[wank]

how often do these come up? assume a high level game with sporting pre-empts/light openers in late position in front of you and a style whereby 2C is 23+ bal or any genuine GF.

i'm quite sure it's poor value theoretically to play a strong opening at matchpoints (and i don't do so - just open 3NT and get 25% once a year), but i'm wondering about imps.

of course most people are risk averse and there's the issue of selective memory, so i'm not going to advocate anyone else dumping their strong bid.

[sfi]

At matchpoints it clearly is wrong to play a strong 2C opening, as you say. Many years ago we had an auction in a BAM event at the US nationals that started 2C (weak) - 3C (majors) - 4C at both tables. I suspect we found the only two pairs in the room playing a weak 2C opening.

At imps I think you lose too much if you give it up. First you no longer have a way to bid these hands when they do come up (and my guess would be once every couple of sessions for the partnership), which means you probably will be losing about 6 imps per hand assuming you guess right half the time. However, you also affect your one-level openings by skewing those decisions. It might be responding on a poor hand, cooperating in a slam try when it's not quite right, or so on. That might be worth 10 imps a session.

Assuming my math is right (big assumption, I realise), whatever you replace it with needs to gain you 26 imps over a day's play to compensate. Maybe playing 2C as something like 4-4 in the majors has that level of positive expectation, but that's just another guess.

I seem to remember some analysis of conventions used in international matches back in the 90's. The one statistic I remember is that Wilkosz 2D gained an average of 3 imps per hand where it came up (although lack of familiarity with it may have skewed that), but there may be other useful numbers in there as well, if the analysis is still floating around.

Finally, if playing teams you'd need teammates who buy into the small gains that offset the noticeable losses. The psychological element shouldn't be discounted.

[spotlight7]

Churchill Natural did not use any strong forcing opening.


He claimed that if you looked at your strong 2C openings, partner would reply to a one bid or the other pair should balance.


G. Churchill did hold the record for winning percentage in the Blue Ribbon Pairs(Life Master Pairs?) for about a decade.


His system did allow a reply to a one bid with hands that would reply to a 2NT opening.


Big Club openings are only about 5% of hands so I would estimate that a strong 2C bid is something about 1 in 200 hands.

[PrecisionL]

16+ hcp hands are 9.8% of all hands for Precision players using a 12-15 NT.

[PrecisionL]

double post.

[spotlight7]

I use a Precision style with 14-16 1NT. 3rd and 4th seats 15-17.


So 17+ bal. in 1st and 2nd seats for balanced hands to open 1C*. 18+ for 3rd and 4th seat for balanced hands.



The odds change quite a bit when I play a Precision style of Two Down and Two Up with 1C* 14+ in 1st and 2nd seats.


3rd and 4th seats, 1C is 18+ balanced.

[rhm]

The strength requirement for a 2♣ opening got stricter and stricter over the years.
As a result the opening bid hardly occurs any more.
Now some are questioning the value of the bid in the first place.
Maybe it would make more sense questioning the trend.

By the way we have a similar trend with reverses.
The strength requirement for a reverse got higher and higher.
They also get ever more infrequent.
But of course if there is almost no way to stop below game after a reverse, you need strict requirements.
I think it would be better to give responder more ways to show a weak hand after a reverse and lower the strength requirements for a reverse.

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

Just because the call comes up less than you like doesnt mean its a poor use of the call. Does a weak 2C give you an automatic good board? Or weak MM?

I understand the rationale and theres more support for the argument when youre hardly ever passing 1m. So if you want to make these a one round force thats great which can handle the strong balanced hands too. Youve got more flexibility playing transfers to 1C as well.

So using 2C as weak in ds or S2 in major and no other hand type is logical.

[helene_t]

I think we open 2♣ on about 2% of hands. Maybe those would be 1.3% by partner and 0.7% by me or such.

Playing the 2♣ as either GF OR a weak two in diamonds, freeing up the 2♦ opening for something funny, this is not such a big sacrifice (we don't, obviously if we did it would increase the frequency). It is possible that some other 2♣ opening (say natural weak, or weak with both majors) would gain more than the 2♣ opening does but I don't think it is obvious.

[johnu]

rhm, on 2017-January-30, 04:00, said:

By the way we have a similar trend with reverses.
The strength requirement for a reverse got higher and higher.
They also get ever more infrequent.

I don't have any statistics to dispute that, but from the bidding problems I've been reading, I would guess that the reverse requirements are getting lower, not higher. But in real life, I guess I don't see that many so maybe you are correct.