Do you open, if so what?

[AL78]

♠AQ82

♥9

♦QJ9853

♣82

 

No-one vuln, MPs, opener on your right passes, your call?

[mw64ahw]

1♦ if you play R19, 2♠ if you play Velociraptor otherwise Pass?

[DavidKok]

Pass

[smerriman]

Not me.

[steve2005]

Hand too good to preempt even without 4 spades so I open 1♦.

Side ace and a singleton.

 

You have an easy 1♠ rebid over 1♥ and 2♦ over 1NT or 2♣.

[mikeh]

Nobody who knows me will be surprised when I pass.

[mikeh]

Hand too good to preempt even without 4 spades so I open 1♦.

Side ace and a singleton.

 

You have an easy 1♠ rebid over 1♥ and 2♦ over 1NT or 2♣.

So many people ignore partner. Yes, you have no rebid problem. But your partner may be a trifle disappointed when he drives to game with his sound but misfitting opening hand. Or when he penalizes the opps, expecting maybe a tad more than one solitary defensive trick

 

But who cares about partner anyway?

[Winstonm]

When did pass become a 4-letter word? 🤔😄

[TMorris]

Pass

[LBengtsson]

Forget about the actual hand, a 6-4 nice but not very nice. The other reason why you pass is that opener has passed before you. the actual hand is just one quick trick so if you then get into a competitive auction partner will place you with more also. when he then X the opps you will be in regret. by passing and then being in a competitive auction he will know that you are not bringing many tricks to the defense.

[AL78]

The full hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s943h83dk2cqj7543&w=skt5hakt765d76ca9&n=sj76hqj42dat4ckt6&e=saq82h9dqj9853c82]399|300[/hv]

 

My friend holding the East hand decided to pass and they stopped in 3♦ making 11 tricks which was worth 88%. A few pairs in 4♥ going off, one in 5♦ going off, a couple managed to find 3♠=. 4♠ and 5♦ make double dummy but they are poor games to be in.

 

I didn't think there would be many hands which are too good for a weak two and not good enough for a one opening but this East hand looks like one example.

[DavidKok]

I didn't think there would be many hands which are too good for a weak two and not good enough for a one opening but this East hand looks like one example.

It's a popular cliche to claim that "there is no gap between weak 2s and minimum openings", and I'm happy to see you also don't follow it to the letter.

 

In my opinion, whether or not a hand is suitable for a 2-level preempt or not is determined by its offensive and defensive potential, not its strength. For 1-openings I want both strength and some defensive potential. This inevitably leaves middling strength hands with defensive potential as a 'gap' - not strong enough to open, not suitable for a preempt. As an extreme example, consider ♠KQx, ♥xxxxxx, ♦Kxx, ♣J. I'm passing that at all vulnerabilities and positions.

 

The example hand has too many values in spades, not to mention a 4-card suit. The vulnerability is neutral, the diamond suit is very suitable for a preempt, but being second in hand is a serious minus. The ace of spades is another minus. Third in hand I would open 2♦ since partner won't go crazy, but first or second I'm passing.

At the same time, this hand does not have enough values and defence to open 1♦. Mikeh was spot on with his analysis, partner will take the wrong view about game/defending/sacrificing too often if we open 1♦.

 

That being said, we might still end up in 4♥ with that West hand. We like to bid.

[Gilithin]

When contributors post that the hand is too strong for a 2♦ opening, what I think they mean is that it is too strong for this shape. Switch the black suits and I imagine bidding would be far more popular. It is not so much that there is a strength gap between a 1♦ and a 2♦ opening so much as there being hands that are not suitable for either call. This is one such hand.

 

In terms of the deal as a whole, depending on the system being used I can imagine all of 2♥, 2♠, 2NT and 3♦ being "normal" part-score contracts. I would also expect to see some optimists in game given a large enough field and some N-S pairs in 3/4♣. To me, one of the more interesting questions to ask is how the auction continues after P - P - 3♣. Presumably 3♥ from West? Then Pass or 4♣ from North? This auction feels "messy" somehow from an EW perspective. If West doubles instead of overcalling 3♥, it is easier to find ♠/♦ but surely now East will drive to game. How would you handle it with your regular partner?

[Cyberyeti]

We would open and most likely be in 5♦ (it doesn't really demand double dummy play to make it but it's not a great contract), 4♠ is much worse.

 

1♦-1♥

1♠-2♣(4SF not GF)

2♦(minimum ish)-2♥(forcing)

3♦-3♥ (I have 6 decent hearts, not a good enough hand for SJS, show me a club stop or doubleton heart)

3♠(no club stop, chunky 4 card spade suit, <2♥)-

 

now it's just a guess partner is 46 in the pointies, doesn't have 2 hearts, pick between 3N/4♥/5♦, 4♠ doesn't look good as any ruff you have to take in ♣ is in the long trump hand.

[mycroft]

Yes, my arguments for passing a "weak 2" hand is "partner will be misled at (opponents') 4♥" or "partner will be misled with 5 spades", not "this hand is too strong."

 

If I have too much outside defence, I will tend toward passing. I'm not at the "don't preempt a limit raise of a major" - the number of times the preempt hits the opponents rather than partner is still 2 to 1 (in first seat, at least), and I play a lot of "play the odds" in the auction already - but this hand isn't "oh, I'd give them a "3-card limit raise" if it happened, it's a "this hand is _gas_ if partner has spades".

 

But still, this isn't "it's too strong to open 2♦", it's "partner isn't going to expect this hand if I open it 2♦". Which is why in third seat, all these rules go out the window (and yeah, we might go +100 into +300 in 4♥ sometimes when all partner passed was defence, and I have two outside kings. Again, playing the odds).

 

Never opening this at the 1 level (okay, my Precision pair would, under the "NV, '9s that look like 10s' to 15" rule. I'm guessing that [multiple Canadian champion Precision pair] would be happy to open this, because they open it 2♦ "11-15" (same hands that open 2♣ with similar shape). But they're surprisingly conservative with their bidding judgement, so they might not). Partner will just love going off one in 4♠. Partner will love going off one in 5♠ even more. Or, on this hand, 4♥.

[steve2005]

the actual hand is just one quick trick so if you then get into a competitive auction partner will place you with more also.

♠AQ = 1.5 Quick tricks

[LBengtsson]

♠AQ = 1.5 Quick tricks

 

yes agree. but as a defensive value I would only count 1 trick here. opening hands at the one level with just 1.5 quick tricks and other spread values, such as distribution or QJx, Q10x in a suit is borderline.

[morecharac]

♠AQ82

♥9

♦QJ9853

♣82

 

No-one vuln, MPs, opener on your right passes, your call?

Classic tweener. How frustrated/manic am I that session, and how much do I loathe the opponents?

[steve2005]

yes agree. but as a defensive value I would only count 1 trick here. opening hands at the one level with just 1.5 quick tricks and other spread values, such as distribution or QJx, Q10x in a suit is borderline.

baloney

You're saying you don't open hands where you're only quick tricks are AQ.

This deal partner has K♠ so your hands fit well.

[Lovera]

The full hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s943h83dk2cqj7543&w=skt5hakt765d76ca9&n=sj76hqj42dat4ckt6&e=saq82h9dqj9853c82]399|300[/hv]

 

My friend holding the East hand decided to pass and they stopped in 3♦ making 11 tricks which was worth 88%. A few pairs in 4♥ going off, one in 5♦ going off, a couple managed to find 3♠=. 4♠ and 5♦ make double dummy but they are poor games to be in.

 

I didn't think there would be many hands which are too good for a weak two and not good enough for a one opening but this East hand looks like one example.

 

As much as I try to understand how many want to pass, I must say that I cannot understand them easily. The hand in question has 14 points also counting the shape or, applying Bergen, is in the range 18 + (= is 19) and therefore must be opened but not two weak because these hands cannot be opened if they have a void or four cards in a major suit. Moreover, the fact that S has passed makes it clear that the overall strength is distributed among the other three players and therefore we can also envisage a possible defense in the event that N has a hand so strong as to compensate for the weakness of the partner, which is perhaps less probable. These indications should prompt us to bid 1 ♦. It would also be useful to see how the other players expressed themselves at the table, even if the final result leads to say that here they have achieved the aim of stopping the auction at 3 ♦ with a good score for them.

[DavidKok]

As much as I try to understand how many want to pass, I must say that I cannot understand them easily. The hand in question has 14 points also counting the shape or, applying Bergen, is in the range 18 + (= is 19) and therefore must be opened but not two weak because these hands cannot be opened if they have a void or four cards in a major suit.

You are, in my opinion, using completely wrong criteria for making this decision. Pass is clear. Opening 1♦, preempting with 2/3♦, or calling it a 'tweener' is inaccurate. Whether or not a hand is suitable for a preempt, and whether or not a hand is suitable for a 1-opening, are not measured on the same scales. They are simply different criteria, and it is possible to construct hands that are either, neither or both a 1-opening and a preempt. I think there is no point attempting to use a formula before you are well aware of why that would be the correct aspect of the hand to quantify.

[Lovera]

You are, in my opinion, using completely wrong criteria for making this decision. Pass is clear. Opening 1♦, preempting with 2/3♦, or calling it a 'tweener' is inaccurate. Whether or not a hand is suitable for a preempt, and whether or not a hand is suitable for a 1-opening, are not measured on the same scales. They are simply different criteria, and it is possible to construct hands that are either, neither or both a 1-opening and a preempt. I think there is no point attempting to use a formula before you are well aware of why that would be the correct aspect of the hand to quantify.

 

This hand is too much in the middle of the first range of first level openings and I should devalue it too much to declare pass (the facts have confirmed me). Perhaps otherwise (but always considering the context in which a speech is placed) we could consider what you said if the hand was at the limit between an opening or not so there would not be too much to regret if you were to make the wrong choice.

[pescetom]

As much as I try to understand how many want to pass, I must say that I cannot understand them easily. The hand in question has 14 points also counting the shape or, applying Bergen, is in the range 18 + (= is 19) and therefore must be opened but not two weak because these hands cannot be opened if they have a void or four cards in a major suit. Moreover, the fact that S has passed makes it clear that the overall strength is distributed among the other three players and therefore we can also envisage a possible defense in the event that N has a hand so strong as to compensate for the weakness of the partner, which is perhaps less probable. These indications should prompt us to bid 1 ♦. It would also be useful to see how the other players expressed themselves at the table, even if the final result leads to say that here they have achieved the aim of stopping the auction at 3 ♦ with a good score for them.

 

 

S has NOT passed: I'm sure he would, but not W who has a better hand than this irritating mess which I think you overvalue a bit.

 

As always, an early hand diagram including the auction would simplify discussion.