Please describe your prempt style and how you evaluate this hand.
Your style 6223 weak 2's
#1
Posted 2024-August-13, 16:35
Please describe your prempt style and how you evaluate this hand.
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#2
Posted 2024-August-14, 02:39
#3
Posted 2024-August-14, 02:47
#4
Posted 2024-August-14, 03:25
I would never open 2S, I dont like a 1S opening, so it is either Pass or 3S.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#5
Posted 2024-August-14, 04:04
jillybean, on 2024-August-13, 16:35, said:
Please describe your prempt style and how you evaluate this hand.
Depends on if I am playing match point or Imps. If Imps, I probably pass. In match point, my style is 'down 3-4-5' unless partner is a passed hand where my style is down 2-3-4.
It looks like this hand will take 4 tricks if spades are trump, so could bid 3 Spades (in match point)
#6
Posted 2024-August-14, 04:12
Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-14, 02:47, said:
Too much defence? 1 quick trick.
3NT likely preferable to a suit contract if partner enquires.
My auction if so
2♠-2N
3♣ 6(331) or 62(32)-3♦ Which?
3♥ ♣ splinter or 62(32)-3♠ concern about ♣ otherwise 3N/4♥
#8
Posted 2024-August-14, 04:44
Tramticket, on 2024-August-14, 04:31, said:
KQ9854
102
52
962
is a more promising weak two.
2 Queens and a Jack outside. Downgrade defensive potential for the 'quacks'.
Your example is more preemptive, but more promuising for what?; certainly not game.
#9
Posted 2024-August-14, 06:38
mw64ahw, on 2024-August-14, 04:12, said:
3NT likely preferable to a suit contract if partner enquires.
My auction if so
2♠-2N
3♣ 6(331) or 62(32)-3♦ Which?
3♥ ♣ splinter or 62(32)-3♠ concern about ♣ otherwise 3N/4♥
Too low an ODR, the chance of those Qs and Js taking tricks are much higher in defence than offence
#10
Posted 2024-August-14, 08:23
P_Marlowe, on 2024-August-14, 03:25, said:
I would never open 2S, I dont like a 1S opening, so it is either Pass or 3S.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Hi, you say never 2S but 3S is an option, please explain.
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#11
Posted 2024-August-14, 09:45
#12
Posted 2024-August-14, 10:04
mikeh, on 2024-August-14, 09:45, said:
Do you still play this with no Multi?
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#13
Posted 2024-August-14, 10:49
jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 10:04, said:
Yes. Our methods are designed for imps. If we play mps, it really only as practice. Our methods are very complex so we need all the practice we can get😀. So when we can’t play multi, we use 2D as a weak weak two in hearts, which is (as I understand it) legal
#14
Posted 2024-August-14, 11:41
jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 08:23, said:
I just quote MikeH, it is a (super) heavy 2S, if the hand fits with p,
it will usually produce one more trick, than the usual w2 in this situation,
hence I open 1 trick higher, to tell p, that I happen to have a hand, that
has the potential of producing 1 more trick.
If the hand does not fit, the risk is, that they cant make anything, and I
am too high.
The bid is extreme anti field, it is quite ugly, it would be better, if the
suit would be hearts.
I mentioned 3S, if I cant bring myself to pass, this would be my option.
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#15
Posted 2024-August-14, 13:28
Your treatment of 3S being a trick better than 2S seems, at least to me, to be contrary to virtually all modern thinking about weak/preemptive bidding, at least if not vulnerable. Indeed, in my partnerships we sometimes open at the 3 level, at favourable, precisely because we’re too weak for a weak two….even a multi 2D.
Furthermore, a 3S preempt will often get partner to bid 4S over whatever the opps bid and our soft side cards and sterile shape suggests too many losers and, paradoxically, possibly too much defence.
I can understand, but disagree with, 1S. I just don’t understand 3S.
#16
Posted 2024-August-14, 19:41
I understand how this hand is at the maximum for 2S but rather than give up and pass, if we are making too many phantom sacs we probably need to look at our hand evaluation methods in competitive auctions.
Mike,
No Multi
2M 9+-13
2D weak 2 hearts
What do you do with weak 2 spades?
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#17
Posted 2024-August-14, 19:45
But I, too, can't stomach passing with this hand. I think 3♠ is looking for -500 into a mix of -170s and -620s, or -300 into a mix of -140s and +100s - or worse (I mean, it might be -800 into slam their way, but who's bidding it off both red queens and a spade trick?). So 2♠ it is.
My old Precision pair would open it 1♠, as we opened "10-15 NV, and 9s that look like 10s." Sure, this is a 10 that looks like 9, but still.
#18
Posted 2024-August-14, 22:46
jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 19:41, said:
Never tried it, but how about a Wicked 2♣ except that's a multi!
http://www.bridgemat...om/weakstng.htm
#19
Posted 2024-August-15, 02:13
We stand more chance of getting to good games by not opening it and letting partner bid his hand if he has one, and overcalling if he doesn't to compete, there must be a decent chance of 1m-P-1red and we get to overcall 1♠. If we open 1♠ we will get to a load of bad games.
#20
Posted 2024-August-15, 04:00