[jillybean]

12-14nt

---

[P_Marlowe]

Colors, Position?

3S is also an option.

[mycroft]

At these colours and seat, 2♠ (in the 12-14 partnership I play).

Justification: We've agreed this is expected HCP, suit quality (even if minimum) and outside cards (not too much, in this case) for weak 2 in a major, unfavourable in first seat. If partner asks, I will admit to a good hand with a bad suit because, again, it is in the context of our agreement for 1st seat unfavourable.

I'm not going to go into whether it's *good* or *right* to have it within my partnership's agreements. That's an argument for another day (but we're comfortable with our agreements, we have the same risk tolerance, and we don't notice a payment for our agreement in general - one particular hand, of course, good or bad).

Everyone is probably tired of me saying "that depends on what your agreements are for preempts. Oh, you don't know what they are? Talk to partner, make a decision, and stick to it (or change the decision in view of results, and then stick to that). Partner should know what you have and won't have, whether it's 1960's Schenken, 1980's "disciplined", or EHAA "anything, no judgement allowed" or anything in between." and "I will play any preempt style, as long as you tell me what it is and stay in that boat." I will freely admit that I want to know more about partner's weak 2, even for a first-time (or pickup!) partnership, than many of them have ever thought about.

But I'm not wrong. And if I'm not to be hypocritical, "I open 2♠ because in our agreements, it's a 2♠ opener" kind of has to be my answer.

Of course, it's not helpful for a poll - because, you know, YA(greement)INMA.

[jillybean]

Good answer, I wonder how rigidly others follow their agreements.

[P_Marlowe]

In my main partnership, given the pos. and color, it would be a 2S opening bid.
Partner would expect this, and has a right to expect it, it is even min.

Playing with a stranger, I would open 1S.

If I have an agreement, I try to follow the agreement, otherwise, what is the point
of making an agreement in the first place.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2026-May-27, 11:26, said:

If I have an agreement, I try to follow the agreement, otherwise, what is the point
of making an agreement in the first place.

I agree, when I'm playing 12-14nt, I don't open 10-11 counts however, unless you are lucky enough to have very detailed agreements, they may be as simple as
"2 of the top 3" or "undisciplined" weak 2 openings.
Is there room for judgement (position, suit quality, vulnerability, opponents, state of match) within your agreements?

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-May-27, 10:50, said:

Good answer, I wonder how rigidly others follow their agreements.

The reality is that the vast majority of agreements, other than such things as responding to stayman or keycard, etc where one player is basically a robot in terms of his or her response, don’t have sharp edges…for example, the difference between a 2S opening and a 1 spade opening may be fuzzy and hard to impossible to define in such a way that there are zero hands that do not fit cleanly into one or the other (or, indeed, into pass for those who accept that some spade hands are not opened at all).

So: do I follow my agreements?

Yes. Always

But: there are hands on which I’d open, say, 1S and my partner, just as compliant with our agreements, would open 2S, or vice versa.

On this hand, for example, I’d happily open 1S in those partnerships that allow for it, 2S in an ultra conservative partnership…that partner would think 1S was outside of our implied agreements, and 2S in my main partnership, where this is solidly mid-range (2S shows 6 spades, 10-13 hcp in the context of frequent upgrades into and out of the range. This is a great 10 count, hence this is mid-range.

As for ‘is there room for judgement’….given what I’ve written above there cannot be a coherent set of agreements that excludes judgement unless you are Walter the Walrus type who has only one metric and applies it rigidly to every hand….iow, not a bridge player, just someone who plays bridge

[TylerE]

1♠ seems pretty clear. This is not a hand I want to bring back +170 or 200 on. Sort of a "system cohesion be damned" hand - all about making the pragmatic bid that has the best chance of getting us to the optimal spot.

[awm]

In my current methods with Elianna, we would open 2♠ (9+ to 13 points with 6+♠) which removes this sort of hand as a problem.

Before we played our current methods (so back when we used natural weak twos in three suits) I'd open this 2♠ at vulnerable and 1♠ at NV. This hand is light for a one-level opening in our style (12+ hcp or rule of 20) but at NV partner will never expect this much for a weak two and 1♠ seems like the least of evils.

[Cyberyeti]

1♠ this is decent rule of 19 hand. Since our weak 2s can be Jxxxx, xxx, Kxxx, x, this is way too good and we'd have to open this thru the multi.

[awm]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-May-28, 03:07, said:

1♠ this is decent rule of 19 hand. Since our weak 2s can be Jxxxx, xxx, Kxxx, x, this is way too good and we'd have to open this thru the multi.

That is quite a brave weak 2♠ at vulnerable vs. not!

[Cyberyeti]

awm, on 2026-May-28, 04:14, said:

That is quite a brave weak 2♠ at vulnerable vs. not!

It's a weak only multi 2♦ rather than a weak 2♠, but first seat we tend to be brave.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2026-May-27, 12:39, said:

I agree, when I'm playing 12-14nt, I don't open 10-11 counts however, unless you are lucky enough to have very detailed agreements, they may be as simple as
"2 of the top 3" or "undisciplined" weak 2 openings.
Is there room for judgement (position, suit quality, vulnerability, opponents, state of match) within your agreements?

Sure, there is always room for judgement.

In the end, you always have the option to pass instead of making a bid.

In 1st / 2nd we try to have the book, whatever this may mean, in 3rd you have (some) leeway, p is expected to assume,
if there appears to be a joker at the table, it happens to be you. And he also should remember that he is taken serious,
if he makes a move in 1st / 2nd, this means, if he opens a preempt, and they enter, he should know, that in certain
circumstance, a penalty X from me may be based on 1 or 2 tricks in his hand, and that it will be coming.

For 1 level bids I try to stay away from judgments about suit quality, those are robot calls.
Those judgement calls dont work for me in those situations.
An example would be, opening 1NT, I am fine with a 5 carder in it, or never (what we currently play),
it does not work for me, if it depends on ...
Similar minor suit openings with 33 / 44.

[mike777]

1S prefer

2S is fine