The "1 or 2?" dilemma

[mikeh]

By the way, Timo....nothing I wrote should be taken to suggest that I would ever pass this hand in first seat, so I am not sure why you are so worried that we may miss game opposite a 3rd seat opener. We won't ever be playing 1♥ :D

 

 

I can't remember the last time I passed in first chair and had partner open and then pass my response and we missed game. Now, I don't play much anymore, and at my age the memory is not as good as I vaguely remember it being, but I still don't understand the concerns you express. My experience, if anything, is that I'm more likely to go down at the one level than to have missed game in a typical auction where my 1M response to a 3rd seat opener was passed out;)

 

As for really weak weak 2 bids, I am afraid we are definitely in different camps.

 

A few years ago I was playing in our team trials with an excellent partner (Michael Roche) and we played a form of multi in which 2M was a good weak 2...8-12 hcp.....and 2♦ was a very weak 2M, max'ed at 7 hcp.

 

My experience with the weak weak 2 was not encouraging, especially vulnerable. I wouldn't agree to play that method again, at least not against good players. Maybe white v red, yes. But probably not equal and definitely not when red.

 

That's not to say that I am always wanting a good hand for my weak 2 bid, but I definitely don't want the opps to know that I always have a bad hand. This example hand is, to me, a perfect maximum weak 2 for all kinds of reasons.

[MrAce]

As for really weak weak 2 bids, I am afraid we are definitely in different camps.

 

Well,,,if I agreed with you in all topics, I would probably be as good player as you are. But I am stubborn a bit when it comes to preempts. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif

[biggerclub]

1♥. A hand with 2 Aces is presumptively a 1 bid. Not every hand ends up getting opened 1x, but with two Aces that's where I start and then see if something can convince me not to do it. I cannot imagine a two Ace, 6-4 hand with the Aces in the long suits that I would not open 1. If we are playing 2/1 and partner gets too high, they will just have to be mad at me. Over the long haul it will work better to show the defense when you got it and pre-empt when you don't.

 

I grew up in bridge playing Precision however, and am currently trying to find a partner for an Ultra-Lite, 4card Major-Canape, Forcing Club system where this would be a 2♥ bid, but not as a weak 2. 2♥= 5+ ♥s, 4+♦s, 9-14 HCP (8-12 HCP if not under the constraints of GCC).

[johnu]

2♥. IIRC, this will be the 2nd time I am closer to the maximum than the minimum for a weak 2 bid ;) I'm really glad that they changed the laws that required players to have the minimum for their bids :)

[mgoetze]

I would open 2♥ but I don't think this is a "WTP" hand, so I didn't find a poll response I could agree with.

[jdeegan]

You can play anything you like, but most people seem to agree that there should be no gap between an opening one bid and an opening two bid. Since bidding is a sort of language, you can't just speak it by yourself. The example hand looks to be right on the cusp between a one bid and a two bid for most people.

 

Imo, at MP's in a random (or even a good) duplicate field preemption trumps constructive bidding, so weak 2's ought to be weak - 4 to 10 HCP plus or minus one. Really, in the end, it is just a matter of partnership personality.

[rmnka447]

2 ♥

 

I'm in line with OP opening comment that ♥ AQxxxx would make this a minimum opener.

 

In any case, I tend to favor reasonably disciplined weak 2 in 1st and 2nd seat, especially at IMPs.

[Jinksy]

What's so disciplined about this? Its ODR is nowhere near the ideal for a weak 2.

[the hog]

snipped

 

My experience with the weak weak 2 was not encouraging, especially vulnerable. I wouldn't agree to play that method again, at least not against good players. Maybe white v red, yes. But probably not equal and definitely not when red.

 

That's not to say that I am always wanting a good hand for my weak 2 bid, but I definitely don't want the opps to know that I always have a bad hand. This example hand is, to me, a perfect maximum weak 2 for all kinds of reasons.

 

This 2M and 2D weaker weak 2 style was very popular in Australia for a while until strong players started doing a comprehensive analysis of their results. Practically no one plays it now. :D

[rhm]

I really don't get 1♥ here, at least playing 2/1.

 

You really want partner to force you to game on ♠KQxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣KQJxx? And that's not even the worse game force partner could have!

 

Even with the Q, I consider this a 2♥ bid playing 2/1. I'd consider 1♥ playing Acol.

And where do you end up with if partner has ♠Axx ♥x ♦Kxxxxx ♣Axx opening 2♥?

If you are lucky you will play 2♥ making one or two overtrick, but more likely opponents will play a spade partial.

6♦ is a great contract.

That's why I would never rebid anything but diamonds with the South hand.

ace empty six is not a great suit to preempt with.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ArtK78]

Case at hand: (NV, IMPs, dealer South)

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s5haj8765da864ct9]133|100[/hv]

 

I think most would open 1♥ if hearts were AQ8765. But how about as it stands?

 

1, 2 or pass + bid hearts later?

The idea of opening 1♥ on this hand repulses me.

 

If I were playing a light opening system, then this hand would be a borderline choice between 1♥ and 2♥. But that is only because my weak 2 bids tend to be very aggressive (often on 5 cards), and this hand is an absolute maximum weak 2 bid in a light opening system. At IMPs, where it is less likely that I would be opening a bad hand or a 5 card suit with a 2 bid, I would be more willing to open this hand with a 2 bid.

 

If I were playing any "normal" system, with the usual strength requirements for an opening one bid, this hand is not a one bid. It is not even borderline.

[neilkaz]

I am the lone vote for "Greatly depends on tactical factors (pard, opps, match status, vibes...)"

 

Honestly this borderline hand isn't a big deal for me. If you play 2/1 and open min hands like this, you better make sure to not insist on game with a misfitting 12 count opposite it. If you open a weak 2 with this max you need some way(s) for PD to find out how good your hand is and to invite.

[mikestar13]

These days, it seems that the norm (for 2/1) is to open "rule of 20" or even "rule of 19" and respond 2/1 any any 13 and on particularly good 12's. This style is playable but will get you too high when both hands are minimum and the fit isn't good. If this were not an acceptable cost of doing business, the partnership would choose a different style, beefing up the openers or the 2/1's or both (this last would be a quite conservative style by modern standards). So this hand is only a very slight stretch for 1♥ on a rule of 20 standard on no stretch at all on a 19 standard. Clearly too good to pass, and I remember opening 2♥ or a preempt with two aces with no fondness. Passing just won't help--they bid spades even either I sell out or bid hearts later and give them fielder's choice.

 

Playing a conservative opening style at the one level, then 2♥ is the best of a bad lot.

[mgoetze]

If I were playing a light opening system, then this hand would be a borderline choice between 1♥ and 2♥.

I guess you have a different understanding of "light opening system" than most people around here. The "rule of 20" was developed for standard systems - light opening systems are more likely to adhere to the "rule of 18". Since this is a rule of 19 hand, it is a clear opening hand in a true light opening system.

[ArtK78]

I am sorry. I didn't realize this was the novice forum. The Rule of 20 is absurd. Please try to think about bridge rather than rely on ridiculous ideas like the Rule of 20.

 

As for the "Rule of 18," words fail me.

[rhm]

The idea of opening 1♥ on this hand repulses me.

 

If I were playing a light opening system, then this hand would be a borderline choice between 1♥ and 2♥. But that is only because my weak 2 bids tend to be very aggressive (often on 5 cards), and this hand is an absolute maximum weak 2 bid in a light opening system. At IMPs, where it is less likely that I would be opening a bad hand or a 5 card suit with a 2 bid, I would be more willing to open this hand with a 2 bid.

 

If I were playing any "normal" system, with the usual strength requirements for an opening one bid, this hand is not a one bid. It is not even borderline.

As someone else has pointed out KNR values this hand as 13.05 and therefor an opening bid.

I always maintained that KNR is better suited to suit contracts than notrumps.

If this deal turns out to be misfit all those who are conservative will be right.

 

So what is the potential of this hand?

 

First of all aces are underrated for high level contracts, so I would consider this hand more like 10 HCP than 9 and whatever that means this hand fits the rule of 20.

(I am prepared to do the opposite on quacky hands)

What are our chances of finding a fit?

When you hold a 6421 distribution chances of having at least an eight card fit are better than 92% and chances having a nine card fit are still better than even.

Guess where this fit is likely to be.

I am prepared to pay off in the remaining 8% of the deals.

I simulated this scenario:

Opposite 2 cards in hearts in dummy (randomly dealt) you will need to find on average 13 HCP opposite to have a better than 50% chance making 4♥.

Opposite 3 cards in dummy you need only 11 HCP.

 

In neither case would I expect to reach 4♥ if this hand is opened as a weak-two non vulnerable.

 

I am not claiming that 1♥ is clear and 2♥ is wrong with this hand, but opening 1♥ is surely not silly, even though you might get too high on occasion.

What surprises me most is that there are many who would not dream of opening this hand with a one bid, yet will routinely open all balanced twelve or eleven counts.

Count me out on this philosophie. They got it backwards in my opinion.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

doh, the hand is an obvious ZAR 1-opener :)

[jallerton]

This 2M and 2D weaker weak 2 style was very popular in Australia for a while until strong players started doing a comprehensive analysis of their results. Practically no one plays it now. :D

 

What do the strong players in Australia now play instead?

[Cthulhu D]

A review of the 2013 playoffs Division 1 teams convention cards has has:

 

2 x 3 weak 2s

2 x Multi 2D + muniberg

2 x 2D: Garbage multi + 2 weak 2s in 1st/2nd otherwise 3 wide ranging weak 2s

2 x Ekrens + wide ranging weak 2s.

 

Fantunes (2X = 10-13 constructive)

Multi 2D + CROs (5/5 two suiters)

Constructive 2C+2D and 2 weak 2s (MOSCITO)

Multi 2D and 2M = 5M with 8-11

 

Division Two has:

 

2 x 3 weak 2s

5 x different flavours of garbage multi + 2 weak 2s

Mexican 2C, 2D GF, 2 weak 2s.

2 x Multi 2D + muniberg

2DHS = spades and the suit bid 1-2st, 3 weak 2s in 3rd/4th

Something completely weird: http://www.abfevents.com.au/events/playoffs/2013/OW/cc/Appleton_Reynolds.pdf

2CD constructive, 2HS weak (Strong club relay context)

 

It is the most popular single style, but does comprise less than 33% of the field. Lots of good pairs playing it though.

[beatrix45]

Playing SAYC or 2/1 I don't think any expert players have ever advocated a system with a gap between an opening one bid and an opening weak 2 bid. I suppose one might do it, but it doesn't seem to make any sense. How do you show it later?

 

This particular example hand is right on the borderline. I like 1♥, but 2♥ is OK.

 

 

 

[the_clown]

With my favourite partner I can happily open 2♥ to show 9-12 6♥s. (Playing multi)

 

If not I would probably open 1, but dont mind pass.

 

I will open a weak 2 only opposite someone like JEC, but thats ok since his preempts are closer to a strong 1♣ opener than to my typical weak 2♥.

[mikeh]

 

 

I will open a weak 2 only opposite someone like JEC, but thats ok since his preempts are closer to a strong 1♣ opener than to my typical weak 2♥.

I don't know who you are, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that you probably aren't nearly as accomplished at bridge as is JEC, even adjusting for his ability to pay world class players to play with him.

 

I love it when posters boast about how aggressively they bid, and the forum is full of aggressive bidders, who post as if being aggressive is the only way to be a good player. Meanwhile, back in the real world, events are routinely being won by players whose style would, here, be ridiculed as too conservative.

 

I'm not arguing that all WC players are (relatively) conservative. In particular, it is clearly right to be aggressive as an auction develops, but that isn't at all the same as saying that it is right to play a light opening bid style, outside of a strong club method. I am arguing that imo a lot of players could benefit from being a little less confident that being aggressive in opening bid methods is the only way to win.

[the_clown]

I don't know who you are, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that you probably aren't nearly as accomplished at bridge as is JEC, even adjusting for his ability to pay world class players to play with him.

 

I love it when posters boast about how aggressively they bid, and the forum is full of aggressive bidders, who post as if being aggressive is the only way to be a good player. Meanwhile, back in the real world, events are routinely being won by players whose style would, here, be ridiculed as too conservative.

 

I'm not arguing that all WC players are (relatively) conservative. In particular, it is clearly right to be aggressive as an auction develops, but that isn't at all the same as saying that it is right to play a light opening bid style, outside of a strong club method. I am arguing that imo a lot of players could benefit from being a little less confident that being aggressive in opening bid methods is the only way to win.

 

Sry I didnt want to even remotely suggest that I know more about the game than JEC or that I could possibly play better than him. As we all know playing his style he is able to compete with the best in the world.

[Jinksy]

I love it when posters boast about how aggressively they bid, and the forum is full of aggressive bidders, who post as if being aggressive is the only way to be a good player. Meanwhile, back in the real world, events are routinely being won by players whose style would, here, be ridiculed as too conservative.

 

As far as I can see, competing aggressively should have lower expectation the stronger you are (relative to the field), and aggressive constructive bidding the reverse. That doesn't imply that either is necessarily a good/bad idea on any strength disparity, but does leave room for people's 'boasts' to be honestly based on a different set of premises than those someone as strong as you would start from.

 

That doesn't apply to me, of course - I just bid aggressively to impress the ladies.

[whereagles]

you impress the ladies by winning, not with aggressive bidding lol