[gszes]

You hold a hand with a 6 card minor and 4 card major void Axxx xxx AKxxxx.

you open 1 of the minor and lho pops in with a 2 level preempt (in your void)

which goes p p to you. It is currently standard to x catering to the possibility

p wishes to penalize the opps. I understand the theory but does this hand

or ones with slightly less defense really want to try and penalize the opps? I wonder.

IF we can bid our 4 card major at the 2 level--rather than it being a reverse- why not

allow that bid to be a weak 2 suited hand that prefers to compete and not really

interested in penalizing the opps? 1c 2d 2h/s 1c 2h 2s 1d 2h 2s would all qualify.

P could pass or go back to the safety of our minor depending on their hand and would

even be forewarned about venturing into 3n due to our "weak:" nature.




This would mean starting normal reverse hands with x but those hands should fear

penalizing the opps far less than the weaker hands because they are always stronger.

One could still save a double jump for really strong distributional hands ie 1c 2h 3s for ex.

AKxx void Kxx AKQxxx




will we begin to change bridge history here? is this already "expert" standard and I have not been

keeping up with current trends? Is this too off the wall to consider? let me know:)))))))) and

ty if you have read this far.

[MrAce]

It is not a crazy idea for me since i use it for a long time now

I mean...i suffered a lot from making balancing doubles with void and pd almost always have 5-6 of them, which is very predictable due to RHO did not raise the overcall suit. Mike in another topic already wrote the risks of playing 2M doubled in this position.

I play, for example ;

1♣-(2♥)-pass-(pass)
2♠

as 4-6 or 4-7 or 5-6 and a hand unwilling to play doubled 2 ♥. Of course the hand in debate on that previous topic had too many defense values. If you ever gonna use this method you suggest, as you stated too, the hand should be

- very poor for defense
- very good in offense

AJTx
void
xxx
KQJTxx

KQJx
void
xx
KQTxxxx

and pd should always return to first suit, unless he holds 4-5 of the second suit.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand. Maybe I am reading this wrong. But, are you claiming that bidding your second suit naturally with a weak hcp hand but great playing strength is a strange, hard to swallow without an open mind innovation to be considered? Slow down, Nikola. The world is not yet ready for this.

[diana_eva]

The poll needs more voting options

[mikeh]

The rule of thumb that I have always used in reopening seat is that, assuming I am reopening, I double with most hands with which I would sit for a penalty double and bid a suit with all hands on which I would pull a penalty double. That isn't to say that when I bid, I am always showing a hand that would pull a penalty double: sometimes one can't risk the double because partner may pull to an inconvenient spot: 1=4=1=7, after a 2♠ overcall, I'd probably sit for a penalty double (depending on what my cards were) but I'd never reopen with a double since I can't handle a 3♦ pull.

Very strong hands that are suitable (no pun intended) for a 2N reopening get reopened 2N.

This means that if I were to reopen with 2♠ after 1m (2♥) p p, I would be showing a good playing hand with unusual shape, rather than high card strength.

Since this is what I learned from basic bidding texts some 40 years ago, and since I think every expert partner with whom I have ever played used the same approach, I can't quite see this as something 'new'

[ggwhiz]

Similar I think to an auction of 1x - double - redouble - pass to me where by agreement I can bid on a weak opener to say you think you have them, I don't.

However the lack of a negative double by partner suggests you are just propelling yourself into danger far too often. RHO's pass indicates a possible misfit or a hand that expects to go +110 or +140. I would just bid 3♣ and if partner has a strong trap and/or a diamond suit we can land in 3nt or something else that makes.

[MrAce]

 ggwhiz, on 2014-January-16, 12:28, said:

I would just bid 3♣ and if partner has a strong trap and/or a diamond suit we can land in 3nt or something else that makes.

2 ♠ means that you are bidding 3♣ with a very good playing hand and shape as Mike said, incase pd passed with spade length and insufficient values to dbl. As you said they have a misfit, so RHO actually may have passed due to misfit but a lot of hcps. Your pd is supposed to bid 3♣ with anything less than 4 card spades. It is not only about not missing a spade fit, it gives a better picture of your hand and pd can know which values are good and which not in his hand, as oppose to 3♣.

[aguahombre]

 MrAce, on 2014-January-16, 18:36, said:

2 ♠ means that you are bidding 3♣ with a very good playing hand and shape as Mike said, incase pd passed with spade length and insufficient values to dbl. As you said they have a misfit, so RHO actually may have passed due to misfit but a lot of hcps. Your pd is supposed to bid 3♣ with anything less than 4 card spades. It is not only about not missing a spade fit, it gives a better picture of your hand and pd can know which values are good and which not in his hand, as oppose to 3♣.

Yep. And 2N instead of 2S is (for us) the same offensive hand...again, not a moose, but with 4D and 6+ clubs.

[mfa1010]

 aguahombre, on 2014-January-16, 19:09, said:

Yep. And 2N instead of 2S is (for us) the same offensive hand...again, not a moose, but with 4D and 6+ clubs.

Going too far, I think. I want to have a natural NT-reopening.

[Onedown]

When I get auctions like these and hands to match, the 1st thing I do is grab my calculator. Vulnerbility is always key, but so is the action taken by responder. Someone already mentioned that partner failed to make a neg x nor bid.
Pass is not an option, simply due to it a possible penalty situation...advancer did not raise either...double and hope for the best!

[gszes]

 diana_eva, on 2014-January-16, 03:16, said:

The poll needs more voting options

always feel free to offer advice I can add/subtract anything to the poll that has/lacks merit

[gszes]

 kenrexford, on 2014-January-15, 19:31, said:

I don't understand. Maybe I am reading this wrong. But, are you claiming that bidding your second suit naturally with a weak hcp hand but great playing strength is a strange, hard to swallow without an open mind innovation to be considered? Slow down, Nikola. The world is not yet ready for this.

I have looked over a ton of hands over the last couple of months and have not seen even one example of a "weak" opener reopening

in the way I have described above. Many hands that fit this concept have occurred but the result of choice seems to be x due to the

high degree of probability p made a trap pass. I am not arguing that p does not have a trap pass I am stating that there are far too many

opening bids, that are so weak defensively, that would really really not want to defend. Those are the target hands for this concept.

There is a cost to doing business this way--intermediate opening hands constructed in a similar fashion to the weak ones

AKxx void AQJxxx Kxx would no longer have a 2s bid available they would have to begin with x under the theory that if p has a trap

pass we are happier about p passing our x with this stronger hand than one where we opened with little to no defense. The intermediate

type hands carry with them a much greater chance game could be available if p has a big fit and relatively weak hand. The intermediate

hand benefits with x when p decides to go to 3n due to vulnerability whereas a weak opener might really hate that idea (for good reason).




MrAce gave some examples that are right but closer to the top of the weak hand concept than 1 was thinking QJxx void xx AKQxxxx

which is opened 1c but has so little defense I would be very afraid to let the opps play 2h x and a 2s bid here would go a long

way to keeping p from going to 3n when unfavorable since they would be aware of our weak nature.



Starting with x does not show extra values but merely a hand that needs to reopen and cannot meet the criteria for this weak hand reverse.

Kxxx void AKxx QJxxx would still reopen with x. I probably should have included all of this in the original idea and that's my bad. Ok take it from

here what does everyone think lots of readers but not many opinions:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[kenrexford]

The fact that a lot of people in real life results are always reopening with a double is not necessarily indicative of a wise approach. I personally have seen reopening doubles sent back lucratively, and reopening bids working better than doubles many times. The hand has to be right.

[aguahombre]

It seems the mods reserved post #5 for Mikeh both here and there.
If it ever was part of our style to overuse the reopening Double without consideration of colors, ODR, etc., I would hope after reading those posts we would rethink it.

Both threads are important and helpful to me with respect to 4-6 hands where we have a void in the o/c suit,

[PhilKing]

If only someone had a searchable database that could throw some light on this thorny topic.