weak two ATB

[johnu]

I'm still trying to figure out why Double was even on your radar--with the preempt?

 

You aren't the only one. Opponents have voluntarily bid game and the East hand is a good minimum opening hand but has no surprises, no trump stack, no reason to expect a defensive ruff.

[Vampyr]

Maybe not in a random BBO game. While the trump lead could have been successful, it left East with a choice after winning ♣A. An opening heart lead would have cleared up the heart situation so a diamond switch would be indicated.

 

Playing with an advanced or expert partner, the ♣2 should be a suit preference signal for diamonds. Not sure how reliable that would have been with the actual West player.

 

Yes, it is pretty obvious that the non-heart opening lead was the worst mistake made on the hand.

[RedSpawn]

Yes, it is pretty obvious that the non-heart opening lead was the worst mistake made on the hand.

 

Co-sign the opening bid lie. If you don't have what you promise in the 1st place, you get what you get.

 

Second of all, I am pretty sure that you have no comment on JohnU's error in post #78 about the 2♥ open when he failed to read basic instructions by the OP TWO days before and attacked me without fact checking.

 

Nope, I don't think you would.

 

You don't criticize people you like. ;) You give them a hall pass as the case with my partner who straight up lied to me in bidding. We overlook the lie.

 

I said why I was taking out the opposition's spades 1st in theprevious post. The fact that he makes a preemptive bid from 1st seat missing the following trump:

 

♥J

♥K

♥A

♥10

♥9

 

Laughable. . .

[masse24]

Yes, it is pretty obvious that the non-heart opening lead was the worst mistake made on the hand.

Though I would always lead the ♥T on this auction, the trump lead is not horrible.

 

However, the double, in my opinion, is incomprehensible--making it the worst "mistake" on the hand.

[RedSpawn]

Though I would always lead the ♥T on this auction, the trump lead is not horrible.

 

However, the double, in my opinion, is incomprehensible--making it the worst "mistake" on the hand.

 

As I said before, whoever makes a deceptive, misleading, or psyche bid (inclusive of preemptive bids) owns ALL of the possible outcomes. The deceptive bidder doesn't get the privilege of cherry picking which outcomes he likes and casting blame on his partner for the outcomes he doesn't.

 

Whatever fruit is borne from the opener's lie is his and his alone. If the fruit tastes delicious and sweet, congrats. If the fruit is very bitter and poisonous, it's HIS fruit. My partner planted a seed from the very 1st promise (lie) he made to me and the opponents in the auction. He doesn't get the privilege of comparative or contributory negligence when he lies to his bridge partner.

 

I leave you with this quote from Eddie Kantar, a Grand Master in the World Bridge Federation and a two-time world bridge champion.

 

"If you make disciplined preempts (that is, your hand fulfills the criteria for making the bids you make), you'll be a feared opponent. If you make undisciplined preempts (yielding to temptation), you'll be a feared partner. Although you can have fun opening [an undisciplined preempt] in the hopes of messing up the opponents, if you have the wrong sort of hand for the bid, you run the risk of losing your partner's trust--[which is] the one thing you can't afford to lose in the game of bridge."

 

Amen, Eddie!

 

Sounds very similar to what I have already been saying and I am very sure this quote applies to weak 2, weak 3, and weak 4 preemptive bids.

 

Thank you all and enjoy your games.

[RedSpawn]

You aren't the only one. Opponents have voluntarily bid game and the East hand is a good minimum opening hand but has no surprises, no trump stack, no reason to expect a defensive ruff.

 

You haven't explained why you think my partner, who was seated in 1st seat, needed to share his horrible, moth-eaten ♥ holding suit to me in this auction? It's basically a bust hand.

 

Also, you haven't explained that why you think his weak 2♥ bid is superior to a call of PASS? or better worded, What is the compelling need to make an undisciplined preemptive bid from 1st seat with a new partner?

 

And please provide something more reasonable than, "Well, bridge is a bidder's game." Thanks.

[Zelandakh]

Hmmm, I'm biased but anybody can look at the bidding and play and come to their own conclusions.

My conclusion is that of the 4 players at the table - 3x adv, 1x exp - none is above intermediate standard. Of the 4, West (the 2♥ opener) took the least questionable actions. Against good players opening 2♥ is probably slightly -EV; against weak players it is probably a winner in the long run. Of the others, North's 2♠ overcall is more than questionable, the 4♠ raise ridiculous. East's double is clearly the worst call in the auction. And South's 3♠ raise is also highly questionable (but vies with Opener as being the least-worst). In the end though, this hand has little place in this thread. A better idea might have been to create an ATB thread for it.

 

As for the topic of how disciplined preempts should be, I heartily recommend a reading of Robson-Segal "Partnership Bidding in Bridge". The traditional idea of preempts in 1st and 2nd seats being strict (Rule of 500) has long been discarded and 1st seat is now seen by the vast majority of pairs as an ideal time to put the pressure on the opponents. That it sometimes instead puts pressure on partner is an acceptable side effect.

 

And finally, to Stef, would you and your partner really not preempt with something ♠QJT9876 ♥- ♦432 ♣432 NV in 1st? Or would that already be a 4♠ opening for you?

[Zelandakh]

In Bridge, you can either have "bidding accuracy" or a "higher frequency of opens". You can't have both and if you could, that book would have sold out a long time ago and we could all be Bridge Masters ruling the game.

As an aside, you are wrong about the above. You can improve bidding accuracy without reducing frequency (providing the opponents are silent) by the simple expedient of organising the bidding system more efficiently. This has been happening over time, for example with conventions like Gazilli. Almost the entire theory of relay systems, particularly symmetric, is based on this concept. Forcing pass systems are supposedly even more efficient when you get down to the maths.

 

And yet not every player is using such methods. Strange, I cannot imagine why every club player in the world would not want to memorise a 200+ page artificial system that they will only be able to play in a few events every year due to system regulation. Perhaps you can think of a reason...?

[alok c]

This thread is DTD ( DONE TO DEATH) where relentless forces are meeting immovable object.

[RedSpawn]

My conclusion is that of the 4 players at the table - 3x adv, 1x exp - none is above intermediate standard. Of the 4, West (the 2♥ opener) took the least questionable actions. Against good players opening 2♥ is probably slightly -EV; against weak players it is probably a winner in the long run. Of the others, North's 2♠ overcall is more than questionable, the 4♠ raise ridiculous. East's double is clearly the worst call in the auction. And South's 3♠ raise is also highly questionable (but vies with Opener as being the least-worst). In the end though, this hand has little place in this thread. A better idea might have been to create an ATB thread for it.

 

As for the topic of how disciplined preempts should be, I heartily recommend a reading of Robson-Segal "Partnership Bidding in Bridge". The traditional idea of preempts in 1st and 2nd seats being strict (Rule of 500) has long been discarded and 1st seat is now seen by the vast majority of pairs as an ideal time to put the pressure on the opponents. That it sometimes instead puts pressure on partner is an acceptable side effect.

 

And finally, to Stef, would you and your partner really not preempt with something ♠QJT9876 ♥- ♦432 ♣432 NV in 1st? Or would that already be a 4♠ opening for you?

 

Thank you for your "expert" rating of me. Let me put that in File 13 .....{aka} the trashcan. Also, I don't rate people from one board, and especially a board in which the partner has lied from the initial bid. It takes a sample of boards to get a feel of someone's bridge rating. If you are in the business of judging someone bridge skills or lack thereof from one board then we have a lot of people whose bridge "brand" is going to be in trouble.

 

Again, comparative or contributory negligence is NOT a privilege to the lying partner. Please refer to the quote from Eddie Kantar.

 

When I lie to my partner for whatever the reason, I don't second guess my partner's moves after that. Don't get me wrong, in my earlier days, I would blamestorm in a minute. But I understand now how important the partnership relationship is and how I need to strike a balance with my partner.

 

If a player starts the auction on a convenient lie and then tries to justify and/or post mortem folks for actions taken after he told that lie, he is out of order. His own house has to be beyond reproach before he starts to look to his partner to explain a nasty outcome of a lie he told his partner.

 

A lot of folks are trying to release my partner from the lie he told, and while that's a noble effort, that isn't consistent with how deceptive bids and psychs work.

 

Own your mess.

 

There is no justification for a moth-eaten weak 2 bid from 1st seat and at best it is labeled an undisciplined weak 2♥ bid. That is his fruit, EAT IT and enjoy.

 

If you are the business of selling lies to a new partner, please let me know when you are going to play.

And I am still researching to find a single BBO game Johnu has played on BBO in the last six months under the Johnu user ID in MyHands. Stay tuned for further developments.

 

Thanks.

[diana_eva]

There are forum members who either don't play on BBO or use a different username there. This says nothing about the quality of their arguments.

[diana_eva]

I deleted two offtopic replies. Stick to the hand Redspawn, I already explained why you won't find hand records for some of the Forum members, no need to expand on that.

[Vampyr]

Though I would always lead the ♥T on this auction, the trump lead is not horrible.

 

However, the double, in my opinion, is incomprehensible--making it the worst "mistake" on the hand.

 

Well... I know it is resulting,but the hand does go down.

 

And I do think that the trump lead is horrible. I can't think of a reason for it. If RS's partner really did have top hearts, you want to cash them before the rats get at them.

 

And finally, to Stef, would you and your partner really not preempt with something ♠QJT9876 ♥- ♦432 ♣432 NV in 1st? Or would that already be a 4♠ opening for you?

 

This partner is really rigid, and he kind of regards a preempt as an invitation to 3NT. He also makes up meanings for every single card played on defense. He and I agree on very little, but I play with him once a month because I like him. He does play the cards well.

[MrAce]

Well... I know it is resulting,but the hand does go down.

 

And I do think that the trump lead is horrible. I can't think of a reason for it. If RS's partner really did have top hearts, you want to cash them before the rats get at them.

 

 

Redspawn controls both minor suits very well ( AQ AQ) and his pd says he has the hearts. What can be better reason on earth for leading trump when your side locked all other 3 suits and opponents still bid 4♠?

 

I mean it is ok to criticize the double. I would never double myself but I do not think it is such a huge logical mistake when his expectations from his pd and a weak 2♥ bid are more sound than the rest of us.

I do not think the lead was a mistake, I would have led spade myself. After he wins the ♣A he could perhaps panic (seeing 4 clubs in the dummy are literally ready to go after trumps are cleared) and decide to play pd for K of ♦, but the the fact is if 2♥ opener held the ♥K instead of ♦, only defense that beats 4♠ is to play ♥ now immediately which he did. It is not that hard for defenders to spot the entry issues of NS. So I disagree with the comments that says he defended bad.

[Phil]

I'd pass. The ODR just isn't good enough for even a weak 2 in 1st seat.

 

Redspawn: 1st seat is almost as good a time to preempt as 3rd and should not be mentioned in the same breath as one in 2nd.

[wank]

i am a conservative pre-emptor. i wouldn't open a weak 2 on the actual hand. still, even opposite myself i would never dream of doubling 4S.

[nige1]

IMO

• A bid isn't a lie if it's natural, conforms to normal practice, and you haven't agreed anything specific.
• You should allow some lee-way for partner's styles and treatments.
• Both the auction and the play are reasonable :)
• You can attribute the result to bad luck :(

[rmnka447]

I can sympathize some with Red Spawn about the quality of his partner's weak 2 bid. However, if being a "substitute" means playing with someone you've never played with before, then making any assumptions about partner's preempts is dangerous. That's especially true on BBO where player's chosen skill designations often have little bearing on the player's competence.

 

There is sentiment that the weak 2 presented was nothing unusual. Fine, if that's your style and partner is aware of how "light" you open weak 2s in 1st or 2nd seat. But something to consider is the overall range of weak 2 hands that you are opening. If you'll also open something like xx KQJxxx Kxx xx as a weak 2, you'll make it more of a problem for responder to visualize where the hand belongs. That's especially true in competitive situations where you lose tools, such as Ogust, to provide information about the weak 2 opener. Opposite OP's weak 2 hand, 4 ♥ has no chance, but opposite my example hand 4 ♥ is a good bet.

 

Somehow that does get lost on free and easy weak 2 proponents who emphasize the jamming aspects. Against weaker competition, that jamming can be very successful. But against really accomplished players, it is much less so. Those better players will still find their games and slams, but also discern when healthy sets are in the works and double.

 

How you play weak 2s is a choice. But make sure you understand what you gain and lose making that choice.

 

As for the actual hand --

 

Doubling 4 ♠ versus an unknown partner is a bit of a crap shoot. I'd probably pass.

 

As for the opening lead, I'd fall back on the Fred Will (a very good Detroit player 50-60 years ago) approach -- "I never do anything in the bidding or play that I can be criticized for in the post mortem." So, if partner bids a suit, Fred would lead partner's suit unless there was an overwhelming reason not to. A trump lead might be mandatory if the opponents showed a lot of distribution, but there's also a good chance that leading a trump might aid overcaller in bringing in the trump suit for minimum loss. So ♥ 10 for me.

 

Assuming declarer can see the need for ♣ pitches, I'd expect declarer to play the ♥ J from dummy and win in hand with the ♥ K maintaining a ♥ entry to dummy. Declarer has to tackle ♣ immediately. If he touches ♠ at all, it'll be easier to find the right defense. So ♣ 10 should be next.

 

As the cards lie, the best defense is to duck the ♣ A and have partner give count. I'm not so sure it would be easy to see at the table. If ♣ 10 is singleton, declarer has ♦ length and can't ruff out ♣ to provide needed discards even if the lead is overtaken in dummy. Let's say partner shows an odd number of ♣ and declarer ducks the ♣ 10. If declarer continues ♣, partner is in perfect position to give a suit preference signal with his/her remaining ♣ when you take your ♣ A.

 

If you rise with the ♣ A at trick 3, it'd be more of a guess. But the one thing you know is that partner had only ♥ Q and nothing in ♣. So partner ought to have something in either ♦ or ♠ for the weak 2 bid. If ♣ 2 under your ♣ A is count, then underleading in ♦ is less likely to cost anything. Unless overcaller started with 7 ♠, overcaller ought to have at least 3 ♦.

 

If declarer takes a round of trump after winning the ♥, it exposes that partner likely doesn't have anything in ♠. So the only way to beat the contract is to get 3 ♦ tricks. Underleading is then right to prevent blocking the suit.

[mcphee]

Up hard to believe you would cry about this hand especially sine you should beat it.

[johnu]

Redspawn controls both minor suits very well ( AQ AQ) and his pd says he has the hearts. What can be better reason on earth for leading trump when your side locked all other 3 suits and opponents still bid 4♠?

 

I originally said that a trump lead could be successful, but it could easily let a hopeless contract make. e.g. Give dummy a 3rd trump for transportation, and change West and North's red suit kings. Now West has KQ 6th of hearts so presumably everybody is happy with opening 2♥. You have to make an opening heart lead or it's too late.

 

 

I mean it is ok to criticize the double. I would never double myself but I do not think it is such a huge logical mistake when his expectations from his pd and a weak 2♥ bid are more sound than the rest of us.

 

IMP odds don't favor double when the opponents voluntarily bid game and you have nothing unexpected. I don't think you can expect more than down 1.

 

Other table Your table IMPs

3♠ +140 4♠X +100 +6

3♠ +140 4♠ +50 +5

 

If 4♠ is down 1, the other table stops in a partscore making, you gain an IMP by doubling

 

4♠ +420 4♠X -590 -5

4♠ +420 4♠ -420 0

 

If 4♠ makes, the other table bids a game, you lose 5 IMPs by doubling

 

3♠ +170 4♠X -590 -9

3♠ +170 4♠ -420 -6

 

If 4♠ makes, the other table bids stops in a partscore, you lose 3 IMPs by doubling

 

4♠ -50 4♠X +100 2

4♠ -50 4♠ +50 0

 

If 4 spades is down, both tables bids a game, you gain 2 IMPs by doubling

 

Not a huge mistake, but why leak IMPs if you don't have to.

 

 

After he wins the ♣A he could perhaps panic (seeing 4 clubs in the dummy are literally ready to go after trumps are cleared) and decide to play pd for K of ♦, but the the fact is if 2♥ opener held the ♥K instead of ♦, only defense that beats 4♠ is to play ♥ now immediately which he did. It is not that hard for defenders to spot the entry issues of NS. So I disagree with the comments that says he defended bad.

 

MrAce, I would expect you to automatically beat this contract after winning ♣A and seeing partner give a suit preference signal ♣2 on that trick. Since this is a BBO random game, you could argue that partner isn't good enough to give a suit preference signal, and you could be right, but you certainly have to make that decision and not automatically return a heart.

[johnu]

Assuming declarer can see the need for ♣ pitches, I'd expect declarer to play the ♥ J from dummy and win in hand with the ♥ K maintaining a ♥ entry to dummy. Declarer has to tackle ♣ immediately. If he touches ♠ at all, it'll be easier to find the right defense. So ♣ 10 should be next.

 

As the cards lie, the best defense is to duck the ♣ A and have partner give count. I'm not so sure it would be easy to see at the table. If ♣ 10 is singleton, declarer has ♦ length and can't ruff out ♣ to provide needed discards even if the lead is overtaken in dummy. Let's say partner shows an odd number of ♣ and declarer ducks the ♣ 10. If declarer continues ♣, partner is in perfect position to give a suit preference signal with his/her remaining ♣ when you take your ♣ A.

 

If you rise with the ♣ A at trick 3, it'd be more of a guess. But the one thing you know is that partner had only ♥ Q and nothing in ♣. So partner ought to have something in either ♦ or ♠ for the weak 2 bid. If ♣ 2 under your ♣ A is count, then underleading in ♦ is less likely to cost anything. Unless overcaller started with 7 ♠, overcaller ought to have at least 3 ♦.

 

If declarer takes a round of trump after winning the ♥, it exposes that partner likely doesn't have anything in ♠. So the only way to beat the contract is to get 3 ♦ tricks. Underleading is then right to prevent blocking the suit.

 

If declarer had singleton ♣10 and you duck, then probably has 6=2=4=1 distribution, so can afford to lose 2 or 3 diamond tricks, no trump tricks, no heart tricks, no club tricks.

 

If partner is supposed to give a suit preference on the 2nd club assuming you duck, a suit preference is even more obvious to make if you win the ace first club trick.

[RedSpawn]

Redspawn controls both minor suits very well ( AQ AQ) and his pd says he has the hearts. What can be better reason on earth for leading trump when your side locked all other 3 suits and opponents still bid 4♠?

 

I mean it is ok to criticize the double. I would never double myself but I do not think it is such a huge logical mistake when his expectations from his pd and a weak 2♥ bid are more sound than the rest of us.

I do not think the lead was a mistake, I would have led spade myself. After he wins the ♣A he could perhaps panic (seeing 4 clubs in the dummy are literally ready to go after trumps are cleared) and decide to play pd for K of ♦, but the the fact is if 2♥ opener held the ♥K instead of ♦, only defense that beats 4♠ is to play ♥ now immediately which he did. It is not that hard for defenders to spot the entry issues of NS. So I disagree with the comments that says he defended bad.

 

I am trembling as I type this.

 

Thank you, MrAce.

 

We have had our share of controversy and we may still differ from a style standpoint on what actually qualifies as a weak 2 from 1st seat too, but I am a straight-shooter on my bids -- that may be to my own detriment or benefit.

 

Very rare BBO Forum moment. :lol:

[RedSpawn]

i am a conservative pre-emptor. i wouldn't open a weak 2 on the actual hand. still, even opposite myself i would never dream of doubling 4S.

 

Fair enough and that is a very balanced view. It speaks of both the opener and the respondent.

 

I also found some lecture notes from Josh Donn on weak 2 on BBO Forum. I should cross-advertise his thoughts as well.

 

Pretty good read.

 

Josh Donn Lecture Notes Weak 2

[MrAce]

MrAce, I would expect you to automatically beat this contract after winning ♣A and seeing partner give a suit preference signal ♣2 on that trick. Since this is a BBO random game, you could argue that partner isn't good enough to give a suit preference signal, and you could be right, but you certainly have to make that decision and not automatically return a heart.

 

Oh boy! Now you are stepping into my world. Card play and defense and giving lectures?

 

When you start to give suit preference in a suit which declarer is trying to establish, instead of giving the count, or instead of simply following the suit without having to drop an honor card, it creates much more problems in other hands where giving SP has no value. It would not even occur to me to take ♣2 as a SP. Of course people love to create such signals when they see both hands in forums.

 

You are assuming, wrongly, that WEST will always have available spots to suit preference. Assume West played the 5. How on earth East is supposed to know whether you played 5 from 75 or 52 ?

You are assuming , wrongly again, that W knows who has the ♣Q so East will not worry W holding Q2 clubs. All of these pathetic signals make sense only when you see both hands.

 

Bottom line is, your comment on SP signal in a suit that declarer is trying to establish is ridiculous at best! People can not afford to follow with honors when declarer plays a club T from hand and pd wins with A. No one will play the Q from Q2 or Q7. You can live your dream of SP in this particular hand because you see E holds the Q and therefore he can assume that you followed the club suit according to SP and not had to follow from Qx.

 

As I told before, you can keep on pimpin in bidding topics or water cooler since no one can prove you wrong. But pimpin ain;t easy when it comes to play and defense of a hand.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

[johnu]

As the cards lie, the best defense is to duck the ♣ A and have partner give count.

 

As the cards lie, switching to a diamond always beats 4♠. If you switched the red kings, ducking the first club lets declarer have a winning line. Win heart ace, pitch a heart on ♣K, ♠A, finesse ♦10, later play ♦K to hold diamond losers to 2.