[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

[han]

I didn't claim that any system wins 10 IMPs over any other system, I just asked what you meant by playable. I find it curious that you deem a system inferior yet playable. In my partnership we try to only play non-standard methods that we think are superior, so for us, this system would be unplayable (I'm assuming for the sake of simplicity that we would also think it is inferior).

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.

[NickRW]

han, on Oct 9 2008, 04:53 AM, said:

I didn't claim that any system wins 10 IMPs over any other system, I just asked what you meant by playable. I find it curious that you deem a system inferior yet playable. In my partnership we try to only play non-standard methods that we think are superior, so for us, this system would be unplayable (I'm assuming for the sake of simplicity that we would also think it is inferior).

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

[Gerben42]

In the Netherlands, many good pairs play:

2♣ = GF / weak ♦
2♦ = Multi, including a range between 2NT and 2♣
2♥/2♠ = Dutch style
2N = strong

[P_Marlowe]

NickRW, on Oct 8 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

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

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

[FrancesHinden]

han, on Oct 9 2008, 05:53 AM, said:

....I find it curious that you deem a system inferior yet playable. In my partnership we try to only play non-standard methods that we think are superior, so for us, this system would be unplayable (I'm assuming for the sake of simplicity that we would also think it is inferior).

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.

[mycroft]

Let's see. I am not sure that Acol 2s lose you 10 IMPs a match on average, really. It's sort of like the F convention - proponents say they never get a bad board when they open 2D, and I can believe that - rarely do you get a bad board when you make a very defined opener. And I would agree with them that it probably is +IMPs when they open 1H as well, though maybe not so much, and maybe just for comfort. But how much do they lose whenever I open 2D? In the Acol 2s case, yeah they lose on the weak 2s, but they're probably large +IMPs when they open 2 and the opponents are opening 1...it's a question of how many of their 2s come up compared to how many of yours. My feeling is that if it's 2-1 against, they're probably breaking even.

[Tcyk]

Adebisi, on Oct 2 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

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. ...

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.

[PrecisionL]

Tcyk, on Oct 9 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

Adebisi, on Oct 2 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

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. ...

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

[NickRW]

I play what you might call a Benji/Multi/Polish fusion - totally non standard:

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

[awm]

PrecisionL, on Oct 9 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

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

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.

[NickRW]

PrecisionL, on Oct 9 2008, 05:41 PM, said:

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.

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

[PrecisionL]

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Quote

It's really not as simple as that.

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

[bill1157]

glen, on Sep 26 2008, 08:33 AM, said:

In BBO ACBL tourneys and club games we play five card suit weak 2s - then sit back and enjoy the great results. In a NABC Pairs 4 or 6 session pairs event, if playing the same methods you might as well wear a Santa suit for all the free gifts you will hand out.

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

[glen]

I agree, the mixed pairs is a different kettle of fish. That said, the Hacketts were playing five card weak twos in the worlds.

[bill1157]

glen, on Oct 25 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

I agree, the mixed pairs is a different kettle of fish. That said, the Hacketts were playing five card weak twos in the worlds.

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...