[Zelandakh]

Joe_Old, on 2017-May-05, 09:34, said:

Sorry, you missed the point. A stiff Ace tends to make partner's honors in that suit "wasted honors."

Any singleon tends to make partner's (non-ace) honours in that suit wasted. What does the singleton being an ace have to do with it? A singleton ace is less valuable in terms of power than Axxx because it is unlikely to be useful in establishing a long suit. KQx is going to be a bad holding for partner regardless of whether we hold A or x in the suit. I really think you are looking at it wrong if you see a low ODR feature as a plus for preemption.

[helene_t]

Partner could make a phantom sac because he doesn't expect you to have two sure defensive tricks. That said, there are higher risks associated with NOT opening a weak two when you have a hand that is close to a prototypical weak2-hand.

So if the hand doesn't have any other flaws, I would open.

[miamijd]

Sure you can, but those hands won't come up that often, because (i) if your suit is ratty other than the Ace, 2x probably isn't a wise choice and (ii) if your suit is decent, you have a 1-bid.

But something like:

xx AJ9xxx xxx Ax

is common enough.

Cheers,
mike

[ercankoc]

UdcaDenny, on 2017-May-04, 09:07, said:

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 ?

The american partner is right.opening a 2 weak single suit (an Ogust opening) first of all tells ur p that u hv a maximum of 1,5 level defence hand. and warns him/her NOT to dbl any contract relying on ur 2 opening

[ercankoc]

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

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

How can 2 aces be in the same suit???so far i did not see in my 40 years of bridge a suit with 2 aces!

[Joe_Old]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-05, 10:27, said:

Any singleon tends to make partner's (non-ace) honours in that suit wasted. What does the singleton being an ace have to do with it? A singleton ace is less valuable in terms of power than Axxx because it is unlikely to be useful in establishing a long suit. KQx is going to be a bad holding for partner regardless of whether we hold A or x in the suit. I really think you are looking at it wrong if you see a low ODR feature as a plus for preemption.

You're arguing in circles. "A singleton Ace is less valuable" - exactly!

Rules and ODR and such crutches are meant to aid beginners understand the game. Watch the USBC matches on vugragh. Those are top experts, and when they evaluate a hand before the bidding starts, the first things they consider are, "what do I need from partner to make game or slam? Do I have a picture bid (a bid that gives partner an accurate view of your hand, like a fourth seat 2♠ holding AQxxxx Axx Qx xx). Open at the one level or jam the auction with a pre-empt? As the auction proceeds, experts fill in the blanks, not in terms of HCPs, but in terms of probable offensive and defensive tricks.

The question of whether to open at the one level or a weak 2 usually boils down to how much offensive potential the hand has, and not all two Ace hands are born equal. Hands with better offensive potential should receive more consideration for a one level bid than a hand with equal HCPs but less trick taking value. Rigid rules are fine for people learning the game, but simply don't exist for top players. They evaluate the specific cards in front of them, not "the general case".

Yesterday Meckstroth heard 2♥ from RHO, and overcalled 2NT. He held a balanced 16 HCP with 2♠ and AK10x of ♥. He got punished; -200. His opponent said that he would have doubled at pairs, and Meck replied, "I wouldn't have bid 2NT at pairs." Bidding is situational, not mechanical. You bid your hand's trick taking value.

[Caitlynne]

While one could argue that it is unwise to open with a weak 2 bid with two Aces, in my experience, there surely is no such "universal" rule in practice in the U.S. Such matters are matter for partnership "style agreements."

I would certainly open 2S holding

AJT9xx
x
Axx
xxx

and I think most players would too.

xx
AQT9xx
Ax
xxxx

Though 1H is conceivable, I am a 2H opener, preferring to treat this as a 1 suiter.

[Zelandakh]

Joe_Old, on 2017-May-05, 15:26, said:

Rules and ODR and such crutches are meant to aid beginners understand the game. Watch the USBC matches on vugragh. Those are top experts, and when they evaluate a hand before the bidding starts, the first things they consider are, "what do I need from partner to make game or slam? Do I have a picture bid (a bid that gives partner an accurate view of your hand, like a fourth seat 2♠ holding AQxxxx Axx Qx xx). Open at the one level or jam the auction with a pre-empt? As the auction proceeds, experts fill in the blanks, not in terms of HCPs, but in terms of probable offensive and defensive tricks.

Oh you appear to have exposed me as a beginner and a walrus. You must clearly have won the argument now.

Joe_Old, on 2017-May-05, 15:26, said:

The question of whether to open at the one level or a weak 2 usually boils down to how much offensive potential the hand has, and not all two Ace hands are born equal. Hands with better offensive potential should receive more consideration for a one level bid than a hand with equal HCPs but less trick taking value.

Here is where we appear to part company. In my world, a more offensively oriented hand is more suitable for a preempt, not less. I have to admit I have never heard the philosophy that a preempt should show defence and a one level opener offence so I would be interested to know where you picked it up. Not from Meckwell for sure!

[Joe_Old]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-05, 18:00, said:

Oh you appear to have exposed me as a beginner and a walrus. You must clearly have won the argument now.



Here is where we appear to part company. In my world, a more offensively oriented hand is more suitable for a preempt, not less. I have to admit I have never heard the philosophy that a preempt should show defence and a one level opener offence so I would be interested to know where you picked it up. Not from Meckwell for sure!

I'll ask Jeff and/or Eric when I see them at the NABC in July.

Who ever made that bizarre distinction? Haven't you read the many posts on this thread about how pre-empts are getting weaker?

The vugraph on this site is a tremendous asset. Watch it and learn from the best.

[Joe_Old]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-05, 18:00, said:

Oh you appear to have exposed me as a beginner and a walrus. You must clearly have won the argument now.



Here is where we appear to part company. In my world, a more offensively oriented hand is more suitable for a preempt, not less. I have to admit I have never heard the philosophy that a preempt should show defence and a one level opener offence so I would be interested to know where you picked it up. Not from Meckwell for sure!

You list yourself as an intermediate. No, I don't "expose" or insult people who are learning. I do, however, suggest that you study the posts. You don't learn by getting all huffy and arguing. For instance, you would have done better by asking why Meckstroth would overcall with the described hand at IMPs, but not matchpoints. The answer might reveal an aspect of why Meckwell is one of the toughest partnerships that ever existed.

Curiosity is a much better road to improvement than confrontation.

[gwnn]

ercankoc, on 2017-May-05, 14:41, said:

How can 2 aces be in the same suit???so far i did not see in my 40 years of bridge a suit with 2 aces!

I was joking.

[Wayne_LV]

UdcaDenny, on 2017-May-04, 09:07, said:

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 ?

Opening a weak 2 bid with more than one outside A or K prohibits the use of 2NT as a feature ask (outside A or K). My partners and I play weak 2's with the following agreements:

• 5-10 hcp (Not Vulnerable).
• 8-10 hcp (Vulnerable).
• 6 card suit, may be 7 card suit with too many losers for 3 level preempt.
• For major suits, Q10xxxx or better, seats 1-2, J10xxxx or better, 3 seat (or if you are a passed hand making a weak jump overcall).
• For weak 2♦, 2 of top 3 diamonds.
• No outside 5 card suit.
• 4 cards in an outside major is OK if your suit is strong.
• No more than one outside Ace or King.
• Never open a weak 2 in 4 seat. A 2-level opening bid in the 4 seat shows a 6 card suit and 11-15 hcp.

Responding to Partner's weak 2 opener:

• Rule of 17 with 2+ card support for major.
• 2NT (forcing) to ask for feature (outside A or K) - generally exploring for 3NT. Opener rebids suit with no feature.
• New suit (forcing) asking for support, Partner raises with 3+ cards in the new suit, rebids his suit with less.
• RONF (Raise Only Non Forcing)

Note: All constructive rebids by opener require a minimum of 8 HCP. With weaker hand opener rebids his suit at 3 level.

Using Double Dummy Solver as a source. Month of April, all partners, Weak 2 opened 21 times. Average results: +2.72 IMP.

I have made this analysis numerous times in the past and rarely have had a sample with less that 1 IMP average.

A weak 2 opening is a preemptive bid. The primary purpose of a preempt is to prevent the opponents from finding a makable contract by elevating the bidding level from which they begin their search for a fit. With defensive values, particularly 2 aces, you have half the tricks necessary to set any 4 level or higher bid they may go to. Partner may well hold 2 defensive tricks. Why would you want to preempt them out of a contract, you may well be able to set, in exchange for a contract you have little hope of making for your side? Or worse yet, miss a game contract of your own.

[Zelandakh]

Joe_Old, on 2017-May-05, 20:10, said:

You list yourself as an intermediate.

I do, and you list yourself as an expert. So clearly you must be right, how silly of me. Thank you so much for showing me the proper way to preempt. Perhaps I can become as wise as you one day.

[RedSpawn]

Wayne_LV, on 2017-May-06, 11:11, said:

Opening a weak 2 bid with more than one outside A or K prohibits the use of 2NT as a feature ask (outside A or K). My partners and I play weak 2's with the following agreements:

• 5-10 hcp (Not Vulnerable).
• 8-10 hcp (Vulnerable).
• 6 card suit, may be 7 card suit with too many losers for 3 level preempt.
• For major suits, Q10xxxx or better, seats 1-2, J10xxxx or better, 3 seat (or if you are a passed hand making a weak jump overcall).
• For weak 2♦, 2 of top 3 diamonds.
• No outside 5 card suit.
• 4 cards in an outside major is OK if your suit is strong.
• No more than one outside Ace or King.
• Never open a weak 2 in 4 seat. A 2-level opening bid in the 4 seat shows a 6 card suit and 11-15 hcp.

A weak 2 opening is a preemptive bid. The primary purpose of a preempt is to prevent the opponents from finding a makable contract by elevating the bidding level from which they begin their search for a fit. With defensive values, particularly 2 aces, you have half the tricks necessary to set any 4 level or higher bid they may go to. Partner may well hold 2 defensive tricks. Why would you want to preempt them out of a contract, you may well be able to set, in exchange for a contract you have little hope of making for your side? Or worse yet, miss a game contract of your own.[/size]

This is by far, the most cogent and well articulated viewpoint I have read in a while.

I hope you get answers to some of the fundamental questions you asked. Why are we pre-empting with two cold defensive tricks. Are we stopping the opponents from bidding a game contract they don't have. Very fair and valid questions? Let's see if you get any respondents.

[mycroft]

The answer, of course, is that Preempts Work™, and every time I get to open a weak 2 playing my "anything goes" style, there's a chance the opponents will go wrong in ways they won't when you pass the same hand. Sure, partner may go wrong, too; we might miss game (or bid a hopeless game), we might let them go quietly down 2 with 140 on our way, we might have just got partner off to the wrong defence. But when we preempt, the chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents, so if someone is going to go wrong, it'll be them more often than us.

Where the line is, where you're misleading or obstructing partner with similar frequency to opponents, is the age-old question. But rolling the dice is a strategy, and rolling the dice when you're behind on the hand is a strategy that can, in the long run, improve your chances.

I play EHAA (sometimes), it's a lot of fun. And opponents' reads on the hand, when you'll make the same opening with 75432 AQ T84 852 as with AKJ8532 - KT874 5, as with everything (literally) in between, go right out the window. Trust me, they make a *lot* of mistakes, and we get to punish quite a few of them. Partner *also* makes a lot of mistakes ("+200 is the EHAA Death MP result" not being the least of them!), and sometimes you're dead when you open your mouth. But it's definitely a playable system.

So is modern constructive weak 2s. I play those, too.

So is "undisciplined" weak 2s. I play those in my favourite partnership, because both of us are comfortable with it. We find it's the right balance between getting in their way and getting in ours.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2017-May-10, 15:53, said:

So is modern constructive weak 2s. I play those, too.

So is "undisciplined" weak 2s. I play those in my favourite partnership, because both of us are comfortable with it. We find it's the right balance between getting in their way and getting in ours.

I have a strong preference for disciplined Weak Twos, and do not like constructive ones. I have found that opening at the one level on what could be seen as a constructive Weak Two often works very well.

[nige1]

Wayne_LV, on 2017-May-06, 11:11, said:

A weak 2 opening is a preemptive bid. The primary purpose of a preempt is to prevent the opponents from finding a makable contract by elevating the bidding level from which they begin their search for a fit. With defensive values, particularly 2 aces, you have half the tricks necessary to set any 4 level or higher bid they may go to. Partner may well hold 2 defensive tricks. Why would you want to preempt them out of a contract, you may well be able to set, in exchange for a contract you have little hope of making for your side? Or worse yet, miss a game contract of your own.

• Pre-empts prevent opponents from discovering good games and slams. But pre-empts also stampede them into bad contracts.
• In the old days, most experts advocated strict requirements for pre-empts (e.g. no side major, rule of 300/500). Some still do.
• Nowadays, more top players employ relatively undisciplined pre-empts. Terence Reese was one of the innovators who started the rot. ("The pre-empt that is known to be weak is a blunt sword". The possession of a side major didn't deter him).
• Marty Bergen has taken this "Poker-bluff" strategy to extremes, with some success.
• I'm told that Zia Mahmood isn't put off by a few random quacks because opponents are likely to finesse for them into his hand. I doubt that holding couple of aces would worry him.
• Scoring method, vulnerability and position at the table are important but in the last analysis it's still a matter of tactics and style.

[RedSpawn]

mycroft, on 2017-May-10, 15:53, said:

The answer, of course, is that Preempts Work™, and every time I get to open a weak 2 playing my "anything goes" style, there's a chance the opponents will go wrong in ways they won't when you pass the same hand. Sure, partner may go wrong, too; we might miss game (or bid a hopeless game), we might let them go quietly down 2 with 140 on our way, we might have just got partner off to the wrong defence. But when we preempt, the chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents, so if someone is going to go wrong, it'll be them more often than us.

That somewhat answers the question, but it kind of doesn't.

"But when we preempt, the chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents, so if someone is going to go wrong, it'll be them more often than us."

Generally speaking, if you have 2 aces, you already have 1/2 of the raw materials to upset a 4 level game bid, so why in this scenario, do you feel that "chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents"? I am especially asking this if the pre-empt is done from 1st and 2nd seat with two aces. 3rd seat, anything goes.

When you make a preemptive bid from 1st or 2nd seat, how do you know that the contract belongs to the opponents when you hold two aces in your hand? Your partner has not spoken yet. He could have 0 HCP, 10 HCP, 12+ HCP?

I am in awe of the clairvoyance, but to bid preemptively with two aces just so we can hopefully trip up the opponents before we trip up ourselves seems less about statistics, science, ability, and technique and more about psychology and going all-in on the zero-sum mentality of the game.

I think what has happened is the bridge community has lost faith in the value of the normal auction and are resorting to alternative, unorthodox methods just for the sole right to open 1st. A well-oiled bidding system can only do so much. . .after a certain point, you need sneakier methods to become the leader of the pack. And here we are looking for that edge in our preemptive bids.

Sigh.

[Vampyr]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-10, 17:35, said:

I think what has happened is the bridge community has lost faith in the value of the normal auction and are resorting to alternative, unorthodox methods just for the sole right to open 1st. A well-oiled bidding system can only do so much. . .after a certain point, you need sneakier methods to become the leader of the pack. And here we are looking for that edge in our preemptive bids.

Sigh.

You may be right. Some of us are too rigid in our preempting requirements and should mix it up a little

[mycroft]

The part of the quote you bolded gives you your answer. How does one know? One doesn't *know*. If one only does things one knows will work at bridge - I can't finish that sentence. It's impossible.

Bridge is a game of probabilities. It's *always* a game of probabilities. Occasionally those probabilities are 100%, and part of what makes a great player is their ability to make more things 100%. But part of what makes a great player is giving the opponents losing choices more often, because that way they'll make losing choices more often. It may mean that you're giving partner losing choices more often, too - but is it them more than us? Is it them more dangerously than us?

I try to avoid preempting with two defensive tricks - because I agree, it puts partner in unwinnable situations. But that's a personal preference, and it loses frequently. Sure, at the other table, our teammates are in game, down 1 and they didn't know - or they took the phantom and went down one! But at my table, because I didn't take away most of two levels of bidding, they could find out that game was bad, and are +140. Lose somewhere between 3 and 6...

Next time, the preempt pushes them to 3NT because there's no room to evaluate the heart fit; sure they have a spade stopper, but it goes ♦J to the K, Q, small to the A and two more tricks for -1. At the other table there was no preempt with ♠AJTxxx ♦KQx, the opponents found the diamond weakness, played the Moysian heart fit, +620. 12 IMPS, and all because of "too much defence to preempt". Oh, by the way, that happened last night.

I am quite certain that the bridge community has lost faith in the value of the "normal auction". About 1975, in fact, and it's only got worse. That's because, even though you're opening yourself up to penalties; you're giving your partner bad information on what to lead; you're "rolling the dice" with an unknown partner's hand; it still works better than leaving the opponents to bid on their own. They're *good* at that, even at the flight C level.

Yeah, I'm more disciplined in second seat, because the probabilities change. In first seat, if there's a big hand, it's 2-1 that it's the opponents. In second, it's even. In EHAA, of course, your bids get *more disciplined* in third seat, because partner's pass MEANS something. Again, probabilities.