[whereagles]

Matchpoints, NV vs V, weak field, good pard. You hold:

Q
QT9xx
KQxx
Jxx

You LHO pard RHO
pass pass 2S dbl
??

2S is a 5-6 card weak 2. Pard has a flair for opening 2S on unsuitable hands, often lacking any sort of playing strenght. Your options are:

1. Pass
2. Rescue yourself into 3H, which shows a bad 5-6 card suit (you could have opened 2H yourself)
3. Redouble for rescue (yes, redouble here is SOS)

What do you do?

[Free]

I wonder why I didn't open with this hand... Then I'll bid 3♠

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Sep 1 2004, 11:06 AM, said:

Matchpoints, NV vs V, weak field, good pard. You hold:

Q
QT9xx
KQxx
Jxx

You LHO pard RHO
pass pass 2S dbl
??

2S is a 5-card weak 2. Pard has a flair for opening 2S on unsuitable hands, often lacking any sort of playing strenght. Your options are:

1. Pass
2. Rescue yourself into 3H, which shows a bad 5-6 card suit (you could have opened 2H yourself)
3. Redouble for rescue (yes, redouble here is SOS)

What do you do?

First, given your statement that "Pard has a flair for opening 2S on unsuitable hands, often lacking any sort of playing strenght." I assume you both prealerted this tendency and your partner alerted the five bagger and tendency for weak with the bid.

What would I do at Matchpoints? I would pass. They are vul, the fellow with spades is in front of my partner, the field is weak. I expect them to pull this becuase of fear the penalty would not be big enough. If it goes 2Sxpp maybe partner can rescue self, maybe he can scrape up 2D, 2S, and 1H or club trick for down only 3.. after all we do have the spade queen, and partners spots will be behind their spots.

Biddig here is just being too much of a hero....

Ben

[whereagles]

The bid was alerted, asked for, and explained as a weak two with 5 or 6 cards.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Sep 1 2004, 11:19 AM, said:

The bid was alerted, asked for, and explained as a weak two with 5 or 6 cards.

Was this a correct alert? You stated in the problem that it was a FIVE card weak two. If partner can hold five or SIX (as you say the alert is now), pass is even CLEARER.... So was alert correct or was problem as possed correct. And your condition of problem also said your partner opens "unsuitable hands, often lacking any sort of playing strenght"...

This latter statement requires a PRE-ALERT (read for example ACBL alerting rules recklessly weak preempts), and this fact that you are aware of was not reflected in the alert. Your opponents are entitled to this information if this is your agreement, so the alert you said was given was woefully inadequate.

Ben

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Sep 1 2004, 04:22 PM, said:

whereagles, on Sep 1 2004, 11:19 AM, said:

The bid was alerted, asked for, and explained as a weak two with 5 or 6 cards.

Was this a correct alert? You stated in the problem that it was a FIVE card weak two. If partner can hold five or SIX (as you say the alert is now), pass is even CLEARER.... So was alert correct or was problem as possed correct. And your condition of problem also said your partner opens "unsuitable hands, often lacking any sort of playing strenght"...

This latter statement requires a PRE-ALERT (read for example ACBL alerting rules recklessly weak preempts), and this fact that you are aware of was not reflected in the alert. Your opponents are entitled to this information if this is your agreement, so the alert you said was given was woefully inadequate.

Ben

Sorry, I don't see what your point is. Is there anything else about the problem you want to know?

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Sep 1 2004, 11:54 AM, said:

Sorry, I don't see what your point is. Is there anything else about the problem you want to know?

About the problem? No, I stick with my don't be a hero pass...

About your bidding agreements? No, not unless I play in a tourment agaisnt you and your partner.

What I would like to point out, however, and try to get you to change from "I don't see your point", to, "oh, yeah, ben has an excellent point" is this... here I quote directly from ACBL guidelines...

Quote

NOTE: Partnerships whose systems include extremely aggressive methods, such as frequent use of four-card overcalls at the two level or higher, weak two-bids with bad five-card suits, or three-level preempts with bad six-card and/or most five-card suits must pre-Alert the opponents before the round begins.

Your own definition in the problem is that you use EXTREMELY AGREESIVE meithods. Five card suit clearly allowed, and a bad five card suit allowed (basically your own words). So I was pointing out the the correct thing in this case was to prealert you opponents, but this almost never happens.. but ok..

Next your partner made the bid and someone alert it as "a weak two with 5 or 6 cards."

This raises two ethical problems of inadequate alert. The first might just be a mistatement in posing the problem. In the problem you said the bid was a five card weak two... the alert said it was a 5 or 6 card weak two. So the first question is the range of spades promised. Was it five (for instance if multi would be used with six), or was it five or six. In one case, you have mistated the problem, and it should be posed as 2S can be with 5 or 6 spades, in one case the alert was inadequate (a psychic alert), if opener can only have 5 spades. But that is not the biggest issue, I assume the announced alert at the table was correct on the number of cards..

The problem is there are "weak twos" (let's call then normal weak twos), and then there are those who use extremely aggressive methods. You fall by your own definition into this latter case (you said " Pard has a flair for opening 2S on unsuitable hands, often lacking any sort of playing strenght"). This FLAIR that you know requires a SPECIAL NOTIFICATION -- in fact a pre-aler -- which was not given. One can easily excuse the prealert perhaps, but when the bid is used, the opponents are FULLY entitled to know about your aggressive methods. The alert should have ABSOLUTELY included the same information you posed in the porblem because you not only know about this FLAIR, you are posing a problem where in deciding what we should bid, we HAVE TO TAKE THIS tendency into account. Active ethics and codified bridge law require that your opponents have access to this same information, which the ALERT given did not provide any hint of...

That is my point. Get it yet?

Ben

[whereagles]

The preempt style was written down on the convention card, though opps didn't bother to check it. This is why I usually don't mention pard's over-aggressive style unless opps specifically ask for it.

As for the 5 card weak two thing, I actually meant 5-6 cards, so I'll make it clearer.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Sep 1 2004, 12:37 PM, said:

The preempt style was written down on the convention card, though opps didn't bother to check it. This is why I usually don't mention pard's over-aggressive style unless opps specifically ask for it.

As for the 5 card weak two thing, I actually meant 5-6 cards, so I'll make it clearer.

Thanks for the clarification. My pass is now even clear the correct bid if partner can have six spades....

As for the part about what is written on the convention card.. that does not remove (at least in the US, or foreign friends can say what the rules are elsewhere) the obligation for the pre-alert. And, you said..

Quote

The bid was alerted, asked for, and explained as a weak two with 5 or 6 cards.

When the opponents "ASKED FOR" the meaning of 2♠, having your preemptive style as wild and wooly on your convention card does not relieve the requirement to share this IMPORTANT information with your opponents. I think that was my point all along, the alert was inadequate as stated.

Ben

[paulhar]

Free, on Sep 1 2004, 10:09 AM, said:

I wonder why I didn't open with this hand... Then I'll bid 3♠

I'm assuming that you hope the opps play 2S x 3s x as responsive, otherwise it appears that this is turning -500 to -800, or if your partner is stronger, giving the opponents 300 against a part score.

Sounds like your LHO has spades - doubling 3S seems like a good option against an uncertain game.

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Sep 1 2004, 05:43 PM, said:

having your preemptive style as wild and wooly on your convention card does not relieve the requirement to share this IMPORTANT information with your opponents.

Hum.. it's a 3rd seat NV vs V preempt. It's common knowledge that anything is possible in this situation, so I don't feel obliged to volunteer a comment on style because pard's style is about the same as anyone's style in this particular seat/vuln. I would have done that if it were 1st or 2nd seat, though in that case pard is usually more sound. Usually, but not always, which is why I normally volunteer a style comment if asked.

[EricK]

whereagles, on Sep 1 2004, 05:22 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 1 2004, 05:43 PM, said:

having your preemptive style as wild and wooly on your convention card does not relieve the requirement to share this IMPORTANT information with your opponents.

Hum.. it's a 3rd seat NV vs V preempt. It's common knowledge that anything is possible in this situation, so I don't feel obliged to volunteer a comment on style because pard's style is about the same as anyone's style in this particular seat/vuln. I would have done that if it were 1st or 2nd seat, though in that case pard is usually more sound. Usually, but not always, which is why I normally volunteer a style comment if asked.

But why would you not want to provide this information?

If the opponent's already expect it (because it's 3rd hand or whatever), then that is fine. If they don't, then you have fulfilled your obligations for complete disclosure.

Also, I believe that not everyone plays that weak 2s can be more aggressive in 3rd seat. Some people keep their weak 2s up to strength but make a (semi-)pyschic 1 level bid or hyper-aggressive 3 level bid on the other hands.

Eric

[whereagles]

I do provide all the info if asked. I don't pre-alert because we don't do that sort of thing where I play.

[luke warm]

if i know my partner has a tendency to bid a certain way in certain situations (regardless of what my cc says), i tend to err on the side of caution... i've used the example before of a partner with whom you've played only 2 or 3 times, but in each of those he psyched a 3rd seat 1nt... the next time i played with him, and the next time he made that bid in that situation, i'd definitely make the ops aware that this has been known to happen... not that it is *this* time, but that it has in the past

i could be wrong in this, but it seems the right thing to do.. same, i think, for the situation you describe here

[flytoox]

pass. anybid is crazy even if u know pd tend to open weak 2 with weak hand and bad suit

[whereagles]

Hands were:

NV vs V, pairs

Pard.....We
K87xx...Q
xx........QT9xx
Txxx.....KQxx
xx........Jxx

P (P) 2S (X)
??

I held the East cards and decided to stick to 2S. LHO passed and pard went 4 down for -800 and a cold bottom

Now that I think about it, I think there's a case to redouble for rescue. It could be that pard has decent spades, but consider this: with 6 good spades, he might have opened 3S instead. So chances are he's got only 5 cards or 6 bad ones. In both cases it's a fair gamble that the hand plays better in hearts or diams. (By the way, if pard bids 3C, we pull to 3D to offer a choice on the red suits.)

[luke warm]

ok, it's a bottom... it's only one board, deal another... i'd still have passed... trying to rescue here will probably, over the long haul, hurt worse

[whereagles]

Well, if 2S were a classical weak two, it would, of course, be nuts to try for a rescue. But this is a different situation, and I think the odds tilt slightly towards trying for a better contract.

[jtfanclub]

So what does XX here mean, anyways? I'm a passed hand, so it can't be that strong.

If partner has a real weak 2 bid, we're probably going to make it, and I can use the extra points. If he doesn't, and he's not stupid and bidding on 5332, then he has a second suit and can bid that and that's where we'll play.

Oh, and there is no freakin' way I am pulling 3C if he bids it. We have a 7 card fit, I'm happy, we stop. Would you really rather play in a 4-2 diamond suit fit? Because if your partner is 5125, that's where you'll end up if you pull 3C.

[whereagles]

Redouble here would be for rescue (it was mentioned in the original post ).

Passing 3C is a possibility, since with 5332 opener might bid 2NT. If 3C gets doubled in thunder-like fashion, I'd consider redoubling for the reds