What is an opening 2H worth?

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sj96hkq10932d3c842]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Another post brought this question to mind. 2D as a weak 2-bid can cause a lot of problems as can 2S; however, 2H does not cause seemingly as many problems - if the oppenents have spades they can bid them - if partner has spades and we don't then we are in a bad spot if he bids them. So the idea struck me that maybe a 2H opener should show a defensive "value" in spades, i.e., a holding that will become a useful defensive value opposite some random holding like Qxx or Qx (partner would have to judge from the auction the likely spade length). Although the frequency of 2H would be reduced, it seems the accuracy of when to bid on and when to defend would be enhanced greatly. Is there enough compensation here for the reduced frequency?[/hv]

[Echognome]

If you're going to go down this route, then you might as well go full boar to an Ekren 2♥ showing both majors. I don't see the value of showing a 36 rather than a 44 hand. The only reason I can see wanting to play this is because I don't believe the acbl will let you play Ekren at a reasonable level. (I believe it to be midchart and even though it must show a 45 or 54)

[the hog]

Why not play 2H as a weak 2 in H or a weak 2 in S? This is a great bid nv and very hard to combat.

[Free]

Why not play 2H as a weak 2 in H or a weak 2 in S? This is a great bid nv and very hard to combat.

Simple: it's brown sticker, so not very useful in many tournaments...

 

Me and f2f partner immediatly switched to 2♥ Ekren, even when we were playing a natural system. Muiderberg or normal weak 2♥ is indeed quite useless as a preempt when opps have ♠s. Way harder to defend is Ekren, AND it's more frequent. Ok, it sometimes (not much) puts you in the wrong spot, but that's what happens when preempting with 44+ hands...

[Finch]

I don't like the idea of a 2H opening showing "a defensive value in spades". It's going to make it too easy to pick up the spade suit for the opponents.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

probbaly you are right, but you also overlook the fact,

that if the opponent in direct seat cannot act immediatly

and partner raises to 2H to 3 or 4H, the opponent in 4th

seat will have a hard time.

 

The weak 2 bid in hearts may not be as effective as the

weak 2 bid in spade or in diamond, but it kills space and

the opponents need to start at the 2 level to sort it out.

 

Also a weak 2 bid describes your hand fairly well, assuming

you use the weak 2 bids disciplined, ie. the weak 2 maybe

in certain situation garbage, but then it will always be garbage.

 

I dont know your article, but I use the LTC for preemptive

openings, which makes it easier for partner.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

Hi,

 

probbaly you are right, but you also overlook the fact,

that if the opponent in direct seat cannot act immediatly

and partner raises to 2H to 3 or 4H, the opponent in 4th

seat will have a hard time.

 

The weak 2 bid in hearts may not be as effective as the

weak 2 bid in spade or in diamond, but it kills space and

the opponents need to start at the 2 level to sort it out.

 

Also a weak 2 bid describes your hand fairly well, assuming

you use the weak 2 bids disciplined, ie. the weak 2 maybe

in certain situation garbage, but then it will always be garbage.

 

I dont know your article, but I use the LTC for preemptive

openings, which makes it easier for partner.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Thanks for the input - this is how ideas emerge in my mind - kind of like a vague "what if". Seems as though this may be too restrictive to be of any serious value but who knows? Something to ponder, anyway.

 

Winston

[Al_U_Card]

Was this a reflection on the practice of NOT opening a weak 2H when you have something in Spades? Generally, in my partnerships, 2H denies 3S to an honor or even Kx. This is very useful when deciding how useful the Hxx(x) of Spades are, in my hand, when I can raise my pard's H bid.

 

Everything is a trade-off so this is just one method that I find comfortable.

[pclayton]

The JS is not enough of an impediment to stop a routine 2H opening.

 

For some reason, Axx / Kxx in the other major reduces the attractiveness of a weak 2, however, its still a perfectly descriptive bid.

 

I kind of like a 3613 or 3631 when I open a weak 2H. If pard responds 2S, I have an easy splinter.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't agree with your assessment of the 2H opening. There are other suits besides spades in the deck, and even if there wasnt you would still cause them grief with a 2H bid some of the time, especially when partner furthers the preempt. It is a very worthwhile bid.

[inquiry]

Was this a reflection on the practice of NOT opening a weak 2H when you have something in Spades? Generally, in my partnerships, 2H denies 3S to an honor or even Kx. This is very useful when deciding how useful the Hxx(x) of Spades are, in my hand, when I can raise my pard's H bid.

 

Everything is a trade-off so this is just one method that I find comfortable.

Do you alert 2♥ and state this practice? Anyway, I wanted to address the premise of the original post that, "opening 2D (weak) can cause a lot of problems as can 2S; however, 2H does not cause seemingly as many problems"

 

I wondered if that was observations, if that was based upon some study (Stephen pickett has said many times, that his data shows opening a weak 2♦ is far and away the most benefitial of the weak two bids).

 

So I tried a little study, I ran Bridgebrowser all tournments in july 2005 on bridgebase. I looked for first seat hands where dealer had from 8 to 10 hcp, six hearts headed by KJxxxx or better, and specifically 6332 distribution. There were 4489 such hands.

 

The dealer on these hand, passed a total of 1312, I will ignore those guys

Opening bid, and scores were:

1H 190 times, average imps, -0.63, average MP 63,83

2H 1508 times, average imps -0.23 average MP 43.52

3H 29 times, average imps, +0,42 (no MP bids)

4H 4 times, average imps -2.11 (nnone at MP)

 

I did the same but exchanged the suits so that the long one was spades (again from dealer only). There were 4673 such ahdns, the dealer passed on 1393 of these.

Opening bid, and scores were

1S 216. average IMP -0.85, average MP 57.33

2S 1577 average imps, -0.15, average MP 47.78

3S 31 hands, average imps 0.72

4S 3 hands, average imps -1.95

 

(For what it is worth, those who passed with six spades, averaged -0.38 Imps, which was better than those who opened 1♠ and worse than those who opened 2♠.)

 

It is interesting that these limited numbers (only one month, only first seat, only 6332 pattern) seemed to support the idea that 2S was more effective (as determind by imps and MP) than an opening of 2H, as claimed here. It is also interesting that oening bids of 3H or 3S on the same hands were much more effective than opening 2H or 2S. A larger group of hands might need to be examined.

N

[Winstonm]

Very interesting Ben. To answer: no study was done. It was just a sense garnered from observation and experience, having played all three bids as weak as long as I can remember.

 

Perhaps the real point here is that 2H might be better utilized with strict parameters (suit quality, HCP, etc.) whereas 2D and 2S should be more flexible.

 

Winston

[Walddk]

If you want to try a whole new concept of 2-openings, you may want to know about this:

 

2♣ = Game forcing with any suit or 25+ balanced.

2♦ = Weak 2 in hearts or strong 2 in spades, clubs or diamonds (forcing for 1 round) or 22-24 balanced.

2♥ = Strong 2 in hearts (forcing for 1 round).

2♠ = Weak 2 in spades.

2N = 20-21 balanced.

 

Whether you are allowed to play the 2♦ opening everywhere is another matter (ACBL-land), but it's perfectly legitimate in most parts of Europe. I have tried the complete concept with my Scottish partner for 4 years, and I haven't had any significant problems.

 

One of the advantages is of course that 2♣ is now game forcing no matter what responder has. That will solve a few problems that occur when you need a bid at the 2-level to be the strong hand (as opposed to the big club systems).

 

Roland

 

P.S. No, I did not invent this; someone in Britain did I believe.

[Winstonm]

If you want to try a whole new concept of 2-openings, you may want to know about this:

 

2♣ = Game forcing with any suit or 25+ balanced.

2♦ = Weak 2 in hearts or strong 2 in spades, clubs or diamonds (forcing for 1 round) or 22-24 balanced.

2♥ = Strong 2 in hearts (forcing for 1 round).

2♠ = Weak 2 in spades.

2N = 20-21 balanced.

 

Whether you are allowed to play the 2♦ opening everywhere is another matter (ACBL-land), but it's perfectly legitimate in most parts of Europe. I have tried the complete concept with my Scottish partner for 4 years, and I haven't had any significant problems.

 

One of the advantages is of course that 2♣ is now game forcing no matter what responder has. That will solve a few problems that occur when you need a bid at the 2-level to be the strong hand (as opposed to the big club systems).

 

Roland

 

P.S. No, I did not invent this; someone in Britain did I believe.

Certainly functional but partner would be unlikely to ever abandon the weak 2D and I myself am not so certain than anything else serves a better purpose than the natural weak 2-bid.

 

Thanks for the input.

 

Winston

[Walddk]

Certainly functional but partner would be unlikely to ever abandon the weak 2D and I myself am not so certain than anything else serves a better purpose than the natural weak 2-bid.

If that is your only concern, you can let a weak 2 in diamonds be part of your 2♣ opening (responder must bid 2♦). This is also used by many European pairs, and again perfectly legitimate, since the opponents will get another chance when opener passes 2♦.

 

Roland

[Double !]

If you want to try a whole new concept of 2-openings, you may want to know about this:

 

2♣ = Game forcing with any suit or 25+ balanced.

2♦ = Weak 2 in hearts or strong 2 in spades, clubs or diamonds (forcing for 1 round) or 22-24 balanced.

2♥ = Strong 2 in hearts (forcing for 1 round).

2♠ = Weak 2 in spades.

2N = 20-21 balanced.

Roland

2 questions:

 

1) pragmatically, how is this structure significantly different from Benjamin 2-bids (or reverse Benjy) outside of risk of wrong-siding a heart hand playing Benjy 2D?

 

2) what happened to opening 2M to show minimum opening hand with M+Cs?

[awm]

Inquiry's statistics should be read with care. Notice that on the 1♠ hands, we have:

 

Pass lost 529 imps.

1♠ lost 183 imps.

2♠ lost 236 imps.

4♠ lost 6 imps.

 

3♠ won 22 imps.

 

Now, the total imps of everyone holding each particular hand should add up to zero. It can't be that you just automatically lose imps by holding certain cards!

 

So the real question here is, who is winning imps? Where does this huge net imp deficit come from?

Most of the imps being won are by people who open things other than pass or some number of spades. Who are these people?

 

My guess would be that many of them are opening multi 2♦. Perhaps a few are psyching, or are playing highly unusual methods, but there are probably not enough of these to account for many of the hundreds of "missing" imps. So let's assume most of them are opening multi (Ben can check on this).

 

First, this explains why all these bids are net negative. People who are opening multi have two huge advantages in BBO fields:

 

(1) They are almost surely an established partnership, which is a massive advantage in itself. I expect that established partnerships have a much better net imp rate than others.

 

(2) A lot of people don't know how to defend multi. Surely multi is a huge net winner against people who aren't used to facing it.

 

In addition, this gives an entirely different reason for the success of 2♠ as opposed to 2♥. One of the big disadvantages of multi 2♦ is that the opponents can sneak in a natural heart bid at the two level when you have a weak two in spades. This makes them less likely to sell to 2♠ when they should be competing in hearts, and less likely to be hammered in 3♥ when they make a borderline overcall after the 2♠ opening. So it seems like multi would tend to do better relative to a weak two on the hands where opener actually has hearts, than on the hands where opener actually has spades.

[inquiry]

Inquiry's statistics should be read with care. Notice that on the 1♠ hands, we have:

 

Pass lost 529 imps.

1♠ lost 183 imps.

2♠ lost 236 imps.

4♠ lost 6 imps.

 

3♠ won 22 imps.

 

Now, the total imps of everyone holding each particular hand should add up to zero. It can't be that you just automatically lose imps by holding certain cards!

 

So the real question here is, who is winning imps? Where does this huge net imp deficit come from?

Most of the imps being won are by people who open things other than pass or some number of spades. Who are these people?

 

My guess would be that many of them are opening multi 2♦. Perhaps a few are psyching, or are playing highly unusual methods, but there are probably not enough of these to account for many of the hundreds of "missing" imps. So let's assume most of them are opening multi (Ben can check on this).

 

First, this explains why all these bids are net negative. People who are opening multi have two huge advantages in BBO fields:

 

(1) They are almost surely an established partnership, which is a massive advantage in itself. I expect that established partnerships have a much better net imp rate than others.

 

(2) A lot of people don't know how to defend multi. Surely multi is a huge net winner against people who aren't used to facing it.

 

In addition, this gives an entirely different reason for the success of 2♠ as opposed to 2♥. One of the big disadvantages of multi 2♦ is that the opponents can sneak in a natural heart bid at the two level when you have a weak two in spades. This makes them less likely to sell to 2♠ when they should be competing in hearts, and less likely to be hammered in 3♥ when they make a borderline overcall after the 2♠ opening. So it seems like multi would tend to do better relative to a weak two on the hands where opener actually has hearts, than on the hands where opener actually has spades.

I did not add the other bids to the mix, like multi 2D, like 1H opening bids, like 1C opening bids like 3H opening bid when holding spades (yes there are a few of those). But like I said that was a small data set, with very limited considerations.

 

A second problem is not all the hands were played at imps, I didn't divide out the number of imp hands from the number of mp hands.

 

I will run a large set, and see what happens (wider point counts, no emphasis on suit quality, etc).

[pigpenz]

my feeling is that who ever has to make the last guess is gonna lose alot more than win.

When I used to play 123 two suiters in 1980 i found that i had to open at the 3 level alot of my weak two hands, and found that to be more successful than opening them at the 2 level.

 

So 2♦2♥2♠ all work as long as you are consistent in first and second seat and your partner knows what he can expect from you. The modern trend lately has been to open any six bagger a weak two which usually finds partner alot with a balanced 14+ hcp hand but more than often it turns out there are several losers in the weak twos suit. Thats where most of the problems arise in my opinion :P

[Walddk]

If you want to try a whole new concept of 2-openings, you may want to know about this:

 

2♣ = Game forcing with any suit or 25+ balanced.

2♦ = Weak 2 in hearts or strong 2 in spades, clubs or diamonds (forcing for 1 round) or 22-24 balanced.

2♥ = Strong 2 in hearts (forcing for 1 round).

2♠ = Weak 2 in spades.

2N = 20-21 balanced.

Roland

2 questions:

 

1) pragmatically, how is this structure significantly different from Benjamin 2-bids (or reverse Benjy) outside of risk of wrong-siding a heart hand playing Benjy 2D?

 

2) what happened to opening 2M to show minimum opening hand with M+Cs?

1) You are absolutely right about the Benjamin part of Acol, although the strong 2 in spades is included in 2♦ in *my* concept. Since 2♦ is ambiguous (5-way), responder will assume the weak 2 in hearts (most common obviously).

 

2) I am happy to dump that part.

 

I get 2♣ as a game force and a weak 2 in diamonds on top of it all.

 

Roland

[awm]

I'm not sure my point about the statistics has been understood. It's not the sample size that bothers me -- I have seen similar statistics on okbridge and it would surprise me if the results were much different if Ben were to extend this research to a period of years or hundreds of thousands of hands. Let me try to state the problems more clearly. Here are some conclusions that one might think would follow from the statistics.

 

Myth: You will always do badly when you have a weak hand with a six card major

Reasoning: Virtually all actions seem to lose imps.

Reality: Not every possible action was listed here. On any given hand, the total net imps for all openings MUST sum to zero. Thus alternate, nonlisted actions must be winning rather large number of imps. Probably most of these are multi 2♦ openings on the hands surveyed.

 

Myth: Weak twos are an ineffective convention

Reasoning: They are net negative over a large number of boards

Reality: Opening multi 2♦ appears to be really effective, partly because it is played only by reasonably good players and people don't know how to defend it. Because of this, all non-multi openings appear to be worse (since net imps must add to zero and multi is a huge winner).

 

Myth: You should open 3♠ on six card suits frequently

Reasoning: People who bid 3♠ tend to win imps whereas 2♠ bidders lose on average.

Reality: Opening 3♠ with a six card suit is indeed a winner on SOME HANDS. The people opening 3♠ are not doing so randomly, they are backing their judgement. The statistic indicates only that people who occasionally bid 3♠ on six card suits seem to have good judgement and/or be good players. It's not clear that opening 3♠ randomly on all the reasonable 2♠ openings would be effective at all.

 

Myth: Light openings in the majors are awful

Reasoning: The 1♠ openers (and presumably similarly the 1♥ openers) did awfully on the hands, much worse than any other bid.

Reality: Light openings when partner doesn't expect them/know how to cope with them are pretty lousy. Probably the majority of these hands are not within established partnerships that have methods designed to deal with 1♠ openings on 9 hcp with a shapely hand.

 

Myth: Artificial methods like transfer openings and multi are huge winners

Reasoning: On many of these hands none of the natural bids did well. Thus people who opened something other than spades or pass when holding spades are doing better.

Reality: People who have good agreements tend to do well. This includes some people playing natural systems, but includes virtually all people playing artificial systems. Thus people who open hands with spades routinely with a moscito 1♥ or a multi 2♦ or a transfer preempt 2♥ will do well because they have agreements. It doesn't necessarily mean that these are "good bids" against people who have well-prepared defenses.

 

Myth: Passing on hands with six card suits is a terrible idea

Reasoning: The people who pass do routinely extremely badly.

Reality: A lot of the people passing are those who have ridiculously strict criteria for weak twos, or who don't play weak twos (and I'd bet more of those are beginners than are playing some hyper-modern method), or people who don't trust partner enough to open a weak two, or people who are not paying enough attention to their hands to open a weak two. Most of these people are not going to do well in general, and so the net imps for pass will be poor regardless of the actual merits of passing these hands.

 

Anyways, I'm not arguing with the statistics themselves or the way in which they were collected, or saying that a larger sample would make much of a difference. The point is that these types of statistics appear at first glance to be much more useful in analyzing effectiveness of bidding methods than they actually are. Table results have a lot more to do with the players' skill levels than the methods they use, and since methods and skill level are not independent, this sort of analysis of methods has a number of flaws.