style

[gwnn]

Jxxx

Qx

KT9xxx

x

 

first favorable imps. 2♦ is a weak 2.

[Echognome]

Although the diamond suit is good enough for a weak 2, the four card major, combined with our heart holding sway me towards passing. The fource card major is weak, but it'd have to be something more like xxxx x KQT9xxx Jx before I'd eschew the spade suit.

[Phil]

I would open 2♦ without reservation w/r. I am closer to a 3♦ bid than a pass.

[P_Marlowe]

yes, 2D.

 

I would not bid 3D in the current position, but 3D

would be a serious consideration in 3rd pos.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[nigel_k]

2♦. Not close to passing. If 2♦ was not available then I'd open 3♦, but in that case pass would be a decent second choice.

 

I'll consider not preempting if I have more than one flaw. A flaw being a main suit that is weak or a card short, four card major, void or outside ace, or just being at the upper or lower limit of the action. Even with two flaws I may still do it.

 

This is not a bad suit for me at this vulnerability so I have only one flaw.

[kenrexford]

2♦.

 

Better question is:

 

2♦-2♥-P-P-

?

[Cascade]

I bid 2♦ but I don't know where the style is in that.

[TimG]

2♦ for me.

[Jlall]

2D, prefer pass to 3D.

[Hanoi5]

No.

[rd6789]

No I am for pass - the majors are too good - even in H I have Qx and a ruffing value. In 3rd this doesn't apply and 3D would be good.

 

I think it is a style thing - not to preempt with 4 of a major - it is a good style imho.

[gnasher]

Pass. Too many things wrong with it: length in the majors, defensive values, and a suit that will need two honours to make it run. Of course, I'm quite conservative when it comes to preempts.

[mich-b]

Pass.

 

Having a side 4 card ♠ suit is a bigger flaw than a 4card ♥ suit, because we are more likely to be able to outbid them when we have ♠s.

[pooltuna]

It is close but 64 with a major can be a strong hand if partner has the right cards. change my ♣ and ♠ and I would bid 3♦...when you have a license to steal...

[Codo]

no way.

[helene_t]

We are in 1st seat w/r at IMPs, that is the best position for a preempt. With only one flaw the only question is whether it's 2 or 3. Indeed that depends on style. With Shogi this 2♦ is constructive and 3♦ is trash, this hand is borderline.

[aguahombre]

Yes, in first seat you get to mess up the auction for all three of the other people at the table. Must take advantage of every opportunity. In fact, whatever 2D used to mean in our system, it should be scrapped in case I have this hand.

[goodwintr]

Apart from feeling that you are accomplishing something positive by preempting on this sort of hand, can anybody actually show (via real-world statistics, simulation, whatever -- something close to objective) that it is winning bridge? My suspicion is that opening 2D (or 3D) on that hand is losing tactics in the long run, but I certainly cannot prove it. A poll certainly won't prove it, or its opposite.

[ArtK78]

Purely a matter of partnership style. I would pass, but I know plenty of players who would open 2♦ (3♦ at IMPs? I don't think so).

[TimG]

Apart from feeling that you are accomplishing something positive by preempting on this sort of hand, can anybody actually show (via real-world statistics, simulation, whatever -- something close to objective) that it is winning bridge? My suspicion is that opening 2D (or 3D) on that hand is losing tactics in the long run, but I certainly cannot prove it. A poll certainly won't prove it, or its opposite.

That strikes me as very difficult, rather than showing that 2♦ wins IMPs over the long run, you'd likely have to start by showing that opening 2♦ with this hand loses fewer IMPs than passing and (possibly) giving the opponents a free run. Next, you'd have to figure out some way to quantify how much better your weak 2♦ fares if these types of hands are removed, and how removing these hands from the 2♦ opening bid changes life for the opponents when you do open 2♦. Even the, you might not be done.

[goodwintr]

Not so difficult in theory, although perhaps more difficult in practice. You could easily work out how effective a weak 2D opening bid is (or has been) against, say, a pass: just gather all deals where someone opened 2D at one table, and the corresponding player at the other table passed (when he would have had the opportunity to open 2D if the spirit moved him); add up the results for the "2D team" and the results for the "pass team," et voila. Of course, on any particular deal the result may have depended on something else -- the opening-bid decision is not necessarily determinative of anything. But over a large enough sample size, you should be able to conclude something.

 

Next, you might want to break down the 2D openings, putting some of them into a "sound" pile and others into an "aggressive" (or "noisy") pile, and repeat the calculations. It would be interesting in itself to see whether "sound" is better or worse than "aggressive," and also interesting to see whether either or both is better or worse than "pass."

 

As you know, this is the type of methodology that led Vernes to the discovery of the Law of Total Tricks. When he did that work, back in the 'sixties, he didn't have ready access to computerized techniques: he cranked out the deals by hand from World Championship matches. (He employed similar methodology to discover that it was losing bridge to bid 1H over 1D on, say, x Qxxxx AQ98 Jxx.)

[TimG]

Not so difficult in theory, although perhaps more difficult in practice. You could easily work out how effective a weak 2D opening bid is (or has been) against, say, a pass: just gather all deals where someone opened 2D at one table, and the corresponding player at the other table passed (when he would have had the opportunity to open 2D if the spirit moved him); add up the results for the "2D team" and the results for the "pass team," et voila.

 

I don't think that would be the end of it. You'd also need to look at hand where both sides opened 2D. Presumably the looser definition of 2D at one table will affect the result from time-to-time when 2D is opened at both tables -- maybe the looser definition makes it more difficult for the opening side or the more narrow definition makes it easier for the other side. There would also be times when neither side opens 2D that there would be different inferences available at each table. I think that in order to tell whether the looser style is better or worse you'd have to take into account all these things (and likely more) rather than just the situation where 2D is opened at one table and not at the other.

As you know, this is the type of methodology that led Vernes to the discovery of the Law of Total Tricks. When he did that work, back in the 'sixties, he didn't have ready access to computerized techniques: he cranked out the deals by hand from World Championship matches. (He employed similar methodology to discover that it was losing bridge to bid 1H over 1D on, say, x Qxxxx AQ98 Jxx.)

I have been told about this, but I have not read the studies myself. I would suggest the studies were flawed if they only looked at situations where the actions were different at each table.

 

There is also the possibility that competitive bidding has evolved since Vernes concluded that weak overcalls were losing bridge. Maybe they were losing bridge because advancer was not adequately prepared to deal with the weak overcalls. Today's players have available many more devices or methods to deal with competitive auctions (and more experience using them). Or, maybe weak overcalls are more effective today because of the methods (like negative doubles) that have been nearly universally adopted by the opening side. I'm not confident in my knowledge of bidding history, but I don't think that everyone, even at the World Championship level, played negative doubles in the 50s and 60s.

[gwnn]

As you know, this is the type of methodology that led Vernes to the discovery of the Law of Total Tricks. When he did that work, back in the 'sixties, he didn't have ready access to computerized techniques: he cranked out the deals by hand from World Championship matches. (He employed similar methodology to discover that it was losing bridge to bid 1H over 1D on, say, x Qxxxx AQ98 Jxx.)

Why don't you post these findings in the main thread instead of parantheses at the end of your post? It's almost unanimous anyway.

[Double !]

I admit that I "might" open this mess 2D in 1st seat w.v.r and have done so, but I don't like it and I don't think it's a good bid. Call me obsolete but, in 1st & 2nd seat, I would want to have a better suit or, at least, a suit that I want partner to lead. I don't want my 2D opener to redirect my partner away from some other lead that might have been a more normal and advantageous lead, especially holding the queen of hearts. In addition, in competition, partner might make a decision based on anticipated suit quality in diamonds should I open the hand 2D.

OTOH: while there is the pressure or preemptive value of such a bid, when I do open such a hand 2D, a poor result usually occurs and/ or I wind up helping the opps by announcing the location of a key card that otherwise wouldn't have occurred had I not bid. In addition, partner has often decided to lead my suit when another lead would have been better.

Now, give me this hand in 3rd seat w.v.r. and it's anything goes!

 

DHL:

[655321]

I am a 3♦ opener here, even with a weak 2 available.