[hotShot]

Lets look at the facts:

The chances that a deal contains a hand with 22+ HCP is about 0.33%, about 1 in 300 boards. Only half of those will be on your side (1 in 600 boards).
If you hold 22 HCP, the other 3 player share 18 HCP averaging to 6 HCP each.

So if your partnership is not having a SAYC 2♣ opening, this will only matter on 1 in 600 boards, and most of the time partner will have 6 HCP to answer over a 1.level opening.
So the chance to be damaged by the lack of the strong forcing 2♣ opening is less than 1: 1200.

Having e.g. a weak 2 ♣ opening will occur once every 30 boards.

So there is a chance that your benefit from 40 weak ♣ openings is bigger than the loss of 1 missed big board.

[jdonn]

hotShot, on Nov 4 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Lets look at the facts:

The chances that a deal contains a hand with 22+ HCP is about 0.33%, about 1 in 300 boards. Only half of those will be on your side (1 in 600 boards).
If you hold 22 HCP, the other 3 player share 18 HCP averaging to 6 HCP each.

So if your partnership is not having a SAYC 2♣ opening, this will only matter on 1 in 600 boards, and most of the time partner will have 6 HCP to answer over a 1.level opening.
So the chance to be damaged by the lack of the strong forcing 2♣ opening is less than 1: 1200.

Having e.g. a weak 2 ♣ opening will occur once every 30 boards.

So there is a chance that your benefit from 40 weak ♣ openings is bigger than the loss of 1 missed big board.

- There are plenty of 2♣ opening bids that have less than 22 hcp.
- If partner has to worry you have 22+ when you open a 1 bid, this has a huge impact on how you respond to opening bids, making jump shifts, and many other areas of system. To put it another way, even if partner DOES respond to your opening bid, you may never be able to show a hand as good as you hold anyway. Your philosphy seems to be 'partner has responded so I am back to even with someone who opened 2♣' which is far from true.
- What do you open on strong balanced hands?
- Having a weak 2♣ opening is not the same as getting to open 2♣. Someone is likely to open in front of you. And where do you get once in 30 boards anyway? It seems like a lot less to me. Are you suggesting each side opens a weak two bid in each suit once in 30 boards, so 8/30 = over a fourth of boards are begun with specifically a weak two bid? No way.

[awm]

I think the frequencies are more like 2:1 or 3:1.

My calculation was that if you require a six card suit for weak two bids and are fairly conservative with the 2♣ openings, the odds of having a weak 2♣ in first seat are about 1/60 and of having a strong 2♣ in first seat about 1/150 (I required 22+ balanced or 20+ unbalanced).

Obviously the weak two becomes more frequent if you include some five-card suits. But you also need to consider other seats; if you hold a weak 2♣ in third seat you will not often get to open it (usually someone opens in front of you) whereas if you hold a strong 2♣ in third seat your chances are lot better (yes sometimes someone preempts in front of you).

I agree that if you open at the one-level with a "strong 2♣ hand" and get partner to reply you are not always back to par. But you will sometimes do better than par too, for example you might have an auction like 1♦(NAT) - 2♦(weak raise) and find a 4-4 diamond fit slam when opener has a balanced 22, when after a 2♣ opening you might see 2♣-2♦-2NT-4NT-Pass. In general most people's auctions after 2♣ strong are pretty poor, so if you don't get passed out your chances of getting to par or better are actually pretty decent.

[jdonn]

awm, on Nov 4 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

I agree that if you open at the one-level with a "strong 2♣ hand" and get partner to reply you are not always back to par. But you will sometimes do better than par too, for example you might have an auction like 1♦(NAT) - 2♦(weak raise) and find a 4-4 diamond fit slam when opener has a balanced 22, when after a 2♣ opening you might see 2♣-2♦-2NT-4NT-Pass. In general most people's auctions after 2♣ strong are pretty poor, so if you don't get passed out your chances of getting to par or better are actually pretty decent.

You will end up worse FAR more often than you will end up better. For example when you have that balanced 22 and partner responds anything but 2♦ or some amount of notrump, what do you rebid? And that's once you have gotten past the hurdle of him responding at all.

And of course you know most of us don't play the single raise in a minor that way to begin with. If it goes 1♦ P 3♦ I have no idea how you should investigate.

[hotShot]

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

- There are plenty of 2♣ opening bids that have less than 22 hcp.

I think the standard definition of the SAYC 2♣ bid is 22+ HCP. You want to extend the meaning of this bid fine, because my point was that a bid with this simple definition is dispensable.

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

- If partner has to worry you have 22+ when you open a 1 bid, this has a huge impact on how you respond to opening bids, making jump shifts, and many other areas of system. To put it another way, even if partner DOES respond to your opening bid, you may never be able to show a hand as good as you hold anyway. Your philosphy seems to be 'partner has responded so I am back to even with someone who opened 2♣' which is far from true.

If your partnership just ignores the existence of 22+HCP hands, a bad score will hit you once in about a 1000 hands you play. My philosophy would be to accept that I get a bad score, and sometimes I get lucky and get to a decent spot on a different route.

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

- What do you open on strong balanced hands?

I could open 2NT and hope that partner will not pass or I could use a natural 3NT opening.

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

- Having a weak 2♣ opening is not the same as getting to open 2♣. Someone is likely to open in front of you. And where do you get once in 30 boards anyway? It seems like a lot less to me. Are you suggesting each side opens a weak two bid in each suit once in 30 boards, so 8/30 = over a fourth of boards are begun with specifically a weak two bid? No way.

If you reduce the SAYC opening criteria to HCP and suit length close to 41% of the hands you hold in 1rst seat fit one of them.
11.8% of all the hands you get in first seat have a 6 card suit and 5-11 HCP.
Of cause you would not open ♠KD ♥Txxxxx ♦xx ♣xx. I you give me your minimum requirements for a weak 2 I'll give you a better percentage.

[blackshoe]

hotShot, on Nov 4 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

I think the standard definition of the SAYC 2♣ bid is 22+ HCP.

From the ACBL SAYC booklet:

Quote

A 2♣ opening shows at least 22+ points, or the playing equivalent.

[jdonn]

hotShot, on Nov 4 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

- There are plenty of 2♣ opening bids that have less than 22 hcp.

I think the standard definition of the SAYC 2♣ bid is 22+ HCP. You want to extend the meaning of this bid fine, because my point was that a bid with this simple definition is dispensable.

I don't want to do anything. 22+ is if you are balanced, unbalanced hands I believe SAYC says something like any hand WORTH 22+, which is invariably hands with less as a minimum.

Quote

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

- If partner has to worry you have 22+ when you open a 1 bid, this has a huge impact on how you respond to opening bids, making jump shifts, and many other areas of system. To put it another way, even if partner DOES respond to your opening bid, you may never be able to show a hand as good as you hold anyway. Your philosphy seems to be 'partner has responded so I am back to even with someone who opened 2♣' which is far from true.

If your partnership just ignores the existence of 22+HCP hands, a bad score will hit you once in about a 1000 hands you play. My philosophy would be to accept that I get a bad score, and sometimes I get lucky and get to a decent spot on a different route.

You are telling me if I play an NABC, 3 sessions a day for 11 days, my partnership is likely to open 2♣ exactly one time?? Sorry not buying it. In any case, your bad score will be a very bad score.

But this is all off point. You essentially implied that if you open 1 of something on a hand worth a 2♣ opener, the only hurdle you need to get past is partner replying to your bid. My response was that even if partner replies your troubles are far from over. It was only a response to what you were saying, so if you now want to reply "but this is a very rare situation", well that's not what I was responding to.

Quote

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

- What do you open on strong balanced hands?

I could open 2NT and hope that partner will not pass or I could use a natural 3NT opening.

Now you also lose whatever you played a 3NT opening as on top of everything else.

Quote

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

- Having a weak 2♣ opening is not the same as getting to open 2♣. Someone is likely to open in front of you. And where do you get once in 30 boards anyway? It seems like a lot less to me. Are you suggesting each side opens a weak two bid in each suit once in 30 boards, so 8/30 = over a fourth of boards are begun with specifically a weak two bid? No way.

If you reduce the SAYC opening criteria to HCP and suit length close to 41% of the hands you hold in 1rst seat fit one of them.
11.8% of all the hands you get in first seat have a 6 card suit and 5-11 HCP.
Of cause you would not open ♠KD ♥Txxxxx ♦xx ♣xx. I you give me your minimum requirements for a weak 2 I'll give you a better percentage.

I would estimate it's more like half the 5-9 hands with a six card suit than all the 5-11 hands. Some have an awful suit, some have wild distribution, and some just aren't preemptive in nature.

This idea of having no forcing opening bid has been widely discredited for a long time. If you really want to free up 2♣ for something else, there are plenty of systems that let you do that and won't make you look foolish any time you have a good hand. Things more like precision, polish club, ....

[ArtK78]

If you are playing matchpoints (and the game of matchpoints is all about frequency), then it makes some sense to replace the 2♣ opening with something else; provided that the "something else" gives you an advantage over other pairs and the frequency of its occurrence is higher than the frequency of a normal 2♣ opening bid.

If this is true, then it doesn't really matter what you do on the strong hands. Hopefully you can handle them in some other manner which gets you a reasonable result.

I do not advocate doing away with the standard strong 2♣ opening bid; however, I can understand why someone would consider doing so.

An argument can be made for doing so at IMPs as well, but it is not as strong an argument. Frequency is sometimes overlooked at IMPs. There are times when it makes sense to risk a contract in search of an overtrick even at IMPs, at least on a probability basis. But you never see a "good player" taking such a risk. Besides, even if the chance of an overtrick worth one IMP is more than 12 times as likely as the chance of going down in a cold vulnerable game (risking 12 or 13 IMPs), you have to keep in mind that your ultimate goal is to win the match, not to extract each available IMP. If you lose by one IMP, then you will regret not going for the overtrick. But if you go down trying to gain that 1 IMP and, as a result, lose by somewhere between 2 and 12 IMPs, you will certainly regret that.

Pardon my digression.

[fred]

ArtK78, on Nov 4 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

There are times when it makes sense to risk a contract in search of an overtrick even at IMPs, at least on a probability basis.  But you never see a "good player" taking such a risk.

Actually it is far from rare for "really good players" to do this.

About being able to live without a strong forcing opening bid...

I have noticed that most of the regular Forums posters have a tendency to open (and overcall for that matter) on light distributional hands.

In order to survive this style, it helps to drop the standards of what is needed for your 2C openings. That will increase the frequency of 2C openings. That will increase the number of IMPs you will lose by not having a 2C opening.

If you are seriously considering playing a system in which there is no forcing opening bid (not smart IMO and extremely not smart IMO unless you are already an excellent player or unless you don't care about ever becoming an excellent player) and if you also like to open light, you might want to think about this.

This may well be one of those situations where you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[xcurt]

ArtK78, on Nov 4 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

Besides, even if the chance of an overtrick worth one IMP is more than 12 times as likely as the chance of going down in a cold vulnerable game (risking 12 or 13 IMPs), you have to keep in mind that your ultimate goal is to win the match, not to extract each available IMP. If you lose by one IMP, then you will regret not going for the overtrick. But if you go down trying to gain that 1 IMP and, as a result, lose by somewhere between 2 and 12 IMPs, you will certainly regret that.

This is backwards. The marginal value (in win expectancy) of the last IMP won in a swing is decreasing with the size of the swing.

This is true in general, but might not be true for specific situations where you can predict the state of the match with some confidence.

Also, the above statement apples to KOs. Playing VPs the payoff function is a little different, when you're significantly behind you want bigger swings since the additional marginal IMPs are benefitting you in the part of the VP table where VPs/IMP is ~0.3, while the first few marginal IMPs are benefitting you in the part of the VP table where VPs/IMP < 0.2.

[MFA]

hotShot, on Nov 4 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Lets look at the facts:

The chances that a deal contains a hand with 22+ HCP is about 0.33%, about 1 in 300 boards.

Where do you get that from?
A single hand has 22+ hcp roughly 0,42% of the time according to the Encyclopedia.

Quote

Having e.g. a weak 2 ♣ opening will occur once every 30 boards.

Say you plan to open all 6322/6331, 7-10hcp, 6 clubs, with 2♣, the frequency of that hand type is
1/4 * 9,09% * 35,7% = 0,81%
based on the numbers in the encyclopedia.

You may disagree with the definition, but that is just details.

Quote

So there is a chance that your benefit from 40 weak ♣ openings is bigger than the loss of 1 missed big board.

It seems to me that we are talking something like 2:1 here, not 40:1.

For me it's not close. I'm positive that I would throw away much much more points on the strong hands without a strong 2♣ than I would be able to earn by a weak 2♣. It's not like a weak two is a magical recipe that ensures us a good board .

[matmat]

MFA, on Nov 5 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

hotShot, on Nov 4 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Lets look at the facts:

The chances that a deal contains a hand with 22+ HCP is about 0.33%, about 1 in 300 boards.

Where do you get that from?
A single hand has 22+ hcp roughly 0,42% of the time according to the Encyclopedia.

0.33% of the time there are two or more hands in the deal that have 22+ HCP.

[MFA]

matmat, on Nov 5 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

MFA, on Nov 5 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

hotShot, on Nov 4 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Lets look at the facts:

The chances that a deal contains a hand with 22+ HCP is about 0.33%, about 1 in 300 boards.

Where do you get that from?
A single hand has 22+ hcp roughly 0,42% of the time according to the Encyclopedia.

0.33% of the time there are two or more hands in the deal that have 22+ HCP.

Huh?

[han]

Never trust Polish statistics.

[jtfanclub]

I don't know that you really lose much by having Fantunes one bids passable. Not only do you have to have the .44% chance of a 1 of a suit monster opening, but then multiply it by the very rare chance of partner having the pass hand (say, no aces, kings, or queens, and nothing special in shape), and even then once in a blue moon it'll be a good result (because the opponents will end up in an impossible 2NT or game). Is it really going to be advantageous to respond to 1♦ with 1NT with 3-4 diamonds and no points, just because once a year partner will have game in hand?

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Nov 5 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

I don't know that you really lose much by having Fantunes one bids passable. Not only do you have to have the .44% chance of a 1 of a suit monster opening, but then multiply it by the very rare chance of partner having the pass hand (say, no aces, kings, or queens, and nothing special in shape), and even then once in a blue moon it'll be a good result (because the opponents will end up in an impossible 2NT or game). Is it really going to be advantageous to respond to 1♦ with 1NT with 3-4 diamonds and no points, just because once a year partner will have game in hand?

Naturally, the chance partner has game in hand is not nearly the only advantage of responding on those hands. Also for goodness sake how many times does it have to be said, it's more hands than 22+ hcp that open 2♣!

[han]

It is true though that the sounder your 1-level openings, the less you suffer from not having another forcing opening. Fantunes with NF 1-level openings will work better than SA with a weak 2C. By taking the minimal opening hands out of the 1-level openings you make it easier to describe very strong hands after opening 1X.

[glen]

jdonn, on Nov 5 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

...Also for goodness sake how many times does it have to be said, it's more hands than 22+ hcp that open 2♣!

Well actually you should have said it once less (for goodness sake), since here we are talking about Fantunes one bids (which promise goodness)

[Codo]

jtfanclub, on Nov 6 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

I don't know that you really lose much by having Fantunes one bids passable. Not only do you have to have the .44% chance of a 1 of a suit monster opening, but then multiply it by the very rare chance of partner having the pass hand (say, no aces, kings, or queens, and nothing special in shape), and even then once in a blue moon it'll be a good result (because the opponents will end up in an impossible 2NT or game). Is it really going to be advantageous to respond to 1♦ with 1NT with 3-4 diamonds and no points, just because once a year partner will have game in hand?

I think this reasoning is wrong.
Say, partner opens a fantunes 1 Diamond and your right hand opponent pass. You look at a near yarborough. How great is the chance, that partner has the monster? Surely much bigger then 0.44 %. So I doubt that passing in this situation is winning bridge.

[Quantumcat]

To the people that say 2C bids aren't always 21+: this was one of my original points, was that if you are opening 2C based on extreme distribution but only say 14 or 16 actual HCP, somebody is going to bid, so you may as well open at the 1 level, and save yourself being pre-empted without having even begun to describe your hand. And if you open at the 1 level it won't go all out ... so you still only lose with non-bal non-shapely strong-HCP hands where P can't repond and nobody has any long suits. That's less than the percentage quoted.