[awm]

Which of the above schemes do people prefer? I've left out certain preempt strategies that are popular overseas (for example 2♦ Wilkosz, 2♥ multi, or suction preempts) because local legislators won't permit them in most events.

[pclayton]

I'm for 2♦ being a really ugly weak 2 (2-7 HCP) and 2♥/2♠ being sound (Trent) weak 2's in the 7-12 range.

[Double !]

IMO, a lot depends on my partner and bidding system.
I selected all as being a weak 2 bid.
I guess I'm not ready to give up the semi-descriptive and semi-preemptive nature of weak 2 bids yet. My other option is to play multi (including a strong, bal. hand) and something else for 2M. But this loses some of the benefits of knowing asap which suit partner has.

DHL

n.b.: read Glen Ashton's interview with Eric Rodwell at Bridge Matters.

[keylime]

When I use preempts I prefer the following:

2D - an actual diamond suit (I like disciplined preempts)
2H/S - like Phil, Trent-style

[pigpenz]

i myself like two suited two bids from 2♦ to 2♠

and showing 4-10hcp

[mgoetze]

I prefer to use some of the 2-level bids as (gasp) constructive bids. Obviously, this will depend on the rest of the bidding system, e.g. playing strong club, how about 2♦ as 6+ diamonds, 10-15 points? Probably denying a 4-card major. The good ol' precision 2♦ (with some additional shapes like 4315 etc.) works fine too. Or, playing 2/1, 2♥ and 2♠ as showing a minimum hand with 5 of the major and 4/5 clubs, freeing up the 2♣ rebid for artificial purposes, and a multi for the weak 2s.

IMHO, the poll is completely useless without at least a base system as a reference, and the choices unnecessarily narrow-minded. And BTW, not all of us play in the ACBL.

[neilkaz]

I prefer natural weak 2's. But want much more experience playing Multi along with 2M being 55 major/minor but don't find much info online about that type of 2M bid or don't know where to look or what it is called.

I really don't think 2D preempts all that much, and certainly in 1st and 2nd seat my 2D openings are classic weak 2's and if PD has a good hand, he can move forward.

Frankly, I'd prefer to play a system where 2C and 2D openings both are strong hands. (Nope..not SEF where 2D is GF). I'd like such a system to take into account 8 1/2 trick major hands that may get passed out by hands that pass 1M but have game cold. I'd like such a system to take into account all monster hand types..ie two suiters and three suiters. Also such a 2C/2D system could take into account all very strong NT hands..22/23 HCP, 24/25 HCP, 26/27 HCP and 28/29 HCP etc.

If anyone knows of a good published 2C/2D system that takes into account all these hand types, please let me know. Many years ago, a PD of mine had one, but I've lost touch with him.

.. neilkaz ..

[the hog]

An idea that has become popular here is 2D as a good weak 2 in either M and 2H/S as weak weak 2 bids.

In conservatively regulated events I actually prefer 2D as a wek 2 in either M and 2H/2S as 5/5 Major minor.
In sensible events I like nv 2D as natural 10-15, 2H as a weak 2 in either Major, 2S as a garbage pre empt in either minor.

[willow23]

Hey.. You forgot the mini - roman 4-4-1-4 type 2♦ bid:)

Any one works; as long as partner remembers or agrees on what we are playing

[awm]

mgoetze, on Jul 31 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

IMHO, the poll is completely useless without at least a base system as a reference, and the choices unnecessarily narrow-minded. And BTW, not all of us play in the ACBL.

Honestly I was afraid that with more options I'd get a half dozen posts explaining how great Wilkosz 2♦ is (sure it's a fine convention, but it's not allowed in any events here in the states and it's severely restricted in virtually every non-polish organization I can find). Then I'd get a bunch of posts about assumed fit preempts and how effective it can be to open 2♦ showing 4♦ and a 4-card major in a balanced hand (also disallowed in many regions). And then I'd get some posts about the wonderful 2♥ multi convention. Personally I've seen all these arguments before and I'm not all that interested in the merits of conventions I can only play in the knockout phase of the bermuda bowl.

Anyways, assume that the bids 2♦ and above are supposed to be preempts, and are not necessary for constructive uses just to "make the rest of the system work." This situation is fairly typical, although certainly not every system works this way. To a great degree the use of these preempts is fairly independent of whether the remainder of the system is based upon "standard american", acol, 2/1, matchpoint precision, polish club, canape strong club, or many other styles.

What I'm really trying to get at is the value of showing two-suited hands with preempts. Is it worth giving up a weak two in diamonds (and playing multi) to have weak two-suited bids available? If so, should these be 5-4 (much more frequent) or 5-5 (probably more effective when it comes up)? Is it good to preempt with both majors?

[Free]

I prefer another:
2♦ = 4+♦ & 4+M
2♥ = 4+♥ & 4+♠
2♠ = 5+ card ♠

Comes up a lot more...

[MickyB]

For me, this depends on the vulnerability and the Multi regulations.

At EBU level 3, a multi must include a strong option. I then prefer to play three weak twos.

At EBU level 4, a weak-only multi is fine, and I usually play this with 2♥ and 2♠ showing precisely 5 cards with a 4+card minor suit, although ideally I would prefer to play one of the 5-5 options when vul in 2nd seat. I haven't tried this yet, so I don't know whether it is better to pass or open 2♥ with both majors.

If you can have a 2♦ opening showing a 5 card major and a 4+card minor, 3-7 or so, then I would give it a go when NV. The EBU regulations prevent me from playing this because it may or may not be specifying 4+cards in the suit bid, but maybe I should try playing a multi that shows 3-7 points, precisely 5 cards in a major, and denies either 5332 shape or 4 cards in the other major

Obviously third seat is a bit different, I definitely prefer three weak twos when NV and possibly when vul.

I'd much rather play strong twos than transfer preempts.

[pclayton]

I'm curious too; especially about the Dutch 2♥ / 2♠.

I currently play a 2N opener that shows the minors. It works very well for us, but I think part of the reason is that responder knows the suits at round 1 and can bounce accordingly. I suppose if responder hits opener's major, the same effect is achieved, but if responder has only one minor, you have to go slower.

To me the main argument for dutch 2's is when responder holds BOTH minors and can preempt with something like: xx, x, Kxxxx, Kxxxx. This is an advantage over a weak 2. But the fact that opener generally only holds

I'd also be curious if someone could run a sim to show the frequency of a good 5 (2 of top 3) bagger / weak 6 bagger and 2-7 points versus the frequency of specifically 5 of a major and 4+ of a minor and 5-10 points.

[MickyB]

I see a Dutch 2 (5M4+minor) as a 5 card weak two with an escape suit. A 5-5 shape is a rather different beast. Yes, it can be useful to know the second suit immediately, but a fair proportion of the time responder won't care, and on the majority of the rest it will be the one that responder has fewer cards in. Not disclosing the second suit doubles (or triples) frequency and makes life harder for the opponents too, as they will sometimes need to guess which it is and have no cheap cuebid available.

[hrothgar]

I ran a quick sim with the conditions that you asked
Not sure how useful the information is, but...

the frequency of the weak two bid is .0008303
the frequency of the five_four pattern is .0186137

I suspect that the conditions that you set for a weak two bid (two out of the top three honors and and less than seven HCP) really torpedo the frequency. Standard weak twos are pretty rare, but not this rare.

I'm including a copy of the script that I used...


weak_two =

shape(north, any 6322, any 6331) and
spades(north) == 6 and
hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) + hascard(north, QS) == 2 and
hcp(north) <= 7

five_four =

shape(north, any 54xx - x5xx - xx5x -xxx5 - x4xx -x0xx - xx0x - xxx0) and
hcp(north) >= 5 and
hcp(north) <= 10

action

average "weak_two" weak_two,
average "five_four" five_four

[luke warm]

mgoetze, on Jul 31 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

I prefer to use some of the 2-level bids as (gasp) constructive bids.

so do i... all 2 bids for me are 5+ with 4+ clubs and 11-15... for a preempt i just bid at the next level via misiry xfers

[Free]

luke warm, on Aug 1 2006, 06:22 PM, said:

mgoetze, on Jul 31 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

I prefer to use some of the 2-level bids as (gasp) constructive bids.

so do i... all 2 bids for me are 5+ with 4+ clubs and 11-15... for a preempt i just bid at the next level via misiry xfers

eeew, transfer preempts. Why not just bid only strong hands, you'll be better off for sure! Either eliminate the preempts out of your misiry bids, or don't preempt in transfer...

[rbforster]

awm, on Aug 1 2006, 02:11 AM, said:

assumed fit preempts and how effective it can be to open 2♦ showing 4♦ and a 4-card major in a balanced hand

I've been playing exactly this recently (4432 shape allowed), as described in the Moscito/Frelling writeups (pdf).

awm, on Aug 1 2006, 02:11 AM, said:

I'm not all that interested in the merits of conventions I can only play in the knockout phase of the bermuda bowl.

I wanted to point out that as natural preempts, showing 4+ in the suit bid, these are legal everywhere. ACBL regulates conventional followups, but there's no reason you can't play them in 3rd seat where you don't need the constructive continuations. Around NYC, it seems almost all the club games could care less what conventions you play - I've been invited to play forcing pass, etc. Now I just need to learn a forcing pass system...

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Aug 2 2006, 06:36 AM, said:

I wanted to point out that as natural preempts, showing 4+ in the suit bid, these are legal everywhere. ACBL regulates conventional followups, but there's no reason you can't play them in 3rd seat where you don't need the constructive continuations.

Yes and no... The expressions "Natural" and "Conventional" are not mutually exclusive. The Frelling Twos are definely Conventional...

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2006, 12:26 PM, said:

Rob F, on Aug 2 2006, 06:36 AM, said:

I wanted to point out that as natural preempts, showing 4+ in the suit bid, these are legal everywhere.  ACBL regulates conventional followups, but there's no reason you can't play them in 3rd seat where you don't need the constructive continuations.

Yes and no... The expressions "Natural" and "Conventional" are not mutually exclusive. The Frelling Twos are definely Conventional...

Indeed. Also, whether they're natural or not depends on who you ask. Bids that promise another suit are not considered natural in my part of the world (EBU). And the WBF systems policy actually defines natural as the opposite of conventional.