[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2024-July-26, 11:33, said:

David, is your 2♥ weak 5-5 red systematically?
And, please explain your rationale for opening 2♦.

No, it's just a weak two in hearts, frequently a five card suit. It neither promises nor denies an outside suit. I hope to get to show the diamonds later, though unfortunately most of my preempt-then-bid-again preferences require 6-5 (opening with a 6cM).

The argument for 2♦ over 2♥ is not terrific, but there's some things to be said for it:

• If the hand belongs to our opponents they most likely belong in spades or clubs. This means that for competitive purposes hearts and diamonds are equal - we will have to bid to the same level regardless of which red suit we wish to offer. Especially if they bid to 4♠ or 5♣, both our suits will be a game contract anyway.
  
• Conversely, if it is a misfit and partner has the spades (if partner doesn't have the spades the opponents likely will) we would like to be in our better suit. Diamonds are both longer and stronger.
  
• I prefer 2♦ to 4♦ or 3♦ because of the remote chance that we can introduce the hearts later, but probably I am being too wishful and conservative here.

As counterarguments, if partner has a strong hand our best game is likely 4♥, at MPs in particular the majors score better than the minors, with this suit discrepancy between the majors the opponents are far more likely to overcall in spades than to make a takeout double so the traditional '2♦ keeps both majors in play' argument is not as relevant, and if we open in diamonds and wish to show the hearts later we are bidding reverse and bumping the auction too much.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-July-26, 12:06, said:

No, it's just a weak two in hearts, frequently a five card suit. It neither promises nor denies an outside suit. I hope to get to show the diamonds later, though unfortunately most of my preempt-then-bid-again preferences require 6-5 (opening with a 6cM).

The argument for 2♦ over 2♥ is not terrific, but there's some things to be said for it:

• If the hand belongs to our opponents they most likely belong in spades or clubs. This means that for competitive purposes hearts and diamonds are equal - we will have to bid to the same level regardless of which red suit we wish to offer. Especially if they bid to 4♠ or 5♣, both our suits will be a game contract anyway.
  
• Conversely, if it is a misfit and partner has the spades (if partner doesn't have the spades the opponents likely will) we would like to be in our better suit. Diamonds are both longer and stronger.
  
• I prefer 2♦ to 4♦ or 3♦ because of the remote chance that we can introduce the hearts later, but probably I am being too wishful and conservative here.

As counterarguments, if partner has a strong hand our best game is likely 4♥, at MPs in particular the majors score better than the minors, with this suit discrepancy between the majors the opponents are far more likely to overcall in spades than to make a takeout double so the traditional '2♦ keeps both majors in play' argument is not as relevant, and if we open in diamonds and wish to show the hearts later we are bidding reverse and bumping the auction too much.

Opening a weak two on a 5 card suit is considered a sin by almost all my partners/opponents and suspect by a good number of Directors here too, so I reluctantly rule that one out.
Which leaves the only possibility of 2♦, with a 5cM major on the side.
I would be tempted, but again having even a 4 card major side suit is considered a sin by many partners if not Directors, so that's tricky too.
After many years of toeing that orthodox line (initially with convinction, then reluctantly) I have taken the plunge of bidding a preempt ignoring a side 4cM and it has worked beyond expectations so far, with several good outcomes and almost no major suit games missed, but above all less stress which is an important factor too.
I'm still ready/expectant to be convinced by experience (or Experts) that it is a bad idea after all.
If we do insist, I guess we have to revise the rest of system a bit (e.g. a modified Ogust to expose the 4+cM).

[DavidKok]

Your partners are free to consider it a sin, and you should definitely discuss your preemptive style before deciding about any individual hand. Preempts are far less effective if your partner will play you for an entirely different hand.

At the same time, the opponents and the director have no business telling you how to play your openings. I don't know your local rules, but under WBF rules even four card preempts would be legal (though, in my opinion, not good for your score). Just make sure to disclose it properly. We alert all 2-level preempts and weak jump overcalls, explaining that they are natural but frequently a five card suit and that we are hyper-aggressive. When I played the Wagner (weak-only multi) we would even pre-alert, just to clarify that we might be about to hit the opponents with a gadget they were unfamiliar with.

The switch from 6-card suits to 5-card suits has been massive, and continues to gain on a regular basis. I highly recommend it.

This hand is extremely far from a model preempt, it has multiple flaws and no good way to deal with them. But pass is also a terrible description, and I think showing a weak hand with high ODR and a long suit is more accurate.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2024-July-26, 14:58, said:

At the same time, the opponents and the director have no business telling you how to play your openings. I don't know your local rules, but under WBF rules even four card preempts would be legal (though, in my opinion, not good for your score). Just make sure to disclose it properly. We alert all 2-level preempts and weak jump overcalls, explaining that they are natural but frequently a five card suit and that we are hyper-aggressive. When I played the Wagner (weak-only multi) we would even pre-alert, just to clarify that we might be about to hit the opponents with a gadget they were unfamiliar with.

The switch from 6-card suits to 5-card suits has been massive, and continues to gain on a regular basis. I highly recommend it.

This hand is extremely far from a model preempt, it has multiple flaws and no good way to deal with them. But pass is also a terrible description, and I think showing a weak hand with high ODR and a long suit is more accurate.

Sure, I fully agree, and were I playing with you or Helene or whoever I would have no compunction about changing style, even though it's a wave that has yet to break here.
Our local rules are that a 2 level preempt should be announced as "weak" if 6 card and 6-10 HCP, otherwise (within WBF perimeter) alerted.
So legally no problem at all, but still regarded with extreme suspicion, much like 1NT with a possible singleton.

[jillybean]

Sitting East I am more likely to open this 1♦ in second seat, it just looks too good for a 2♥ premept opposite an unpassed partner. If I start with a ♥ I can never show this shape. In 3rd seat I have no hesitation bidding a 5 card 2♥

[jillybean]

In regards to throwing out yet another rule, “never preempt with a side 4cM”
Do you still teach this rule. to beginners with the caveat that this will change as their bidding evolves or do you teach preempts with side 4cM from the start?

David, you’ve taken a 2560 hand and are bidding it as a weak x55x hand.
What does your minimum 2560 1D opening look like?

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2024-July-28, 01:35, said:

In regards to throwing out yet another rule, “never preempt with a side 4cM”
Do you still teach this rule. to beginners with the caveat that this will change as their bidding evolves or do you teach preempts with side 4cM from the start?

David, you’ve taken a 2560 hand and are bidding it as a weak x55x hand.
What does your minimum 2560 1D opening look like?

I'm not sure if both questions are intended for me, but I'll answer both.

I teach what I think is standard: sound 6-card preempts. I will mention that I think it is good for your score to be more aggressive, and will emphasise that my personal style (in most situations, not just preempts) is very light, but I think it's important for beginners to have some context. Most of the field will be playing sound 6-card preempts, and knowing this is vital for defending against it. Also the large majority of their future partners will expect the same. If people want to change their methods to be more in line with my preferences I am more than happy to explain it, but I think it's going too far putting this in a beginner's course. Also, related, I think preempting is complicated, and they simply would not be able to learn how I like to preempt in a reasonable amount of time. Much better to focus on other topics instead, though I do always recommend students to experiment and deviate from my explanations, in particular if this means they get to bid more.

The 2=5=6=0 shape (or, more generally, x=5=6=y and its cousin x=5=y=6) hands are interesting, and these are the only hand shapes where I'd consider opening 1♥ ahead of 1m despite the length difference. The point is that if the opponents bid to 4♠ (or even 3♠), it is difficult to safely introduce our second suit having opened the minor. For example:
1♦-(1♠)-2♣-(4♠); ?
Now I have 4NT 'two places to play', and if partner picks clubs I can pull to diamonds, but if partner picks diamonds I never got to show that I have a fifth heart (4NT is compatible with, say, 0=4=6=3). The situation is slightly worse with clubs even:
1♣-(1♠)-2♦-(4♠); ?
4NT 'two places to play', but if partner picks clubs I am never showing my heart length. In fact, 4NT here is even compatible with 'please pick a minor in light of me having an unbalanced clubs hand with likely 3-card diamond support' - it doesn't even guarantee 4(+)♥!
For this reason, with a 6cm and 5c♥ exactly, I prefer to open 1m 'if I know what to do over 4♠' and 1♥ 'if I don't know what to do over 4♠'. Having opened 1♥ and bidding 4NT as two places over 1♠ we will more often find the best strain at the 5-level, in my experience. In practice this boils down to both the defensive strength (if I can beat 4♠ on power I don't really need to worry that much, also this makes it less likely that the opponents will bid it) and I like to use losing trick count here (normally I want around 6 (modified) losers or fewer for this unilateral action at the 5-level).
With all other 6-5 distributions I prefer to open the longer suit, there are fewer rebid problems.
Generally I don't like to discuss this topic much. A lot of people have strong opinions on how to bid 6-5 type hands, and not only does it often end up not mattering, also the hand type is sufficiently rare that even if it does matter when it comes up it won't have a significant impact on your score in the long run. I like to think that my style above aims to avoid the last guess at the 5-level, but of course a good fraction of the time when we open a light 5♥6m type hand partner has the spades or is really strong, and then the inability to show exact shape can be annoying. One minor side benefit of this style is that the reverse auction 1m-1♠; 2♥-<something>; 3♥ now still shows a decent hand, I've had a few accidents on this auction with a shapely 10 facing a misfitting 11 or the likes opening 1m.

Lastly, in unbalanced diamond structures as well as the most modern Dutch Doubleton structures I think there is room to show this hand type constructively on the 1m-1♠ start, specifically 5♥6(+)m 11-14 or so, though in the version of DD I prefer it is not included (I've played a more modernized version for half a year, it never came up). But I prefer to focus on the competitive aspect over the constructive auctions anyway, with a weak hand with so much shape.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-July-28, 01:35, said:

In regards to throwing out yet another rule, “never preempt with a side 4cM”
Do you still teach this rule. to beginners with the caveat that this will change as their bidding evolves or do you teach preempts with side 4cM from the start?

I'm not the teacher but just a mentor, so my hands are tied to a large extent.
Our teacher does teach them not to do it, and I try to only comment such rules when I think it's important to realise that they are not written in stone and there is an alternative to beware of. In this case I would point out the alternative and warn them not to assume blindly that opponents or pickup partners follow the rule. I wouldn't try to explain the merits and demerits of a different approach unless they ask, which is definitely a good sign.
But on the whole it's more important that they gain some certainties and become compatible with the bunch of potential partners and typical opponents. Modern strange stuff can wait or at most be hinted at.

[mw64ahw]

I've been playing 6♦ with a side 4-card suit for a while after picking up and developing a complete structure, so
2♦-2♥
2♠ 4cM - 2N Describe?
enables you to show the strength and suit. You could extend this to 6-5 via 4♣/♦, if showing weak minors via 2N/3♣, but I'd always show a 5 card Major first.

Likewise I've also recently started playing 6M with 4/5 card side suits as per the structure I shared recently. The 65s can be capped at 8hcp if you open Rule 20. With these you can bid the 5-card minor over ops interference given the playing strength.

Should you be playing these? It's certainly not what I originally learnt, but I would be competing over opponents one level opening so why not. Do I preempt partner? occasionally yes, but this usually on game contracts that are a close call and when partner does have a positive bid it's good to be able to shape out.

Finally, I've also looked at a 5M multi, which may or may not have a 4+ side suit. The hand above works with a 2♦ opening. Again the structure I have seems good after running a few simulations and is based on a number of articles I've come across. The legality is questionable in some venues.

[jdiana]

I know there's a lot of material out there on preempts but, for anyone who's interested, Gavin Wolpert has an upcoming class on weak two bids - https://wolpertbridg...pcoming-classes

[DavidKok]

mw64ahw, on 2024-July-28, 04:32, said:

I've been playing 6♦ with a side 4-card suit for a while after picking up and developing a complete structure, so
2♦-2♥
2♠ 4cM - 2N Describe?
enables you to show the strength and suit. You could extend this to 6-5 via 4♣/♦, if showing weak minors via 2N/3♣, but I'd always show a 5 card Major first.

Likewise I've also recently started playing 6M with 4/5 card side suits as per the structure I shared recently. The 65s can be capped at 8hcp if you open Rule 20. With these you can bid the 5-card minor over ops interference given the playing strength.

Should you be playing these? It's certainly not what I originally learnt, but I would be competing over opponents one level opening so why not. Do I preempt partner? occasionally yes, but this often on game contracts that are a close call and when partner does have a positive bid it's good to be able to shape out.

Finally, I've also looked at a 5M multi, which may or may not have a 4+ side suit. The hand above works with a 2♦ opening. Again the structure I have seems good after running a few simulations and is based on a number of articles I've come across. The legality is questionable in some venues.

I think this is a great example of how I would like to not go about this, and I wrote that the connection between opening requirements and constructive gadgets should not be so strong (in this other thread) precisely in anticipation of stuff like this.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2024-July-28, 08:07, said:

I think this is a great example of how I would like to not go about this, and I wrote that the connection between opening requirements and constructive gadgets should not be so strong (in this other thread) precisely in anticipation of stuff like this.

I'm trying to keep a more open-minded approach to the weak 2-suited/extreme shapes as it's often better to play in one of these when the contract is yours. I also see some much more experienced players using some of these approaches and like to experiment with them. I tend to play a semi-disciplined approach and rely on partner to know what is possible opposite a pre-empt. Frankly your statement above seems a bit odd; bids are there to describe your hand.
In the example above several preference the weaker contract. Opening 2♦ as a Multi makes finding 4♥ trivial after 3♣ interference. With a bit of imagination and knowing 56 is possible the ♦ slam is not out of the question.

[jillybean]

Thank you.

[kenberg]

I believe that I would pass in second seat with my 11 red cards but if not I would open 2D on the folowing reasoning. We are white aganist red giving a little room for craziness. If I open 2D and find that after three more calls the opponents are playing a 4S (maybe 2S by Lho, pass by pard, 4S on my right, I will leave it be.But if it gets back to me and the opponents are at 3S I will now bid 4H. Pard may wonder if I have lost my mind but he will figiure I have a two suiter with more diamonds than hearts and will choose approrpiately..

Of course as the hands are, we have spades, not the opponents, and pard has a good hand. What will happen after I open 2D? Pard sees 6 very likely diamond tricks and he has values in the other suits, he miight well bid 3NT. I will have to think about that, but E has no club to lead and so 3NT will come home. As would 4H and 5D, although I see someone went down in 4D, how I don't know.

But I am pretty sure I would pass in second seat, and now switching to fourth seat I would double 3C opening, now back to second seat I would happily bid 4H in response to the X.

I would hate to have to give proof my choies are right but they seem to work here.

[jillybean]

kenberg, on 2024-July-30, 09:23, said:

We are white aganist red giving a little room for craziness.

I like your style, we need more room for fun.

[DavidKok]

It is popular right now to have a wild preemptive style white on red, especially in third, and more disciplined in other seats and vulnerabilities. I think this is a step in the right direction, but people are overestimating the effects of the seating and vulnerability. It is more sophisticated to have wildly different approaches, and I used to have a full 16-piece (really 12-piece because fourth seat preempts are special, but those were included too) crosstable with our agreements depending on seating and vulnerability, complete with example minimum and maximum example hands and HCP and suit quality requirements. In my experience the nuance rarely gained - aggressive was just better, and we were missing out by restricting it to certain seats and colours only.

[jillybean]

All of the references to weak 2's in bridge books that I have come across, and I assume that my partners and potential partners have read, state that opening a weak 2 (in first and second) seat is strictly forbidden. These 'rules' are where I get the most amusing Director Calls from. Some even suggest avoiding opening a weak 2 with a side 3 card major.

I do like trying new stuff, especially less common approaches. I don't know if weak2's with a 4cM is popular in North America ?

If we adopt this style of preempting with a 4cM should partner be a little more liberal in bidding a major over partners 2♦ opening?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-August-06, 15:10, said:

All of the references to weak 2's in bridge books that I have come across, and I assume that my partners and potential partners have read, state that opening a weak 2 (in first and second) seat is strictly forbidden. These 'rules' are where I get the most amusing Director Calls from. Some even suggest avoiding opening a weak 2 with a side 3 card major.

If your books really state that, I suggest burning them

jillybean, on 2024-August-06, 15:10, said:

I do like trying new stuff, especially less common approaches. I don't know if weak2's with a 4cM is popular in North America ?

If we adopt this style of preempting with a 4cM should partner be a little more liberal in bidding a major over partners 2♦ opening?

I agree that this is an interesting question.. but I suggest opening a specific thread so that things are not lost to prosperity.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2024-August-06, 15:10, said:

If we adopt this style of preempting with a 4cM should partner be a little more liberal in bidding a major over partners 2♦ opening?

I don't play more liberally because the range of shapes a Weak 2 has is increased.

I use 2♥ to instigate shape and strength and other bids are there to improve the situation if available. Some scenarios

• you have a shortage in ♦, and a long weak suit of your own. In this case I go via 2N asking partner to bid 3♣ then Pass/Correct.
• you have 5+♠ and some support for ♦. Bid 2♠ then Pass/Correct
• Weak with 55 in the Majors and short ♦; as 1. but bid 3♦ then Pass/Correct

Given that 2♥ allows full resolution of shape it can be worthwhile to use this with some lighter hcp 55 hands. I may do this with a 6 modified loser count.

Remember 2♦ is a pre-empt. Partner should recognise when there is a potential game otherwise your aim is to make things tough for the ops especially if they have a potential game.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-August-06, 15:25, said:

If your books really state that, I suggest burning them


I agree that this is an interesting question.. but I suggest opening a specific thread so that things are not lost to prosperity.

Good suggestion, I will start a new thread

I may have taken some editorial liberty with ‘strictly forbidden’ but the message is no, do not open 2x with a side 4cM
I’m reading a book now , albeit copyright 2015 that mentions the style of not opening 2x with a side 3cM