[Mbodell]

barmar, on 2015-January-28, 14:53, said:

I think the GCC regulation quoted above is to allow things like Polish Club. But you have to describe it properly as including those types of weak hands; saying that it shows 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength would not include weak, distributional hands like this.

This hand seems more like the kind of hand that would be opened 2♥ if you play that as showing weak 5♥ + 4+minor. While judgement varies, I find it hard to reconcile that the same hand could be considered a "strong, forcing" opening by some and "weak, distributional" by others.

If legality and misinformation are not a concern, I'd be a lot more concerned about partner's judgement treating this as a two suited 5♥+4+minor weak two than I would be treating this as a strong club strength (I.e., it is closer to strong club than weak 2). x Kxxxx Jxx KQxx is a maximal weak 2 2-suited hand for me (7 losers, I'd expect often to have 8 losers). The given hand in OP is a 5 losing trick hand (~ 6 hcp better), it meets the rule of 20 for constructive openers, and it is 28 ZAR points (more than a bare minimum opener, but not enough for a strong club). KQx Axx KQxx Qxx is a 16 hcp hand with no J even, but still 6 losers (not 5), the same 28 ZARs. Sure that 4333 is a below average 16 hcp and a bare minimum strong club, but it is a strong club. And there are reasonable enough evaluation systems that show the OP hand and that hand as about the same strength.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-January-28, 14:53, said:

This hand seems more like the kind of hand that would be opened 2♥ if you play that as showing weak 5♥ + 4+minor.

If someone opened 2♥, Lucas, Muiderberg or similar, partnering me, I would politely find a new partner.

[dburn]

Mbodell, on 2015-January-29, 01:29, said:

x Kxxx Jxx KQxx is a maximal weak 2 2-suited hand for me (7 losers, I'd expect often to have 8 losers)

You show me your thirteenth card, and I'll show you a loser.

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2015-January-29, 12:41, said:

If someone opened 2♥, Lucas, Muiderberg or similar, partnering me, I would politely find a new partner.

All fine and dandy, however, this is precisely the type of hand that two suited preemptive opening methods were designed to handle.
(I consider this a near textbook Wilkosz 2♦ - admittedly, one at the top of the range)

The reason that the Wilkosz 2♦ used to score so well in competitive play had little to do with the destructive nature of the bid: Rather, the really good scores occurred because being able to offload hands like the following from the constructive one level auction prevented a whole world of hurt.

The tables that were NOT playing Wilkosz would invariably open these hands with some kind of one level opening and end up careening into some no play 3NT contract or worse yet, see the opponents penalty doubled in some cold part score.

I'm not sure whether the same would necessarily hold true today (people open on crap a lot more and their auction style has adjusted to compensate)

[Mbodell]

dburn, on 2015-January-29, 14:32, said:

You show me your thirteenth card, and I'll show you a loser.

Sorry was supposed to be 1=5=3=4 7 loser 9 count.

[hrothgar]

In an interesting development, the following hand was dealt during the Poland - Bridgewinners match

♠ AK943
♥ QJ92
♦ T
♣ T53

The Poles picked up 13 when they were able to show this hand via 2 suited preempt while the players at the other table chose to open at the one level and ended up in a bad slam.

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-08, 15:30, said:

In an interesting development, the following hand was dealt during the Poland - Bridgewinners match

♠ AK943
♥ QJ92
♦ T
♣ T53

The Poles picked up 13 when they were able to show this hand via 2 suited preempt while the players at the other table chose to open at the one level and ended up in a bad slam.

Amazing how players who open hands with less than opening values wind up in a bad slam.

What does this prove?

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2015-February-08, 21:43, said:

Amazing how players who open hands with less than opening values wind up in a bad slam.

What does this prove?

Nothing, IMO. The fact that one team considered this hand a 2-suited preempt (and had the toy available) and the other guy in that seat thought it looked like an opening 1-bid within their agreements is pure serendipity.

I have seen a lot worse 13 counts for a 1-spade opening bid than that one.

Might be some fault in the auction after the 1S opening, but I don't know the responding hand or the tools they had.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2015-February-08, 21:43, said:

Amazing how players who open hands with less than opening values wind up in a bad slam.

What does this prove?

The point is that these major oriented hands can easily make game opposite a hand that is less than an opening but has a little bit of fit. So, if you don't want to miss game, you will need to do something.

If your options are limited to passing or opening, then it is inevitable that every now and then you go overboard if you open. That problem is solved when you have a gadget for these hands. That was already the case for the good old fashioned weak two in a major, but it also holds for major-major hands and Muiderberg hands. Apart from their preemptive function they have a constructive function: to take promising, optimistic hands out of the opening bids.

So, if you have a gadget available and open a 9-10 HCP hand with a regular opening bid instead of using your gadget then you forgot one of the reasons why you play these gadgets.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-09, 01:58, said:

So, if you have a gadget available and open a 9-10 HCP hand with a regular opening bid instead of using your gadget then you forgot one of the reasons why you play these gadgets.

Or never knew that reason in the first place.

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-09, 01:58, said:

So, if you have a gadget available and open a 9-10 HCP hand with a regular opening bid instead of using your gadget then you forgot one of the reasons why you play these gadgets.

Rik

This is true. However, we are not told that the player who opened 1S did have such gadget available, here. And, if the pair did have the same toy, perhaps they have a different view/agreement about whether the given hand qualifies as a "preempt".