Weak two bids
#41
Posted 2008-October-08, 22:53
By the way, I'm Dutch and almost everybody there seems to be playing multi and Muiderberg, including some otherwise reasonable people. I don't think I like it but it might be playable.
- hrothgar
#42
Posted 2008-October-09, 08:07
han, on Oct 9 2008, 04:53 AM, said:
By the way, I'm Dutch and almost everybody there seems to be playing multi and Muiderberg, including some otherwise reasonable people. I don't think I like it but it might be playable.
Well, I guess, if I am to justify "playable" in any sort of rational way then I suppose I mean that compared to another common system, say SA for example, strong twos, though it clearly has some minuses also has some significant pluses.
And if, equally, I am to justify my assertion that strong twos are not "best", then I guess I mean that it seems inefficient to allocate the whole of the two level to strong bids - hands which actually don't come up that often.
But this seems to be an argument that is impossible to win in any meaningful way. In theory the Benjamin convention combines the best of both worlds by still giving an option for the strong but not GF hands and also having 2 weak twos. It is a convention associated with Acol, but is, in fact, capable of being grafted onto any "natural" system - yet this too is not "cool". As Frances pointed out in another thread, "Benji Acol" tends to be played by older, not so good tournament players and you can almost sense, "we're beating these two" as soon as you sit down and see the CC. But, really, all this says is that the opponents concerned probably haven't worked on improving their game in quite some years - as opposed to the question of whether their CC is actually any good or not.
Nick
#43
Posted 2008-October-09, 08:24
2♣ = GF / weak ♦
2♦ = Multi, including a range between 2NT and 2♣
2♥/2♠ = Dutch style
2N = strong
#44
Posted 2008-October-09, 08:50
NickRW, on Oct 8 2008, 11:28 PM, said:
han, on Oct 9 2008, 03:34 AM, said:
Looose definition of "playable" Han - that's why I put it in quotes.
And, even if you want a strict definition, how do you determine accurately that any given system loses or gains 'x' IMPs over 'y' boards. For a start off there is the human factor - maybe the team that appeared to gain with their system were actually better card players and not better bidders at all.
Even if you try to determine the results over thousands of boards with robot bidders and DD results to simulate the play, as we all know I hope, programming a computer to bid well is no easy task - so then there would be questions over the quality of the programming for each different system.
Anyway, if weak options at the two level are all you need to make a good system, why don't we see more of this sort of thing (just as an example):
2C = GF
2D = multi, including what most people think of as a 2N opening
2H/2S = Dutch or Polish style
2N = Minors
That (or other possibilities like it) has lots more pre-emptive options than "standard" - yet not so many are doing it.
Nick
A major reason may be, that you face legal limitation,
where to play such a set up.
Another, that there is a little bit more to the 2H / 2S
openings than just saying 2M showes ?M+??, you need to
discuss follow ups.
Similar 2D multi, there are various flavours out there,
meaning the follow ups will differ.
And if you happen to play with various partners, you may
think, that it is not worth it to discuss those follow ups.
Personnally I think this structure makes a lot of sense,
but ...
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#45
Posted 2008-October-09, 09:17
han, on Oct 9 2008, 05:53 AM, said:
Much of what I play is in the category of 'inferior by playable' (IMO). The main two reasons for playing methods you think are inferior are
i) partner disagrees (or they are the only methods you can agree on)
ii) you don't have the time/energy/memory power to play something else and/or there are bigger gains elsewhere
Here are two examples.
I think it's inferior to open 1NT on all 5332 hands in range with a 5-card major (I don't want to argue this here, just accept that's my opinion). In my serious partnerships, we don't do that. But if I agreed to play with e.g. you (han) I would probably agree to open 1NT on all these hands, because it takes quite a lot of system design to make opening 1M work. Unless we were going to be playing together for years, I would want to concentrate on more important areas of system e.g. carding.
Similarly, I think some of my agreements about doubles in competitive auctions are inferior even in my regular partnerships. But we already have pretty complicated rules and many specific agreements to decide what a double means, and we simply aren't prepared to have even more specialised agreements to cover sequences that almost never come up.
To my mind, Acol Twos are in the same category. I once played 48 boards with Bob Rowlands. We played Acol Twos, because we both knew how they worked, and we didn't think there was a huge loss from playing them, and anything else would have required much more detailed discussion.
#46
Posted 2008-October-09, 10:43
#47
Posted 2008-October-09, 11:09
Adebisi, on Oct 2 2008, 05:51 PM, said:
It is interesting that you mention the rarity of the weak two bid. Hrothgar as written a very complete description of Frelling two bids. As I recall, they occur 4 or 5 times more often than weak two bids. Essentially, a Frelling two bid is preemptive and is like playing DONT in the opening position instead of over a 1NT opening. 2D is diamonds and a major. 2H is both majors. 2S is a normal weak two bid in spades or four spades and six clubs (My memory may be wrong on this one.) I have always thought that anyone playing DONT would be very happy playing Frelling two bids.
I once tried the exercise of determining the probability of finding a 7-card or better fit when you hold two 4-card suits. My calculations (which might be in error) said this is true 67% of the time. Occasionally it is not in one of your 4-card suits. Someone can correct me if they have better information. Anyway, I have always thought that using DONT or Frelling two bids with two 4-card suits was not terribly risky with 67% probabilility of finding at least a 7-card fit. There is also the fact that the opponents may save you.
Frelling two bids are similar to the 1-level bids used by some systems to show 2-suited hands. The difference is the levels are reversed. As I recall Lambda with about 8-12 HCP shows 2-suited hands with 1H, 1S, or 1NT (CRM) and 5+ cards at the 2-level. Someone playing Frelling two bids would show 5+ cards (perhaps unlimited) at the 1-level and 2-suited weak hands at the 2-level.
When I was reading this topic, I couldn't help but note Fred's comments. If you give up weak two bids for some other method you are likely to gain when hands fitting your method occur and lose when they don't occur. This is true of any system you might use. The question boils down to, "How often does the situation exist?" and, "How much will we gain if it does exist?". I guess there is a third question, "Does it match your personality?" For example, I had a partner that hated playing in a Moysian fit. When playing with him, you carefully avoided this situation. It's better to keep your partner happy than to find that magic fit.
#48
Posted 2008-October-09, 11:41
Tcyk, on Oct 9 2008, 12:09 PM, said:
Adebisi, on Oct 2 2008, 05:51 PM, said:
I once tried the exercise of determining the probability of finding a 7-card or better fit when you hold two 4-card suits. My calculations (which might be in error) said this is true 67% of the time. Occasionally it is not in one of your 4-card suits. Someone can correct me if they have better information.
From BRIDGE ODDS COMPLETE by Frost, Kibler, Telfer, and Traub (2nd ed, 1971):
Odds of 3-card support for one of the 4-card suits in a 4432 hand = 91.8 %
Odds of 4-card support for one of the 4-card suits in a 4432 hand = 60.3%
And if partner does NOT have 3-card support, then he is 2254 or more unbalanced and you still have a 7-card fit in one or both of his suits.
Amazing, I am switching today!!!
Also, 54xx (x <4) distributions occur 2.6 more frequently than 6-card suits (with no other suit longer than 3). If you consider only 6-card majors and any 5-4 then the ratio is 2 x 2.6 = 5.2 more frequent.
Larry
C3: Copious Canape Club is still my favorite system. (Ultra upgraded, PM for notes)
Santa Fe Precision ♣ published 8/19. TOP3 published 11/20. Magic experiment (Science Modernized) with Lenzo. 2020: Jan Eric Larsson's Cottontail ♣. 2020. BFUN (Bridge For the UNbalanced) 2021: Weiss Simplified ♣ (Canape & Relay). 2022: Canary ♣ Modernized, 2023-4: KOK Canape.
#49
Posted 2008-October-09, 13:31
2C = Strong, not GF. Acol 2 type - fairly aggressive interpretation of what consitutes a strong 2 if the primary suit is a major to allow aggressive 1H/1S openings. Can also include a couple of NT ranges.
2D = Multi, includes a NT range and strong 4441 types
2H = GF and a couple of NT ranges. It is ugly as sin opening GF hands this high, but they are rare and we need (er prefer) a ceiling on 2C.
2S = Spades and another 5/5 weak
2N = Minors 5/5 weak
I don't think anyone else in the world plays this - but I like having a home for strong 2s with as many pre-empts as I can squash in. It seems - er - well - if "playable" is not a cool word - then "workable".
Nick
#50
Posted 2008-October-09, 23:12
PrecisionL, on Oct 9 2008, 12:41 PM, said:
Odds of 3-card support for one of the 4-card suits in a 4432 hand = 91.8 %
Odds of 4-card support for one of the 4-card suits in a 4432 hand = 60.3%
And if partner does NOT have 3-card support, then he is 2254 or more unbalanced and you still have a 7-card fit in one or both of his suits.
Amazing, I am switching today!!!
Also, 54xx (x <4) distributions occur 2.6 more frequently than 6-card suits (with no other suit longer than 3). If you consider only 6-card majors and any 5-4 then the ratio is 2 x 2.6 = 5.2 more frequent.
Larry
It's really not as simple as that.
When I preempt at the two-level, I'm not generally hoping to find a seven-card fit, or even an eight-card fit. When I really win is if we find a nine card fit or more, and partner can raise my preempt aggressively to really pressure the opposition. Most good players can get to the right spot over a preemptive 2♦ bid (regardless of meaning) if that's the last bid their opponents make.
There is also the issue that our fit might be in opener's other suit (the one he didn't open) and it might become hard for us to locate this fit in competition.
And I bet the odds of finding a seven, eight, nine card fit in my suit when I am 6322 are better than the odds of finding a seven, eight, nine card fit in one of my suits when I am 4432.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#51
Posted 2008-October-10, 07:24
PrecisionL, on Oct 9 2008, 05:41 PM, said:
Yeah - well - I share some of your enthusiasm for two suited openings - but saying that we have at least two 7 card fits elsewhere is hardly rocket science - any two bridge hands always have at least one 8+ card fit or two (maybe 3) 7 card fits regardless of what your openings show. The real question is how to best find our fit(s) while (particularly if we are weak) preventing opps from finding theirs - and how much does that method gain versus how would we have gained had we used the bid in some other sensible fashion.
Personally I think (and it is think) that downgrading the standard 2H/2S into the multi, giving up standard 2D altogether and reusing the bids freed up is a worthwhile trade - but, even if it is worth it, there are pluses and minuses - so it isn't a simple matter.
Nick
#52
Posted 2008-October-10, 07:40
awm, on Oct 10 2008, 12:12 AM, said:
Quote
And I bet the odds of finding a seven, eight, nine card fit in my suit when I am 6322 are better than the odds of finding a seven, eight, nine card fit in one of my suits when I am 4432.
True, but isn't frequency of the opening also a criteria for choosing 2-bids @ pairs.
Probability of 2 card support (or better) for 6-card suit = 76.3 %.
Prob of 3-card support (or better) = 42.7 %.
Prob of 4-card support or better = 15.0 %.
Prob of 5-card support (or better) = 3.0 %.
Perhaps a better comparison (hard to calculate) is the 8+ card fit for either of the 4-4 suits.
Larry
C3: Copious Canape Club is still my favorite system. (Ultra upgraded, PM for notes)
Santa Fe Precision ♣ published 8/19. TOP3 published 11/20. Magic experiment (Science Modernized) with Lenzo. 2020: Jan Eric Larsson's Cottontail ♣. 2020. BFUN (Bridge For the UNbalanced) 2021: Weiss Simplified ♣ (Canape & Relay). 2022: Canary ♣ Modernized, 2023-4: KOK Canape.
#53
Posted 2008-October-25, 15:42
glen, on Sep 26 2008, 08:33 AM, said:
You may recall that in 2006 at the world championships Karen McCallum and Matt Grannovetter played 5 card suit weak 2 bids in the mixed pairs (some pretty awful suits too) and won, largely because of these bids. So perhaps 5 card suit weak 2 bids work well at the club and world championships, but badly at NABC's?
Bill
#54
Posted 2008-October-25, 15:44
#55
Posted 2008-October-25, 15:57
glen, on Oct 25 2008, 04:44 PM, said:
I very much like weak 2's with a good 5 card suit (important to have some shape, not 5-3-3-2 and probably not 5-4-2-2) with those restrictions, it greatly increases the frequency of opening the weak 2 which is a real plus.
Maybe the mixed pairs is a different deal...
#56
Posted 2008-October-25, 16:17
Likewise a Bailey weak two, even though not too shapely, at least puts responder in good position to judge what to do next - see:
Bailey Weak Twos (Evan Bailey's Bridge Site)
#57
Posted 2008-October-25, 17:05
glen, on Oct 25 2008, 05:17 PM, said:
Likewise a Bailey weak two, even though not too shapely, at least puts responder in good position to judge what to do next - see:
Bailey Weak Twos (Evan Bailey's Bridge Site)
I like the idea (i think from EHAA) of playing 10-13 1nt opening. that way the 5-3-3-2 and 5-4-2-2 can be opened 1nt rather thatn with a weak 2.