[42]

Team match, you white, opps red
1. hand passes and you have to decide whether to open - and if so, how - the following bad hand:

---

[gwnn]

Axxxxxx is a very bad suit, 2272 is a bad shape. But we are NV, so yea 2♦ sounds right to me. 3♦ is also not unreasonable.

[Cyberyeti]

In first seat, complete no brainer 3♦ by my methods, but in second looks like 2♦ to me.

[Hanoi5]

2nd seat you should be serious. Here the 7th diamond makes me lean towards opening but 3 is just too much at this position. I'd open 3 in 3rd seat, probably.

[aguahombre]

Here is my convuluted thinking:

In first seat I have 3 people to mislead and disrupt by "doing something" which doesn't represent the hand I have.

In second seat I have only two people to mislead and disrupt.

There is a call available for hands which don't fit into the general "box" of any bid.

[Trinidad]

3♦.

I don't like 2♦ much. In my style, a weak two promisses some values and a little bit of defense, which I don't have. A preempt at the three or four level just promisses lots of trumps and good offense to defense ratio which I do have. But to each their own style.

Rik

[pjs_ch]

Pass every time.

In second seat, pre-empts should be reasonably constructive as one of the oppo has passed. This suit quality gets nowhere near what partners would expect. Overall high card count doesn't affect this.

[Statto]

5 playing tricks is about right for a 3 level pre-empt at these colours, tho a stretch in 2nd seat the 987 bolster the suit a bit. I have values in ♦ and nowhere else. I don't even have a 3-card side suit.

[cherdano]

Pass because we are in second seat.

[rogerclee]

I really dislike pass, this may be our last chance to conveniently describe our hand as approximately weak with long diamonds, so let's not overthink it and open 2D.

[jmcw]

Seems closest to a 2♦ call. Less explaining to do if it works out badly.

Never pass, since I would have little chance to show this later.

[whereagles]

yucky shape and an ace advise caution: 2D should be adequate. 3 is over-cooking it and pass is... well.. tame.

[Statto]

2♦ seems tame to me. I appear to have an extra ♦ which I don't plan to introduce later

[aguahombre]

I understand people might want to bid 2D if available; I don't understand wanting to bid 3D. And I certainly don't understand those who think it is describing their hand.

2D would be a tactical bid, not a description. The passers seem to feel the "description" is more like a hand semi-balanced with one trick.

[Statto]

3♦ is also tactical, but if it were a description, I think it would be more fitting than 2♦. Also, I don't want to start with e.g. 2♦-(x)-p-(2♠) then think "I wish I'd started with 3♦." And pre-empting partner is not a big concern here as I have no interest in playing anywhere other than ♦, so I may as well stake that claim now. Partner should be prepared for a barrage-type bid at these colours, even from 2nd seat.

As to having an ace, well it is in my suit

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-04, 21:04, said:

2D would be a tactical bid, not a description.

false.

[aguahombre]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-04, 21:04, said:

2D would be a tactical bid, not a description.

gwnn, on 2012-January-04, 22:52, said:

false.

I stand corrected. It would be a description, but of some other hand.

[the hog]

This is an awful hand. This is also a totally obvious 2nd seat pass. In third seat I would try 2D.

"I stand corrected. It would be a description, but of some other hand."

I agree with this. It is certainly not a description of a weak 2 in Ds.

[aguahombre]

Statto, on 2012-January-04, 22:40, said:

And pre-empting partner is not a big concern here as I have no interest in playing anywhere other than ♦

Hmm, we have 2-card tolerance for each of the other suits, and a bullet for offense or defense. Might even be able to contribute a ruffing value if the hand is played in some other suit by either side. That sounds like mild interest in playing or defending the hand in any strain.

[42]

Thx all for your replies!

Here is the whole hand

3NT + 2 for -9,33 IMPs

---

We played against the GIBs and all GIBs on N opened 3♦ which was passed for -3, or S bid 3NT for -3/-4/-5 which was a better result than that at our table since N/S played undoubled.

Postmortem: normally I would pass with such a hand but since we were practising I opened 2D to see where it would end. My partner was "not amused" about my 2♦ opening and argued that he would like to be able to double opponent's contract and therefore my opening is too weak for a w2, I must open 3♦. I don't understand his argument because here I have an A, imo more likely a trick than KDBxxx which for him qualifies for a w2 opening.

So perhaps the -9 IMPs are probably a result of playing against the GIBs who naturally all chose the 3♦ bid and the preempt worked well. The humans sit most of the time on south and rarely 2 humans play against the robots.

This post has been edited by 42: 2012-January-05, 17:13