teachers are that they're mostly clueless players themseslves, and secondly that they're not trying to teach good methods - they're trying to teach methods which achieve a floor level

[1eyedjack]

I will show the whole deal in a while. However let me ask this question:

 

If this hand is not strong enough to open 2♣, why are we taught the idea of counting losers.

 

From what I have learned, the hand only has three losers.

 

(Of course, it would be nicer if the ♥Ace was a ♣Ace)

I do see this quite a bit. Others have addressed it already in this thread, but to put it in slightly different words:

 

The word "Losers" when used in applying the hand evaluation method "losing trick count" originally published by Harrison-Gray is an artificial term used to describe a calculated number, and is not to be confused with the real "worst case scenario" definition of "losers", which would be net difference of 13 less your playing tricks. In an extreme case it could arise that your Harrison-Gray LTC is the same as your worst case scenario, when all of your suits are semisolid or stuffed with intermediates, and then coincidentally it might indicate a strong opener.

 

On this hand you could well sustain 5 or even 6 losers in the play opposite an ill-fitting partner, without even sustaining adverse ruffs.

 

LTC should only be applied when a trump fit has been established, and then only as a guide to determine the contract level in conjunction with a similar artificial calculation adopted by partner in respect of his hand. I suggest that you do not consider LTC when determining the opening bid. A possible exception being that if your LTC is more than 7 and you do not have a hand suitable for preempt then you might consider passing in preference to opening at the 1-level, if your partner would normally expect a 7 LTC hand when raising. This might be disapplied in 3rd seat or playing Drury, or if your partnership style is to open light (but then partner's expectations would be adjusted anyway). Also playing a weak 1N opener you may well decide to open 1N on an 8 LTC hand if the points indicate, but partner should not then assume 7.

[Oof Arted]

Thinking about 2 ♣ is an overbid.

If you play the French style, or Acol twos, you had something to think about, but not in a standard system.

:blink:

 

 

by the definitions in UK this does not meet the criteria for an Acol 2♠ opener

 

:D

[blackshoe]

SA: 1♠

2/1: 1♠

K/S: 1♠

Acol: 1♠

After all these, I'm planning to JS to 3♣

 

Precision: 1♣, followed by 1♠ (NF if responder bids 1♦, but he might well have enough to force to game.

 

Romex: 1[NT] followed by 3♠ (F). Partner will play me for 4 losers, but that's all right.

[Free]

1♠ is obvious, 2♣ is serious lol to me.

[Cyberyeti]

Thinking about 2 ♣ is an overbid.

If you play the French style, or Acol twos, you had something to think about, but not in a standard system.

;)

 

 

by the definitions in UK this does not meet the criteria for an Acol 2♠ opener

 

:(

Yes it does, comfortably.

 

It has at least 16 points and satisfies the rule of 25, so that's 2 of the criteria met, it hasn't got 8 clear cut tricks, but the rule is any of the above not all of them.