[RedSpawn]

Interestingly enough, I just played as a substitute on BBO Recycle Bin Tournament #7315 Pairs on 05/13 and had a partner holding the following hand:

J8♠ Q86543♥ KJ ♦ 652♣.

Both teams white:

From 1st seat, he opened an unconventional weak 2♥. I am pretty sure he was of the mindset that he needs to jam up the opponents before they jam us up, so suit quality of his trump suit was not his primary concern. But this is exactly why I am concerned about relaxing the weak 2 standard. It will ultimately devolve into these type of unorthodox opens.

The ♦ doubleton has dubious honors and the heart suit quality is just. . . horrible.

Keep in mind that he has opened weak 2 ♥ and he doesn't know the whereabouts of the 9,10,J,K, or A♥.

For sure, he was the 1st to open, but I don't know if I can double the 4♠ spade bid from the opponents when I have diamonds and clubs more than well controlled since the quality of his heart suit could be suspect.

Again, the bridge auction is full of promises and if I can't trust the accuracy of the opening bid, then that reality prevents me from uncovering potentially juicy doubles.

That is another problem, when you make unconventional weak 2 bids, you effectively muffle your partner's ability to double the opponent's game bid because you make no express or implied promises about the condition or quality of your preemptive bid.

[johnu]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-13, 09:09, said:

Keep in mind that he has opened weak 2 ♥ and he doesn't know the whereabouts of the 9,10,J,K, or A♥.

For sure, he was the 1st to open, but I don't know if I can double the 4♠ spade bid from the opponents when I have diamonds and clubs more than well controlled since the quality of his heart suit could be suspect.

Again, the bridge auction is full of promises and if I can't trust the accuracy of the opening bid, then that reality prevents me from uncovering potentially juicy doubles.

That is another problem, when you make unconventional weak 2 bids, you effectively muffle your partner's ability to double the opponent's game bid because you make no express or implied promises about the condition or quality of your preemptive bid.

You seem to be obsessed about doubling the opponents. If partner passes showing no suit and no points, how are you better off deciding to double the opponents contract? Don't worry, that was just a rhetorical question.

[RedSpawn]

johnu, on 2017-May-13, 11:36, said:

You seem to be obsessed about doubling the opponents. If partner passes showing no suit and no points, how are you better off deciding to double the opponents contract? Don't worry, that was just a rhetorical question.

http://www.bridgeguy..._agreement.html

Preach it, Bridgeguys!

Partnership Agreements
"Whatever you decide, always try to remain within the allotted boundaries of your personal partnership agreement. In this manner, you will never have a confused partner sitting across from you. By using a partnership agreement, you will avoid many emotional situations in the future. By adhering to the partnership agreement, you will be able to avoid mishaps as you continue to play and develop that essential element of trust in your partner."

J8♠ Q86543♥ KJ ♦ 652♣.

Weak 2♥?

Should I be confused? Yes. Can I trust my partner to have what he bids, heck no! This is a fine weak 2 from 3rd seat, but from 1st or 2nd seat, our partnership. . . no, I take that back, I deserve better!

Weak 2 promises a 7-9 hcp hand with 6 and 10 pts being the exception.

Here we have a technical 7 HCP hand but it would be ridiculous to count both the KJ♦ diamonds as working points since these honors are trapped in a doubleton. Also, how are you going to count the J♠ trapped in the doubleton too? The Q♥ is not even guarded by a 10♥.

None of these points, except the K♦, are working values which means this is a garbage hand that is best described from 1st seat with a call of PASS.

By the way, Johnu, the opposition didn't have game until I lead the suit that my partner felt the need to preemptively bid. My partner didn't jam up the opposition, he jammed up our defense of the contract by bidding an unconventional, nonconforming weak 2♥ when a simple call of PASS would have sufficed. The opposition got to sluff a loser over their heart winners since they had the J♥,K♥, and A♥. Bridge hilarity at its finest.

So much for being the 1st to open. We jam ourselves up and this mishap will be swept under the rug as unavoidable collateral damage for a higher opening frequency.

[johnu]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-13, 12:50, said:

By the way, Johnu, the opposition didn't have game until I lead the suit that my partner felt the need to preemptively bid. My partner didn't jam up the opposition, he jammed up our defense of the contract by bidding an unconventional, nonconforming weak 2♥ when a simple call of PASS would have sufficed. The opposition got to sluff a loser over their heart winners since they had the J♥,K♥, and A♥. Bridge hilarity at its finest.

So much for being the 1st to open. We jam ourselves up and this mishap will be swept under the rug as unavoidable collateral damage for a higher opening frequency.

Not that I don't trust your play analysis (well, probably not since I definitely don't trust your bidding theories), but what were the 4 hands and bidding. As a sidenote, anecdotal stories are just that. One bad result does not mean that a strategy is bad, just as one good result does not mean that a strategy is good.

[RedSpawn]

johnu, on 2017-May-13, 13:59, said:

Not that I don't trust your play analysis (well, probably not since I definitely don't trust your bidding theories), but what were the 4 hands and bidding. As a sidenote, anecdotal stories are just that. One bad result does not mean that a strategy is bad, just as one good result does not mean that a strategy is good.

Well since I don't trust your play analysis or your bidding theories on how opening 1st on recycle bin values will lead to a good result (all things considered) and any collateral damage that occurred must be analyzed because the respondent must have done something to cause this. . .The likelihood of your getting the board now is about the same as the likelihood of your getting dealt 13 hearts.

You must really have lost it if you think you are going to insult me and then after doing so I am going to hand over the board to you.

I don't cater to those who throw a poisoned dart but want me to start their legwork.

For my partner to bid weak 2♥, and the opposition and I to have the 9♥,10♥,J♥,K♥,& A♥ just made me shake my head about being the 1st to bid reigns supreme. Who cares about suit quality or bidding precision or accuracy; hopefully all of the smoke and mirrors in being the 1st to open will fool the opposition.

In my opinion, people are putting way too much faith and reliance on war psychology and cheap jedi mind tricks.

Just as a side note, when my partner makes a preemptive bid, chances are he is asking me to lead it since it is allegedly his wheelhouse. And when the opposition have the J♥,K♥, and A♥ heart of his preemptive bid and I have the 9♥ and 10♥ of his bid--my partner is effectively dead to me. He is playing too loose with the straightforward guidelines and I will be placing him on the curb for pick up. Trust is DEAD!

By the way, I didn't say the strategy was bad. I am saying the strategy puts an unnecessary burden on the respondent a.k.a partner to differentiate the real bids from the "fake" ones. Are you a fan of extra work that potentially compromises the overall bidding precision of the partnership?

[RedSpawn]

JohnU, Here are some principles of Bridge I was reading online.

I want you to really look at this hand again and tell me if you think a weak 2 bid from 1st seat supports these principles?

J8♠ Q86543♥ KJ♦ 652♣. The bid is weak 2♥ from 1st seat. Both teams white.

I think being the 1st to open is hampering the teamwork and team dynamics aspect of the partnership.

• Let your partner do his/her job.
  
• Make things as easy and clear as possible for your partner [that means have what you say you have to reduce interpretation error] {brackets mine}.
  
• Help your teammates/partner enjoy the game and do their best.
  
• In any close situation, err on the side of supporting your partner or in leading your partner's suit.
  
• Choose the action that best keeps your partner in the picture. Let two heads be better than one. A masterminding approach says you don't trust your partner.
  
• Give your partner accurate information.
  
• Your partnership's assets combined are far more important than your own in isolation. A telescope is two separate lenses focused together with an optimum distance and orientation.
  
• "The most important single skill any bridge player can possess is to be a good partner." (motto on the back of score cards)
  
• Your partner means well.
  
• Be rational enough that your partner can trust you.
  
• Prefer a practical if imprecise move if there is any chance your partner would be confused by a more scientific move. The practical move also gives less information to the opponents. This game is an art, not a science.
  
• If partner makes a final decision, don't overrule it. It's bad for partnership trust. Keep in mind that partner's final decision might well be "pass."
  
• Keep your promises. Show up for the game on time. Have the cards that fit your bidding. As often as possible put down a better dummy than your bidding may have suggested.

Can you honestly say that:

J8♠ Q86543♥ KJ♦ 652♣, if dummy, is a better dummy than the bidding may have suggested?

[sfi]

johnu, on 2017-May-13, 13:59, said:

Not that I don't trust your play analysis (well, probably not since I definitely don't trust your bidding theories), but what were the 4 hands and bidding. As a sidenote, anecdotal stories are just that. One bad result does not mean that a strategy is bad, just as one good result does not mean that a strategy is good.

Here is the hand:

---

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2017-May-15, 10:51
Reason for edit: removed names

[johnu]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-13, 14:02, said:

Well since I don't trust your play analysis or your bidding theories on how opening 1st on recycle bin values will lead to a good result (all things considered) and any collateral damage that occurred must be analyzed because the respondent must have done something to cause this. . .The likelihood of your getting the board now is about the same as the likelihood of your getting dealt 13 hearts.

You must really have lost it if you think you are going to insult me and then after doing so I am going to hand over the board to you.

LOL, until shown otherwise, I will assume you didn't analyze the hand correctly.

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-13, 14:02, said:

By the way, I didn't say the strategy was bad. I am saying the strategy puts an unnecessary burden on the respondent a.k.a partner to differentiate the real bids from the "fake" ones. Are you a fan of extra work that potentially compromises the overall bidding precision of the partnership?

Almost by definition, a preempt by your side reduces the chances of a "scientific" auction since it takes up 2 or 3 levels of bidding.

[johnu]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-13, 15:39, said:

Here are some principles of Bridge I was reading online.

You might get some more respect in these forums if you watched highest level national and international events on BBO VuGraph and cataloged a bunch of hands that agreed with your viewpoint. Then you could say 60% (as an example) of world class pairs preempt according to what you read on the internet. Unfortunately, VuGraph isn't a time machine so you can't watch matches from the 1960's or 1970's.

[johnu]

sfi, on 2017-May-13, 16:32, said:

Here is the hand

Hmmm, I'm biased but anybody can look at the bidding and play and come to their own conclusions.

[RedSpawn]

johnu, on 2017-May-13, 16:53, said:

You might get some more respect in these forums if you watched highest level national and international events on BBO VuGraph and cataloged a bunch of hands that agreed with your viewpoint. Then you could say 60% (as an example) of world class pairs preempt according to what you read on the internet. Unfortunately, VuGraph isn't a time machine so you can't watch matches from the 1960's or 1970's.

I hate to throw Cyberyeti into the mix here, but with respect to if the hand in question should even be open weak 2, which led me to lead hearts,

I want to post this quote:

Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-28, 05:45, said:

In deciding whether to open a weak 2, for most people:

Do I have a decent 6 card suit (this judgment may vary by position and vulnerability) and 6-10 points ?
Do I have a side 5 card minor or 4 card major ? If so think again, but don't completely rule it out

Clearly you can bend this a bit at the edges, a 1624 hand with ♥KQ109xx is probably acceptable, the same with ♣ AJ109 rather than xxxx is certainly a 1 opener for me, but not for everybody.

Please note the suit quality of the practice example that Cyberyeti uses to explain weak 2.

Again, I will let Cyberyeti further explain this, but I am thinking from the explanation provided, if from 3rd seat, Q86543♥--> FAIR GAME as weak 2. 1st and 2nd seat, not so much.

But let me guess, I am misinterpreting what Cyberyeti is suggesting here, right?

I can not believe we are having this discussion over quality of weak 2's from 1st and 2nd seat with equal vulnerability. Wow!

[Cyberyeti]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-14, 11:47, said:

Again, I will let Cyberyeti further explain this, but I am thinking from the explanation provided, if from 3rd seat, Q86543♥--> FAIR GAME as weak 2. 1st and 2nd seat, not so much.

But let me guess, I am misinterpreting what Cyberyeti is suggesting here, right?

I can not believe we are having this discussion over quality of weak 2's from 1st and 2nd seat with equal vulnerability. Wow!

I'm suggesting pretty much that is common practice for most people, that your preempts at the 2 and 3 level are much more variable in 3rd seat than first or second.

You don't want to see what I actually preempt on in first seat, but that is a partnership decision that we will treat 1st seat as a position where you're 2:1 to cause problems for opps rather than partner, so we really go for it. This is not a normal approach.

[RedSpawn]

johnu, on 2017-May-13, 16:53, said:

You might get some more respect in these forums if you watched highest level national and international events on BBO VuGraph and cataloged a bunch of hands that agreed with your viewpoint. Then you could say 60% (as an example) of world class pairs preempt according to what you read on the internet. Unfortunately, VuGraph isn't a time machine so you can't watch matches from the 1960's or 1970's.

It's obvious that if my partner lies in the bidding, if I double based on his lie (misrepresentation), we are looking for fault with my double and my defense based on my partner's lie.

Because the lie my partner makes is NEVER really the problem or cause for concern--even if said lie could lead to a more disastrous outcome than my partner making a call of PASS.

The buck still stops at the respondent's door step regardless of the ruse. The liar could never be at fault--it is conceptually impossible.

That is very distorted thinking that caters to the liar and again puts a lot of burden on the respondent to differentiate the lie from the truth. This makes for a wonderful partnership for the liar.

If the weak 2 bid was a psych which technically it isn't--it's just a BAD BID---if it works, the opener gets the glory, and if it doesn't and fools me instead, I get 100% of the blame. No blame really gets attached to the person misleading me in the 1st place. This is a very convenient partnership deal.

Do you honestly think I would have even thought we had 3 suits decently controlled if I never had seen my partner make a weak 2 open and he made a valid call of PASS instead?

Accuracy matters. His best bid/call was always PASS. He can mention hearts on his 2nd round of bidding if need be. That way, I take my eyes off of hearts and I don't think we can take opposition's game bid down because we allegedly have 3 suits decently controlled.

If you make inaccurate and untruthful bids that your partner justifiably relies on, own the outcome EVERY TIME, not just when you benefit.

[RedSpawn]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-May-14, 12:05, said:

I'm suggesting pretty much that is common practice for most people, that your preempts at the 2 and 3 level are much more variable in 3rd seat than first or second.

You don't want to see what I actually preempt on in first seat, but that is a partnership decision that we will treat 1st seat as a position where you're 2:1 to cause problems for opps rather than partner, so we really go for it. This is not a normal approach.

Thank you for your quick response.

I believe that with equal vulnerability:

• 1st and 2nd seat preempts should be disciplined.
  
• 3rd seat preempts should be wildly undisciplined-->have fun with it--anything and everything goes and no complaints from me.

I know that sounds crazy, but that works for me.

As stated before about the board in question, my goal was to take out the spades and then run the hearts we allegedly had, but once I saw the big reveal on the 1st round of hearts, I was fuming because I honestly thought my partner made 2♥ from 3rd seat and I misread it. Nope, he opened a trashy weak 2 bid from 1st seat. His ruse worked!

It fooled his own NEW partner instead--I was a substitute in this tournament by the way.

The opposition knew the 2♥ was a trashy bid and probably laughed when they saw they had 3 of the 5 top ♥ honors and I held the 9♥ and 10♥. It makes for an interesting anecdote. Do not do unconventional preempts with new partners unless you both agree on undisciplined preempts from 1st and 2nd seat.

[johnu]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-14, 12:07, said:

If you make inaccurate and untruthful bids that your partner justifiably relies on, own the outcome EVERY TIME, not just when you benefit.

I don't think the 2♥ bid really had that much to do with 4♠X making. Typical BBO totally random game in all 4 seats.

[Vampyr]

I do not think that the diamond switch is easy even if partner passes.

[RedSpawn]

johnu, on 2017-May-14, 12:31, said:

I don't think the 2♥ bid really had that much to do with 4♠X making. Typical BBO totally random game in all 4 seats.

Johnu, for you to call me a random smacks of arrogance and condescension. . . but that is fair game for the forum.

Oh yeah, and that is what you groupthink elitist do and say to fluff your curriculum vitae.

As usual, your logic is failing and you have neglected to mention a VERY IMPORTANT point.

We would not even be in 4♠X if the liar-in-chief would just call PASS from 1st seat!

PASS means for now I don't have anything noteworthy to report. From what I can tell -- there was nothing very appetizing in my partner's hand, not even the ♥ suit.

But no Johnu, we ___________ (insert your curriculum vitae rating here) players don't call PASS with a crappy hand that doesn't fit normal weak 2 parameters. We force fit that crappy hand into weak 2 and let the unassuming respondent unpack its meaning.

Do you honestly think we would even be playing 4♠X if my partner had called PASS with his garbage hand?

Let's overlook that issue, because again, his lie is irrelevant to the fact we wouldn't even be in this contract. Plus, it doesn't help your smug, condescending narrative. The fact that I relied on his bid to decide whether or not I wanted to double a game bid is not material to the very contract we are analyzing.

Very interesting logic. That statement alone makes me wonder what other kind of if-logic statements are locked into that great mind of yours.

By the way, I checked out of the board after the 1st rounds of hearts. If he was gonna lie to my face in the auction about the quality of his weak 2♥ from 1st seat, I wasn't giving him 100% effort after the opposition revealed to me how hideous his weak 2♥ bid was.

[RedSpawn]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-14, 12:50, said:

I do not think that the diamond switch is easy even if partner passes.

Fair enough, not easy, but possible.

We are giving RedSpawn's partner the benefit of the doubt through post mortem. We are co-signing the opening weak 2♥ lie.

Next question: Do you think RedSpawn would have doubled 4♠ if his partner had called PASS with his garbage hand with a horrible ♥ suit?

[Jinksy]

[edited] On second thought I guess the diamond switch is tough.

[RedSpawn]

Jinksy, on 2017-May-14, 13:09, said:

[edited] On second thought I guess the diamond switch is tough.

Thank you for your input.

Do you think RedSpawn would have doubled 4♠ with a valid call of pass from his partner?

I would like to see someone address this question, because making inaccurate misleading bids aren't FREE!