[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]

awm, on Feb 7 2010, 10:48 PM, said:

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]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2010, 11:28 PM, said:

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.