Weak 2s: A Golden Rule

[gurgistan]

A random partner gave me a rule for responding to his weak two.

 

If my points plus my support add up to 15 then I should put him in game!

 

This seems to work for the majors.

 

Is there any rule for bidding small slam opposite partner's weak 2?

 

Moreover, what would a rule for bidding game over 2♦ look like?

 

Any and all help appreciated.

[655321]

Seems a very silly rule to me.

 

With 5 card support you don't raise to game unless you have 10 points?

With a doubleton you raise to game on a balanced 13 count? It is possible there are balanced 13 counts that would raise a vulnerable weak 2 to game (although I can't think of one off the top of my head) but I am very sure there are no balanced 13 counts with doubleton support that should be raising NV weak 2s to game.

[matmat]

I've heard this before, but the number was 18, not 15.

[gwnn]

extremely silly.

 

just try to think what you can make opposite

 

How about the "KQxxxx x xxx xxx rule" (I'm not saying it's a good rule, but it's definitely a good rule of thumb):

 

think about what contract you'd like to be in opposite KQxxxx x xxx xxx. bid it.

[whereagles]

The only rule that always works is

 

THINK.

[Cascade]

Its usually easy to judge how high to bid opposite a weak two.

 

I don't think an arbitary rule will help.

 

This is what I do:

 

♠ Kxx

♥ AQxx

♦ AKxx

♣ xx

 

Say partner opens 2♠

 

1. Imagine partner has the ♠ AQ to make the trump suit nearly solid - that's six tricks

 

2. count my sure side suit tricks ♥A ♦AK - three more tricks

 

3. look for other trick taking prospects - heart finesse or less likely a club ruff

 

This looks like reasonably good prospects for ten tricks so I bid game.

 

Without the ♦K (or perhaps ace) I would be starting to think I need partner to have the ♠AQ and another card. So I will use our 2NT gadget and find out if partner likes her hand. If she does I will bid game. If not I play 3♠.

[barmar]

The rule sounds like it's intended for balanced and semi-balanced hands, hoping to make. If you have a distributional hand with support, you usually use the LOTT.

 

And 18 certainly seems like a more appropriate number. Consider: if you opened a strong NT, partner would probably invite or bid game game if he has a decent weak 2. Therefore, if partner opens a weak 2 before you get a chance to bid, you should bid game if you have a strong NT and 3-card support.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Moreover, what would a rule for bidding game over 2♦ look like?

<snip>

Look at Cascades post, but the most likely game is not 5D, it is 3NT.

 

So overall you need support, best with a top honor, and 2 1/2 hard fast

tricks in the form of Aces / Kings.

 

If you have a strong NT hand, the "18" looks ok, than this will usually also

work, as long as you have some diamond cards, if only two you may need

a minor honor with p, to generate an outside entry.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenberg]

Given Cascade's hand opposite a 2S opening, if there isn't a good play for 4S I think partner needs to reconsider what an opening 2 bid should contain. With lesser hands you will not always get it right, of course not, but the suggestion to think through where ten tricks will be coming from is a good one. Presumable partner has six cards with most of his values in the suit. lf I am the 2S opener and if we are vulnerable, Kx is enough to expect, with reasonable confidence, that there are six tricks in that suit. If we are not vul I may be on QJTxxx, and I suppose sometimes I may get too impatient to wait for the ten, but generally I don't think QJxxxx is quite enough. It's nice to preempt opponents but it's also good to bid so that your partner has some idea of what you can make.

 

Certainly people vary about what they think a weak 2 should contain. Getting straight on that issue (you do not have to agree, that may be impossible, but you do need to know the other's tendencies) is more useful than any formula.

 

Also you need to know what inquiries you are using and what the answers mean. A couple of examples: If I have a minimal 2S with an outside king, and partner asks for a feature with 2NT, I just rebid the suit. The feature rebid shows a feature and at least not a dead minimum. Many but not all play features this way. Or, if 2NT is Ogust, I like to have the "good suit" response be relative to the vulnerability. If vulnerable, I don't need to sort on whether I have opened 2 on KJxxxx because I haven't My 3H rebid will show a good suit for a vulnerable opening. Again, not everyone would agree with this.

 

 

Generally I am not fond of formulas whether its Pearson Count, Rule of 20, or the LOTT. All are useful as general guides but that's about it, imo. Particularly in this case, opposite a weak 2, it is much more important to be able to make a plausible case for ten tricks. After all, you have some idea of what partner has, and you can get more detail through some inquiry.