Sick Preempt
#1
Posted 2008-April-21, 04:23
White vs Red, IMPs, First Seat
♠Qx ♥987xxx ♦QTxx ♣x
What is your call?
#3
Posted 2008-April-21, 04:41
#4
Posted 2008-April-21, 05:23
I cannot decide yet between 1 ♥ 2 ♣ and 6 NT.
Sorry but in first seat, even white/red this is no preempt for me.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#6
Posted 2008-April-21, 05:39
You could have made it more interesting, if you
would have added the 6 and 5 to the suit ...
An opening, even if you open with a preempt, contains always
a constructive message, you may decide under certain
circumstances, that you can ignore this constructive message,
but not in first seat, even if you are green vs. red.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#7
Posted 2008-April-21, 05:52
If I had a two suited opening (say 2♥ = 5+ Hearts and a 4+ card minor) I'd give serious consideration to this
#8
Posted 2008-April-21, 05:56
#10
Posted 2008-April-21, 06:50
George Carlin
#11
Posted 2008-April-21, 06:55
Free, on Apr 21 2008, 11:41 AM, said:
Me too, in one partnership this is a maximum 3♥ opening under these conditions.
#12
Posted 2008-April-21, 08:36
#14
Posted 2008-April-21, 09:34
mikegill, on Apr 21 2008, 04:22 PM, said:
Why? I would argue the opposite: at IMPs, the favorable vulnerability means that there is more to gain by jamming opps' auction than to lose by jamming our own. This calls for less disciplined preempts. At MPs, a wrong decision in a constructive auction is equally expensive at all vulnerabilities.
#15
Posted 2008-April-21, 09:40
#16
Posted 2008-April-21, 09:46
Agreeing to preempt with hands like this makes it difficult for partner to compete and lead accurately than when your preempt is more normal.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#17
Posted 2008-April-21, 09:57
I love to preempt at green, but there's a lot of red flags here:
1. Your suit is great for Razz, but bad for bridge.
2. A heart lead from pard is death from AQ, Kx, Kxx or Qx.
#18
Posted 2008-April-21, 11:53
rogerclee, on Apr 21 2008, 05:23 AM, said:
White vs Red, IMPs, First Seat
♠Qx ♥987xxx ♦QTxx ♣x
What is your call?
I don't think it's a normal preempt but I would definitely preempt with it, 2♥. At this vul in particular, although to some extent at all vuls, I care more about playing strength than suit quality. In other words when I'm 6-4 in the range and w/r I will open 2♥ even on 765432. In fact if forced to choose I prefer 2♥ here than if the hand was xx AQxxxx xxx xx.
#19
Posted 2008-April-21, 12:03
Elianna, on Apr 21 2008, 07:36 AM, said:
No, I thought it was normal
When is the last time one of you actually got nailed at these colors? Is it actually bad if partner bids 4♥? I think the lead concern is the only big one, but RHO is at least reasonably likely to declare.
#20
Posted 2008-April-21, 12:11
rogerclee, on Apr 21 2008, 10:03 AM, said:
Elianna, on Apr 21 2008, 07:36 AM, said:
No, I thought it was normal
When is the last time one of you actually got nailed at these colors? Is it actually bad if partner bids 4♥? I think the lead concern is the only big one, but RHO is at least reasonably likely to declare.
We aren't barred from getting to 4♥ after we pass.
Getting nailed isn't my main concern here.

Help
