[pbleighton]

This is an extension of the Preempt Styles thread, which dealt mostly with 3 level preempts.  I'd like comments on weak 2's. I use the following guidelines:

1) Second seat - always sound.

2) First seat - vulnerable - always sound. Both nonvulnerable - tend to sound, but with shortness in majors (or unbid major if 2H or 2S) will be aggressive.  Favorable vulnerability - aggressive (can be very aggressive with major shortness).

3) Third seat - unfavorable - sound. Both vul - can be aggressive, especially with with major shortness.  Both nonvul - very aggressive. Favorable - Anything goes!

"Aggressive" doesn't mean always - depends on the hand. "Sound" is strict. "Sound" generally means a 6 card suit that can almost certainly take 4 tricks if partner has nothing high and the trumps take 4 rounds to draw, or a 5 card suit with 4 of the top 5, or the AKQ. If I have outside values, trump quality relaxes a bit, but too much.

I don't open with a 4 card major in the first two seats, but will in the third without hesitation.

Will open with a little side-suit defense (an ace or king) - but not if I can stretch it to a 1 level bid.  Also applies to 6 card 1 suiters "almost good enough to open 1" - I open 1 on those. AKQxxx in a major, a singleton, and nothing else is good enough for me to open 1, though many will disagree.

Nothing exciting or original here - but I know there are differing styles out there, and would like to hear about them, and any critiques of the above.

[inquiry]

Your rules are just about right.

2nd seat. One opponent has passed, so they have already limited at least one of their hands. Third hand will know the maximum of their holding, and your partner is just as likely as your RHO to have a good hand. So, I agree that preempts (any level) should be what you term sound.

First seat, not vul, I am very aggressive as long as my partner agrees (and I alert as "undisciplined" (this assumes partner agrees to such a style. I have opened weak twos with five card suits, and weak threes with five too.  Why? Two chances out three the hands belong to the opponents, and neither one has shown any values at all (no first pass, for instance). This undisciplined is not everyones cup of tea. Don't try these without prior discussion with your partner, obviously, or he will hang you. Vul versus vul, I am more tame.

Third seat, not vul verus vul, all rules of normalicy are off. I will preempt on junk, I will preempt with essentially a light opening hand and one suiter. This follows Dwayne Hoffman's game theory idea of not bidding the same everytime, and in third seat, at this vul, it is perfect time. Again, your partner has to be extra caution raising you when you make this bid. If he would raise a "typical" 3C bid 4C, he should pass. If he would jump to 5C, he should bid only 4C. Same for raising 2S to 3S. That is, he has to be aware that in this position, you are free to "maneaver" on the hand. Again, if your partner doesn't like this style, by all means don't play it.

Fourth seat, I expect to make (go plus), period. If not, why bid?

I got this style from an out of print book by Robson/Segal book "Partnership Bidding", which you can find on line in PDF format at http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/

[keylime]

An appendix to consider to when preempting - losing trick count especially in 2nd/4th seat is crucial. Sometimes it's best to not even bid at all.

[Yzerman]

One of my own personal criteria for preempt (I even apply this in 3rd chair) is the following;

1) Constructive 2 Level Preempts - Preemptive in the suit I bid meaning that I have a good reason to introduce this suit at 2 level (good suit as defined by Mahmood/Rosenberg ... a suit that CAN (not must) play for no more than 2 losers (KJ98xx, Q1098xx, etc) opposite a singleton).

2) 2 level preempt are NOT to include 3 or more outside controls as follows; 2a) Side Ace and Side King, or
2b) Side Ace and singleton, 3c) Side King and void and generally speaking 4d) will not have two side kings.

3) NEVER contains four of other major in 1st/2nd seat and NEVER Jxxx or better 3rd.

I personally like this approach for many reasons.  I would prefer to succeed with constructive tactics rather than destructive tactics.  I would like partner to trust that I will have a generically consistent hand type when I open 2 level preempts.  Consideration of losing trick count (7-9 losers).  I am a little flexible depending on vulnerability however I try and stick with a reasonable limit.

[mishovnbg]

I use one simple rule for weak 2 (i was play weak 2CL/DI also) : if i will overcall it at 2 level after opp bids - i open it! NO interesting have i side 4 or even 5 major if i have good 5+ suit and side suit is not good. It is very sucsessfull strategy most of time, because:
  1. U show good lead to p, later may be impossible.
  2. U give p chance to make good sacrifice.
  3. For opp are more difficult to penalize u against later overcall.
  4. If u p haven't fit u stop at lowest good missfit.
  5. Even if u p have fit in u second suit, but not have in first, u hand is defensive, because u have HCP in first suit.
  6. If u p have enough hcp, he can learn about u second suit.

Little disadvantage is ofcourse when u p have fit in u second suit and u can play 2 in opening and have better score or even game in side suit. Not a perfect world:)

[luis]

I like the posted rules.
My 2cents to this thread is that I'd always open 2h/2s with QJTxxx in the suit. Even vul and even with 0-side values. That's why I play Ogust in all positions.
The reason is simple: QJTxxx is the best you can have in a suit to preempt, you have 4 (almost) sure tricks in trumps, so if you go down 4 they have a grand. The key is that opponents can make a trick in the suit defending 2x that they wouldn't have made playing other contracts, the AK of trumps are offensive as well as defensive tricks.
So I tend to preempt one level-up when I have QJTxxx
If not vul I can open 3s on QJTxxx and zero.
My last example was a 5s opening on
QJTxxxxx, x, xxx, x  (They settled for 5s doubled 800 with 3 vulnerable slas making: 6n, 6c, 6h)

Just my 2 cents: If you have QJT(...)xxx then
If you would have opened with KQJ(...)xxx or AQJ(...)xxx then open 1 level up.
If you wouldn't have opened with KQJ(...)xxx or AQJ(...)xxx then open.

[lenze]

A side note to this thread. The other night I kibitzed a hand where West, as dealer held T4 T98642 QJT6 6. She opened 2H, which eventually netted her a good board.  The problem is, her convention card says weak 2's, with a range of 6-10 HCP. I don't mind an occasional psych, but I have recently observed her open a weak 2 on Ace empty sixth (Nothing outside) and King Ten sixth(Also nothing outside) I feel that if she opens these type of hands with a 2 bid frequently, the opponents are entitled to know she may not be within her stated range.  Your comments would be appreciated

[inquiry]

Quote

A side note to this thread. The other night I kibitzed a hand where West, as dealer held T4 T98642 QJT6 6. She opened 2H, which eventually netted her a good board.  The problem is, her convention card says weak 2's, with a range of 6-10 HCP. I don't mind an occasional psych, but I have recently observed her open a weak 2 on Ace empty sixth (Nothing outside) and King Ten sixth(Also nothing outside) I feel that if she opens these type of hands with a 2 bid frequently, the opponents are entitled to know she may not be within her stated range.  Your comments would be appreciated

When I paid more attention to these things, the ACBL had a 5 and 5 rule. You had to have at least five cards in a suit to use it as a weak two, and you had to have at least five hcp. I think the 5 hcp rule might have been relaxed, but that a specific range of no more may be in effect. Perhpas some one more up on current ACBL rules can help us with this.

But, and this is important, frequent opening with 3 or 4 hcp and telling your opponents that you play 6 pt minimum is not with in the spirit of the game, active ethics, etc. This person should modify her convention card to reflect the true value of her bids.