[Free]

Ok, maybe this may sound stupid, but I'm looking for a good response structure for a weak 2♠ opening, which can be done with a good 5 card or 6+ card. It's been a looooooooong time since I've played this opening this way...

Currently I'm using:

2NT = relay
3X = nat NF
3NT = to play

after 2NT:
we show an Ace or King at 3 level, a stiff at 4 level, 3NT with a solid suit (AKQxxx), 3♠ with a minimum hand or a 5 card, and 4♠ with maximum hand, no outside A or K, no stiff.

Does anyone have a better scheme, or some adjustments which might make it better? I'm not afraid of some artificial stuff, so don't be hold complicated systems back

[Fluffy]

I´ve played the same for long also, surelly there are better things to play, but since you are gonna get competed it is not worth to squeeze your brain here.

[Antoine Fourrière]

Over the 2N relay I would suggest a distributional scheme
3♣ some singleton in a mundane 6331 (3♦ asks for ♣♦♥ step responses, 3♥ asks for ♥♣♦ step responses)
3♦, 3♥ unusual hands, this depends on your style when it comes to opening with a five-card suit
(maybe 3♦ some minor, 6/4 or 5/5 or good5/good4, (3♥ asks the minor, 3♠ simply asks for a six-card suit) , 3♥ five good spades without a minor worth mentioning)
3♠ real minimum
3N mundane 6322
4♣, 4♦ voids
4♥ six spades and four hearts
4♠ heart void

I don't think showing AKQxxx is worth consuming a step below 3N, but I would go back to spades with a suit which plays for one loser opposite a void (and I would pass a 4N continuation).
Outside aces are nearly always useful, outside kings will have to be shown at a higher level.
You can permutate the void-showing responses to prevent a double, but you can also use pass, redouble and 4N by responder to show 2,3 or 4 key cards.


Maybe playing three-level transfer responses (3♥ showing clubs) would be a good idea. It allows finding a 5-3 heart fit.

[MickyB]

I've played transfer responses a bit (2N=♣, 3♣=♦, 3♦=♥), this means you don't have to choose between F and NF new suit bids. Transferring then bidding 3♠ is invitational with that sidesuit, any other bid is GF. 2♠:3♥ = flattish invite to 4♠.

[Gerben47]

A good read is Preempts from A to Z (Anderson & Zenkel)

From this:

After 2♥: 2♠ asks for a singleton, 2NT is forcing with 5+♠, 3♣ Ogust.
After 2♠: 2NT asks for a singleton, 3♣ is Ogust.

With Ogust I mean:
3D: minimum bad suit
3H: minimum good suit
3S: maximum bad suit
3N: maximum good suit

[Chamaco]

Free, on Nov 25 2004, 08:49 PM, said:

Ok, maybe this may sound stupid, but I'm looking for a good response structure for a weak 2♠ opening,

I personally do not like much Ogust, I played it for a while, but I do not think it has real pluses compared to the Feature ask, the latter being much more useful to evaluate the chances in 3NT contracts.

For a while I played the following:
- 2NT was feature asking (more or les similar to what you play)
- 3C asks the NUMBER OF LOSERS: loser count is generally a much better description of the playing strength of a hand when playing a suit contract.
So the 3C ask is better suited for suit contracts.
You respond the loser ask in step responses.
Having the no- of losers is generally enough to decide between game or partscore in the major, without the need of info on trumps quality.
The info on trump quality becomes crucial in slam auctions, but then RKCB does the job well :-)
The price to pay for this is to give up natural 3C (whether you play it forcing or NF), but in either case the loss is not terrible (if you are positive you use 2NT or conventional 3C, if negative, you may as well passout pard's undoubled weak 2 and perhaps run when doubled)

- 3X is forcing one round

the rest more or less like yours.

[whereagles]

Free: I have studied the matter of responding to a 5-card weak two extensively. I now have a very complete scheme which uses transfer responses and altered responses to the 2NT relay. The problem is it's not very mnemonic. I can put it here if you're not yet happy with other people's suggestions so far.

[jdulmage]

Free, on Nov 25 2004, 03:49 PM, said:

...

Does anyone have a better scheme, or some adjustments which might make it better? I'm not afraid of some artificial stuff, so don't be hold complicated systems back

Yeah, play Ogust.

[the hog]

Depends whether you are playing 5 card suit allowed for your weak 2. In this case Ogust is poor. This is why many are now playing the following:
2D = weak H or S - always 6 carder. good suit
2H/S = 5 carder weak 2, often 2 suited, even 5/5 allowed.

You need a different schemes over each opening.
Meshing 5 and 6 card weak 2 bids is poor system design.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Nov 28 2004, 12:38 AM, said:

Meshing 5 and 6 card weak 2 bids is poor system design.

It is not. I've been playing 5 or 6 card weak twos for a long time and that style of opening has yielded more points than anything else.

However, it is not for the lazy who only count total trumps. I requires experience, judgement and a few gadgets, like a precise response scheme and save-suggesting bids.

[pbleighton]

whereeagles writes:
"It is not. I've been playing 5 or 6 card weak twos for a long time and that style of opening has yielded more points than anything else."

I have been playing this way too, for ~18 months. We started with an EHAA style (though with an upper limit of 9 hcp), and have tightened up, opening with 5 only when NV, and with a decent fraction of the hcp in the suit in 1 and 2. Our ranges are 3-9 in 1 and 3, and 6-9 (and no 4cM) in 2. The 9 point top end and the tighter seat 2 requirement helps cut down on the self preemption.

Our results have been very good, especially at matchpoints. Teams are still good, but dicier. In an rgb thread on overcalling at the 1 level with 4 cards, one poster described it as unsound, but effective. I feel the same way so far about 5 card weak 2s.

I wonder, however, how this style will hold up as we move up in grade, and start playing in strong fields, especially in teams. Most bridge players (including Life Masters) have erratic bidding judgement when you stick a preemptive bid (including weak NT ) under their nose, and we may just be feasting on opponent's bad bidding. We do play some strong players (who've had a lot of success in "A" tournaments), and it seems to be OK, though noticeably less effective, but we won't really know until we start to play regularly in the "A"s.

After the last Bermuda Bowl, I looked at a bunch of the ccs. The weak 2 style Ron describes (2D as 6+ H or S, 2H/S as two suiter of some type) was absolutely dominant, except among pairs who used 2D as a non-preemptive bid. Of course, for me, playing in the ACBL, this isn't GCC legal There were a few pairs who used 5 card weak 2s.

Peter

[Free]

The_Hog, on Nov 28 2004, 12:38 AM, said:

Depends whether you are playing 5 card suit allowed for your weak 2. In this case Ogust is poor. This is why many are now playing the following:
2D = weak H or S - always 6 carder. good suit
2H/S = 5 carder weak 2, often 2 suited, even 5/5 allowed.

You need a different schemes over each opening.
Meshing 5 and 6 card weak 2 bids is poor system design.

My current 2-level openings are:

2♣ = weak, 4+♣ & 4+M
2♦ = weak, 4+♦ & 4+M
2♥ = weak, 4+♥ & 4+♠
2♠ = weak, (5)6+♠

These work wonderful! All non-forcing, all can contain ♠, very frequent! I've noticed a 2♥ opening showing a 2-suiter with ♥ isn't efficient...

I don't want to change anything about this scheme, since it's great to play. However, sometimes I just like to open 2♠ with a 5 card. That's why I need a structure which can handle this... I don't want to end up in 3♠ or 4♠ in a 5-2 fit while 3NT is laydown.

[Cowology]

One of my partners prefers to play 2NT asks description with

3C= 5 card suit any quality
3D= 6 card suit and should never have opend
3H= 6 card suit and "normal" wk 2
3S= 6 card suit and maybe should have opened 1 instead
3NT= AKQxxx

[the hog]

whereagles, on Nov 28 2004, 07:25 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 28 2004, 12:38 AM, said:

Meshing 5 and 6 card weak 2 bids is poor system design.

It is not. I've been playing 5 or 6 card weak twos for a long time and that style of opening has yielded more points than anything else.

However, it is not for the lazy who only count total trumps. I requires experience, judgement and a few gadgets, like a precise response scheme and save-suggesting bids.

Whereagles I hate to disillusion you, but saying a thing is so, does not make it so. You may have had some good results but that does not mean it is not poor system design - it is bad design.
Why do you think so many players who are far better than either you or I, and certainly far better theorists, are differentiating between 5 & 6 card weak 2s? Look at practitioners of this style - Marston, Klinger etc.

One reason is to add a measure of unpredictability into the 2H/S openings, as they won't be 5332s. Another reason is to allow tnt raises. Do you seriously want to raise a 5 card 2S opening to 3 on:
Qxx
xx
Axxx
xxxx

Do this in good company and you will find yourself in deep poo more often than not. Over a 6 card weak 2 the above is, of course, an automatic raise.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Nov 29 2004, 01:36 AM, said:

whereagles, on Nov 28 2004, 07:25 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 28 2004, 12:38 AM, said:

Meshing 5 and 6 card weak 2 bids is poor system design.

It is not. I've been playing 5 or 6 card weak twos for a long time and that style of opening has yielded more points than anything else.

However, it is not for the lazy who only count total trumps. I requires experience, judgement and a few gadgets, like a precise response scheme and save-suggesting bids.

Whereagles I hate to disillusion you, but saying a thing is so, does not make it so. You may have had some good results but that does not mean it is not poor system design - it is bad design.
Why do you think so many players who are far better than either you or I, and certainly far better theorists, are differentiating between 5 & 6 card weak 2s? Look at practitioners of this style - Marston, Klinger etc.

One reason is to add a measure of unpredictability into the 2H/S openings, as they won't be 5332s. Another reason is to allow tnt raises. Do you seriously want to raise a 5 card 2S opening to 3 on:
Qxx
xx
Axxx
xxxx

Do this in good company and you will find yourself in deep poo more often than not. Over a 6 card weak 2 the above is, of course, an automatic raise.

Ron, I also hate to delusion you, but just because you say Marston or Klinger differentiate between 5 & 6 cards doesn't make that style automatically "better" than any other style. If you want to claim any superiority whatsoever of a method over another, you have to PROVE it. Or at least give convincing arguments towards it.

As for the random 5-or-6 weak two, it has problems of course. Sometimes you have to guess whether or not to raise, and your constructive bidding can get messed up. But the problems can be mitigated by a judicious use of save-suggesting bids, an improved response scheme and NEGATIVE DOUBLES in competition (up to 3C at least, and NV of course).

Now check the plusses: you can open a weak 2D on a LOT of hands. The frequency of this opening NV is so high it offsets the loss in preemptive power of random weak 2Ms. Another plus is a random weak two leaving opponents in the dark as well, and this is more likely to happen to them than to you.

Last, I can talk from experience. I was also unconvinced this style would work, but my pard insisted on it and we played it. It deralied the opps so often it wasn't even funny. And I'm not talking club level, I'm talking top national level.

[luke warm]

whereagles, on Nov 29 2004, 11:19 AM, said:

~~snip~~If you want to claim any superiority whatsoever of a method over another, you have to PROVE it. ~~snip~~

this isn't accurate, imo... in any area of debate or disagreement, one or both parties will appeal to authority... your authority may be yourself, it may be someone else... same for ron, same for me... that makes the argument more between the authorities than the principles

while it may be true that klinger's authority in this particular matter is insufficient to sway your opinion, it doesn't follow that he hasn't *already* proven this (at least to his satisfaction, based on his knowledge and experience)... if you argue the converse to his position, YOU are the one who has to prove something (ron already has, by virtue of his appeal to authority)..

you can prove your position in several ways... 1) you can offer an appeal to another, separate, authority (the usual way it's done)... 2) you can offer proofs you obtained based on your own experience...

your arguments are based on the experiences of you and your partner, not on an appeal to another independent authority... in effect, you are arguing your position based on your own authority... this raises the question, which others have to answer to their own satisfaction, as to whether or not the authorities offered by ron are, in some small way, superior to those offered by you

[pbleighton]

"your arguments are based on the experiences of you and your partner, not on an appeal to another independent authority... in effect, you are arguing your position based on your own authority... this raises the question, which others have to answer to their own satisfaction, as to whether or not the authorities offered by ron are, in some small way, superior to those offered by you"

Well, here's an independent "authority", a cc description of the 2D opening in the first two seats:

"1st and 2nd seat 2D opening: weak 2H or 2S opening, 3-10 HCP, 5-7 card suit, vul
dependent."

From Meckwell's Bermuda Bowl cc.

Interesting!

Peter

[luke warm]

and that particular authority would go a long way toward bolstering anyone's position... see what i mean?

[PriorKnowledge]

Cowology, on Nov 28 2004, 07:57 PM, said:

3C= 5 card suit any quality
3D= 6 card suit and should never have opend
3H= 6 card suit and "normal" wk 2
3S= 6 card suit and maybe should have opened 1 instead
3NT= AKQxxx

This simple Modified Ogust was recommended by Meckstroth at a lecture I attended. After 3C rebid, 3D asks for strength, with 3H=min & 3S=max.

He recommended opening weak 2's with 5 or any 6, with voids, with 2nd 4-card majors and broad point range. He said it was important to keep opps from using their expert tools as much as possible.

[whereagles]

Well... I have only one thing to say. gogogoogo meckwell