[andy_h]

---

Being 1st seat, under what conditions would you open this? (Relating to V/NV/Imps/MPs)

[helene_t]

I am in the progress of making my preempts more disciplined but I still open this one 2♦ under all conditions. Maybe not unfav in 2nd seat.

[hotShot]

Under the condition that our agreements include a weak 2 bid in diamonds.

In first seat I preempt 2 opps and 1 partner.
In 2nd seat LHO and partner share the strength RHO and I don't have, so I would preempt partner more often than in 1st seat.

[Codo]

I have no weak two in Diamond avaiable, so I bid 3 Diamond in red in first seat.
I will pass in white, second choice 1 Diamond.

[the hog]

None

[joker_gib]

Never !

Even if I have a weak 2 in diamond I don't make preempts with 2 aces !

[655321]

1♦ always.

Close second choice pass, never a preempt.

Don't actually feel that strongly about opening these hands, but I do open them at the table.

[Apollo81]

Unpopular I'm sure but I would open 2♦ as long as it shows a weak two. Make the suit any worse and I'd pass

[pclayton]

2♦. Two aces is a flaw, but thats the only problem with this hand.

I would never open 1♦, but I might open 3 in 3rd green.

[mikeh]

joker_gib, on Jun 11 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

Never !

Even if I have a weak 2 in diamond I don't make preempts with 2 aces !

Do you alert this agreement? You should.

[mikeh]

I would open 2♦ in the 1st 3 seats at any vul. and any scoring, but would pass in 4th.. and would pass in all seats, under all circumstances, if I did not have a weak 2♦ in my arsenal (and, in serious events, I usually won't have that weapon).

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

joker_gib, on Jun 11 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

Never !

Even if I have a weak 2 in diamond I don't make preempts with 2 aces !

Do you alert this agreement? You should.

Why?

[kenrexford]

1♦ for me.

[Apollo81]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

1♦ for me.

I'd do that with 7 diamonds AJT and a side Ace.

[kenrexford]

Apollo81, on Jun 11 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

1♦ for me.

I'd do that with 7 diamonds AJT and a side Ace.

Chicken.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on Jun 11 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 11 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

joker_gib, on Jun 11 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

Never !

Even if I have a weak 2 in diamond I don't make preempts with 2 aces !

Do you alert this agreement? You should.

Why?

Because your partner knows something about your hand that the opps don't know.

Say declarer has a guess in a suit with KJ in dummy. If he knows, as he is entitled to know, that systemically you cannot ever hold the Ace of that suit, he will never go wrong. You may argue that he will usually play preemptor not to hold the Ace anyway, but that will not always be true... especially if he is able to draw inferences from partner's actions or inactions.

And partner, on defence, knows something about the hand that others, not playing this non-standard treatment, can't know.

It is the NEVER part that, imo, requires an alert... if only to honour the principle of full disclosure.

People who play non-standard methods that can be expected to impact the opps' play have an ethical obligation to disclose those methods.

[awm]

While I agree that NEVER holding two aces may be unexpected, I'm pretty sure that in ACBL rules this is not an alert.

It seems to fall under the subject of "negative inferences" -- the fact that there exist a few hands that others might preempt and this pair would not doesn't make their call alertable, just as whether you are playing support doubles doesn't make a pass in a "support double situation" alertable.

People have all sorts of ideas about weak two bids. Some require no side four-card major, some require no void, some restrict the number of defensive tricks on the side, some don't even like to have a side three card major. Generally if opponents want to know this sort of thing they have to ask, at which point all the relevant information should be disclosed, but it's not an alert.

[mikeh]

awm, on Jun 11 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

While I agree that NEVER holding two aces may be unexpected, I'm pretty sure that in ACBL rules this is not an alert.

It seems to fall under the subject of "negative inferences" -- the fact that there exist a few hands that others might preempt and this pair would not doesn't make their call alertable, just as whether you are playing support doubles doesn't make a pass in a "support double situation" alertable.

People have all sorts of ideas about weak two bids. Some require no side four-card major, some require no void, some restrict the number of defensive tricks on the side, some don't even like to have a side three card major. Generally if opponents want to know this sort of thing they have to ask, at which point all the relevant information should be disclosed, but it's not an alert.

It seems to me that there are two types of players. There are those who see the rules as something to be manipulated... they carefully read the rules and make sure that they comply with the letter of the law, while trying to conceal as much as they can get away with, and then there are those who see the rules as a guide to ethical behaviour.. they read the rules and ensure that they comply with the letter of the law and the spirit of the law as well. They want to succeed because they are better players than the opps, not better lawyers (I know this will seem ironic to some, given that I a lawyer). I know which group I like to think I belong to. I know that, if I played that a preempt guaranteed that I NEVER held 2 Aces, I would, at a minimum, place that on my convention card. Whether I would alert is a hypothetical question, since I would never play such an agreement.

Look at the situation another way: what if your preempts guaranteed 2 Aces? Is this not actively disclosable? Maybe the ACBL rules don't specifically say it is, but I would personally feel as if I had slimed the opps if I got a good board when the opps misguessed a KJ in dummy because I had already shown one Ace and they chose to play me for not having a second... when my bid guaranteed that I did!

If you have to disclose an agreement that a preempt delivers 2 Aces, how can you not have to disclose the opposite, and also non-standard, agreement that you cannot hold 2 Aces?

Finally, in respect to the support double scenario, I have always and will continue to alert my partner's pass in a support double context, and I self-alert with screens. My experience with top canadian players, at our team trials, is that this is routine. I explain the pass as 'usually denies 3 card support'.. because in my partnerships the double/redouble is not mandatory.. we can pass with horrible hands.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 11 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 11 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

joker_gib, on Jun 11 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

Never !

Even if I have a weak 2 in diamond I don't make preempts with 2 aces !

Do you alert this agreement? You should.

Why?

Because your partner knows something about your hand that the opps don't know.

Say declarer has a guess in a suit with KJ in dummy. If he knows, as he is entitled to know, that systemically you cannot ever hold the Ace of that suit, he will never go wrong. You may argue that he will usually play preemptor not to hold the Ace anyway, but that will not always be true... especially if he is able to draw inferences from partner's actions or inactions.

And partner, on defence, knows something about the hand that others, not playing this non-standard treatment, can't know.

It is the NEVER part that, imo, requires an alert... if only to honour the principle of full disclosure.

People who play non-standard methods that can be expected to impact the opps' play have an ethical obligation to disclose those methods.

My partner doesn't know anything about this, as I'm not the one who made the assertion ("I don't make preempts with 2 aces!") Aside from that, you're assuming that joker's assertion amounts to a partnership understanding. It may. It may not.

Even if it does, I agree with Adam. Not alertable under ACBL regulations. The situation may be different in other jurisdictions.

As to "standard", there ain't no such thing.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

.... and would pass in all seats, under all circumstances, if I did not have a weak 2♦ in my arsenal (and, in serious events, I usually won't have that weapon).

What do you use 2♦ as? (Just curious)