RedSpawn

This is a very fair question. Let's look at Josh Donn's answer: http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/news_fetch.php?id=2527 Q6: Can you really preempt with a 4-card major on the side? "A: That is a very good question. The danger of preempting with a 4-card major on the side, and why it's often recommended not to do it, is that you might belong in that major. For me again it depends on the hand, but in general I would say four small is fine if your long suit is good. ♠KQJTxx ♥xxxx ♦xx ♣x, you belong in spades probably 20 times for each time you belong in hearts. So the four card heart suit should not deter you. But with ♠QJxxxx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣x now you will very often belong in hearts, so I would recommend against opening 2♠." I can see what he is saying even though I didn't think that way before. So I agree with you ♠xxxx ♥KQJxxx ♦xx ♣x can be used for a preeemptive bid so long as you keep the suit quality "decent". See...I'm flexible. I just want to make sure we are fully aware of all the additional work and responsibility we would place on the respondent if we broaden the definition of a weak 2 bid.

I am open to various viewpoints. But I want you to hear me clearly. When you broaden the definition of what qualifies as a weak 2 bid, you increase the amount of interpretation work the respondent must do when making decisions further along in the auction. To expand the definition of a weak 2 bid to include the possibility of two aces makes it more difficult for the respondent to determine, what, if any, exploratory bids he should make. The respondent has no idea if you now have KX♠,Q8XXXX♥,JXX♦,XX♣ or the hand pictured above which is markedly different in value to your partner. Look at the hand above with two aces. With two aces, there is a possibility that this hand could be very useful in the 3 card minor suits--depending on what your partner has. Your hand has two of the quickest tricks possible. We declarers LOVE to see aces in our dummies even if it is with minimal trump support. That possibility won't exist if you decide to pre-emptively rob your partner of a chance to use your hand for such purposes. I understand the goal of the preemptive bid and how you want to jam up the opponents before they jam us up, but just note that this strategy comes with drawbacks. Your partner might have a nice hand and now has to wonder what garden-variety of weak 2 bid you are holding. Do you have KX♠,Q8XXXX♥,JXX♦,XX♣ or a more disciplined KX♠,QJ10XXX♥,JXX♦,XX♣ or an extremely disciplined KX♠,KQ9XXX♥,JXX♦XX♣? Or do you have two lovely aces (as in the screen cap above) that might play well in a makeable 4-level or goodness forbid 5 minor suit level contract? Those are a lot of different scenarios to evaluate! And here is the final thing: In my opinion, when you factor in ♥ distribution, the hand with two aces is a 10 point hand, which is a perfectly average hand. If a person bids weak 2 with two aces, he represents to his partner and the opposition that he has a weak hand, when in fact he doesn't. However, that misrepresentation isn't free; it has drawbacks. If his partner has a perfectly medium hand and the team is vulnerable, how does the respondent know that he should ask his partner for a feature and pin down a game contract? The opener could have a hand with two aces, absolutely no aces but a well-behaved heart suit, or worse yet, he could have that horrendously undisciplined Q8XXXX♥ heart suit. The range of what constitutes a weak 2 becomes too wide to know what to do next. We have lost precision in our bids and in exchange we have gained higher opening frequency.

Another BBO Forum moment. I agree with Mr. Ace. I thought that it pays handsome dividends to make the cheapest bid available to accurately describe one's hand. And in my mind, a takeout double of 1♦ is the cheapest bid to describe that hand. To me, a takeout double promises 1) a hand close to opening values 2) shortness in the opposition's suit and 3) a minimum of 3, preferably 4 cards in the unbid suits. I do not recall a takeout double promising location and placement of HCP. It promises opening hand values and shape features. You have 13 points, a ♦ doubleton and at least 3 card support in all 3 unbid suits. Sure, we would like 4 cards in the majors, but that is not required (but preferred). We don't get to choose our hands, our hands choose us. We are on the 1 level of bidding, so we can afford to "mix it up a little". Further, partner has passed 1st round so he should not get wildly excited about jumping with a major response and a potentially active bid board. In my mind, takeout double is much cheaper than a 2♣ overcall. It gives me a chance for me to cheaply collect some intelligence from my partner without putting the partnership assets in significant jeopardy.

Thanks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

Can we ask/require folks who want to be listed in the Partnership Desk to complete profile information that is visible to other players who want to play in the same tournament with them such as the following: 1) How would you describe your overall offensive bidding style -- aggressive or conservative? 2) How would you describe your style of preemptive bidding overall (e.g. in 1st and 2nd seat) -- disciplined or undisciplined? (e.g. would you preemptively bid weak 2 with KX,♠ Q8XXXX♥, JXX♦, XX♣ which would be considered undisciplined) 3) How would you describe your defensive bidding technique -- aggressive or conservative? 4) On a scale of 1-10 1 being justified and 10 being not justified, how would you feel about responding to your partner's opening 1 of a suit bid with 0-4 total points? 5) On a scale of 1-10 1 being bad and 10 being good, how would you feel about playing a 9 board tournament where you are the dummy for more than 50% of the deals where your team wins the contract? What am I getting at? =================================================================================================================================================== We need more information than 2/1, smolen, sayc, etc to match people up at partnership desk. We need to know people's approach and style to the game. Aggressive bidders might want to be partnered with other aggressive bidders and have a more enjoyable experience. People who are conservative preemptive bidders might want to partnered up with other conservative preemptive bidders. People who are bid hoggers and have a problem being dummy for more than 50% of the deals where their team wins the contract might need to be partnered up with other bid hoggers so they can see what's the experience is like. It might be too much to factor all of this into the 1-4 star Partnership Desk Compatibility algorithm we already have. However, we need to see such information to know how to better partner up with people. There's got to be some way to radio button these types of questions. Is there anything we can do other than asking each individual user all of these pertinent questions each time we play a tournament?

All, Please read Josh Donn's lecture notes on preemptive bids as well. He gave a free lecture on BBO. http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/news_fetch.php?id=2527 "The worst holding for preempting is Axxxxx. I would go to great lengths to avoid preempting with an ace-empty suit. Maybe I would if the vulnerability and position were very much in my favor, as I described before, but that is it."--Josh Dunn Since North and South are vulnerable and West and East are nonvulnerable, he is saying North should back off a preemptive bid with unfavorable vulnerability with AXXXXX.

Fair enough and that is a very balanced view. It speaks of both the opener and the respondent. I also found some lecture notes from Josh Donn on weak 2 on BBO Forum. I should cross-advertise his thoughts as well. Pretty good read. Josh Donn Lecture Notes Weak 2

I am trembling as I type this. Thank you, MrAce. We have had our share of controversy and we may still differ from a style standpoint on what actually qualifies as a weak 2 from 1st seat too, but I am a straight-shooter on my bids -- that may be to my own detriment or benefit. Very rare BBO Forum moment. :lol:

Thank you for your "expert" rating of me. Let me put that in File 13 .....{aka} the trashcan. Also, I don't rate people from one board, and especially a board in which the partner has lied from the initial bid. It takes a sample of boards to get a feel of someone's bridge rating. If you are in the business of judging someone bridge skills or lack thereof from one board then we have a lot of people whose bridge "brand" is going to be in trouble. Again, comparative or contributory negligence is NOT a privilege to the lying partner. Please refer to the quote from Eddie Kantar. When I lie to my partner for whatever the reason, I don't second guess my partner's moves after that. Don't get me wrong, in my earlier days, I would blamestorm in a minute. But I understand now how important the partnership relationship is and how I need to strike a balance with my partner. If a player starts the auction on a convenient lie and then tries to justify and/or post mortem folks for actions taken after he told that lie, he is out of order. His own house has to be beyond reproach before he starts to look to his partner to explain a nasty outcome of a lie he told his partner. A lot of folks are trying to release my partner from the lie he told, and while that's a noble effort, that isn't consistent with how deceptive bids and psychs work. Own your mess. There is no justification for a moth-eaten weak 2 bid from 1st seat and at best it is labeled an undisciplined weak 2♥ bid. That is his fruit, EAT IT and enjoy. If you are the business of selling lies to a new partner, please let me know when you are going to play. And I am still researching to find a single BBO game Johnu has played on BBO in the last six months under the Johnu user ID in MyHands. Stay tuned for further developments. Thanks.

Johnu, thank you for your feedback but I trust the other user who asked very poignant questions about why would you bid weak 2 from 1st seat with 2 aces when you have 1/2 of the resources to upset any 4 level bid. Just because the 1st seat person has 8 or 9 points in his hand doesn't mean that it's the opponent's hand. We don't know how the remaining 31-32 points are distributed from 2nd to 4th seat. Applying the law of averages to each hand is not gonna do it for me. Each player doesn't get 10 HCP each hand and each deal has its own set of unique card/HCP distribution properties. Bridge is a bidder's game, but you don't have to force fit ill-fitting hands into an opening bid just for the sole right to open 1st. You CAN do this, but SHOULD you, is the better question. And is your partner accepting of the additional work he is going to be required to do when reconciling your auction bid to your actual card holding? Now, if you want to strike 1st for the sake of striking 1st, go right ahead. I get what the offensive strategy is, but do not tell me the bid is necessary from 1st seat because it was the opposition's hand. You don't have enough information to know the exact distribution from this deal yet. You will have more information after 2nd seat bids, but by then, it's too late. What to do? What to do? I think the consensus seems to be -- bid wrong now, we will deal with the attendant outcomes and blamestorm later.

You haven't explained why you think my partner, who was seated in 1st seat, needed to share his horrible, moth-eaten ♥ holding suit to me in this auction? It's basically a bust hand. Also, you haven't explained that why you think his weak 2♥ bid is superior to a call of PASS? or better worded, What is the compelling need to make an undisciplined preemptive bid from 1st seat with a new partner? And please provide something more reasonable than, "Well, bridge is a bidder's game." Thanks.

As I said before, whoever makes a deceptive, misleading, or psyche bid (inclusive of preemptive bids) owns ALL of the possible outcomes. The deceptive bidder doesn't get the privilege of cherry picking which outcomes he likes and casting blame on his partner for the outcomes he doesn't. Whatever fruit is borne from the opener's lie is his and his alone. If the fruit tastes delicious and sweet, congrats. If the fruit is very bitter and poisonous, it's HIS fruit. My partner planted a seed from the very 1st promise (lie) he made to me and the opponents in the auction. He doesn't get the privilege of comparative or contributory negligence when he lies to his bridge partner. I leave you with this quote from Eddie Kantar, a Grand Master in the World Bridge Federation and a two-time world bridge champion. "If you make disciplined preempts (that is, your hand fulfills the criteria for making the bids you make), you'll be a feared opponent. If you make undisciplined preempts (yielding to temptation), you'll be a feared partner. Although you can have fun opening [an undisciplined preempt] in the hopes of messing up the opponents, if you have the wrong sort of hand for the bid, you run the risk of losing your partner's trust--[which is] the one thing you can't afford to lose in the game of bridge." Amen, Eddie! Sounds very similar to what I have already been saying and I am very sure this quote applies to weak 2, weak 3, and weak 4 preemptive bids. Thank you all and enjoy your games.

Co-sign the opening bid lie. If you don't have what you promise in the 1st place, you get what you get. Second of all, I am pretty sure that you have no comment on JohnU's error in post #78 about the 2♥ open when he failed to read basic instructions by the OP TWO days before and attacked me without fact checking. Nope, I don't think you would. You don't criticize people you like. ;) You give them a hall pass as the case with my partner who straight up lied to me in bidding. We overlook the lie. I said why I was taking out the opposition's spades 1st in theprevious post. The fact that he makes a preemptive bid from 1st seat missing the following trump: ♥J ♥K ♥A ♥10 ♥9 Laughable. . .

Do you think RedSpawn would have doubled 4♠ with a valid call of pass from his partner? You didn't answer the question, and I have a feeling I know why. But thank you for your feedback. I am gonna stop. I see right now what this is all about. Each bridge player reserves the right to lie about the suit quality, strength, shape, and values in his hand. And if his partner relies on that bid for whatever reason, the lying partner is released from all liability and off-the-hook. And intense scrutiny will be placed on respondent and absolutely NONE on the liar who started a snowball chain. Thank you all for your feedback. This has been very revealing about people's view on the partnership relationship. I wish all of you the very best--especially your hardworking clairvoyant partners who are getting the short end of the stick.

Thank you for your input. Do you think RedSpawn would have doubled 4♠ with a valid call of pass from his partner? I would like to see someone address this question, because making inaccurate misleading bids aren't FREE!

Fair enough, not easy, but possible. We are giving RedSpawn's partner the benefit of the doubt through post mortem. We are co-signing the opening weak 2♥ lie. Next question: Do you think RedSpawn would have doubled 4♠ if his partner had called PASS with his garbage hand with a horrible ♥ suit?

Johnu, for you to call me a random smacks of arrogance and condescension. . . but that is fair game for the forum. Oh yeah, and that is what you groupthink elitist do and say to fluff your curriculum vitae. As usual, your logic is failing and you have neglected to mention a VERY IMPORTANT point. We would not even be in 4♠X if the liar-in-chief would just call PASS from 1st seat! PASS means for now I don't have anything noteworthy to report. From what I can tell -- there was nothing very appetizing in my partner's hand, not even the ♥ suit. But no Johnu, we ___________ (insert your curriculum vitae rating here) players don't call PASS with a crappy hand that doesn't fit normal weak 2 parameters. We force fit that crappy hand into weak 2 and let the unassuming respondent unpack its meaning. Do you honestly think we would even be playing 4♠X if my partner had called PASS with his garbage hand? Let's overlook that issue, because again, his lie is irrelevant to the fact we wouldn't even be in this contract. Plus, it doesn't help your smug, condescending narrative. The fact that I relied on his bid to decide whether or not I wanted to double a game bid is not material to the very contract we are analyzing. Very interesting logic. That statement alone makes me wonder what other kind of if-logic statements are locked into that great mind of yours. By the way, I checked out of the board after the 1st rounds of hearts. If he was gonna lie to my face in the auction about the quality of his weak 2♥ from 1st seat, I wasn't giving him 100% effort after the opposition revealed to me how hideous his weak 2♥ bid was.

Thank you for your quick response. I believe that with equal vulnerability: 1st and 2nd seat preempts should be disciplined. 3rd seat preempts should be wildly undisciplined-->have fun with it--anything and everything goes and no complaints from me. I know that sounds crazy, but that works for me. As stated before about the board in question, my goal was to take out the spades and then run the hearts we allegedly had, but once I saw the big reveal on the 1st round of hearts, I was fuming because I honestly thought my partner made 2♥ from 3rd seat and I misread it. Nope, he opened a trashy weak 2 bid from 1st seat. His ruse worked! It fooled his own NEW partner instead--I was a substitute in this tournament by the way. The opposition knew the 2♥ was a trashy bid and probably laughed when they saw they had 3 of the 5 top ♥ honors and I held the 9♥ and 10♥. It makes for an interesting anecdote. Do not do unconventional preempts with new partners unless you both agree on undisciplined preempts from 1st and 2nd seat.

It's obvious that if my partner lies in the bidding, if I double based on his lie (misrepresentation), we are looking for fault with my double and my defense based on my partner's lie. Because the lie my partner makes is NEVER really the problem or cause for concern--even if said lie could lead to a more disastrous outcome than my partner making a call of PASS. The buck still stops at the respondent's door step regardless of the ruse. The liar could never be at fault--it is conceptually impossible. That is very distorted thinking that caters to the liar and again puts a lot of burden on the respondent to differentiate the lie from the truth. This makes for a wonderful partnership for the liar. If the weak 2 bid was a psych which technically it isn't--it's just a BAD BID---if it works, the opener gets the glory, and if it doesn't and fools me instead, I get 100% of the blame. No blame really gets attached to the person misleading me in the 1st place. This is a very convenient partnership deal. Do you honestly think I would have even thought we had 3 suits decently controlled if I never had seen my partner make a weak 2 open and he made a valid call of PASS instead? Accuracy matters. His best bid/call was always PASS. He can mention hearts on his 2nd round of bidding if need be. That way, I take my eyes off of hearts and I don't think we can take opposition's game bid down because we allegedly have 3 suits decently controlled. If you make inaccurate and untruthful bids that your partner justifiably relies on, own the outcome EVERY TIME, not just when you benefit.

I hate to throw Cyberyeti into the mix here, but with respect to if the hand in question should even be open weak 2, which led me to lead hearts, I want to post this quote: Please note the suit quality of the practice example that Cyberyeti uses to explain weak 2. Again, I will let Cyberyeti further explain this, but I am thinking from the explanation provided, if from 3rd seat, Q86543♥--> FAIR GAME as weak 2. 1st and 2nd seat, not so much. But let me guess, I am misinterpreting what Cyberyeti is suggesting here, right? I can not believe we are having this discussion over quality of weak 2's from 1st and 2nd seat with equal vulnerability. Wow!

JohnU, Here are some principles of Bridge I was reading online. I want you to really look at this hand again and tell me if you think a weak 2 bid from 1st seat supports these principles? J8♠ Q86543♥ KJ♦ 652♣. The bid is weak 2♥ from 1st seat. Both teams white. I think being the 1st to open is hampering the teamwork and team dynamics aspect of the partnership. Let your partner do his/her job. Make things as easy and clear as possible for your partner [that means have what you say you have to reduce interpretation error] {brackets mine}. Help your teammates/partner enjoy the game and do their best. In any close situation, err on the side of supporting your partner or in leading your partner's suit. Choose the action that best keeps your partner in the picture. Let two heads be better than one. A masterminding approach says you don't trust your partner. Give your partner accurate information. Your partnership's assets combined are far more important than your own in isolation. A telescope is two separate lenses focused together with an optimum distance and orientation. "The most important single skill any bridge player can possess is to be a good partner." (motto on the back of score cards) Your partner means well. Be rational enough that your partner can trust you. Prefer a practical if imprecise move if there is any chance your partner would be confused by a more scientific move. The practical move also gives less information to the opponents. This game is an art, not a science. If partner makes a final decision, don't overrule it. It's bad for partnership trust. Keep in mind that partner's final decision might well be "pass." Keep your promises. Show up for the game on time. Have the cards that fit your bidding. As often as possible put down a better dummy than your bidding may have suggested. Can you honestly say that: J8♠ Q86543♥ KJ♦ 652♣, if dummy, is a better dummy than the bidding may have suggested? :unsure:

Well since I don't trust your play analysis or your bidding theories on how opening 1st on recycle bin values will lead to a good result (all things considered) and any collateral damage that occurred must be analyzed because the respondent must have done something to cause this. . .The likelihood of your getting the board now is about the same as the likelihood of your getting dealt 13 hearts. You must really have lost it if you think you are going to insult me and then after doing so I am going to hand over the board to you. I don't cater to those who throw a poisoned dart but want me to start their legwork. For my partner to bid weak 2♥, and the opposition and I to have the 9♥,10♥,J♥,K♥,& A♥ just made me shake my head about being the 1st to bid reigns supreme. Who cares about suit quality or bidding precision or accuracy; hopefully all of the smoke and mirrors in being the 1st to open will fool the opposition. In my opinion, people are putting way too much faith and reliance on war psychology and cheap jedi mind tricks. Just as a side note, when my partner makes a preemptive bid, chances are he is asking me to lead it since it is allegedly his wheelhouse. And when the opposition have the J♥,K♥, and A♥ heart of his preemptive bid and I have the 9♥ and 10♥ of his bid--my partner is effectively dead to me. He is playing too loose with the straightforward guidelines and I will be placing him on the curb for pick up. Trust is DEAD! By the way, I didn't say the strategy was bad. I am saying the strategy puts an unnecessary burden on the respondent a.k.a partner to differentiate the real bids from the "fake" ones. Are you a fan of extra work that potentially compromises the overall bidding precision of the partnership?

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/partnership_agreement.html Preach it, Bridgeguys! Partnership Agreements "Whatever you decide, always try to remain within the allotted boundaries of your personal partnership agreement. In this manner, you will never have a confused partner sitting across from you. By using a partnership agreement, you will avoid many emotional situations in the future. By adhering to the partnership agreement, you will be able to avoid mishaps as you continue to play and develop that essential element of trust in your partner." J8♠ Q86543♥ KJ ♦ 652♣. Weak 2♥? Should I be confused? Yes. Can I trust my partner to have what he bids, heck no! This is a fine weak 2 from 3rd seat, but from 1st or 2nd seat, our partnership. . . no, I take that back, I deserve better! Weak 2 promises a 7-9 hcp hand with 6 and 10 pts being the exception. Here we have a technical 7 HCP hand but it would be ridiculous to count both the KJ♦ diamonds as working points since these honors are trapped in a doubleton. Also, how are you going to count the J♠ trapped in the doubleton too? The Q♥ is not even guarded by a 10♥. None of these points, except the K♦, are working values which means this is a garbage hand that is best described from 1st seat with a call of PASS. By the way, Johnu, the opposition didn't have game until I lead the suit that my partner felt the need to preemptively bid. My partner didn't jam up the opposition, he jammed up our defense of the contract by bidding an unconventional, nonconforming weak 2♥ when a simple call of PASS would have sufficed. The opposition got to sluff a loser over their heart winners since they had the J♥,K♥, and A♥. Bridge hilarity at its finest. So much for being the 1st to open. We jam ourselves up and this mishap will be swept under the rug as unavoidable collateral damage for a higher opening frequency. :rolleyes:

Interestingly enough, I just played as a substitute on BBO Recycle Bin Tournament #7315 Pairs on 05/13 and had a partner holding the following hand: J8♠ Q86543♥ KJ ♦ 652♣. Both teams white: From 1st seat, he opened an unconventional weak 2♥. I am pretty sure he was of the mindset that he needs to jam up the opponents before they jam us up, so suit quality of his trump suit was not his primary concern. But this is exactly why I am concerned about relaxing the weak 2 standard. It will ultimately devolve into these type of unorthodox opens. The ♦ doubleton has dubious honors and the heart suit quality is just. . . horrible. Keep in mind that he has opened weak 2 ♥ and he doesn't know the whereabouts of the 9,10,J,K, or A♥. For sure, he was the 1st to open, but I don't know if I can double the 4♠ spade bid from the opponents when I have diamonds and clubs more than well controlled since the quality of his heart suit could be suspect. Again, the bridge auction is full of promises and if I can't trust the accuracy of the opening bid, then that reality prevents me from uncovering potentially juicy doubles. That is another problem, when you make unconventional weak 2 bids, you effectively muffle your partner's ability to double the opponent's game bid because you make no express or implied promises about the condition or quality of your preemptive bid.

Josh's article highlights our competing concerns. "Preempting has proven too effective a tactic to limit to the ‘traditional’ hands. So, in exchange for the gain of added frequency, we pay the price of decreased precision in describing our hand." In Bridge, you can either have "bidding accuracy" or a "higher frequency of opens". You can't have both and if you could, that book would have sold out a long time ago and we could all be Bridge Masters ruling the game. The auction board is full of promises by various parties. What I want from my partner is honesty and "representational faithfulness". By that, I mean I want to know my partner's bid means what it says and that my partner's hand, shape, and features aligns with my initial expectations. I want a partner that keeps his promise (bid). It is important that partnerships minimize "expectations gaps" to maintain harmony and also to negotiate a final contract that is tenable and suitable. When a partner makes an unconventional opening bid that is rife with surprises, he may succeed in opening 1st, but now the respondent has to "unpack" this "promise" and figure out how many, if any, inconsistencies his partner's hand contains. He must do this before deciding where to place the team's contract next. This adds additional risk for interpretation error and we should not downplay how difficult it is to mitigate this risk. Has someone ever made a promise to you and then you were unpleasantly surprised when their actions didn't align with the promises they initially made? How did you feel about the person who made a promise they couldn't keep? How did that affect your ability to trust them in the future? Bridge is all about managing relationships and expectations. If you are violating "unwritten" rules and guidelines and breaking promises in the auction bidding, you are planting some seeds that will bear very strange, bitter fruit for the partnership. Just a few things to think about. . . from the other side of the table. ==================================================================================================================================================== I gather from your posts that you are more concerned about the team's opening frequency and jamming up the opponents before they jam us up. That is a nice goal and consistent with a zero-sum game mentality, but that is not my primary concern. My primary tactical concern is "bidding accuracy" and "representational faithfulness". If we get this primary goal right, I believe we can accomplish my secondary tactical concern which is jamming up the opponents. To me, jamming them up is my bonus not my purpose. ;) Let me be clear, my concern is not more valid/important than yours. It just means we have competing objectives, strategies, and game plans for our bridge play and our partnership agreements. In my view, a call of PASS doesn't mean that the opponents have won the war. It just means that you have a distributional 5 HCP hand that doesn't conform to our agreed-upon definitions of a 1 of a suit open or a standard, plain vanilla weak 2 open. So to me, PASS, is the best call that describes your hand 1st round. But I get it, you want to open 1st and that is your wheelhouse. It took me a while to see what was going on here. That is why BBO needs to add some survey questions that we can answer and display because partnership harmony is very important for the bridge game and some partners may have different objectives as can be seen here.