[Wittich]

how can I bid this two suiter ?

[smerriman]

If you're opening the bidding, it's a clear 1♠.. if not, you should probably provide the rest of the auction (and vulnerability, and general system you're playing)..

[mycroft]

And please use the diagram, like so:

???

---

It's a fascinating hand - but we do need to know where in the auction you are.

If you're opening, many conservative players would pass this aceless 11 (especially if partner will expect cards in suits for a future Michaels cuebid). Otherwise, 1♠ seems automatic.

[mw64ahw]

Take away Q♦ and I would open this 2♥ 'Ekren' style both Majors, otherwise 1♠ given the shape and my style of play.

[johnu]

Most players will open 1♠ and then rebid hearts, and then repeat hearts depending on the auction. Some players who have high standards for opening bids, nobody that I know, might pass in which case they might make a Michaels cue bid showing both majors.

[pescetom]

IMO anyone willing to pass this "aceless 11" needs a refresher course on hand evaluation, even playing 2/1 GF. Yes it has no Aces and the diamonds Queen may be worth little, but the shape and the texture in both suits are compelling features even if you don't put much faith in LTC.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2024-May-22, 03:31, said:

IMO anyone willing to pass this "aceless 11" needs a refresher course on hand evaluation, even playing 2/1 GF. Yes it has no Aces and the diamonds Queen may be worth little, but the shape and the texture in both suits are compelling features even if you don't put much faith in LTC.

It's almost kingless.

If you regularly open these, you need to think hard about your "forcing pass" doctrine.

[mycroft]

Another site (no, not that Other Site, another Other site) is discussing AKxxx KTxxx xx x.

I would probably open OPs, but partner could have quite a reasonable hand and the opponents make 3NT, and definitely could go 670 in the "matchpoint double" situation.

One of the books I read years ago had a story where someone who had a good solid Roth-Stoneish partnership wanted to try this newfangled Precision thing. They had a disaster because they opened lighter, but didn't yet have a handle on how much stronger one had to be to double, so they were letting lots of doubled partscores through (or setting undoubled ones). Went back to "sound openers", and went back to doing well.

This hand is great if we find a fit. But if we find a fit, they can compete in their fit, and we have potentially zero defensive tricks if our fit is in spades. If we don't have a fit, it's a trap and we start with one foot in it. Sure, it's both majors and we have the high ground, but still.

As opposed to that, we can pass this hand, expecting to be able to come in with a double, or a Michaels, or even "bid the suit they didn't show" next round. And if it goes p-1♦-p-3NT (even 2NT), well then we know what partner has, don't we?

The thing is to the passers, it is unlikely that we will be locked out of the auction, *and* we'll have a better idea whether it's safe when it comes around again. It does lose on the 1♠-p-Bergen players who might have shut out the opponents already, sure. It could also hit 1♠-2♦-p-3♦...

[DavidKok]

It's a clear 1♠ opening for me. Way back when people had strange ideas about passing first to then enter an auction later. In my experience 'quick in, quick out' is almost always better. This hand has a lot to tell partner, so we should begin describing it immediately.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2024-May-22, 14:59, said:

It's a clear 1♠ opening for me. Way back when people had strange ideas about passing first to then enter an auction later. In my experience 'quick in, quick out' is almost always better. This hand has a lot to tell partner, so we should begin describing it immediately.

Can you really be quick out with this hand? If you don't have a 2-suited opening.

[DavidKok]

This hand has a lot to tell partner, so we should begin describing it immediately. Passing first with the goal of entering the next round will not describe our hand with our opening (pass).

[mycroft]

I have several calls that will show "both majors" if they open (unless they tell me that one of the suits isn't good, in which case I'm happy to show the one they don't have). If they show a (minor) fit and jump, I'm happy to get partner to pick at the 3 level, even. If partner opens, then I should have time to show both my suits if necessary (and if not, we're in 1♠ with a decent (semi-)fit and partner has a minimum opener; if I have to play that, I'm sure I'll be okay).

All this to say that it is likely to *become* a 1-bid hand if I pass to start.

If it weren't both majors, I'd be much more uncomfortable (still pretending to be a "sound opener" player, which I've already stated I'm not).

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2024-May-22, 14:59, said:

It's a clear 1♠ opening for me. Way back when people had strange ideas about passing first to then enter an auction later. In my experience 'quick in, quick out' is almost always better. This hand has a lot to tell partner, so we should begin describing it immediately.

DavidKok, on 2024-May-22, 16:23, said:

This hand has a lot to tell partner, so we should begin describing it immediately. Passing first with the goal of entering the next round will not describe our hand with our opening (pass).

What's your opening bid with

QJ876
QJT96
32
6

?

[barmar]

The modern wisdom is that it's a bidder's game: Look for reasons to bid, not excuses to pass.

[johnu]

nullve, on 2024-May-23, 11:24, said:

What's your opening bid with

QJ876
QJT96
32
6

?

Seriously? 6 HCP compared to 11 HCP in the original hand? In some jurisdictions, ie in the ACBL, this is an illegal opening bid on the Basic and Basic+ chart, and in 1st and 2nd position on the open chart. Just because you have 13 cards doesn't mean you have to bid at every turn.

Of course if you have an opening bid that shows both majors with less than opening bid strength than well done for having a system bid that fits the hand.

[TMorris]

the OP hand is an automatic opening bid. If partner has a misfitting 11 it might go badly, so what.

[Bad_Wolf]

What is going on here. 1S is surpassingly obvious.

[blackshoe]

There is a difference between "illegal bid" and "illegal agreement" -- though I'm not sure ACBL is aware of it.

[Douglas43]

I might pass it when vulnerable at pairs if trying for a swing, and gambling on a misfit.