What you open?

[johnu]

This is a 7 loser hand, no defense outside of hearts, 11 HCP. Assuming weak two's are 5-11 HCP, this fits the range, albeit the top end of the range. I'm perfectly okay opening 2♥ with this hand. If this is the opponents hand, 2♥ is preemptive and lets partner know not to expect much in the way of defense. A priori odds of game our way are below average since partner needs 4 cover cards and singleton ♥J or doubleton or better to give 4♥ a good play. If partner has 4 potential winners and some kind of heart support, I think most of the time they will be able to make a game try, or just bid game. I think missing a game by opening 2♥ is balanced out by getting to a no-play game when partner makes a minimum 2/1 response over 1♥ or raises you to 3♥ after a non 2/1 auction.

[rhm]

The question is interesting even though there are different minimum requirements for an opening bid and what constitutes a vulnerable weak two bid.

(For me one requirement for a weak two bid is that it lacks requirements to open with one of a major.

There is no such hand, which could be too weak for a one bid but too strong for a weak two bid vulnerable, but non vulnerable I might open with a three bid with a good suit if borderline.)

Assuming you are playing something, which is not too far out from mainstream (at least in expert circles), I would guess if you open 1♥ you would be unable to stop below game if partner has

 

12 HCP with 2 cards in hearts or

13 HCP and a singleton heart or

14 HCP and a void in hearts.

 

For my simulation I purposely made no other assumptions about the distribution of the deal, mainly because I know from experience, they would not really affect the overall result substantially but would be contentious and a lot of work.

I tested what would happen under those conditions in a heart contract. I know by now simulations convinces nobody of anything unless the simulation proves what you were already convinced of.

 

result 1000 deals:

 

4♥ made on 302 deals out of 1000.

Average number of tricks per deal was just below 9.

 

Even vulnerable at IMPs, I do not mind staying out of those games.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[billw55]

I agree, we don't want to bid those games.

 

On the other hand, well tuned partnerships that open 1♥ on hands like this might bump up their baseline for responder forcing to game. Or do expert pairs mostly just bid all 30%+ games and hope for the best?

[quiddity]

I tested what would happen under those conditions in a heart contract...

 

Even vulnerable at IMPs, I do not mind staying out of those games.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Rainer, why is that the right question to ask as opposed to something like "how often does 3NT make when partner has a balanced 12-14"?

It seems like a better question is "in the set of hands which force to game opposite 1♥ but fail to invite opposite 2♥, how often do we have game somewhere"? Given that you only tested the most minimum misfits and only in a heart contract and still came up with 30% success rate for game, that sounds like a strong argument for opening 1♥ vul at imps.

[rhm]

Rainer, why is that the right question to ask as opposed to something like "how often does 3NT make when partner has a balanced 12-14"?

It seems like a better question is "in the set of hands which force to game opposite 1♥ but fail to invite opposite 2♥, how often do we have game somewhere"? Given that you only tested the most minimum misfits and only in a heart contract and still came up with 30% success rate for game, that sounds like a strong argument for opening 1♥ vul at imps.

I am not sure what the right question is to ask, but I tried to answer the question you raised.

My assumption was, those borderline hands where I may get to game I would not if I opened 2♥ instead of 1♥.

The preemptive value of 2♥ versus 1♥ is surely beneficial when you have an excellent suit and little outside strength.

 

I looked at game, because this tends to be most critical. Getting or not getting to slam would be even more contentious but less frequent an issue.

If you have a good fit I do not see much difference between opening a vulnerable weak two or with one of a major, the sixth card and the better distribution compensating at least in theory for the fewer HCP a weak two might show.

The difference are mainly on the misfit hands.

 

So I tried to come up with those borderline hands where I might not move over a vulnerable weak two, but where I think very few player would stop below game, if their partner opened with one of a major.

Note, that I would at least invite over a vulnerable 2♥, if I had the above hands except with one more heart. For example I would invite with most 12 HCP hands with three hearts instead of two.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

The hand is an advert for playing very strong weak two's (circa 9-11) with 2♦(multi) covering the weaker range.

[quiddity]

So I tried to come up with those borderline hands where I might not move over a vulnerable weak two, but where I think very few player would stop below game, if their partner opened with one of a major.

Note, that I would at least invite over a vulnerable 2♥, if I had the above hands except with one more heart. For example I would invite with most 12 HCP hands with three hearts instead of two.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Maybe I misunderstood the parameters of your sim but it sounded like "12hcp with 2 hearts, or 13hcp with 1 heart, or 14hcp with 0 hearts". Those are your estimates of the minimum hands with which you cannot stop short of game after 1♥. I think you also need to look at your estimate of maximum hands which do not invite over a 2♥ opening and sim over that range. Would you move with a 14-count and 2 hearts? If not, your sim parameters should be 12-14 with 2 hearts, etc..

[the hog]

The question is interesting even though there are different minimum requirements for an opening bid and what constitutes a vulnerable weak two bid.

(For me one requirement for a weak two bid is that it lacks requirements to open with one of a major.

There is no such hand, which could be too weak for a one bid but too strong for a weak two bid vulnerable, but non vulnerable I might open with a three bid with a good suit if borderline.)

Assuming you are playing something, which is not too far out from mainstream (at least in expert circles), I would guess if you open 1♥ you would be unable to stop below game if partner has

 

12 HCP with 2 cards in hearts or

13 HCP and a singleton heart or

14 HCP and a void in hearts.

 

For my simulation I purposely made no other assumptions about the distribution of the deal, mainly because I know from experience, they would not really affect the overall result substantially but would be contentious and a lot of work.

I tested what would happen under those conditions in a heart contract. I know by now simulations convinces nobody of anything unless the simulation proves what you were already convinced of.

 

result 1000 deals:

 

4♥ made on 302 deals out of 1000.

Average number of tricks per deal was just below 9.

 

Even vulnerable at IMPs, I do not mind staying out of those games.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

You forget that the reverse is also true.

Opposite

Axx

xx

Axx

Axxxx

you have a very good play for 9 tricks in 3NT. Don't feed me the line that you would bid over a weak 2H opening!

[johnu]

You forget that the reverse is also true.

Opposite

Axx

xx

Axx

Axxxx

you have a very good play for 9 tricks in 3NT. Don't feed me the line that you would bid over a weak 2H opening!

 

Yes, that would probably be a losing position for the 2♥ openers if you end up in 3NT after opening 1♥, but a made up hand doesn't make a compelling argument. Bridge is about percentages. You've got to weigh the advantages of opening 2♥ when it's the other side's hand, getting to high when you open 1♥, and missing game if you open 2♥.

[the hog]

Yes, that would probably be a losing position for the 2♥ openers if you end up in 3NT after opening 1♥, but a made up hand doesn't make a compelling argument. Bridge is about percentages. You've got to weigh the advantages of opening 2♥ when it's the other side's hand, getting to high when you open 1♥, and missing game if you open 2♥.

 

I am well aware of that. My post was a direct reply to rhm.

[cherdano]

The question is interesting even though there are different minimum requirements for an opening bid and what constitutes a vulnerable weak two bid.

(For me one requirement for a weak two bid is that it lacks requirements to open with one of a major.

There is no such hand, which could be too weak for a one bid but too strong for a weak two bid vulnerable, but non vulnerable I might open with a three bid with a good suit if borderline.)

Assuming you are playing something, which is not too far out from mainstream (at least in expert circles), I would guess if you open 1♥ you would be unable to stop below game if partner has

 

12 HCP with 2 cards in hearts or

13 HCP and a singleton heart or

14 HCP and a void in hearts.

 

For my simulation I purposely made no other assumptions about the distribution of the deal, mainly because I know from experience, they would not really affect the overall result substantially but would be contentious and a lot of work.

I tested what would happen under those conditions in a heart contract. I know by now simulations convinces nobody of anything unless the simulation proves what you were already convinced of.

 

result 1000 deals:

 

4♥ made on 302 deals out of 1000.

Average number of tricks per deal was just below 9.

 

Even vulnerable at IMPs, I do not mind staying out of those games.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

It's a pretty good bet that your simulations will never convince me of anything.

If I have 14 random hcp with xx of hearts, I will not try for game over 2H. The relevance of this obvervation for the above simulations is left as an exercise for the reader. Also, not every hand with 12 hcp and xx of hearts will force to game.

[rhm]

Would you move with a 14-count and 2 hearts?

Of course I would, especially over a vulnerable weak two.

I said so already, and I also said for me there is no hand, which might be too weak to open with 1♥ but too strong to open 2♥.

Non vulnerable I would open the hand under consideration with 3♥ and again game would be reached opposite 14 HCP and 2 hearts, though of course not always made.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

It's a pretty good bet that your simulations will never convince me of anything.

I agree there is no point trying to convince people, who are blinkered. My contributions are not for the benefit of those.

Fortunately there are a few left, who try to keep an open mind.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

You forget that the reverse is also true.

Opposite

Axx

xx

Axx

Axxxx

you have a very good play for 9 tricks in 3NT. Don't feed me the line that you would bid over a weak 2H opening!

I reported that in 30% of the deals 4♥ would make double dummy. So what's your point?

Of course I am also aware that there are a very few hands where 3NT might make, while 4♥ is down.

 

For your example hand

 

Axx

xx

Axx

Axxxx

 

it is easy to see that 3NT might make opposite a good suit. The issue is how often will opener hold such a hand?

I might bid 2NT over a vulnerable 2♥ and receive a response of 3NT (solid suit).

I might move because I would not evaluate this hand as 12 HCP (it is closer to 14 HCP), but this is a different subject.

But you may well be right that I might not try over 2♥. It is borderline.

Reaching 3NT and avoiding 4♥ after opening 1♥ on this pair of hands is quite difficult as well. I am not sure how many top pairs would manage.

 

Passing 2♥ gains when

 

a) hearts do not break. A clear win at any form of scoring.

b) the 1♥ openers do not reach 3NT but get too high in hearts.

 

I like those odds.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

As has been said, it depends on partnership agreements. If 1♥ is a "sound" style, and partner is prepared for this to be a 2♥ open, then there is no problem at all. Similarly if 1♥ can be "aggressive" then this is obviously too strong for 2♥.

[cherdano]

I agree there is no point trying to convince people, who are blinkered. My contributions are not for the benefit of those.

Fortunately there are a few left, who try to keep an open mind.

I point out a serious flaw in your simulation, while making an off-hand comment hinting that I frequently disagree with the assumptions in your simulations.

Your reply with an insult, and don't bother to fix your simulation.

 

I stand by my bet.

[rhm]

I point out a serious flaw in your simulation

You did nothing like that, not even coming close.

You just made some claimes

 

If I have 14 random hcp with xx of hearts, I will not try for game over 2H.

Fair enough, I guess your maximum vulnerable weak twos look different from mine.

You never pointed out anything of substance.

You just make unsubstantiated silly claims and when you get answered with your own rudeness you complain.

 

Rainer Herrmann.

[steve2005]

if you play a 3N response to a 2N ask as solid ♥ then i'll open 2♥.

without it i'll open 1♥

[Zelandakh]

Fair enough, I guess your maximum vulnerable weak twos look different from mine.

Bingo! Isn't this the whole point of the thread?

 

For me a Weak 2 looks something along the lines of 5-9. For you it seems it is more like 7-11. I would guess that a (North American) standard is in the middle of these. The general advice over such a Weak 2 is to pass with a random weak NT, of which "14 random hcp with xx in hearts" will usually qualify. It is quite wrong to assume your (stronger) requirements for a Weak 2 when there is no evidence that these are agreed. We could just as easily assume my (weaker) requirements, no?

 

In short, we do not really need a simulation to know that you should open this hand with 2 if it falls within the expected range for that call. The question is whether the flaws make it worth downgrading when playing a style for which the hand would normally be too good. Your simulation is great, but for the wrong question. This is what cherdano was pointing out and my understanding is that the style he is suggesting would be a more mainstream view.

 

As PK already pointed out, the perfect call for this hand would be a constructive weak 2. Perhaps we should assume this instead and simulate accordingly. I am sure we could then prove incontrovertibly that opening 2♥ is ideal.

[rhm]

Bingo! Isn't this the whole point of the thread?

 

For me a Weak 2 looks something along the lines of 5-9. For you it seems it is more like 7-11. I would guess that a (North American) standard is in the middle of these. The general advice over such a Weak 2 is to pass with a random weak NT, of which "14 random hcp with xx in hearts" will usually qualify. It is quite wrong to assume your (stronger) requirements for a Weak 2 when there is no evidence that these are agreed. We could just as easily assume my (weaker) requirements, no?

 

In short, we do not really need a simulation to know that you should open this hand with 2 if it falls within the expected range for that call. The question is whether the flaws make it worth downgrading when playing a style for which the hand would normally be too good. Your simulation is great, but for the wrong question. This is what cherdano was pointing out and my understanding is that the style he is suggesting would be a more mainstream view.

 

As PK already pointed out, the perfect call for this hand would be a constructive weak 2. Perhaps we should assume this instead and simulate accordingly. I am sure we could then prove incontrovertibly that opening 2♥ is ideal.

As usual I have no qualms with PK. He is often right to the point.

I had said before that I can not have a hand, which is too strong for a vulnerable weak two but not strong enough to open one of a suit.

However, I believe that to be a mainstream.

If you play 5-9 you have just such a gap, since not all hands with 10 HCP and a six card major would qualify for an opening one bid, at least not for the majority.

Of course there are a lot of 10 HCP hands which do qualify and which I open with 1♥. This happen to be not one of them.

A 1♠ opening looks to me like ♠QT9865 ♥9 ♦AT8 ♣A87, which I recently held at all red as dealer.

By the way 42 opened this hand 2♠, while 15 including me opened 1♠.

Different to some I am not a HCP slave and do not believe this to be the sole criteria, nor am I particularly constructively oriented.

I look at my hand, 6331 distribution instead of 6322 for example being much more important than a stray jack.

 

Rainer Herrmann