[awm]

Agree with Justin, I would pass unless playing a style where virtually all ten-counts are opened.

It's not an issue of whether there are hands "too good" for a weak two and "not good enough" for a one-level opening. The criteria for these bids are different. A weak two bid, especially at vulnerable, needs to have a good suit. The presence (or absence) of outside cards is not all that relevent. A one-level bid promises some overall strength, a good suit is a plus but not a requirement. This hand falls into the hole of "not enough overall strength for a one bid, not a good enough suit for a weak two." Give me the ♥T and I would certainly find some opening call on this hand (now the suit is good enough for a weak two; the overall hand is also somewhat better).

[P_Marlowe]

2H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[dake50]

Give me a 3rd spade then pass.
But with 2 card spade, it's 60% opponents have spades so obscure/obstruct this hand. 1H to leave ambiguous HCP or 2H to take space for their 2S/4S decision. 2H for me --that even increases my chances to win SQ on defense -- preemptor having side Q? ?

[TepidCress]

(Assuming 1♥/2♥ = just ♥):-

No-one seems to have raised the issue of it going something like 1♥ - (1♠) - 4♥ - (4♠) - P - P -? Something about that issue about having a couple of defensive tricks to open at the one level. It's also an 11 count with no singleton but with quacks - when I play in ♥ sometimes these will be useful, sometimes irrelevant & sometimes they will turn out to be the cards that would have scored in defence but are worthless (ie a hinderance) to me now. So clearly the hand doesn't qualify as a proper 11 count but valuing them as worthless seems just as crazy.

Ergo I can't see any justification for 1♥ but AQ to 6 with (albeit "on average") a bit of stuff outside seems easily good enough (normal?) to open 2. So occasionally I'll go for 800 against 110 - that's bridge. Far more often if I pass I'll let the opposition play in the right level (usually ♠) contract when getting the first punch in would've given them problems that a fair percentage of the time means IMPs/matchpoints to my side (1♠ - 3/4♠ being an obvious example). Not that if I picked up this hand I'd go through this analysis. It's a trivial 2♥ opening.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Sep 13 2007, 10:07 PM, said:

Would anyone really open 2H with this hand without the QJ of diamonds and the SQ? I find that hard to believe.

I would.

Quote

To some the QJ+Q are not a positive thing for preempting.

I agree with this. A weak two isn't just a one-bid with a queen less: it shows a different hand-type entirely.

[EricK]

Jlall, on Sep 13 2007, 09:07 PM, said:

Would anyone really open 2H with this hand without the QJ of diamonds and the SQ? I find that hard to believe. To some the QJ+Q are not a positive thing for preempting.

Whether a pre-empt shouldn't or can contain defensive values depends on how important you rate:

1. allowing our side to find a sacrifice if the opponents reach the correct contract.
vs.
2. simply taking away space to make it more likely that our opponents misbid.

If we are more concerned with the latter, then having a wide variety of hands, including those with defensive values will become more appealing (the wide variety of hands also make it more likely they misplay their contract as well - not knowing whether to place us or our partner with the missing Quacks) - but of course partner must be on the same wavelength and not look to sacrifice just because opps have got to game over our pre-empt.

Assuming that partner has something like his fair share of goodies, and isn't going to raise us willy-nilly, then it is quite likely that at least some of those outside values will be useful if we are left to play in 2♥.

[P_Marlowe]

2H.

Given the vul. this is what partner can expect.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Miscounted, so pass is a valid option.

[benlessard]

ODR for preempt is a concept that is overrated imho. Clear 2H for me. Not saying i like it but i think passing is worse.