Weak two bids

[msjennifer]

Maybe I should have made my example:

 

void

QJTxxx

QT9xx

xx

 

I wouldn't sit for a X of 2S on that, either. I was just trying to make the point that virtually nothing is 100% hard and fast in bridge. 98%, sure. 100%, not so much.

I feel that the hand is not a 2H opener in that real sense.For such a hand 2D multi.,and 2H/S weak showing that major and another 4/5 card minor suit are better adaptations.

[GrahamJson]

There is a style of weak two played by Zia and others known as Trent Twos. These are a little stronger than traditional weak Twos (9-12 I think) and have few limits on distribution, so 6-5 is ok. The idea is that, having limited your hand by opening a two, you are free to rebid other suits to show your distribution. However even opposite a Trent Two I think a double would be penalties, although opener might pull it with an extreme two suiter, something that would not occur using traditional Twos.

 

A full description of Trent Twos is given in Granovetter's book on conventions. Fantunes uses similar two bids, although perhaps these are more effective if you get additional information from partner.

[Zelandakh]

The traditional and still mainstream view is that is unequivocally for penalties and that opener MUST pass or else responder would be justified in shooting opener.

 

 

I think I prefer the venom to the tolerance in this case. The venom of Caitlynne's post, not venom at the table, of course.

 

Removing this Double because he didn't have a weak 2-bid in the first place is pretty much playing with himself...literally and figuratively.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Let me introduce you to what we bridge players call a PASS button.

 

 

LOL

 

You might find this article educational. It makes the same point as that of miamijd but with a broader brush, covering more ground. You may not respect miamijd (or me) but I hope all of you respect Josh on this.

[Tramticket]

You might find this article educational. It makes the same point as that of miamijd but with a broader brush, covering more ground. You may not respect miamijd (or me) but I hope all of you respect Josh on this.

 

Excellent link. Thanks Zel.

[aguahombre]

The title of Josh's article hits the point, IMO. "Experts" have strategies and agreements which are often effective. But, these are variances from an established foundation -- solid principles of which they are well aware through years of experience.

 

This is an I/A forum, and we do a disservice to players striving to raise their game to the advanced level by advocating 'screwing around'. They first should have a base, or they won't even know they are varying from it. Once a player has instilled the foundations of partnership trust (and this is a partnership game), then might be the time for a pair to experiment with clever deviations.

 

Even at the expert level, the knowledge that partner's bids might be other than they appear can have negative effects. Something as simple as not knowing whether partner has 5,6, or 7 cards in the suit of a preempt can knock us out of competition on a given hand. Shell-shock from past experience can keep us from 'lawful' advances.

[RedSpawn]

While you generally are right, suppose I made a weak 2H bid on:

 

void

QJTxxx

x

QTxxxx

 

You really would expect me to sit for a penalty X of 2s? I hope not.

 

Cheers,

Mike

 

Your tone is inappropriate for such a forum. You have your style of weak 2-bids; other players have theirs. I doubt that any of the players in the recent USBF finals would pass that hand as dealer. Some might have a 2-suited bid available; others would bid 2H or 3H. If you want to define weak 2s to a narrow range, that is, of course, your right. And that's very playable. Not "wrong" in any way. But please don't pretend that "this is what a weak 2 is and anything else is wrong." Just not so.

 

And let's can the attitude, shall we?

 

Cheers,

mike

 

Mike,

 

This forum has had vehement discussions about topics and people who made a certain bid were called "amateurs/non-experts" through insinuation and innuendo. Also, certain people have said that the thought of bidding "_____(fill in the blank)" is "insane" to them which makes one wonder what exactly do they think of the person making the bid?

 

Such language is condescending in tone and nature, and yet, I have yet to see anyone publicly condemn such language or colored comments, except the persons offended by the remark.

 

This leads me to believe that such snarky comments are fair game for the forum (especially when a thought is considered alternative and non-mainstream).

 

Back to the discussion at hand, I have 4 questions that I am sincerely interested in hearing answers:

 

void♠

QJTxxx♥

x♦

QTxxxx♣

 

Question 1: Why do you think this hand with 0.0 quick tricks is a "reportable" hand from 1st or 2nd seat? 3rd seat anything goes. It doesn't fit the profile of a normal weak 2 hand and to classify it as a weak 2 bid only increases interpretation error for the respondent.

 

Question 2: If you are in 1st or 2nd seat, why do you think you partner needs this information about your hand shape before he describes his own hand/shape/features?

 

Question 3: How do you know from looking at your hand in 1st and 2nd seat that the opposition have game and that you need to make an "alternative/unorthodox" weak 2 bid to disrupt them?

 

Question 4: Why is it so hard to pass the 1st round of bidding with recycle bin values? This hand doesn't fit a normal weak 2 profile and clearly is not better than an average 10 HCP hand. You might be able to describe this hand if your partner ends up making a takeout double.

[Vampyr]

I would open that hand 2♥ even if one of the hearts were a black card.

[RedSpawn]

Excellent link. Thanks Zel.

 

Please note the examples Josh uses:

 

AQJxxx♠

xxx♥

x♦

xxx♣

 

a 6 card ♠ suit with 3 of top 5 ♠ honors -- no qualms here. This is not moth-eaten.

 

x♠

KQ9xxx♥

Q10xxx♦

x♣

 

Note this heart suit contains 2 of the top 3 honors AND a intermediate 9. This is workable when you have SUIT QUALITY consistent with a standard weak 2 bid.

 

x♠

xx♥

QJ10xxx♦

AJ9x♣

 

Note here the example uses a ♦ suit contained 3 of 5 honors--this makes the ♦ suit workable since it has 3 of 5 honors. Notice, however, the nice quality of side club suit. It has 2 of top 4 honors and a nice intermediate 9 for a 4 card suit!

 

NOTE: None of his examples use a void situation.

 

Now, let's go back to the original proposition.

 

void♠---UGH--the ugly void again, which was in none of Josh's practice examples.

QJTxxx♥ -- the heart suit has 3 of 5 honors which is consistent with weak 2.

x♦-- singleton here is consistent with eligibility for weak 2 hand.

QTxxxx♣--this club suit quality is very poor and makes the weak 2 bid even more unappetizing, notice this club suit versus the AJ9X♣ suit in the example above (night and day suit quality difference).

 

 

Here is the problem. I am not sold on this method yet because I know what people are vying for is to relax Josh's practice example from:

 

x♠

KQ9xxx♥

Q10xxx♦

x♣

 

to this:

 

void♠

QJTxxx♥

x♦

QTxxxx♣

 

There is not even a quick trick, King or Ace to be found anywhere in the latter hand.

 

This is a very slippery slope.

[nige1]

The title of Josh's article hits the point, IMO. "Experts" have strategies and agreements which are often effective. But, these are variances from an established foundation -- solid principles of which they are well aware through years of experience.

This is an I/A forum, and we do a disservice to players striving to raise their game to the advanced level by advocating 'screwing around'. They first should have a base, or they won't even know they are varying from it. Once a player has instilled the foundations of partnership trust (and this is a partnership game), then might be the time for a pair to experiment with clever deviations.

Even at the expert level, the knowledge that partner's bids might be other than they appear can have negative effects. Something as simple as not knowing whether partner has 5,6, or 7 cards in the suit of a preempt can knock us out of competition on a given hand. Shell-shock from past experience can keep us from 'lawful' advances.

Bridge-teachers confirm that beginners love conventions. Arguably, they want to run before they can crawl and they sometimes confuse themselves with sophisticated, ineffective, and mutually incompatible methods.

 

IMO, however, teachers should take care to avoid adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Teachers should allow beginners to learn simple, effective, modern methods, even those they don't like, because it can save beginners from having to unlearn obsolete and inferior methods, later.

 

A recent example: in Scotland, most Bridge-teachers base their lessons on a natural system. Instead, Ying Piper taught basic 2/1 to a female primary-school class. She included simple conventions like transfers (so that they would have less to unlearn later). After a few lessons, a team of her girls came 2nd in a national schools competition. Partly because they played simple consistent effective methods.

[Stephen Tu]

Back to the discussion at hand, I have 4 questions that I am sincerely interested in hearing answers:

 

void♠

QJTxxx♥

x♦

QTxxxx♣

 

Question 1: Why do you think this hand with 0.0 quick tricks is a "reportable" hand from 1st or 2nd seat? 3rd seat anything goes. It doesn't fit the profile of a normal weak 2 hand and to classify it as a weak 2 bid only increases interpretation error for the respondent.

 

Don't know why you think it is important to have quick tricks. Weak twos promise some amount of offense playing in that suit. They don't really promise any defense. Partner won't be making penalty doubles expecting much of anything from us and at lower levels we are showing the second suit.

 

Have you ever heard of the adage "six-five come alive"? This was promulgated by ACBL Hall of Famer Grant Baze. Basically it means with 6-5 shape it often pays to bid even if you think it's nuts. He said something along the lines that with 6-5 hands you should generally bid and keep on bidding until someone gets doubled, you or them (he was exaggerating for effect, but only a little). With 6-6 this applies even more. The reason for this is the shape makes the hand very powerful trick taking wise on offense. If you find a good fit in either suit, or both suits, you can take many more tricks than you normally would take with the same number of high cards in a flatter hand. At the same time, you don't take many tricks against the opponent's contract. These conditions favor lots of bidding, as you tend to either make your contract or it's a profitable sacrifice.

 

You probably wouldn't object to opening weak two on xx QJTxxx xx Kxx? Opposite xxxx Kxxx xxx Ax which hand takes more tricks, that or the 6-6 hand? How is opening the weak two likely to get you in trouble?

 

Question 2: If you are in 1st or 2nd seat, why do you think you partner needs this information about your hand shape before he describes his own hand/shape/features?

Your shape is way more likely to be of interest to partner than his shape to you. With 6-5 or 6-6 you want to show both suits if convenient, without overstating your high card values. Opening 1 would be too much, partner would expect way more in high cards and that can cause problems down the line. Opening 2, partner would expect a lot less shape and only a tiny bit more in high cards. Your offense is better than the average weak two if he raises, if he bids 4h to make you are probably in good shape, and as a sac you will do well also.

 

By starting to show suits immediately, at least if you have heart fit partner may be able to barrage the opponents out of missing their spade fit, or at least disturb their accuracy. You have a better shot at playing 4H instead of 5H. And you might be able to get the second suit in.

 

Question 3: How do you know from looking at your hand in 1st and 2nd seat that the opposition have game and that you need to make an "alternative/unorthodox" weak 2 bid to disrupt them?

You don't, but you are way below average HCP wise so the opponents will be stronger than average and will have game more often than average. And if partner has the points you should be able to at least get to all your heart games that you are entitled to.

 

The main time opening might backfire is if partner has a strongish hand but misfit hearts, and a big club fit, and you miss 5c because 2H continues all pass. Those of us who favor opening think that good things will happen substantially more often than bad things.

 

Question 4: Why is it so hard to pass the 1st round of bidding with recycle bin values? This hand doesn't fit a normal weak 2 profile and clearly is not better than an average 10 HCP hand. You might be able to describe this hand if your partner ends up making a takeout double.

 

It's better than the average weak two hand offensively. And you want to be bidding a lot on hands where partner merely has a fit. On many of those hands partner will not be strong enough to act if you had not. If he has a takeout double you probably do OK either passing or bidding.

[RedSpawn]

Don't know why you think it is important to have quick tricks.

 

Have you ever heard of the adage "six-five come alive"? This was promulgated by ACBL Hall of Famer Grant Baze. Basically it means with 6-5 shape it often pays to bid even if you think it's nuts.

 

Thank you for your quick response.

 

Please note that each of Josh's example in his article used a weak two that had a least a quick trick factor of at least 1.

 

AQJxxx♠ = 1.5 quick tricks

 

KQ9xxx♥ = 1.0 quick tricks

 

QJ10xxx♦ = 0.0 quick tricks

AJ9x♣ = 1.0 quick tricks.

 

=================================================

 

Proposed weak 2♥ hand in BridgeBase Forum:

 

void♠ = 0.0 quick tricks

QJTxxx♥= 0.0 quick tricks

x♦ = 0.0 quick tricks

QTxxxx♣ = 0.0 quick tricks

 

=================================================

 

Why the fascination with the requirement of quick tricks? ;)

 

It tends to keep BOTH partners "honest" in the representations they make about the utility and the quality of the hand they open in the auction. Further, it prevents what I am calling the "dilution" effect. This is when we take a time-honored and passé concept like 2 quick tricks for an open and either dilute or remove it. Then the race to the bottom starts.

 

Then we open with 1.5 quick tricks.

 

Then we open with 1.0 quick tricks.

 

Then we open with 0.5 quick tricks.

 

And on some BBF threads, we open with 0.0 quick tricks even with a 4-3-3-3 distribution because being the 1st to open at all costs reigns supreme and we can sort through all the attendant collateral damage and confusion in the post mortem.

 

See link below for BBF discussion on opening on junk.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76391-opening-on-junk/

 

=======================================================================================================

 

I am not surprised that Josh's weak 2 examples are consistent with what one expects in a weak 2 bidding structure. It's when we take the spirit of what Josh says in his article and attempt to stretch it and apply it what I call "compromised" or "defective" hands that is worrisome.

 

Proposed Weak 2 Hand:

void♠ = YELLOW ALERT! Departure from ordinary expectations. . .Proceed with caution.

QJTxxx♥= suit quality, OK, even though none of the trump honors are quick (you do, however, have 3 of 5 honors).

x♦ = singleton, OK here

QTxxxx♣ = RED ALERT! Compromised side suit quality (contains 1 of top 4 honors. . .and the Q♣ honor, while guarded by an intermediate, isn't even a quick honor--getting control of the suit may present problems during play :blink: )

 

I do not subscribe to taking Josh's examples of weak 2 bids and applying them to hands lacking a hint of 1/2 quick tricks and containing poor suit quality as in (QTXXXX).

 

With respect to 6-5 come alive, see link below:

 

Case example

 

Cut and paste here:

 

"Every Bridge player knows the playing potential of a 6-5 hand . You “come alive” with this distribution and bid. You are usually rewarded if partner has a fit for one of the suits. Using the rule of 20 , 6-5’s can be opened with as little as 10 HCP so that you can “fire the first shot” .

 

The spirit of 6-5 come alive is that your suits (as in plural) contain working values that are respectable. A case can be made for QJTxxx♥ being respectable. QTxxxx♣ is just not respectable. Sorry, no leeway here. It is just not a respectable suit with decent working values especially if you are going to apply a rule of 20 "mentality" for 6-5. The performance of the club suit is highly suspect and does not, in my opinion, warrant departing from standard operating procedure.

 

I expect the Q♣ to be taking several "smoke breaks" during the board play.

 

Same situation with Larry Cohen's discussion of 6-5. https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/698

 

All, and I mean, each and every one of his examples contain suits with some quick tricks in them.

 

Finally, I would be wary of taking concepts meant for constructive bids and applying them to a preemptive scenario. I have tried that as well and have been admonished. ;)

[Stephen Tu]

Why the fascination with the requirement of quick tricks? ;)

It tends to keep BOTH partners "honest" in the representations they make about the utility and the quality of the hand they open in the auction.

 

I don't think you understand WHY and when people have quick trick requirements for opening bids. So you think there is some particular utility in having a quick trick requirement for opening preempts.

 

Most people have quick trick requirements for opening 1 bids and strong 2c opening bids, because it helps gauge when there's a decent shot to make a penalty double of the opponents. If you can count on an opener to take 2 tricks more often than not your penalty doubles will be more successful than when he opened some say shapely 9/10 count at the 1 level but low on aces and kings, and you watch the opps take the first tricks in all the side suits then ruff out the rest. If he opened light but does have aces your penalty double still works. Or for the 2c bids, there are some weak players who open 2c based on having 1 really long suit and not much outside, lots of playing strength but not much defense, this backfires when opps bid 5 of whatever and partner doubles expecting more outside tricks.

 

For preempts, its really hardly important at all to have QT because partner when penalty doubling isn't counting on side quick tricks from us, really shouldn't count on any defense from us at all other than thinking the opponents won't have a bunch of tricks in our suit.

 

Further, it prevents what I am calling the "dilution" effect. This is when we take a time-honored and passé concept like 2 quick tricks for an open and either dilute or remove it. Then the race to the bottom starts.

2 QT is for an opening ONE bid. Nobody was ever requiring that for opening WEAK TWO bid. So it's not racing to the bottom.

 

"Every Bridge player knows the playing potential of a 6-5 hand . You "come alive" with this distribution and bid. You are usually rewarded if partner has a fit for one of the suits. Using the rule of 20 , 6-5's can be opened with as little as 10 HCP so that you can "fire the first shot" .

 

This was also talking about opening at the ONE LEVEL.

 

The spirit of 6-5 come alive is that your suits (as in plural) contain working values that are respectable. A case can be made for QJTxxx♥ being respectable. QTxxxx♣ is just not respectable.

 

I don't think you appreciate the power of QTxxxx. Partner holding the Jx gives you the expectation of FOUR TRICKS. Ax you can get FIVE tricks.

 

Yes, if partner has no fit it will be hard to establish. But if partner has a decent fit for either suit you may be able to ruff out the other. And with 2 8+ fits you can take a lot of tricks on few HCP.

 

But why you would prefer to open xx QJTxxx xx Kxx in preference to this I have no idea. Kxx gives better defense than QTxxx, it's one half more quick trick, but offensively there is no comparison on average

 

Finally, I would be wary of taking concepts meant for constructive bids and applying them to a preemptive scenario. I have tried that as well and have been admonished. ;)

Exactly. Your quick trick requirements are for one bids. We are saying open two. Your partner won't expect defense so it won't backfire from a defensive bidding perspective. From a constructive bidding purpose, a side 5/6 bagger, even a weak one, will tend to provide more offense than an average weak two. If partner raises 4, you will likely make more often with - QJTxxx x QTxxx than xx QJTxxx xx Axx.

 

Weak twos serve both preemptive and constructive purposes.

 

Would we prefer the side suit be stronger, like add one or two of the CK/J/9? Of course. But we have to play what we are dealt. And I think most good players think we will get better results on average opening 2H than passing and hoping to bid later. Will it always be better? Of course not, we don't know what's going to unfold. But we think it leads to better on average, which is what matters.

[MrAce]

You might find this article educational. It makes the same point as that of miamijd but with a broader brush, covering more ground. You may not respect miamijd (or me) but I hope all of you respect Josh on this.

 

First of all what Josh wrote there has little to do with the current subject. In fact you can check his vote in this poll http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-4fs03h8f5d/. and decide whether you or me understood him betterhttp://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

And that has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. Bottom line is we have an intermediate poster (who asked whether the dbl is penalty or take-out) and what we ended up in replies is seeing 6-6 hands and talking about exceptions. This is not what you get down to with someone who clearly is at the level that asking the meaning of this double! There is your flag!

[RedSpawn]

 

Exactly. Your quick trick requirements are for one bids. We are saying open two. Your partner won't expect defense so it won't backfire from a defensive bidding perspective.

 

 

Did you read Josh's article about weak 2's?

 

Josh's Practice Problems

 

Here are the 3 practice problems he uses in his article that I used in my earlier post about weak 2 bids.

 

Practice Problem #1

 

AQJxxx♠

xxx♥

x♦

xxx♣

 

He said South would open this 2♠. I have no qualms here. The hand has 1.5 quick tricks for a weak 2 open and the ♠ suit quality is delicious. You don't need the 1.5 quick tricks to bid preemptively but notice how it keeps the quality of the weak 2 open ship-shape.

 

Practice Problem #2

x♠

KQ9xxx♥

Q10xxx♦

x♣

 

Josh said South would open this 2♥. I don't care for the side 5 card ♦ suit but I can work with his ♥ suit quality (having 2 of top 3 honors and an intermediate) and the fact that his hand has 1.0 quick tricks, even for weak 2♥. He is keeping the quality of his trump suit intact and keeping a quick trick in the hand.

 

Practice Problem #3

 

x♠

xx♥

QJ10xxx♦

AJ9x♣

 

Josh said South would open up 2♦ which I am okay with. The hand just so happens to have 1.0 quick tricks and the suit quality for diamonds is okay at QJ10XXX♦. The side suit quality is in CONTROL and no one has to be heavily concerned for the whereabouts of the QK♣ since the AJ9X♣ suit is in attack mode and likely to capture one of the missing honors with a decent finesse.

 

The quick tricks aren't really a requirement for the weak 2 open, but having some control of the hand in either the trump suit and/or the side suit will definitely help sell your idea.

 

The Proposed BBF Hand:

 

• 
   
  
• void♠ = YELLOW ALERT! Departure from ordinary expectations. . .Proceed with caution.
  
• QJTxxx♥= adequate suit quality, even though none of the trump honors are quick (you do, however, have 3 of 5 honors).
  
• x♦ = singleton, OK here
  
• QTxxxx♣ = RED ALERT! Compromised side suit quality (contains 1 of top 4 honors. . .and the Q♣ honor, while guarded by an intermediate, isn't even a quick honor--getting control of the suit may present problems during play as we need to track down the whereabouts of AKJ♣ clubs :blink: )
   
  

 

And this example doesn't even have a scattered king or ace in the mix like ALL of Josh's examples.

 

This is just not working for me. The suit quality of the practice problems Josh provides are nowhere near the suit quality of the suggested 2♥ bid in the BBF.

 

No deal.

[alok c]

Yes,it is a penalty.Partner is expecting zero defensive value from you as weak 2 opening does not promise even single QT.Generally partner's bid is honoured but in case of your extreme hand pattern you may bid.

[nige1]

Such language is condescending in tone and nature, and yet, I have yet to see anyone publicly condemn such language or colored comments, except the persons offended by the remark.

BBF posters often condemn condescension and insolence directed against individuals.

This leads me to believe that such snarky comments are fair game for the forum (especially when a thought is considered alternative and non-mainstream).

With little risk of physical retaliation, some posters unfetter their ids, when losing an argument.

Moderators do their best but fight a losing battle :(

[johnu]

This is just not working for me.

 

Apparently not :rolleyes:

[Stephen Tu]

Did you read Josh's article about weak 2's?

 

Yes I did. But Josh at absolute no point in the article emphasized requiring defensive quick tricks in order to open. The fact that he posted examples that happened to have 1 QT doesn't mean that without 1 QT he would definitely not open. He didn't post any examples like "oh here's a hand that has a good 6 cd suit but I won't open it because I don't have any quick tricks".

 

how it keeps the quality of the weak 2 open ship-shape.

 

Ship-shape for what purpose? How is that 1 QT going to help you bid more accurately? What superior contract are you going to reach by passing, or which worse contract are you going to avoid by passing, that is going to gain you matchpoints or gain you IMPS?

 

You are advocating having a QT just for the purpose of having a QT. You haven't explained how this is going to lead you to a better result in the end. Are you just going to pass throughout? Are you planning on showing a 2 suiter? What if it's at 3♠ or 4♠ already when it comes back around?

 

 

Josh said South would open up 2♦ which I am okay with. The hand just so happens to have 1.0 quick tricks and the suit quality for diamonds is okay at QJ10XXX♦. The side suit quality is in CONTROL and no one has to be heavily concerned for the whereabouts of the QK♣ since the AJ9X♣ suit is in attack mode and likely to capture one of the missing honors with a decent finesse.

 

You get 1st round control of clubs, but instead of 1 fast loser in the outside suits you have 3. It's a tradeoff. Having a side six bagger also means possibility of 4-5 winners in that suit with a little help from partner, and fewer losers outside. Side 4 bagger, that only gets you up to 3. Having the side suit is better offensively, on average. Good offense favors bidding over passing. Bidding right away causes the opponents more problems usually than passing and giving them an unobstructed first round.

 

Having the QT requirement prevents you from jamming the opponents, and you haven't demonstrated at all how it would let partner make more accurate decisions.

[miamijd]

First of all what Josh wrote there has little to do with the current subject. In fact you can check his vote in this poll http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-4fs03h8f5d/. and decide whether you or me understood him betterhttp://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

And that has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. Bottom line is we have an intermediate poster (who asked whether the dbl is penalty or take-out) and what we ended up in replies is seeing 6-6 hands and talking about exceptions. This is not what you get down to with someone who clearly is at the level that asking the meaning of this double! There is your flag!

 

MrAce:

 

Of course the X is penalty. The only reason we went down a rabbit hole is that a responder indicated that she would never play again with anyone who opened a weak 2 and pulled her subsequent penalty X, presumably because such a player was a rank beginner far weaker than she. I was just trying to point out that lots of expert players would on rare occasions pull such a penalty X, so to understate things, her comment was a bit of an overstatement.

[Vampyr]

RS: The majority of us have been in a small minority on an issue. Sure we fight our corner, but we do not keep coming back and saying the same things over and over. You play your game and let others play theirs, and hope your views are vindicated at the table, not in the court of public opinion

 

If you feel that ceasing to post on the matter is conceding defeat, where does it end?

 

PS I have a regular partner who has asked that we promise the A or K for a 2-or 3-level preempt in 1st or 2nd. It is not my favourite approach, but it is surprisingly effective.

[MrAce]

MrAce:

 

Of course the X is penalty. The only reason we went down a rabbit hole is that a responder indicated that she would never play again with anyone who opened a weak 2 and pulled her subsequent penalty X, presumably because such a player was a rank beginner far weaker than she. I was just trying to point out that lots of expert players would on rare occasions pull such a penalty X, so to understate things, her comment was a bit of an overstatement.

 

I understand you. It is just not an expert topic. The question asked in OP makes this very clear. The forum chosen to ask this question makes it clear also. This is why I, rightly or wrongly, found it odd to mention the VERY RARE hand types and their expert practices to be mentioned. In the poll I set up in BW (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-4fs03h8f5d/) even when someone faces the VERY RARE position the 6-5 hand weak 2 (i did not post the 6-6 hand in order to be fair to you and to prevent the abstentions) there are still more votes for pass over DBL than those who decided to bid.

 

So what you wrote here, considering the OP, is a VERY RARE constructed hand and even then you do not have reasonable majority to support your view. My reaction was more about the hand you chose to express your view and the topic you chose rather than a reaction to your view. I am reminding all of you that we have someone who bravely came here and asked a very simple question, obviously trying to improve. I react to things that may confuse them. Writing a 6-6 hand or showing an article from a well known player who talks about totally different subject and to totally different level of audience and asking for respect is weird to me. (I know that was not you)

 

What is next? Are we going to mention the hands where responder can pass a reverse? We all know this exists especially if your style responds at 1 level almost with nothing. But mentioning this to someone who basically asks us "what is reverse?" is probably nothing but forum masturbating! I am all up for discussing these things but I would never do it in a topic where someone obviously has no clue what a reverse is, what does it show and how to avoid it when your hand does not meet the requirements of a reverse. All he needs to know is that pd can not pass this at this moment. When someone asks something, the way they ask, there are actually plenty of flags that shows who you are responding to. But this is not the first time I witnessed people are so keen to show their deep knowledge rather than putting themselves in the shoes of someone who sincerely wants to improve and has some serious basics to learn.

[miamijd]

I understand you. It is just not an expert topic. The question asked in OP makes this very clear. The forum chosen to ask this question makes it clear also. This is why I, rightly or wrongly, found it odd to mention the VERY RARE hand types and their expert practices to be mentioned. In the poll I set up in BW (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-4fs03h8f5d/) even when someone faces the VERY RARE position the 6-5 hand weak 2 (i did not post the 6-6 hand in order to be fair to you and to prevent the abstentions) there are still more votes for pass over DBL than those who decided to bid.

 

So what you wrote here, considering the OP, is a VERY RARE constructed hand and even then you do not have reasonable majority to support your view. My reaction was more about the hand you chose to express your view and the topic you chose rather than a reaction to your view. I am reminding all of you that we have someone who bravely came here and asked a very simple question, obviously trying to improve. I react to things that may confuse them. Writing a 6-6 hand or showing an article from a well known player who talks about totally different subject and to totally different level of audience and asking for respect is weird to me. (I know that was not you)

 

What is next? Are we going to mention the hands where responder can pass a reverse? We all know this exists especially if your style responds at 1 level almost with nothing. But mentioning this to someone who basically asks us "what is reverse?" is probably nothing but forum masturbating! I am all up for discussing these things but I would never do it in a topic where someone obviously has no clue what a reverse is, what does it show and how to avoid it when your hand does not meet the requirements of a reverse. All he needs to know is that pd can not pass this at this moment. When someone asks something, the way they ask, there are actually plenty of flags that shows who you are responding to. But this is not the first time I witnessed people are so keen to show their deep knowledge rather than putting themselves in the shoes of someone who sincerely wants to improve and has some serious basics to learn.

 

Not trying to show deep knowledge. I think most folks missed my point, which is quite relevant to an int / adv forum. The point was that holding to hard and fast rules, which several responders recommended, Is not good strategy in bridge and teaching players to "always" do x or "never" do y doesn't serve them well at all. Bridge is about logic and analysis not merely blindly following a bunch of rote rules. If you want to argue with my example, fine. That wasn't the point at all. The point was that saying "I'd never play with someone who did x" is silly. There are going to be rare times when x is reasonable and top experts might do it.

 

Cheers

Mike

[RedSpawn]

 

Ship-shape for what purpose? How is that 1 QT going to help you bid more accurately? What superior contract are you going to reach by passing, or which worse contract are you going to avoid by passing, that is going to gain you matchpoints or gain you IMPS?

 

You are advocating having a QT just for the purpose of having a QT. You haven't explained how this is going to lead you to a better result in the end. Are you just going to pass throughout? Are you planning on showing a 2 suiter? What if it's at 3♠ or 4♠ already when it comes back around?

 

...

 

Good offense favors bidding over passing. Bidding right away causes the opponents more problems usually than passing and giving them an unobstructed first round.

 

Having the QT requirement prevents you from jamming the opponents, and you haven't demonstrated at all how it would let partner make more accurate decisions.

 

Josh's article highlights our competing concerns.

"Preempting has proven too effective a tactic to limit to the ‘traditional’ hands. So, in exchange for the gain of added frequency, we pay the price of decreased precision in describing our hand."

 

In Bridge, you can either have "bidding accuracy" or a "higher frequency of opens". You can't have both and if you could, that book would have sold out a long time ago and we could all be Bridge Masters ruling the game.

 

The auction board is full of promises by various parties. What I want from my partner is honesty and "representational faithfulness". By that, I mean I want to know my partner's bid means what it says and that my partner's hand, shape, and features aligns with my initial expectations. I want a partner that keeps his promise (bid). It is important that partnerships minimize "expectations gaps" to maintain harmony and also to negotiate a final contract that is tenable and suitable.

 

When a partner makes an unconventional opening bid that is rife with surprises, he may succeed in opening 1st, but now the respondent has to "unpack" this "promise" and figure out how many, if any, inconsistencies his partner's hand contains. He must do this before deciding where to place the team's contract next. This adds additional risk for interpretation error and we should not downplay how difficult it is to mitigate this risk.

 

• 
   
  
• Has someone ever made a promise to you and then you were unpleasantly surprised when their actions didn't align with the promises they initially made?
  
• How did you feel about the person who made a promise they couldn't keep?
  
• How did that affect your ability to trust them in the future?
  

 

Bridge is all about managing relationships and expectations. If you are violating "unwritten" rules and guidelines and breaking promises in the auction bidding, you are planting some seeds that will bear very strange, bitter fruit for the partnership.

 

Just a few things to think about. . . from the other side of the table.

====================================================================================================================================================

 

I gather from your posts that you are more concerned about the team's opening frequency and jamming up the opponents before they jam us up. That is a nice goal and consistent with a zero-sum game mentality, but that is not my primary concern. My primary tactical concern is "bidding accuracy" and "representational faithfulness". If we get this primary goal right, I believe we can accomplish my secondary tactical concern which is jamming up the opponents. To me, jamming them up is my bonus not my purpose. ;)

 

Let me be clear, my concern is not more valid/important than yours. It just means we have competing objectives, strategies, and game plans for our bridge play and our partnership agreements. In my view, a call of PASS doesn't mean that the opponents have won the war. It just means that you have a distributional 5 HCP hand that doesn't conform to our agreed-upon definitions of a 1 of a suit open or a standard, plain vanilla weak 2 open. So to me, PASS, is the best call that describes your hand 1st round.

 

But I get it, you want to open 1st and that is your wheelhouse.

 

It took me a while to see what was going on here. That is why BBO needs to add some survey questions that we can answer and display because partnership harmony is very important for the bridge game and some partners may have different objectives as can be seen here.

[nige1]

Kit Woolsey: Diversion is about deciding whether a marginal hand is worth a weak 2 (Kit plays multi but the principle is similar).

Kit Woolsey: Hammans rule recommends opening a 3♠ on a ten-high suit at favourable vulnerability.

Kit's Korner on BridgeWinners is an excellent "over my shoulder" guide to how good players think.

[aguahombre]

Kit Woolsey: Diversion is about deciding whether a marginal hand is worth a weak 2 (Kit plays multi but the principle is similar).

Kit Woolsey: Hammans rule recommends opening a 3♠ on a ten-high suit at favourable vulnerability.

Kit's Korner on BridgeWinners is an excellent "over my shoulder" guide to how good players think.

Kit is a great contributor on many subjects. His preempts are 'not mainstream'.