Reply to weak 2

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=SKQT2HQ2DQJ864CAQ&d=W&v=N&a=2h(6%20!H%205-10%20HCP)p2np3c(Poor suit Min)p?]133|200|

Harry Smith's Online Swiss Teams.

Partner opens a weak 2♥ = 6♥ 5-10 HCP. What do you reply?

If you enquire with 3♣ then partner rebids 3♣ showing a minimum with a poor suit.

Now, what do you rebid?

Edited in response to Pescetom's correction.

Also this is in the wrong forum, Sorry,[/hv]

[pescetom]

I voted for 3H, but I don't consider it invitational after the 3C negative reply.

[TylerE]

I'm always bidding 4H at imps, and having decided that I'm not going to give 4th hand a crack at the 3 level.

 

It would be helpful to know more about our weak two style.

 

What's really a min? KQxxxx xx xx xxx? xxxxxx Qx Qx Jxx?

[apollo1201]

Facing a « modern » NV opening, this heavy collection of quacks (just 25% of Italian controls with 40% of the HCPs) is probably not enough to force to game alone. Even at IMPs.

 

So we have to ask.

 

Now that partner said he has a true garbage, it is time to stop. Even at IMPs. And it is not invitational, it is a conclusion.

 

Ok, some players will bid the same with, say, xx Qx Jxxxx Ax 🤣

[nige1]

I'm always bidding 4H at imps, and having decided that I'm not going to give 4th hand a crack at the 3 level. It would be helpful to know more about our weak two style. What's really a min? KQxxxx xx xx xxx? xxxxxx Qx Qx Jxx?

If you ask with 2N then opener would rebid

 

• 3♣ = MIN Poor suit with ♠ Jxx ♥ xxxxxx ♦ Qx ♣ Qx (but he might not have opened)
• 3♦ = MIN Good suit with ♠ xx ♥ AJTxxx ♦ xx ♣ xxx

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=SKQT2HQ2DQJ864CAQ&w=SAJ64HJT8754D9C84&d=W&v=N&a=2h(6%20!H%205-9%20HCP)p3npppp?]300|300|

Harry Smith's Online Swiss Teams.Partner opens a weak 2♥ = 6♥ 5-9 HCP. What do you reply? If you enquire with 3♣ then partner rebids 3♣ showing a minimum with a poor suit. Now, what do you rebid?

+++++++++++++++++++

Actual EW hands and auction above,

Partner corrects me: Our range for 2♥ is 5-9 HCP (not 5-10 as stated in OP).

Thank you for your answers. Most ask with 2N then bid 3♥.

I like TylerE's fast approach, minimising leakage.

He judged 4♥ to have chances and jumped straight to that contract.

He alone would have made game.

I jumped to 3N which was less successful :( 3 down :([/hv]

[DavidKok]

I do like jumping to 4♥ (although seeing both hands there is a threat of losing two hearts, a diamond, a spade ruff and a club finesse). Also I would personally not have opened 2♥ on that hand, but conditional on having opened it I would have shown a strong hand with a weak suit, not a garbage hand. It's all about partnership agreement, I suppose.

[ali quarg]

I do like jumping to 4♥ (although seeing both hands there is a threat of losing two hearts, a diamond, a spade ruff and a club finesse). Also I would personally not have opened 2♥ on that hand, but conditional on having opened it I would have shown a strong hand with a weak suit, not a garbage hand. It's all about partnership agreement, I suppose.

Agreed the ♥ suit is too weak for me too. A Multi-2♦ would free up 2♥ for an Ekren style both Majors which should lead to game in ♠. I'd only bid both Majors 2♥ with 64 when the long suit is weak.

 

the auction would then be:

2♥-2NT (on the cusp Rule of 17)

3♦ (5♥ & 4♠) - 3/4♠, or

4♣ (6♥ & 4♠) - 4♠

 

Switch the weak hand's ♣ & ♦ around and your're going to struggle

[jillybean]

I jumped to 3N which was less successful :( 3 down :([/hv]

This is why I play disciplined weak 2's in 1st and 2nd seat.

 

This hand doesn't meet my 3rd seat weak 2 openings, the heart suit is &^%$ and I have 4S.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Pescetom. After 2NT-2♣, 3♥ is to play.

 

I tried to answer only the first question, but the software would not let me do that. :(

[Douglas43]

I agree with Jillybean. I sometimes open a weak two with four cards in the other major, even 1st / 2nd, but would not open 2♥ with spades this good and a poor heart suit.

[DavidKok]

I've been looking for solid guidelines on how to decide when (and how high) to preempt for quite some time in the past. My current favourite two pieces of advice are Andrew Gumperz' "Better preempts" series and Kit Woolsey's chapter on preempts in "Matchpoints". Roughly speaking, I keep a list of possible arguments for or against preempting. If too many negative ones apply I'll pass (or downgrade my preempts by a level), if lots of positive ones apply I'll preempt (or upgrade by a level). In no particular order the list includes:

 

• Position (3rd > 1st > 2nd, opening the bidding with a jump in 4th seat typically has a different meaning)
  
• Vulnerability (them > none > all > us)
  
• Length of the suit (6 for the 2-level, 7 for the 3-level is 'normal', longer is a plus, shorter is a minus)
  
• Quality of the trump suit, with emphasis on intermediate spot cards
  
• Potential value on defense, i.e. high cards in outside suits (more is worse)
  
• Aces (related to the above, more is worse. Even the ace in the trump suit is a negative, though not as bad as aces in other suits)
  
• Voids (also related to the above)
  
• Outside length in major suits (4-card major side suits are bad, 3-card suits with some values in them are also a minus)
  
• If holding a side suit (at least four card) - offensive potential in the side suit (more is better). Here the ace is defensive, king is neutral, lower picture cards are offensive.
  
• Which suit do we have (a weak 2♦ doesn't pack the same punch as 2♠)
  

 

Obviously the list is not exhaustive, and not all factors are equally important (I personally think vulnerability, then position, then defensive potential are the most important three in that order). Also, with preempts more than anything else, it's a bidder's game and with every requirement you add you decrease your frequency of your preempts. On the other hand I personally find that just shifting the relative importance of these around (for example, not opening a weak 2 on lousy 6-card suits but then opening most good 5-card suits with a weak two in return) doesn't hurt my preempt frequency all that much.

 

 

The other day I was playing matchpoints with a pickup partner and was dealt ♠ATxx, ♥AJxxx, ♦Kx, ♣xx, sitting third in hand at favourable vulnerability. Partner opened 3♥(!), and RHO overcalled 4♣. I had absolutely no idea what to do. With presumably 12 hearts between us I was worth only one, maybe two, tricks on defense against their 5♣, and at this vulnerability I didn't dare hope for a trick from partner. On the other hand 5♥ was a serious gamble at matchpoints. I ended up choosing the worst of both worlds (I bid 4♥ hoping to steal the contract, LHO overcalled 5♣, I sacrificed with 5♥ despite my policy to never bid like that and bought the contract there). Since this was online I could see partner's hand on the opening lead: ♠Jx, ♥QT9xxxx, ♦Jx, ♣Ax, gloriously down 1 for a 0% board (one table defended 5♣X-1 for 15%, the majority of the field was in 4♥ making). My bidding was obviously terrible, I should probably have doubled 5♣ based on matchpoint logic. But suffice to say I was also expecting a rather different hand for partner's bid - take away the ace and a jack or two and it would have been more my idea of a preempt!

 

Taking a shot at Nigel's West hand, I would say there are pluses for position, vulnerability and offense of the trump suit, a double minus for the four-card spade suit and minuses for quality of the trump suit, outside aces and offense of the spade side suit (although that is doublecounting somewhat). Too many downsides for my tastes.

[mycroft]

Partnerships need to have an understanding or agreement about their weak 2s and preempts. Once that is done, partnerships should adjust their system over weak 2s, and judgement to use that system, based on that agreement.

 

"This is why I would never open this" is a line, but if your partner will, your goal is to work with that, not claim 'I was right, see our bad score?" Of course, when they pass this hand and LHO has yours instead...

 

I've said a number of times that even with "5 minutes after game time" pickup, one of my questions is "what's your preempt style?" It's that important, and so much variation between players, that you do have to know to do the right thing (and when playing spare, to adapt your style to match).

 

With this hand, 3NT needs hearts to run. No questions were asked in the actual play (they were in the OP), and that means that the bidder assumed that opener's suit would set up and run opposite Qx. Opener clearly didn't think that was a prime worry, white on red with two opponents vs one partner to preempt. It's not opener's fault, it's not responder's fault, it's the partnership fault for not having a shared understanding of what was expected.

 

My regular partnership might not open this one because of the good 4 card spade suit. It might. If we belonged in spades, the answer would be "oh well, we play very aggressive weak 2s, sometimes we will be caught by it. We win on balance." But responder would ask, find "bad/bad", and probably stop in 3. If we were going to bid a game anyway, it would be 4♥, for exactly the reason I mentioned last paragraph - 3NT needs hearts to be runnable, and Qx just ain't good enough (especially opposite a "bad suit" for 1st seat w/r).

 

My semi-regular partnership would not even consider this one, likely wouldn't consider it a 2♥ WJO either. I think my partner would just blast 3NT with responder's hand, and make it, too - because my hearts would be good enough. I am not quite so imaginative - it's clearly the right call, but I'm not sure I'd make it with the 8-card major fit staring at me.

 

Neither is "right". Neither is "wrong". But if you can't agree on a style, and bid expecting that style, your weak 2s will become a weapon aimed at you instead of the opponents.

[benlessard]

the hands mesh slightly better than average and opener hand got slight extras and its still a borderline game. One hand doesnt mean a lot but inviting look right on target.