[SoTired]

I see the same thing and come to a different conclusion.

Against weak opps, I don't want to give them the chance to double us for an easy good board. Let them find their game and bid it. Then I'll try to squeeze an extra trick on defense. Preempting partner out of our par contract is more serious a problem against weak opps. I want the par contract, them or us, and hope to win the board in the play.

Against strong opps, I agree with Jeff. Disrupt them. Try to stop them from reaching the par contract. It might be difficult to bid and good opps will find it (or avoid a bad one). I'll gamble that I've not preempted partner rather than the opps, because we might lose the board, anyway.

I've heard the "Jeff can do it, but weak players can't" argument before. I think it is hogwash. If Jeff thinks that opening a weak 2 with a 4-card major is a good idea, what revelance is the bidder's skill level? It is similar to opening 1N with a 5-card major. True, Jeff has the judgement to make the decision more flexible, but to bar all BI players from opening 1N with a 5-card major makes no sense.

Same with opening a weak 2 with a 4-card major. Whether the opps can double them or not is not relevant. What matters is that they might be missing a better contract. They may end up in 4S on a 6-3 fit rather than 4H on a 5-4 fit that plays a trick better. Those hands are less likely to occur and even when they do, weak opps may not be able to exploit them.

They are not going to beat the strong opps head-to-head. But a monkey wrench thrown into their gears may do the trick.