[jillybean]

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ ♥ QJ9532 ♦ KT83 ♣ A84

You are in 1st seat

[gwnn]

clear 1♥ opener

[Winstonm]

I pass. That' simply the style I have chosen. I claim it to be neither right nor wrong, only consistent.

The only "clearly" I see is this hand is "clearly" too good for a preempt.

[rogerclee]

1♥ seems totally normal. 4♥ is better than either 2♥ or 3♥, I think, but it is a really swingy bid (and worse than 1♥).

[655321]

Agree with 1♥ WTP.

[mikeh]

I really think that saying that this is a wtp 1♥ bid is a disservice to the B/I forum.

This hand will be a BIG disappointment to partner under many forseeable scenarios, usually involving someone bidding spades enthusiastically.

Having said that, I do think that this is a 1♥ opener. It is far, far too good for any form of preempt, and indeed offers a potentially useful dummy in either minor. Preempts should generally be uni-dimensional... we all (or most of us) will open preempts on occasion with hands that have good support for a side suit, but we should generally try to avoid doing so if there is a reasonable alternative. Catch partner with xxxx void AQJxxx KQxx and opening 2♥ may mean missing a grand to play in our 6-0 fit... on a real bad day, going down

And passing is just too risky.

If the opps bid a lot then we are going to be coming in at the 3 or 4 level with no assurance of safety and no bidding space. If partner opens 1♠ in 3rd, how do we catch up? Is he ever going to figure out how good our hand is... are we ever going to convince him we have this many hearts, let alone show the other suits?

So open 1♥.... make minimum noises thereafter until and unless we can deduce that out hand is really working.. and accept that we are going to have some bad results on occasion.

[inquiry]

29 Zar points? Can't pass. This is a 1♥ opening bid, plain and simple.

[neilkaz]

1♥ for me.

2♥ doesn't preempt ♠ enough and your hand has too much offence for that as you may miss some games, won't often cause much more hindrence to the opp's march to 4♠, or may find a stack to your left and get clobbered. 3♥ preempts more, but makes it really hard for PD to find what could even be a ♦ slam, and once again, there could be a stack sitting over you.

Passing will too often mean that you are guessing to come in later at a high level and praying for a fit. I'd rather open a 10 HCP hand with this distribution and suffer the occ problems when PD has a bunch of ♠ than a good hand and we get into problems.

[kenrexford]

For the B/I, here's why 1♥ looks right.

First, it satisfies the Rule-of-Twenty. 10 HCP's (all working, with a well-placed 10 and a well-placed 9 for kickers).

Second, it you do open 1♥, you actually have two good rebid options.

Third, although a Weak Two might have 10 HCP and 10 cards in two suits, it will not feature two first-round controls and one second-round control all on the outside.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Apr 20 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

I really think that saying that this is a wtp 1♥ bid is a disservice to the B/I forum.

I have to disagree, this is just too obvious a 1♥ opener. I guess your point is valid just to say that "wtp" isn't a synonym for "will always work". But since we know that to be the case, this is indeed '1♥ wtp'.

[mike777]

jillybean2, on Apr 20 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> EW </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> QJ9532 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> KT83 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> A84 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

You are in 1st seat
</span>

I think another great example to discuss with partner what a one or preempt bid looks like in all seats at all vuls.......I am biased towards thinking this is the most important bidding issue, given only one, that you can discuss with your partner

Add in what is our nt bidding and our basic 2/1 bidding....if given time.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1H.

If you open with a preempt, open 4H.

If I got the vulnerability right, you are
green vs. red, and partner will never
give you this hand, if you just open 2H
or 3H.

I would not open 4H, but I would at least
be willing to discuss the merrits of a 4H
opener.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

I think the most important point on this hand is to understand that it is NOT a pre-empt.

- It is playable in three suits
- It has two first round controls outside its longest suit
- It has too much playing strength to open a weak two, and too poor a suit with too much outside to open anything higher.

Opening 4H is a randomising action, the sort of bid you might make in a KO match against a team you would otherwise expect to lose to (or if you are a long way down in a match).

I open 1H on these hands. I don't have any great objection to passing, but I do object to a pre-empt.

[gwnn]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 21 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

I think the most important point on this hand is to understand that it is NOT a pre-empt.

- It is playable in three suits
- It has two first round controls outside its longest suit
- It has too much playing strength to open a weak two, and too poor a suit with too much outside to open anything higher.

Opening 4H is a randomising action, the sort of bid you might make in a KO match against a team you would otherwise expect to lose to (or if you are a long way down in a match).

I open 1H on these hands. I don't have any great objection to passing, but I do object to a pre-empt.

This question is almost totally unrelated to this hand, but would you be more likely to pass this hand playing 4 or 5 card majors (and weak or strong NT) and why?

[cjames]

1♥

[y66]

Points taken and appreciated as to why this hand is not a preempt and why 1H is "right".

Agree with mike777 that it is important to discuss hands like this one (perhaps even slightly lighter hands with spades), as part of discussing opening style. Don't think citing the Rule of 20 or the number of Zar Points is particularly helpful. But reading and discussing ideas underlying hand evaluation, including Zar Points and Marty Bergen's Rule of 20, is very helpful. And fundamental.