[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-July-20, 00:44, said:

It is 100% forcing in standard, though I personally play it as NF. I've been informed this is sufficiently unexpected that one opponent even told me I had to alert it, which is technically incorrect but a good idea in the spirit of full disclosure. I've been getting funny looks whenever I alerted this bid ever since.

We play it highly encouraging but not forcing, the more wide range your weak 2s, and ours are VERY wide the better it is to play not absolutely forcing.

[DavidKok]

It's simply NF for me. Partner may raise if we struck gold (for example a 3-card suit) and is expected to pull with a void, and in all other situations pass is normal. So not that encouraging.

Generally we only preempt with hands that have low defence and are a lot stronger in the suit bid than in any other suit. Typically partner can count on almost nothing at all in support of a game in a different suit, so investigating the best 4M game is actually very low priority (but we retain the option by starting with 2NT). If a hand doesn't match these criteria it is typically better to pass instead of jump the bidding. On the other hand, our preempts are extremely wide-ranged. Nobody vulnerable first seat I would bid 2♥ with both ♠xx, ♥KQJxxx, ♦Ax, ♣xxx and with ♠xx, ♥JT9xxx, ♦xx, ♣xxx.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-July-20, 02:41, said:

It's simply NF for me. Partner may raise if we struck gold (for example a 3-card suit) and is expected to pull with a void, and in all other situations pass is normal. So not that encouraging.

Generally we only preempt with hands that have low defence and are a lot stronger in the suit bid than in any other suit. Typically partner can count on almost nothing at all in support of a game in a different suit, so investigating the best 4M game is actually very low priority (but we retain the option by starting with 2NT). If a hand doesn't match these criteria it is typically better to pass instead of jump the bidding. On the other hand, our preempts are extremely wide-ranged. Nobody vulnerable first seat I would bid 2♥ with both ♠xx, ♥KQJxxx, ♦Ax, ♣xxx and with ♠xx, ♥JT9xxx, ♦xx, ♣xxx.

We preempt very aggressively in first seat and don't restrict ourselves to pure hands (although your first hand opens 1 for us). x, xxxx(x), xxx, xxxx(x) opens 2♥ for us (at favourable) as does xx, AKJxxx, xx, xxx but also Jxxx, KQ10xx, x, xxx, hence we use change of suit on hands where we don't want partner to go nuts on a good misfitting hand, and can pass with rubbish.

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-July-20, 03:32, said:

x, xxxx(x), xxx, xxxx(x) opens 2♥ for us (at favourable) as does xx, AKJxxx, xx, xxx but also Jxxx, KQ10xx, x, xxx

I would never preempt with the first or third hand (unless I had these specific 2-suiter preemptive bids, which I also don't love much but if you play them you have to use them). There are too many ways for it to lead to a bad score - missing your best suit, preempting partner without clear direction, partner overbidding or even phantom sacrifices all have a higher chance than normal on those hands.

The middle hand is an easy 3♥ for me at favourable first seat but you could mastermind it with 2♥.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-July-20, 04:07, said:

The middle hand is an easy 3♥ for me at favourable first seat but you could mastermind it with 2♥.

AKJ 6 times and out is a 3 opener but KQJ 6x and an ace opens 2 ? First seat at all vuls we open it 2.

Our opening bids only show the bid suit and are 4+ cards first and third. They occasionally contain longer clubs

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2021-July-20, 00:44, said:

It is 100% forcing in standard, though I personally play it as NF. I've been informed this is sufficiently unexpected that one opponent even told me I had to alert it, which is technically incorrect but a good idea in the spirit of full disclosure. I've been getting funny looks whenever I alerted this bid ever since.

Would be technically correct in Italy. You would still get some funny looks when alerting, but also some tricky Director calls should you fail to do so.

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-July-20, 04:59, said:

AKJ 6 times and out is a 3 opener but KQJ 6x and an ace opens 2 ? First seat at all vuls we open it 2.

Our opening bids only show the bid suit and are 4+ cards first and third. They occasionally contain longer clubs

Different vulnerabilities, for one. But also yes, the extra ace is a serious demerit and warrants a downgrade from a preemptive point of view. It's too much work for me to give the complete roster of what level to open with each hand at each vulnerability at position (24 total options for 2 hands), but I would have several different answers across the board.
I've never preempted on four card suits, though I have struggled against people opening 2♥ showing 4-4 or longer in the majors. It might be very strong, I'm not sure.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-July-20, 06:45, said:

Different vulnerabilities, for one. But also yes, the extra ace is a serious demerit and warrants a downgrade from a preemptive point of view. It's too much work for me to give the complete roster of what level to open with each hand at each vulnerability at position (24 total options for 2 hands), but I would have several different answers across the board.
I've never preempted on four card suits, though I have struggled against people opening 2♥ showing 4-4 or longer in the majors. It might be very strong, I'm not sure.

Not trying to derail the thread, but the genesis of our 4 card weak 2s was a weekend where I played with somebody I'd never played with before and twice playing 5 card weak 2s we had auctions that started with a weak 2 on a 4 card suit and a psyche opposite. Fortunately the director wasn't called on either, but we realised it might be an idea to make this systemic. The funniest was a 5035 whale of a hand not playing LM hears 2♦ on his right, doubles, LHO bids 2♠, partner bids 4♥ back to him, stays fixed. Partner has ♥AKQ10xxx and makes 7 when they're 3-3, which was fortunate as our team mates bid 7.

[Douglas43]

pescetom, on 2021-July-20, 06:27, said:

Would be technically correct in Italy. You would still get some funny looks when alerting, but also some tricky Director calls should you fail to do so.

it would also be alertable in England:

"4 H 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:
(...)
(d) A non-forcing new suit response, to a non-forcing suit opening at any level, below game,unless responder has previously passed, bids over a natural NT overcall, or makes a double jump"

[jillybean]

Here's the full hand;

---

[DavidKok]

I'm having trouble figuring out what the optimal contract is even with all cards visible, never mind with only 13, never mind with only 13 and opening 2♦. I guess 2♦-2♠ (I don't know why we'd bid 2♥); 3♣ and now what?

[mw64ahw]

I guess we end up in 3NT with South's hcp count although I suspect that ♦ may play better

2NT-3NT

[pilowsky]

The Bridgesolver extension for chrome/edge also works on the Forum:
https://dds.bridgewe...68.36687917.pbn
Optimal is 6D South.

[Cyberyeti]

pilowsky, on 2021-July-22, 03:47, said:

The Bridgesolver extension for chrome/edge also works on the Forum:
https://dds.bridgewe...68.36687917.pbn
Optimal is 6D South.

a) double dummy solvers are not useful here unless you always get 3-3 trump breaks
b) N opened 2♦ so 6♦ (S) is impossible

People are talking about the best practical contract

[Winstonm]

After a forcing major suit bid by south, north should not bid 3C unless the agreement is specifically a two-suited hand Otherwise, 3D so partner can infer a lack of entries outside the suit.