[P_Marlowe]

Quantumcat, on Nov 6 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

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.

There is a lot of room between 14-16 and 21+.

And there are hands out there, with less than 21+ HCP,
which are worth a game force.
May get a 2nd chance, if you open those hands on the
1 level, but it may well be, that you dont have a sensible
bid, if partner showes some life making slam a valid option.

The forcing opening bid is, also needed to ease slam
investigation.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

There are 2 different questions to discuss.

1) Is it useful to have a forcing opening bid?

2) How big is the handicap not having a forcing opening bid?

ad 1)
Obviously it is useful to have such a bid, and most systems have such a bid.
Acol with Benjamin, SEF = Forum D have even 2 forcing openings.

ad 2)
Precision and Polish Club designed with a forcing 1♣ opening, without it they are unplayable.
The frequency of problems caused by removing the 2♣ bid from SAYC is very low. Many advocate not to use 2♣ with 2 suited hands and there is a chance to handle one suited and balanced strong hands over 1-level openings as well. So the frequency of damage is even lower. Since the 2♣ bid can be utilized for something else, you will benefit from the new use.

I doubt that this is good enough for the Bermuda Bowl, but it's a "good enough" agreement with a pickup partner for a few boards.

[Codo]

hotShot, on Nov 6 2008, 06:43 PM, said:

Since the 2♣ bid can be utilized for something else, you will benefit from the new use.

I doubt that this is good enough for the Bermuda Bowl, but it's a "good enough" agreement with a pickup partner for a few boards.

Great idea.

We invent something new (sayc without a forcing bid) knowing, that this will work less well as the established systems the experts use on the highest level.


Why should we? Just for the fun of it?

[hotShot]

Codo, on Nov 6 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

Great idea.

We invent something new (sayc without a forcing bid) knowing, that this will work less well as the established systems the experts use on the highest level.


Why should we? Just for the fun of it?

Do you really think that there is a pair or team playing (plain) SAYC at the BB?

An why shouldn't we do it just for fun?

[hrothgar]

Surprised that no one has mentioned EHAA yet...

One level openings are sound, unlimited, and non-forcing
Weak twos in all 4 suits

[gwnn]

hrothgar, on Nov 6 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

Surprised that no one has mentioned EHAA yet...

One level openings are sound, unlimited, and non-forcing
Weak twos in all 4 suits

A simple search for EHAA yielded 6 hits in 4 posts, including yours.

[hrothgar]

gwnn, on Nov 6 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 6 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

Surprised that no one has mentioned EHAA yet...

One level openings are sound, unlimited, and non-forcing
Weak twos in all 4 suits

A simple search for EHAA yielded 6 hits in 4 posts, including yours.

pwned

[FrancesHinden]

Codo, on Nov 6 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

hotShot, on Nov 6 2008, 06:43 PM, said:

Since the 2♣ bid can be utilized for something else, you will benefit from the new use.

I doubt that this is good enough for the Bermuda Bowl, but it's a "good enough"  agreement with a pickup partner for a few boards.

Great idea.

We invent something new (sayc without a forcing bid) knowing, that this will work less well as the established systems the experts use on the highest level.


Why should we? Just for the fun of it?

Why not? I play bridge for fun, why do you play?

FWIW, I tried playing (pairs) for a while with no forcing bid in 1st & 3rd seats NV and a range of random(ish) pre-empts instead. It was quite fun.

We stopped doing it, because after a while we found that our strong-2C bidding was better than the field's, so we generally got good results in 2C auctions, while our random pre-empts tended to have more of a randomising effect.

[Codo]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 6 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

Why not? I play bridge for fun, why do you play?

We stopped doing it, because after a while we found that our strong-2C bidding was better than the field's, so we generally got good results in 2C auctions, while our random pre-empts tended to have more of a randomising effect.

I play Bridge for fun too and inventing something new is part of the fun. And sometimes it is even really funny to re-invent the wheel.

But to me it is much more fun to try something without knewing before that it will bring worse results.

And when Hotshot claims to know that this system won't work against the good guys, why should he try it with a pick up partner?

If it is his -and his pick up partners- way of having fun, fine for them, I prefer to play well known and constructed systems with pick ups.

[NickRW]

Quantumcat, on Nov 6 2008, 08:14 AM, said:

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.

I don't think that the 14-16 or so distributional monsters (that you might consider opening 2C) are really the issue. You're right, a high percentage of the time, if you open these with 1x, then someone else is very likely to bid. It is for this reason that you will see quite a lot of the people on this forum advising against a 2C opening on some of these hands (because it weakens your 2C opener and doesn't gain that much). Indeed, even traditional Acol players, who have more 2 level strong options, would think twice about opening some distributional 14 or 15 counts at the 2 level.

The issue has more to do with what do you do with:
23+
22 and not bal
19-21, not bal or semi bal or 3 suited.

These hands do come up - something a bit less than 1% of the time in your hand - about 1.6% or so of the time if you take yours and partners hand combined.

At match points and short team matches, it is potentially a viable option to just forget about these possibilities - they are rare enough to not make much impact at match points and, although the damage is likely to be severe at short team matches when one of these monsters does come up, they probably won't come up.

However, for longer team matches - also if you're a money rubber bridge player - these hands will come up from time to time and you can't ignore them completely. Further, even at other forms of scoring, you'll need quite a tough skin to not be affected by those odd cases of playing in 1x + whatever when the field is playing 6y successfully! One shouldn't underestimate the psychological aspect. If this aspect is at all of concern (but you still don't like the forcing 2C bid), there are other systems out there - most of them pretty good (some would argue they're better) - but they each have their own cost/benefit aspects too.

Nick

[bill1157]

The crux of the issue here is: do you play for fun or for a living?
If you play for a living, a forcing opening is necessary simply because your clients aren't going to accept that you missed a game/slam because you lacked a forcing opening period. Even if the system works much better.
If you play for fun, and understand the slight risk (and your partner/teammates do[es] too) then it is very fun and workable to play without a forcing opening.
BTW, someone said that at the beginning a forcing opening was not used. I don't think this is true, if you count the beginning as the introduction of contract bridge. The Vanderbilt club was there in the 1920's, as was culbertson.

Bill

P.S. anyone intermediate+ who wants to play with no forcing opening please email me!
bill_sharp@mail.com

[pclayton]

This thread should go in the Genius Hall of Fame. I confess I sort of read the first few posts and ignored it until now.

The frequency of a weak 2♣ over a strong 2♣ opening would have to be substantial for me to consider it as a method.

Even then, are you really sure we are getting that much of an advantage by opening a weak 2♣? It's not very preemptive, and its not like partner has passed. Frances mentioned that preempts like this just randomize. Do you want to do that in your matchpoint fields? Maybe you are slightly better when you get the weak 2♣ (and maybe not, since a lot of the field will be opening 3♣), but you rate to be substantially worse with the strong hands.

[bill1157]

pclayton, on Nov 8 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

The frequency of a weak 2♣ over a strong 2♣ opening would have to be substantial for me to consider it as a method.

Even then, are you really sure we are getting that much of an advantage by opening a weak 2♣? It's not very preemptive, and its not like partner has passed. Frances mentioned that preempts like this just randomize. Do you want to do that in your matchpoint fields? Maybe you are slightly better when you get the weak 2♣ (and maybe not, since a lot of the field will be opening 3♣), but you rate to be substantially worse with the strong hands.

Actually this gets to another thread, i.e. what do you consider a weak 2. If it is 6 card suit exactly with 2/top 3 or 3/top 5, then no, it doesn't come up that much. Change it to include good 5 card suits and the frequency goes up greatly.
You mentioned opening 2C versus having to open 3C.. the best way for you to really see the frequency is to try it out yourself. For me the frequency of weak 2C is high, and the bid works well.

Bill