[PrecisionL]

Adam, you put forth some valid arguments, but obtaining better data than that presented is very, very difficult.

I have a file with 100 2-bids of Fantunes from 2004 - 2005 which includes undisciplined 2 bids and even 2 bids on 4441 distribution and two bids on 5332 distribution. I understand that the 2-bids are a little more disciplined now and do not include 5-4 in the majors. There were not ANY 5422 hands in the sample.

I posted to generate discussion and thinking outside the box that weak 2-bids are not necessarily the best strategy these days. Ask Greco-Hampson for they don't use them. However, in another thread (that I cannot find) Fred posts about how he feared losing IMPs when the opponent's opened a weak two at his table when Greco-Hampson were his teammates.

[awm]

PrecisionL, on 2012-January-01, 11:10, said:

I posted to generate discussion and thinking outside the box that weak 2-bids are not necessarily the best strategy these days. Ask Greco-Hampson for they don't use them. However, in another thread (that I cannot find) Fred posts about how he feared losing IMPs when the opponent's opened a weak two at his table when Greco-Hampson were his teammates.

I think you mean Ekeblad-Rubin, who play a very weird system. Greco-Hampson methods are similar to meckwell and surely include weak twos (or multi, perhaps, depending).

It does seem that the vast majority of upper-echelon pairs either play weak twos or some form of multi (which allows them to open on the two-level with weak twos). There are a few exceptions, but it seems like most think weak 2-bids (of some form) are a good strategy.

[Cyberyeti]

PrecisionL, on 2012-January-01, 06:51, said:

Yes they do!!!

The total GAIN on Fantunes 2-bids (313/1459 hand sample) was + 783 IMPs [+2.5 IMPs/hand]

The total LOSS on weak 2-bids that were passed (43/1459 sample) was - 228 IMPs. [-5.3 IMPs/hand]

A net gain of + 555 IMPs for 356/1459 hands (24% of all hands, 1.6 IMPs/hand).

Reference: See page 7 of this URL: http://www.vba.asn.a...ulletin1112.pdf

Weak 2s that are passed (as somebody who plays very wide ranging and 4-6 card weak 2s which are a lot more frequent than most people's) are not where we get our gains so this comparison is meaningless. We get most of our gains where the auction goes say 2♦-3♣-P-P-P and opps should be in 3N or 2♥.

[PrecisionL]

awm, on 2012-January-01, 11:28, said:

I think you mean Ekeblad-Rubin, who play a very weird system. Greco-Hampson methods are similar to meckwell and surely include weak twos (or multi, perhaps, depending).

It does seem that the vast majority of upper-echelon pairs either play weak twos or some form of multi (which allows them to open on the two-level with weak twos). There are a few exceptions, but it seems like most think weak 2-bids (of some form) are a good strategy.

I am getting old and my eyes are going dim and my memory, what ...

Here is the thread where Fred discusses playing with Ekeblad-Rubin and others pontificate on weak twos:

http://www.bridgebas...-weak-two-bids/

Ekeblad-Rubin's constructive twos were 2-suited for 2♦ or 2♥ while 2♣ was 6♣ or 4♣ + 5♠.

However no data was presented and I have played constructive twos (10-14 hcp & single suited) in several partnerships for over 10 years and feel the opposite of Fred. However, comparing our version of constructive twos with Fantunes or Ekeblad-Rubin is an apples and oranges thing.

2012: Note to self - get that spreadsheet going and spend more time analyzing - hmmm, I wonder if there is time for all that and a life too???

[wank]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-31, 05:43, said:

I wanted to play a system once where you opened all unbalanced 9s, some 8s, and all 5332 9s with a 5-card major, in which
1C = everything else
1D = strong
1H/1S = good 8 - 15, 5+ cards
1NT = depended on vulnerability (mini 1/2 NV, strong otherwise)

but as it wasn't legal at the time (and still isn't) in the EBU, we never played it properly. However, I always liked the idea that by playing one strong 1-level bid you could open all those hands that you would happily overcall on, but would otherwise have to pass in first seat.

why do our strong clubs have to be 16+ in most tournaments? even the acbl isn't so olde worlde as that. i even made a half-arsed submission to the l+e.

[FrancesHinden]

wank, on 2012-January-02, 09:12, said:

why do our strong clubs have to be 16+ in most tournaments? even the acbl isn't so olde worlde as that. i even made a half-arsed submission to the l+e.

isn't this somewhat off-topic? What made our system illegal were the very light 1-level openings, and I agree with awm that these are the biggest pluses of one of these systems.

[wank]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-02, 10:21, said:

isn't this somewhat off-topic? What made our system illegal were the very light 1-level openings, and I agree with awm that these are the biggest pluses of one of these systems.

firstly, not really, because a lower HCP requirement for your strong opening makes the limited bids tighter and more effective.

secondly, this on-topic/off-topic business is an alien concept to me.

[Cthulhu D]

awm, on 2012-January-01, 10:33, said:

The only hands with 8-9 points we had to pass were 4441 types, mostly due to the combination of ACBL rules and not wanting to play 4-card majors.

My experience with this type of style in general is that I don't find opening weak balanced hands to be particularly good bridge. It helps opponents a lot in the play, exposes us to some penalties, and doesn't help all that much in competitive sequences. Opening weak shapely hands is a huge win however, especially if the opening gives a lot of shape information (i.e. something like a 5-card major opening, rather than something like a precision diamond).

With zero experience, I've been thinking about putting together a similar system (in the land of minimal system regulation, and cribbing from the 'incision' system floating around)

My question is how much shape does a weak hand need to count as shapely - is a 8 count 4=5=2=2 hand sufficiently shapely, or should we be waiting for 6 card suits, or 5 card suits with side singletons and voids?

[whereagles]

Thx all for your comments. Let me show you what I was thinking. I started to mutter about a strong pass system in which you'd split hcp into 4 ranges:

1. 0-7 very weak
2. 8-11 average hand
3. 12-15 ok hand
4. 16+ good hand

Then I'd have this opening scheme:

pass = 0-7 or 16+
1C = 12-15, no 5 major (8-11 vuln)
1D = 8-11, 5+ in a minor (12-15 vuln)
1H = 8-11, 5+ in a major
1S = 12-15, 5+ in a major
1NT = 8-11 (12-15 vuln)
2/3/4x = classic disciplined preempt (with an undisciplined one, you just open at the 1 level)

The follow ups however were a bit of an annoyance. I simulated some hands and the "multi" character of the 1M openers would often leave responder a bit in the dark, especially if 2nd player overcalls. Good competitive methods are possible to devise, but they're so intricated and anti-mnemonic that it really is pro stuff. In addition, there were some mnemonic problems with 3rd seat openers.

So I decided to try and bundle the 1x openers into 1 range only. I had to dilate the two-way pass limits for this purpose, leading to a structure like this

pass = 0-8 or 15+
1x = natural 9-14, standard follow-ups
1NT = 9-11 (12-14 vuln)
2/3/4x = classic pree

No more multi ambiguity and 3rd seat openers would now be simple and mnemonic. I don't want to up the weak variant of pass 1 HCP further, hence my question of whether 9-14 1x openers were manageable. I see the answer seems to be "yes", but responder needs to exercise good judgement.

By the way, I really like weak 2s lol.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on 2012-January-03, 09:59, said:

Thx all for your comments. Let me show you what I was thinking. I started to mutter about a strong pass system in which you'd split hcp into 4 ranges:

1. 0-7 very weak
2. 8-11 average hand
3. 12-15 ok hand
4. 16+ good hand

Then I'd have this opening scheme:

pass = 0-7 or 16+
1C = 12-15, no 5 major (8-11 vuln)
1D = 8-11, 5+ in a minor (12-15 vuln)
1H = 8-11, 5+ in a major
1S = 12-15, 5+ in a major
1NT = 8-11 (12-15 vuln)
2/3/4x = classic disciplined preempt (with an undisciplined one, you just open at the 1 level)

You might want to check out a system called "Magic Diamond"

[whereagles]

Thx, but can you be more specific?

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on 2012-January-03, 10:16, said:

Thx, but can you be more specific?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...c+diamond+light

[whereagles]

Well, I had seen that and like 3 variants thereof. What about it?

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on 2012-January-03, 10:57, said:

Well, I had seen that and like 3 variants thereof. What about it?

I wasn't aware that you had looked this system over.
I was merely referencing it since there seemed to be some similarities in the approach...

[whereagles]

I see. Well, I won't have many opportunities to play this around here, but I might try it online one of these days.