[Edmunte1]

You hold in the second seat, as South, in a team match:

Scoring: IMP

---

Do you open 2♥? And how do you feel about it? Are you satisfied with your choice?

[Fluffy]

I like the suit and the side suit, I would open, if it wasn't second position mabe at the 3 level

[P_Marlowe]

No, and if I do I am 100% convinced.

My partner does not likey it, and I have
no strong feelings, so pass is clear cut.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

Second-seat vulnerable at IMPs I want to show some dicipline. This one is a little too flawed for my taste. It's OK if partner wants me to preempt with this one but I prefer a slightly more old-fashioned style.

[Apollo81]

I would open 2♥ without a second thought. I don't think I would ever open this hand at the 3-level, except *maybe* 3rd favorable at MPs.

[pclayton]

I'm never content with anything these days

I'd open it 2♥. Even though its a lousy suit, the hand has good ODR. I used to pass these hands in 2nd like Helene, but I've had so many good results. LHO sometimes comes in and we smash them, or we get to some cheap games, since 2♥ is descriptive and pard doesn't get preempted by the 3rd chair.

Come to think of it, there are very few hand types that I pass in 2nd that I preempt in 1st.

[gwnn]

I open 2♥ but I hate it. I guess it means 60%.

[ochinko]

I am not fully content (60%) but I am against opening that hand at IMPs. What am I, telling myself to lead a heart against opps' contract? But I know that already.

If it's our hand, I don't want to preempt partner. Second position is the worst for such experiments.

If it's opps' hand, I don't want partner to lead his ♥King from Kx.

[Gerben42]

I would open this 2♥ and be happy with a partner who does so too.

Loser count? Check.
No two first round controls? Check.
No side 4-card major? Check.
Intermediates? Check.

Okay not so many top honors but that's the only thing missing.

[skjaeran]

With my regular partner I play 2♥ as constructive (8-11 and a 6-bagger), so it's a clear pass.

If I have agreed to play a loose preempting style, this is an obvious 2♥.

[cjames]

I open 2♦ with this, trash multi. A 2♥ opening would be 8-11.

[skjaeran]

cjames, on Jun 21 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

I open 2♦ with this, trash multi. A 2♥ opening would be 8-11.

This hand is too good for my definition of a trash Multi - we've defined it as too weak to invite game vs a 15-17NT. (This means there are hands we can't open 2♦ nor 2M.)

We've quit the trash Multi when vulnerable, playing a constructive weak 2♦ then.

[mike777]

No, 60% content.

[Fluffy]

skaeran, on Jun 21 2007, 04:06 PM, said:

With my regular partner I play 2♥ as constructive (8-11 and a 6-bagger), so it's a clear pass.

If I have agreed to play a loose preempting style, this is an obvious 2♥.

I don't know your agreements, but if you told me to open 8-11 as your partner I certainly would open this hand as a construtive one. 4th diamonds is very powerful IMO.

[Free]

Yes, but only 40% content...

[kenrexford]

Yes, and 100% content.

The hearts suck (a downside), but so do the spades (an upside).

I also like being 6-4 with diamonds. Much better than 6-4 with clubs, because the chances for the opponents having problem hands increases.

[jdonn]

2♥ for sure and I'm fine with it. I'm all about the playing strength.

[cjames]

skaeran, on Jun 21 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

cjames, on Jun 21 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

I open 2♦ with this, trash multi. A 2♥ opening would be 8-11.

This hand is too good for my definition of a trash Multi - we've defined it as too weak to invite game vs a 15-17NT. (This means there are hands we can't open 2♦ nor 2M.)

We've quit the trash Multi when vulnerable, playing a constructive weak 2♦ then.

Ah, we play it 0-7 not vul and 5-8 when vul. Otherwise 2♥/♠ is (8)9-11.

I guess your style might be better.