[Fluffy]

---

Bridge for money (€0.75/IMP) I got this one wrong yesterday and was costly.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2015-February-02, 07:05

[billw55]

I would pass. Having opened 2♠, decisions are up to partner. He did not choose to sac, who am I to overrule him?

[dicklont]

billw55, on 2015-February-02, 08:19, said:

I would pass. Having opened 2♠, decisions are up to partner. He did not choose to sac, who am I to overrule him?

Well, south is the hand with the void and that's a big plus, but there are so many red suit losers.
I would pass, we have some hope that the preemptive bidding has forced them into the wrong contract.
It could be the wrong suit when partner holds the missing clubs and it could be 7. Who will tell?

[whereagles]

billw55, on 2015-February-02, 08:19, said:

I would pass. Having opened 2♠, decisions are up to partner. He did not choose to sac, who am I to overrule him?

That's the idea. But in practice we all often see the weak hand taking extra unilateral decisions which WORK.

Still, I'm not going to make one now. Too many "ifs".

[mikeh]

It would be no surprise to anyone to hear that I wouldn't have dreamt of opening with a weak 2 bid. I am not claiming that passing would have led to a better outcome, but the auction would have been quite different, including knowing if partner has values rather than a defenceless pre-empt. I would have passed, but not necessarily forever, and had I come in after P P P to an opening, partner would have known I didn't hold a weak 2 bid, and then HE might be able to make the decision, or help me more than was possible.

In any event, having taken a view on the first round, I think that I have to pass. It isn't as if my hand has no defensive upside....that club void may be a defensive asset, as the opps find they have at least one unexpected trump loser, and my diamond cards may be useful and even the heart length may be an asset...meanwhile the red cards probably play worse on offence than they do on defence.

Finally, one thing I have learned the hard way is that one of the worst sins in bridge is to take a view and then, without clear justification, change that view. Generally, when one pre-empts, one is from then on out of the auction unless invited by partner to contribute further. He probably had no way to invite us here, but that isn't a reason to infer that he would have done so if possible.

So they make and we lose money. Big deal. Going for a phantom is far, far worse even if not in the short term. RHO will own you for a long time if you save and it is wrong.

oh...and in addition, while the hesitation by RHO is UI to LHO, LHO is still allowed to bid his hand over 6♠. Even traditionalists like me wouldn't take a pass over 6♠ as promising first round spade control...it would simply show a GOOD hand for 6♣ and now we may have pushed them to a making grand!

So bidding 6♠ has more than one way to cost us a lot of money.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2015-February-02, 13:19, said:

It would be no surprise to anyone to hear that I wouldn't have dreamt of opening with a weak 2 bid.

Not even white on red?

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2015-February-02, 13:27, said:

Not even white on red?

bridge is a partnership game. I try to play only with partners whose calls I can trust. Does that mean that neither they nor I ever 'step out'? No, but it means that if and when we do, we don't expect partner to cater to it unless the table action tells them so.

A weak 2♠, to me, if I still played them in a 'good' partnership, which I don't, should have a semblance of a defensive trick. This hand doesn't qualify. I'm not saying it needs a 'sure' or even a 'probable' defensive trick and the distinction may be subtle.

Look at it this way: the only reason we don't want to leave the decision to partner is that we feel that we haven't described our hand to partner. Part of that is shape, but would we be thinking of saving with Qxxxxx xxxx Kxx void? I doubt it...that diamond King sure sounds like it may be a trick, far more so that Q10x does....when our defensive trick is a third round winner, there is too much chance that LHO has only 2 or can pitch on hearts.

I readily concede that on this auction a perfectly fine 2♠on, say, KQ10xxx xxx xxxx void would create a similar problem, but here I'd be thinking that partner can expect this holding.

When we are tempted to bid because we have not described our hand accurately, then we should pass, absent clear justification.

[Fluffy]

Don't worry about partnership this is individual, you don't even know who partner is

[whereagles]

Totally standard weak 2 at these colours, if I say so myself

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on 2015-February-02, 14:28, said:

Don't worry about partnership this is individual, you don't even know who partner is

You play money imps without knowing who the opps are or even partner? Wow. Not for me, thx. Partners can kill you if they are bad, no matter how good you are. The stakes aren't that high, I suppose, but even so I wouldn't want to play what is about $1 (Canadian) per imp with no clue as to partner.

[MrAce]

I would open 2♠. Now I pass over 6♣

We achieved our goal by preempting and pd put them under some more pressure. RHO had to make a decision at 5 and decided to force his pd to bid a slam. LHO chose one. They may be too high or they maybe cold for grand. Or they may have just got it right and making only slam. If they are making slam our save can be good or bad or close to equal minus of slam they have.

Bottom line is, by saving we are probably ruining a lot of good things that may have happened due to our pressure and putting all our money on the success of their slam and our significant gain in save. It can happen of course, and probably did due to being posted here, but imho it is losing action in long run to save here.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2015-February-02, 13:42, said:

A weak 2♠, to me, if I still played them in a 'good' partnership, which I don't, should have a semblance of a defensive trick.

(...)

I readily concede that on this auction a perfectly fine 2♠on, say, KQ10xxx xxx xxxx void would create a similar problem, but here I'd be thinking that partner can expect this holding.

Wow I am really surprised - I have never heard of a semblance of a defensive trick as a requirement for a weak two. I thought KQJTxx xxx xxx x is the prototypical, old-fashioned weak two! [Of course I would ponder showing extras if I open that hand 2S at w/r.]

Here are some arguments against opening the hand of the OP hand a weak two that I have heard in the past:

• Too much unexpected defense with a void
  
• The suit is too weak.
  
• Too few hcp.
  
• Too much shape at white/red, I would open 3♠.

But "doesn't have a defensive trick" is a new one for me. Thanks Mike!

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2015-February-02, 16:52, said:

Wow I am really surprised - I have never heard of a semblance of a defensive trick as a requirement for a weak two. I thought KQJTxx xxx xxx x is the prototypical, old-fashioned weak two! [Of course I would ponder showing extras if I open that hand 2S at w/r.]

Here are some arguments against opening the hand of the OP hand a weak two that I have heard in the past:

• Too much unexpected defense with a void
  
• The suit is too weak.
  
• Too few hcp.
  
• Too much shape at white/red, I would open 3♠.

But "doesn't have a defensive trick" is a new one for me. Thanks Mike!

Maybe read my post more clearly.

Maybe take a look at where I said this wasn't saying a sure trick or even a probable trick...merely the semblance of one.

As an illustration, assume I held a stiff spade and partner opened 3♠ at favourable. Well, he MAY have a trick but in deciding what action to take, should the opps bid, I will assume that partner may contribute no defence at all. By contrast, if he opened a weak 2 bid, I would assume that his spade values will pose a problem for the opps most of the time, not in the sense that he will surely take a trick, but if he has no cards on the side, then I'd expect his spades to pose a problem for the opps, who have 6 spades or so between them, and probably need to deal with them in some manner.

KQxxxx is a semblance of a trick, if only because the most likely shapes are 322 or 331, and when 331, 1/3rd of the time it is partner with the stiff. Therefore, other things being equal, the opps rate to have a chance of a spade loser. QJxxxx isn't as good, and Q10xxxx is even worse.

Btw, I thought we were through with taking cheap shots at each other? Especially the type that requires distorting what the other one wrote.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2015-February-02, 16:05, said:

You play money imps without knowing who the opps are or even partner? Wow. Not for me, thx.

You are making your mind too quickly, the standard level is pretty high, as the stakes are high enough. Being anonymous is the only way that has been found for being able to play online with no cheating.

[cherdano]

Actually it wasn't meant as a cheap shot at all. I had honestly never heard of this as a consideration. And while my list of other reasons not to open a weak two contains two, IMHO, silly ones (void or too few hcp), it also contains two completely reasonable ones (suit quality too bad, or much more shape than partner expects for a weak two in that position in a given partnership).

[gszes]

There are several factors involved with deciding to pass here.

1. I seriously doubt we would let the opps settle in 7c and we would take a 7s sac so
deciding to sac here you might as well add another 300 to the expected penalty.

2. Why did partner merely bid 4s instead of something more dramatic? Is it possible
they know something about their hand we do not know?

3. Assuming we successfully manage to play 6sx how many tricks do we expect to take
I see 5 spades and and and sheesh 2 more at most maybe. Going for 1100 vs 1370(90) is
hardly a recipe for avoiding losing big bucks (saving 1 imp?) Even if we can score 9
tricks (we save only 5 imps) (see below)

4. What if ummm the opps have erred either due to belonging in 7n or 6 of anything else
but clubs? Partner may have made a perfect 4s bid and taking a phantom sac is a really
really REALLY good way of losing big bucks.


Taking a closer look at reason 3 is chilling---Let us assume (for no good reason) that the opps
have bid perfectly and the only thing that might set them is poor club distribution. Looking at
our hand what are the odds of this happening? In order for our sac to work in the long run we
calculate we are saving around 1-5 imps every time we sac (chump change-modest change) but when
the sac is phantom we are tossing back around 15 imps. Even under these perfect conditions we need
to be right around 97% of the time to break even in the long run (or maybe 75% if we are lucky).
When we are right we get a (puny or small) gain but when we are wrong we suffer a much more psychologically
damaging huge negative and that is on top of the fact we are assuming partner is doing the wrong thing.

[masonbarge]

cherdano, on 2015-February-02, 17:53, said:

Actually it wasn't meant as a cheap shot at all. I had honestly never heard of this as a consideration. And while my list of other reasons not to open a weak two contains two, IMHO, silly ones (void or too few hcp), it also contains two completely reasonable ones (suit quality too bad, or much more shape than partner expects for a weak two in that position in a given partnership).

This may be confusion of terminology between "quick trick" and "defensive trick". I expect more in the way of honors for a 2 bid. KJ10 counts as a quick trick although you're not likely to see it on defense.

[marcD]

if i were to bid , i would double showing willingness to bid 6S but i do not think this is the hand for it . My offense to defense ratio is good but not exceptionnal . Not clear the opponents know what they are doing and even if 5S is actually a 3 suiter with a spade void,it is unclear they have landed into their best contract (for all I know they may be cold for 7C or actually belong to 6D or 6H ).

[Fluffy]

marcD, on 2015-February-04, 02:41, said:

if i were to bid , i would double showing willingness to bid 6S but...

This would be great if understood by partner, but on an individual double doesn't look very realsitic.

[Fluffy]

---

If someone bid 6♠ I would ask what to do over RHO's 7♣, but nobody did, same as me who passed hoping partner had something god in clubs. Sadly even 7♠ -800 is better than 6♣.

I lost 8 for -1390, 500 in 6♠ would pick a lot I guess, and 7♠ would also win 5 or 6.