[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

Playing undisciplined weak two-bids,(any quality suit) range 5-11, pard opens 2S in first seat. What, if any, action do you take?

---

[inquiry]

Pass. In theory, if your partner has the "right hand", say
♠KQJTxx ♥x ♦Qxxx ♣xx you might make game on a diamond hook, and if he had one club and two hearts, game is more or less cold. But for every "perfect hand" he will have a few dozen not so perfect hands, ESPECIALLY AT THIS VUL (us white them red)... in fact, I would open the hand above 3♠ not 2 at those colors. And at this vul, partner should not be much stronger than this, the perfect type hand.

Some will suggest raising to 3♠, and that is certainly ok, who know, it might push them to get overboard. But a pass might do the same thing, and give this is imps, I can see no need to go negative if partner is really creative at these colors...especially with my defense.

Ben

[flytoox]

At least worth a try. Start with 2N.

[cherdano]

2NT Ogust for me. If partner has maximum with a good suit, there are, I think, too many ways his hand can make game good (KQTxxx in spades and a red queen is almost enough). So I would sign-off in 3♠ over anything but a 3♠ response. But for me, the 2♠ opening is wide-ranging at this vulnerability, i.e. it could well be
♠KQTxxx ♥x ♦Qx ♣Kxxx

I don't think playing in 3♠ instead of two loses much, as I would raise over 3♣ anyway.

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Jan 24 2005, 05:19 PM, said:

2NT Ogust for me. If partner has maximum with a good suit, there are, I think, too many ways his hand can make game good (KQTxxx in spades and a red queen is almost enough). So I would sign-off in 3♠ over anything but a 3♠ response. But for me, the 2♠ opening is wide-ranging at this vulnerability, i.e. it could well be
♠KQTxxx ♥x ♦Qx ♣Kxxx

I don't think playing in 3♠ instead of two loses much, as I would raise over 3♣ anyway.

Interesting. This hand is much too good for a 2♠ bid at these colors for me. I am very agreesive at these vul, and so can't have this broad a range bewteen the minimum I would open and the maxium I would open 2 wtih. Thus this hand is not possible for me. If you will opne much lighter at this vul, ask yourself the range you will use.

Ben

[sceptic]

if you play undisciplined weak twos, you have to have a method to find out just how undisciplined they are, so ogust looks good to me.

on the other hand opening weak twos (ougust style) with 0-bad 12 and that is quite good fun, not many people would try it though which is a shame, I like it.

Ougust has to be the way forward I think on undisciplined weak twos,

So in answer to that first question, YES YOU HAVE to bid there as you have no idea how weak or strong your pard is

[sceptic]

I missed off, in my humble opinion hehehehehehehe

[inquiry]

sceptic, on Jan 25 2005, 12:07 AM, said:

if you play undisciplined weak twos, you have to have a method to find out just how undisciplined they are, so ogust looks good to me.

on the other hand opening weak twos (ougust style) with 0-bad 12 and that is quite good fun, not many people would try it though which is a shame, I like it.

Ougust has to be the way forward I think on undisciplined weak twos,

So in answer to that first question, YES YOU HAVE to bid there as you have no idea how weak or strong your pard is

Well, 0 to 12 hcp is too wide a range even for undisciplined weak twos from the first or second position. From third seat, ok, if you want that wide fine, but it puts too much pressure on partner to make a call.

From second position, my weak two are normal "textbook". From first seat, my weak twos depend a bit upon the vulnerability. If we are vulnerable, they are sound, if neither are vulnerable, they are fairly wide ranging. If we are not vul and they are vul, then they are light. If I have something approaching a normal standard weak two at that condition, I open 3 of the major. I have opened 3 of a major, in fact, on five card suit at that vul... so six card suit is obviously fine.

So with this hand at this vul, I seriously doubt we will have game. As for the hand cherdano came up with... ♠KQTxxx ♥x ♦Qx ♣Kxxx, I would open 1♠ at this color, 2♠ if vul.

I guess it is a matter of style.

Ben

[whereagles]

If I'm playing ogust, 2NT. Will stick to 3S unless opener has good hand/good suit.

Pass is nice if I'm in need of a swing. Will let them play 3D/3H undisturbed, but will press on to 3S if they bid 3C.

[Fluffy]

Obvious quick 3♠ to me, maybe I didn't think enough

[luis]

Automatic pass and hope he can make 2s.
If we miss a game then the 2s opening is wrong, green vrs red 2s is usually very very agressive, pass and 1s are recomended when a 2s opening may make your side miss a game.
Even when you can make a game I'm happy to go +170 instead of +420, no big deal.

[inquiry]

luis, on Jan 25 2005, 02:15 PM, said:

Automatic pass and hope he can make 2s.

I like this answer... this is the kind of logic that fits my bidding temperment...

And lhose of you who don't know luis, he is a true gold star well worth watching play on line. His online name is lrargerich (hope you don't mind the plug luis). He also volunteers in the beginner/intermediate lounge.

ben

[pclayton]

Does undisciplined mean 5 baggers as dealer? if so then I pass. If undisciplined means an occasional bad suit, then I like 3♠. I want to trap our greedy vulnerable opponents.

[Winstonm]

First: This does not apply to 5-baggers being opened. I have no qualms with this and at MPs especially encourage that use.
This idea is based on 6-card openings and imp play.

The point of this hand is twofold:

1) If you, (as I have done it the past), limit yourself to the types of hands you open with a weak 2 based on vulnerability you remove a big part of your defensive arsenal - (the too good at this vulnerability argument). Frequency has much to do with how valuable is a bid; therefore, reducing frequency by limiting the hands opened based on vulnerability reduces the value of the weak 2 bid structure. To be more of a nuisance, it would seem advisable to open KJ10xxx, x, KQx, xxx, 2S in first seat NV vs Vul and also allow J9xxxx, xx, KJx, xxx to be opened as well. This increases frequency. Playing them the other way - based on vulnerability - is actually a disciplined approach, albeit a different sort of discipline.

2) Assuming #1 is reasonable, then the question is: how do I find out how high to bid and what are my prospects for game? This is the problem that Ogust tried to solve, but Ogust has limitations and it is not very specific.

After a lengthy test an trial period, there seems to be a better way. I am not in the world-class or even National Class group of players, so the information was forwarded to a well-known author and expert who is presently investigating the validity of this concept.

Stay tuned for latest developments.

WinstonM

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Jan 25 2005, 03:31 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jan 24 2005, 05:19 PM, said:

But for me, the 2♠ opening is wide-ranging at this vulnerability, i.e. it could well be
♠KQTxxx ♥x ♦Qx ♣Kxxx

Interesting. This hand is much too good for a 2♠ bid at these colors for me.

On 2nd thoughts, no this hand has just a little too much playing strength.

But I do believe in making the weak two bid in this position and colors wide-ranging. Pressure bidding.

[the hog]

Pass - automatic. Don't even need to consider this twice
Anyone who is even considering a move with this hand is not opening a weak 2 on nearly enough hands.