[cherdano]

pclayton, on May 1 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

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?

Easy. By giving up on finding game. (Except sometimes as a save over their 4♥.)

Partner may pass with 3-card support and a balanced hand. So what? It's not as if you get more preemption by opening 1♠.

[whereagles]

Well, personally I agree with a 3rd seat weak 2 at NV vs V showing from

JT9xx
x
xxxx
xxx

to

AKQJxx
KJx
xx
xx

[pclayton]

cherdano, on May 1 2007, 11:08 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 1 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

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?

Easy. By giving up on finding game. (Except sometimes as a save over their 4♥.)

Partner may pass with 3-card support and a balanced hand. So what? It's not as if you get more preemption by opening 1♠.

Is my partner supposed to take the push to 3♠ with 3 card support and a semi-balanced hand? Is my pard supposed to guess not to sac over 4♥ holding: Axx, x, xxxx, KQxxx?

Opposite QJTxx, xx, xxxx, xx this is sensible, but opposite QJTxxx, AKx, xx, xx its a complete phantom. Its also unrealistic to double 4♥ with either hand.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

[pclayton]

whereagles, on May 1 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

Well, personally I agree with a 3rd seat weak 2 at NV vs V showing from

JT9xx
x
xxxx
xxx

to

AKQJxx
KJx
xx
xx

This is laughable.

How can this even be playable?

[gingolia]

whereagles, on May 1 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

Well, personally I agree with a 3rd seat weak 2 at NV vs V showing from

JT9xx
x
xxxx
xxx

to

AKQJxx
KJx
xx
xx

♥

[cherdano]

pclayton, on May 1 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

cherdano, on May 1 2007, 11:08 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 1 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

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?

Easy. By giving up on finding game. (Except sometimes as a save over their 4♥.)

Partner may pass with 3-card support and a balanced hand. So what? It's not as if you get more preemption by opening 1♠.

Is my partner supposed to take the push to 3♠ with 3 card support and a semi-balanced hand? Is my pard supposed to guess not to sac over 4♥ holding: Axx, x, xxxx, KQxxx?

Opposite QJTxx, xx, xxxx, xx this is sensible, but opposite QJTxxx, AKx, xx, xx its a complete phantom. Its also unrealistic to double 4♥ with either hand.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

I don't understand how anyone can have so strong feelings about this. More wide-ranging preempts = partner will guess right less often, but opponents will guess right less often. Stricter defined preempts = partner will compete right more often, but opponents will have a problem less often. I think we are old enough to know that, and giving an example or two adds little to the discussion.

I think there is more to gain from mistakes by opponents than from accurate competing or sacrificing by partner, so wide-ranging third-seat preempt are sound.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on May 1 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

whereagles, on May 1 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

Well, personally I agree with a 3rd seat weak 2 at NV vs V showing from

JT9xx
x
xxxx
xxx

to

AKQJxx
KJx
xx
xx

This is laughable.

How can this even be playable?

The point is this: I want to open a weak 2 on every hand which:

1. doesn't think it can make a game opposite a passed pard that opens aggressively
2. has a reasonable suit for the context

If you want to discuss this seriously, please say so. I don't feel like writting up stuff if the other person has prejudice.

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on May 2 2007, 05:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 1 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

whereagles, on May 1 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

Well, personally I agree with a 3rd seat weak 2 at NV vs V showing from

JT9xx
x
xxxx
xxx

to

AKQJxx
KJx
xx
xx

This is laughable.

How can this even be playable?

The point is this: I want to open a weak 2 on every hand which:

1. doesn't think it can make a game opposite a passed pard that opens aggressively
2. has a reasonable suit for the context

If you want to discuss this seriously, please say so. I don't feel like writting up stuff if the other person has prejudice.

I'm not so sure whether the ""laughable" comment was a mean comment or a particularly kind way of putting it. I mean, unless you open all 8-counts, I'd not be too keen to open a weak two when game is about a 50-50 shot (at IMPs) across from ♠x ♥Axx ♦Axxx ♣xxxxx.

[pclayton]

whereagles, on May 2 2007, 02:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 1 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

whereagles, on May 1 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

Well, personally I agree with a 3rd seat weak 2 at NV vs V showing from

JT9xx
x
xxxx
xxx

to

AKQJxx
KJx
xx
xx

This is laughable.

How can this even be playable?

The point is this: I want to open a weak 2 on every hand which:

1. doesn't think it can make a game opposite a passed pard that opens aggressively
2. has a reasonable suit for the context

If you want to discuss this seriously, please say so. I don't feel like writting up stuff if the other person has prejudice.

I would find it difficult to have a serious conversation about the merits of a weak 2 with a solid suit and a nice 14 count. But maybe you can educate me on its merits.

In the meantime, I'll stand by 'laughable'.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on May 2 2007, 10:50 AM, said:

I would find it difficult to have a serious conversation about the merits of a weak 2 with a solid suit and a nice 14 count. But maybe you can educate me on its merits.

In the meantime, I'll stand by 'laughable'.

His principle is fine that it can be very wide ranging in 3rd seat as long as you think you don't have game, it's just his evaluation of the hand in question that's wacky. Game is not at all unlikely holding that nice hand, in fact I'd even still be worried about missing game after opening 1 then rebidding 2.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on May 2 2007, 06:01 PM, said:

1. His principle is fine that it can be very wide ranging in 3rd seat as long as you think you don't have game,

2. it's just his evaluation of the hand in question that's wacky. Game is not at all unlikely holding that nice hand

1. Phil, jdonn: that is indeed the point, and I think it is correct.

2. That depends on how aggressively you open in 1st seat. By my standards, it is unlikely that hand 2 will have a game across. Not impossible, but unlikely. It is up to opener to judge whether the risks of missing a game compensate for the pressure it puts in opps.

[bid_em_up]

Apollo81, on May 1 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

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.

Personally, I like the 3♠ opening better than 2S. Especially if you are playing some style where partner is prone to opening 11-12 counts in 1st seat (I don't know if you are or not). You already have 2 passes to you, LHO is quite apt to have a good hand, and opening 2S doesn't prevent a decent partnership from having a normal lebenshol auction.

If you are going to preempt, personally, I think you should put the maximum pressure on immediately. While you may feel "bad" about the fact you might have bought the contract for 2S for a push board, but instead you lost a few imps, for every time this occurs, you will also have a time that the opponents could have been cold for 4H or 5M and unable to act over 3S, or you may have forced them into an unmakeable 3N or 4m/5m. One result does not make 3S a bad choice of calls.

However, I would open this particular hand 1♠. I have a good suit, 2 probable defensive tricks (maybe more if opponents end up in hearts or clubs, and I can support/tolerate two of the other three suits should partner bid either of them, and I have an easy rebid of 2♠ should he bid 2♦ instead. I also have the boss suit, so as long as partner has some spade tolerance, we should be able to buy the contract for 2-3 spades anyway.

jmoo