[Winstonm]

I am quite adamant about having no void for a weak 2-bid. A void is simply too strong of holding and cannot be adequately accounted for in the valuation of the hand, as the hand must have 6043 shape, meaning that it is of value in support with the 4-card holding as well as in its own suit.

There is considerable difference between 6043 and 6142 as 4-card support, as the latter has a tempo loss if the oppenents start with a trump lead. In a high card crossruff, with a trump lead, the first hand can generate 3 ruffing tricks while the second can only guarantee 2 tricks. A 1-trick difference is a significant amount in hand strength.

[awm]

It's not clear that options other than opening 2♠ will get you to game accurately. For example:

(1) If north starts with a pass, then south could easily open and pass north's 1♠ response on a hand where game makes.

(2) If north starts with 1♠, then you will certainly get to game here, but you will also get to any number of poor games when south has more in hearts (for example opposite Kxx AQx Jxx Kxxx it is hard to imagine avoiding a no-play game after a 1♠ open).

The issue with voids is not simply that they deliver "playing strength" but that their value substantially depends on the nature of partner's hand.

I'd bid 2♠ with this hand and not worry about it too much. At vulnerable the south hand might push towards game (because my vulnerable preempts are super-sound) but otherwise I'd accept missing it.

[csdenmark]

jillybean2, on Dec 23 2006, 07:01 AM, said:

Dealer: West Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ AQT976 ♥   ♦ J82 ♣ Q643 ♠ K53 ♥ QT7 ♦ T96 ♣ AK72

(P) 2♠ (P) ?

your bid please

I see perspectives so I ask with 2NT.

As I receive 3♠ response I raise to game.

[Gerben42]

Red vs white you should have a decent hand for 2♠ so it is perfect. Not vulnerable I would have opened 3♠ with this. Never 1♠ for me, though.

So you missed a game. Big deal. Chances are the other tables will too! Get rid of the expectation that your bidding system gets you to game every time when it is right and keeps you out every time that is right too. Both players have obviously bid correctly. Not opening this hand with 2♠ would be giving opponents a free ride, besides if partner had had

♠K53
♥AK72
♦QT7
♣T95

I guess you wouldn't have posted it either.

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Dec 24 2006, 05:46 PM, said:

neilkaz, on Dec 23 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

1) I really don't think vul is supposed to affect your decisions to open at the 1 level in first or 2nd seat (for me it has almost no effect at the 1 level in 3rd or 4th)

Huh When you are making a decision to preempt or open at the 1level why not consider vulnerability?

There are too issues here:
1) Should preempts be weaker when NV than when V?
2) Should preempts be less disciplined when NV than when V?

As for 1), my answer is NO, allthough I know some would say YES. My point is that, other things being equal, it's no more dangerous to preempt with a very weak hand than with a less weak hand. Besides, it's already difficult enough getting used to p's overall preempt style. If you also have to getting used to several preempt styles depending on vulnerability, scorring and seat it doesn't make your life easier.

As for 2), I would say it depends. At IMPs, there's more to gain than to loose from a slugish preempt at favorable than at nonfavorable. At MP, this is much less the case (except if you preempt on a 5-card or very bad 6-card when vulnerable: the 2-level may be too high).

[jillybean]

Gerben42, on Dec 25 2006, 01:24 PM, said:

Red vs white you should have a decent hand for 2♠ so it is perfect. Not vulnerable I would have opened 3♠ with this. Never 1♠ for me, though.

So you missed a game. Big deal. Chances are the other tables will too! Get rid of the expectation that your bidding system gets you to game every time when it is right and keeps you out every time that is right too. Both players have obviously bid correctly. Not opening this hand with 2♠ would be giving opponents a free ride, besides if partner had had

♠K53
♥AK72
♦QT7
♣T95

I guess you wouldn't have posted it either.

I dont think we DO have the expectation that our bidding will get us to the perfect contract each time, what we DONT have is the knowledge & experience to spot our mistakes each time. If we havent made any mistakes that nice!! -, glad its obvious to you, this isnt the ADV/EXP forum

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2006-December-25, 17:05

[Winstonm]

Quote

There are too issues here:
1) Should preempts be weaker when NV than when V?
2) Should preempts be less disciplined when NV than when V?

My answers to these questions are yes and yes, sort of. It all goes back to gains and losses. There are 3 vulnerabilites to consider, favourable, unfavourable, and equal, and each should be treated differently.

Favourable, i.e., NV vs Vul has the most gain and the smallest loss, so this should have the most flexibility both in range and quality.

Unfavourable has the least gain and the largest loss, so these standards should be rather rigid.

Equal is closer to unfavourable and should be treated as such, with only slight shadings from unfavourable.

So my answer is this: when NV vs Vul, preempts can be weaker and can also be stronger - there is a wider latitude, and quality is equally more open. When vulnerable vs not or at equal vul, preempts by necessity become more disciplined as the gain/loss equation narrows.

[whereagles]

I cannot imagine NOT opening a weak 2. That "no void" kinda sounds like akin to the "no side 4 major" which has been disregarded in practice for more than a billion years now.

[neilkaz]

I would also open this 2♠ even 2nd seat vulnerable where, I like to conform to the "rules". I'll note that is we take a small ♦ and make it a small ♥, "everyone" would open 2♠ and game would still be missed unless S takes a shot and hopes ♣ can be brought in for no losers or that if there is a C loser, N can cover a red suit loser and before 4 tricks are lost.

Now if my ♠ were ♦ I would not open a 2nd seat vul 2♦ since here, I really want to conform to the guidelines, and just as importantly 2♦ doesn't preempt nearly as much as 2♠ does.

Re: side 4 card majors... I won't have one if I open 2♦ in first or second seat, but may have a weak 4 card ♥ suit if I open 2♠ and once in a while a weak 4 card ♠ suit when I open 2♥. I would almost never have a void as well as a side 4 card major since it seems too likely to miss a better contract.

[keylime]

There's a guideline a few months ago called the rule of Mel in the ACBL Bulletin.

If memory serves, if the HCP plus trump length is 17 or higher, you're supposed to do something.

I pass, with my bad 4333.