weak two bid with two aces ?

[Joe_Old]

Any singleon tends to make partner's (non-ace) honours in that suit wasted. What does the singleton being an ace have to do with it? A singleton ace is less valuable in terms of power than Axxx because it is unlikely to be useful in establishing a long suit. KQx is going to be a bad holding for partner regardless of whether we hold A or x in the suit. I really think you are looking at it wrong if you see a low ODR feature as a plus for preemption.

 

You're arguing in circles. "A singleton Ace is less valuable" - exactly!

 

Rules and ODR and such crutches are meant to aid beginners understand the game. Watch the USBC matches on vugragh. Those are top experts, and when they evaluate a hand before the bidding starts, the first things they consider are, "what do I need from partner to make game or slam? Do I have a picture bid (a bid that gives partner an accurate view of your hand, like a fourth seat 2♠ holding AQxxxx Axx Qx xx). Open at the one level or jam the auction with a pre-empt? As the auction proceeds, experts fill in the blanks, not in terms of HCPs, but in terms of probable offensive and defensive tricks.

 

The question of whether to open at the one level or a weak 2 usually boils down to how much offensive potential the hand has, and not all two Ace hands are born equal. Hands with better offensive potential should receive more consideration for a one level bid than a hand with equal HCPs but less trick taking value. Rigid rules are fine for people learning the game, but simply don't exist for top players. They evaluate the specific cards in front of them, not "the general case".

 

Yesterday Meckstroth heard 2♥ from RHO, and overcalled 2NT. He held a balanced 16 HCP with 2♠ and AK10x of ♥. He got punished; -200. His opponent said that he would have doubled at pairs, and Meck replied, "I wouldn't have bid 2NT at pairs." Bidding is situational, not mechanical. You bid your hand's trick taking value.

[Caitlynne]

While one could argue that it is unwise to open with a weak 2 bid with two Aces, in my experience, there surely is no such "universal" rule in practice in the U.S. Such matters are matter for partnership "style agreements."

 

I would certainly open 2S holding

 

AJT9xx

x

Axx

xxx

 

and I think most players would too.

 

xx

AQT9xx

Ax

xxxx

 

Though 1H is conceivable, I am a 2H opener, preferring to treat this as a 1 suiter.

[Zelandakh]

Rules and ODR and such crutches are meant to aid beginners understand the game. Watch the USBC matches on vugragh. Those are top experts, and when they evaluate a hand before the bidding starts, the first things they consider are, "what do I need from partner to make game or slam? Do I have a picture bid (a bid that gives partner an accurate view of your hand, like a fourth seat 2♠ holding AQxxxx Axx Qx xx). Open at the one level or jam the auction with a pre-empt? As the auction proceeds, experts fill in the blanks, not in terms of HCPs, but in terms of probable offensive and defensive tricks.

Oh you appear to have exposed me as a beginner and a walrus. You must clearly have won the argument now. ;)

 

 

The question of whether to open at the one level or a weak 2 usually boils down to how much offensive potential the hand has, and not all two Ace hands are born equal. Hands with better offensive potential should receive more consideration for a one level bid than a hand with equal HCPs but less trick taking value.

Here is where we appear to part company. In my world, a more offensively oriented hand is more suitable for a preempt, not less. I have to admit I have never heard the philosophy that a preempt should show defence and a one level opener offence so I would be interested to know where you picked it up. Not from Meckwell for sure!

[Joe_Old]

Oh you appear to have exposed me as a beginner and a walrus. You must clearly have won the argument now. ;)

 

 

 

Here is where we appear to part company. In my world, a more offensively oriented hand is more suitable for a preempt, not less. I have to admit I have never heard the philosophy that a preempt should show defence and a one level opener offence so I would be interested to know where you picked it up. Not from Meckwell for sure!

 

I'll ask Jeff and/or Eric when I see them at the NABC in July.

 

Who ever made that bizarre distinction? Haven't you read the many posts on this thread about how pre-empts are getting weaker?

 

The vugraph on this site is a tremendous asset. Watch it and learn from the best.

[Joe_Old]

Oh you appear to have exposed me as a beginner and a walrus. You must clearly have won the argument now. ;)

 

 

 

Here is where we appear to part company. In my world, a more offensively oriented hand is more suitable for a preempt, not less. I have to admit I have never heard the philosophy that a preempt should show defence and a one level opener offence so I would be interested to know where you picked it up. Not from Meckwell for sure!

 

You list yourself as an intermediate. No, I don't "expose" or insult people who are learning. I do, however, suggest that you study the posts. You don't learn by getting all huffy and arguing. For instance, you would have done better by asking why Meckstroth would overcall with the described hand at IMPs, but not matchpoints. The answer might reveal an aspect of why Meckwell is one of the toughest partnerships that ever existed.

 

Curiosity is a much better road to improvement than confrontation.

[gwnn]

How can 2 aces be in the same suit???so far i did not see in my 40 years of bridge a suit with 2 aces!

I was joking.

[Wayne_LV]

I play 2 over 1 with an american partner and he claims that you cannot open a weak 2 with 2 aces. I learned bridge in Sweden and never heard about such a restriction. He says its a common rule that you cannot have two quick tricks with a weak 2 bid.Can players from both US and the rest of the world who use weak two bids with a 6 card suit answer to this ?

 

 

Opening a weak 2 bid with more than one outside A or K prohibits the use of 2NT as a feature ask (outside A or K). My partners and I play weak 2's with the following agreements:

 

• 5-10 hcp (Not Vulnerable).
• 8-10 hcp (Vulnerable).
• 6 card suit, may be 7 card suit with too many losers for 3 level preempt.
• For major suits, Q10xxxx or better, seats 1-2, J10xxxx or better, 3 seat (or if you are a passed hand making a weak jump overcall).
• For weak 2♦, 2 of top 3 diamonds.
• No outside 5 card suit.
• 4 cards in an outside major is OK if your suit is strong.
• No more than one outside Ace or King.
• Never open a weak 2 in 4 seat. A 2-level opening bid in the 4 seat shows a 6 card suit and 11-15 hcp.

Responding to Partner's weak 2 opener:

• Rule of 17 with 2+ card support for major.
• 2NT (forcing) to ask for feature (outside A or K) - generally exploring for 3NT. Opener rebids suit with no feature.
• New suit (forcing) asking for support, Partner raises with 3+ cards in the new suit, rebids his suit with less.
• RONF (Raise Only Non Forcing)

Note: All constructive rebids by opener require a minimum of 8 HCP. With weaker hand opener rebids his suit at 3 level.

 

Using Double Dummy Solver as a source. Month of April, all partners, Weak 2 opened 21 times. Average results: +2.72 IMP.

 

I have made this analysis numerous times in the past and rarely have had a sample with less that 1 IMP average.

 

A weak 2 opening is a preemptive bid. The primary purpose of a preempt is to prevent the opponents from finding a makable contract by elevating the bidding level from which they begin their search for a fit. With defensive values, particularly 2 aces, you have half the tricks necessary to set any 4 level or higher bid they may go to. Partner may well hold 2 defensive tricks. Why would you want to preempt them out of a contract, you may well be able to set, in exchange for a contract you have little hope of making for your side? Or worse yet, miss a game contract of your own.

[Zelandakh]

You list yourself as an intermediate.

I do, and you list yourself as an expert. So clearly you must be right, how silly of me. Thank you so much for showing me the proper way to preempt. Perhaps I can become as wise as you one day.

[RedSpawn]

Opening a weak 2 bid with more than one outside A or K prohibits the use of 2NT as a feature ask (outside A or K). My partners and I play weak 2's with the following agreements:

 

• 5-10 hcp (Not Vulnerable).
• 8-10 hcp (Vulnerable).
• 6 card suit, may be 7 card suit with too many losers for 3 level preempt.
• For major suits, Q10xxxx or better, seats 1-2, J10xxxx or better, 3 seat (or if you are a passed hand making a weak jump overcall).
• For weak 2♦, 2 of top 3 diamonds.
• No outside 5 card suit.
• 4 cards in an outside major is OK if your suit is strong.
• No more than one outside Ace or King.
• Never open a weak 2 in 4 seat. A 2-level opening bid in the 4 seat shows a 6 card suit and 11-15 hcp.

 

A weak 2 opening is a preemptive bid. The primary purpose of a preempt is to prevent the opponents from finding a makable contract by elevating the bidding level from which they begin their search for a fit. With defensive values, particularly 2 aces, you have half the tricks necessary to set any 4 level or higher bid they may go to. Partner may well hold 2 defensive tricks. Why would you want to preempt them out of a contract, you may well be able to set, in exchange for a contract you have little hope of making for your side? Or worse yet, miss a game contract of your own.[/size]

 

This is by far, the most cogent and well articulated viewpoint I have read in a while.

 

I hope you get answers to some of the fundamental questions you asked. Why are we pre-empting with two cold defensive tricks. Are we stopping the opponents from bidding a game contract they don't have. Very fair and valid questions? Let's see if you get any respondents.

[mycroft]

The answer, of course, is that Preempts Work, and every time I get to open a weak 2 playing my "anything goes" style, there's a chance the opponents will go wrong in ways they won't when you pass the same hand. Sure, partner may go wrong, too; we might miss game (or bid a hopeless game), we might let them go quietly down 2 with 140 on our way, we might have just got partner off to the wrong defence. But when we preempt, the chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents, so if someone is going to go wrong, it'll be them more often than us.

 

Where the line is, where you're misleading or obstructing partner with similar frequency to opponents, is the age-old question. But rolling the dice is a strategy, and rolling the dice when you're behind on the hand is a strategy that can, in the long run, improve your chances.

 

I play EHAA (sometimes), it's a lot of fun. And opponents' reads on the hand, when you'll make the same opening with 75432 AQ T84 852 as with AKJ8532 - KT874 5, as with everything (literally) in between, go right out the window. Trust me, they make a *lot* of mistakes, and we get to punish quite a few of them. Partner *also* makes a lot of mistakes ("+200 is the EHAA Death MP result" not being the least of them!), and sometimes you're dead when you open your mouth. But it's definitely a playable system.

 

So is modern constructive weak 2s. I play those, too.

 

So is "undisciplined" weak 2s. I play those in my favourite partnership, because both of us are comfortable with it. We find it's the right balance between getting in their way and getting in ours.

[Vampyr]

So is modern constructive weak 2s. I play those, too.

 

So is "undisciplined" weak 2s. I play those in my favourite partnership, because both of us are comfortable with it. We find it's the right balance between getting in their way and getting in ours.

 

I have a strong preference for disciplined Weak Twos, and do not like constructive ones. I have found that opening at the one level on what could be seen as a constructive Weak Two often works very well.

[nige1]

A weak 2 opening is a preemptive bid. The primary purpose of a preempt is to prevent the opponents from finding a makable contract by elevating the bidding level from which they begin their search for a fit. With defensive values, particularly 2 aces, you have half the tricks necessary to set any 4 level or higher bid they may go to. Partner may well hold 2 defensive tricks. Why would you want to preempt them out of a contract, you may well be able to set, in exchange for a contract you have little hope of making for your side? Or worse yet, miss a game contract of your own.

• Pre-empts prevent opponents from discovering good games and slams. But pre-empts also stampede them into bad contracts.
• In the old days, most experts advocated strict requirements for pre-empts (e.g. no side major, rule of 300/500). Some still do.
• Nowadays, more top players employ relatively undisciplined pre-empts. Terence Reese was one of the innovators who started the rot. ("The pre-empt that is known to be weak is a blunt sword". The possession of a side major didn't deter him).
• Marty Bergen has taken this "Poker-bluff" strategy to extremes, with some success.
• I'm told that Zia Mahmood isn't put off by a few random quacks because opponents are likely to finesse for them into his hand. I doubt that holding couple of aces would worry him.
• Scoring method, vulnerability and position at the table are important but in the last analysis it's still a matter of tactics and style.

[RedSpawn]

The answer, of course, is that Preempts Work, and every time I get to open a weak 2 playing my "anything goes" style, there's a chance the opponents will go wrong in ways they won't when you pass the same hand. Sure, partner may go wrong, too; we might miss game (or bid a hopeless game), we might let them go quietly down 2 with 140 on our way, we might have just got partner off to the wrong defence. But when we preempt, the chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents, so if someone is going to go wrong, it'll be them more often than us.

That somewhat answers the question, but it kind of doesn't.

 

"But when we preempt, the chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents, so if someone is going to go wrong, it'll be them more often than us."

 

Generally speaking, if you have 2 aces, you already have 1/2 of the raw materials to upset a 4 level game bid, so why in this scenario, do you feel that "chances are that the hand belongs to the opponents"? I am especially asking this if the pre-empt is done from 1st and 2nd seat with two aces. 3rd seat, anything goes.

 

When you make a preemptive bid from 1st or 2nd seat, how do you know that the contract belongs to the opponents when you hold two aces in your hand? Your partner has not spoken yet. He could have 0 HCP, 10 HCP, 12+ HCP?

 

I am in awe of the clairvoyance, but to bid preemptively with two aces just so we can hopefully trip up the opponents before we trip up ourselves seems less about statistics, science, ability, and technique and more about psychology and going all-in on the zero-sum mentality of the game.

 

I think what has happened is the bridge community has lost faith in the value of the normal auction and are resorting to alternative, unorthodox methods just for the sole right to open 1st. A well-oiled bidding system can only do so much. . .after a certain point, you need sneakier methods to become the leader of the pack. And here we are looking for that edge in our preemptive bids.

 

Sigh.

[Vampyr]

I think what has happened is the bridge community has lost faith in the value of the normal auction and are resorting to alternative, unorthodox methods just for the sole right to open 1st. A well-oiled bidding system can only do so much. . .after a certain point, you need sneakier methods to become the leader of the pack. And here we are looking for that edge in our preemptive bids.

 

Sigh.

 

You may be right. Some of us are too rigid in our preempting requirements and should mix it up a little

[mycroft]

The part of the quote you bolded gives you your answer. How does one know? One doesn't *know*. If one only does things one knows will work at bridge - I can't finish that sentence. It's impossible.

 

Bridge is a game of probabilities. It's *always* a game of probabilities. Occasionally those probabilities are 100%, and part of what makes a great player is their ability to make more things 100%. But part of what makes a great player is giving the opponents losing choices more often, because that way they'll make losing choices more often. It may mean that you're giving partner losing choices more often, too - but is it them more than us? Is it them more dangerously than us?

 

I try to avoid preempting with two defensive tricks - because I agree, it puts partner in unwinnable situations. But that's a personal preference, and it loses frequently. Sure, at the other table, our teammates are in game, down 1 and they didn't know - or they took the phantom and went down one! But at my table, because I didn't take away most of two levels of bidding, they could find out that game was bad, and are +140. Lose somewhere between 3 and 6...

 

Next time, the preempt pushes them to 3NT because there's no room to evaluate the heart fit; sure they have a spade stopper, but it goes ♦J to the K, Q, small to the A and two more tricks for -1. At the other table there was no preempt with ♠AJTxxx ♦KQx, the opponents found the diamond weakness, played the Moysian heart fit, +620. 12 IMPS, and all because of "too much defence to preempt". Oh, by the way, that happened last night.

 

I am quite certain that the bridge community has lost faith in the value of the "normal auction". About 1975, in fact, and it's only got worse. That's because, even though you're opening yourself up to penalties; you're giving your partner bad information on what to lead; you're "rolling the dice" with an unknown partner's hand; it still works better than leaving the opponents to bid on their own. They're *good* at that, even at the flight C level.

 

Yeah, I'm more disciplined in second seat, because the probabilities change. In first seat, if there's a big hand, it's 2-1 that it's the opponents. In second, it's even. In EHAA, of course, your bids get *more disciplined* in third seat, because partner's pass MEANS something. Again, probabilities.

[johnu]

I think what has happened is the bridge community has lost faith in the value of the normal auction and are resorting to alternative, unorthodox methods just for the sole right to open 1st. A well-oiled bidding system can only do so much. . .after a certain point, you need sneakier methods to become the leader of the pack. And here we are looking for that edge in our preemptive bids.

 

You've got blinders on and can't see what's not right in front of your nose. Constructive bidding has gotten much better in fairly recent history with people playing fairly complete systems like 2/1 and Precision. Plus dozens of gadgets, like XYZ, transfer bids, splinters, RKC, etc that weren't that popular 50+ years ago when the preempt Rule of 2 & 3 and fairly strict suit quality requirements were taught in bridge classes. These days, even intermediate players will get to the best contract a fairly high percentage of the time without interference.

 

Amazingly enough, you almost have it right when you said "A well-oiled bidding system can only do so much". The conclusion you should have made is that if you let the opponents have a free run to bidding their best contract, they probably are going to get there. If you have an 8 or 9 point hand (2 aces or not), whose hand is it? Probability says it is the opponents hand (just divide the remaining points equally among the other 3 hands), but if you have a 6 card suit, you probably have a good play to make 2 of your suit. The opponents will usually have to make their decisions starting at the 3 level. They not only have to find the best suit or NT, but what level to play, if they aren't already too high.

 

In any case, I think the debate about having 2 aces in a weak 2 is just silly. Does anybody think partner is going to play you for 2 aces if you pass originally? Instead of an outside ace, you might have something like KQ in a side suit which is highly likely to be a defensive trick. Do you want to expand the don't open with 2 aces dogma to don't open with ace in your suit and a pretty sure defensive trick?

[RedSpawn]

You've got blinders on and can't see what's not right in front of your nose. Constructive bidding has gotten much better in fairly recent history with people playing fairly complete systems like 2/1 and Precision. Plus dozens of gadgets, like XYZ, transfer bids, splinters, RKC, etc that weren't that popular 50+ years ago when the preempt Rule of 2 & 3 and fairly strict suit quality requirements were taught in bridge classes. These days, even intermediate players will get to the best contract a fairly high percentage of the time without interference.

 

Amazingly enough, you almost have it right when you said "A well-oiled bidding system can only do so much". The conclusion you should have made is that if you let the opponents have a free run to bidding their best contract, they probably are going to get there. If you have an 8 or 9 point hand (2 aces or not), whose hand is it? Probability says it is the opponents hand (just divide the remaining points equally among the other 3 hands), but if you have a 6 card suit, you probably have a good play to make 2 of your suit. The opponents will usually have to make their decisions starting at the 3 level. They not only have to find the best suit or NT, but what level to play, if they aren't already too high.

 

In any case, I think the debate about having 2 aces in a weak 2 is just silly. Does anybody think partner is going to play you for 2 aces if you pass originally? Instead of an outside ace, you might have something like KQ in a side suit which is highly likely to be a defensive trick. Do you want to expand the don't open with 2 aces dogma to don't open with ace in your suit and a pretty sure defensive trick?

 

Johnu, thank you for your feedback but I trust the other user who asked very poignant questions about why would you bid weak 2 from 1st seat with 2 aces when you have 1/2 of the resources to upset any 4 level bid.

 

Just because the 1st seat person has 8 or 9 points in his hand doesn't mean that it's the opponent's hand. We don't know how the remaining 31-32 points are distributed from 2nd to 4th seat. Applying the law of averages to each hand is not gonna do it for me. Each player doesn't get 10 HCP each hand and each deal has its own set of unique card/HCP distribution properties.

 

Bridge is a bidder's game, but you don't have to force fit ill-fitting hands into an opening bid just for the sole right to open 1st. You CAN do this, but SHOULD you, is the better question. And is your partner accepting of the additional work he is going to be required to do when reconciling your auction bid to your actual card holding?

 

Now, if you want to strike 1st for the sake of striking 1st, go right ahead. I get what the offensive strategy is, but do not tell me the bid is necessary from 1st seat because it was the opposition's hand. You don't have enough information to know the exact distribution from this deal yet. You will have more information after 2nd seat bids, but by then, it's too late.

 

What to do? What to do? I think the consensus seems to be -- bid wrong now, we will deal with the attendant outcomes and blamestorm later.

[RedSpawn]

[hv=pc=n&s=s4ha98653d642ca32&d=S&v=N&a=2H]200|300|

I subscribe to the theory that a gap between a one-opener and a pre-emptive opener should be as rare as possible.

Hence I would open 2♥ with this kind of hand[/hv]

 

All,

 

Please read Josh Donn's lecture notes on preemptive bids as well. He gave a free lecture on BBO.

 

http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/news_fetch.php?id=2527

 

"The worst holding for preempting is Axxxxx. I would go to great lengths to avoid preempting with an ace-empty suit. Maybe I would if the vulnerability and position were very much in my favor, as I described before, but that is it."--Josh Dunn

 

Since North and South are vulnerable and West and East are nonvulnerable, he is saying North should back off a preemptive bid with unfavorable vulnerability with AXXXXX.

[Zelandakh]

All,

I don't really expect you to understand yet but it is a philosophy thing. Some experts believe that there are hands that are too good for a weak 2 but not good enough for a 1 level opening, while others think the opposite. Axxxxx is certainly not ideal as it has a very low ODR. But it is a perfectly playable and even mainstream style to allow preempts with such a suit, particularly in 1st and 3rd seat and when NV. As previously mentioned, this style is particularly effective against weak opponents, so you might see some pairs that will treat such a hand as a weak 2 against Aunt LOLly but not against Mr Xavier Pert. It saddens me that you think that only the way you have learnt can be possibly be the right way. What do you think you will gain from these forums if you are not open to different ideas?

[RedSpawn]

I don't really expect you to understand yet but it is a philosophy thing. Some experts believe that there are hands that are too good for a weak 2 but not good enough for a 1 level opening, while others think the opposite. Axxxxx is certainly not ideal as it has a very low ODR. But it is a perfectly playable and even mainstream style to allow preempts with such a suit, particularly in 1st and 3rd seat and when NV. As previously mentioned, this style is particularly effective against weak opponents, so you might see some pairs that will treat such a hand as a weak 2 against Aunt LOLly but not against Mr Xavier Pert. It saddens me that you think that only the way you have learnt can be possibly be the right way. What do you think you will gain from these forums if you are not open to different ideas?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s4ha98653d642ca32&d=S&v=N&a=2H]200|300|

I subscribe to the theory that a gap between a one-opener and a pre-emptive opener should be as rare as possible.

Hence I would open 2♥ with this kind of hand[/hv]

 

I am open to various viewpoints. But I want you to hear me clearly.

 

When you broaden the definition of what qualifies as a weak 2 bid, you increase the amount of interpretation work the respondent must do when making decisions further along in the auction. To expand the definition of a weak 2 bid to include the possibility of two aces makes it more difficult for the respondent to determine, what, if any, exploratory bids he should make.

The respondent has no idea if you now have KX♠,Q8XXXX♥,JXX♦,XX♣ or the hand pictured above which is markedly different in value to your partner.

 

Look at the hand above with two aces. With two aces, there is a possibility that this hand could be very useful in the 3 card minor suits--depending on what your partner has. Your hand has two of the quickest tricks possible. We declarers LOVE to see aces in our dummies even if it is with minimal trump support. That possibility won't exist if you decide to pre-emptively rob your partner of a chance to use your hand for such purposes.

 

I understand the goal of the preemptive bid and how you want to jam up the opponents before they jam us up, but just note that this strategy comes with drawbacks. Your partner might have a nice hand and now has to wonder what garden-variety of weak 2 bid you are holding.

 

Do you have KX♠,Q8XXXX♥,JXX♦,XX♣ or a more disciplined KX♠,QJ10XXX♥,JXX♦,XX♣ or an extremely disciplined KX♠,KQ9XXX♥,JXX♦XX♣?

 

Or do you have two lovely aces (as in the screen cap above) that might play well in a makeable 4-level or goodness forbid 5 minor suit level contract?

 

Those are a lot of different scenarios to evaluate!

 

And here is the final thing:

 

In my opinion, when you factor in ♥ distribution, the hand with two aces is a 10 point hand, which is a perfectly average hand. If a person bids weak 2 with two aces, he represents to his partner and the opposition that he has a weak hand, when in fact he doesn't. However, that misrepresentation isn't free; it has drawbacks.

 

If his partner has a perfectly medium hand and the team is vulnerable, how does the respondent know that he should ask his partner for a feature and pin down a game contract? The opener could have a hand with two aces, absolutely no aces but a well-behaved heart suit, or worse yet, he could have that horrendously undisciplined Q8XXXX♥ heart suit.

 

The range of what constitutes a weak 2 becomes too wide to know what to do next. We have lost precision in our bids and in exchange we have gained higher opening frequency.

[Zelandakh]

I think you still do not see the other side of the equation. There is no doubt that choosing not to open the Q8xxxx and Axxxxx suit hands is a more than viable strategy and I have no qualms with these not being opened. The other side is not just about frequency of opening though, you also gain from the opponents having a harder time in judging their actions. Terrence Reese once wrote that a preempt that is known to be weak is a blunt sword. The situations suggested for these calls are ones where the odds are in our favour that it is the opponents that will be making the decisions rather than partner. Sometimes it is indeed partner that has the best hand and the strategy backfires badly. Exponents of this style believe that it is a winner in the long run though, as the opponents will make many more mistakes, not only on the hands where we open the "dodgy" hands but also misjudging on perfectly normal preempts.

 

This is I think what you are missing. It is not, I believe, that anyone here wants to convince you to change to opening these borderline hands, more that your assertion that opening them is basically ridiculous is just plain wrong. More generally, it is not unusual when B/I players find their way to these forums and make very opinionated posts that their way is the only one under the misapprehension that they are really of an expert level. Those of us who have been here a while have seen it time and again and for the most part it ends badly for that poster as they isolate themselves from the community at large. It would be good if this pattern was not repeated again, so I urge you to go into threads with a more open mind. Think first about what you might possibly learn rather than what you can teach or prove. Not only will this be good for your standing in the BBF community but it would, I believe, also help your development as a bridge player. It is your choice though - in the end you will get out of your experience here what you put into it.

[gwnn]

TBH I hate 2H on x A8xxxx xxx Axx when R/W. I'd do it when NV but not happily.

[Zelandakh]

Here is another one, say we hold ♠xxxx ♥KQJxxx ♦xx ♣x. Do we open this with a preempt or not? The original viewpoint on this was "not" but I think the vast majority of modern experts would do so in 1st or 3rd and accept occasionally missing game in a 4-4 spade fit. As with the low ODR hands, opening these makes it more difficult for Responder to do the right thing. This in itself does not make the action wrong, it is the overall picture you have to look at. This is an area where many different lines are possible and different strengths and weaknesses appear. In this thread, Gerben and Han, both strong players in their own right, disagreed. That is not unexpected. And there are many more threads on the topic of borderline preempts if you are willing to search for them.

 

Again, the main point here is that this is not a "one size fits all" topic. You say potahto, I say potayto...

[RedSpawn]

Here is another one, say we hold ♠xxxx ♥KQJxxx ♦xx ♣x. Do we open this with a preempt or not? The original viewpoint on this was "not" but I think the vast majority of modern experts would do so in 1st or 3rd and accept occasionally missing game in a 4-4 spade fit. As with the low ODR hands, opening these makes it more difficult for Responder to do the right thing. This in itself does not make the action wrong, it is the overall picture you have to look at. This is an area where many different lines are possible and different strengths and weaknesses appear. In this thread, Gerben and Han, both strong players in their own right, disagreed. That is not unexpected. And there are many more threads on the topic of borderline preempts if you are willing to search for them.

 

Again, the main point here is that this is not a "one size fits all" topic. You say potahto, I say potayto...

 

This is a very fair question.

 

Let's look at Josh Donn's answer:

 

http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/news_fetch.php?id=2527

 

Q6: Can you really preempt with a 4-card major on the side?

 

"A: That is a very good question. The danger of preempting with a 4-card major on the side, and why it's often recommended not to do it, is that you might belong in that major.

For me again it depends on the hand, but in general I would say four small is fine if your long suit is good.

♠KQJTxx ♥xxxx ♦xx ♣x, you belong in spades probably 20 times for each time you belong in hearts.

So the four card heart suit should not deter you.

 

But with ♠QJxxxx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣x now you will very often belong in hearts, so I would recommend against opening 2♠."

 

I can see what he is saying even though I didn't think that way before. So I agree with you ♠xxxx ♥KQJxxx ♦xx ♣x can be used for a preeemptive bid so long as you keep the suit quality "decent".

 

See...I'm flexible. I just want to make sure we are fully aware of all the additional work and responsibility we would place on the respondent if we broaden the definition of a weak 2 bid.

[gwnn]

Josh Donn