[laughter]

I recently subscribed to Bridge Today and heard a great deal about this style of weak 2.
The Granovetters just love this style:
2D/2M shows 6+ suit, good hand, not enough HCPs for one level opening (which means 13+). It promises at least 1 defensive trick, and opener may bid freely in competition.
I think they can open this toy with something like:
AKxxxxx-Kxx-xx-x
KJxxxx-x-AQxx-xx
Many light one level opening will be opened 2 playing this style.
Anyone has tried this style?
It seems to me quite the opposite of the super light free-style preempts that are prevailing nowadays.

[mikestar]

I haven't played this, but am familiar with Trent weak twos from the Granovetter's book. This is quite similar to what Al Roth advocated in Picture Bidding . Trent weak twos combine well with a sound opening bid style but you give up a lot of premptive ability. If I were playing this method, I'd also use very light three bids. For example, holding QJxxxx xx xxx xx, which is not strong enough for a Trent weak two, I like 3S better than pass except at unfavorable.

[Free]

I haven't tried these, since I love to bid with absolute garbage And there are many more solid 2-level opening styles which are a lot more frequent which is imo one of the goals of preempting...

[whereagles]

That's a good type of weak two if you like to pass hand after hand after hand...

[skorchev]

I never heard that toy, but I like the aggressive (modern) openings and don't like the idea to change my weak openings with these stronger pre-empts. BTW these strong pre-empts came much much rarely than the normal pre-empts. But if you so like the idea to play these openings you can mix - 2♠/2♥(Trent) and 2♦-multi.


Stefan

[laughter]

It seems that you guys don't like the idea, coz its frequency is not high.
However, the Granovetters claims that frequency is one of the plusses of this style as you can open a normal decent weak two with this style, plus some weird hands that you hate to pass but fear that an opening of one bid may mislead partner about high card strength.
In other words, you can open more than the standard weak two players.
Btw, Mike, i think you are right that a three bid should be very light (probably deny any defence), may be made on some mininum weak two without a defensive trick.

[whereagles]

You may preempt more (which I doubt, since you'll have to pass some sub-minimum weak twos), but you'll be preempting with relatively strong hands, meaning opps are less likely to have anything. Consequently the preempt is not actually creating any problems for them.

Be wary of the Granovetter way of arguing. I read some books by them and their discussions are always very biased towards the point they want to make.

[mikestar]

The real essence of the Trent weak two is that you are giving up the two level for true preemption. This doesn't make it automatically wrong to choose to do this--most premodern authorities did not adopt weak twos and Culbertson thought that even a three bid as a pure shutout was pointless (per his Gold Book). However most of us prefer to maximize our preemptive opportunities.

An upper end Trent weak two is a light one bid (in some styles a sound one bid!), a lower range Trent weak two is a sound traditional weak two.

The Granovetters play and advocate what is essentially a modernized Roth-Stone system (unsurprisingly as they are Al Roth's chief disciples these days). Trent weak twos are a sensible part of that systemic structure.

Hardly anybody plays RS these days or has a kind word to say about it. I myself am not an advocate: I just don't like to pass a hand like Ax Kxx QJxx Kxxx, which is an automatic pass in RS. But if this style is appealing to a partnership and you do like to play your one bids this way, then and only then I would advocate Trent weak twos as part of the systemic mix.

The way the Granovetters argue their case is irrelevant--most bridge authorites (including myself--not that I'm claiming to be an authority) do exactly the same thing.

[whereagles]

mikestar, on Sep 10 2004, 08:57 AM, said:

The way the Granovetters argue their case is irrelevant--most bridge authorites (...) do exactly the same thing.

IRRELEVANT? Biased argumentation is dogmatic, manipulative and ethically wrong.

[twcho]

This style of 2 level opening has a striking similarity with Fantoni-Nunes system.

Their 1 level suit opening promise 14+ while 2 level suit opening are natural bid with unbalance shape and 9+ to 13 HCP. 1NT is 12-14 including all bal hand and some semibalance hand.

Judging from their impressive tournament result, I can see that their system is workable and actually highly competitive.

[laughter]

Some of the arguments for Trent (adopted from Granovetters):

1. When you show a fair hand with at least 6 card suit, responder can easily compete for the part score with some 2 card support and high cards.

2. Responder may be able to penalise the opponents effectively, counting on opener to have some defence.

3. You are not likely to go for a numbers playing this style.

4. While you may hate to pass with extra offense and weird distribution, your hand may not be suitable for opening one (less than 10 Hcps, subminimum defense), or suitable for 3 level preempts (you have side values and your suit is thin) a two level opening and free bid later would be the perfect description.

5. Opening light one bid at two level has the advantages of immediately showing your long suit and limited values, forcing opponents to guess at higher level. You will not feel uneasy when partner later produces a penalty double.

In spite of the above arguments, I don't think this style will ever be popular as we all like to open on tram tickets and get into the auctions as frequently as possible.

[helene_t]

Fantoni-Nunes play sound 5+ 2-openings, as do people who play EHAA. But those systems have no artificial forcing 1/2♣-opening, which means that the 1-openings have to be sound. Also, they play baby 1NT which means that you can preempt in 3rd seat with 0-12 HCPs without the risk of missing game. Fantoni-Nunes are matchpoints world champions and it's possible that this style is useful at matchpoints because of the frequent 2-openings on partscore games. At IMPs, I would prefer a preempt style that comes up when the opps have game.

In a system with a forcing 1/2♣, sound preempts don't make much sense IMHO. I agree with the other posters.

[mikestar]

whereagles, on Sep 10 2004, 08:06 AM, said:

mikestar, on Sep 10 2004, 08:57 AM, said:

The way the Granovetters argue their case is irrelevant--most bridge authorites (...) do exactly the same thing.

IRRELEVANT? Biased argumentation is dogmatic, manipulative and ethically wrong.

Irrelevant to the truth or falsity of their claims. If I argue in a biased fahsion that it is unwise to open 7D on a 2-point 4-3-3-3, it remains true no matter how dogmatic and manipulative my argument is. Contrariwise, if I argue that it is wise to make such an opening, my claim remains false no matter how reasonably I present my arguments.

I have read exactly one bridge book that has little bias and openly acknowleges what bias it does have. (Journalist Leads, a must-have for every bridge library.)

The track record of the human race in other endevors outside bridge is fairly comparable. This may indeed be horrible ethics but it is the real world.

[whereagles]

Yes, it is the real world. But that doesn't mean one has to do like the rest do Especially if one is wise enough to realize the problem

[twcho]

Yes, Fantoni-Nunes is the reigning open pair world champions. But they didn't only excel in MP, their IMP result is equally impressive. Take a look at the most recent European Team Champion. They ranked 2nd to only Bocchi-Duboin in the Butler Scoring. So I guess their system is really a very good one.

[twcho]

and Fantoni-Nunes is the 1st runner up in 2004 Cavendish Pairs.

[Antoine Fourrière]

In his latest(?) version of the Majeure d'Abord, LAW discoverer Jean-René Vernes has to find an opening for minimum hands with six hearts, five hearts and a five-card minor or five hearts and zero or one spade.
Therefore he argues, not unreasonably in my view, that a weak two is not nearly as effective in hearts as it is in spades, and chooses to open a Trent 2♥ with all three hand types. (He also opens 2♠ with six spades, five spades and a five-card minor or five spades and zero or one heart, but within the normal weak range.)
That ineffectiveness of 2♥ as a preempt may also have decided Sontag-Weichsel to play 2♥ as either Flannery or a three-suiter short in diamonds and 2♦ as either a weak two in hearts or a few rare strong hands.
So maybe 2♥ and 2♠ should be opened differently. How about 2♠ 8-12 with spades and 2♥ 9-12 with hearts or 4-7 with spades?
(Maybe 1♥ and 1♠ should be opened differently too. The 5332 hand type hurts more the 1♠ opening than the 1♥ opening. But it is another matter, unless you play 2♦ as either a strong hand or a weak two in hearts, 2♥ as a weak notrump with five spades and 2♠ as a regular weak two.)

[gregsolomon]

I've played ultrasound methods (including very sound weak twos) at matchpoints, it seems to give you a nice low variance game of about 56%. Most interesting result was that I found that I didn't really need 2C as an artificial game force - I either played all one bids as forcing as per Fantoni-Nunes or put my GF hands through 1C as per Nightmare and others.

Personally, I think that the frequency of Trent weak twos is too low (Terence Reese, Zia Mahmood and others happen to disagree). I used Fantoni-Nunes two bids for a while (these are just natural 10-13 unbalanced) but the responses are a bit tricky for me. My preferred methods now are to open 2C/D on 10-13 points 4+ cards with a 5+ card major and respond as per the Multi 2D. 2H/S similarly show a 4+ card major and a 5+card minor. Also, some Precision players I know use 2C/D as 10-14 unbalanced, no major better than xxxx. (They open 1D on any unbalanced hand with a decent four card major).

What all of these methods have in common is that the opps overcall at their peril. I think that when you open at the two level, you should be trying to win a part score battle, not trick the opps out of game. The core should be hands from the 9-11 point range which will give you high frequency, a good success rate, and an accurate definition. What you add on to that is up to you.

[pbleighton]

Greg writes:

"I think that when you open at the two level, you should be trying to win a part score battle, not trick the opps out of game."

My weak 2s are 5+ to 9-, and are frequently 5 cards NV. When we get a good score, we
1) Make the contract, and "win a part score battle", or
2) Go down, and "win a part score battle", or
3) Keep the opps out of game, or
4) Get the opps in the wrong game, or
5) Get the opps in a game when they should settle for a part score.

Any of the above is quite acceptable to us.
Are any of them unacceptable to you?

BTW, Fantoni-Nunes looks like a fascinating system, though not my style. The weak NT and the 9-13 5 card openers make it probably more aggressive than Standard American or 2/1 with "disciplined" preempts.

My question is what they do when vulnerable in their weak twos. How many hands do they pass, and what are their results like? What do you do when vul?

Peter

[gregsolomon]

To answer your question Peter, the impression I got kibitzing Malmo was that F-N Twos rely heavily on bidding judgement. Since convention cards don't really let you vary the system by vulnerability and seat, they put down what they play green against red in first seat, and take it from there. As do we all.

In terms of the rest of your post, it's certainly true that a lot of very fine bridge players agree with you. However, you forgot some cases ...
6. Sometimes you pre-empt your partner.
7. Sometimes you push opps into a making game/slam.
8. Sometimes you tell them how to play it.

F-N gets light openings in at the two level and stops opps finding their part scores. I don't that claim it's best, just that it's the natural conclusion of Trent Weak Twos. I also play the methods you're suggesting above.

Cheers mate
Greg