[eagles123]

w/r MP First Seat

---

pls rate opening this hand with 2S

I posted something else about this hand on I/A but feel this is definitely NB territory!

Thanks,

Eagles

[billw55]

Matter of style. You either open weak twos with a four card major, or you don't. I don't think either way is clearly wrong or right, but I expect you will get some strong opinions.

If you have an understanding (whether explicit or suspected) with your partner of the moment, stick to it. If not, do as you like.

[Zelandakh]

1st seat Green it is not completely off the wall and can obviously be a winner; but there are enough flaws that I would not expect it to be a majority choice and some responses are likely to be considerably stronger. As people keep pointing out, one card difference is never bad, so change the ♥K to ♣2 or something and it looks a lot better.

[Zelandakh]

To Bill, it is not just that the hand has a 4 card major, it is also the relative strengths of the suits and the overall strength of the hand. All of these aspects indicate away from a 2♠ opening. ♠KQT954 ♥9432 ♦7 ♣T3 would be a completely different matter entirely.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-30, 09:09, said:

To Bill, it is not just that the hand has a 4 card major, it is also the relative strengths of the suits and the overall strength of the hand. All of these aspects indicate away from a 2♠ opening. ♠KQT954 ♥9432 ♦7 ♣T3 would be a completely different matter entirely.

I understand, I just worry less about such things white on red (or green as you call it). Maybe it is too careless an attitude.

[Cyberyeti]

Would rather open it 1 than 2.

[helene_t]

it is matchpoints so playing a partscore in spades when we could make 4♥ is equally costly, regardless of vulnerability. Same if partner makes a phantom sac against 4♥.

2♠ would be more resonable at IMPs but I still wouldn't do it.

[mycroft]

The two outside Kings is more defence than partner is going to expect (although the stiffness of the ♦K tempers somewhat). The suit quality is at *most* what partner will expect. And there's the "want to play in hearts" issue.

All in all, unless I'm forced to open this, I feel it's too misleading to partner. But I'm getting conservative in my old age.

[ggwhiz]

This is a very sound 1 or 2♠ overcall after passing with a chance to introduce hearts instead of gambling a weak 2 and potentially thundering pards good hand.

[mcphee]

Not my cup of tea to open this hand 2S.

[TylerE]

I hate 2♠ on this hand. Too many flaws.

* Too many values outside trumps
* Stiff king
* 4♥
* Poor trump suit that I don't want lead

Any one, maybe even any 2 of those, find, but all 4? Pass.

[wank]

discipline

[Winstonm]

In 1st seat, there are 2 opponents to antagonize, but only 1 partner. R/W is license to act. Bid, is my suggestion.

[the hog]

Pass. 2S = 0

[Winstonm]

Btw, whether or not this hand is a weak two is completely a matter of style and partnership agreements. The important thing is not which agreement is best but whether or not you adhere to your agreements in the heat of battle. There is no quicker way to ruin partnership trust than to cowboy it up with a unilateral system violation.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-30, 09:09, said:

To Bill, it is not just that the hand has a 4 card major, it is also the relative strengths of the suits and the overall strength of the hand.

Considering QT9xxx too weak a suit for a weak 2 (non-vulnerable at that!) is just ultraconservative. And, uh, what's wrong with the overall strength of the hand? I wouldn't open it 1♠, so it's not too strong, and it's definitely not too weak either.

Oh and uh TylerE, why exactly would a stiff king stop you from opening a weak 2? Does having a stiff king just force you to always pass no matter the rest of your hand or what?

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on 2013-October-05, 20:57, said:

Oh and uh TylerE, why exactly would a stiff king stop you from opening a weak 2? Does having a stiff king just force you to always pass no matter the rest of your hand or what?

Maybe you can tone down your sarcasm a little bit. A stiff king is a very defensive value (my opponents tend not to finesse into it on defense, for one thing), so it's definitely a flaw for opening a preempt.

[1eyedjack]

I think it is a long term loser if you have a H fit, and a long term winner if you do not. But i think that (again long term) you stand to lose more if you have a H fit than you stand to gain if you do not. You have to multiply that up by the probability of having a H fit (or not), and the maths is beyond me. But there are some occasions when long term view is irrelevant. Such as approaching the end of an event in which you need a swing. I would open 2S if I feel a need to bid against the room.

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2013-October-05, 20:57, said:

Considering QT9xxx too weak a suit for a weak 2 (non-vulnerable at that!) is just ultraconservative. And, uh, what's wrong with the overall strength of the hand? I wouldn't open it 1♠, so it's not too strong, and it's definitely not too weak either.

The trouble is neither the strength of the suit not the strength of the hand, in isolation. The trouble is that 2 of the 9 HCP are in the trump suit.

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2013-October-05, 20:57, said:

Considering QT9xxx too weak a suit for a weak 2 (non-vulnerable at that!) is just ultraconservative. And, uh, what's wrong with the overall strength of the hand? I wouldn't open it 1♠, so it's not too strong, and it's definitely not too weak either.

Oh and uh TylerE, why exactly would a stiff king stop you from opening a weak 2? Does having a stiff king just force you to always pass no matter the rest of your hand or what?

That may well be the first time anyone suggested my preempting style is conservative - I guess I am getting old. You will note that I never suggested this suit was too weak for a weak 2, indeed my modified hand in post #3 (♠QT9xxx, ♥J93, ♦K, ♣Txx) contains both the given spade suit and the singleton diamond king. The point is that the strong hearts in combination with the good (for a weak 2) hand make game more likely. An old rule was not to open 2M with a limit raise in the other major. That is too conservative for me but might give you a better idea on where I am coming from. In essence, the strength of the hand is problematic in combination with the shape and the relative strengths of the suits. That the singleton king is a defensive feature and therefore an additional flaw is just the icing on the cake.

But the real emphasis of my first post (#3) was to let eagles know that opening 2M was not ridiculous for some, since I suspect that was the origin of the OP. And the quoted post (#4) was in answer to Bill because he mentioned 4 card majors as if KJ9x in a maximum weak 2 is similar to xxxx in a minimum weak 2 and it seemed to me advisable within the N/B forum to correct that. And given that this is N/B, it was probably a good idea that you made this post because if you were unsure what was meant then for sure some real beginners might have been confused too. So thank you for giving me the chance to clarify.