[zenko]

I noticed that plenty of top level players have serious concerns about misuse of Weak Two openings, especially Vulnerable.

What is your approx estimate, based on your experience, what percentage of hands with 6 card suit and less then opening hand strength is really suitable for Weak Two opener Vulnerable, 1st position. Also does that percentage significantly change on 2nd/3rd seat, and if opponents are Vul or not?

Thx in advance for your input!

[mikeh]

I have no idea about percentages, and suspect that this is not really what you are looking for... unless one is revisiting the idea of whether weak twos are, inherently, a good idea, what one is interested in is the range of strength/shape requirements that one's partnership imposes on the bid.

I think most, but not all, experts would agree that the minimum expected playing strength varies, perhaps significantly, by seat and vulnerability. Some might well say that the form of scoring plays a role as well, since a 'bad' weak two may be occasionally punished for 800 or 1100 or so while still being, more often, an impediment to their bidding... the disasters militate against such bids far more at imps than at mps.

In addition, I have noted, in the past 20 years, a lowering of the requirements for a 1 bid, especially in a major.

Thus, when I started to play: AQJ9xx Kxx xxx x was a very good weak two... now it is a reasonable minimum 1♠ bid, at least for me, but I know some good players who still think this is a 2♠ call even non-vulnerable 1st seat.

While it might be cumbersome, perhaps a survey might help, along the lines of:

Provide an example of the best and the worst hands you would hold for a weak 2Major in 1st/2nd/3rd seats at red v red, red v white, white v red and white v white.... to keep this under some control... specify imps.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Apr 22 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

Thus, when I started to play: AQJ9xx Kxx xxx x was a very good weak two... now it is a reasonable minimum 1♠ bid, at least for me.

Agree 100%.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Apr 22 2009, 07:05 PM, said:

In addition, I have noted, in the past 20 years, a lowering of the requirements for a 1 bid, especially in a major.

Which is why I advocate for a lowering of requirements for a 2♣ opener

ok ok this is just another advertisement for my off-mainstream agenda.. lol

[zenko]

It seems that the modern style of lighter level 1 openings significantly changes the utility of weak two bids, especially VUL. Even slight lowering of level 1 openings threshold by say between 0.5-1 point makes a big difference, because we are talking about the most frequent hands.

If you look at the stats, by switching from "old-school" 6-11 weak twos to "modern" 0-10 style, even non-vul you will actually decrease the frequency, even non-vul and even playing it completely random (i.e. any 6 card suit hand)! To be more precise on the 1st seat you will slightly increase the occurence (non-vul), but you will lose more than that on 2nd/3rd seat, since if 1st hand passes, point count odds change upwards.

Non vul it still seems like fair a trade-off, especially on 1st and 3rd seat, but Vul, where lowering the treshold for Weak Twos does not make much difference, since you can not afford to be reckless, whole concept becomes very questionable. I guess the way around it could be to play sounder level 1 opening vul, and lighter non-vul but in practice that seems like too much trouble because you would need to adjust response structures too.

Frankly, I can not even remember when was the last time I opened weak two on 2nd seat Vul vs non-vul, and I do not recall having any bad results because of that, so whats the point of even having that option available?

[rfedrick]

zenko, on Apr 23 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

Frankly,  I can not even remember when was the last time I opened  weak two on 2nd seat Vul vs non-vul, and I do not recall having any bad results because of that, so whats the point of even having that option available?

Because as soon as you remove the option you know you will pick up ♠ KQ109xx xx Axxx x, Vul in 2nd?

[OleBerg]

zenko, on Apr 23 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

If you look at the stats, by switching from "old-school" 6-11 weak twos to "modern" 0-10 style, even non-vul you will actually decrease the frequency, even non-vul and even playing it completely random (i.e. any 6 card suit hand)!

Sounds very strange. You should hold less 0-5 counts, than excactly 11-counts, when you have a six-card suit in hearts or spades (or diamonds)???

[mtvesuvius]

Anything goes. Vulnerable "almost" anything goes.

I was taught that you cannot open a weak 2 if you have:

An outside ace
An outside 4cM
An outside 5 card suit
An outside 3cM if it has values in it
An outside void
Less than 7 HCP in the suit
A 5 card suit

And I tried that for a few weeks, and it was absurd... Out of 150 hands or so, I opened a weak 2 once.

True you will get burned every once and a while, but I find that there are so many gains to opening weak 2s more frequently, that I will open Jxxxxx in 1st Seat. It may not be best, but I have found that it works for me.

[helene_t]

I like to play preempts showing "in principle" the same playing strength regardless of vulnerability:

- It is not clear if it is more dangerous to preempt with a very weak hand. I think the safety level depends mainly on the difference between the offensive and the defensive potential. QJT987 x xx xxxx must be safer than Axxxxx Axx xx xx

- If the upper bound on a weak 2 varies, so will the lower bound of 1-level openings, which makes it more complex to discuss opening style.

By "in principle" I mean that depending on circumstances, one can deviate more or less from the expected strength as well as the expected (low) defensive strength. A preempt should be more disciplined when vulnerable, especially at IMPs when red/white, and more disciplined in 2nd seat. But that's something else.

[Gerben42]

I play that a preempt shows an extremely different strength depending on vulnerability, to the point that I would open NO hand 2♠ red vs white that would also open 2♠ white vs red.

A weak two bid is a bit of an exception because I allow deviation from the maximum loser count vulnerable, when the suit is great. It's probably still losing bridge to pass

♠AQJ942 ♥5 ♦432 ♣432

red vs. white, even though it has 1 loser too many.

The example hand ♠AQJ942 ♥K32 ♦432 ♣2 is not worth 1♠ to me vulnerable, since you have a perfect description for it: 2♠.

[ArtK78]

My long-time partner and I had a misunderstanding of what constitutes a vulnerable weak 2 last night.

I held, 3rd seat vul at matchpoints:

AJx xxx Axx AJxx

My partner opened 2♠ in first seat. I thought that opposite most 1st seat vul weak 2♠ bids that game would have some play, so I jumped to 4♠. I was right, but not for the reasons that I thought. Partner held:

KQxxxx x Jx xxxx

I suppose this constitutes a vul weak 2 bid for some people, but not for me. In any event, the KQx of clubs was onside, so 4♠ was an easy make.

Given that 4♥ was cold the other way, I guess there is something to be said for the weak 2 bid. But I am not convinced.

[zenko]

on the 1st seat 0-5 probability is about 14% , and 11 is about 9%, but if the 1st seat passes 0-5 hand probability goes down down a lot, and on 3rd seat even more, in short, playing say just 11 count weak 2 you will open more often than playing just 0-5 weak 2s

[zenko]

rfedrick, on Apr 23 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

zenko, on Apr 23 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

Frankly,  I can not even remember when was the last time I opened  weak two on 2nd seat Vul vs non-vul, and I do not recall having any bad results because of that, so whats the point of even having that option available?

Because as soon as you remove the option you know you will pick up ♠ KQ109xx xx Axxx x, Vul in 2nd?

well in my style and also I think in the mainstream expert style these days, that’s perfectly fine minimum level 1 opening, even more so, say non-vul vs. vul 1/2 seat I would not dare to open weak two with that, to risky that my partner will pass with decent hand, they all saw me open weak twos in those positions with hands that are too obscene to print

[Fluffy]

About the side suit requirements, judgement is there. Sometimes your suit is a decent side suit (AK9xxx) sometimes it is NOT (KJ108xx).

Who cares to have a side 4 card major when your prime suit is KQJ10xx?