[Gerben42]

I've done a simulation and that says that unless your expectation in a pairs tournament is above 63%, you will get more masterpoints by creating swings with your system. This is assuming that the new system will not hurt your average.

And if your expected value is above 63%, you're probably bored and in the wrong tournament.

[mike777]

YOu can also check out "Simple Club", listed in bridge encyclopedia it has many things in common with Russ's style. Canape, int two bids

alot of system taken from Roman and Neopolitian club

one level promise 2 suited hand 100%
2c =3 suited
other 2 level one suited

1c=strong
1d, 1h, 1s=100% two suited....4 cards promised in first bid suit, canape often
1nt=12-15
2c=3 suiter less than strong club
2d, 2h, 2s, 2nt, 3c all one suited int hand.

[marcD]

Do not know if we can lump weak two bids altogether :
- I think 2♠ is extremely useful (although playing Muiderberg + multi instead seems to work)
- I have mixed feelings about 2♥ ; the preemptive value is marginal + you risk pushing opponents to a making 4♠
- I think 2♦ is extremely effective but the price too pay is probably too high in terms of constructive bidding

I have also played, the 1.5 opening approach in the past but frankly results were not convincing . Some restrict them to M+clubs for constructive bidding purposes but then the frequency is too low to bother

[Adebisi]

Hey, i dont play weak 2s already ca. 4 years.And after that im convinced i will never play them.They occur so rare. They were 1st preemtive bids players started to use, but 54 hands occur 3-4 times more than 6 card suit. So, Muiderberg 2H/S 5-10 5+MAJ/4+ minor is more effective.Im a regular tourney player and i can say 100% was winning decision to get them out.I bet when people started to use them , even weak 2 instead of strong 2 was "from other world", so it stayed, they dindnt come to that, that 54 hands happens 3-4 times more and that approach even more useful.Ok, sure you loośe some hands but SURE u gain more.U never get under - 500 or -800, sometimes u loose fit in other minor: i remember hands i played and made 4H when weak 2 plyers stayed in 2S -1.And I started to play without them when i read some article from BFallenius or MNilsland that weak 2s are loosers in the long run, and i could say they are.

[benlessard]

Im playing a strong club system and im not ready to give up my weak 2D to play Roman, so it will rain cows before im going to give up weak 2s in majors.

[dake50]

Without weak 2 doesn't mean without a meaning for 2D,2H,2S replacing 5-11, 5-6 suit. What is proposed for that replacement? As 'fred' noted a particular replacement. Now I can see a real discussion.

[Adebisi]

With my pd we started to play 2C/D in Precisonlike system as 11-15 6+suit or 5+suit with 4+ other minor.They worked very well, coz 1D was only 11-13 bal , any 4441(rare) or 4MAJ+any 5+minor,but only 2 level pre bids we had 2H/S.So we started to play Muiderberg and after that we could more frequently open with 2 of a MAJ.
Some players play 2H/S as 10-13 6+suit, or 2H as 10-13 4H/5+minor and 2S as
10-13 4S/5+minor.Those openings with 54 are very frequent and very precise, and after those openings pd has usually clear picture what to do.Thats why very effective.

[Free]

I'm not convinced that a Muiderberg 2♥ is very effective. That's why I play 2♥ as a weak hand with at least 4-4M. This is a real killer: even more frequent than Muiderberg, both suits are known, and a lot more difficult to defend against!
I play minimulti and Muiderberg 2♠ in combination with this, and it works great.

After playing a lot of Fantunes (not having any weak two's), I'm convinced that you lose huge on the weak two hands. I think the tradeoff might be worth it in some situations. The Fantunes two's however aren't (imo)...

[skjaeran]

Free, on Oct 6 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that a Muiderberg 2♥ is very effective. That's why I play 2♥ as a weak hand with at least 4-4M. This is a real killer: even more frequent than Muiderberg, both suits are known, and a lot more difficult to defend against!

Why is that? I used to play a lot against Ekren's 2♦ and 2♥ earlier, but those are uncommon in Norway these days, since most people had very little trouble defending.

Of course, when the Ekren opener hit a good fit with partner, it's hard to defend against it, since they jump to the 4-level (or higher) on the first round of bidding.

[Free]

skaeran, on Oct 6 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

Free, on Oct 6 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that a Muiderberg 2♥ is very effective.  That's why I play 2♥ as a weak hand with at least 4-4M.  This is a real killer: even more frequent than Muiderberg, both suits are known, and a lot more difficult to defend against!

Why is that? I used to play a lot against Ekren's 2♦ and 2♥ earlier, but those are uncommon in Norway these days, since most people had very little trouble defending.

Of course, when the Ekren opener hit a good fit with partner, it's hard to defend against it, since they jump to the 4-level (or higher) on the first round of bidding.

First of all, 2♦ is like the worst bid to open with both Majors! Both 2♣ (better at finding the best M part score) or 2♥ (non forcing) are waaaay more efficient.

After an Ekren 2♥, it's not easy to find a superior 5-3M fit (if that's one of your goals at least). Most of the time you just try to find 3NT or some minor fit. Fighting the part score battle is imo way harder after 2♥ than after a 2m opening.
After Muiderberg on the other hand, opps can easily introduce ♠ at 2-level (2♠ or Dbl). The second suit doesn't bother anyone, it's just handled like a weak two with a 5 card suit.

Just my experience

[PrecisionL]

Playing a Strong club and canape system we have played 2M = 5332 (MPs) or 5M & 4+♣ (IMPs) 10-14 hcp. 2 of a minor was usually 6 cards, sometimes 5-4 and 10-14 hcp (without Hxxx in a major). Both worked well at IMPs. 5-6 IMP swings when opponent's get too high or in the wrong suit. However, 5M332 were troublesome hands in our system. We (Dwayne and I) don't miss weak 2-bids in the majors.

Larry

P.S. System note url below includes 2M = 5332 / 5224♣ only.

Addition 10/8/08: Bridge World, October 2008, pg. 26

FREQUENCY vs. EFFICIENCY by Danny Kleinman

"The fundamental theorem of method selection is that there are tradeoffs. One is between frequency and efficiency. When Edgar Kaplan noted, in a 1958 essay [sorry my collection does not go back that far - LPL], that the weak two-bids used by Americans in world championships lost imps, he neglected to mention one of the reasons: their use on too many (and thus some inappropriate) hands. .... a consequence of permitting them [5-card weak two's at favorable vulnerability - LPL] routinely is that more than two-thirds of one's weak two's will deliver only five cards in the bid suit ... creating insoluble problems for responder in competitive auctions"

[pigpenz]

did not Barry Crane play strong twos in first and second seat?
Matchpoint wise he did just fine

[TylerE]

Barry Crane probably could have won playing Goren or Vanderbilt Club or...

[Lobowolf]

pigpenz, on Oct 8 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

did not Barry Crane play strong twos in first and second seat?

...and look what happened to him.

[glen]

I'll ignore the classless comment...

Here's the cc from Canada's Bowman brothers (Seniors squad):
Bowmans cc
ACOL anyone?

[NickRW]

glen, on Oct 8 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

I'll ignore the classless comment...

Here's the cc from Canada's Bowman brothers (Seniors squad):
Bowmans cc
ACOL anyone?

I'm quite sure that is a perfectly playable CC.

Yes, playing strong 2s won't give you any "cool points" as it isn't fashionable with the avant-garde. And you will lose some edge perhaps on the weak 2 hands. But you do gain a lower ceiling for your 1x bids - which allows greater definition there - and that can be worth a quite a few IMPs in the long run when your side can either find a game that others can't or you manage to stay out of one that others are stretching too far to find. (This lower ceiling on the 1x bids coming as a side effect of strong twos is the reason why Brits/Acol players tend to reverse about a point lighter than seems to be typical for those following SA and related systems).

Whether 4 strong 2s are "optimum" is certainly open to debate (I don't think they are best myself) - but it is quite definitey a "playable" alternative.

Like I said earlier in the thread - it is not whether one bid is good or bad - it is how it all fits together to make a whole that is important.

Nick

[han]

Quote

Whether 4 strong 2s are "optimum" is certainly open to debate (I don't think they are best myself) - but it is quite definitey a "playable" alternative.

What do you mean by playable? If your 2-openings make you lose 10 IMPs on average on a 64 board match compared to standard 2-openings, are they playable?

[blackshoe]

Nick's comments are interesting to me. George Rosenkranz invented Romex because he saw (over half a century ago, now) two problems with Standard American. One of them was the wide range of the opening one bid. He chose a different solution to Acol's though — in Romex, a 1NT opening is artificial and forcing, and shows a hand that in SA would reverse or jump shift (or a balanced 19-20). 2♦ is artificial, strong and forcing, showing either a game force with primary diamonds or 21-22 balanced. This alleviates the second problem Rosenkranz perceived - that too many game forcing hands had to open 2♣. Minor suit oriented hands are particularly difficult in SA, but taking the diamond hands out of 2♣ makes them less so. There is a fourth forcing bid: 2NT is natural, balanced, and forcing to game, because it shows 25-26 HCP. This eliminates a frequent problem for responder in SA, where this hand is most often shown with a 3NT bid — and now responder is not sure whether to look for a major suit fit.

IMO, this all fits together rather well.

[MickyB]

han, on Oct 9 2008, 04:34 AM, said:

Quote

Whether 4 strong 2s are "optimum" is certainly open to debate (I don't think they are best myself) - but it is quite definitey a "playable" alternative.

What do you mean by playable? If your 2-openings make you lose 10 IMPs on average on a 64 board match compared to standard 2-openings, are they playable?

No. 10 imps per 64 boards is quite a lot, I'd be surprised if you'd lose more than that from (one pair of a team) playing no 2D/H/S openings.

[NickRW]

han, on Oct 9 2008, 03:34 AM, said:

What do you mean by playable? If your 2-openings make you lose 10 IMPs on average on a 64 board match compared to standard 2-openings, are they playable?

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