Weak two bids

[awm]

What do you think of a system without weak two bids? In particular, suppose that all bids from 1♣ through 2♠ are devoted to showing some constructive (10+ hcp hand). What happens on the hand where the field opens a weak two bid?

[SlickRicky]

Hi,

 

I think obviously you will have worse results than the field when you have a weak 2 bid. Whether or not you gain enough to compensate for that depends on the system I suppose.

 

Ricky

[NickRW]

Someone did some theoretical work that relates to this - there is a thread a few years back on rgb I think - people were invited to send in systems, opening bids only, and they were compared using an idea of Matt Ginsberg's from information theory. One of the systems sent in featured constructive 2 bids - it was one of the better performers overall as I recall.

 

I am sure that the winning system featured a constructive 2D bid as well - I forget the exact spec - something like 10 or 11 to about 14 or 15, 6 diamonds.

 

However, SA with its 3 weak 2s was not bad either.

 

You can't really judge a system by what it does with one bid - it is how they fit together to make a whole that is important.

 

Nick

[cherdano]

I have seen quite a few boards where Fantunes lost when they couldn't open a weak two, and I don't think I have kibitzed them that much.

[kenrexford]

When I played a canape system that had no weak two's and all intermediate 2-bids, I tracked "weak two" hands. We had one bad result, but many good results. A lot were washes.

 

What we did not have was quite as many huge results, but not as many terrible ones either. The trend on these hands was to be more average.

[rbforster]

I wanted option 2 and 1/2. Worse but not awful when a weak 2 comes up, maybe avg plus or minus when the other comes up. Of course the real question is how much does Standard's 1 level opening suffer from being overloaded, and how much does this new system's 1 level openings benefit from being more precise.

 

My guess is that hands with a weak two bid do pretty well when they get to open it - you block the opponents much of the time and partner knows pretty much what to expect if he wants to bid on. Of course weak two results are fairly random since you often force the opponents to make a high level decision without as much information as they'd like. Sometimes they guess right and are forced to bid a pushy making game, sometimes they guess wrong and go down being too high or in the wrong strain. Surely they go wrong more often than it would if your side quietly passed, so I think this is a definite if volatile win for playing weak twos.

 

It's less clear to me how much better or worse you make a system by having constructive 2 bids. It'll depend on the system but I've not been enamored of some systems I've seen like this (like canape ones), for example like those opening 2M on a minimum opening hands with 5M-4m shape. Certainly there are some light distributional hands that people like to open and cause trouble in a "sound" opening system (like 5/5 9-11 counts), so these might be a middle ground between being somewhat constructive and somewhat preemptive.

 

I'm going to guess that these constructive two's are generally a net loss though for a couple of reasons:

 

- constructive hands can often be opened effectively (if somewhat more ambiguously) at the 1 level. Think about a SAYC 1♦, 3+ could be balanced, instead of one that promises 4+ and unbalanced. Sure it's more precise, but how often does that really matter? There's still plenty of space to sort out continuations starting at such a low level, and people have developed pretty good methods likes 2-way NMF and XYZ and Bart, etc, to help with this. So while there's a slight loss in precision bidding, this is pretty minor and applies only to a narrow range of responding hands and/or interference actions.

 

- constructive hands, say 10-13 or 10-15 or something, are a lot less frequent than "weak-to-average" strength hands like 8-12 or 6-11. Although this depends on how "constructive" you're being, it seems like your constructive 2 bid will be less common than a normal weak two bid.

 

- it will be harder to be constructive starting at the 2 level with constructive hands, meaning you'll need to make them fairly narrowly defined if you want them to be effective as forward-going bids (rather than preemptive bids). A narrow class of hands means you'll only be able to exclude a small set of hand types from your other 1 level constructive openings which limits the main benefit of this approach.

 

- the more precise 1 level bids will gain some from the negative inferences of the missing constructive two bids, possibly along the lines of being less distributional (since it's safer to open more distributional hands at the 2 level, even constructively). How much this will help isn't clear to me, but it will help some.

 

Taken together, I think the wins are bigger on weak twos and they come up more, while the advantages of the constructive two are less when they come up since they're less effective as preempts and less effective as constructive bids. As for the effect on 1 level openings, it doesn't seem like these will help enough to offset the preemptive benefits of a weak two, but that's just my guess.

 

One issue you might ask yourself when considering such a constructive 2-bid system, is what hand types cause problems in standard 1 level openings. Can you reasonably remove all of these problems from a couple of your one level bids, making at least a few of your 1 level openings clearly better? Are the problem hands ones you can reasonably and safely open at the two level? I'm not sure, but these seem like good questions to consider.

[skjaeran]

We've got a group of players here that plays a system without weak twos. My feeling after playing playing against them pretty often in teams matches over the years is that we always do well on the weak two hands. I can't back this up with any statistics. I'm not the only one with that feeling though.

[Gerben42]

I have seen quite a few boards where Fantunes lost when they couldn't open a weak two, and I don't think I have kibitzed them that much.

 

As you know, I play such a system and I think it's not that big a deal. You win some and you lose some.

 

Example what might be bad: Other tables bid 2♠ - 4♠, and we can't put pressure on opponents so 1 round later when we reach 4♠, they will have a more educated guess.

 

In most situations, however, you can still show the weak two hand later.

 

And then there are the situations where you did well not to show your weak 2, for example where a weak 2 opening:

 

* would have pushed the opponents to a good contract that they would not find

* goes for a penalty

* warns the opponents about a missing stopper or bad break

 

And then there's the effect that declarer assumes certain things about the hand when a weak 2 is opened, so the hand is played differently. This may be good, or may be bad, depending on if the weak 2 helps solving a suit for declarer (declarer finesses and the suit is actually 3-1, or works in a misleading way (declarer finesses when the suit is 2-2)

[kenrexford]

We've got a group of players here that plays a system without weak twos. My feeling after playing playing against them pretty often in teams matches over the years is that we always do well on the weak two hands. I can't back this up with any statistics. I'm not the only one with that feeling though.

I'm not sure that your observations are inconsistent with their observations.

 

From my experience (as a non-WK2 and a WK2 player), the weak two shifts the results for the hand to the opponents, as it requires the field to field the bid.

 

Consider a 2♠ opening.

 

If I open 2♠ as North, the opponents have the hard decision, usually. As a result, all of the East-West pairs will, say, either pass it out or overcall 3♣. One option works better for E-W.

 

The E-W pairs will score well if they make the right call, and the better E-W players will typically make the right call. The better E-W players will also probably make the better decision if there is no 2♠ opening. So, if a better player does not hear a 2♠ opening, but the weak players do hear a 2♠ opening, then the better player may think that he gained from the non-WK2, but he actually gained from being the better player.

 

Look, instead, at the WK2 opening side. My score, as North, is determined by whether I have better or weaker opponents. Everyone would open 2♠ in my seat and then sit back to see which camp they end up in -- losers or winners. The 2♠ opening, then, only ends up with a net of an average result on average from bidding.

 

So, what if I do not open 2♠? Now, our auction is different. That difference allows us to perhaps tweak the odds.

 

The net result that I found, therefore, was more control over the results, with a net gain in so doing. As I mentioned, we lost the occasional gainers from the preemption causing stuipid decisions by the opponents, but then we also no longer faced the "our opponents got it right" low results.

 

In the end, then, the analysis is not at all whether you score well against people who do not make a WK2, as that good gain may simply replace a good gain that you would have on average had anyway. From their perspective, the question is different.

[655321]

Consider a 2♠ opening.

 

If I open 2♠ as North, the opponents have the hard decision, usually. As a result, all of the East-West pairs will, say, either pass it out or overcall 3♣. One option works better for E-W.

 

The E-W pairs will score well if they make the right call, and the better E-W players will typically make the right call. The better E-W players will also probably make the better decision if there is no 2♠ opening.

 

So, what if I do not open 2♠?  Now, our auction is different.  That difference allows us to perhaps tweak the odds.

 

The net result that I found, therefore, was more control over the results, with a net gain in so doing.  As I mentioned, we lost the occasional gainers from the preemption causing stupid decisions by the opponents, but then we also no longer faced the "our opponents got it right" low results.

 

The normal approach to preempts is something like "If I pass throughout, my good opponents are likely to bid to the best spot. Therefore I will give them a problem by preempting."

 

The Ken Rexford approach to preempts, at least as I understand these paragraphs, is "If I preempt, my good opponents will guess right. Therefore I will give them a problem by passing throughout"

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have written.

[han]

I am with the crowd that thinks weak two bids tend to win IMPs when they come up. This is not the same a system with weak twos is superior to a system without weak twos. I find it very foolish that proponents of systems without weak twos seem don't seem to get this.

 

Gerben's example is a poor one. The plusses of playing weak 2's is not that you get to 4S one round earlier. It is that you get your suit in early and you make the opponents guess instead of yourself. Big plusses occur when at one table the auction goes:

 

2S - (3C) - Dbl

 

and at the other table the auction starts with p - 1C - 1NT. Or we bid:

 

2S - (3H) - 4S - ??

 

while the other table bids for example p - (1H) - p - (4H) all pass. When our suit is hearts it is even likelier that we never get to show them after passing.

[glen]

From my experience (as a non-WK2 and a WK2 player), the weak two shifts the results for the hand to the opponents...

This is so dead-on right.

 

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.

[Gerben42]

A very simple test would be to find all hands where:

 

Fulvio2002 & Nunes2002 passed, but the other table bid 2 of something, and see what happens on them. Then we have to compare this result to their betting average.

 

The average on hands where THEY open 2 of something and the field either passes or bids 1 of something, is better than 1 IMP / board.

 

You could do the same thing for the pair Gerben42 & Ampelman / Shamc1 but I doubt the results will be as good as for the Italians :)

[ASkolnick]

I actually think it may depend on the context of what you consider weak 2's and how well defined the other hands are.

 

For example, based on Zar points, I play a system with all constructive 2's (26 ZP, 6+ of suit or (13)(45) in minors. So, this is more of a 1.5 weak bid. Now, your 1 of a major is guaranteed to be only 4-5 and you will know immediately level. Also, because your bids are much more well defined, things like negative free bids will never "block" opener.

 

The reason I do believe that weak 2's may give a slight theoretical advantage is because of their popularity. It seems getting your bids if first usually, work however is it seems:

 

1) Puts pressure on the opponents

2) For the most part, do not usually go for a number.

 

So, there are probably many slight gains by each preempt. However, I think you may gain in a system where you don't play weak 2's on hands where you don't open a 2 bid because your 1 bids are more well defined.

[kenrexford]

The Ken Rexford approach to preempts, at least as I understand these paragraphs, is "If I preempt, my good opponents will guess right. Therefore I will give them a problem by passing throughout"

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have written.

Uh, completely misunderstood?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Ken Rexford approach to preempts." As I actually do use weak two's, and as I actually preempt very aggressively, your inference is completely off-base.

 

My point was that comparing your results against the opponents not using a weak two when a weak two could have been made with the results of the field who had to handle a weak two is misleading if you are a better player than the field. If you would outscore the filed on bidding over a weak 2♠ opening, for sday a 9 on a 12 top, and you end up with a 9 on a 12 top when the opponents do not open a weak 2♠, then the failure to open a weak 2♠ was not the reason for the benefit -- you skill was the reason for the good result.

 

The only way to accurately track results for the side opening or not opening 2♠ weak is to track their average results, where the good-opponents-bad-opponents issue averages out.

 

When I did that, I noticed little to no loss from not playing weak two's.

 

The reason I play weak two's now is that it helps my particular systemic approach of 2/1 GF, IMO. However, I still expect a net average result on weak two hands from the opening. I also expect that my results will fluxuate more on these hands because of decisions out of my control. In other words, if everyone opens 2♠, then my opening of 2♠ gains me nothing except parity with the field as to opening bid. The end results will often be governed by whether my opponents make the right choice or not, more so than in other situations where my decision or partner's decision determines the result.

[fromageGB]

I think by definition you will get average results with a weak 2 if the rest of the field is playing weak 2s. As people have said, your result is in the lap of your opponents. The question is, if you do not play with the field, are you likely to do better or worse? I can't help thinking that giving opponents free rein for their bidding will allow them to end in better contracts. That can to some degree be offset by having better defined 1 bids on other hands, as those hands bid by a constructive 2 bid are removed from the 1 universe.

 

Someone made the point that the constructive 2 bid must be narrowly defined to avoid it being impossible to manage, and it could be you get the best of both worlds by using 2M for those hands too weak for a sound 1M, allowing better 1M results, and using 2♦ for hands the others will be opening 2M, for a similar preemptive effect.

[fred]

I recently spent a few happy years playing on a team that included Russ Ekeblad and Ronnie Rubin. They use a strong club canape system that Russ devised which utilized 2-level openings to describe various 11-15 HCP hands. There were no weak 2-bids in their system. When they were dealt an appropriate hand for a weak 2, they would either Pass, open 3, or open 1.

 

I can't make any claims about the overall effectivenes of their approach. For sure their system gained on a lot of hands and for sure their results as a partnership were consistently strong (though probably this had more to do with the fact that they are both excellent players who worked hard on their partnership than anything else - I am sure they would have done just fine if they played "standard").

 

But I can tell you that whenever I was playing at the other table and one of my opponents opened a weak 2-bid, I was terrified. We regularly lost IMPs on these hands. We did gain plenty of IMPs as a result of other aspects of the Ekeblad-Rubin system, but I doubt their 2-bids directly contributed much in this regard. My sense is that at best we broke even when their system forced them to open at the 2-level.

 

That is because the particular 2-bids they played were designed to "fill holes" (ie providing them with *some* way to bid hands that would be easier to bid if you could start at the 1-level as you could in a natural system) rather than to give them any inherant advantage over people using "normal" systems when hands appropriate for their 2-bids were dealt.

 

Of course it could well be the case that this allowed them to gain more from their 1-level openings that the IMPs they lost from their 2-level openings (and lack of weak 2-bids).

 

My teammates inability to open weak 2s was especially worrisome when we were playing against teams that we expected to beat (ie most of the time). Under such circumstances it is in the interest of the favored team to decrease volatility. Creating swings on normal and common hands is not a good thing in this regard. I know my friend Russ would respond to this point with something like "I don't care if we lose the occasional match to a bad team if it increases our chances of beating Nickell when we face them". Maybe he is right...

 

In case this post is read as being critical of Russ and Ronnie, I should emphasize that this was not my intention. They were great teammates who produced excellent results over the course of several years. Their system is very clever and resulted in a LOT of gains for our team.

 

But their lack of weak 2-bids, more than ANY other aspect of their system, did cause me to lose some sleep at night B)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[TylerE]

They use a strong club canape system that Russ devised which utilized 2-level openings to describe various 11-15 HCP hands.

Fred - Are their systems notes available anywhere? I'd love to have a copy. Strong club canape' has been a particular interest of mine of late.

[fred]

They use a strong club canape system that Russ devised which utilized 2-level openings to describe various 11-15 HCP hands.

Fred - Are their systems notes available anywhere? I'd love to have a copy. Strong club canape' has been a particular interest of mine of late.

Russ plays on BBO as Thor17 at least a couple of times a week. I am not sure if he knows how to deal with BBO mail messages, but he definitely knows how to use chat.

 

If you tell him you are interested in his system and ask him (politely) for a copy of his notes, I think there is a reasonable chance he will be willing to send them to you.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[TylerE]

Thanks!

 

(As a side note, in the two canape' systems I play (One strong club, the other Std. Am.-ish, the 2M bids aren't weak. ACOL 2s in one (Awesome when they come up, and systemically we can open the good weak 2s one), and intermediate (10-13 with 6M) in the other. Both seem to work well, and I rarely miss the weak two when not playing it).

[Gerben42]

I've done a simulation and that says that unless your expectation in a pairs tournament is above 63%, you will get more masterpoints by creating swings with your system. This is assuming that the new system will not hurt your average.

 

And if your expected value is above 63%, you're probably bored and in the wrong tournament.

[mike777]

YOu can also check out "Simple Club", listed in bridge encyclopedia it has many things in common with Russ's style. Canape, int two bids

 

alot of system taken from Roman and Neopolitian club

 

one level promise 2 suited hand 100%

2c =3 suited

other 2 level one suited

 

1c=strong

1d, 1h, 1s=100% two suited....4 cards promised in first bid suit, canape often

1nt=12-15

2c=3 suiter less than strong club

2d, 2h, 2s, 2nt, 3c all one suited int hand.

[marcD]

Do not know if we can lump weak two bids altogether :

- I think 2♠ is extremely useful (although playing Muiderberg + multi instead seems to work)

- I have mixed feelings about 2♥ ; the preemptive value is marginal + you risk pushing opponents to a making 4♠

- I think 2♦ is extremely effective but the price too pay is probably too high in terms of constructive bidding

 

I have also played, the 1.5 opening approach in the past but frankly results were not convincing . Some restrict them to M+clubs for constructive bidding purposes but then the frequency is too low to bother

[Adebisi]

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. So, Muiderberg 2H/S 5-10 5+MAJ/4+ minor is more effective.Im a regular tourney player and i can say 100% was winning decision to get them out.I bet when people started to use them , even weak 2 instead of strong 2 was "from other world", so it stayed, they dindnt come to that, that 54 hands happens 3-4 times more and that approach even more useful.Ok, sure you loośe some hands but SURE u gain more.U never get under - 500 or -800, sometimes u loose fit in other minor: i remember hands i played and made 4H when weak 2 plyers stayed in 2S -1.And I started to play without them when i read some article from BFallenius or MNilsland that weak 2s are loosers in the long run, and i could say they are.

[benlessard]

Im playing a strong club system and im not ready to give up my weak 2D to play Roman, so it will rain cows before im going to give up weak 2s in majors.