[inquiry]

I would open 1♠

[655321]

I would open 1♠.

At this vulnerability I really hate 2♠. 3♠ is possible, but the hand has more playing strength than partner would expect for 3♠ here, so my second choice is 4♠.

[Siegmund]

This vulnerability, 3♠ for me.

If you like the JTxx of clubs well enough to count it as more than half a trick, and want to open 4♠, I understand.

I'd be quite angry with a partner who opened this 1♠.

[awm]

I guess an interesting question is the same hand without ♦Q. So:

♠AQJTxx
♥x
♦xx
♣JTxx

Does anyone really open this 1♠ in a fairly standard system? I'd assume probably not.

If you open 2♠, does the doubleton ♦Q really add so much to the hand that 2♠ becomes "ridiculous" (as a few people mentioned)? That seems weird.

If you open 3♠, I think that's a good argument for opening 3♠ on the hand with ♦Q also. At least the offense must be right for the call.

[655321]

♠ AKxx
♥ Kxx
♦ Qx
♣ xxxx

♠ AKxx
♥ Kxx
♦ Qx
♣ Axxx

Are to assume that awm passes the first hand (a 10 count), and opens the second hand (a 14 count) 1♣? I would never consider counting a doubleton queen as 0HCP, sure it might turn out to be worth nothing but to count it is nothing is a fairly elementary error IMO.

[jdonn]

I don't think opening 2♠ is "ridiculous" even though the hand is too good. The hand without the diamond queen is a normal maximum 2♠ opening bid at w/r for me, color me sound. But 3♠ is fine too, probably more popular, and maybe I'm just a wimp.

[jjbrr]

awm, on Aug 11 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

If you open 2♠, does the doubleton ♦Q really add so much to the hand that 2♠ becomes "ridiculous" (as a few people mentioned)? That seems weird.

Yes

[dake50]

Do I expect partner has 3 tricks against their 4H? I do not.
Do I expect 4H is right for them to bid? Yup.
Does 1S, then 2S, "walking the dog" look to win? Nope.

4S.

[wclass___]

3♠ ...seems like adequate playing strength and defenses

[Codo]

1 ♠, wtp....

[gwnn]

awm, on Aug 12 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

If you open 2♠, does the doubleton ♦Q really add so much to the hand that 2♠ becomes "ridiculous" (as a few people mentioned)? That seems weird.

Nobody before you used the word you quoted. To answer your question though, I think 2♠ has no merit even without the ♦Q (this was the expression used by me, obviously somewhat overstated), it then becomes a 3♠ bid. But also, I really think 4♠ is going to work well in practice usually.

6-4 with concentrated values and spades, this is not the time to try one of those puny weak twos.

[Pict]

Interesting thread.

My experience is that nowadays it is hard to preempt oppos at almost any level - everyone wants their bid in the Sun.

It can be easier to preempt partner when 1st and it is your hand.

So I still think 2 (if in range), maybe 1 (could be better) will work better than 3 in the real world.

[MFA]

Pict, on Aug 12 2010, 10:51 PM, said:

My experience is that nowadays it is hard to preempt oppos at almost any level - everyone wants their bid in the Sun.

Very often preempts work because the opponents get to high or land in the wrong strain rather than they are being shut out.

[dburn]

Well, it seems that "the modern style" is to open 1♠, or 2♠, or 3♠, or 4♠. Faced with all this, the original poster may decide that spending even more time away from the game is a reasonable option.

I, who play many different systems with many different partners, would open:

2♠ opposite those with whom I play 2♦ as a bad weak two in a major and 2M as a constructive weak two;

1♠ opposite those with whom I play 2♠ as the only way to show a hand with a six-card suit too weak for an opening bid of one;

3♠ opposite nobody at all (how in the name of mercy can it be right to open 3♠ with this and also with such as ♠KJ10xxxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣x, which to me looks routine at favourable vulnerability?); and

4♠ only with a partner and a pair of team-mates fully prepared to have me do all the masterminding for our side (and even so I consider the bid so absurd that I still could not bring myself to make it).

In essence, to open this hand at the three or four level is to insult everyone at the table but particularly partner, since it takes his judgement completely out of the game. Sure, it could work this time. But in the long run, it's pretty shocking bridge to have a hand so far removed from partner's expectations that if ever he has a decision to make in the later auction, he is almost bound to make the wrong one.

[eyhung]

Oh come now, I don't think 3♠ is deserving of the label "insulting to everyone at the table". The KJTxxxx hand and out is five playing tricks with spades trump, and the hand above feels like six playing tricks if you have a fit. Yes, partner's judgement is impaired, but at 1st favorable, I don't think partner should be trusting me too much. When favorable, being a trustworthy partner is much lower priority for me than creating tough auctions for opponents. As long as both partners agree about the priority (i.e., be a tough opponent favorable, be a good partner vulnerable) that's what matters.

I'd personally open it 1♠, but I would have no problem with a partner who decided to open 3♠. Let's save the description of "insulting" for calls that truly deserve it, shall we?