[Gerben42]

To quote a well-known American author: Points, schmoints.

For me a weak two is about losers, not points. I've opened them on 4 HCP and also on 12 HCP. It depends A LOT on the vulnerability and A LOT on what the HCP are.

[foobar]

straube, on 2010-October-29, 14:52, said:

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.

In my book, Axxxx Kxx Kxx xx is a P except as a third seat 1♠ opener. NV vs. V, I might try mixing things up occasionally by opening it 2♠ in the third seat.

Axxxxx Kxx Kx x is too good for 2♠ in 1st and 2nd seats except say V vs. NV. As Gerben said, there's no real yard stick -- 2 level openings are for purely tactical reasons and IMO, trying to define them with the intent of making 1 level bids more constructive isn't a goal worth pursuing.

That said, when in doubt, I would rather open at the 1 level...

[Gerben42]

Quote

Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x is too good for 2♠ in 1st and 2nd seats except say V vs. NV

I would change this statement radically: A hand with a bad suit and two side Kings is no good for a weak 2 bid in the first place. This is a pass at any vuln. unless you play a system that allows you to open light, like Precision.

Quote

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).

This kind of hand depends on the vulnerability. You have 6 losers, which is too much for a NV weak 2. So you can open 3♠. Vulnerable I have no issue with 2♠.
The important lesson here is to not open 1♠ with such a defenseless hand.

Quote

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.

In the Fantunes system, the 2-level opening bids are unsound on purpose, to make the 1-level bids sound. They don't have too much requirements for the 2-bids and would open 2♠ on both hands quoted above, as well as on a hand like:

---

[straube]

If one is playing "weak twos" then Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x is a bad choice for 2S because the suit is poor and the hand has defensive strength. Partner will not expect this hand.

But we're talking about not playing weak twos but playing something slightly stronger than weak twos. A cross between weak 2s and intermediate 2s. Intermediate 2s has supporters and Fantunes has supporters. Why not a range in between weak 2s and intermediate 2s?

We're opening very light (like Precision but perhaps lighter) and the choice then is whether to open 1S and rebid 2S or whether to open 2S immediately. I just think that taking two bids to show Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x is one bid too much. I'd like to give up on the lower range of weak 2s because infrequently am dealt the classic KQTxxx xxx xxx x. When I'm that weak, I tend to have Kxxxxx Qxx Txx x instead. It's really a frequency issue.

If opening AQTxx Axx x Qxxx with 2S makes sense in a Fantunes system, I'm not seeing what's so wrong about opening 2S with Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x in a different system. The first hand has two more honors in the suit than the second, but the second has a sixth spade. Their outside strength is similar (A and Q vs K and K).

Now I gave the example of Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x, but playing 7-11 I'm more likely on average of holding better suits than the 5-10 range. Right? So though I'd open 2S with this particular hand, on more days I'll have something like AJ9xxx Kxx QTx x. And that's a realistic (if not ideal) hand for partner to picture.

Playing "goodish" twos we could still exercise all the judgment that we do with weak twos. We can take vulnerability into account. We can pass Jxxxxx AK xx xxx if we want. What we couldn't do is open 1S and rebid 2S with a hand like Jxxxxx AK xx Kxx because partner would think we have better. We'd have to choose between 2S or pass and bid later if the auction allows.

[gnasher]

Gerben42, on 2010-November-01, 03:05, said:

I would change this statement radically: A hand with a bad suit and two side Kings is no good for a weak 2 bid in the first place. This [Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x] is a pass at any vuln. unless you play a system that allows you to open light, like Precision.

I'd open 1♠ regardless of what system I was playing. Maybe you get dealt more 6-card spade suits than I do.

Quote

The important lesson here is to not open 1♠ with such a defenseless hand [KQJTxx KJTx in the blacks].

I'd open this 1♠ too. I think it's wrong to open 2♠ or 3♠ with so much outside strength. I might open 4♠ at favourable.