[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]

mikeh, on Jul 29 2010, 11:59 AM, said:

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.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Jul 29 2010, 06:13 PM, said:

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.

The section about two-bids on my ACBL convention card usually reads something like "4-9 1st/2nd (may be 5 cards 1st NV); 0-12 3rd, often 5 cards". I don't think I've ever noticed that much detail on an indigenous convention card.

I can even remember an opponent objecting that whilst it might be OK to bid like that, we shouldn't actually write it on the card.

[kfay]

Frankly this is like, the perfect hand for a 1N psyche. Maybe just a smidge too strong.

Unless partner is a max opps likely have a game and we have a good spot to run to.

So I don't see how the argument that psyching hasn't worked for you in the past, maybe you've just been psyching on the wrong hands.

Anyway ch00 would open 1♦ probably, but I never really get this. It does basically nothing to the opps. For me it's between 2 and 3 diamonds and I don't have strong feelings.

[kayin801]

My suit is too good for 2♦ so it's 1 or 3.

[pooltuna]

Fluffy, on Jul 29 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

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.

probably not too bad a call with

---

[P_Marlowe]

3D.

We dont have 2D av., the hand is even a 3D in 1st seat for us.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[peachy]

jillybean, on Jul 29 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

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

2D is a weak two in my system, but I would still open 3D. Third seat favorable, the fourth seat has a good hand, let us not make it easy for him and their side. There is no guarantee that 3D works out best, but it is still better than 2D. Just my opinion.

[JLOGIC]

Seems like a run of the mill 3D bid, My second choice if I had to make one would be 4D, I consider that slightly less crazy than 2D.

[nigel_k]

If you are blissfully happy bidding 3♦ you are not getting old. If you bid 3♦ and feel somewhat uncomfortable about it, you are getting old but in a good way. If you pass then it's time to start thinking about funeral arrangements. If you had a weak 2♦ available and still passed it can only be because rigor mortis has already set in.

[Siegmund]

Just the right number of offensive tricks for 3D at this vulnerability.

If you bid only 2D "because its only a 6-card suit" or "because it's a textbook weak two," you are a chicken. If you bid only 2D because you're concerned that the DAK might produce two defensive tricks and that's a flaw for a preempt, I will respect your opinion though still think 3D is the better bid.

[inquiry]

An aside, as you read this you are as old as you have ever been.....






Before you get too bummed out about that, as you read this, you are as young as will be from now on.


Got that from a comic strip a few weeks (months?) ago... I can't remember how long, but after all, I am as old as I have ever been now.

[neilkaz]

Siegmund, on Jul 29 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

Just the right number of offensive tricks for 3D at this vulnerability.

If you bid only 2D "because its only a 6-card suit" or "because it's a textbook weak two," you are a chicken. If you bid only 2D because you're concerned that the DAK might produce two defensive tricks and that's a flaw for a preempt, I will respect your opinion though still think 3D is the better bid.

These are also my thoughts at these colors playing MP. 3♦ for me hoping to give the opps more problems than I am giving our side.

[andy_h]

3♦. Sometimes I can have pure hands, sometimes less pure. We are in 3rd at w/r I like to spice things up a little. I don't exactly want to be only pre-empting text book hands.

[Mr. Dodgy]

I know I am getting older. it's OK, 3D for me regardless. I play 2D multi by choice, but would open 3 here anyway.

[gwnn]

I opened 2D but was seriously unhappy with it. I wanted to open 1 instead. Then I thought a little bit about it and I'm probably getting old.