[655321]

awm, on Feb 7 2010, 03:48 PM, said:

To see why opening 1♠ is poor, give responder a hand like:

♠xx
♥Axxx
♦Axxx
♣KQx

[snip]

Whether 2♠ or pass is better depends a little on your style.

I think this is a very naive post.

OK, MFA has shown that game is not as bad as you thought but it doesn't matter, I agree with your point that opening 1♠ will definitely lead to getting overboard sometimes.

But that fact does not automatically lead to your conclusion. Action A might turn +140 into -50 therefore Action B and Action C must be better? Bad results are possible after opening 1♠, but they are also possible after opening 2♠ or passing.

One thing I find in real life is that the -50 from overbidding is not always a disaster anyway. Perhaps the pass or 2♠ at the other table leads to teammates playing 3♥, going one down or making. The slower auction does not always mean you play in a making partscore. (Using your example hand, this effect does not really show up, 3♥ would likely be one down when spades makes 9 tricks, and 2 down when 4♠ is making, for -4IMPS and +6IMPS).

Anyway, I don't claim that I can prove 1♠ is best, I can't, and maybe I am wrong anyway. I just think that posting a hand, saying 'look, this proves that opening 1♠ is wrong!' is rather silly.

[Fluffy]

I hate 2♠ because of the 4th club, the hand is just too good. obviously 1♠ is wrong when partner is balanced or strong with spade shortage (3NT with this dummy won't be fun), but if the hand is shapy all around it will be a better description than 2♠

I am liking pass more, but it will suck if it comes

pass-(1♥)-2♦-(3♥)

since now 3♠ is a fit bid.

Any bid has huge downsides. Today I like 3♠ much more than yesterday not sure why. Still not my option, but I think I'd rate it above 2♠.

I think pass is the least committing action and best, because we have the spades, if we had the hearts we would have to act ASAP.

[awm]

My point is that I think on the vast majority of hands where partner has a minimum game force without three-plus spades, you will be overboard after opening 1♠. You will also reach many bad contracts when partner has a one-suited red invite, or an invite with 1-2♠. There are even a lot of bad game contracts when partner has a game-forcing three-card spade raise with some heart wastage.

I agree that posting a "worst-case" hand and arguing you will get too high is no big deal. But I don't think my example is even close to worst-case, with an eight-card spade fit and all working values. Opening 1♠ won't just get you overboard occasionally, it will get you overboard a lot.

[the hog]

rogerclee, on Feb 8 2010, 12:23 AM, said:

2S, would rather pass than open 1S.

Yes. I agree.

[rogerclee]

My thinking is very similar to awm's. I am not willing to set myself up for a likely high-level minus score every time partner has a reasonable hand with fewer than 3 spades. I think his example hand makes sense, not in that it proves anything (no example hand really can), but that it is not cooked in any way and that his handtype (good hand with fewer than 3 spades) is very common and quite terrible for us if we open 1S.

I also want to add though that I love preempting at w/r matchpoints (or BAM in this case), so I will do so on a large range of hands. This is not the same as IMPs, and our goal isn't to bid every game. I will exchange accuracy in our constructive auction (that is, we will miss quite a few 4S games and occasionally will play a stupid spade contract when we are cold for something in clubs) by sticking it to the opponents right away and giving them a risky decision (acting or passing over 2S).

Another way of thinking about this is to just imagine what your expected score is based on how many spades are in partner's hand. I would think:

0 spades: Pass >> 1S > 2S (6%)
1 spade: Pass > 2S >> 1S (20%)
2 spades: 2S > 1S > Pass (31%)
3 spades: 1S > 2S >> Pass (26%)
4+ spades: 2S >> 1S > Pass (17%)

Feel free to disagree with my totally unscientific and qualitative guesses.

Frequencies are just binomial(7, 1/3); not exact, but should be approximately right, unless I'm dumb.

[PhantomSac]

Just comes down to style imo. I would open 2S in my standard partnerships, if I played a system with light openers (as I do when I play strong club), I would open 1S. I think it is too much of a stretch to open 1S in a standard system without any agreements about opening light.

I would never pass, and I would never open 3S.

[Codo]

fav. I would never try 2 ♠. Aynthing else is fine.

[whereagles]

obvious 1S zar opening wtp?

[Gerben42]

Pass, what IS the problem really?

1♠ is crazy, 2♠ a partnership breaker and anything higher is surreal.

[ArtK78]

I would open 2♠ unless my system dictated very light openings.

For example, playing with my regular partner, nonvul 1st and 2nd seats we open all 10 counts and I would open 1♠. A weak 2 bid under those conditions would be 3-9 HCP and possibly 5 bad spades. That would be absurd for this hand, so a one-bid would be required.

By the way, while no one has explicitly argued the point in this thread, I don't believe there are any hands too good for a weak 2 bid but not good enough for a one bid. I know that there are some who disagree (and the post about agreeing not opening a weak two bid with 2 aces comes close to this argument).

[jdonn]

I used to agree I couldn't open a weak 2 with 2 aces, then I kept wanting to. Then I agreed I couldn't do it with 2 outside aces, but I didn't want to pass with JT9xxx x Ax Axxx. Then I decided to stop making arbitrary rules that override judgment.

[pooltuna]

Gerben42, on Feb 8 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

Pass, what IS the problem really?

1♠ is crazy, 2♠ a partnership breaker and anything higher is surreal.

Oh you are in this campground too? Where do I pitch my tent?

[mike777]

gwnn, on Feb 7 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

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)

tough playing lite openers.

pass


Way too good for 2s at fav vul first seat.
Just a shade too light for one spade. Move that h into my diamonds then I open 1s

6=0=3=4

[campboy]

mike777, on Feb 9 2010, 01:50 AM, said:

Way too good for 2s at fav vul first seat.
Just a shade too light for one spade.

Like Artk78, I would think those two statements are inconsistent. This is an easy 2♠ for me.

[mike777]

2s for me shows an 8 ltc or worse....so I think this hand is way too good for that


Not good enough for 1s even opening lite. 6=0=3=4 would be minimum with only two bullets.

How is pass inconsistent with those partnership agreements?


Otherwise if you must open 1s or 2s fine, but what does those bids show?

I mean if this hand in your style is 2s fine but specify what 2s at fav vul shows in first seat.

I stick with pass.

[hanp]

I think that it is entirely reasonable to think this hand is too strong for 2S and too weak for 1S, and to pass.

However, if you decide to open very light such as mike777 (I recall him giving Axxx xx xxx AQxx as a minimum) then I think it is very good to open 1S with this hand, or in other words, very bad not to.

[billw55]

With my regular partner, 2♠ and no second choice. I play this with a fairly wide range. I hear so many reasons not to bid 2M ... 6332 bad, void bad, outside aces bad, suit not solid bad, and so on. So what's left, we only open 2M on exactly 6331 with no side values and at least KQJxxx? I don't see the point of restricting it so much that it rarely gets bid, and then when it does you might as well face your cards to the ops. Flexible seems more useful.

[andy_h]

jdonn, on Feb 9 2010, 07:44 AM, said:

I used to agree I couldn't open a weak 2 with 2 aces, then I kept wanting to. Then I agreed I couldn't do it with 2 outside aces, but I didn't want to pass with JT9xxx x Ax Axxx. Then I decided to stop making arbitrary rules that override judgment.

I agree with this. There just seems to be lots of stages you can go through and usually end up settling on having judgement being the dominant factor not (heavily) influenced by these rules.

[jdonn]

hanp, on Feb 9 2010, 07:19 AM, said:

However, if you decide to open very light such as mike777 (I recall him giving Axxx xx xxx AQxx as a minimum) then I think it is very good to open 1S with this hand, or in other words, very bad not to.

Yes that is obvious. How can you claim to play ligher openers then not open this? It's nearly good enough for a regular opener.

[mike777]

We agreed to open with less than 9 very rarely.



3 first round controls something like:


Atxx...AT9xxx.....void......xxx or maybe something with more than ten cards in our long suits.

Yes NV in first and second seat we would open:


Axxx...xx....xxx....AQxx