[the hog]

Phil, I totally disagree with you here. I think a 2C opening is poor for a number of reasons - 2 suiters, even if they are Ms are notoriously difficult to show over a 2C opening, and yes I agree with Mike that good players will strive to pre empt a 2C opening much more readily than a 1S opening.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Nov 7 2006, 02:30 AM, said:

good players will strive to pre empt a 2C opening much more readily than a 1S opening.

Well, that goes both ways. If, on the one hand, 1♠ shows something about shape, there's a lot to tell about the hand (especially if you open 1♠ on 2-loser hands...), on the other hand, the 2♣ opener may contain the dreaded 23+ balanced hand, which is an aggressive preempter's worst nightmare and something the 1♠ opener could never show.

In short, while it's more attractive to preempt 2♣ than 1♠, it's definitely scarier to do so. Whether or not that evens it out, it's anyone's guess.

[the hog]

"In short, while it's more attractive to preempt 2♣ than 1♠, it's definitely scarier to do so. "

Actually I don't agree with this coment at all. I tend to find good players try to get in at all costs. You may well be right though in that mediocre ones seem to let you have a free run

[inquiry]

In my BridgeBrowser study of strong two suiters (while developing MisIry) I found a surprizing bit of data: Opening 2♣ gave better results than opening one of a suit. That surprized me, so I resticted to strong two suiter WITHOUT CLUBS, to see if strong club systems did better (on average) than opening one of the long suits. Again the answer was yes. This raises a lot of issues, is this due too vigerous competition after 1C/2C opening, is it due to less missed games (ie, 1suit-ppp), are on average --- people who play a strong club system better players than those who do not, etc. For strong hands with 17-18 hcp, only 1♣ opening bids averaged better than "average'. as the hands get stronger, opening 2♣ became the clear statistical winner. That was a huge surprise to me.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Nov 7 2006, 11:51 AM, said:

"In short, while it's more attractive to preempt 2♣ than 1♠, it's definitely scarier to do so. "

Actually I don't agree with this coment at all. I tend to find good players try to get in at all costs. You may well be right though in that mediocre ones seem to let you have a free run

Well, just because they try to get in at all costs doesn't mean they don't sweat hard until the dust settles

But you're right that weaker players tend to let 2♣ openers undisturbed.

[HeartA]

inquiry, on Nov 7 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

In my BridgeBrowser study of strong two suiters (while developing MisIry) I found a surprizing bit of data: Opening 2♣ gave better results than opening one of a suit. That surprized me, so I resticted to strong two suiter WITHOUT CLUBS, to see if strong club systems did better (on average) than opening one of the long suits. Again the answer was yes.  This raises a lot of issues, is this due too vigerous competition after 1C/2C opening, is it due to less missed games (ie, 1suit-ppp), are on average --- people who play a strong club system better players than those who do not, etc. For strong hands with 17-18 hcp, only 1♣ opening bids averaged better than "average'. as the hands get stronger, opening 2♣ became the clear statistical winner. That was a huge surprise to me.

Ben,

Thanks for your job well done. In my opinion, 2C opening not only make game bidding easier, but also let his partner treasure his few HCPs, especially when those HCPs are the key ones.

For the hand posted on this thread, pd would (almost) NEVER have interest in slam, holding Axx, xxx, xxxx, xxx, while grand has a good chance. And some responder would pass 1S opening.

I agree that one should foresee the interruption from opps, but to over-emphasize the interruption by reducing the accuracy of bidding would certainly reduce the pleasure of the game.

[cherdano]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 6 2006, 09:10 PM, said:

I'm surprised at the amount of passion this hand generates.

(...)

There are two risks associated with opening this hand at the 1-level, and only one has been mentioned: the first is you play in 1♠; the second is that you get too high. Opener may feel obliged to do more bidding just to get across how strong his hand is. Suppose you start

1S - 1NT
3H(say) - 3NT

now what?
If you bid 4H, partner will pass with hands where slam is making.
If you bid 4C you have shown a 5413 or 5404, not a 65 in the majors.

At least if you open 2C, partner will suitably appreciate the major suit jacks.

Anyway, compared to some actions I've seen analysed on BBO, if the worst my partner ever did was open 2C/1S (take your pick) we should all be happy....

That risk is what I was trying to get to when I asked above how Mike would show he has this hand, not some prime 17hcp 5521-hand after 1S-1N-3H-3S.

FWIW, I haven't really picked my side on this issue, but the discussion here (and similarly earlier threads) hasn't really been helpful in making up my mind, as the discussion always stops before the 3rd round of bidding, where it starts to get interesting.

I remember a quote from Justin in an earlier discussion, where he said he is now opening 2♣ more often, because he doesn't want to guess whether to bid slam. The 1♠ supporters haven't even scratched the surface about how they avoid this guess.

[mike777]

I love to open 2c more open than most even with 2 suited hands but I open one spade here. Need room to find my fit or nonfit.

[mikeh]

The question has been asked, appropriately, about how I (as a 1♠ opener) plan to show my true strength after 1♠ 1N 3♥ 3♠

Obviously, I have a problem to which there is no readly apparent answer (in my methods). I'd like to say: well, I'd cue 4♣ of course, but is it clear that this is a cue-bid rather than patterning out, still in the hunt for the best denomination? If I held AKJxx AKxx void AQxx I'd sure argue that 1♠ then 3♥ then 4♣ was a good description of my hand: and if I hate opening two-suiters 2♣, I hate three-suiters even more, altho I will treat 4441's with a stiif Q or higher as balanced.

I would bid 4♥ over 3♠ and then probably 5♣ over 4♠...or pass... I suspect that which I chose would depend on my frame of mind at the time: it is that close. Of course, this approach risks disaster no matter which way I go.

However, are we any better off after 2♣ 2♦ (waiting) 2♠?

A lot depends on methods, of course. Some play control showing responses, some play 2♦ waits with cheaper minor second negative and some (me for one) play 2♥ immediate second negative.

On that method, the fact that responder chirped 2♦ helps me no more than responder's 1N to my 1♠.

Let's say he bids 3♠ over my 2♠. Now am I better off at this 3♠ level than I am if he gives me preference over a jump shift?

Playing 3rd seat 4 card majors, as I do, 1N sure doesn't deny 3♠, so I cannot even say that I know more about his ♠ length on the 2♣ auction: yes, on that auction he will have longer ♠ on average but that is not that helpful. Jx will be as good as xxx. Ax will be much better than Jxx.

I suspect that I will actually be ahead after 2♣ IF he raises ♠s right away because I think that turns 4♣ into a cue bid rather than a suggestion of an alternate trump suit. But if he responds 4♠, can I pass any more safely than after the jumpshift auction where he corrects 4♥ to 4♠? I doubt it. Should he be bidding beyond 4♠ with Axx xxx xxxx xxx?

One could spend hours trying to analyze the likely paths that auctions take after other responses to 2♣ or other developments after 2♠. But I think that the truth is that neither opening can lay claim to a decided advantage in end result.

As for Ben's analytical work, I really don't give much credence to it. While other studies have interested me, this one is fundamentally flawed by the wide range of expertise of the players sampled.

Bad players really fare very badly in the area of bidding big hands that don't start with 2♣. Maybe that is one reason that (in my experience) bad players tend to have lower requirements for 2♣ opening bids. As I commented early on this thread, many less-experienced players lack the confidence in themselves and/or partner to bid accurately to game if they don't open 2♣.

I think what Ben has discovered is evidence consistent with this lack of confidence: poor players routinely screw up big hands when they don't open 2♣. Their partner passes with a decent 5 count and they play the 1-level, or their partner passes the strong jumpshift, or they open the lower ranking suit in order to 'reverse' into the higher but equal (or longer) suit and so on. At least, with 2♣, they generally get to the right suit and to game, which is usually a good spot opposite even a light 2♣ opening bid.

There are many ways to screw up auctions, so bad players will do better on short auctions than on long ones, and 2♣ auctions (that end in game) are usually shorter than after a 1-level opening.

Now, if he could filter the results to include only hands played by (say) star players, that would be of some use, even tho there are non-star players as good as many stars and at least a few stars whose stars should be revoked based on things I have seen them perpetrate (of course, maybe I live in a glass house in that regard, so I don't actually advocate star-ectomies ) I don't think that this analysis can be done, however.

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Nov 7 2006, 04:36 PM, said:

Now, if he could filter the results to include only hands played by (say) star players, that would be of some use, even tho there are non-star players as good as many stars and at least a few stars whose stars should be revoked based on things I have seen them perpetrate (of course, maybe I live in a glass house in that regard, so I don't actually advocate star-ectomies ) I don't think that this analysis can be done, however.

I can not filter hands by "BBO STARS", but I can use OKbridge database and filter players by lehmans that OKBridge publish for their players, or I can use BridgeBrowser built in emulator and calculate a lehman like number and filter by that. The question becomes, what lehman level would you think equates to bbo stars?

A couple of issues, some BBO stars have a fairly modest lehman. There is a lot of reasons for this, a big one being they play with students. Ohter stars have astronomical ratings. Would anyone with a estimated lehman at least as high as your, mike, be statisfactory? For what it is worth, that would eliminate any hand that I bid. :-)

But you have to be aware, not everyone with very high published ratings on OKBRIDGE or very high rating calculated based on play in BBO have any clue how to bid. Also, I already know (and it is not surprising) if opener is REALLY really strong, say one or two loser and lots of controsl, they all open 2C. So is there some range you would like to exclude. I can find thousands of hands (of course, the higher the requirement for lehman value, the fewer boards that will meet those requirements...but I can always search multiple database).

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Nov 7 2006, 05:00 PM, said:

. Would anyone with a estimated lehman at least as high as your, mike, be statisfactory? For what it is worth, that would eliminate any hand that I bid. :-)

My Lehmans, for the few times that I played on OK, never got over 51:))) I really only used it for practice with one partner who lived in a different city. One reason I quit was the intense focus on lehmans...I several times got rejected by tables on the stated basis that our lehmans were so low that the opps' lehmans wouldn't be improved by beating us and would take a real hit if we beat them... and these were players who were acquaintances of ours.

Plus the cheating: I do not know what it is like now, maybe they have done a good job cracking down, but I saw more than a couple of 70+ lehman pairs who were clearly cheating consistently.

[whereagles]

Why are you guys so picky with this 2-suiter issue? I tend to open them in 2♣ mostly because I like to have celling for 1-level openings, nothing more. They're so rare anyway.