pass, w2 or w3?

[42]

Team match, you white, opps red

1. hand passes and you have to decide whether to open - and if so, how - the following bad hand:

[hv=pc=n&n=s94h95da987543c32]133|100[/hv]

[gwnn]

Axxxxxx is a very bad suit, 2272 is a bad shape. But we are NV, so yea 2♦ sounds right to me. 3♦ is also not unreasonable.

[Cyberyeti]

In first seat, complete no brainer 3♦ by my methods, but in second looks like 2♦ to me.

[Hanoi5]

2nd seat you should be serious. Here the 7th diamond makes me lean towards opening but 3 is just too much at this position. I'd open 3 in 3rd seat, probably.

[aguahombre]

Here is my convuluted thinking:

 

In first seat I have 3 people to mislead and disrupt by "doing something" which doesn't represent the hand I have.

 

In second seat I have only two people to mislead and disrupt.

 

There is a call available for hands which don't fit into the general "box" of any bid.

[Trinidad]

3♦.

 

I don't like 2♦ much. In my style, a weak two promisses some values and a little bit of defense, which I don't have. A preempt at the three or four level just promisses lots of trumps and good offense to defense ratio which I do have. But to each their own style.

 

Rik

[pjs_ch]

Pass every time.

 

In second seat, pre-empts should be reasonably constructive as one of the oppo has passed. This suit quality gets nowhere near what partners would expect. Overall high card count doesn't affect this.

[Statto]

5 playing tricks is about right for a 3 level pre-empt at these colours, tho a stretch in 2nd seat the 987 bolster the suit a bit. I have values in ♦ and nowhere else. I don't even have a 3-card side suit.

[cherdano]

Pass because we are in second seat.

[rogerclee]

I really dislike pass, this may be our last chance to conveniently describe our hand as approximately weak with long diamonds, so let's not overthink it and open 2D.

[jmcw]

Seems closest to a 2♦ call. Less explaining to do if it works out badly.

 

Never pass, since I would have little chance to show this later.

[whereagles]

yucky shape and an ace advise caution: 2D should be adequate. 3 is over-cooking it and pass is... well.. tame.

[Statto]

2♦ seems tame to me. I appear to have an extra ♦ which I don't plan to introduce later B-)

[aguahombre]

I understand people might want to bid 2D if available; I don't understand wanting to bid 3D. And I certainly don't understand those who think it is describing their hand.

 

2D would be a tactical bid, not a description. The passers seem to feel the "description" is more like a hand semi-balanced with one trick.

[Statto]

3♦ is also tactical, but if it were a description, I think it would be more fitting than 2♦. Also, I don't want to start with e.g. 2♦-(x)-p-(2♠) then think "I wish I'd started with 3♦." And pre-empting partner is not a big concern here as I have no interest in playing anywhere other than ♦, so I may as well stake that claim now. Partner should be prepared for a barrage-type bid at these colours, even from 2nd seat.

 

As to having an ace, well it is in my suit :rolleyes:

[gwnn]

 

2D would be a tactical bid, not a description.

false.

[aguahombre]

2D would be a tactical bid, not a description.

false.

I stand corrected. It would be a description, but of some other hand.

[the hog]

This is an awful hand. This is also a totally obvious 2nd seat pass. In third seat I would try 2D.

 

"I stand corrected. It would be a description, but of some other hand."

 

I agree with this. It is certainly not a description of a weak 2 in Ds.

[aguahombre]

And pre-empting partner is not a big concern here as I have no interest in playing anywhere other than ♦

Hmm, we have 2-card tolerance for each of the other suits, and a bullet for offense or defense. Might even be able to contribute a ruffing value if the hand is played in some other suit by either side. That sounds like mild interest in playing or defending the hand in any strain.

[42]

Thx all for your replies!

 

Here is the whole hand

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj76hk762dqca864&w=sk832haj43dt2cq97&n=s94h95da987543c32&e=sat5hqt8dkj6ckjt5&d=n&v=w&b=12&a=p2d2np3dp3nppp]399|300|3NT + 2 for -9,33 IMPs[/hv]

We played against the GIBs and all GIBs on N opened 3♦ which was passed for -3, or S bid 3NT for -3/-4/-5 which was a better result than that at our table since N/S played undoubled.

 

Postmortem: normally I would pass with such a hand but since we were practising I opened 2D to see where it would end. My partner was "not amused" about my 2♦ opening and argued that he would like to be able to double opponent's contract and therefore my opening is too weak for a w2, I must open 3♦. I don't understand his argument because here I have an A, imo more likely a trick than KDBxxx which for him qualifies for a w2 opening.

 

So perhaps the -9 IMPs are probably a result of playing against the GIBs who naturally all chose the 3♦ bid and the preempt worked well. The humans sit most of the time on south and rarely 2 humans play against the robots.

Edited January 5, 2012 by 42

[petterb]

Opening post says fav vul. Full hand post shows unfav. Quite a difference I'd say...

[42]

Oops, sorry, my mistake: EW vulnerable, NS white. I don't know how to edit properly the diagram :(

[sasioc]

I don't understand your partner's argument either. I'm not sure about the general style in different parts of the world (I'm aware that Americans tend to have far sounder pre empts than we do over here in the UK) but certainly for most players I know a weak two does not promise much in the way of defensive values - indeed, defensive holdings would strongly discourage me from opening a weak two. If my partner doubled a contract because I'd opened a weak two and hence must have some defensive trick(s) I'd kick him under the table!

 

I am keen to open a weak two on this hand because of the vulnerability and the fact that I have a seventh diamond, which makes up a bit for not having the suit quality I'd normally look for to bid like this. I won't open at the three level because I am in second and opening this will make it very difficult for partner to judge when it is right to bid 3NT over my second seat pre empts (or to take any other action for that matter).

[phil_20686]

Arguments that seem like nonsense to me:

 

(1) You do not have enough defence for a weak two.

 

I have an ace. That is my one defensive trick. It might also help get an early ruff in when partner is short. If Partner doubles needing more than one trick from a weak two to beat a contract he does not have a double. Sure it might be one off when he is expecting two off. Shame.

 

(2) You lack the playing strength to open a weak two.

 

I have a A-seventh. Sure, I could h ave a better intermedeates, but even opposite a stiff diamond I will have 5 tricks 67% of the time. That is more than most weak twos have opposite a stiff.

 

Arguments that do make sense to me:

 

(1) I like partner to bid 3N opposite a first and second seat 3m.

 

Thus, I only bid 3m with HHxxxx(x), so that partner, with Hx, can bid game confortable on minimalish hands knowing the minor is coming in.

 

(2) I have a weak hand with diamonds. I have a bid that shows a weak hand with diamonds. I do not like to pass when I have a bid available that shows my hand.

 

(3) Pre-empts work best when there is a certain amount of variation. Sure, your hand is hardly classical for a weak two in diamonds. But your opps dont know that, and will treat it like a weak two in the play defence. Better yet, if you open these hands declarers have to consider that you have these hands in the play defence. Both might cause them to err in the bidding or play.

[fromageGB]

mistake Edited January 6, 2012 by fromageGB