Weak 2

[Chris3875]

There are many different versions of weak 2 openings - some show more than one suit and need to be alerted.

 

Most of the players doing lessons at our club are taught to open a weak 2 in hearts or spades with 6 of suit, 6-9 points, no 4-card in the other major and no void. This does not need an alert. But what about the partnerships who then decide to open a weak 2 with SEVEN trumps and a void - if they have on their system card 6+ of suit, may be a void, are they covered or should the bid be alerted because it is not what ops would be expecting?

[peachy]

What you describe is a style matter, disciplined/traditional versus more flexible (or even "anything goes") and typically not alertable by any jurisdiction Alert Regulations AFAIK. Naturally, the system card should say so in the appropriate section and when opponents ask, a complete description, including style, should be given. If the non-traditional style is generally unexpected, you probably have the freedom to decide that it should be alerted or pre-alerted before each round, AT YOUR CLUB.

[blackshoe]

When you teach beginners that a weak two shows a six card suit and 6-9 points, no side 4 card major and no void, they tend to think this is a promise to opponents. It isn't. Players are allowed to use their judgment to open a weak two on a hand that doesn't quite fit their stated agreement. This can only become a problem if they do it frequently enough that their partner can expect it. At that point, they have modified their explicit agreement to a new implicit (and presumably less disciplined) one. But that won't be the case when the deviation happens once in a while. Granted, it is difficult, if not impossible, to know with certainty how often an opponent has perpetrated such a deviation with the same partner (or with another partner when the current one is aware of it) but we rely on partnerships to be honest enough to disclose this when it does reach the level of implicit agreement.

 

Generally, clubs can make their own regulations regarding agreements and alerts (this is explicit in the ACBL, I don't know about Australia). But keep in mind that if the club's regulations differ significantly from the ABF's, players may have problems when they play in ABF events.

 

Bottom line: I don't think minor deviations need to be alerted (and opening with 7 instead of six is certainly minor). Nor do they need to be put on the system card, at least until they become implicit agreements.

 

Also, many people have different agreements regarding weak twos in third seat, or fourth. I don't know about Australia, but there's not really a place to indicate that on the ACBL card. Not in any detail, certainly.

[Chris3875]

Thanks Peachy and Blackshoe for your very clear replies - which I actually understood !!!

 

 

The situation I am describing blackshoe, is where a pair make this part of their agreement - so they regularly open a weak 2 with 6+ of the suit, and often with a void. It arose yesterday and I told 2 pairs who were doing it that they must describe the agreement fully when asked (e.g. 6+ of suit, could be a void, 6-10 HCP) but I wondered later whether it should be alerted because most people wouldn't ask about it, just assume it was a "normal" weak 2.

[jeremy69]

In EBU land a natural Weak Two whatever the range and distributional constraints would be announced not alerted however there are many different styles according to vulnerability, position and aggression of the weak two players. I would not expect any of these to be explained unless someone asked a particular question about weak two style. My answer in partnerships I play in would be quite undisciplined (might have 5, might have a void, a second suit, a poor suit etc). In short if they are looking for classical they have come to the wrong place but I wouldn't put details of much of this on my card and would consider 6+ to cover any seven card suits that might be opened. I agree with Blackshow that these are just minor stylistic differences. Clubs in England could have their own regulation but I bet none of them have introduced them. The same would also apply to any three level opening as pairs have different styles here. You might put that 6 card suits are common but I don't think anyone would put on their card constraints about side suits and shortages so weak two's are no different here.

[mjj29]

It's certainly not alertable (as people have said) and probably not very disclosable. I've not even heard this "can't open a weak two wiith a void' thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if some one did and wouldn't expect to disclose it, in fact I might be more likely to disclose the agreement that it _can't_ contain a void. Ditto 4-card side suits (although it is more normal to refrain with a 4 card major, that's certainly no guarantee if it's 6543 or in 3rd or 4th).

 

Given I've played with people who have opened xxx xxx Qxxxx Jx as a weak two, it's quite a relief when they turn up with a void!

[bluejak]

It is important for inexperienced players to realise that what they are taught is not the way everyone plays it. So while a pair might play it as showing no void, no four card major, they should not assume everyone plays the same way.

 

Of course, a lot of people get upset over differences in style without it mattering at all. What difference does it make if your opponents can open a weak two with a void? Generally it only matters to the very best players who make inferential counts of opponents' hands, and such players know that you cannot rely on these sort of stylistic rules.

 

Not only is not alertable to play a weak two which could on occasion be on seven cards, if someone complains the first thing to ask is "What difference did it make?" The answer is generally no difference at all: they just feel it should be alerted but there has been no effect.

[Chris3875]

I just LOVE those replies!!!

 

What happened last Saturday was that one of our obnoxious senior smart ass players took umbrage at 2 lots of novice pairs who coincidentally both opened a weak 2 at his table with 7 of suit (and one even compounded the situation by having a void). He didn't ask about the first bid, but when the 2nd pair opened 2H, he asked and was simply told "weak" !

 

He got into a rant and rave situation with them after bridge concluded for the day - I intervened and told him they were quite justified in opening a weak 2 in whatever style they wished, but I did explain to them that they must give a full explanation if asked (e.g could be 6+ of suit, may contain a void). I later wondered about the alerting bit which is why I added this thread.

 

It is people like this particular player who spoil the day for novice players and discourage them from returning to play. I shall take great satisfaction in explaining the facts to him in detail - supported by printouts of your replies.

 

Cheers !

[mycroft]

When I play EHAA, I Alert my weak 2s (even though, where I play, I probably don't actually have to, except for 2C of course). But I've opened and EHAA weak 2 on 86xxx, on KQJxxx (with a side KJTxxx), and on a random 8-carder - and been systemically correct each time. *That*, to me, is unusual and unexpected enough that I feel more comfortable having immediate disclosure.

 

When I play with my Tuesday partner, we play "very undisciplined" weak 2s - strong 5-carders (but only very rare 5332), *any* 6-card suit from 9 high to solid, or weak 7 carders (which probably have been done three times in 6 years). I don't alert that, but we do explain our style both on the CC and when asked (even when asked "weak?").

 

The curmudgeon needs to know that not everybody plays the game the way he does, and that many of those variations are "normal", and definitely not weird enough to be Alertable. Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of them around (as blackshoe and bluejak said, a lot of this attitude from newer players comes from the prescriptive way people tend to teach, rather than making clear "here's what we're recommending you should do; note that others have different opinions, but this one's both common and safe. Don't be surprised when people play something 'wrong'." And then there are those who have been playing since Vanderbilt changed the vulnerability (okay, exaggeration for emphasis. Since Goren, then) who have managed to ossify around 1981. It's not that they take it out on the novices only, but the non-novices are the ones who didn't quit when they were and got this treatment, so they're not going to quit now, either).

[VixTD]

Someone at my club had obviously learned his bidding from a book on Acol which stated that weak twos show 6-10 points and a six-card suit. If he came upon anyone who deviated from this by one iota (e.g. playing 5-9, or occasionally opening a five-card weak two), he would berate them for describing their system as "Acol", as if the system were defined by its treatment of weak twos.

[helene_t]

I wondered later whether it should be alerted because most people wouldn't ask about it, just assume it was a "normal" weak 2.

It is next to impossible to agree on what constitutes a "normal" preempt. And if someone preempts with say an outside ace, two working outside honors, a very bad suit, an outside 4-card major or 5-card minor, or a suit of atypical length, it is hard to say whether they really have an (implicit) agreement to do so.

 

Personally I would consider it normal to preempt with only one flaw. Or occasionally two, depending on vulnerability and such. Never to preempt with any flaw I would consider a little odd. But that's just me. I certainly wouldn't complain that such opps disclose their 2-openings just as "preempts" rather than specifically "flawless preempts". Besides I would not make too much assumptions about what other people would consider to be flaws.

 

Better explain to the complainers that they should never assume that opps have the same preempt style as the complainers themselves. What's next? Should we also complain if opps don't disclose their implicit agreement to lead unsupported aces, or to raise 1NT to 3NT with 4M333 bypassing Stayman?

 

If they want details about opps' preempt style they can ask. But it's not really recommended. Opps may not have that detailed agreements, they may have troubles explaining their implicit agreements, or they may deviate from their agreements. Besides, asking lots of questions may transmit UI.

[RMB1]

... he would berate them for describing their system as "Acol", as if the system were defined by its treatment of weak twos.

Now I know I'm getting old. :)

When I was young, Acol was defined (partially) by its treatment of two bids and they weren't 5-9 or 6-10. What would the player make of eight playing tricks in a hand of power and quality.

 

Robin

[bluejak]

What would the player make of eight playing tricks in a hand of power and quality.

Too strong for a Benjamin 2♣ opening, which shows roughly nine points and eight playing tricks, I expect. :)

[barmar]

How many of those "strange" weak 2's were in third seat? The reason many textbooks recommend against opening a weak 2 with a void or 4-card major is because they may be very powerful responding hands if partner opens. So these recommendations only apply in 1st or 2nd seat, and in 3rd seat all bets are off. But I don't know if beginners are taught this adjustment right away (and even if they are, it might not sink in, amidst all the stuff they have to learn).

 

But as others have said, recommendations like these are not hard and fast, and deviations from them don't have to be alerted.

 

As another example, take a look at the 2-level overcalls that many players make, and compare them to the suit quality recommendations in most textbooks. If it were necessary to alert deviations from textbook recommendations, I think 90% of these bids would be alerted. :)

[Finch]

Someone at my club had obviously learned his bidding from a book on Acol which stated that weak twos show 6-10 points and a six-card suit. If he came upon anyone who deviated from this by one iota (e.g. playing 5-9, or occasionally opening a five-card weak two), he would berate them for describing their system as "Acol", as if the system were defined by its treatment of weak twos.

Acol has nothing to say about weak twos, because they aren't part of Acol at all.

 

(Oh I've just noticed that Robin has already said that)

[aguahombre]

Weak two's with 7, Opening 3-bids with an opening hand, 2C with 18 high and about 8 tricks if lucky ---all of these things which novice or inexperienced players do, and their partners never really notice or take into account --- are just part of the obstacles we get to deal with as opponents.

 

They really can't alert or write down these things on their card because they don't know they are doing anything strange, or that the are going to do these things, before they do it --and next time, partner won't expect it any more than this time.

 

If they want lessons on good partnership bidding, they will attend classes or ask questions. Otherwise, we should butt out. Sometimes this is hard, we should try not to be the smart-ass (etc.) Chris described.

 

Liken it to poker, where the most dignified (and probably best strategic) reaction to a fix by a donk is to keep quiet, make a mental note about that player, and move on.