[Apollo81]

♠QJ108xx
♥AKx
♦xx
♣xx

3rd, fav, IMPs, two passes to you

I'm more interested in people's reasoning behind their choices than the choices themselves.

[pclayton]

Just 1♠.

3 reasons not to mess around:

1. We have spades, so we are winning partscore battles. Game is possible too, but not after we preempt.
2. We have defense.
3. We have sterile distribution.

and:

4. My 3rd seat green preempts look NOTHING like this

[pbleighton]

A close call.

I don't like 1S much (though it's acceptable), as we are unlikely to have game, and the opps may well have game, and vul is favorable.

I bid 3S, but wouldn't argue with 2S, with 6322. Phil's right, it's a great hand for a 3rd seat favorable preempt, but I just don't thik we're missing much.

Peter

[BillHiggin]

2♠

If I never open a weak 2 in third seat with resonable values, I become too predictable. I see very little chance of game.

In general, I prefer to mess around with undisciplined weak two bids in third seat rather than with light openings. This strategy would be even more effective if my partners were not already so used to seeing pure junk from a third seat opening. Hard to believe, but sometimes the best hand at the table is actually held by the poor schmuck in the third seat - and his partner has been brain washed to disbelieve him.

[whereagles]

2♠ for me.

I find 1♠ a bit wimpy (sorry phil ) and 3♠ somewhat exaggerated because our shape sucks and there's no certainty opps have a game.

[FrancesHinden]

1S or 2S as the mood takes me.

It's the wrong hand for more: too balanced, too much outside my suit...give me QJ10xxx xxx xxx x and I'd open 3.

[Halo]

1♠

I don't think I need to preempt with AKx of hearts. I've got my share of points (well above my average as a matter of fact) and much more than my share of spades.

[skjaeran]

2♠. Put on some pressure. Still possible to reach game, I don't go crazy with my preempt in 3rd seat - if anything off the road, I tend to be a little heavy.

[dcvetkov]

2S is better by a good margin. Descriptive bid, and partner will be well placed to make decision for partscores. He may not expect this much, but I would not worry about missing a close game. We should do fine with 140 or 170 here

[Free]

I prefer 3♠, but I know I'm more aggressive than the rest of the field Rule of 3 applies here imo, so why undercompete? Unless you're pessimistic and don't count ♠8 as backup...

[MickyB]

For me, the problem with 2♠ is that I'd frequently open that on weaker hands with only five spades, making it impossible for partner to know when to compete. Vulnerable I'd routinely open it 2♠, NV I think I prefer 1♠.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2007, 05:32 PM, said:

2S... not much reasoning, I would like to apply pressure and I'm not too worried about missing a game.

Note: I got the original hand slightly wrong. I was 6313.

I opened 3♠, probably too pushy.

3♠ was down 1 on the lie fo the cards. RHO held x xx K10xxx K1098x, so he may or may not have balanced over 2♠ (he's at unfavorable) although I strongly suspect this particular RHO would have. 3♦ (9 card fit) makes their way. The other table opened 1♠ and partner responded 2♥ on Ax J9xxx J9x AJx (after failing to open). My hand rebid 2♠ which ended the auction and made.

[kenrexford]

I cannot imagine opening, third seat, at favorable vulnerability, 2♠. Take away the A-K of hearts and the spade Queen, not even requiring a sixth small spade to replace the spade Queen, and I'm good enough to open 2♠. If this hand also qualifies, the bid covers too much ground.

I'm joking somewhat, but the point is still valid. I cannot imagine opening a white-on-red 2♠ with a seven-loser hand, with a simple heart Queen, not likely valued up by partner, providing one of the critical covers.

For me, it is between 4♠ (sick, but better than 2♠, IMO) and the more practical (and sane) 1♠.

[gingolia]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

I would like to apply pressure and I'm not too worried about missing a game.

Applying pressure here seems right. I probably bid 2♠ only. Bidding 3♠ seems to have several ways to lose (esp. with this shape):
- go for -50 or -100 when 2♠ par
- go for more than -100
- push opponents into making game they would not otherwise have reached
- induce partner to misjudge auction
These seem to outweight the benefits of bidding 3♠ (depending of course on partnership agreements).

[gingolia]

kenrexford, on May 1 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

For me, it is between 4♠ (sick, but better than 2♠, IMO) and the more practical (and sane) 1♠.

4♠ ?? what .. why

[kenrexford]

gingolia, on May 1 2007, 01:34 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 1 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

For me, it is between 4♠ (sick, but better than 2♠, IMO) and the more practical (and sane) 1♠.

4♠ ?? what .. why

4♠ was a joke.

1♠ is my real call, because, as Justin said, it's a style thing -- I do not want partner misjudging the hand. I have two defensive tricks, and I want cooperation.

I'm not all that convinced that a game is that unlikely. IF partner can make a Drury call, whether 2♣ or 2♦, whatever we use and whatever he has, I'm prepared to fudge a 2♥ call as a one-time stab. If partner has a hand like ♠Kxx ♥Qxx ♦AQxx ♣xxx, we have a fair reason to bid game, at IMPs.

I must admit that I would open most hands in first seat where game makes, when white-on-red. So, the more I think about things, the more I tend to like 2♠ more, at least if a balanced, 4333, 11-count hand would be opened. So, with me on the other side, 2♠. Any other colors, or any non-radical across the table, and I'll stick with 1♠.

[pclayton]

Face it.

If you are going to preempt in 3rd chair green with something like: QJTxx, xx, xxxx, xx (I would a large % of the time), how can you come close to calling this a weak 2?

I'm all for the 'wide-ranging' aspect of preemption in this seat, but this is too wide a spectrum.

[kenrexford]

The only real reason I can see for a 2♠ call is to leave them room to bid hearts but not enough to know whether 4♥ is right, with the intention to penalize any suit-contract game.

So, I assume that anyone who opens 2♠ is prepared to double 4♥, 5♣, or 5♦?