weak 2 range

[straube]

I'm thinking that the popular range of 5-10 points is too weak and too wide. It seems that it's rare, too, to have a good quality suit with 5 or 6 points as opposed to a higher range. I'm more likely to have

Kxxxxx Jxx x Qxx than something like KQJxxx xxx x xxx. Anyone feel the same? I'm thinking that the range ought to be more like 7-11. A 5 pt range that occurs almost as often as that 5-10 pt range. Also this means that opening 1M and rebidding 2M shows 12+

[dake50]

Weak 2 as well-defined limit bid (just shy of opener) OR as a preempt?

I'm in the preempt camp. Let 7-11 with decent suit reopen.

[paulg]

Generally speaking I think you will get support from our North American readers and less from the Europeans, as the strength of weak two bids is something of a cultural divide.

 

Although some top European pairs are now playing more constructive weak twos, with ranges like 7-11, it is always in the context of playing a multi 2D that includes the option of a 'junk' weak two.

 

The answer is to play what you find most comfortable.

[mich-b]

Actually , I think some top European pairs are now playing very constructive week twos, perhaps like 9-12.

I am curious , when they play this , how does that influence their bidding after they open with a 1 bid?

Does 1♠-1NT-2♠ show 13+? or perhaps it may be weaker if the ♠ suit is weak?

[Fluffy]

The answer is to play what you find most comfortable the same as your partner.

FYP :P

[the hog]

Play both.

2D = a weak pre empt, can certainly be 5/5

2M = sound pre empt. This is a popular style in Australia now.

[Fluffy]

I play 6-9 in first, 7/11 on second position, 4-13 in third, 10-12 in 4th more or less.

[straube]

Actually , I think some top European pairs are now playing very constructive week twos, perhaps like 9-12.

I am curious , when they play this , how does that influence their bidding after they open with a 1 bid?

Does 1♠-1NT-2♠ show 13+? or perhaps it may be weaker if the ♠ suit is weak?

 

I think it would show 13+ and that's part of the attraction.

 

My concern is that there are few 5 and 6 pt hands that have good suits and I'd rather pay more attention to the 7+ hands.

[Phil]

Does 1♠-1NT-2♠ show 13+? or perhaps it may be weaker if the ♠ suit is weak?

 

When I play this method, 1M - 1N - 2M is 14-16. 2M is 17-19 or so. This allows you to respond 1N on real trash and not get too high.

 

Suit quality for the 2M opener is not vital, although you can't go overboard and open 2M on Jxxxxx. One of the reasons you are making the call is to trap the opponents into bidding at the 3 level, so the extra defense is useful.

[mikestar13]

If you want constructive weak twos, play Fantunes. I like to preempt: Kxxxxx x xxx Qxx is fine NV (I would want better trump spots vul.)

[Mbodell]

I like trashy preempts. Especially in strong club systems or playing matchpoints. But I'd much rather adjust downward so that a weak 2 is 4-10 or even 3-9 instead of the "standardish" 5-11. An 11 point hand with a six card suit is nearly always an opening 1 bid.

 

Constructive preempts with narrow ranges (like 9-13) are likely quite good when they come up, but I'd prefer the wider range and like to be giving the opponents issues.

 

Jx xx QTxxxx JTx

 

certainly looks like 2♦ to me first seat w/r at matchpoints. Hell, xx x xxxxxxx xxx looks like 2♦ to me as well.

[andy_h]

Sounds like you might want 2M+1 as some form of ogust-type asking bid?

[pooltuna]

I find it really interesting how everyone is ignorring one of the critical issues with weak 2's - What are the colors? If you make the same call all white as you do red vs white I'd have to question your understanding of the scoring.

[phil_20686]

The reason people playing more constructive weak twos (myself included) in that in a 2/1 framework you have to protect your opening bids. Its accepted that passing a hand like KJTxxx AQx x xxx is losing bridge, but opening 1♠ in first or second with this hand will often get you to a crappy 3N. If I make this hand part of the accept weak two opener, I can protect the integrity of of my 2/1 GF auctions in first or second.

[phil_20686]

I find it really interesting how everyone is ignorring one of the critical issues with weak 2's - What are the colors? If you make the same call all white as you do red vs white I'd have to question your understanding of the scoring.

 

because, imo, this is not an issue of pre-empting, its about protecting your one level openers. Were I to play precision would be easier to open 1s with junky hands and then 2s can be really quite destructive with no loss of accuracy.

[straube]

The reason people playing more constructive weak twos (myself included) in that in a 2/1 framework you have to protect your opening bids. Its accepted that passing a hand like KJTxxx AQx x xxx is losing bridge, but opening 1♠ in first or second with this hand will often get you to a crappy 3N. If I make this hand part of the accept weak two opener, I can protect the integrity of of my 2/1 GF auctions in first or second.

 

 

Well, we're playing a strong club system so our 1S openers can be as light as 10 hcps.

 

Still, it seems like the 1S-1N, 2S sequence ought to show more than just one additional card in opener's hand. Compare this to (for example) 1S-1N, 2H which shows four. We could give it more meaning if there were overlap with the 2M opening such that 1S-1N, 2S showed something like 12+.

[foobar]

Well, we're playing a strong club system so our 1S openers can be as light as 10 hcps.

 

Still, it seems like the 1S-1N, 2S sequence ought to show more than just one additional card in opener's hand. Compare this to (for example) 1S-1N, 2H which shows four. We could give it more meaning if there were overlap with the 2M opening such that 1S-1N, 2S showed something like 12+.

 

10 - 15 is a pretty narrow range and IMO, it doesn't make sense to refine this further to 12-15 by defining preempts to be 7-11. As I see it, the 5-10 range loosely reflects the fact that preempts in most systems are tactical, i.e., they are based on seat position and vulnerability. In the case of NV vs. V, even shapely hand with a decent 5 card suit will do in a pinch.

 

As other have pointed out, in the F-N system, the sounder 2-level openings pave the way for the forcing (12)13+ 1 level openings. 2/1 systems may adopt a sounder approach for similar reasons as well.

 

I would argue that a strong ♣ system that can handle light openings should use looser preempts (within reason) if anything...

[straube]

10 - 15 is a pretty narrow range and IMO, it doesn't make sense to refine this further to 12-15 by defining preempts to be 7-11. As I see it, the 5-10 range loosely reflects the fact that preempts in most systems are tactical, i.e., they are based on seat position and vulnerability. A NV vs V preempt can be based on KQXXXX / KJTXXX / QJTXXX etc. and at that vul, even shapely hand with a decent 5 card suit will do in a pinch.

 

As other have pointed out, in the F-N system, the sounder 2-level openings pave the way for the forcing (12)13+ 1 level openings. 2/1 systems may adopt a sounder approach for similar reasons as well.

 

I would argue that a strong ♣ system that can handle light openings should use looser preempts (within reason) if anything...

 

How about 7-11 when vulnerable? (and I'm thinking of 1st and 2nd).

 

Or maybe 6-10 vul? That way the 6 spade hands open a 5 pt range when weak and a 5 pt range (11-15) when intermediate. Then 1M-1N, 2M can't be the 10 pt hand it is now.

[foobar]

How about 7-11 when vulnerable? (and I'm thinking of 1st and 2nd).

 

Or maybe 6-10 vul? That way the 6 spade hands open a 5 pt range when weak and a 5 pt range (11-15) when intermediate. Then 1M-1N, 2M can't be the 10 pt hand it is now.

 

I would be wary of definining specific point ranges. Some 10 counts may have too much potential to open at the 2 level (say 2♠ with KQJTXX KJTX in the blacks).

 

One way of looking at it is that since opener opted to open the hand 1♠ and then rebid showing a six card suit, it must be a hand that was too good to open at the 2 level (in the first and second seat).

 

On similar lines, one would't want to be kept out of opening 2S unfavourable with a 7222 KQTXXXX just because it doesn't fit the 6-10 criteria...

Edited October 29, 2010 by foobar

[straube]

I would be wary of definining specific point ranges. Some 10 counts may have too much potential to open at the 2 level (say 2♠ with KQJTXX KJTX in the blacks).

 

One way of looking at it is that since opener opted to open the hand 1♠ and then rebid showing a six card suit, it must be a hand that was too good to open at the 2 level (in the first and second seat).

 

On similar lines, one would't want to be kept out of opening 2S unfavourable with a 7222 KQTXXXX just because it doesn't fit the 6-10 criteria...

 

Right. I agree with these examples.

 

Let's say that my system permits me to open Axxxx Kxx Kxx xx 1S. Then what I'm suggesting is that with Axxxxx Kxx Kx x I would prefer to open 2S. The latter hand is equal to the former in hcp but better than the prior hand in trick-taking ability (or loser count). By preempting the latter hand, one makes 1S-1N, 2S to be slightly more constructive....maybe AJxxxx Kxx Kx x.

 

I'm not married to hcps. They're just a useful starting point for making sure that partners are in agreement about hand strength. LTC etc are also useful for discussion.

[Gerben42]

To quote a well-known American author: Points, schmoints.

 

For me a weak two is about losers, not points. I've opened them on 4 HCP and also on 12 HCP. It depends A LOT on the vulnerability and A LOT on what the HCP are.

[foobar]

Right. I agree with these examples.

 

Let's say that my system permits me to open Axxxx Kxx Kxx xx 1S. Then what I'm suggesting is that with Axxxxx Kxx Kx x I would prefer to open 2S. The latter hand is equal to the former in hcp but better than the prior hand in trick-taking ability (or loser count). By preempting the latter hand, one makes 1S-1N, 2S to be slightly more constructive....maybe AJxxxx Kxx Kx x.

 

In my book, Axxxx Kxx Kxx xx is a P except as a third seat 1♠ opener. NV vs. V, I might try mixing things up occasionally by opening it 2♠ in the third seat.

 

Axxxxx Kxx Kx x is too good for 2♠ in 1st and 2nd seats except say V vs. NV. As Gerben said, there's no real yard stick -- 2 level openings are for purely tactical reasons and IMO, trying to define them with the intent of making 1 level bids more constructive isn't a goal worth pursuing.

 

That said, when in doubt, I would rather open at the 1 level...

[Gerben42]

Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x is too good for 2♠ in 1st and 2nd seats except say V vs. NV

 

I would change this statement radically: A hand with a bad suit and two side Kings is no good for a weak 2 bid in the first place. This is a pass at any vuln. unless you play a system that allows you to open light, like Precision.

 

I would be wary of definining specific point ranges. Some 10 counts may have too much potential to open at the 2 level (say 2♠ with KQJTXX KJTX in the blacks).

 

This kind of hand depends on the vulnerability. You have 6 losers, which is too much for a NV weak 2. So you can open 3♠. Vulnerable I have no issue with 2♠.

The important lesson here is to not open 1♠ with such a defenseless hand.

 

As other have pointed out, in the F-N system, the sounder 2-level openings pave the way for the forcing (12)13+ 1 level openings. 2/1 systems may adopt a sounder approach for similar reasons as well.

 

In the Fantunes system, the 2-level opening bids are unsound on purpose, to make the 1-level bids sound. They don't have too much requirements for the 2-bids and would open 2♠ on both hands quoted above, as well as on a hand like:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=saqt64ha32d8cq965]133|100[/hv]

[straube]

If one is playing "weak twos" then Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x is a bad choice for 2S because the suit is poor and the hand has defensive strength. Partner will not expect this hand.

 

But we're talking about not playing weak twos but playing something slightly stronger than weak twos. A cross between weak 2s and intermediate 2s. Intermediate 2s has supporters and Fantunes has supporters. Why not a range in between weak 2s and intermediate 2s?

 

We're opening very light (like Precision but perhaps lighter) and the choice then is whether to open 1S and rebid 2S or whether to open 2S immediately. I just think that taking two bids to show Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x is one bid too much. I'd like to give up on the lower range of weak 2s because infrequently am dealt the classic KQTxxx xxx xxx x. When I'm that weak, I tend to have Kxxxxx Qxx Txx x instead. It's really a frequency issue.

 

If opening AQTxx Axx x Qxxx with 2S makes sense in a Fantunes system, I'm not seeing what's so wrong about opening 2S with Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x in a different system. The first hand has two more honors in the suit than the second, but the second has a sixth spade. Their outside strength is similar (A and Q vs K and K).

 

Now I gave the example of Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x, but playing 7-11 I'm more likely on average of holding better suits than the 5-10 range. Right? So though I'd open 2S with this particular hand, on more days I'll have something like AJ9xxx Kxx QTx x. And that's a realistic (if not ideal) hand for partner to picture.

 

Playing "goodish" twos we could still exercise all the judgment that we do with weak twos. We can take vulnerability into account. We can pass Jxxxxx AK xx xxx if we want. What we couldn't do is open 1S and rebid 2S with a hand like Jxxxxx AK xx Kxx because partner would think we have better. We'd have to choose between 2S or pass and bid later if the auction allows.

[gnasher]

I would change this statement radically: A hand with a bad suit and two side Kings is no good for a weak 2 bid in the first place. This [Axxxxx Kxx Kxx x] is a pass at any vuln. unless you play a system that allows you to open light, like Precision.

 

I'd open 1♠ regardless of what system I was playing. Maybe you get dealt more 6-card spade suits than I do.

 

The important lesson here is to not open 1♠ with such a defenseless hand [KQJTxx KJTx in the blacks].

 

I'd open this 1♠ too. I think it's wrong to open 2♠ or 3♠ with so much outside strength. I might open 4♠ at favourable.