[Walddk]

Rebound, on Jun 7 2005, 12:44 AM, said:

fred, on Jun 6 2005, 06:58 PM, said:

I would open 2♥.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Thanks, Fred. I was beginning to think I am a bit of a freak as far as this hand goes. I wouldn't open this hand at the one level. I guess Roland and I are at odds here. I disagree that 2-level openings should not be constructive - I think this hand makes a fine 2♥ call.

Please note that I said weak 2's can be constructive if you have another opening (2♦) available to show a non-constructive weak 2. If so, I know what to expect from either.

In my opinion, if 2♥ can show anything between 4-11, it's too dificult for partner to judge in especially competitive auctions.

Roland

[Chamaco]

I would not open a weak 2.

A weak 2 should carry the message of:
- offensive hand,
- concentrated values,
- little honors wasted,
- suggestion to responder to take a sac if reasonable fit.

Here, side quacks + 6322 shape is terrible, pard will have a hard time to evaluate the REAL combined potential of the hands if we open 2H.

Now, about opening at the 1 level: I suppose this depends on stile and pship agreements.
I personally like to open light, but I also like that, if I open in 1st-2nd seat, my pard can count on 2 defensive tricks from me.
This hand does not comply, so I would open it only in 3rd seat.

Besides, the hand has 8 losers (2S, 1.5 H, 2D, 2.5 C), too many to consider it a full opener.

-------------

Bottomline: I pass

[whereagles]

Both 1♥ and 2♥ are reasonable. It's a matter of style and match situation.

[sceptic]

0 - 12 ogust style, I watched luis do a session on weak twos in BIL lounge, I think it is great and what he has to say about weak twos is excellent, (shame I can never find a p willing to try and play them in the range 0- 12 (which brings me to why do you say, Luis, 1 heart opening not 2 when ur range is 0 - 12 hcp?) as the Qx's make it not so good for defence (I think)

I would be interested to see the arguements Mauro has for his side of the story, may be I am missing something, but I thought weak 2's were supposed to be disruptive and make it harder for the opponents, ogust seems to be a good method to find out where to go from your p's weak two bid?

[Chamaco]

sceptic, on Jun 7 2005, 10:03 AM, said:

I would be interested to see the arguements Mauro has for his side of the story, may be I am missing something, but I thought weak 2's were supposed to be disruptive and make it harder for the opponents, ogust seems to be a good method to find out where to go from your p's weak two bid?

Ogust (although not my favourite) is OK when pard has a hand that wants to investigate slowly the potential for game.

That happens when pard has at least opening hand strength or a good hand with fit.

The problem that I address is when pard has a hand suited for a sacrifice, and will raise to 3 or 4H: in that case, tha wasted side quacks, and the horrible 6322 inclrease the likelyhood of disasters such as going for a telephone number even if opps have game or, maybe worse, goinf for a phantom sac (because if the opps were to buy the hand, the side Qx/Qxx and even Jx could be sources of defensive tricks, whereas if WE play the hand, their value is very diminished).

I think it's a matter of style but I like the definition of "ideal" weak 2 given by Anderson-Zenkel:

1- GOOD intermediates is a plus, the lack is a minus:
Here, NO interemediates, so this rates as a MINUS

2- side queens or jacks are minus: MANY wasted values here, so this is a HUGE minus

3- side singleton is a plus, side void is a minus, side 4 bagger is a minus: none of this factor apply here so no adjustment.
Actually, 6322 tends to be quite a bad shape, IMO, but anyways, let's pretend this does not apply...

4- possession of the Ace of trump is a minus, because it decreases the ODR (e.g. if we have the Ace, this scores a trick even in defense; much better in terms of ODR is JT98xx rather than AQxxxx because if we end up defending, JT9 will never take a trick).
So this is a minus on the given hand.

5- seat: best seat to open weak 2 is 3rd seat; 1st seat is ok to be aggressive (2 opps to preempt vs 1 pard); 2nd seat is the worst of all, in that case we must be disciplined
This was not specified in the given hand so I won't consider this factor

6- vulnerability: here both sides are red, so a little caution can be recommended, especially at IMPS.

Of course, in real life we often deviate from "ideal", model weak 2 bids, but here the minuses are too many, in my opinion.
Also, it depends on how aggressive responder will raise ourweak 2s: all those who use LOTT-based raises, aggressively, would better off NOT open a weak 2 here.
If responder is more conservative in his sacrifice bidding, then opening a weak 2 is ok.

[Gerben42]

Call me an idiot if you like but if it looks like a weak two, it quacks like a weak two, then it might be a weak two! As 11-HCP hands with 6♥ go this is a terrible one, so 2♥ for me.

A vulnerable weak two is allowed to have some defence. Pass is out of the question. NV or playing limited opening bids I open 1♥, but not now.

[Chamaco]

Gerben42, on Jun 7 2005, 11:02 AM, said:

A vulnerable weak two is allowed to have some defence.

It does, but it's a minus.
Besides, a the proportion of such minus is HUGE here, since 5 out of 11 hcp are out of our suit, and in terms of minor honors.

If it was the ONLY minus, then I would not mind.
But when you start to have 2+ flaws for a bid, I think it is worth considering avoid the bid altogether (The principle of "max 1 flaw" expressed by Woolsey, to apply when you have to decide whether to make a stretch bid or a distorting bid).


Combine this minus with the horrible shape and the BAD suit quality, and that makes the hand very dangerous at red.

Yes, AQ6432 is a bad suit quality. Very easy to lose 3+ trump tricks and/or being forced.

[han]

I would open 1H or 2H with this hand, pass is not an option. The decision depends on how light we open 1H. I voted 1H, since with regular partners our 1M are light.

[42]

I would pass, Mauro wrote all the arguments. Assuming we play sound w2s: when partner comes into the bidding and I introduce the ♥s, he can better work out how my hand looks like because I did NOT open, or my hand could be a bad surprise for opps in case of defending. I like to exchange the best possible informations with partner, and I made bad experiences when a w2 can one time be a "poor" suit with outside values, another time it carries AKQxx(x). As p of the w2 opener I want to be more or less sure that I can also lead the suit in defense without making gifts to opps (or to never lead that suit, if the agreement is to open garbage).
Should someone hold a gun to my head and forces me to open, I would choose 1♥.
Says a non-expert ...
Caren

[inquiry]

I thought I opened light, but this hand might argue otherwise. I would open this with a weak two.

[badderzboy]

Thx all, I don't feel like a total idiot for opening a weak 2 now.

I nearly sent it to you Ben for the next bidding poll, one for another time perhaps...

[EricK]

A few people (myself included) have intimated that having a lot of defense is bad for a weak 2 or other pre-empt.

While it is true that it may cause partner to sacrifice when it is wrong, it may also cause the opponents to overbid to games which go down, or to misplay the games by finessing your partner for the outside honours.

When we are vulnerable and so partner is less likely to sacrifice the defensive nature of the hand may not be such a big problem.

Eric

[PriorKnowledge]

When I have a 6-card major, it is either a weak 2 or a 1 opener... Never pass (unless too weak for weak 2). I hate "backing in" to auctions. I personally open any 6-carder, but understand others who are squemish about xxxxxx suits.

For those passers out there... How many times would you kick yourself if the bidding proceeded 1N p 3N p p p making even tho partner held ♥Kx? Or lefty opened a precision 1C?

[Double !]

A vote here for 2 ♥. This suit is raggy but very playable opposite Kx or Kxx, but the other high cards are quacky, unsupported, and difficult to assess at this time. The hand is 7 1/2 losers (adjusted LTC- "points-schmoints"). 2H could be good, and might (emphasize "might") result in missing occasional good game. BTW, I feel that a solid wk NT, especially with a supporting high trump honor, is worth a game try, especially playing some form of Ogust responses (am I obsolete or what?).

I guess I'm out of date, obsolete, a dinosaur when it comes to the topic of weak-2 bids. With all due respect to many who have repeatedly emphasized the difference between a pre-emptive and a constructive bid, I do not regard a weak 2 bid (unless thoroughly discussed with partner) as a pre-emptive bid.
I regard using a weak NT hand as the foundation or base around which all other bids are structured (even if playing strong NT), I consider a weak 2 bid as a hand that would, at worst, invite game opposite a strong NT, and would invite game if at the upper end of strength opposite a strong NT. I would also like the hand to be able to tolerate partner leading the suit, since the psychology of making such a bid is such that it at least suggests having that suit lead. The downside to this approach? Not getting in the first punch or helping the partner to quickly bid a game or compete should the opps be inconsiderate enough to bid or pre-empt.

I have seen many a matchpoint and imp lost when someone has made a weak 2 on yuk and then having P lead the suit. Weak 2s can be difficult enough to handle without complicating the situation by striping it of it's (originally) theoretically semi-descriptive nature. I'd like partner to be able to trust my bids, at least a little bit.

[Fluffy]

badderzboy, on Jun 7 2005, 04:57 PM, said:

Thx all, I don't feel like a total idiot for opening a weak 2 now.

I nearly sent it to you Ben for the next bidding poll, one for another time perhaps...

Ah! the bidding poll, shouldn't it had been last week?

[inquiry]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2005, 05:41 PM, said:

Ben had an emergency so could not do it.

I am emaling the panel the quiz hands tonight. I am trying to pick between ones submitted by BBF members to make it more entertaining to the users to see their hands bid by the experts.

Ben

[42]

Quote

For those passers out there... How many times would you kick yourself if the bidding proceeded 1N p 3N p p p making even tho partner held ♥Kx? Or lefty opened a precision 1C?

In the first case I have the majority of the outstanding points and opps weren't interested in majors. So partner should try to find me with my long suit - he already knows that I have at least 4♥s and some points. A lead of the ♥K is not stupid
And when LHO has a strong club opener: playing 2♥ with the given hand must not be funny at all if p has nothing. Should the bidding go pass 1♣ pass 1any you could still bid your ♥s, or? Strong opps are able to bid their hands (or dbl) even when you opened with 1 or 2♥.

[Chamaco]

PriorKnowledge, on Jun 7 2005, 06:09 PM, said:

For those passers out there... How many times would you kick yourself if the bidding proceeded 1N p 3N p p p making even tho partner held ♥Kx? Or lefty opened a precision 1C?

More or less the number of times I open a weak 2 and pard jump raises expecting an offensive hand here and we go for a phantom sac (this 6322 is very much alike a 5332), or the number of times I open at the 1 level, opps compete and pard doubles assuming we have 2 defensive tricks. :-)

Moreover, this hand is not worth a 1-level opener, even if we consider the distribution: it has 8 losers, and an 8 losers hand is not an opening.

==================

Finally

Quote

How many times would you kick yourself if the bidding proceeded 1N p 3N p p p making even tho partner held ♥Kx?

I would kick myself many more times if, in this hand, I end up playing 2H doubled down 1 or 2 (and -3 is not out of the picture...) when at the other table my teammates defeat 3NT with a heart lead.

[pclayton]

2H. Reading the earlier posts I was beginning to think I'd have lost my mind.

You really have to count hard to get to an 11 count, and this thing is drek with all those unsupported honors.

Zars aside, 6322's don't play well. The quacks - well they might be useful and they might not be. Sometimes you miss the 23 point 3NT with the 9 card major fit.

I also want to preempt with the heart suit when I have an excuse to.