Hand from a club game

[32519]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq2hak9dq98642c74&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv]

This hand is from a club game where 21 tables were participating. Your system can loosely be described as 5-card majors with some gadgets. What would your first call be with this hand?

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq2hak9dq98642c74&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv]

This hand is from a club game where 21 tables were participating. Your system can loosely be described as 5-card majors with some gadgets. What would your first call be with this hand?

 

Hard to imagine anything other than a 1♦ opening playing a standard system.

[CSGibson]

Pass. Any other seat or any other vulnerability and I open 1♦.

[mycroft]

1NT. I might even break my own rule and rebid 2♦ if I get the opportunity.

 

Oh, strong NT? Well, not sure then. Probably pass.

[32519]

This was the full hand:

[hv=pc=n&s=sq2hak9dq98642c74&w=sk654hq743dct9832&n=sat97hj85dkj3cakq&e=sj83ht62dat75cj65&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1dp]399|300[/hv]

Only 4/21 tables got to the slam, 1 in 6♦ and 3 in 6NT. This was a nice example hand of a squeeze where poor West had no chance. Declarer ran all the ♦ with West first ditching all his ♣ and a ♥. Then declarer ran the 3 top clubs and it was game over for West.

[HighLow21]

1♦. To pass is weak and to open 2♦ misleads partner about your diamonds (they're pretty weak) and your overall strength (you have enough to open at the 1 level).

[humilities]

I think it's winning bridge to open these hands - I open 1D all day. That being said this is more of a partnership question. If your partnership opens these hands, there really is no alternative to 1D.

 

You can't open 2D in second seat with a side AK and Q and ever expect your partner to make a good decision. 2D shouldn't even be on the table imo.

[the_clown]

I would have opened 1♦ and rebid 1N after 1♠. The slam is pretty poor anyway, so I will be happy to avoid it.

[rhm]

This was the full hand:

[hv=pc=n&s=sq2hak9dq98642c74&w=sk654hq743dct9832&n=sat97hj85dkj3cakq&e=sj83ht62dat75cj65&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1dp]399|300[/hv]

Only 4/21 tables got to the slam, 1 in 6♦ and 3 in 6NT. This was a nice example hand of a squeeze where poor West had no chance. Declarer ran all the ♦ with West first ditching all his ♣ and a ♥. Then declarer ran the 3 top clubs and it was game over for West.

What is so great about slam with these 2 hands???

It happens to make due to the way opponents 26 cards were dealt.

A quick simulation shows that 6NT will make double dummy about 52% of the time and 6♦ about 60% of the time.

This means in reality 6NT is against the odds while 6♦ will make about half the time.

 

In the long run opposite this North hand it hardly matters what you do and what contract you reach, as long as it is neither 6NT nor 5♦.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[HighLow21]

I like the diamond game, but I hate the slam. It depends on way too much.

[ggwhiz]

I would open 1♦ and rebid them expecting to land in 3nt by north since I didn't know the club holding was bullet proof.

[Winstonm]

Weak 2-diamond opener for me in this seat at this vulnerability.

[Onedown]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq2hak9dq98642c74&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv]

This hand is from a club game where 21 tables were participating. Your system can loosely be described as 5-card majors with some gadgets. What would your first call be with this hand?

 

I play OGUST and would be the only reason I would open this hand 2♦, but if P asked me for a response, it is 3♥ implying good hand, bad suit...I do not have a good hand..I cannot fathom opening 1♦ so I pass and await the next round of bidding.

[Onedown]

I think it's winning bridge to open these hands - I open 1D all day. That being said this is more of a partnership question. If your partnership opens these hands, there really is no alternative to 1D.

 

You can't open 2D in second seat with a side AK and Q and ever expect your partner to make a good decision. 2D shouldn't even be on the table imo.

Why is it winning bridge to open this hand, 2 quicks and out...or did you lose your green card

[madongjun]

1♦ is better!

[the hog]

1D.

[HighLow21]

Why is it winning bridge to open this hand, 2 quicks and out...or did you lose your green card

This hand isn't the same as ♠Q2 ♥AK9 ♦Q9864 ♣743 or ♠T2 ♥AK9 ♦T98642 ♣74. It has 11 HCP (maybe reduce 1 for the Q♠ doubleton) but it has a 6-card suit, 2 quick tricks and nearly full values for opening. It also opens the bidding for our side, taking the initiative away from LHO.

 

Any expert would open with ♠Q2 ♥AK9 ♦Q98642 ♣J4. You're going to let a random jack be the deciding factor?

[kenrexford]

2♦ is sick to me. Nine high-card points outside, with unexpected defense, two quicks external, ad great major holdings, plus a dreadful suit that I don't want to rebid if I open 1♦.

 

1♦ is sick, but better. The rebid of 2♦ seems awful, as does a 1NT rebid. But, passing just delays the inability to describe this hand well. So, I plug my nose and open.

 

 

 

[gszes]

pass

 

Suit is too horrid to even think about weak 2 at these colors no matter your

 

follow up system. 1D does nothing to actually describe this hand and gives p

 

the impression you actually have values. It is not a good lead indicator, the shortness

 

in spades seems to put us at a bidding disadvantage from the get go, there is no

 

reason to want to be in this auction at all, there is no reason to rush to judgement.

 

If p has a reasonable hand they will get in the bidding and we will then be able to

 

show our values in almost all conceivable auctions. why mislead p now when there

 

is so little to be gained from opening and so many disasters waiting to occur?

 

 

 

[kenrexford]

pass

 

If p has a reasonable hand they will get in the bidding and we will then be able to show our values in almost all conceivable auctions. why mislead p now when there is so little to be gained from opening and so many disasters waiting to occur?

 

 

Not necessarily true. If, for instance, you play 2♦ as Drury, you will respond to a 3rd seat 1♠ with 1NT, which is almost never an 11-count. If he opens 1♣, you probably lack a call to show an 11-count with long diamonds. Granted, you might be able to take control of some sequences, but it is difficult to show a hand that would qualify for an opening bid but is not opened because of a defect, especially if no clear fit emerges, as the structure of most systemic agreements is such as to not cater to this type of pass.

 

 

 

 

 

[HighLow21]

pass

 

Suit is too horrid to even think about weak 2 at these colors no matter your

 

follow up system. 1D does nothing to actually describe this hand and gives p

 

the impression you actually have values. It is not a good lead indicator, the shortness

 

in spades seems to put us at a bidding disadvantage from the get go, there is no

 

reason to want to be in this auction at all, there is no reason to rush to judgement.

 

I agree that 2♦ is a big misdescription. But how is 1♦ misleading? The rebid should be 2♦ no matter what partner replies with. No one ever said a 1-level minor suit opening is a good lead indicator. Not even after the 2♦ rebid is it necessarily going to be good. And you do have 6 of them in case they become trumps, plus 2 quick tricks.

 

I don't see any disasters looming. Only once in a blue moon will they have a penalty double below the 3-level, and if they do, it's almost certain they have a game somewhere. (Note: at MPs, this is a big difference, but at IMPs it's marginal.)

 

There is a ton of preemptive value in opening in this position--it suits out clubs at the 1 level and it hands the initiative in the bidding to our side. If partner forces to 3NT on 13 random points, he's going to make 3NT.

[rhm]

This hand isn't the same as ♠Q2 ♥AK9 ♦Q9864 ♣743 or ♠T2 ♥AK9 ♦T98642 ♣74. It has 11 HCP (maybe reduce 1 for the Q♠ doubleton) but it has a 6-card suit, 2 quick tricks and nearly full values for opening. It also opens the bidding for our side, taking the initiative away from LHO.

 

Any expert would open with ♠Q2 ♥AK9 ♦Q98642 ♣J4. You're going to let a random jack be the deciding factor?

You are wrong.

Experts playing strong club might open this hand, but there are plenty of experts left, who would pass even ♠Q2 ♥AK9 ♦Q98642 ♣J4.

This is not so much a matter of light openers or not but a question of hand evaluation.

This hand has a number of bad features:

Unsupported queens and a jack, two of them in short suits. (you pointed that out to some extent)

Main suit is weak and what is worse a minor and the hand is semi balanced, that is no singleton or void.

These are good reasons, to devalue the hand.

Rubens-Kaplan puts the value of the hand at 11.4 HCP and the jack bumps it up to just 11.6 HCP.

I open very lightly if the right hand comes along. This is not one of them.

Whether to pass or to bid 2♦, I prefer to open 2♦ if available.

This could work out poorly, but the maximum values compensate for the poor suit to some extent and in many more ways 2♦ could also work out well.

I believe with no special agreements I will miss fewer good games or slams by opening 2♦ than reaching poor games or slams by opening 1♦ and 2♦ is certainly more disruptive to LHO than 1♦.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

I open 1♦

 

I understand Rainer that 2nd seat red vs white preempts should not be a joke. But still, to me a weak 2 is a weak 2. Vulnerability decides my suit quality,shape,. . I have 11 hcp and 9 of them are out of long suit. What is it ? Like % 81 of my values are out of the suit that i am planning to preempt ? I'd rather pass than 2♦

 

People love to sit on 2m doubled contracts. This is a perfect way to bail out a lot of money red vs white with a bad suit, just to see they were making nothing due to our side defensive values and weak diamonds. And what will i gain in return even if they indeed miss something white vs red ? We will also disable pd from finding our best fit when we get doubled because he will expect better suit much more than a better hand with a lot of hcps here and there. Preempt is a big no on this hand for me. It is not even that big of a preempt with a lot of risks attached to it. Pd is not coming from pass, you can add misdescription of your hand at the top of all these.

 

So the problems of opening weak 2 ♦ are not just limited to missing games and slams now and then. I can even expand the problems i listed. Problems will also occur during the defense, lead etc etc.

[awm]

This is a matter of style and I don't think there's really a right answer. Besides basic system, there are a couple questions to ask:

 

1. How light do you open on the one-level? If you are opening basically all flat 12-counts (i.e. Qx AKx Qxxxx Jxx is an opening bid) then this hand is certainly strong enough to open at the one level. The sixth diamond will compensate for the "missing" jack. If you pass a lot of "bad" 12-counts then perhaps this hand isn't good enough for a one bid. If you are opening a weak notrump, then this hand may be too weak for a 1♦ opening (which is often a strong notrump) but opening 1NT (12-14 or 11-14) looks pretty appealing.

 

2. What is your preempt style? If you play "classic" preempts where you deny side defense, then you can't open 2♦ on this hand. However I've seen a lot of very good players who are happy to open with some side cards (Andrew Robson seems a good example in my experience). There's also a question of how weak you would open 2♦ red vs. white -- if your range includes some complete garbage then partner will not play you for this much and you could miss something.

 

In general I think that it is effective to open hands with six-card suits at the two-level as much as possible, but you need to keep your range bounded such that partner will have a good idea what to do. My feeling however is that "expert standard" these days tends towards aggressive openings and that most pairs would say this is "too strong" for a 2♦ bid in their style and open 1♦.

[gszes]

Not necessarily true. If, for instance, you play 2♦ as Drury, you will respond to a 3rd seat 1♠ with 1NT, which is almost never an 11-count. If he opens 1♣, you probably lack a call to show an 11-count with long diamonds. Granted, you might be able to take control of some sequences, but it is difficult to show a hand that would qualify for an opening bid but is not opened because of a defect, especially if no clear fit emerges, as the structure of most systemic agreements is such as to not cater to this type of pass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

partnerships can have all sorts of unforeseen gadgets that make their lives difficult :) That's the main reason I qualified my ability to show my values

 

"most of the time" also starting the bidding with 1d over partners 1c is not a problem since opener will not pass unless they are not interested in game

 

opposite a near max passed hand