[UdcaDenny]

I play 2 over 1 with an american partner and he claims that you cannot open a weak 2 with 2 aces. I learned bridge in Sweden and never heard about such a restriction. He says its a common rule that you cannot have two quick tricks with a weak 2 bid.Can players from both US and the rest of the world who use weak two bids with a 6 card suit answer to this ?

[manudude03]

double post- delete

[manudude03]

Outside the US here. I personally don't have an issue with preempting with 2 aces, but different people have different requirements and so you should discuss it with your regular partner. The idea of not doing it with 2 aces is for 2 main reasons. Firstly, when you preempt, you are hoping to keep the opponents out of their contract, usually because you have little defense to it. The other reason is if your range is say 5-9 and you have 2 aces, that's 8 of your points already, meaning your trump suit can only be at most AJTxxx which is unlikely to play well if partner doesn't have a fit.

[gwnn]

Definitely open a weak 2 with two aces, provided they are not in the same suit.

[mycroft]

I have played everything from Schenken 2-bids to EHAA 2-bids, and am quite happy to play anywhere on the continuum, *as long as I know what to expect from partner* (and as a corollary, what partner expects from me).

Weak 2s have always been a "constructive" preempt of sorts; originally a very descriptive call that gave responder everything she needed to know to bid game when it was right, it has morphed into a somewhat more malleable thing that means that it comes up more often than once a month. But still, partner should know two things:

- about what strength you will have in your suit; and
- about what defence you will have outside your suit.

Sorry to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, but I think this issue was caused by different ideas on this between partners.

"Standard conservative" around here (ACBL, non-US) is "disciplined 1/2" (or "disciplined 2nd, close to in 1st seat"), so "2/top 3 or 3/top 5"; and probably no more than one control card outside, hopefully not too many quacks either (also, it would tend not to show a side 4-card suit, especially a major). So most people who play that style would not open AQTxxx with an outside A, even with nothing else, because it's "too much". Whether they then open it 1 is the next question.

The benefit of that style is that partner will know what they need to bid game, when to block-raise, and when to saw off opponents who step in when it's wrong. You don't get many +150s or +200s!

"Standard aggressive" around here is "try to be reasonably sane second seat and/or vulnerable". But still, try not to have enough defence that if it goes 2♠-X-p-3♥; p-4♥ , partner will be unsure if this is going down enough to double. More lenient about the quacks, as it sort of has to be when you're opening on J98543...

With any new partner, even if we only have two minutes to discuss a card because I'm playing fillin, I get the answer to three questions. "What's your preempt style" is one of them.

Legally? You can agree to open weak 2s with pretty much anything (provided it's 7-HCP range, and at least 5 cards in the suit, otherwise your responses are aggressively regulated). But I'd guess that 90% of the non-expert community in North America would never open a weak 2 with two aces, for bridge values of "never". I don't know about the expert or National/World Class level; whenever I get a chance to play with one of them, and I ask about preempt style, I follow their lead, whatever that is, so I don't know consensus. But my feeling is that they are dropping "reasons to not preempt" faster than they are adding them.

[nige1]

I subscribe to the theory that a gap between a one-opener and a pre-emptive opener should be as rare as possible.
Hence I would open 2♥ with this kind of hand

---

[Cyberyeti]

We have the agreement that we won't do this, but our weak 2s go down to zero, I see no reason not to if playing fairly tightly defined 5-9 or 6-10 weak 2s

[rmnka447]

US player here.

What you do depends on your bidding style with weak 2s. Currently, I think the broad bridge population here is all over the lot on how to bid weak 2s. Some open anything anytime including 5 card vs. 6 card suits. Others take a very disciplined approach. Many are somewhere in between.

Traditionally, weak 2s are supposed to show 8-10/9-11 (depending on agreed range), a 6 card headed by honors and presumably no more than 1 1/2 QTs. So ♠ KQ10xxx ♥ xx ♦ KJx ♣ xx would be right in the wheelhouse as a standard weak 2 bid. But what about ♠ xx ♥ AQJxxx ♦ xxx ♣ xx? It has a good enough suit, 1 1/2 QTs , but is a point or two shy if you strictly interpret the requirements. Yet, I doubt that any good players wouldn't open it 2 ♥. So, the requirements are more flexible depending on the hand.

Over the years, I've come to the opinion that there is a continuum for hands with 6 card suits that stretches from pass to weak 2 bids to 1 level openers. What you bid depends on how you feel where the hand falls on this continuum. If a hand isn't a 1 level opener then it is either a weak 2 or a pass. So holding something like ♠ J109xxx ♥ Axx ♦ Ax ♣ xx, which is a bit shy of a 1 ♠ bid, why wouldn't you open 2 ♠ in 1st or 2nd seat? If partner inquires with a 2 NT call, you can rebid 3 ♠ playing feature or 3 ♥ (good hand, bad suit) playing Ogust. OTOH, something like ♠ 876542 ♥ Axx ♦ Ax ♣ xx would be a pass instead of 2 ♠ for me. For some really aggressive 2 ♠ bidders, it would be a solid 2 ♠. Different strokes for different folks.

Whatever you do, try to be consistent with how you bid weak 2s.

Some hands to think about --

♠ Q109xxx ♥ Axx ♦ Ax ♣ xx

♠ AQ10xxx ♥ Axx ♦ xx ♣ xx

♠ Q86432 ♥ Axx ♦ Ax ♣ xx

♠ AKQ10xx ♥ xxx ♦ xx ♣ xx

♠ QJ7542 ♥ xxx ♦ Kx ♣ Ax

♠ QJ7542 ♥ xxx ♦ Ax ♣ Ax

♠ QJ10xxx ♥ Kxx ♦ xx ♣ xx

There are no right or wrong answers for the above, just how you'd decide to bid them.

BTW, if you pass ♠ xx ♥ AQJxxx ♦ xx ♣ xx, you play in 4 ♥/5 ♥. If you open 2 ♥, your partner with a 20 point bomber is able to find a lay down 6 ♥ contract. The difference is that with the weak 2 partner is able to visualize your hand better and push to slam. Without it, partner can never believe your ♥ are as good as they are because you didn't bid 2 ♥.

Oh, the above applies to 1st or 2nd seat, in 3rd seat anything goes.

[SteveMoe]

1) Only in 3rd seat. once partner passes we relax discipline.
2) 1st seat only when NV and the hand has 2 Aces with no other face card.
3) Never second seat. Don't want to preempt with two transferable values there. 2nd seat Vulnerable we are more (but not strictly) disciplined. Usually 2T3 or 3T5 and a side piece. The weaker the hand the better the suit.

In most cases when I hold 2 Aces and one more suited card I can afford to open a 1 bid.

[silvr bull]

I cannot think of any hand with a 6 card major that is too good to open a weak two, but not good enough to open 1. For me, Ax AJxxxx xx xxx is an easy 2H open but I would open 1H with Ax AQxxxx xx xxx. I would always open Ax AJTxxx xx xxx, but it is almost flip a coin time to decide between 1 or 2. If we are doing well in the session, then I would choose the more conservative 2H. If we need a swing hand, then I would press with a 1H open. In contrast, I will pass in 1st or 2nd with Axxx AJxxxx xx x because I prefer to not open a weak 2 with a side 4 card major.

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2017-May-04, 09:53, said:

Traditionally, weak 2s are supposed to show 8-10/9-11 (depending on agreed range), a 6 card headed by honors and presumably no more than 1 1/2 QTs.

IIRC 6-12 was a common range back when opening bids were stronger than today.

mycroft, on 2017-May-04, 09:53, said:

But I'd guess that 90% of the non-expert community in North America would never open a weak 2 with two aces, for bridge values of "never". I don't know about the expert or National/World Class level; whenever I get a chance to play with one of them, and I ask about preempt style, I follow their lead, whatever that is, so I don't know consensus. But my feeling is that they are dropping "reasons to not preempt" faster than they are adding them.

I would guess 70% of non-experts and 90+% of experts would open with 2 aces but I'm just guessing. Suit quality probably comes into play for some players, even with only 1 ace. 2 aces would not be a factor for me.

[Vampyr]

rmnka447, on 2017-May-04, 14:03, said:

Traditionally, weak 2s are supposed to show 8-10/9-11 (depending on agreed range),

Does anyone do this anymore? Unless paired with a Multi? My weak twos range from approximately 3-8 favourable to 5-9 unfavourable, and I think this is pretty common. I don't know anyone around here she would open a weak two with 10. Maybe AKQJxx planning to,rebid 3NT after an enquiry.

[GrahamJson]

As with many questions on BBO forums there are at least two answers, in this case because there are two questions:- 1/ Is it best to agree with partner that we do not open a weak two holding two aces? and 2/ Is it ok to open a weak two with two aces when playing with a pick up partner?

I think the answer to 1/ is that there is no answer; just make sure you both agree on your approach. My view is that this is just one factor to be considered. However it is not a good idea to open a weak two with two aces if your trump suit is poor, so xx AJ10874 Ax xxx is ok but xx A75432 Ax xxx is not.

As for 2/, I would suggest that you don't open with two aces simply because many others do not so your partner will probably be taken by surprise.

[Zelandakh]

There is a very old rule not to preempt with 2 first round controls. As with most bidding rules from the "Golden Age", it has not survived the test of time and very few, if any, modern players will subscribe to it. The issue of specifically 2 aces in a weak 2 is one that has received specific attention. There are a few very strong players that are strongly opposed to this but the majority viewpoint these days is that the fewer restrictive rules you place on your preempts, the better.

What one can say is that this is a contra-indicator. With preempts one must always be aware of your ODR (offensive to defensive ratio). Hands with aces are much stronger defensively so the need to get in early with a preempt is lower. If you have further reason to doubt the wisdom of a preempt - the second ace being Axxx in a major for example - then better to avoid the call. On the other hand, if you have good reason to think it will go well - say, third seat with ♠AT9xxx and heart shortage - then you are best off bidding immediately. Of course there are a lot of hands in between these and precisely where to draw the line is going to vary from player to player.

[ArtK78]

gwnn, on 2017-May-04, 09:50, said:

Definitely open a weak 2 with two aces, provided they are not in the same suit.

This is one of the few hard and fast rules that I have - never open a weak two with two aces in the same suit.

[Joe_Old]

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between a stiff Ace and an Ace combination that might build side suit tricks. If you have:

AQ5432 432 432 A opposite K876 5 876 K8765 you're not going to make game. But,

AQ5432 432 2 A92 opposite K876 5 876 K8765 probably makes game.

Therefore, whatever your style, you should consider the probable value (or lack thereof) of stiff honors, and pre-empt more aggressively when it looks as if they won't carry their weight.

[Zelandakh]

Joe_Old, on 2017-May-05, 08:42, said:

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between a stiff Ace and an Ace combination that might build side suit tricks. If you have:

AQ5432 432 432 A opposite K876 5 876 K8765 you're not going to make game. But,

AQ5432 432 2 A92 opposite K876 5 876 K8765 probably makes game.

Therefore, whatever your style, you should consider the probable value (or lack thereof) of stiff honors, and pre-empt more aggressively when it looks as if they won't carry their weight.

If you have a perfect fit, it tends to play better than one with redundant values. Cherry picking hands to this extent is a pointless exercise. You might just as easily have given;

AQ5432 432 432 A opposite K876 - K876 87654, where game looks more reasonable.

Yes honours in long suits are better than in short suits but what you were highlighting is actually wasted honours in partner's short suits, which is a different subject entirely. Where I disagree with you is your assessment of what action to take. A stiff ace is a fairly low ODR holding and would not, for me, suggest preempting more aggressively. A much more offensive holding, for example, would be a long suit headed by the QJT, where the value declaring is considerably higher than defending. A side ace usually has much less impact on the overall ODR.

[Joe_Old]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-05, 08:57, said:

If you have a perfect fit, it tends to play better than one with redundant values. Cherry picking hands to this extent is a pointless exercise. You might just as easily have given;

AQ5432 432 432 A opposite K876 - K876 87654, where game looks more reasonable.

Yes honours in long suits are better than in short suits but what you were highlighting is actually wasted honours in partner's short suits, which is a different subject entirely. Where I disagree with you is your assessment of what action to take. A stiff ace is a fairly low ODR holding and would not, for me, suggest preempting more aggressively. A much more offensive holding, for example, would be a long suit headed by the QJT, where the value declaring is considerably higher than defending. A side ace usually has much less impact on the overall ODR.

Sorry, you missed the point. A stiff Ace tends to make partner's honors in that suit "wasted honors." The thread here is whether to open a weak two with two Aces. My point is that even if you accept the "rule" never to open a weak two with two Aces (I don't buy it myself), a stiff Ace should be viewed as an exception to the rule, because it tends to be less valuable in the total partnership assets, both offensively and defensively.

And don't be mislead by my example hand. It was only meant to illustrate a very limited point. It was not meant in any way to suggest that it was a likely holding, that you should be bidding hoping for a perfect fit, or any other concept other than K8765 plays better opposite A92 than a stiff Ace. Period.

[mycroft]

My issue with two aces is that it's not offensive tricks (looking for game) that it's misleading to partner (he's looking to cover losers, and Kxx covers a loser against Qxx just as well as against Axx) but defensive tricks. 2♠-X-3♠-4♥; p-p- and partner has to decide who's making what. With a decent hand, this could be going down; with a 4-0 spade break it could be making overtricks.

Bid 4♠? ♦Kx is three tricks and there's 4 losers - one in each suit.
Pass? well 3♠ would have made, and -100 isn't going to score well. Alternatively, 4♠ would have made, and +200 won't score well.
Double? This time partner has the traditional AKJxxx and out, ...

If you choose to open on less disciplined hands, you take on these auctions with no right answer. You're going to have to guess, and you'll guess wrong sometimes. However, you will preempt a lot more often, and put the opponents to many more of these auctions with no right answer, and they're going to have to guess, and they'll guess wrong sometimes, too. How to ensure that they're put to the test more often than your partner, is the point of all the discussions.

[mycroft]

Ah, and by "Traditionally", I meant "when Schenken created them" and played them in what became known as "Schenken Club".

Things migrated pretty fast to "6-11, and...", yes. Say about 1970.