[broze]

---

R/W, 2nd seat.

Your bid? How close?

[ahydra]

Clear 2H (DK instead of Ace would be about the borderline).

ahydra

[ArtK78]

Yes, it is a matter of style.

Some players will not open a weak 2 bid with a void.

Some players will not open a weak 2 bid with 3 cards in the other major.

Some players need a better suit to open a weak 2 bid R/W.

Some players significantly tighten their requirements for a weak 2 bid R/W in 2nd seat.

So, there is a lot going on here.

I don't think that I would open 2♥ on this hand for several reasons:

1) R/W in 2nd seat I really want a "pure" weak 2 bid. It really should be a very traditional weak 2 bid, more of a constructive call than anything else.
2) This hand offers multiple places to play - hearts, diamonds, spades. I don't want to commit so early in the bidding.
3) This hand has some defense - ♦A, club void.
4) Partner may expect a better suit for an opening 2♥ bid in this position at this vulnerability.

Consider that you already have one passed opponent. It has become more likely that you are preempting your partner than your opponents at this point. That is why 2nd hand actions following a pass tend to be sounder than 1st hand actions.

Only if your partnership is very aggressive and partner would be surprised that you would pass this hand would I consider opening it 2♥.

[hrothgar]

broze, on 2013-October-04, 08:05, said:

---

R/W, 2nd seat.

Your bid?

How close?

This is all a matter of partnership agreement and style

Traditionally, folks would pass this hand in second seat.
The hand has the right strength for a weak two bid, but the side suit void rules out a weak two.

Standards have changed a lot. many people will open a weak two with a side suit void (or for that matter, a side 4 card major)

Personally, i would probably pass this hand under the conditions that you provide.

I tend to be the most disciplined with my preempts in second seat. The combination of a void and a side three card major push me over the edge.
I wouldn't be surprised to see folks preferring to open...

[aguahombre]

The different camps about what a weak two or some other preempt should look like will continue to be predictable on these fora; and they will never agree.

For some it is a matter of style, based on judgement, based on experience (in either camp). For others, it is just a matter of style. For some it is a partnership choice; for others, partner isn't a concern.

Our choices after all this time are sunk in concrete and biased by selective memory of the times when Discipline gained ---not remembering when "undisciplined" gained for the opponents or would have gained for us.

[ggwhiz]

It's as different as night and day.

Destructive bidders play things like weak notrumps light opening bids wide ranging pre-empts and the like concentrating on giving the opponents grief whenever possible and it can be very effective. They open, I don't.

My partnership is in the constructive bidding camp perhaps because we choose to try to be better at imps than at mp's trying for small losses vs. big gains and except for fairly obvious situations like risking notrump instead of a minor suit. We agree to bid and play at mp's as if it were imps and hope for the best.

We aren't nearly as successful in those events but changing styles back and forth doesn't work imo. The destructive types can give us fits at imps too in shorter matches but I like our chances against our peers in longer ones.

[broze]

It is true that there's unlikely to be any overwhelming consensus on preemption style on these fora. I am usually one to bid with any excuse whatsoever but I find my style is mellowing out a little bit. I would open a weak 2 in first or third any day with this but had second thoughts about in this spot.

I tried to convince my (equally agressive) partner that this one should actually be passed, claiming that the preemption value is vastly diminished when you are preempting only one opponent as well as your partner and that opponent is N/V vs V. I cited a hand such as xx KTxx KQx Axxx opposite which you might miss game. He disagreed and thought that in reality you were not preempting partner all that much and that nearly all the time you could catch up later on if your side have game/slam.

It's interesting seeing people debate the merits of style, whether or not one side can be convinced or not.

[aguahombre]

broze, on 2013-October-07, 16:05, said:

I tried to convince my (equally agressive) partner that this one should actually be passed, claiming that the preemption value is vastly diminished when you are preempting only one opponent as well as your partner and that opponent is N/V vs V. I cited a hand such as xx KTxx KQx Axxx opposite which you might miss game. He disagreed and thought that in reality you were not preempting partner all that much and that nearly all the time you could catch up later on if your side have game/slam.

I would look at that hand differently. Whether you open the OP companion hand 2H or not, your side will reach 4H. Partner will Double 1♠, for instance ---or just open the bidding. But, if you open 2H, your auction will virtually transfer them to 4S for a good sac. Partner should bid 4H over your 2H, if you do choose that opening...as long as he/she counts his/her number of hearts; so, it is simply a matter of auction tenor.

[broze]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-07, 16:27, said:

Partner should bid 4H over your 2H, if you do choose that opening...as long as he/she counts his/her number of hearts.

Lol, true. Perhaps not bidding a making game is actually not that much of a concern with this hand.

[nige1]

broze, on 2013-October-04, 08:05, said:

R/W, 2nd seat.
Your bid? How close?

---

IMO 2♥ = 10, Pass = 7, 1♥ (Where legal) = 5.

[Zelandakh]

Looking at the hand it has:
1. most of its points outside the suit - check
2. a side void - check
3. 2 first round controls - check
4. a limit raise in the other major - check
5. some defence - check

So most of the flaws for a weak 2 are included. And despite this I would still probably open it. I think ggwhiz hit the nail on the head in that my normal approach is to be disruptive when possible with weak hands. Where I do disagree is that bidders who are disruptive cannot also be constructive. The very essence of a strong club system is to go slowly with good hands and be aggressive with weaker hands. Building a bidding system around the idea of having 2 modes, including the ability to switch between them when it is right to do so, has its challenges but the ideas have been around a long time. But considering weak twos to be constructive in Standard methods is probably not best. If going that route it would be better to play split-range weak twos or Fantunes instead imo.

That said, it is clear that opening this hand makes life harder for partner. In deciding if it is worth it you cannot just look at this hand but also have to consider that partner has to make decisions on many other hands and the fact that the opening can include hands such as this might (negatively) influence that decision. Still, we have an evens chance of preempting the right hand and even when wrong we have at least got some information across, perhaps avoiding a third seat preempt in the process. All-in-all, I guess we are between 60-40 and 70-30 up by opening, which is good enough to offset the bad hands being somewhat more expensive than the good ones on a case-by-case basis.

PS: as an aside, 1♥ = 5 second seat red is surely a joke Nigel? I would open 3♥ before I perpetrated 1♥. Heck, perhaps we should throw in 6♦ = 3 too?!?

[ggwhiz]

Zelandakh, on 2013-October-09, 08:07, said:

Where I do disagree is that bidders who are disruptive cannot also be constructive.

I agree with this and why I consider the aggressive style to be as playable as anything else. Our weak 2's in a constructive style are wide ranging but NOT in 2nd seat and 2nd seat only.

I also thought that Nigel forgot the minus sign in front of the 5 for 1♥.