am I getting old?

[gwnn]

93

T74

AK6543

64

 

3rd seat favourable Matchpoints. you're not allowed to open 1NT in case you're considering it.

[Fluffy]

I'd always open 3♦, don't see this as a real problem.

[tgoodwinsr]

Are you getting old?

 

Yes, we all are.

[Free]

3♦

[bhtf]

am old too :)

 

3♦ or 1♣ (yes one club)

 

friendly to all

[effervesce]

3♦, 2♦, 1♦, are all fine.

[hotShot]

If 2♦ is agreed to be weak 2, I'll do that (or any agreement that shows a ♦ weak 2).

Otherwise I'll pass.

 

I feel older already....

[Rossoneri]

2♦, and my partner will tell me off later for being conservative.

[655321]

3♦, second choice 1♦.

 

Not pass.

[Codo]

So I have an opening which shows 6 diamonds with 6-9 HCPS. Ideally it would be best if my HCPS are in this suit and I have no side 4 card major. Now I have this hand. Which question did you ask??????

 

So lets assume that 2 ♦ or 2 ♣ are both not avaiable as weak twos in diamonds- easy again, I open 3 ♦ frequently with 6 card suits.

[jillybean]

To the 3♦ bidders, are you bypassing 2♦ or is 2♦ something other than weak 6 ♦'s in your system?

[Bbradley62]

3♦. I would bid 2♦ in first or second, or at unfavorable vulnerability.

[aguahombre]

To the 3♦ bidders, are you bypassing 2♦ or is 2♦ something other than weak 6 ♦'s in your system?

2♦ happens to be something else, but that is only a coincidence to me, in third seat at these conditions.

 

I keep harping about preemptor having the expected number of cards in the suit of his preempt; but 3m in 3rd-fav is an exception, even for me.

[655321]

To the 3♦ bidders,  are you bypassing 2♦ or is 2♦ something other than weak 6 ♦'s in your system?

The point is to make a bid that puts as much pressure as possible on 4th hand, while hopefully not offering 1100 on a platter. So the fact that you have a 2♦ bid available is not relevant if you think that a 3♦ opening will put more pressure on LHO with relative safety.

 

Somebody younger than gwnn might even (for a brief moment) consider a 4♦ opening.

[pooltuna]

93

T74

AK6543

64

 

3rd seat favourable Matchpoints. you're not allowed to open 1NT in case you're considering it.

I would choose 2♦ if that is an option because the hand is too good for 3♦ :blink:

[awm]

2♦ for me, would consider pass if a weak two was not available. There are many bad features to this hand: bad spots, flat shape, two defensive tricks (maybe). If this is 3♦, is there a six-card suit that is 2♦? Anyway I think the risk of going -300 against air is too high here, and there is also a chance bidding three pushes opps into a game that luckily makes when all suits break for them.

[jdonn]

2♦, I have a 2♦ bid not a 3♦ bid. My second choice may be 1NT but I don't want to break the rules.

[jallerton]

How can 1NT not be allowed? Are we playing some game that isn't bridge?

 

 

Sorry that post was from FrancesHinden, I forgot to log out as jallerton and this forum won't allow posts to be deleted.

[gwnn]

How can 1NT not be allowed?  Are we playing some game that isn't bridge?

 

 

Sorry that post was from FrancesHinden, I forgot to log out as jallerton and this forum won't allow posts to be deleted.

No, I just don't allow it.

 

I found that I psyched too much with too little success, so I just stopped doing it until further notice

[gnasher]

I'd open 3♦ and I don't consider it particularly aggressive. As with all such actions, the most important thing is that partner knows what to expect, and also what not to expect.

 

is there a six-card suit that is 2♦

Perhaps something like KQx xx Qxxxxx xx, where the side values added to the poor suit make 3♦ unattractive.

 

I keep harping about preemptor having the expected number of cards in the suit of his preempt; but 3m in 3rd-fav is an exception, even for me.

Why is that an exception? It just means that the expected number of cards is 6, or 6-7, or 5-6, or whatever number is expected in your style.

Edited July 29, 2010 by gnasher

[MFA]

3♦ > 2♦ >> 1♦ > pass

[mikeh]

2♦ for me, and I know I am not getting old....I already got old some years back. I think it was from opening 1N or 3♦ on this hand type....I'm sure I'd still be my smiling young self if I hadn't.

 

If you play a weak 2♦, presumably you describe it on your CC as some point range and 5-6 cards in the suit (or maybe just 6). Isn't this hand a prototypical weak 2 bid? If you usually open this 3♦ (even if only in 3rd seat) are you not misleading your opps? Not, of course, if your card is appropriately marked or if you alert, but I suspect that most do neither.

 

Of course, there are always going to be hands that are on the margins of our announced methods, and we can choose one call or another depending on whatever moves us. But when the hand is the textbook archetype of a weak two, as per our announced methods, and we routinely bid 3....wtf is going on? What would a weak 2 look like?

 

Or am I being (as usual) too paranoid?

 

I don't have a problem with 3♦ as a style choice...but only if the opps are allowed to know about it. I wouldn't choose that style with this flat a hand, which happens also to include some defence in the diamond suit. Some 1=3=6=3 with say KQJ9xx in diamonds is more a 3♦ bid to me than is this one.

[cherdanno]

But when the hand is the textbook archetype of a weak two, as per our announced methods, and we routinely bid 3....wtf is going on? What would a weak 2 look like?

 

Or am I being (as usual) too paranoid?

Yes you are. I mean, it's 3rd seat white vs red.

If someone assumes without asking that opponents' 3rd seat white vs red 3♦ preempts promises 7 cards, or 6 with a lot of shape, because nothing special is marked on the card, well he or she should get our more, and realize that there are other styles than the one he/she thinks is the right one.

 

Btw, the way the ACBL CC is typically filled out, 2♦ is explained as "weak, 5-10 hcp". Doesn't say 6 cards, or (5)6 cards, or 5-6 cards. Doesn't say "classic weak two, 6 cards, even in 3rd seat white/red". For 3-level preempts one can check "very light", and when, say, Andy plays in the US, I guess he is aware enough that his preempt style is light by US standards to check that box.

 

Mind you, I wouldn't bid 3♦ with this, the shape is just a bit too flat for me, but I also realize it's a very common style.

[Phil]

3♦ for me too. We are w/r in 3rd seat. If you took away one diamond I'd open 2. If you added one, I'd open 4. The only negative to this hand is the 6322 shape, and I guess I'd rather have KQJxxx. All of our points are in the right spot, so I don't see what the big problem is. -300 versus air is LOL.

 

Sure, this isn't a three bid, but we are in 3rd chair at green! If we were in 1st or 2nd this is a WTP weak 2 (even w/r).

 

1N is an interesting psyche and could easily work. But its not my style.

 

1♦ is too wacky for me. I don't see what it accomplishes other than deceive partner about our strength.

 

3♦ > 2♦ > 1N > 1♦

 

I'm in the 'getting old' camp. I have hair growing out of my ears and my back hurts in the morning sometimes. But I doubt you want to hear about those details.

[Fluffy]

Not so long ago, a top player asked me with screens what lenght should I expect from dad's 2♥ opening in third favourable.

 

I hesitated a while and replied that he should have 5 about 70% of the time.

 

Dad had 7 cards lol.