RedSpawn

Did you read Josh's article about weak 2's? Josh's Practice Problems Here are the 3 practice problems he uses in his article that I used in my earlier post about weak 2 bids. Practice Problem #1 AQJxxx♠ xxx♥ x♦ xxx♣ He said South would open this 2♠. I have no qualms here. The hand has 1.5 quick tricks for a weak 2 open and the ♠ suit quality is delicious. You don't need the 1.5 quick tricks to bid preemptively but notice how it keeps the quality of the weak 2 open ship-shape. Practice Problem #2 x♠ KQ9xxx♥ Q10xxx♦ x♣ Josh said South would open this 2♥. I don't care for the side 5 card ♦ suit but I can work with his ♥ suit quality (having 2 of top 3 honors and an intermediate) and the fact that his hand has 1.0 quick tricks, even for weak 2♥. He is keeping the quality of his trump suit intact and keeping a quick trick in the hand. Practice Problem #3 x♠ xx♥ QJ10xxx♦ AJ9x♣ Josh said South would open up 2♦ which I am okay with. The hand just so happens to have 1.0 quick tricks and the suit quality for diamonds is okay at QJ10XXX♦. The side suit quality is in CONTROL and no one has to be heavily concerned for the whereabouts of the QK♣ since the AJ9X♣ suit is in attack mode and likely to capture one of the missing honors with a decent finesse. The quick tricks aren't really a requirement for the weak 2 open, but having some control of the hand in either the trump suit and/or the side suit will definitely help sell your idea. The Proposed BBF Hand: void♠ = YELLOW ALERT! Departure from ordinary expectations. . .Proceed with caution. QJTxxx♥= adequate suit quality, even though none of the trump honors are quick (you do, however, have 3 of 5 honors). x♦ = singleton, OK here QTxxxx♣ = RED ALERT! Compromised side suit quality (contains 1 of top 4 honors. . .and the Q♣ honor, while guarded by an intermediate, isn't even a quick honor--getting control of the suit may present problems during play as we need to track down the whereabouts of AKJ♣ clubs :blink: ) And this example doesn't even have a scattered king or ace in the mix like ALL of Josh's examples. This is just not working for me. The suit quality of the practice problems Josh provides are nowhere near the suit quality of the suggested 2♥ bid in the BBF. No deal.

Thank you for your quick response. Please note that each of Josh's example in his article used a weak two that had a least a quick trick factor of at least 1. AQJxxx♠ = 1.5 quick tricks KQ9xxx♥ = 1.0 quick tricks QJ10xxx♦ = 0.0 quick tricks AJ9x♣ = 1.0 quick tricks. ================================================= Proposed weak 2♥ hand in BridgeBase Forum: void♠ = 0.0 quick tricks QJTxxx♥= 0.0 quick tricks x♦ = 0.0 quick tricks QTxxxx♣ = 0.0 quick tricks ================================================= Why the fascination with the requirement of quick tricks? ;) It tends to keep BOTH partners "honest" in the representations they make about the utility and the quality of the hand they open in the auction. Further, it prevents what I am calling the "dilution" effect. This is when we take a time-honored and passé concept like 2 quick tricks for an open and either dilute or remove it. Then the race to the bottom starts. Then we open with 1.5 quick tricks. Then we open with 1.0 quick tricks. Then we open with 0.5 quick tricks. And on some BBF threads, we open with 0.0 quick tricks even with a 4-3-3-3 distribution because being the 1st to open at all costs reigns supreme and we can sort through all the attendant collateral damage and confusion in the post mortem. See link below for BBF discussion on opening on junk. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76391-opening-on-junk/ ======================================================================================================= I am not surprised that Josh's weak 2 examples are consistent with what one expects in a weak 2 bidding structure. It's when we take the spirit of what Josh says in his article and attempt to stretch it and apply it what I call "compromised" or "defective" hands that is worrisome. Proposed Weak 2 Hand: void♠ = YELLOW ALERT! Departure from ordinary expectations. . .Proceed with caution. QJTxxx♥= suit quality, OK, even though none of the trump honors are quick (you do, however, have 3 of 5 honors). x♦ = singleton, OK here QTxxxx♣ = RED ALERT! Compromised side suit quality (contains 1 of top 4 honors. . .and the Q♣ honor, while guarded by an intermediate, isn't even a quick honor--getting control of the suit may present problems during play :blink: ) I do not subscribe to taking Josh's examples of weak 2 bids and applying them to hands lacking a hint of 1/2 quick tricks and containing poor suit quality as in (QTXXXX). With respect to 6-5 come alive, see link below: Case example Cut and paste here: "Every Bridge player knows the playing potential of a 6-5 hand . You “come alive” with this distribution and bid. You are usually rewarded if partner has a fit for one of the suits. Using the rule of 20 , 6-5’s can be opened with as little as 10 HCP so that you can “fire the first shot” . The spirit of 6-5 come alive is that your suits (as in plural) contain working values that are respectable. A case can be made for QJTxxx♥ being respectable. QTxxxx♣ is just not respectable. Sorry, no leeway here. It is just not a respectable suit with decent working values especially if you are going to apply a rule of 20 "mentality" for 6-5. The performance of the club suit is highly suspect and does not, in my opinion, warrant departing from standard operating procedure. I expect the Q♣ to be taking several "smoke breaks" during the board play. Same situation with Larry Cohen's discussion of 6-5. https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/698 All, and I mean, each and every one of his examples contain suits with some quick tricks in them. Finally, I would be wary of taking concepts meant for constructive bids and applying them to a preemptive scenario. I have tried that as well and have been admonished. ;)

Please note the examples Josh uses: AQJxxx♠ xxx♥ x♦ xxx♣ a 6 card ♠ suit with 3 of top 5 ♠ honors -- no qualms here. This is not moth-eaten. x♠ KQ9xxx♥ Q10xxx♦ x♣ Note this heart suit contains 2 of the top 3 honors AND a intermediate 9. This is workable when you have SUIT QUALITY consistent with a standard weak 2 bid. x♠ xx♥ QJ10xxx♦ AJ9x♣ Note here the example uses a ♦ suit contained 3 of 5 honors--this makes the ♦ suit workable since it has 3 of 5 honors. Notice, however, the nice quality of side club suit. It has 2 of top 4 honors and a nice intermediate 9 for a 4 card suit! NOTE: None of his examples use a void situation. Now, let's go back to the original proposition. void♠---UGH--the ugly void again, which was in none of Josh's practice examples. QJTxxx♥ -- the heart suit has 3 of 5 honors which is consistent with weak 2. x♦-- singleton here is consistent with eligibility for weak 2 hand. QTxxxx♣--this club suit quality is very poor and makes the weak 2 bid even more unappetizing, notice this club suit versus the AJ9X♣ suit in the example above (night and day suit quality difference). Here is the problem. I am not sold on this method yet because I know what people are vying for is to relax Josh's practice example from: x♠ KQ9xxx♥ Q10xxx♦ x♣ to this: void♠ QJTxxx♥ x♦ QTxxxx♣ There is not even a quick trick, King or Ace to be found anywhere in the latter hand. This is a very slippery slope.

Mike, This forum has had vehement discussions about topics and people who made a certain bid were called "amateurs/non-experts" through insinuation and innuendo. Also, certain people have said that the thought of bidding "_____(fill in the blank)" is "insane" to them which makes one wonder what exactly do they think of the person making the bid? Such language is condescending in tone and nature, and yet, I have yet to see anyone publicly condemn such language or colored comments, except the persons offended by the remark. This leads me to believe that such snarky comments are fair game for the forum (especially when a thought is considered alternative and non-mainstream). Back to the discussion at hand, I have 4 questions that I am sincerely interested in hearing answers: void♠ QJTxxx♥ x♦ QTxxxx♣ Question 1: Why do you think this hand with 0.0 quick tricks is a "reportable" hand from 1st or 2nd seat? 3rd seat anything goes. It doesn't fit the profile of a normal weak 2 hand and to classify it as a weak 2 bid only increases interpretation error for the respondent. Question 2: If you are in 1st or 2nd seat, why do you think you partner needs this information about your hand shape before he describes his own hand/shape/features? Question 3: How do you know from looking at your hand in 1st and 2nd seat that the opposition have game and that you need to make an "alternative/unorthodox" weak 2 bid to disrupt them? Question 4: Why is it so hard to pass the 1st round of bidding with recycle bin values? This hand doesn't fit a normal weak 2 profile and clearly is not better than an average 10 HCP hand. You might be able to describe this hand if your partner ends up making a takeout double.

Agreed. Let me introduce you to what we bridge players call a PASS button. You have a very distributional hand that MIGHT pay handsome dividends if you will allow your partner to describe his hand first (if he has a hand that contains opening points and some quick tricks.) Your hand is MUSH until you let him describe what he has 1st. You should refrain from committing the partnership to contracts in 1st or 2nd seat with 0.0 quick tricks, especially when you have recycle bin values. Let's be clear, your call of PASS does not mean you are done for the auction. It just means you have a hand that doesn't fit any of the agreed-upon opening criteria for a normal or preemptive bid. Give your partner a chance to describe his hand and see if there is some kind of fit that can be made. Please click link below regarding the general rules for a weak 2 bid. Notice how it says NO VOIDS or side 5 card suits. Stay Inside the Lines of the Coloring Book Weak 2 bids are narrowly defined preemptive bids for a reason. It allows your partner to quickly determine what you hold and decide what, if anything, he should do next. Distribution on the board is already suspect when you have a 6 card or longer suit, but to add a VOID to the mix as the possible shape of your weak 2 hand AND a side 5 card minor suit, just makes bridge life utterly complicated and needlessly miserable for the respondent. So, now a weak 2 could mean you have a crappy 6 card suit, with a crappy 5 card suit on the side, and a void? Let me call 1-800-TELE-PATH and see if they can determine if your weak 2 bid is plain vanilla or this hot mess of a hand. Please color inside the black lines of the weak 2 bid coloring book. It will save you and your partner a lot of headaches and misunderstandings. Copy & Paste of hyperlink below: The Weak Two Bid Edited and updated 6-14-11 WHAT IS A WEAK TWO BID? An opening bid of 2D, 2H, or 2S (not 2C) Describing a hand with a strongish 6-card suit Along with 7-9 HCP (6 or 10 HCP are exceptions, particularly 10). It can be compared to an opening three bid, the difference is that a three bid normally shows a seven-card suit. The distribution of the bidder’s Weak Two hand rates to be 6-3-2-2, or 6-3-3-1, or 6-4-2-1. Notice: no five card side suits, no voids.

When you allow the opposition to share information back and forth when you are sitting on a known 13-card fit, they are guaranteed to have and find their own trump fit. That is a luxury I can ill afford. I wouldn't walk the dog on a hand like this one because I don't want them to find their fit and challenge our awesome ♠ fit. I am not suggesting 5♠ is the only bid, I am suggesting that 4♠ shut-off will accomplish very little against moderately assertive opponents who are sitting on a lovely ♥ and ♣ fit. I refuse to provide them the bidding space to uncover this fit. 4♠ gave them just enough bidding space to pull back the curtain and look into other contract possibilities.

Agreed. Double is for penalty. The purpose of the pre-emptive bid is to disrupt the opposition and crisply and quickly define the opener's hand's value (weak) and features (length of ♦). Under no circumstances should partner be looking for an additional description or alternative fit for a second suit by means of a takeout double (ASSUMING the partner is abiding by the "rigid" parameters by which a weak 2 bid is defined ;) )

That somewhat answers the question, but it kind of doesn't. "But when we preempt, the chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents, so if someone is going to go wrong, it'll be them more often than us." Generally speaking, if you have 2 aces, you already have 1/2 of the raw materials to upset a 4 level game bid, so why in this scenario, do you feel that "chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents"? I am especially asking this if the pre-empt is done from 1st and 2nd seat with two aces. 3rd seat, anything goes. When you make a preemptive bid from 1st or 2nd seat, how do you know that the contract belongs to the opponents when you hold two aces in your hand? Your partner has not spoken yet. He could have 0 HCP, 10 HCP, 12+ HCP? I am in awe of the clairvoyance, but to bid preemptively with two aces just so we can hopefully trip up the opponents before we trip up ourselves seems less about statistics, science, ability, and technique and more about psychology and going all-in on the zero-sum mentality of the game. I think what has happened is the bridge community has lost faith in the value of the normal auction and are resorting to alternative, unorthodox methods just for the sole right to open 1st. A well-oiled bidding system can only do so much. . .after a certain point, you need sneakier methods to become the leader of the pack. And here we are looking for that edge in our preemptive bids. Sigh.

Who are you telling? I had to wipe my screen a couple of times to make sure I was seeing right. If my partner opens 1♠ and I have eight spades, we have a 13 card fit in spades and both opponents are void of spades. That means both of my opponents are void of our trump suit and are actively searching for a fit elsewhere. I need to bid 5♠ as a minimum to force them to think twice about bidding a 6 level contract. A 4♠ bid allowed East to communicate a 4NT unusual takeout bid and for West to bid his void spade suit. That is way too much intelligence sharing. If you are playing against moderately assertive players they will not let 4♠ stand uncontested.

Same thoughts...different seasons.

This is by far, the most cogent and well articulated viewpoint I have read in a while. I hope you get answers to some of the fundamental questions you asked. Why are we pre-empting with two cold defensive tricks. Are we stopping the opponents from bidding a game contract they don't have. Very fair and valid questions? Let's see if you get any respondents.

Very valid point as well. One of the criteria for if you should consider opening 2♣ is if you could miss game/slam if your partner passes. The scenario you present with a near yarborough demonstrates how strong West's hand really is. I think it is high time 2♣ comes off of its pedestal and gets used for hands like this.

So your partner did a takeout double of 1♦ holding three diamonds himself and with a hand that has an awful 4-3-3-3 pancake distribution and 12 HCP? The distribution alone makes the hand worth a functional 11 points. This is what makes bridge frustrating. The underlying assumption, for me, anyways, was that the takeout double was valid and plain vanilla, but once you said "pick-up game" in the BBO Main Bridge Club, throw "plain vanilla" out the door.

When the collective hears an alternative idea that doesn't conform to their sensibilities, the attack formation begins. I am okay with the attack formation. We take a vote. I am okay with the vote. However, if the vote shows that calling pass on T98765432♥ is not as insane as the author purported it to be, OWN THE OUTCOME. No bid/call had a majority at the time and the poll forerunners were 4♥ and PASS. To try and throw a poisoned dart and suggest (indirectly) the 33% voting block is rife with rank amateurs to STILL HOLD ONTO the "insane" narrative is consistent with a groupthink maneuver.

It's important that you find a player that understands the importance of partnership. If a player values his partner and the partnership you would rarely if at all see the things you are mentioning. However, if you are partnering with someone who is really a poker player with a bridge fetish, you will see bluff after bluff after bluff with no regard for "disciplined" bidding and no concern for how a partner is supposed to "interpret" or differentiate the bluff bids from the legitimate ones. In poker, there are no partnerships. Remind your partner that this is bridge and not poker. And if they don't shape up, find the nearest exit and let them fly the plane solo.

Let me make this clear what happened: 1) The thought of calling pass on T98765432♥ in 2nd seat was called insane. 2) Further tag-team comments corroborated the idea that passing on T98765432♥ in 2nd seat is insane. 3) Several group members recommended the bid of 4♥ from 2nd seat. 4) I called T98765432♥ "obscene garbage" and the bidding of 4♥ from 2nd seat "Texas Hold Em Poker" 5) Jennifer and I asked to differentiate how you bid/call AKXXXXXX♥ versus T98765432♥; I snarkily replied that it is the respondent's responsibility to be amazingly clairvoyant and know when partner is bidding which one (even if he is void in ♥). 6) So we take a vote on Brigewinners.com. 7) Bridge winner shows that 4♥ carried 49% of vote and PASS carried 33% of vote if each bid/call type is mutually exclusive as it should be. 8) So, the results are "aggregated" to show 67% ANY BID versus the call PASS 33% which was NOT the essence of the argument. 4♥ versus PASS was the main argument. :angry: 9) And finally, the author of the bridgewinner poll took efforts to discredit the large 33% showing for the call PASS by suggesting (indirectly) that the voters are chock full of amateur/non-experts ==> if this is the case, why even take the brigewinners poll in the 1st place? I firmly believe that to discredit a 33% voting group (when compared to a 49% voting group) just because their vote does not conform to your bridge sensibilities or "insane" narrative is definitely groupthink or heavily misguided. In groupthink, "group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints." Calling PASS was definitely an alternative viewpoint that was suppressed though "aggregation" of poll results AND by trying to suggest the 33% voting block is full of potentially rank amateurs.

2♣ is an opening bid designed to handle hands generally that have at least 5 or so quick tricks (or least more quick tricks than losers) and/or at least 22 points total. We have discussed how the hand in question fulfills both features. I don't think it is fair or reasonable to expect this convention, or any convention for that matter, to serve as an insurance policy for EVERY combination of hands available in bridge. My role and obligation to my partner is to communicate my barn burners when I am lucky enough to get them. If you feel 1♠ is fine for you, enjoy. I am going to bid 2♣ when I have 24 total points and LTC = 2, and trust that my partner and I can land the plane properly.

Please bear in mind that I was answering the question of what would happen IF partner responded 3♦ with the previous hand in question. This doesn't mean that I advocated the 3♦ response. I was answering Cyberyeti's question. I said in my original post that I agree with P Marlowe's bidding structure which began with 2♣ open and the partner responded with 2♦ waiting. I will submit again that I think most players are putting 2♣ opens on too high of a pedestal. That may work in tournament play because that's what the field is doing. In tournament play, getting to a solid game contract, by any means necessary, is the primary goal. As a result, I believe slam bidding accuracy has taken a back seat (in my humble opinion) and since slams could result in -50 or -100, a cold, slightly underbid game has become the flavor of choice. Take for instance, the following hand that just happened in a United World BBO tournament #2403 (Board#9) on 5/9/2017: AQ9832♠,AQJ9765♥. That's all! Six spades and Seven hearts. Obviously this doesn't count as 22 HCP since all you have is 13 HCP and 3 Quick Tricks, but come on. You are on the hunt for two K's and you have basically a 7 level contract. You are two tricks away from a possible grand slam and if you don't open 2♣, you are making your partner guess about what your ambitions are. Opening this hand as 1♥ and reversing 2♠, though conservative, doesn't fully describe the barn burner you have. If you open 2♣ as a lot of players did, you definitely arrive at 6♥, 6♠, 7♥, & 7♠ contracts. However, a lot of responders who saw the reverse were quite content to rest at 4♥ or 5♥ because they figured the reverse is about 17-18 HCP. You only get one chance to announce a 2♣ barn burner. AQ9832♠,AQJ9765♥ = BARN BURNER!!

The power double is usually reserved for bids with one long suit and great strength. If you have 3 suited hand and short in spades, then what you are talking about is a regular takeout double and since you are 3 suited and can support ANY bid your partner makes by skipping a level. I said there are two types of doubles in this scenario. One is the plain vanilla takeout double of 13+ HCP and supporting your partner's bid suit. The 2nd is the 17-18+ hand where you rebid your long suit after the DOUBLE. Bidding the natural 2♠ is fine, it just doesn't let your partner know how strong your hand is. It is the lesser of 2 evils.

Well. 2♣ (barn burner) -3♦(to show strong ♦ suit)-3♠ to show 5 card ♠ suit for 1st time - rebid 4♦ to show disgust with ♠ and with 3NT contract - bid 4 card ♥ suit as last and final call for majors - partner will jump for joy as he has XXXXX♥. The slam bidding will take place from here. When you are sitting on just two LTC's in your hand there are certain liberties you can take with the bidding beyond 3NT that just isn't possible with a hand of say LTC=4 or 5.

I am not disagreeing that 2♠ can be bid. What I am asking is what is "wrong" with the takeout double first? In practical terms, a hand should have about 10 to 16 points for a simple overcall at the two level. When you have a stronger hand (at least 17 points and a good six card or longer suit), start with a takeout double and then bid your suit. 2♠ bid direct understates your hand's value. There is nothing wrong with that especially since both teams are vulnerable, but I am not buying that the power double is inappropriate in this scenario.

My role at this point is to let my partner know I have 17-19 points and a very well defined spade suit. I am not seeing any other bidding structure that accomplishes this without the power double. Also, I am not worried about who has the missing spades because the only ♠ I am interesting in getting is the missing Q10♠. I have AKJ983♠, 17-18HCP, and two other suits under decent control. I am preferring a power double instead of a cue bid WHICH TAKES UP A WHOLE ROW of bidding for my partner to respond. I want my partner to respond at the 2 level so I can collect intelligence on his hand shape and power before committing to the 2♠ bid.

You have presented a very good question. Aside from the fact that you have a diamond void, I would like to hear why exactly this hand wouldn't qualify for a 2 club opening. From a losing trick perspective, you have only two losing tricks. From an HCP perspective you have 21 HCP, but you have one spade length for a 5 card suit and two suit quality points for both your heart suit and your club suit (containing at least 3 of 5 honors in a suit 4 cards or longer). This puts your hand at a revalued 21 HCP + 1 + 1 + 1 = 24 points. A 2 club opening would put your partner on the right course to think of slam as a viable option. I agree with p-marlowe's bidding structure.

I play "power" doubles with a hand this strong. This Hand is in the 17+ HCP category with a spade rebid that is clearly superior to whatever collection of spades East claims to have. Takeout doubles can have 2 meanings. The 1st 1 is you are taking out the spade suit and are looking for a fit elsewhere with 13+ points. The 2nd and more sinister use of takeout double is basically when you have an unbalanced hand stronger than a typical NT and have a rebid available. You are communicating to partner that you have a *power* hand and this contract maybe ours if partner has 6-9 points. Do a power double and see if partner gets a chance to bid. Whatever he bids or calls, you must bid 2♠ afterwards. Now your partner knows you have 17-19 HCP and at least 5-6 well established spades which describes your hand perfectly. Your partner can either pass or continuing bidding with the proper assessment of your hand.

TYVM. Have a great day!