2S (P) ?

[jillybean]

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.

I dont think we DO have the expectation that our bidding will get us to the perfect contract each time, what we DONT have is the knowledge & experience to spot our mistakes each time. If we havent made any mistakes that nice!! -, glad its obvious to you, this isnt the ADV/EXP forum

Edited December 25, 2006 by jillybean2

[Winstonm]

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?

 

My answers to these questions are yes and yes, sort of. It all goes back to gains and losses. There are 3 vulnerabilites to consider, favourable, unfavourable, and equal, and each should be treated differently.

 

Favourable, i.e., NV vs Vul has the most gain and the smallest loss, so this should have the most flexibility both in range and quality.

 

Unfavourable has the least gain and the largest loss, so these standards should be rather rigid.

 

Equal is closer to unfavourable and should be treated as such, with only slight shadings from unfavourable.

 

So my answer is this: when NV vs Vul, preempts can be weaker and can also be stronger - there is a wider latitude, and quality is equally more open. When vulnerable vs not or at equal vul, preempts by necessity become more disciplined as the gain/loss equation narrows.

[whereagles]

I cannot imagine NOT opening a weak 2. That "no void" kinda sounds like akin to the "no side 4 major" which has been disregarded in practice for more than a billion years now.

[neilkaz]

I would also open this 2♠ even 2nd seat vulnerable where, I like to conform to the "rules". I'll note that is we take a small ♦ and make it a small ♥, "everyone" would open 2♠ and game would still be missed unless S takes a shot and hopes ♣ can be brought in for no losers or that if there is a C loser, N can cover a red suit loser and before 4 tricks are lost.

 

Now if my ♠ were ♦ I would not open a 2nd seat vul 2♦ since here, I really want to conform to the guidelines, and just as importantly 2♦ doesn't preempt nearly as much as 2♠ does.

 

Re: side 4 card majors... I won't have one if I open 2♦ in first or second seat, but may have a weak 4 card ♥ suit if I open 2♠ and once in a while a weak 4 card ♠ suit when I open 2♥. I would almost never have a void as well as a side 4 card major since it seems too likely to miss a better contract.

[keylime]

There's a guideline a few months ago called the rule of Mel in the ACBL Bulletin.

 

If memory serves, if the HCP plus trump length is 17 or higher, you're supposed to do something.

 

I pass, with my bad 4333.