weak two bid with two aces ?

[RedSpawn]

Josh Donn

 

Thank you for the correction. I am correcting his name by editing previous posts.

[RedSpawn]

 

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...

 

 

That quote says a lot about the give and take involved the partnership. Your partner is or should be your greatest asset, so sometimes you may have to choose a method that keeps your partner happy and doesn't put him in "unwinnable situations" even if it might jam up the opponents more often. Your partner should consent to being put in those types of difficult situations.

 

That's why it pays to give your partner "diplomatic immunity" as an incentive to persuade him to entertain the "ALMOST anything goes preemptive bidding" style. Once a partner knows there will not be a heated "blamestorming" session to follow a disastrous debacle (if it occurs), he won't worry as much about second guessing the preemptive bids he/she sees in the auction.

[Zelandakh]

That's why it pays to give your partner "diplomatic immunity" as an incentive to persuade him to entertain the "ALMOST anything goes preemptive bidding" style. Once a partner knows there will not be a heated "blamestorming" session to follow a disastrous debacle (if it occurs), he won't worry as much about second guessing the preemptive bids he/she sees in the auction.

My last partner had a very conservative preempting style when we started together but was willing to give wide-ranging preempts (plus other similar pressure techniques for competitive bidding) a try. One of the things I explained about them is precisely this, that it makes follow-ups more difficult and to expect some mistakes. Another was that it would take a little time to adjust and find the right line for different situations. After trying them she was a big convert to the style and has taught the same methods to her other partners, only in those pairs she is the "looser" partner. That mirrors my own experience as a student back in the 80s.

 

My view is very much that every player should go through this phase to gather experience of what works for them. Until you have done it, it is difficult really to know where the boundaries lie. Even if players decide to go back to a more traditional style, they will have learned enough during the testing to have made it a useful experience.

[mycroft]

But Red, the issue is that getting good results most of the time keeps my partner happier than not being put in an unwinnable situation every once in a while.

 

We play weak NTs - that's the epitome of "unwinnable situations" in a world of 15-17s. But we play it because the number of system losses is lower than the number of system wins; because we're in control of more auctions (when we open 1NT) than the other players (who open 1NT on fewer hands); we force the opponents (if they're smart) into playing constructive defences to our 1NT (because there's a very good chance it's their hand, and a decent chance it's their hand in game!) and they'll simply be less good starting at the 2 level than the other pairs starting at 1♥ or 1♦; and because, playing the K/S style, our 1m calls are also extra well defined, so we're at an advantage when we open 1♦ whether we have the NT hand or not. Our rescue system is also designed to push the opponents around; as a result, we're in a few "safe, but not best" (and some "hopeless, but maybe survivable"!) situations there, too.

 

We play 1NT overcall for Takeout; because it's aggressive (on all the hands you're making a takeout double (and some you're not!), they haven't lost any space; at our table, they have to start at the 2 level again), because it's fun, and because we're good enough that we can win, but not good enough that we're likely to if we don't push the real experts a little bit more than most.

 

My partner would be very upset if I decided to "protect her" from "unwinnable situations". Yours may not be.

 

I absolutely agree; if you feel more comfortable with a more disciplined style, find someone who agrees with you and enjoy. I don't think it's winning bridge, but it's certainly better when it comes up, and is certainly better than it would be if you are on different strategies, or want to be, from partner.

 

I also absolutely agree with Zelendakh; everybody should *try* the different styles, and not just for one game. Who knows, you might just find you're more comfortable with a style you currently don't play or are afraid of because of the "randomness"; you definitely will understand how to defend against that style better after you've played it (and experts and duffers alike have defended against it).