Weak 2 on different vul

[Flame]

Today most adjust their weak 2 bids acording to vul, this mean if you are a conservative player you wouldnt bid 2 weak unless you have a very good ofensive hand, a hand that on good vul you would probebly bid on the 3 level.

Some more agressive would bid 2 level on bad hand so normal 2 level would be fine for thier 2 level on bad vul.

If you are conservative like me, then youget to the point where your 2 level on vul vs non vul are very rare.

Now i wonder isnt it better to drop the all thing and play those 2 level when vul vs not vul as a weak opening bid ? Something similar is the way some (like garoozo i think) play intermidite jump overcalls when red)

A hand like K10XXXX AKX KXX X would open 2S.

This mean 1S-1NT-2S is stronger.

What we lose is premptive, but on this vul its rare those prepmts are needed.

On the other hand our 1level openings will get better, which could help reaching vul games and slams.

Im not close on the implications, maybe there is abetter use to the 2 level, just suggesting the concept to help our one bids using those 2 bids when they are unnesasry as prempts.

[Guest Jlall]

If a red/white weak 2 is not frequent enough for your tastes, changing it makes sense. There are good players who play intermediate jump overcalls at the vulnerability as well.

[whereagles]

What do you mean, it's not frequent enough? It's as frequent as in any other vulnerability :P Sure, you'd probably prefer to have good spot cards. But on the other hand you can also dump, as proposed, some min 1-suiters with 11-12 hcp and high ODR into the weak 2.

 

I do think the high ODR requirement should not be messed up with. Preempts show offensive hands, not hcps. For instance,

 

KQJTxx

x

xxx

xxx

 

should still be ok for a weak 2♠, even at red/white (we red), and

 

AQJTxx

x

KQx

xxx

 

should qualify as well, despite the 12 hcp.

 

However,

 

AJxxxx

x

KQJ

xxx

 

should probably be opened at the 1 level due to the bad spots, which lower the ODR by 1.

[Finch]

A hand like K10XXXX AKX KXX X would open 2S.

This mean 1S-1NT-2S is stronger.

What we lose is premptive, but on this vul its rare those prepmts are needed.

While I don't object to your idea in principle, I wouldn't like to open that hand 2S.

 

Particularly when vul against not, I believe that a pre-emptive opener should be confident about what suit is best as trumps. That sample hand could very easily play better in hearts or diamonds, and accordingly I would open 1S.

 

Change it to AK109xx Kxx Kxx x and I don't object to having an agreement to play 'intermediate' twos at red. Although personally I would still prefer to play them as weak (ish): when you do have a suitable hand, it becomes a very descriptive bid.

[jdonn]

What do you mean, it's not frequent enough? It's as frequent as in any other vulnerability :P Sure, you'd probably prefer to have good spot cards. But on the other hand you can also dump, as proposed, some min 1-suiters with 11-12 hcp and high ODR into the weak 2.

 

I do think the high ODR requirement should not be messed up with. Preempts show offensive hands, not hcps. For instance,

 

KQJTxx

x

xxx

xxx

 

should still be ok for a weak 2♠, even at red/white (we red), and

 

AQJTxx

x

KQx

xxx

 

should qualify as well, despite the 12 hcp.

 

However,

 

AJxxxx

x

KQJ

xxx

 

should probably be opened at the 1 level due to the bad spots, which lower the ODR by 1.

The second example is closer to a 1♠ - 3♠ bid than an opening 2♠ bid! It's about two tricks more valuable than the third example.

[whereagles]

AQJTxx

x

KQx

xxx

 

The second example is closer to a 1♠ - 3♠ bid than an opening 2♠ bid! It's about two tricks more valuable than the third example.

Yeah, but it's an offensive hand, just like, say,

 

KQJxxx

x

KQJ

xxx

 

This one is probably also worth 2♠ red on white.

[jdonn]

AQJTxx

x

KQx

xxx

 

The second example is closer to a 1♠ - 3♠ bid than an opening 2♠ bid! It's about two tricks more valuable than the third example.

Yeah, but it's an offensive hand, just like, say,

 

KQJxxx

x

KQJ

xxx

 

This one is probably also worth 2♠ red on white.

So what if they are offensive, they are still too good for a weak two bid at any vul!

 

KQJT9xxxx

A

-

xxx

 

is offensive too, why not open it 2♠?

[whereagles]

well, open it 3♠ if you want then.

[han]

Frances said:

 

Although personally I would still prefer to play them as weak (ish): when you do have a suitable hand, it becomes a very descriptive bid.

 

I think about it like this too. At unfavorable, the range of hands with which I would open 2S becomes smaller, but I see this as a good thing, not a bad thing. At these colors 2S is highly constructive and still preemptive.

[pigpenz]

it seems the modern trend is to take away space from the oppoenents at the expense of partner being able to make an intelligent deciscion. I have played both ways, I guess you have to let experience be your guide.

 

one of my parnters wont let me pre empt at all ;)

[whereagles]

one of my parnters wont let me pre empt at all ;)

shoot him :)

[luis]

My personal record for a weak 2 is 16hcp :-)

Lowest of course is 0hcp.

 

The variability depends on position and vulnerability, following the Robson-Segal principles with a twist. The twist is that in about 5% of the preempts I make I introduce a random distortion, for example opening a good hand NV vs VUL or a horrible hand VUL vs NOT. This is known to both the opps and pd and disclosed properly.

 

Luis

[luke warm]

one of my parnters wont let me pre empt at all :P

shoot him :P

unless the results are good, of course...