[Giangibar]

Hello everybody! My name is Gianluca Bergami - Giangibar on BBO. I'm a 23-year old Civil Engineer and member of the Italian junior bridge team. My good friend and bridge partner Matteo Chiesa (Stalemate on BBO, 29-year old, PhD in Theoretical Physics) and I decided about one year ago to learn a scientific as well as fun system and went on to learn Moscito. In the process of learning, the advices we were given by Richard Willey and Matthew Thomson proved to be essential.
Now, after one year of experimentation, we can refer the many experiences we gathered while playing a very aggressive version of Moscito (a system already aggressive in itself). More specifically, after some dialogues with Richard Willey, we decided to discuss here one of the most controversial parts of the whole system: the Frelling Two Bids.
For those who do not know this set of preempting bids, the openings are explained here:
2♦ = weak 2-suiter with (4+♦) and (4+♥ or 4+♠);
2♥ = weak 2-suiter with (4+♥) and (4+♠ or 5+♣);
2♠ = weak with (6♠) or (4+♠ and 5+♣).
At first we were suspicious about these openings, as we thought they were too disruptive and dangerous, but after one year at the table we found out that the top results we were getting far outweighed the bad ones. I'll post here some example deals...

[Giangibar]

Deal 1:

Matchpoints, NS vul.

I was West, first seat non vulnerable, and had:
♠10xxx
♥Jxx
♦10x
♣A98x

I opened a Frelling 2♠, North overcalled 3♥ with 11 points and 1525 distribution, my partner jump-raised to 4♠ with 14 points and 4234 distribution, then South holding ♠Axxx ♥98x ♦AQ9xxx ♣- couldn't avoid bidding 5♥, going for -2 while we would not have been able to make 4♠, and a complete top for us.

Deal 2:

Matchpoints, NS vul.

I was West, third seat non vulnerable, and had:
♠xxx
♥K9xx
♦K10xxx
♣K

I opened a Frelling 2♦ after two Pass, North doubled, my partner bid 2♥ pass-correct and South bid 3♣, which became the final contract. They made 3♣+3...

Deal 3:

Matchpoint, all green

I was West, as always, in first seat and had:
♠J109x
♥109xx
♦AKx
♣Jx

I opened a Frelling 2♥, North passed, my partner bid 2♠ pass-correct and everybody passed. He made exactly 8 tricks, scoring -110 and a complete top as nobody opened with my cards and NS were able to play an easy 1NT.

[straube]

Hi. Glad you have found us. Questions I have....

1. Is this NV only?
2. Weak twos are less frequent maybe, but I like a bid for them when they come up. I've considered at NV to open 2H with the majors and 3H with a good weak two...but then what do I do with a normal 3H preempt?
3. Why don't I see folks use these "presumed fit" bids at world class levels? Maybe I haven't watched enough of wc bridge (a real possibility) or maybe these methods aren't sound or maybe they are just lazy to adopt better bidding methods.
4. Isn't a lot of the gain from these derived by the opponents intervening too freely? Assuming too good a fit? If they adjust, then is this such a good method? Seems like we are overboard.

I'd be interested to hear awm's and RobF's perspective on these. I know Adam seems to prefer weak twos and I think RobF likes to open 2C with clubs and a major and 2D with diamonds and a major so he's had some experience with presumed fit bids.

[rbforster]

I don't remember the odds exactly from when I calculated them, but promising 4/4+ in the suits is a LOT more common than a regular weak two - by nearly 10x. I like 5+m/4+M for my 2m bids, which are about 2x as common as a weak two (basically because you can have either major); 5+H/4+S which I sometimes used for 2H was as common as a regular weak 2H. Of course you've got a lot of safety with 9 cards instead of only 8 promised, also because having an unbalanced hand means it's likely both sides have a fit while bidding with 4-4 potentially balanced could be a situation where neither side has a fit and you're too high. Especially against bad opponents frequency is more important than safety I would say, since they're likely to make a mistake by over or under bidding.

As for handling a regular weak 2, I open them 1 or 3 or pass depending on the hand. It's not perfect but it does argue for these alternative weak twos since if you can still handle maybe 1/2 the normal ones without too much trouble and you can get to bid these extra hands in a reasonable way that's probably a win. In terms of law safety, a 5/4 requirement is safer than a regular weak two also.

[awm]

Preemptive bids like these are extremely difficult to analyze. The problem is that a lot of the good results obtained look very much like silly mistakes by the opponents (both examples 1+2 from the original poster would seem to fall into this category). Of course, part of the purpose of a preempt is to induce the opponents to make a mistake, and even good opponents are more likely to make a mistake when there is less space available, when they are in an unfamiliar situation, etc. However it seems likely that calls such as Frelling twos will be devastatingly effective against bad opponents (against whom a good play/defense result may be coming anyway) and not so much against good opponents.

My general view is that two-level preempts on their own only mildly inconvenience good opponents regardless of the distribution shown. Therefore I am much more interested in a preempt which can frequently be raised to a high level than a preempt which is more common but can rarely be raised. This would seem to apply to a Frelling 2♦ (for example) because partner will need quite a lot of diamonds to raise, and because the major held is unknown (preventing an immediate raise of that suit even if a big fit is present there). While it does not apply to bids showing both majors (including the Frelling 2♥ and Rob Forster's 2♥) I find preempts showing both majors a bit dubious in any case because they greatly simplify the opponents' task of finding the right strain (since minor suit contracts are rare in general and major suit contracts after the opening are fairly unlikely, so opponents can focus on 3NT and/or penalties).

One thing that can definitely be said about Frelling twos is that they are a very aggressive and high-variance style. This makes sense in a situation where the people playing the method are likely to be outclassed in play and defense and are looking to crank up the variance. Through some combination of good fortune and practice, I find that this is rarely the situation for me any more and that while there's definitely a place for constructive methods which improve my expected score, there is not so much a place for cranking the variance since I expect to be one of the better pairs in any given field.

[glen]

Giangibar, on 2014-March-29, 09:31, said:

after one year at the table we found out that the top results we were getting far outweighed the bad ones

At the top levels your results with these bids will not be top

I played these types of bids in the 90s, and they were a lot of fun (weren't called Frelling at the time). Against average opponents they don't know how to deal with these bids, and get themselves into a mess. At the top levels, they double you for numbers, they bid 3NT and use the disclosed hand information to play double dummy, and when you do play the contract they often lead trumps converting your contract into notrump lacking points. For example on deal 1 you are in 4S with a 4-4 fit and 19 HCP, they double, lead trumps, and goodbye. If you are going to play against less than top players, what are you playing will be successful.

[dake50]

awm
Preemptive bids like these are extremely difficult to analyze. The problem is that a lot of the good results obtained look very much like silly mistakes by the opponents (both examples 1+2 from the original poster would seem to fall into this category). Of course, part of the purpose of a preempt is to induce the opponents to make a mistake, and even good opponents are more likely to make a mistake when there is less space available, when they are in an unfamiliar situation, etc. However it seems likely that calls such as Frelling twos will be devastatingly effective against bad opponents (against whom a good play/defense result may be coming anyway) and not so much against good opponents.

*** Exactly, I also want my preempts to "put it to them"
- make your choice with one chance to get this hand right.
Not "I hope you make a silly mistake."
I'll match my judgment/preempt against anyone if they only get one bid before deciding game/not.

My general view is that two-level preempts on their own only mildly inconvenience good opponents regardless of the distribution shown. Therefore I am much more interested in a preempt which can frequently be raised to a high level than a preempt which is more common but can rarely be raised. This would seem to apply to a Frelling 2D (for example) because partner will need quite a lot of diamonds to raise, and because the major held is unknown (preventing an immediate raise of that suit even if a big fit is present there). While it does not apply to bids showing both majors (including the Frelling 2H and Rob Forster's 2H) I find preempts showing both majors a bit dubious in any case because they greatly simplify the opponents' task of finding the right strain (since minor suit contracts are rare in general and major suit contracts after the opening are fairly unlikely, so opponents can focus on 3NT and/or penalties).

*** Even more, I want 'ParaDox' (see Ryall's page) raises
- here a fit or there a fit (opponents can guess) to go 4-level.

One thing that can definitely be said about Frelling twos is that they are a very aggressive and high-variance style. This makes sense in a situation where the people playing the method are likely to be outclassed in play and defense and are looking to crank up the variance. Through some combination of good fortune and practice, I find that this is rarely the situation for me any more and that while there's definitely a place for constructive methods which improve my expected score, there is not so much a place for cranking the variance since I expect to be one of the better pairs in any given field.

*** I don't mind "high variance" if the expected outcome is plus.
That is, take some lumps to win more often.
A preempt MUST be effective (win much more than it loses)
whether it is efficient (well-defined for denying/accepting higher) or not.

[awm]

dake50, on 2014-March-29, 23:20, said:

*** I don't mind "high variance" if the expected outcome is plus.
That is, take some lumps to win more often.
A preempt MUST be effective (win much more than it loses)
whether it is efficient (well-defined for denying/accepting higher) or not.

Well this is the thing -- I am not convinced this wins much more than it loses. Frequency arguments are not relevant for this purpose at all (if it loses more than it wins, higher frequency is worse). And a few examples where it seems that opponents made serious errors aren't convincing. I'd need to see serious data about long-term wins and losses, as well as data about strength of opposition and about what happens on "normal weak two" hands where you have to do something different. The fact that these methods have been around a while and none of the top pairs are playing them is something of a bad sign, especially because non-standard preempt structures have made several appearances in top flight events so it's not clearly the case that the top players are "following the herd" on this.

[Giangibar]

Thank you everybody for reading and commenting my posts. I'll now answer some of the questions which have arisen. In the meantime, I'll go back in time and collect many more deals where the Frelling twos have greatly modified the expected "normal" result.

1) We use the Frelling twos in all conditions of vulnerability. However, when at red, we expect them to be more constructive and less junky than the ones I posted before. For example, a 5-4 distribution is expected or strength will be near to the upper limit.

2) I lack the possibility to open a weak 2 in Hearts as well. However, thanks to the Moscito structure, I can cope quite easily by opening those hands 1♦ with the upper range or a wild 3♥ with the lower range.

3) I think good opposition will suffer from the Frelling twos much less, as many people pointed out. Still, the results we collected after one year of use are encouraging even against the best Italian couples. Of course, the effects against the good old ladies in the local club are devastating, but I've seen also many Italian masters guess the outcome of the hand without a clue. A small side point: categories in bridge here in Italy are assigned in a very different way, if we compare them with the US ones. The master class is very difficult to reach and is almost at the very top of the rankings, as less than 1% of all bridge players reach it. From what I know, the Life Master category in the US is much more inflated. This was said to underline how even the best Italian players may find the Frelling twos annoying.

4) I don't want you to believe that I am only posting deals where the Frelling bids have been helpful. Not all Frelling auctions end well for us: for example, I once had ♠xx ♥Qxxxx ♦KJ ♣10xxx. My partner, first seat at green, opened a Frelling 2♦, RHO passed after some thinking and I decided to pass because I was pretty sure that bidding 2♥ pass-correct would reasonably make us play a horrible 2♠, maybe even doubled. In the end, 2♦ became the final contract and went for -4, while we had a huge fit in Hearts (2♥ would make) and opponents, while holding game values, could not make 3NT because they lacked a Heart stopper nor 4♠ due to some defensive ruffs. That was a complete disaster for us, but still we are experiencing many more tops than bottoms, even in good fields.

5) I was also wondering why these bids haven't spread among the best couples in the world. Actually, after some analyses, I found they ARE slowly but constantly diffusing even there! Even if the bids might not be exactly the same, a more and more aggressive style is being adopted by many world champions. I still remember a board from the last Bermuda Bowl, from the USA1 - Italy round robin, where Kranyak opened 3♣ first seat with something like ♠xx ♥Qxx ♦Qx ♣987xxx, and he preempted the Italians to find a cold slam. Isn't this even more dangerous than the Frelling twos? The whole Lavazza team now play the "Big Bang" system, which advocates some very wild preempts at green (2♥ = weak with Majors, 2♠ = weak with minors) and 3-level preempts with 6 cards, sometimes even 5. Since people are realizing that bidding systems have become so precise to allow almost perfect game and slam investigations, they are now more and more prone to disrupt opponents' constructive auctions, even with wild preempts.

6) The "Bible" of competitive bidding, Partnership Bidding At Bridge by Robson and Segal, underlines a very important concept in the chapter of preempts: even if a bid is theoretically wrong, will the opponents be able to make use of that? Many times, they simply can't collect a penalty because they're both too long in the preempt suit, or too balanced, or too weak to reopen. The Bermuda Bowl hand I mentioned in point 5 is a perfect example.

[hrothgar]

I'm hosting a diner party tonight and can't spend much time on responses.

I will weigh in tomorrow, hangover permitting
(and damn, I am going to have one hell of a hnagover)

[dake50]

I'd need to see serious data about long-term wins and losses, as well as data about strength of opposition and about what happens on "normal weak two" hands where you have to do something different. -- awm

*** You hit a peeve of mine. Show me the data!
Much too often a method is published with no attempt to justify the why's.
At least post I think this is better than the typical weak 2's because of 'this' why.
I want frequency of gains, size of gains, against losses, against opposing methods.
A balance sheet as accounting if you will.

[jgillispie]

Are these methods legal under ACBL?

[rbforster]

jgillispie, on 2014-March-31, 05:20, said:

Are these methods legal under ACBL?

People have argued both sides til they were blue in the face and no one on the other side was convinced. One thing that is clear under the GCC is that you aren't allowed to have conventional continuations or defenses after a weak two bid that might only have a 4 card suit (which definitely applies to all of these).

[whereagles]

Giangibar, on 2014-March-29, 09:31, said:

Frelling twos:

2♦ = weak 2-suiter with (4+♦) and (4+♥ or 4+♠);
2♥ = weak 2-suiter with (4+♥) and (4+♠ or 5+♣);
2♠ = weak with (6♠) or (4+♠ and 5+♣).

At first we were suspicious about these openings, as we thought they were too disruptive and dangerous, but after one year at the table we found out that the top results we were getting far outweighed the bad ones. I'll post here some example deals...

Your 2-level opening scheme is working fine because it has an anchor suit, meaning opener's LHO will be under extreme pressure to act, since the bid can be passed out. And he can act wrongly. Like most tutti-frutti openings, and having played quite a bit of those in may younger years, I can attest they work fine when a fit is known, but may backfire horribly when you have to guess stuff (trust me, I've been there).

The fact your opponents may not have good defences to the bids also contributes to your results. And those are particularly hard to defend against, although I can think of a couple of nice ideas in that respect. I somewhat dislike the 2♠ bid, which I might leave you in the wrong spot with, say, 7-9 hcp opposite responder's 13-14 (not so unusual). I think you're bound to sooner or later get into an argument because of it...

Anyway, all in all it seems playable (though I wouldn't do it vulnerable LOL). Good luck with it.

By the way, I'm also a PhD in theoretical physics, currently doing research on optimization in a Civil Engineering department

[hrothgar]

Couple observations about the Frelling Two Bids

1. A lot of our best results occurred during competitive auctions. I think that there are a number of plausible explanations for this including

• Forcing the last guess on the opponents
  
• Opponents believing that they're being robbed and competing too aggressively
  
• My partnerships being more familiar with these auctions

I disagree with AWM's suggestion that its easy to handle two level preemptive openings. In my experience, the decision whether or not to let the opponents play at the two level or compete to the three level is one of the most important ones in bridge. The Frelling two openings force the opponents to make this decision with much less information that will be available at other tables. This has to cost.

2. I agree that penalty oriented methods are key in defending against these openings. Indeed, my early interactions with the ACBL C&C involved my insisting that penalty oriented methods are critical and Chip Martel responding that thats too complicated for players in North American and pushing to have the methods banned as inherently destructive.

[Free]

I used to play Moscito with Richard, including the Frelling two's. From what I remember these openings randomized results very often, were quite fun (for us), but I never liked the 2♠ opening.

It's been many years ago and my opinion about such openings has changed a bit. I agree with most of what awm said, but I have some remarks about the following:

awm, on 2014-March-29, 17:54, said:

My general view is that two-level preempts on their own only mildly inconvenience good opponents regardless of the distribution shown. Therefore I am much more interested in a preempt which can frequently be raised to a high level than a preempt which is more common but can rarely be raised. This would seem to apply to a Frelling 2♦ (for example) because partner will need quite a lot of diamonds to raise, and because the major held is unknown (preventing an immediate raise of that suit even if a big fit is present there). While it does not apply to bids showing both majors (including the Frelling 2♥ and Rob Forster's 2♥) I find preempts showing both majors a bit dubious in any case because they greatly simplify the opponents' task of finding the right strain (since minor suit contracts are rare in general and major suit contracts after the opening are fairly unlikely, so opponents can focus on 3NT and/or penalties).

- The Frelling 2♦ is indeed rarely raised. Much more often responder will try to find the M fit.
- The Frelling 2♥ doesn't show both Majors (it can be 4+♥ & 5+♣), which makes it more difficult to defend against than 2♥ showing both Majors. Still, it's as easy as defending against a weak 2♥ opening imo.
- 2-suited openings where at least 1 suit is unknown can really be abused when you're NV. The clearest example with Frelling two's is 2♥-2♠ P/C without ♠ support.
- In general, these openings give away a lot of information in the hope to lure opps into making mistakes. From time to time this works. However, when opps actually declare a hand in a decent contract, they have a lot of extra information and this is almost always forgotten when analyzing these openings.

[Shugart23]

are these bids allowed in regular ACBL games

[hrothgar]

Shugart23, on 2014-April-01, 13:37, said:

are these bids allowed in regular ACBL games

The C&C committee ruled that they are inherently destructive and banned them at all levels of play.

Sadly, ACBL members are too fragile to deal with methods that are legal (virtually) anywhere else in the world.

[mikestar13]

A possibility for sane bridge jurisdictions (NOT ACBL) is to use 2♦ and 2 ♥ as Frelling while retaining 2♠ as the6 card spade suit. 2♠ is by far the most effective usual weak two, 2♦ less so, and 2♥ least of all: they can bid spades at the two level and know to give up on playing in hearts. 2♦ at least can present a problem to them with both majors if the suits aren't relatively equal.

[rbforster]

mikestar13, on 2014-April-02, 01:22, said:

A possibility for sane bridge jurisdictions (NOT ACBL) is to use 2♦ and 2 ♥ as Frelling while retaining 2♠ as the6 card spade suit. 2♠ is by far the most effective usual weak two, 2♦ less so, and 2♥ least of all: they can bid spades at the two level and know to give up on playing in hearts. 2♦ at least can present a problem to them with both majors if the suits aren't relatively equal.

I like to use the equivalent of Frelling 2♣ and 2♦ (that suit plus a major), although I agree the 2M bids seem just as good a standard weak two. I have a slight preference for 2♥ majors instead of a weak two, but playing both 2M bids as standard weak twos seems fine. One feature I like about the 2m bids is that they handle awkward shapes - weaker hands with 5m/4H (among others), that are awkward if opened a light 1m and partner responds 1♠.