Such opening bids, on the two level or higher, were referred to and designated as Shut Out Bids in the early days of the game of duplicate contract bridge. The concept of such opening bids are, however, not relegated to only opening bids, but also to any player in rotation, even those players, who would like to make either an overcall or compete in the auction. The concept behind such preemptive bids were soon applied to other bridge concepts and thus were born also preemptive overcalls, preemptive raises, preemptive responses.
In the most orthodox sense the concept of the preemptive bid, either as an opening or as an overcall, was limited to the three level or higher. The original definition, arbitrary indeed, demanded that a preemptive bid on the three level be made on a suit holding a minimum of seven cards; ergo, any preemptive bid on the four level promised a length of a minimum of eight cards; etc, etc. This definition withstood the arguments of the general bridge community for many years, but was not entirely enforced if the player fudged every now and then. It simply was not considered good bridge if the player diverted from this definition.
However, in time the wisdom of the general playing public overcame such a strict and limiting definition. The partnership can and does base the decision to make a preemptive bid on other, more accurately evaluated criteria and the bridge player is more attuned to the situation at the table regarding the possibility of making a profitable sacrifice and also calculating the end result when confronted with different states of vulnerability.
Weak Two Bids: Although, by definition, a Weak Two Bid, either as an opening bid or as an overcall, is a form of a preemptive bid, the concept of the Weak Two Bid is more definitive in design and more clearly defined. A Weak Two Bid, as defined by the bridge player and the expert bridge player, is a preemptive bid promising working values in the suit of the preempt. The preemptive bids, known as Weak Two Bids, are sometimes defined as disciplined or undisciplined, weak or moderately strong. These sub-definitions, however, are a matter of partnership agreement.
The attempt made with this list is to list those conventional methods, which demand of the practitioner to make a bid on the two level or higher. Therefore, Weak Two Bids are included and are not treated separately.
Any and all contributions not listed here will be and shall be greatly appreciated. There are many methods of opening the auction, of overcalling or competing in the auction starting on the two level or higher, and we hope to add many of these methods to this list.
What are the requirements for a preempt at the three level and higher. Is there a universal standard for preemptive bids. We present the basics and points to consider. What information are you giving your partner when you make a preemptive bid.
Weak Two Bids
This web page contains the developed parameters and describes the devised features of the Weak Two bid and its evolution in the game of bridge. These opening bids and also overcall bids on the two level are based on several features. They differ from partnership to partnership owing to the employment, which can be described as disciplined or undisciplined. The main perceived difference between preemptive bids and Weak Two bids is that Weak Two bids occur only on the two level, whereas a preemptive bid can be employed on all levels except the one level.
Defense Agreements Against Weak Two Bids
There are many forms of defense methods against any and all conventional methods. Presented are several agreements.
Alexandre Two Bids - Alexander Two Bids
The origin of the Alexandre Two Bids, aka Alexander Two Bids, remain unknown. Any information as to the origin of this concept would be greatly appreciated. The concept is based on parameters of opening the auction or by overcalling, if possible, a suit on the two level.
This updated and revised version of the Agius Convention was contributed by Mr. Paul Agius in March 2014. The Agius conventional method is used to help quantify the quality of a hand when the partnership uses the LTC (Losing Trick Count) in evaluating hands. All rebids following a forcing response by the responder are based on this evaluation method. This is a .pdf file and will be automatically opened by your browser.
This updated and revised version of the Agius Convention was contributed by Mr. Paul Agius in December 2012. The Agius conventional method is used to help quantify the quality of a hand when the partnership uses the LTC (Losing Trick Count) in evaluating hands. All rebids following a forcing response by the responder are based on this evaluation method. This is a .pdf file and will be automatically opened by your browser.
This particular conventional method was devised by Mr. Paul Agius and contributed to our site on October 6, 2009. This represents the original version as proposed by Mr. Paul Agius and is employed to help quantify the quality of a hand when the partnership uses the LTC (Losing Trick Count) in evaluating hands. All rebids following a forcing response by the responder are based on this evaluation method. This is a .pdf file and will be automatically opened by your browser.
Bailey Weak Two Bids
The original website of Mr. Evan Bailey has been deleted. This treatment was originated by Mr. Evan Bailey of San Diego, California, United States, and Mr. Edward Barlow of Sacramento, California, United States. The concept is that one partner opens a Weak Two bid in any suit except Clubs, and this opening shows specific distributional attributes. The requirements for Bailey Weak Two bids allow only five distributions: 5-3-3-2, 6-3-2-2, 6-3-3-1, 5-4-2-2, and 5-4-3-1. This concept has only been archived and preserved and archived on this site in a .pdf file format for future reference.
Note: The original version as presented by the developer online has been removed. A duplicate fot this excellent write-up has been posted by members of the La Jolla Bridge Club, Unit 526, La Jolla, California, United States. The included .pdf file is from the original version as presented by the developer and posted online.
A scheme for opening Two-Bids or bids on the two level: Majors: weak; Diamonds: artificial (near) game-force; Clubs: artificial, an Acol two-bid with long suit(s) as yet unspecified.
This conventional method originated with Mr. William (aka Will) Aubrey, and is posted on his website (Note: presently off line). He designated these bids as Brozel Preempts because the structure is the same as the Brozel bids used over a 1 No Trump opening by the opponents. The overcaller must have a distribution of 5-5 or better with values of 13-15 points, including distribution, to employ them.
Chih-Kuang Two Bids or CK2 Bids
The origin of this method is unknown although is has been strongly suggested that the concept originated in Taiwan in the 1950s. Any additional information as to the identity of the author, also photographic material, would be greatly appreciated. These Weak Two Bids are considered in the class of Brown Sticker conventional methods. Such conventional methods are banned by certain national and international sponsoring organizations, sometimes only in the level of competition, and are generally restricted by the sponsoring organization.
Concept Preempts or Concept Preemptive Opening Bids
The origin of these conventional preemptive bids is unknown. Presented are the basic guidelines for such opening bids on the two level, except an opening of the strong, artificial 2 Clubs opening, which is strong without exception.
CRO Preemptive Bids
The origin of these preempts, generally on the two level, are unknown. The concept of a partnership being able to show or indicate a two-suited holding is as old as the game itself, and the variations are numerous. The Color-Rank-Other (or Order) preemptive bids can therefore be altered, customized, varied according to the individual partnership agreement. Caution: classified as a Brown Sticker convention.
Culbertson Two Bid
This is the traditional use of an opening two bid in a suit to show a hand which can almost guarantee game, or even slam. This is also referred to as the Forcing Two-Bid, the Demand Bid, or Strong Two. It formed the foundation of the Culbertson system. However, during the evolution of the game of bridge, this method has been abandoned in favor of Weak Two Bids, the Acol Two Bid, etc.
Defense Against Preemptive Openings
Defending against preemptive bids on the three level have encouraged bridge partnerships to devise several methods to counteract and counter-attack, intending to share as much information as possible with the limited bidding space available. Some of these partnership agreements are simple, sometimes radical, methods and some have evolved into conventions of their own standing.
Disguised Two Hearts or Two Hearts Disguised
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The concept is to open the auction with a Weak Two bid in Hearts, which signifies a point range between 5 and 9 high card points and shows a distribution of 5-5 in either Major suit and in one of the Minor suits. The opening bid does not show one specific suit, which is a requirement of most sponsored bridge events.
Five No Trump Opening Bid
The origin of this conventional method dates back to the very early days of organized bridge and perhaps even earlier. The holding contains only one Losing Trick in a holding with both Minor suits.
This is a term for an action equivalent to a preemptive bid or overcall and also a sacrifice bid in order to play the score. Another term is save. This particular term is classified as an obsolete coloquialism since it is no longer employed. A flag-flying action is made in the expectation of booking a greater loss if the opponents declare the contract or are permitted to declare the contract. This action of flag-flying was set into motion as soon as it becomes apparent that the opponents have reached their optimum contract. The action is not intended during the auction, which is different from a preemptive bid and more similar to the definition of a sacrifice or save. The origin of the term is unknown. However, it is a known fact that the term originated only after a method or methods of scoring competitive games had been introduced.
Four No Trump as Weak Minor Preempt
This method devised by Mr. Terence Reese and Mr. Jeremy Flint is part of the Little Major System and was subsequently adopted by several American bridge experts to distinguish between a strong and a weak Minor suit game preempt. Any opening bid of 4 No Trump indicates a weak preempt of 5 Clubs or 5 Diamonds. Such a holding shows less than 5 controls by counting an Ace or Void as 2 controls, and a King or a singleton as only one control. An opening bid, conversely, of 5 Clubs or 5 Diamonds would indicate a stronger preempt with five or more controls.
The origin of this conventional method for responding to Weak Two openings showing a two-suited holding is unknown as well as the responses for all forcing opening bids with almost game values. The following presentation is only in the language of The Netherlands and any contribution for a translation would be greatly appreciated. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Keen's Two Bids
The concept and conventional method was devised by Mr. Dave Keen of Mercyside, United Kingdom. This concept presents a full system of Two Bids, which can be played either as weak or strong.
Matthews Two Spades - Matthews 2 Spades
The origin of this concept is unknown. Owing to its lack of an anchor suit this conventional method is classified as a Brown Sticker convention and is only permitted in special bridge tournaments and final rounds of tournaments conducted by the World Bridge Federation. Before employment the player and partnership must submit for authorization by the sponsoring organization.
This concept is credited to Mr. J. I. McCabe of Columbia, South Carolina, United States, and is initiated once partner has opened the bidding with a Weak Two bid and the next player in rotation doubles. This is a conventional method whereby the Weak Two bidder and his partner can continue to bid and play in a new suit on the three level. In essence, the conventional response method provides a mechanism to differentiate signoff 3-level bids in a new suit, and various invitational game asking bids.
Major Suit Weak Two Bids
This variation has been provided by Mr. Dirk Waerenborgh of Belgium. This conventional method is a variation of the general guidelines for opening Weak Two Bids combined with the Muiderberg convention and includes a Preemptive Opening on the three level. The exception is that the Weak Two Bids are confined to only the two Major suits. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
The origin of this variation of the Ogust conventional method is unknown. This variation is a method of questioning the strength and location of control cards in the hand of the partner can be essential, if the responder holds sufficient values, properly located honors, and at least one entry to the to the dummy in case he becomes the declarer.
Namyats Preempt Transfer Bids
A preemptive opening of 4 Clubs or 4 Diamonds indicating either of the two Major suits devised by Mr. Victor Mitchell.
Defense Against Namyats Transfer Bids
There are many forms of defense methods against any and all conventional methods. It would be impossible to introduce them all since they are normally based on a partnership agreement and/or understanding. We do wish to present any defense mechanisms whenever possible and whenever we find them.
This concept is an integral part of the Romex Bidding System, devised and developed over the years by Mr. George Rosenkranz of Mexico in cooperation and collaboration with Mr. Phillip Alder. The principle behind the concept is based on the original Namyats convention, devised by Mr. Victor Mitchell. The basic structure remains the same, but the requirements are stricter and more accurately defined.
Preemptive Transfer Opening Bids
The Preemptive Opening Transfer, or Preemptive Transfer Opening Bids convention, in comparison to other Preemptive Transfer conventions, requires that an opening preemptive bid be made in the suit ranking below the long suit of the opener. The Preemptive Opening Transfer bid is generally made on the three level.
Roth Four Clubs Response To Preemptive Bids on the Three Level
This conventional method was originated by Mr. Alvin Leon Roth, a bridge author and theoretician, who partnered often with Mr. Jeff Rubens and Mr. Tobias Stone. The following concept was conceived by him to force the continuation of the auction following a preemptive bid by the partner on the three level in any suit. The main feature of this concept entails the desire of the responder to explore the possibilities of not only a game contract, but also the possibility of a slam contract.
Tiroler Berg Weak Two Bids
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The basis of the concept is the Weak Two bid in either Major suit with the original opening showing a specified suit. The opening can have several meanings, which are then clarified by the rebids.
Two Spades Response to a Weak 2 Hearts Opening
This method was suggested by Mr. Alvin Leon Roth when the opening is a Weak Two in Hearts, and promises values anywhere from 9 to 12 high card points. If this is the partnership agreement, then the 2 Spades first response is forcing and the opener must continue to describe the holding more accurately.
Two Under Transfer Preempt
This method was devised by Mr. Marty Bergen together with Mr. Larry Cohen and the convention uses a preemptive opening as an artificial Preempt at the Two Level and also at the Three Level and higher to indicate a specific suit two ranks higher than the bid suit. This convention allows the responder to use the intermediate suit for an attempt at game.
If you wish to include this feature, or any other feature, of the game of bridge in your partnership agreement, then please make certain that the concept is understood by both partners. Be aware whether or not the feature is alertable or not and whether an announcement should or must be made. Check with the governing body and/or the bridge district and/or the bridge unit prior to the game to establish the guidelines applied. Please include the particular feature on your convention card in order that your opponents are also aware of this feature during the bidding process, since this information must be made known to them according to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. We do not always include the procedure regarding Alerts and/or Announcements, since these regulations are changed and revised during time by the governing body. It is our intention only to present the information as concisely and as accurately as possible.
|Home Page I||Glossary||Home Page II|