[jillybean]

---

Please describe your prempt style and how you evaluate this hand.

[mw64ahw]

Good points. Poor playing strength unless partner has a complimentary hand. 2♠, but I wouldn't be surprised if game didn't make after a minimum 2N enquiry

[Cyberyeti]

Too much defence, not enough offence, our choice is between 1 and pass, 2 not in the equation, and too flawed to open 1

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,


I would never open 2S, I dont like a 1S opening, so it is either Pass or 3S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Shugart23]

jillybean, on 2024-August-13, 16:35, said:

---

Please describe your prempt style and how you evaluate this hand.

Depends on if I am playing match point or Imps. If Imps, I probably pass. In match point, my style is 'down 3-4-5' unless partner is a passed hand where my style is down 2-3-4.

It looks like this hand will take 4 tricks if spades are trump, so could bid 3 Spades (in match point)

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-14, 02:47, said:

Too much defence, not enough offence, our choice is between 1 and pass, 2 not in the equation, and too flawed to open 1

Too much defence? 1 quick trick.
3NT likely preferable to a suit contract if partner enquires.
My auction if so
2♠-2N
3♣ 6(331) or 62(32)-3♦ Which?
3♥ ♣ splinter or 62(32)-3♠ concern about ♣ otherwise 3N/4♥

[Tramticket]

mw64ahw, on 2024-August-14, 04:12, said:

Too much defence? 1 quick trick.

The point is that half of your points are outside of your long suit, they give defensive potential.


KQ9854
102
52
962

is a more promising weak two.

[mw64ahw]

Tramticket, on 2024-August-14, 04:31, said:

The point is that half of your points are outside of your long suit, they give defensive potential.


KQ9854
102
52
962

is a more promising weak two.

2 Queens and a Jack outside. Downgrade defensive potential for the 'quacks'.
Your example is more preemptive, but more promuising for what?; certainly not game.

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2024-August-14, 04:12, said:

Too much defence? 1 quick trick.
3NT likely preferable to a suit contract if partner enquires.
My auction if so
2♠-2N
3♣ 6(331) or 62(32)-3♦ Which?
3♥ ♣ splinter or 62(32)-3♠ concern about ♣ otherwise 3N/4♥

Too low an ODR, the chance of those Qs and Js taking tricks are much higher in defence than offence

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-August-14, 03:25, said:

Hi,


I would never open 2S, I dont like a 1S opening, so it is either Pass or 3S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Hi, you say never 2S but 3S is an option, please explain.

[mikeh]

This is one reason we play 2M is 9+-13. Otherwise, 2S for me. No aces, 10 hcp, doesn’t suit my 1S style and the notion of passing makes me laugh. Why on earth would I want to let the opps have a free ride? Sure, it’s a heavy 2S but that’s why one needs ogust as opposed to ‘feature’ or ’stiff’ asking responses. If I show a good hand with a good suit, isn’t that what I have?

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2024-August-14, 09:45, said:

This is one reason we play 2M is 9+-13.

Do you still play this with no Multi?

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 10:04, said:

Do you still play this with no Multi?

Yes. Our methods are designed for imps. If we play mps, it really only as practice. Our methods are very complex so we need all the practice we can get😀. So when we can’t play multi, we use 2D as a weak weak two in hearts, which is (as I understand it) legal

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 08:23, said:

Hi, you say never 2S but 3S is an option, please explain.

I just quote MikeH, it is a (super) heavy 2S, if the hand fits with p,
it will usually produce one more trick, than the usual w2 in this situation,
hence I open 1 trick higher, to tell p, that I happen to have a hand, that
has the potential of producing 1 more trick.
If the hand does not fit, the risk is, that they cant make anything, and I
am too high.

The bid is extreme anti field, it is quite ugly, it would be better, if the
suit would be hearts.

I mentioned 3S, if I cant bring myself to pass, this would be my option.

[mikeh]

P_Marlowe

Your treatment of 3S being a trick better than 2S seems, at least to me, to be contrary to virtually all modern thinking about weak/preemptive bidding, at least if not vulnerable. Indeed, in my partnerships we sometimes open at the 3 level, at favourable, precisely because we’re too weak for a weak two….even a multi 2D.

Furthermore, a 3S preempt will often get partner to bid 4S over whatever the opps bid and our soft side cards and sterile shape suggests too many losers and, paradoxically, possibly too much defence.

I can understand, but disagree with, 1S. I just don’t understand 3S.

[jillybean]

The reason I posted this hand is of the belief that there is too much Defence in the ODR and it could trick partner into making a phantom sacrifice over 4H.
I understand how this hand is at the maximum for 2S but rather than give up and pass, if we are making too many phantom sacs we probably need to look at our hand evaluation methods in competitive auctions.

Mike,
No Multi
2M 9+-13
2D weak 2 hearts

What do you do with weak 2 spades?

[mycroft]

I don't think this is a "heavy" 2♠. I think it's a decent 2♠ opener (Tramticket's hand) with a lot of intermediates that likely are waste paper on offence, and of dubious but serious value on defence. The other problem is that three of those worthless intermediates have been assigned "High Card Points", and their absence will make it less likely the opponents will find their correct contract. Might even mean they let me play 2♠, which will likely not play well.

But I, too, can't stomach passing with this hand. I think 3♠ is looking for -500 into a mix of -170s and -620s, or -300 into a mix of -140s and +100s - or worse (I mean, it might be -800 into slam their way, but who's bidding it off both red queens and a spade trick?). So 2♠ it is.

My old Precision pair would open it 1♠, as we opened "10-15 NV, and 9s that look like 10s." Sure, this is a 10 that looks like 9, but still.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 19:41, said:

What do you do with weak 2 spades?

Never tried it, but how about a Wicked 2♣ except that's a multi!
http://www.bridgemat...om/weakstng.htm

[Cyberyeti]

Our weak 2♠ is actually a multi, and could be xxxxx, xx, xxx, xxx which is why opening this a weak 2 for us is bad, it means partner has to invite on some hands we really don't want him to if we're not going to miss games.

We stand more chance of getting to good games by not opening it and letting partner bid his hand if he has one, and overcalling if he doesn't to compete, there must be a decent chance of 1m-P-1red and we get to overcall 1♠. If we open 1♠ we will get to a load of bad games.

[TMorris]

Too much for 2 ♠ for me. I can understand pass but would open 1 ♠. It depends a lot on what your partner will expect. With some partners I might pass.