[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

We were red, opps white.
North, as dealer, opened a weak 2 ♦ on:

♠AK6 ♥T6 ♦Q96542 ♣J4.

East passed and South bid 3NT which went down after a ♥ lead.

South thought North's hand was not suitable for a weak-two opening in first seat at these colors. South thought that in this circumstance, North should have more in ♦ than Q9xxxx, e.g. KQxxxx or better. (NB -- South had the Ace of ♦ himself).

North thought he had a pretty decent weak-2 bid with 10 HCP.

So, was North's opening weak-2 bid:
1) good
2) not good but at least reasonable
3) awful

[SoTired]

my style: good

[Fluffy]

its reasonable, but as always best of all is to have agreements.

[hrothgar]

Regretfully, this is primarily a matter of partnership agreement.

Some people prefer a disciplined preemptive style. Others prefer more wide ranging bids. I can't say for sure which approach is better. I will (simply) note that things work out better if you and partner have discussed the matter and are on the same page.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

given the colors and being first or second
seat a weak 2 should be decent.

The main question is, is it ok, that you have
80% of your points outside your long suit.

And this is simply a style issue, which the
partnership needs to discuss internally.

I would say yes it is ok, but my partner
does not like it, so I change my style slowly,
since I have no strong feelings about it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArtK78]

I agree. It is awful.

A weak two bid vulnerable should be based on a good suit. At these colors, no less than KQTxxx (some would say that is not good enough). Red against white the bid should be moderately constructive, so an outside card is not out of the question.

However, to have AKx of spades and a Queen-empty diamond suit vul against not for a 2D opening bid is a perversion. How is partner supposed to make an intelligent decision whether to declare or defend in a competitive auction? If partner has xxxx or Kxxx of diamonds, he will assume that your side has zero or one defensive tricks in diamonds and he will never put two defensive tricks outside of diamonds in your hand.

I would not have even commented on this question if it were not for the responses in support of the 2D opening. That is not bridge. I don't know if I can possibly state this strongly enough.

[helene_t]

Awfull at IMPs, reasonable at MPs.

This is because at IMPs we have more to lose than opps have due to the vulnerability. So preempts must be diciplined, even in first seat.

At MPs, the vulnerability is still a concern (we don't want to go for 500 against a game or for 200 against a partscore) but it's less of a concern than it is at IMPs because the damage to our own contructive bidding loses about the same number of matchpoints as damage to opps constructive bidding gains, regardless of the vulnerability.

[ArtK78]

I don't see how this can be a reasonable bid at matchpoints. There are many things that can happen, and most of them are bad:

(1) The opponents may have trouble over the 2D opening and guess wrong (good).

(2) The opponents may have trouble over the 2D opening but get lucky (bad).

(3) The opponents may have no trouble and get to the usual spot. (Neither good nor bad). However, guided by your opening 2D bid, they will guess the play better (bad).

(4) Same, but since your 2D bid is so odd, the opponents may actually guess the play wrong (good).

(5) Partner may play you for a more typical 2D opening bid and compete when he should not compete (bad).

(6) You may wind up in 2D going down when the opponents cannot make anything (bad) or going down 200 or more when they have no game (bad).

(7) Partner may bid a game expecting strong diamonds (bad - what actually happened).

Most of the things that will happen with this kind of weak 2 bid are bad - sort of like what Vince Lombardi (I think) said about what happens when you attempt a pass - "Three things can happen, and two of them are bad."

Admittedly, one has to evaluate the frequency of each of these potential outcomes at matchpoints. In my experience, more matchpoints are lost than gained by this sort of weak 2 bid.

[han]

For me this would be a gross violation of partnership agreements so I would vote for awful.

[bid_em_up]

What Justin originally said, with a caveat.

It's awful, unless it is your known partnership style to open this sort of hand as a weak 2 bid.

And even then, I agree with his later comment of "If my partnership mandated a 2D opening with this hand I would say that style is awful."

[pclayton]

I'm been trying to cure one of my partners from preempting with 2 outside tricks for some time, and I think its starting to work.

2♦ isn't my style, but I don't characterize it as 'awful'. If your partnership allows this kind of weak 2, then go for it. Its just not my thing to open with a hand with this kind of defense balanced with a crappy suit.

[keylime]

Horrendous. I play somewhat heavier 2 bids than the norm these days.

[P_Marlowe]

Jlall, on Jul 18 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

If my partnership mandated a 2D opening with this hand I would say that style is awful.

In other words you would end the
partnership, hence you would not
play in such a partnership.
q.e.d

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

It's awful, and if partnership style is that this is a 1st position red weak two, it's an awful partnership style.

I hate the AK outside the diamond suit more than justin does, as well. I'm struggling to think of a hand where I would pre-empt in first or second seat with an outside AK, and I can't yet.

(What do Fantoni-Nunes do with this sort of hand?)

[jdonn]

I might preempt with an outside AK if the hand was otherwise (IMO) suitable, like

x AK QT9xxx xxxx

On the given hand, I vote for awful and Justin's first post looks pretty good. Since when is a balanced 10 count with great defense and a bad suit a preempt? If you have agreed to that style you have agreed to a dumb style.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 18 2007, 10:32 PM, said:

(What do Fantoni-Nunes do with this sort of hand?)

2♦, wtp. They even preempt on 4-cards. Maybe this particular hand is weak enough to pass, though.

[Free]

helene_t, on Jul 19 2007, 09:23 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 18 2007, 10:32 PM, said:

(What do Fantoni-Nunes do with this sort of hand?)

2♦, wtp. They even preempt on 4-cards. Maybe this particular hand is weak enough to pass, though.

They don't preempt on 4 cards anymore, that's already years ago... They open 2♦ because they have to, and they consider this a constructive hand. This is a huge difference with considering this a preemptive hand! Constructive hands can show poor suits (everyone opens 1♠ on xxxxxx-AKx-QJx-A), so it's not a big problem.

Btw, I find this weak 2♦ bid awful, especially because your suit is extremely poor. The distribution, and AKx of ♠s are also negative points...

[Gerben42]

Instead of blaming partner for the bid, DISCUSS what constitutes a Weak Two for you and stick to the style.

Discipline does not have anything to do with how strong your preempts are, but about discussing what is allowed in your partnership and what is not.

P.S. None of my partners would be too happy if I opened this 2♦ weak two. With Ampelman & Terminator this would be an easy 2♦ opening, though (Fantunes style *g)