2S (P) ?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=saqt976hdj82cq643&s=sk53hqt7dt96cak72]133|200|Scoring: MP

(P) 2♠ (P) ?[/hv]

 

your bid please

[inquiry]

I would pass as south. The problem, as I see it, is that north;s hand is not suited for a weak two.

 

What you ask? A good suit six card suit, 9 hcp, what possibly could be wrong? The problem is with a void it is difficult to judge on the fly the merit of the hand. This is so true that many, many authorities suggest never open a weak two with a void. (See eddie kantars description of weak two for example at http://www.kantarbridge.com/weak_2s.htm where he says "The distribution of the weak two bidder’s hand rates to be 6-3-2-2, 6-3-3-1 or 6-4-2-1. Notice: no five card side suits, no voids (those rules were for 1st and 2nd seat weak two.. he thinks five card suits ok in third).

 

If you are a zar point counter, north has 9 hcp, 2 control points, and 16 distributional points, for 27, two more than needed to open 1♠. At my table, the bidding would have started 1♠ and 4♠ would have been reached.

[Guest Jlall]

I would also pass. The question is whether to raise to 3 or pass. There is a decent chance you will buy it with a passed LHO, and even if you don't you can always bid 3S later. I'm not concerned about them getting to game having boht passed.

 

2S is certainly not textbook but I don't really mind it red/white second seat. The hands fit well together. I wonder if the 1S openers can stop when its not AKxx opp Qxxx but its Qxxx opp T9x.

[Winstonm]

Pass at MPs but I would bid 2N (LTC ask) at imps - but that is only because my partner at imps can hold a pretty decent hand at this vul.

[kenrexford]

This problem is a good argument deal for not using indiscriminate weak two's, especially red on white.

 

What I mean is that, if a red-v-white weak two is appropriately sound (appropriate for vulnerability), then South should expect a hand with about 6-7 tricks, or 6-7 losers. South holds a clear cover card in spades (plus three-card support, which gives a comfort about forcing the three-level), a relatively assured cover in clubs, and a reasonable expectation that either the heart Queen or the club King will produce a third cover. There is even a chance that there are four covers.

 

Thus, if 2♠ is sound at these colors, South has invitational values, and protection from the Law (still relevant?) to invite.

 

So, what if South bids, say, 2NT? North holds a six-loser hand if the Qxxx in clubs fits well. If not, seven. Middlish. However, because North almost has a 1♠ opening, he probably should show positive, however that is done in your approach.

 

Sure, if North had held a void in clubs instead, and perhaps Kxx in hearts instead, then 4♠ might be bid and defeated. This happens. But, unless you have a technique for always spotting duplication of values quickly, you will occasionally end up in poor contracts with everyone else.

 

The point is, though, that South has cause to move if North will not make a 2♠ opening on junk when red-on-white. (And, accordingly, a 1♠ opening being more sound if red-on-white.) This is my personal view, I suppose. If the vulnerability were different, I also would open 1♠, because I'd want more freedom to open lighter 2♠ calls at more favorable vulnerability.

[Echognome]

It's clear to bid 4♠ as I see both hands! (Those of you bidding without mirrors are making your life much tougher.)

 

Ok. Ok. I pass at the table.

[jillybean]

It's clear to bid 4♠ as I see both hands!  (Those of you bidding without mirrors are making your life much tougher.)

 

Ok.  Ok.  I pass at the table.

yeah yeah sorry I wanted feedback on the opener as well, I will post these one hand at a time in future. I considered 1♠ at the table but 2nd pos and V..I thought I would give my husband a heart attack.

 

The link you posted is great thanks Ben

[cherdano]

It's clear to bid 4♠ as I see both hands!  (Those of you bidding without mirrors are making your life much tougher.)

 

Ok.  Ok.  I pass at the table.

yeah yeah sorry I wanted feedback on the opener as well, I will post these one hand at a time in future. I considered 1♠ at the table but 2nd pos and V..I thought I would give my husband a heart attack.

Seriously, if your partner doesn't expect you to open such hands at the one-level, you should not.

 

(I would not open it 1♠ with any partner except Ben.)

[jillybean]

backspace..

[neilkaz]

jb.. a couple of comments if I may.

 

1) I really don't think vul is supposed to affect your decisions to open at the 1 level in first or 2nd seat (for me it has almost no effect at the 1 level in 3rd or 4th)

 

2) You just got this really nice Preempts from A-Z book !! They recommend not having a void for a weak 2 due to even worse things than what happened this hand.

 

That being said, lots of players open 2♠ with your hand anyhow and then if PD knows that you can be this good for a vul 2nd seat opener he may chance 2NT and if Ogust, perhaps he can take a shot after 3♠ showing a good suit and a good hand (err hoping an outside Quack my help) or if you play feature and just rebid your best suit with a max, perhaps he can hope that 4♠ makes.

 

However, from PD's seat making 4♠ needs quite a bit of luck and even with the hands as they are, you need a 3-2 split in ♣. I think I'd pass 2♠ as well.

 

Opening 1♠ like Ben can certainly work out, but if you hear a 2♥ GF response life may not be so good, and even after a 2♦ response there can be issues. However, Ben is willing to take those chances in exchange for the good times when things work out and he can chalk up a vul game that might otherwise be missed.

[the hog]

Yes I would open 2S and yes I would pass the South hand. You can't bid them all. Swap the void to the C suit and you won't make. Incidentally note that 4S STILL depends on C breaking, despite the perfect fit.

[mike777]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=saqt976hdj82cq643&s=sk53hqt7dt96cak72]133|200|Scoring: MP

(P) 2♠ (P) ?[/hv]

 

your bid please

I would only open 2s if you think you have 6 playing tricks.

1) assuming the issue of what a playing trick is open to wide debate even at the top levels?

2) How do you count 6 playing tricks?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

seeng both hands 4S.

 

Having seen only my hand, it is not

clear, partner promisses to go down

-2 at the given vulnerability, I have

only 3 sure tricks, i.e. we will probably

make 3S, but not 4S.

 

I pass, at least given my partnership

agreements.

 

=> In my opinion the hand is to strong for

a weak 2S bid (*), even taking into account, that

we are red vs. green, but this depends.

If this is a typical 2S opener, red vs. green

in 2nd seat (and you should be fairly conservtive,

with this setting), you have to bid 4S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: (*) I may be influenced by seeing both hands.

[jillybean]

1) I really don't think vul is supposed to affect your decisions to open at the 1 level in first or 2nd seat (for me it has almost no effect at the 1 level in 3rd or 4th)

Huh When you are making a decision to preempt or open at the 1level why not consider vulnerability?

[pbleighton]

"Huh When you are making a decision to preempt or open at the 1level why not consider vulnerability?"

 

Opening in the the first two seats, you should have your minimum hand strength, whatever that is, and however you define it. IMO vulnerability should play little or no role. You either have it or you don't.

 

For preempts in the the first two seats, you should never preempt with a hand that is good enough to open at the one level.

 

OTOH, vulnerability definitely plays a role in deciding which hands to open preemptively, and which hands to pass. This is true even for me :huh:

 

Peter

[neilkaz]

1) I really don't think vul is supposed to affect your decisions to open at the 1 level in first or 2nd seat (for me it has almost no effect at the 1 level in 3rd or 4th)

Huh When you are making a decision to preempt or open at the 1level why not consider vulnerability?

jb..perhaps I should have been more specific in my comment, but Peter has allready clarified for us.

 

For me, vulnerability has absolutely no effect on my decision to open at the 1 level in seats 1&2 or to pass.

 

Off course, vulnerability is a factor in deciding whether to preempt or not, and the higher the level of my preempt, the more it affects my decision since it can get really ugly when the preempt runs into bad luck or induces PD to make what turns out to be a very unfortunate decision to bid higher.

 

I won't preempt in seats 1&2 with hands I consider good enough to open normally with 1.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[jillybean]

For preempts in the the first two seats, you should never preempt with a hand that is good enough to open at the one level.

Right I wasnt playing with Ben here so 1♠ was not an option.

 

For those who are saying it was too strong for 2♠, do you open 1♠ or pass?

[pbleighton]

"For those who are saying it was too strong for 2♠, do you open 1♠ or pass?'

 

If I were playing a system where this bid was too good for a 2S bid, I would open 1S. For me, there are no hands too strong for a two bid which aren't strong enough for a one bid.

 

However, there are hands which are strong enough for a two bid, but which are inappropriate for a two bid, and which must be passed. What is "inappropriate" varies widely by partnership, even more than what is the minimum hand strength for a one bid. I would open the hand in question 2S in both of my current partnerships without any hesitation, the majority in this thread would not.

 

Peter

[MickyB]

Will we be able to describe this hand better by passing first? Will we be better placed once we hear what others have to say? I doubt it. My style is to get involved immediately with the most appropriate bid. I'd often open this hand 3♠, but 2nd seat vulnerable this would be too much! I wouldn't need much more to open 1♠, but as it is I'm opening 2♠ and missing game.

[P_Marlowe]

For preempts in the the first two seats, you should never preempt with a hand that is good enough to open at the one level.

Right I wasnt playing with Ben here so 1♠ was not an option.

 

For those who are saying it was too strong for 2♠, do you open 1♠ or pass?

Hi,

 

I either bid 2S, knowing all to well, that I am a bit

heavy, even taking vulnerability and position into

account, which means I take the blame, if partner

does not get it right, or I would open 3S.

 

It certainly depens on the opponets I am playing,

the state of the match and the scoring format,

... I ommit the position of the sun relative to moon

and earth.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

I am quite adamant about having no void for a weak 2-bid. A void is simply too strong of holding and cannot be adequately accounted for in the valuation of the hand, as the hand must have 6043 shape, meaning that it is of value in support with the 4-card holding as well as in its own suit.

 

There is considerable difference between 6043 and 6142 as 4-card support, as the latter has a tempo loss if the oppenents start with a trump lead. In a high card crossruff, with a trump lead, the first hand can generate 3 ruffing tricks while the second can only guarantee 2 tricks. A 1-trick difference is a significant amount in hand strength.

[awm]

It's not clear that options other than opening 2♠ will get you to game accurately. For example:

 

(1) If north starts with a pass, then south could easily open and pass north's 1♠ response on a hand where game makes.

 

(2) If north starts with 1♠, then you will certainly get to game here, but you will also get to any number of poor games when south has more in hearts (for example opposite Kxx AQx Jxx Kxxx it is hard to imagine avoiding a no-play game after a 1♠ open).

 

The issue with voids is not simply that they deliver "playing strength" but that their value substantially depends on the nature of partner's hand.

 

I'd bid 2♠ with this hand and not worry about it too much. At vulnerable the south hand might push towards game (because my vulnerable preempts are super-sound) but otherwise I'd accept missing it.

[csdenmark]

Dealer: West Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ AQT976 ♥ [space] ♦ J82 ♣ Q643 ♠ K53 ♥ QT7 ♦ T96 ♣ AK72

(P) 2♠ (P) ?

 

your bid please

I see perspectives so I ask with 2NT.

 

As I receive 3♠ response I raise to game.

[Gerben42]

Red vs white you should have a decent hand for 2♠ so it is perfect. Not vulnerable I would have opened 3♠ with this. Never 1♠ for me, though.

 

So you missed a game. Big deal. Chances are the other tables will too! Get rid of the expectation that your bidding system gets you to game every time when it is right and keeps you out every time that is right too. Both players have obviously bid correctly. Not opening this hand with 2♠ would be giving opponents a free ride, besides if partner had had

 

♠K53

♥AK72

♦QT7

♣T95

 

I guess you wouldn't have posted it either.

[helene_t]

1) I really don't think vul is supposed to affect your decisions to open at the 1 level in first or 2nd seat (for me it has almost no effect at the 1 level in 3rd or 4th)

Huh When you are making a decision to preempt or open at the 1level why not consider vulnerability?

There are too issues here:

1) Should preempts be weaker when NV than when V?

2) Should preempts be less disciplined when NV than when V?

 

As for 1), my answer is NO, allthough I know some would say YES. My point is that, other things being equal, it's no more dangerous to preempt with a very weak hand than with a less weak hand. Besides, it's already difficult enough getting used to p's overall preempt style. If you also have to getting used to several preempt styles depending on vulnerability, scorring and seat it doesn't make your life easier.

 

As for 2), I would say it depends. At IMPs, there's more to gain than to loose from a slugish preempt at favorable than at nonfavorable. At MP, this is much less the case (except if you preempt on a 5-card or very bad 6-card when vulnerable: the 2-level may be too high).