[Jlall]

Trinidad, on Dec 8 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

In the old days we learned not to open a weak two with a singleton (too many alternative suits to play in). And now we hear that 6322 sucks.

While I agree that 6322 sucks, what kind of hand are we supposed to have for a weak two? A 6222 maybe?

Having said that I would pass on this hand because I don't like the suit quality.

Rik

The old days sound like they suck! lol. Never heard of not preempting with a singleton.

Crappy suit, side defense, and 6322, and 2nd seat vul all suck to me for preempting. Would never do it with this hand.

[jdonn]

I have actually seen it in books where the "ideal" weak 2 opening is something like KQJxxx xx Kxx xx. Usually old books. Very old.

[suokko]

I would need 7th spade to open weak 2 with this hand type. My partner except more from me in this zone and position so I'm quite often down one in 4 spades if I open this.

[Apollo81]

Everything is wrong for preempting. The suit is bad AND headed by the ace, the hand has 1.5+ defensive tricks, you're in 2nd seat, and you're vulnerable. I can live with a few of these, but not ALL of them.

[Fluffy]

Opening in second position vulnerable you need a constructive hand, your main objective is to find your best game/part score faster than opps.

This is a minimum for opening under this conditions, but I'd open, I love the ♣J9x thing.

[billw55]

MFA, on Dec 8 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

2♠ wtp. Come on, bridge is not about waiting for perfect hands and expecting disasters with every flaw.

This.

tbh, having read this forum for a while now I was expecting lots of "I open 1♠" responses

Quote

I have paid 1100 for overcalling 2♣ red vs white and I am a lot more careful at those colors now

Just once? And how many times did your overcall work out OK?

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Dec 9 2009, 01:48 AM, said:

I have actually seen it in books where the "ideal" weak 2 opening is something like KQJxxx xx Kxx xx. Usually old books. Very old.

Is that advice so bad (except for the ♦K which you might rather not have)?

Yeah, 6133 has higher O-D than 6232. But:

- When you have 6223, trumps are going to split well for opps if they find a fit so you want to prevent that from happening (or prevent them from making accurate game tries when they do find a fit). When their trumps split 4-1 it is more likely to be good to let them bid to their normal contract.

- The more 3-card side suits you have, the more likely you are to preempt you own side out of a fit. If p has a 6-card hearts and constructive values he can bid it.

- When assessing losers in a possible 4♠ contract, p will assume you average holding in each side suit which is xx. Assuming you have a singleton "somewhere" is sometimes meaningful but not always.

Maybe KQJxxx xx xxx xx is ideal but for an average preempt you will have a little more than that, such as either:
- A singleton
- An outside honor
- A solid suit

Then you would rather have a singleton than an outside honor, absolutely. A solid suit would be even better except that it make quite a big difference if your suit is solid or not, and most of the time it isn't.

So yeah, KQJTxx-x-xxx-xxx may be the ideal hand, but KQJxxx-xx-Kxx-xx is quite good, too, isn't it?

[kfay]

MFA, on Dec 8 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

2♠ wtp. Come on, bridge is not about waiting for perfect hands and expecting disasters with every flaw.

well... sure if you want to be proactive in making it exciting.

My personal view is that when you make bridge the most boring, you tend to win more.

[jjbrr]

i think people are using "wtp" much too liberally. if you cant see the problem, well, i dont know what to tell you except that there is, in fact, clearly a problem presented in the original post.

i would pass with this hand. i suppose im much sounder second seat vulnerable at imps than many, though. +1 to everything jdonn et al said.

[MFA]

kfay, on Dec 9 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

MFA, on Dec 8 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

2♠ wtp. Come on, bridge is not about waiting for perfect hands and expecting disasters with every flaw.

well... sure if you want to be proactive in making it exciting.

My personal view is that when you make bridge the most boring, you tend to win more.

For me 2♠ is just bidding the hand, not being proactive.

My personal view is that much theoretical bridge has a surprisingly strong tendency towards over-perfectionism and thus has the potential to suck one into timidity and cowardness in disguise of being 'sensible'.
This is worse at the vugraph, but I do sometimes think that BBF really should have its name changed to UBF (the UnderBidding Forums) instead .

[MFA]

jjbrr, on Dec 9 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

i think people are using "wtp" much too liberally. if you cant see the problem, well, i dont know what to tell you except that there is, in fact, clearly a problem presented in the original post.

i would pass with this hand. i suppose im much sounder second seat vulnerable at imps than many, though. +1 to everything jdonn et al said.

I don't think 'wtp' should be read that literally. I think it's often just a handy way to express that one has a strong preference for something.
On this one I would expect all the 2♠-bidders to be able to recognize the most important flaws, and I think that most would know that some people would pass this hand.

[aguahombre]

MFA, on Dec 9 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Dec 9 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

i think people are using "wtp" much too liberally. if you cant see the problem, well, i dont know what to tell you except that there is, in fact, clearly a problem presented in the original post.

i would pass with this hand. i suppose im much sounder second seat vulnerable at imps than many, though. +1 to everything jdonn et al said.

I don't think 'wtp' should be read that literally. I think it's often just a handy way to express that one has a strong preference for something.

True, unless it is David. He has made it clear that whenever he asks a question, there is no other interpretation than wanting an answer.

So, if he ever says, "WTP", we should find and explain the problem.
the real problem would be with "WTF"

[nigel_k]

jdonn, on Dec 9 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

I have actually seen it in books where the "ideal" weak 2 opening is something like KQJxxx xx Kxx xx. Usually old books. Very old.

Nowadays doesn't everyone know the ideal preempt is QJ10xxxx Qx Qx Qx?

[suokko]

nigel_k, on Dec 9 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 9 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

I have actually seen it in books where the "ideal" weak 2 opening is something like KQJxxx xx Kxx xx. Usually old books. Very old.

Nowadays doesn't everyone know the ideal preempt is QJ10xxxx Qx Qx Qx?

yep. Qx is great value in preemption because it is sure defensive trick

[Codo]

I have no new facts for this case but I join Michaels view that this is an easy preempt despite some flaws.