[mike777]

"Point 1. If you open on the 1-level you are WAY ahead of the field. Since you know partner has more than a minimum opener you can bid games more quickly, double for penalty more quickly and compete more quickly."


Interesting.

[awm]

Suppose we somehow had opening bids that always describe our shape and values to a high degree of accuracy. The argument is that we'd want to open most hands. Any hand where we can get in the opponents way with some degree of safety, or where we are likely to have the majority of the values seems to be a good opening. The exception is probably weakish balanced hands, where the opponents are more likely to have the majority of the values than we are, there's not a lot of competitive benefit, and any non-pass opening carries some risk of going for a number or helping declarer in the play.

Of course, the problem is that there aren't enough opening bids to be able to always describe our shape and values accurately at a safe level. So we have to either: (1) accept that some of our openings will be pretty wide-ranging in terms of shape and/or values or (2) start passing a bunch of hands that it would realistically help us to open, so as to keep our openings tightly described.

The modern trend has been to open more hands, since the loss from (2) seems to be larger than the loss from (1). Of course there are always tradeoffs involved.

A number of data sets seem to indicate that weak twos aren't netting very many IMPs. Of course, the methodology of these is somewhat suspect, but we can all remember hands where we went for a number in a weak two bid, or we pushed the opponents to a making game they otherwise wouldn't have bid, or we helped the opponents in the play of the hand by opening. If this is in fact the case, the F-N approach (which basically passes the normal weak two bids in order to keep the one-level openings up to strength while still opening the 9-12 point shapely hands at the two level) seems very effective.

Think about how often when you open 1M in 2/1 you end up playing 2M. Partner may raise to 2M directly, or bid 1NT forcing and correct to 2M on a two-card suit. A lot of people take false preferences even with 2-4 in opener's suits (since opener could have a 3-card second suit in 2/1 and game may be possible opposite a wide-ranging opening). Sometimes you have to even take false preferences with singleton in the first suit. It seems like by opening these hands at the two-level, you accelerate the bidding and make things tough on the opponents. Yes, sometimes you would have found a better contract by opening one and you lose, but 2M is a pretty frequent resting spot and you tend to win on those hands by pressuring the opposition.

[inquiry]

awm, on May 5 2007, 12:03 PM, said:

A number of data sets seem to indicate that weak twos aren't netting very many IMPs. Of course, the methodology of these is somewhat suspect, but we can all remember hands where we went for a number in a weak two bid, or we pushed the opponents to a making game they otherwise wouldn't have bid, or we helped the opponents in the play of the hand by opening. If this is in fact the case, the F-N approach (which basically passes the normal weak two bids in order to keep the one-level openings up to strength while still opening the 9-12 point shapely hands at the two level) seems very effective.

Well in third seat their 2 level bids are weak twos, lowering their requirements to as little as 5 hcp. So they bring them back if partner is a passed hand (makes sense to me).

[cherdano]

Sometimes I tend to think that in modern bridge there is more to gain by quick bids to game that could be made on strength or shape than pure preempts. After a pure preempt opps may bid to a 40% slam or miss a 60% slam (both gaining all of 2 IMPs for us), but when they fail to compete over a game they might miss a double game swing. That's why pairs like Greco-Hampson love to jump to 4M on all opportunities, or why light 1M overcalls are quite popular (you can't afford to lose out on your big fit).
Of course I am exaggerating, but I think there is some truth to this.

It seems to me that the Fantoni-Nunes 2M bids are perfect for this. It would be easy to construct loads of hands where the bidding would start 1H-1S (overcall) in standard, eventually ending in 4S=, where F-N would bid 2H-(P)-4H, either making or down one undoubled. Over this auction, it is of course quite dangerous to compete. This isn't quite comparable to the weak two-auction 2H-4H, where responder COULD have a huge hand that can double everything insight - it is just a lot less likely.

[Gerben42]

For those interested in seeing the F-N 2-bids at work check out my collection (all from vugraph)

http://www.geocities...velopenings.pdf

About +1.5 IMPs / board per occurence.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on May 5 2007, 11:54 AM, said:

For those interested in seeing the F-N 2-bids at work check out my collection (all from vugraph)

http://www.geocities...velopenings.pdf

About +1.5 IMPs / board per occurence.

This sounds impressive, but...Did you compare this with total their IMPs average in the same matches? Many of the hands are from the European championships, where the Italians were averaging an incredible number of won IMPs per match. The same is obviously true to a lesser extent for the Olympiad etc.

Arend

[cherdano]

cherdano, on May 5 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Sometimes I tend to think that in modern bridge there is more to gain by quick bids to game that could be made on strength or shape than pure preempts. After a pure preempt opps may bid to a 40% slam or miss a 60% slam (both gaining all of 2 IMPs for us), but when they fail to compete over a game they might miss a double game swing. That's why pairs like Greco-Hampson love to jump to 4M on all opportunities, or why light 1M overcalls are quite popular (you can't afford to lose out on your big fit).
Of course I am exaggerating, but I think there is some truth to this.

I realized I can state a little more clearly what I was trying to explain above. Some classic preempt theory says that the weaker your total combined assets are, the more useful the preempt; see Ben's reasoning above about weak twos vs F-N two bids.
My claim is that assuming you can find a playable spot, a preempt is actually a lot more useful when the strength is divided 50-50 among the two partnerships. Both sides could be making something, and it is more likely that you can actually keep the opponents out of the auction (whereas they will always find a way into the auction with combined 30 hcp; sometimes the lack of space will cause them to miss a slam, but other times they will find a slam on a finesse through the non-preemptor, or due to knowing there is no duplication, etc.).

[Gerben42]

Sure they might make a lot of imps anyway, at least this shows these are not losing opening bids!

[dake50]

Recognize that hands are
a) obstructive with 60% surety;
constructive with 60% surety;
c) some middle third ambiguous.
To crime a constructive bid because THIS hand lands in the 40% obstructive and our bids began on the constructive course is missing the point: Is the system choosing Constr./Obstr bids effectively?
F-N constructs auctions when opener is strong; obstructs on weaker. AND pays a price when 1st guess(con/obs) is wrong. But is anyone claiming that the spectrum after F-N 2-bids isn't heavily for obstruction? Or after F-N 1-bids ain't heavy liklihood space wanted?

[Halo]

I remember an expert being asked what the problem was with weak NT and 4 card majors (eg old fashioned UK Acol). He said it is too predictable, so too easy to play against for an expert.

So the issue isn't (despite my trying 'Italian' 10-12 major two bids twenty something years ago) point ranges, and accuracy. That has not been the issue for a long time. For a long time the issue has been competition in the auction.

Maybe weak twos have become less effective, as weak NT became less effective. I know people who have reverted to 8 point plus superlight one level openings...

The game is played by human beings, and they are supremely capable of adapting: there is no ideal bidding system.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Guys, this thread is not about this hand type ok. See my first post, It is meant to be about hands around 8-13 hcp or so with a 6 card suit. 2 suited is very possible.

Mike, my thinking on this is a 2-fold criteria where: A) the opening bidder's hand will not be too disappointing to partner concerning defensive strength or B) the hand is so strongly unblanced toward offense than defense that we will virtually never be penalizing the opponents.
AQ9xxx, x, xx, KJxx
KQJ10xx, x, xx, KQ9x

Another factor is shape and high card location: a 6/4 pattern is typically very powerful in play if a fit can be located.

The other consideration is whether it is a minor or major oriented hand.
I would open 1S on: AQ9xxx, x, xx, KJxx but would pass KJxx, x, xx, AQ9xxx.

[pbleighton]

Quote

"Point 1. If you open on the 1-level you are WAY ahead of the field. Since you know partner has more than a minimum opener you can bid games more quickly, double for penalty more quickly and compete more quickly."


Interesting.

Sound openings make the one bids work better, absolutely!

Now, if Roth-Stone players could figure out some way to avoid losses on the 9+-13- hands they currently pass. Hmm, I wonder how they might do that...

Might F-N/EHAA with 9-12 two bids be the Roth-Stone of the 21st century?



Peter

[hotShot]

Lets assume for a moment we could open our hand with the the best spot for our side to play, what advantage would we have?

- LHOs first lead will more often be a gift for us, because he does not have enough information about the other hands.

- opps will have problems to find their best spot, because they might not have enough bidding space left or they might not have the strength or distribution needed, to bid over our bid.

If opps open, they will reach their best spot to play, if they are allowed an undisturbed bidding. Disturbing opps bidding to limit communication and exchange information with your own partner, makes their life harder and will pay off on the long run.

So weak 2's and strong 1's have an advantage.

[inquiry]

cherdano, on May 5 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

Gerben42, on May 5 2007, 11:54 AM, said:

For those interested in seeing the F-N 2-bids at work check out my collection (all from vugraph)

http://www.geocities...velopenings.pdf

About +1.5 IMPs / board per occurence.

This sounds impressive, but...Did you compare this with total their IMPs average in the same matches? Many of the hands are from the European championships, where the Italians were averaging an incredible number of won IMPs per match. The same is obviously true to a lesser extent for the Olympiad etc.

Arend

On the BBO against average bbo competition (hehehe) this pair has opened 2C to 2S a total of 101 times (bridgebrowser data through end of feb). They have a net loss of 6 imps. For an average minus 0.06 or so per time. Of course, we have to realize this is mostly in cayne matches so against fairly good competion.

[pbleighton]

Quote

On the BBO against average bbo competition (hehehe) this pair has opened 2C to 2S a total of 101 times (bridgebrowser data through end of feb). They have a net loss of 6 imps. For an average minus 0.06 or so per time. Of course, we have to realize this is mostly in cayne matches so against fairly good competion.

Ben, if you would:

What was their average imps loss/gain for:

All of the boards they played?

Thier 1NT openings?

1x?

2m?

2M?

Vul vs non-vul?

Peter

[inquiry]

pbleighton, on May 6 2007, 09:01 AM, said:

Quote

On the BBO against average bbo competition (hehehe) this pair has opened 2C to 2S a total of 101 times (bridgebrowser data through end of feb). They have a net loss of 6 imps. For an average minus 0.06 or so per time. Of course, we have to realize this is mostly in cayne matches so against fairly good competion.

Ben, if you would:

What was their average imps loss/gain for:

All of the boards they played?

Thier 1NT openings?

1x?

2m?

2M?

Vul vs non-vul?

Peter

well i will give you a flavor of what you asked for...

1. played 1305 hands, averaged +0.57 imps per hand

2. opened 1x 289 times, averaged +0.72

3. opened 1NT 160 times, averaged +0.58

4. opened 2m 87 times, averaged -0.65

5. opened 2M 72 times, averaged +0.75

I didn;t bother to break it down by vul, and note, their 2 opening bids in 3rd is different form in 1st and 2nd, and i didnt' seperate those either. Buy the program or a subscription to xbrbr and find all this stuff out for yourself.

[pbleighton]

Thanks, Ben, it confirmed my impression that the 2m bids were the cost of these type of systems, having twice the frequency of a 4 card major side suit as 2M, with less preemption and field protection of 2m as the final contract.

1x is good, as expected. I was a little surprised that 2M performed as well, but it's a small sample, and 15-17 balanced, no 5cM probably did somewhat poorly, the rest of the 1x bids proably did wery well.

Peter

[Gerben42]

If you want to find out how non-WC players fare with the system, check the same statistics for the pair Gerben42 - Ampelman / T_Foerster

[Chamaco]

I think that the main point of "intermediate weak 2" (say 10 to a bad 12) is to be a descriptive opening bid.

I do not view it in terms of high cards but rather in terms of OFFENSE to DEFENSE ratio

In traditional methods, a "regular openings" (used to?) guarantee 2-2.5 defensive tricks.

This is especially important in contested auctions: if opponents overcall, preempt, and/or sacrifice, responder can expect from opener at least 2-2.5 defensive tricks, and make an "educated guess" (which of course might occasionally fail, noone expect to succeed all the times) on whether passing, doubling or bidding can be a good idea in various situations.

But then, there are some hands that are WORTH AN OPENING BID ON OFFENSE, but not so on defense.

AKQJTx-xx-Qx-xxx

For example does NOT guarantee 2+ quick tricks in defense (very likely that the 2nd round of spades can be ruffed)

With this kind of hand one would be torn between:

a. distorting the defensive potential (so pard could be wrong if he doubles opps contract), by opening at level 1 and promising 2+ QT (quick tricks). Opening this kind of hand is usually alright when opps shut up, but if they do stick in, troubles may be awaiting us if our oard indeed expects 2 defensive tricks from our hand
One solution is "lower the defensive requirements" for opener, e.g. 1.5 QT is enough. But then, we'll lose all the times we fail to double opponents because responder cannot count on 2+ quick tricks from opener

b. underbidding the OFFENSIVE potential by passing

Then, the intermediate 2-level opening des the job of parking those hand types there. The result is that the 1-level opening bid, genuinely promise 2-2.5 quick tricks. And this is genuinely beneficial, especially in a world when people overcall and bounce on nothing, because we vcan have a fair idea of whether we can punish them using the red card :-)

Is this approach worthwhile ? I guess that it depends from the form of scoring. At MP, you want to open as frequently as you can, and lower the requirements of the weak 2 bids.
At IMPS; frequency matters less, and instead it is the MAGNITUDE of the cost benefits that matters.
So my guess is that the intermediate 2 bids are more effective at IMPS

[keylime]

Playing with Larry has for me, like Fantunes has shown for Gerben, positives when it comes to distributional hands.

Our 2 bids for the majors are balanced 5332 (sometimes 5224 with clubs) handtypes that are intermediate in strength. This unloads the 1M bids to be unbalanced, or balanced out of range of the NT. Since we do open at times very light, we do have to cater to the lightness of opener, so our g/f's (in our case, we have an omnibus 2C g/f) are normally sounder.

I'm of the view that weak 2 bids have become so common that unless it's a 2S preempt it's likely to cause not enough disruption in the bidding; i.e. there is a comfort level and a basic understanding in how to counter them. I confess that the Trent style of two-bids is the form I'd push for if I was forced to play 2/1 again.

As a byproduct, we are able to play a form of Leb to get out in 3m, and we also gain bids to show both canapes and 5-4/5's handtypes in competition. We're also able to in cases to effectively "steal" their major fit or side fit because we open before them and get into the auction.