[MrAce]

gwnn, on 2014-November-19, 02:39, said:

A nice hand for two weak two's (2D 4-7 2M 8-11). As it is I bid 2H but I hate it. Definitely 1H with a void. Argh but it's such a nice hand! And I don't want Timo to stop playing with me! 1H it is.

I would never stop playing with you! You have my word on that. Although you may regret playing with such an overbidder like me, which is totally another issue.

[chasetb]

I can see a 1♥ opening on this hand if you can expect it to be that light. However, this hand easily fits into a 2♥ opening, and that's what I choose.

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2014-November-17, 00:54, said:

GIB passes hands similar to this. I see everyday scores like 1♥+4 when 3rd seat opener passes his pd's 1♥. I also see them making game tries incase pd holds this type of hand, where they end too high at 3 level. I also see some playing 2♥ making +2 after a weak 2 opening, or going down in 2 ♥ when they were cold for ♦ slam. One day people will wake up about how many bad scores they get just simply due to not recognizing the importance of definition of a passed hand. They worry a hand where pd will force to game with 13+ and game will not make, while ignoring the games or slams that can be found vs a very little, but most importantly they ignore how much trouble they create to themselves because when their pd comes from pass or opens a weak 2, he can hold this or similar hands.

These are arguments about learning how to bid as 3rd seat opener when partner is a passed hand. The fact that you see a lot of bad contracts suggests you see a lot of bad bridge (not: that you play a lot of bad bridge, timo, I promise )

If you have found that by opening a weak 2 with this hand you are missing a lot of games, as opposed to a small number, then I suggest you get a better partner or a better method for advancing a weak 2 opening bid.

For every game a good pair misses after a weak 2 I will show you several bad results from opening at the one level with this hand, especially playing 2/1.

The fact is that in all methods....all....there will be hands that are at the extremes of the ranges for certain calls, and when that happens the partnership will usually need to have a bit of luck to land in the right spot. When one player is maximum, as this would be for a weak 2, then responder may need to be in an optimistic mood. Otoh, if you stretch to open 1♥, responder may need to be in a very pessimistic mood to avoid a bad outcome, and bad outcomes are not always failing by 1 undoubled trick in a close contract.

If your methods require this to be an opening bid, and you are playing 2/1, then you have a flaw somewhere in your methods, imo. Either you are an aggressive 2♣ opener or your 1 level bids are extremely wide range. What a lot of light openers don't see is the problems that flow when you widen the range for certain actions.

Edit: if playing a big club method, I would be ok with a style that made this a 1♥ opening.

[kuhchung]

i was too scared to post 2H because i knew Timo wouldn't upvote me and that's all i really want in life

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2014-November-19, 10:41, said:

These are arguments about learning how to bid as 3rd seat opener when partner is a passed hand. The fact that you see a lot of bad contracts suggests you see a lot of bad bridge (not: that you play a lot of bad bridge, timo, I promise )

If you have found that by opening a weak 2 with this hand you are missing a lot of games, as opposed to a small number, then I suggest you get a better partner or a better method for advancing a weak 2 opening bid.

For every game a good pair misses after a weak 2 I will show you several bad results from opening at the one level with this hand, especially playing 2/1.

The fact is that in all methods....all....there will be hands that are at the extremes of the ranges for certain calls, and when that happens the partnership will usually need to have a bit of luck to land in the right spot. When one player is maximum, as this would be for a weak 2, then responder may need to be in an optimistic mood. Otoh, if you stretch to open 1♥, responder may need to be in a very pessimistic mood to avoid a bad outcome, and bad outcomes are not always failing by 1 undoubled trick in a close contract.

If your methods require this to be an opening bid, and you are playing 2/1, then you have a flaw somewhere in your methods, imo. Either you are an aggressive 2♣ opener or your 1 level bids are extremely wide range. What a lot of light openers don't see is the problems that flow when you widen the range for certain actions.

Edit: if playing a big club method, I would be ok with a style that made this a 1♥ opening.

It is not about missing games mostly. It is about the definition of a passed hand. I am totally in the opposite camp with you on this. Imo people create a lot of headaches for themselves if this is what their pd can hold for a passed hand or a weak 2 opener. They either have to give up on ability to open very light preempts (which is pretty bad imo) or they have to make a lot of decisions correct during the auction (which is even worse imo) I have no idea how can one comfortably make decisions when his pd weak 2 is look like almost a 2♣ opener with 2 more good cards added.

There is not really much to learn about opening in 3rd seat and how to continue bidding. If you open with 11 hcp and a hand ready to pass over 1M, then you pass if pd bids your 3 card M. I don't feel comfortable when/if my pd can hold this type of hand. I do not want to make another bid to encourage pd either when my hand is not good enough to play 2 NT or 3♥ vs his balanced 11. I hope you are not suggesting to not open this but open a balanced 11 at first seat. Hell, to me I like this hand more than most balanced 12 hcps. No wonder, KnR values this hand more than 12 hcp. But I looked at KnR after I replied to this topic.

Bottom line is, I am aware of the downsides of opening this hand 1♥. But I would take these downsides on any day over the downsides of a passed hand or weak 2 opener who can hold this type of hands. But I am aggressive on particularly 6-4 hands with Aces and all working hcps. I do not get excited as much with 5-5 or 5413 hands. If you check my previous posts you will see I pass a lot of 10 hcp hands with 5431 or 5-5 hands that some other posters said "auto opening"

[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♥


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]

mikeh, on 2014-November-19, 14:46, said:

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.

[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]

mikeh, on 2014-November-19, 14:46, said:

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.

[rhm]

akwoo, on 2014-November-17, 00:38, said:

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]

whereagles, on 2014-November-16, 16:47, said:

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

---

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]

ArtK78, on 2014-December-04, 09:42, said:

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.