[straube]

I'm thinking that the popular range of 5-10 points is too weak and too wide. It seems that it's rare, too, to have a good quality suit with 5 or 6 points as opposed to a higher range. I'm more likely to have
Kxxxxx Jxx x Qxx than something like KQJxxx xxx x xxx. Anyone feel the same? I'm thinking that the range ought to be more like 7-11. A 5 pt range that occurs almost as often as that 5-10 pt range. Also this means that opening 1M and rebidding 2M shows 12+

[dake50]

Weak 2 as well-defined limit bid (just shy of opener) OR as a preempt?
I'm in the preempt camp. Let 7-11 with decent suit reopen.

[paulg]

Generally speaking I think you will get support from our North American readers and less from the Europeans, as the strength of weak two bids is something of a cultural divide.

Although some top European pairs are now playing more constructive weak twos, with ranges like 7-11, it is always in the context of playing a multi 2D that includes the option of a 'junk' weak two.

The answer is to play what you find most comfortable.

[mich-b]

Actually , I think some top European pairs are now playing very constructive week twos, perhaps like 9-12.
I am curious , when they play this , how does that influence their bidding after they open with a 1 bid?
Does 1♠-1NT-2♠ show 13+? or perhaps it may be weaker if the ♠ suit is weak?

[Fluffy]

paulg, on 2010-October-28, 02:16, said:

The answer is to play what you find most comfortable the same as your partner.

FYP

[the hog]

Play both.
2D = a weak pre empt, can certainly be 5/5
2M = sound pre empt. This is a popular style in Australia now.

[Fluffy]

I play 6-9 in first, 7/11 on second position, 4-13 in third, 10-12 in 4th more or less.

[straube]

mich-b, on 2010-October-28, 02:37, said:

Actually , I think some top European pairs are now playing very constructive week twos, perhaps like 9-12.
I am curious , when they play this , how does that influence their bidding after they open with a 1 bid?
Does 1♠-1NT-2♠ show 13+? or perhaps it may be weaker if the ♠ suit is weak?

I think it would show 13+ and that's part of the attraction.

My concern is that there are few 5 and 6 pt hands that have good suits and I'd rather pay more attention to the 7+ hands.

[Phil]

Quote

Does 1♠-1NT-2♠ show 13+? or perhaps it may be weaker if the ♠ suit is weak?

When I play this method, 1M - 1N - 2M is 14-16. 2M is 17-19 or so. This allows you to respond 1N on real trash and not get too high.

Suit quality for the 2M opener is not vital, although you can't go overboard and open 2M on Jxxxxx. One of the reasons you are making the call is to trap the opponents into bidding at the 3 level, so the extra defense is useful.

[mikestar13]

If you want constructive weak twos, play Fantunes. I like to preempt: Kxxxxx x xxx Qxx is fine NV (I would want better trump spots vul.)

[Mbodell]

I like trashy preempts. Especially in strong club systems or playing matchpoints. But I'd much rather adjust downward so that a weak 2 is 4-10 or even 3-9 instead of the "standardish" 5-11. An 11 point hand with a six card suit is nearly always an opening 1 bid.

Constructive preempts with narrow ranges (like 9-13) are likely quite good when they come up, but I'd prefer the wider range and like to be giving the opponents issues.

Jx xx QTxxxx JTx

certainly looks like 2♦ to me first seat w/r at matchpoints. Hell, xx x xxxxxxx xxx looks like 2♦ to me as well.

[andy_h]

Sounds like you might want 2M+1 as some form of ogust-type asking bid?

[pooltuna]

I find it really interesting how everyone is ignorring one of the critical issues with weak 2's - What are the colors? If you make the same call all white as you do red vs white I'd have to question your understanding of the scoring.

[phil_20686]

The reason people playing more constructive weak twos (myself included) in that in a 2/1 framework you have to protect your opening bids. Its accepted that passing a hand like KJTxxx AQx x xxx is losing bridge, but opening 1♠ in first or second with this hand will often get you to a crappy 3N. If I make this hand part of the accept weak two opener, I can protect the integrity of of my 2/1 GF auctions in first or second.

[phil_20686]

pooltuna, on 2010-October-29, 07:45, said:

I find it really interesting how everyone is ignorring one of the critical issues with weak 2's - What are the colors? If you make the same call all white as you do red vs white I'd have to question your understanding of the scoring.

because, imo, this is not an issue of pre-empting, its about protecting your one level openers. Were I to play precision would be easier to open 1s with junky hands and then 2s can be really quite destructive with no loss of accuracy.

[straube]

phil_20686, on 2010-October-29, 07:59, said:

The reason people playing more constructive weak twos (myself included) in that in a 2/1 framework you have to protect your opening bids. Its accepted that passing a hand like KJTxxx AQx x xxx is losing bridge, but opening 1♠ in first or second with this hand will often get you to a crappy 3N. If I make this hand part of the accept weak two opener, I can protect the integrity of of my 2/1 GF auctions in first or second.

Well, we're playing a strong club system so our 1S openers can be as light as 10 hcps.

Still, it seems like the 1S-1N, 2S sequence ought to show more than just one additional card in opener's hand. Compare this to (for example) 1S-1N, 2H which shows four. We could give it more meaning if there were overlap with the 2M opening such that 1S-1N, 2S showed something like 12+.

[foobar]

straube, on 2010-October-29, 09:29, said:

Well, we're playing a strong club system so our 1S openers can be as light as 10 hcps.

Still, it seems like the 1S-1N, 2S sequence ought to show more than just one additional card in opener's hand. Compare this to (for example) 1S-1N, 2H which shows four. We could give it more meaning if there were overlap with the 2M opening such that 1S-1N, 2S showed something like 12+.

10 - 15 is a pretty narrow range and IMO, it doesn't make sense to refine this further to 12-15 by defining preempts to be 7-11. As I see it, the 5-10 range loosely reflects the fact that preempts in most systems are tactical, i.e., they are based on seat position and vulnerability. In the case of NV vs. V, even shapely hand with a decent 5 card suit will do in a pinch.

As other have pointed out, in the F-N system, the sounder 2-level openings pave the way for the forcing (12)13+ 1 level openings. 2/1 systems may adopt a sounder approach for similar reasons as well.

I would argue that a strong ♣ system that can handle light openings should use looser preempts (within reason) if anything...

[straube]

foobar, on 2010-October-29, 10:09, said:

10 - 15 is a pretty narrow range and IMO, it doesn't make sense to refine this further to 12-15 by defining preempts to be 7-11. As I see it, the 5-10 range loosely reflects the fact that preempts in most systems are tactical, i.e., they are based on seat position and vulnerability. A NV vs V preempt can be based on KQXXXX / KJTXXX / QJTXXX etc. and at that vul, even shapely hand with a decent 5 card suit will do in a pinch.

As other have pointed out, in the F-N system, the sounder 2-level openings pave the way for the forcing (12)13+ 1 level openings. 2/1 systems may adopt a sounder approach for similar reasons as well.

I would argue that a strong ♣ system that can handle light openings should use looser preempts (within reason) if anything...

How about 7-11 when vulnerable? (and I'm thinking of 1st and 2nd).

Or maybe 6-10 vul? That way the 6 spade hands open a 5 pt range when weak and a 5 pt range (11-15) when intermediate. Then 1M-1N, 2M can't be the 10 pt hand it is now.

[foobar]

straube, on 2010-October-29, 11:14, said:

How about 7-11 when vulnerable? (and I'm thinking of 1st and 2nd).

Or maybe 6-10 vul? That way the 6 spade hands open a 5 pt range when weak and a 5 pt range (11-15) when intermediate. Then 1M-1N, 2M can't be the 10 pt hand it is now.

I would be wary of definining specific point ranges. Some 10 counts may have too much potential to open at the 2 level (say 2♠ with KQJTXX KJTX in the blacks).

One way of looking at it is that since opener opted to open the hand 1♠ and then rebid showing a six card suit, it must be a hand that was too good to open at the 2 level (in the first and second seat).

On similar lines, one would't want to be kept out of opening 2S unfavourable with a 7222 KQTXXXX just because it doesn't fit the 6-10 criteria...

This post has been edited by foobar: 2010-October-29, 14:26

[straube]

foobar, on 2010-October-29, 14:19, said:

I would be wary of definining specific point ranges. Some 10 counts may have too much potential to open at the 2 level (say 2♠ with KQJTXX KJTX in the blacks).

One way of looking at it is that since opener opted to open the hand 1♠ and then rebid showing a six card suit, it must be a hand that was too good to open at the 2 level (in the first and second seat).

On similar lines, one would't want to be kept out of opening 2S unfavourable with a 7222 KQTXXXX just because it doesn't fit the 6-10 criteria...

Right. I agree with these examples.

Let's say that my system permits me to open Axxxx Kxx Kxx xx 1S. Then what I'm suggesting is that with Axxxxx Kxx Kx x I would prefer to open 2S. The latter hand is equal to the former in hcp but better than the prior hand in trick-taking ability (or loser count). By preempting the latter hand, one makes 1S-1N, 2S to be slightly more constructive....maybe AJxxxx Kxx Kx x.

I'm not married to hcps. They're just a useful starting point for making sure that partners are in agreement about hand strength. LTC etc are also useful for discussion.