[Bbradley62]

Playing vanilla 2/1

---

[diana_eva]

I'd open 4H in most partnerships, but I am constrained by requirements for a decent suit (or extra length at least) with other partners, so with those I'd pass. I wouldn't do anything in between.

[ahydra]

This would be a 3H opening for my regular partnership. Suit is crap but has texture, and the nice shape makes up for it.

ahydra

[MrAce]

3-4♥>pass>2♥

[the_clown]

Not sure if I would open 3 or 4♥s but I am definitely not opening with a weak 2 bid.

[whereagles]

Another vote for "3 or 4, according to circumstances".

Not 2H for heaven's sake. Pard can never expect such a shapely hand.

[Trinidad]

I would never think of opening such a hand with a weak two.

The way I play, 3 or 4♥ only promise lots of hearts. 2♥ promises less hearts, but they are supposed to be decent hearts: 3 or more honors and typically not QJTxxx. Extra length does not compensate for honor strength, it makes a 3 or 4 level preempt.

The reason is that after 2♥, it is still possible to have a constructive auction, and you want partner to be able to count on you for something. After 3 or 4♥, there is no room for constructive stuff. You have just thrown all the cards in the air, and let everybody else (particularly the opponents, but inevitable also partner) guess what to do. You have little reason to be reliable in that case.

Rik

[helene_t]

Normal playing strength for 3 ♥. Not a very disciplined preemt. Might pass in second seat or if vulnerable.
I wouldn't criticise 4 ♥ . It is obviously a question of style. 2 ♥ would be a strange style though

[helene_t]

Rik that doesn't sound logical. Adter 2he p can ask specifically for suit quality if you play ogust. So 2h can cover more ground. This hand is a bad example because it has many flaws. But a hand with a single major flaw which can be shown would be good for a weak 2

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2014-June-03, 01:26, said:

Rik that doesn't sound logical. Adter 2he p can ask specifically for suit quality if you play ogust. So 2h can cover more ground. This hand is a bad example because it has many flaws. But a hand with a single major flaw which can be shown would be good for a weak 2

Yes, 2♥ can cover more ground... because 3/4♥ cannot cover any ground at all. There is no ask after 3/4♥. Tactically a 3/4 level preempt is completely different from a weak two. After a weak two, there still is some constructive bidding. This is absent after a 3/4 level preempt.

After 2♥ partner can ask. But this means that you need to have a workable range to fit your answers. With Ogust, you can differentiate between something like:

• AKJTxx + nothing (max, good suit)
  
• KJTxxx + an ace (max, poor suit)
  
• KQJxxx + nothing (min, good suit)
  
• QJTxxx + a king (min, poor suit)

These replies are not only used to determine what level we should be playing on, but also what strain (major or NT). As an example, often with a balanced hand, you want to play in 3NT opposite a good suit and a fitting honor in your hand. Opposite a bad suit, you want to be in 4M (since you cannot run the suit).

JTxxxxx does not belong in any of these categories. It is a relatively good suit for a trump contract (the opponents have one less trump than expected), but a very bad suit for a NT contract.

After 3/4♥ there is no asking, only guessing. (This is the goal of a preempt: to turn the hand into a guessing game where you hope the opponents will guess wrong.) This means that 3/4 level preempts are less disciplined than weak twos.

So, after a 3/4 level preempt, all constructive bidding went out of the window. After a weak two, there is room for constructive bidding, but not much. To be able to unravel the possible hands, we have to limit the hand types for a weak two somewhat. This means that a weak two bid is more disciplined than a 3/4 level preempt.

Having said all that, this doesn't mean that I have never opened a weak two on QJ9xxx and an outside A/K, or even on QJ9xxx without anything. But I try to keep my weak twos somewhat reliable. I don't have that aim at all with 3/4 level preempts.

Rik

[nigel_k]

To me this is a normal 3♥ opening. If preempting aggressively you might choose 4♥. I would not agree to a style where this hand is expected to open 2♥ or pass.

If vulnerable I would still open 3♥ but it is closer and I'd prefer 2♥ if the ten of hearts was a small one. The only distinction I draw between a two and three level opening is based on how many tricks I can take if doubled.

[whereagles]

The hand can easily make 7 tricks on its own, but can hardly pull off more than 1 in defense. The ODR difference is too much for a weak two. You really need to open it 3H, if not 4H.

[MrAce]

That's a new to me in BBF. A topic with none of the replies annoying me (So far)

[Antrax]

Trucks are stupid

[cloa513]

2♥ Red is reasonable- you want something unusual for an against situation either 11-12 with poor hearts and poor spades- good quality and you'd open 1♥ and or over length hearts. 3♥ or more is easy way to give your opponents a top. 2♥ gets your bid in and allows partner to go to game with strongly working strength.

[mikestar13]

First seat, I open this one 3♥ white v white, 4♥ red v white, pass red.

Change ♠Q to ♠x and its 4♥ white, 3♥ red v red, pass red v white.

Exchange ♠Q with ♥x, and its 3♥ red v white and 4♥ otherwise.

Second seat, 3♥ white v red, pass otherwise with the given hand.

Third seat, I never even think of not bidding 4♥.

Forth seat, I pass it out.

I never consider 2♥ in any circumstances.

I do not claim these answers are "correct", but my best estimate of how I'd bid in absence of an agreement on a different style.

[cherdano]

7-4 with hearts -----> open 4♥ on any excuse.

Non-vulnerable first seat is more than enough.

[PhilKing]

cherdano, on 2014-June-04, 04:53, said:

7-4 with hearts -----> open 4♥ on any excuse.

Non-vulnerable first seat is more than enough.

It is very noticeable from my files that the leading Dutch players open 4♥ more than any other nation. I am fairly sure this is a winning policy.

Anyway, this looks like a clear 4♥ opening even at game all.

[shyams]

I'm finding this discussion very useful (I chose 4♥ more from bravado than forethought).

What if the 7-card suit was spades? i.e. JT98632 Q A954 2. What would be your choice of opening? Thanks...

[MrAce]

Antrax, on 2014-June-03, 04:55, said:

Trucks are stupid

That statement is true and this is why they need a VERY smart man to drive them

Or things things may get ugly

http://www.metacafe....nt_compilation/

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_lqPe_NEiXE