[paulsim]

hi all,

Parner open a weak-2

---

Is it to play or would you take as Splinter raise?
Do you think there is an standard meaning or just upon partnership agreement?


what about this?

---

Thanks all

Kind Regards,
Paul_S

[mw64ahw]

Assuming no partnership agreement I would say
a) to play since you can bid initially via 2N to find strength/shape and then decide on a slam invitation.
b) an invite to 4♠ opposite an appropriate hand

[Tramticket]

 mw64ahw, on 2024-July-24, 02:48, said:

you can bid initially via 2N to find strength/shape

We would use the opposite logic. A change of suit is forcing for us, If we want to suggest a different strain then a simple change of suit will do that. A natural jump is unnescessary and therefore the jump is a splinter.

[DavidKok]

It is definitely subject to partnership agreement, but I also think it's not a good question without more context. For preempts in particular your style matters a lot, and also what your agreements are about new suit bids over partner's weak two. As always, you need a bid for every hand, not a hand for every bid. What hand type can you not handle with a cheaper bid?

Personally I think splinters facing a preempt are a bad idea, but I know a lot of people require about two kings extra compared to what I consider a preempt, which does change slam prospects (though really not by enough to matter, and even if you do want slam gadgets I would hate to have to use splinters here).

[P_Marlowe]

For us those bids would be defined as splinters, on general grounds.

But I would bid surprised to see the bid made at all, in other words,
those bids have a defined meaning, but will never come up.

[Cyberyeti]

Fit bids for us suggesting a sacrifice, particularly if a minor is bid, 4 of the other major can be to play or fit, we play fit

[pescetom]

"I don't want to play in this partnership any more".

[helene_t]

The first one should certainly be natural. Splinters opposite preempts are not very useful anyway, and certainly a natural 4♥ is something you would often want to bid, either to make or as a preempt.

I suppose 4♥ could be a lead-directing spade raise, that would make some sense. But I still prefer natural.

The second one is a bit odd if you play that 2♠ is already forcing. I don't think I have discussed it in any partnership. It could be some kind of heart raise or it could be natural weak, or natural gf. Natural invite would presumably go through 2♠ so that makes less sense.

If you play 2♠ as nonforcing, it makes sense to play 3♠ as natural gf.

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2024-July-26, 06:51, said:

The first one should certainly be natural. Splinters opposite preempts are not very useful anyway, and certainly a natural 4♥ is something you would often want to bid, either to make or as a preempt.

I suppose 4♥ could be a lead-directing spade raise, that would make some sense. But I still prefer natural.

The second one is a bit odd if you play that 2♠ is already forcing. I don't think I have discussed it in any partnership. It could be some kind of heart raise or it could be natural weak, or natural gf. Natural invite would presumably go through 2♠ so that makes less sense.

If you play 2♠ as nonforcing, it makes sense to play 3♠ as natural gf.

Maybe I was a bit flippant, but I see no good reason to assign meaning to these bids if a new suit is forcing, as is fairly normal.
If it is not, then 4♥ natural and 3♠ natural GF seem clear, agreed.

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2024-July-27, 13:10, said:

Maybe I was a bit flippant, but I see no good reason to assign meaning to these bids if a new suit is forcing, as is fairly normal.
If it is not, then 4♥ natural and 3♠ natural GF seem clear, agreed.

pescetom, on 2024-July-26, 14:52, said:

If we do insist, I guess we have to revise the rest of system a bit (e.g. a modified Ogust to expose the 4+cM).

(from the '1 board, 5 different contracts' post)

Generally I think the emphasis on constructive systems over preempts is overstated. In my opinion preempts are firstly and foremostly competitive tools. The reduced amount of bidding space compared to pass or 1-level openings means you will not be able to resolve your choice-of-game, game-versus-partscore or slam-versus-game decisions with as much accuracy as you might want. Pick which aspects are most important to you and try to resolve those, then shrug and move on when you are dealt a hand unsuitable for them. I don't think there needs to be a particularly strong link between 'which hands are suitable for a preempt' and 'which features can be resolved with my constructive system after a preempt'.
Put differently, if I am dealt an offshape preempt and decide to open it anyway, it is because I expect the competitive benefits to outweigh possible constructive issues, by magnitude and/or frequency. Keep in mind that the weaker your preempts, the less often partner will have an invitational hand. Conversely, the more permitted shapes for a preempt, the more strains you have to investigate. You can adopt a more scientific system to resolve hand types, and actually I think there are some underexplored options here, but I think it will not have a huge impact on your score.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-July-27, 13:37, said:

Put differently, if I am dealt an offshape preempt and decide to open it anyway, it is because I expect the competitive benefits to outweigh possible constructive issues, by magnitude and/or frequency. Keep in mind that the weaker your preempts, the less often partner will have an invitational hand. Conversely, the more permitted shapes for a preempt, the more strains you have to investigate. You can adopt a more scientific system to resolve hand types, and actually I think there are some underexplored options here, but I think it will not have a huge impact on your score.

Precisely what I was getting at with my modified Ogust idea.

I agree with what you say here... in tonight's tournament we opened 2♥ three times, breaking more or less even twice and scoring a top when they had 6♦ cold. I am unrepentant in having 4♣ as RKCB over most preempts, but I don't remember the last time it actually bore fruit.

[hrothgar]

Matter of partnership agreement

FWIW, for me

4!C or 4!D = Control Asking Bids

4!H over 2!S is natural and to play

[DavidKok]

I have very detailed notes over a 2♦ Wagner to let me do pretty much everything I want, and not nearly the same level of detail in my agreements over a natural weak two. As always, it's the non-jump bids that are most important. I can't for the life of me figure out why we shouldn't copy some of it over and just play that - shouldn't the natural openings be easier? I don't remember the last time the "Poor man's Blackwood" won anything for me either, it might well have been never.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-July-27, 15:08, said:

I have very detailed notes over a 2♦ Wagner to let me do pretty much everything I want, and not nearly the same level of detail in my agreements over a natural weak two. As always, it's the non-jump bids that are most important. I can't for the life of me figure out why we shouldn't copy some of it over and just play that - shouldn't the natural openings be easier? I don't remember the last time the "Poor man's Blackwood" won anything for me either, it might well have been never.

I'm jealous that you have partners who follow very detailed notes, whatever the agreement. There are partners ready to do so and those who are not, be it over our own weak two, over our own Wagner, over their weak two, over their Wagner. Bang for buck, I agree that better agreements over a natural weak two should pay off well versus memory load.
I don't play "Poor man's Blackwood" with modified responses, just a simple 4♣ Kickback with normal RKCB responses. Technically, I think it is at least equivalent. I seem to remember it paying off twice and costing twice, so almost irrelevant but also minimal memory load... Crawling Stayman (to name one popular low frequency convention) was a lot more dubious, before my Stayman ruled that out.