[kgr]

IMP's
All Vulnerable

---

1st hand.
Options:
- 2♦: multi (weak 6cM or strong). Note: if you open 2D then it will not be possible to show you diamond length.
- Pass first and bidding 2NT if opps bid H + C: That shows a good 5/5

=>
- My comment: 2D opening (could be wrong, but prefer to preempt immediately)
- My partners comment: No 2D opening with 6/6; this hand has too much potential for weak 2 opening.

What is your comment?

EDIT: 2S opening would be Muiderberg: 5cS, 4+c-minor and weak.

[gszes]

If p were a passed hand I would have a ton more sympathy for
wanting to open a weak 2 since our game chances are severly
compromised. You did not mention it but maybe a better idea would
have been opening 2s. While the distribution is a bit too good at least
we get partner to appreciate dia honors and spade honors as well as
possibly showing 2 places to play.

If using 2s this way is too horrid to contemplate best is probably
pass since showing this as only a 1 suited hand is more las vegas than
bridge:)))

[MrAce]

Imho both has merits and downsides. It would be costly to miss a game or even a slam in diamonds and go down in a spade contract. Otoh it may be costly to let them exchange important information if you pass and if they have the right hand for it. But in general, especially holding the spade suit in your possession, my experiences tells me to pass. We still may have a shot to bid 4♠ for example if it comes 4♥ by them in front of us or we may have a chance to show 2 suiter, but it is almost impossible to find diamond fit after multi 2♦.

[whereagles]

Of course it's not. A weak two shows a ONE SUITED hand. This is a two-suiter, and an extreme one.

Either open 1♠ (with the planned excuse "I was counting ZAR points"), or pass and bid some ridiculous number of NT later.

[PhilKing]

In general I would pass, but against some top-level USA pairs, I would go for 4♠.

One of the justifications is that our diamond length makes it unlikely that they will have the right shape for a pure takeout double, and they tend to play a style of double that, in my opinion, is way too oriented in that direction.

The Dutch are the chief perpetrators of openings such as this in my database - and it is notable that they tend to loosen their requirements when playing against pairs that play a pure takeout style.

[lowerline]

kgr, on 2015-January-06, 10:55, said:

IMP's
All Vulnerable

---

1st hand.
Options:
- 2♦: multi (weak 6cM or strong). Note: if you open 2D then it will not be possible to show you diamond length.
- Pass first and bidding 2NT if opps bid H + C: That shows a good 5/5

=>
- My comment: 2D opening (could be wrong, but prefer to preempt immediately)
- My partners comment: No 2D opening with 6/6; this hand has too much potential for weak 2 opening.

What is your comment?

EDIT: 2S opening would be Muiderberg: 5cS, 4+c-minor and weak.

I'd open 3♠.

S.