[fromageGB]

I think by definition you will get average results with a weak 2 if the rest of the field is playing weak 2s. As people have said, your result is in the lap of your opponents. The question is, if you do not play with the field, are you likely to do better or worse? I can't help thinking that giving opponents free rein for their bidding will allow them to end in better contracts. That can to some degree be offset by having better defined 1 bids on other hands, as those hands bid by a constructive 2 bid are removed from the 1 universe.

Someone made the point that the constructive 2 bid must be narrowly defined to avoid it being impossible to manage, and it could be you get the best of both worlds by using 2M for those hands too weak for a sound 1M, allowing better 1M results, and using 2♦ for hands the others will be opening 2M, for a similar preemptive effect.

[fred]

I recently spent a few happy years playing on a team that included Russ Ekeblad and Ronnie Rubin. They use a strong club canape system that Russ devised which utilized 2-level openings to describe various 11-15 HCP hands. There were no weak 2-bids in their system. When they were dealt an appropriate hand for a weak 2, they would either Pass, open 3, or open 1.

I can't make any claims about the overall effectivenes of their approach. For sure their system gained on a lot of hands and for sure their results as a partnership were consistently strong (though probably this had more to do with the fact that they are both excellent players who worked hard on their partnership than anything else - I am sure they would have done just fine if they played "standard").

But I can tell you that whenever I was playing at the other table and one of my opponents opened a weak 2-bid, I was terrified. We regularly lost IMPs on these hands. We did gain plenty of IMPs as a result of other aspects of the Ekeblad-Rubin system, but I doubt their 2-bids directly contributed much in this regard. My sense is that at best we broke even when their system forced them to open at the 2-level.

That is because the particular 2-bids they played were designed to "fill holes" (ie providing them with *some* way to bid hands that would be easier to bid if you could start at the 1-level as you could in a natural system) rather than to give them any inherant advantage over people using "normal" systems when hands appropriate for their 2-bids were dealt.

Of course it could well be the case that this allowed them to gain more from their 1-level openings that the IMPs they lost from their 2-level openings (and lack of weak 2-bids).

My teammates inability to open weak 2s was especially worrisome when we were playing against teams that we expected to beat (ie most of the time). Under such circumstances it is in the interest of the favored team to decrease volatility. Creating swings on normal and common hands is not a good thing in this regard. I know my friend Russ would respond to this point with something like "I don't care if we lose the occasional match to a bad team if it increases our chances of beating Nickell when we face them". Maybe he is right...

In case this post is read as being critical of Russ and Ronnie, I should emphasize that this was not my intention. They were great teammates who produced excellent results over the course of several years. Their system is very clever and resulted in a LOT of gains for our team.

But their lack of weak 2-bids, more than ANY other aspect of their system, did cause me to lose some sleep at night

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TylerE]

fred, on Sep 26 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

They use a strong club canape system that Russ devised which utilized 2-level openings to describe various 11-15 HCP hands.

Fred - Are their systems notes available anywhere? I'd love to have a copy. Strong club canape' has been a particular interest of mine of late.

[fred]

TylerE, on Sep 26 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

fred, on Sep 26 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

They use a strong club canape system that Russ devised which utilized 2-level openings to describe various 11-15 HCP hands.

Fred - Are their systems notes available anywhere? I'd love to have a copy. Strong club canape' has been a particular interest of mine of late.

Russ plays on BBO as Thor17 at least a couple of times a week. I am not sure if he knows how to deal with BBO mail messages, but he definitely knows how to use chat.

If you tell him you are interested in his system and ask him (politely) for a copy of his notes, I think there is a reasonable chance he will be willing to send them to you.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TylerE]

Thanks!

(As a side note, in the two canape' systems I play (One strong club, the other Std. Am.-ish, the 2M bids aren't weak. ACOL 2s in one (Awesome when they come up, and systemically we can open the good weak 2s one), and intermediate (10-13 with 6M) in the other. Both seem to work well, and I rarely miss the weak two when not playing it).

[Gerben42]

I've done a simulation and that says that unless your expectation in a pairs tournament is above 63%, you will get more masterpoints by creating swings with your system. This is assuming that the new system will not hurt your average.

And if your expected value is above 63%, you're probably bored and in the wrong tournament.

[mike777]

YOu can also check out "Simple Club", listed in bridge encyclopedia it has many things in common with Russ's style. Canape, int two bids

alot of system taken from Roman and Neopolitian club

one level promise 2 suited hand 100%
2c =3 suited
other 2 level one suited

1c=strong
1d, 1h, 1s=100% two suited....4 cards promised in first bid suit, canape often
1nt=12-15
2c=3 suiter less than strong club
2d, 2h, 2s, 2nt, 3c all one suited int hand.

[marcD]

Do not know if we can lump weak two bids altogether :
- I think 2♠ is extremely useful (although playing Muiderberg + multi instead seems to work)
- I have mixed feelings about 2♥ ; the preemptive value is marginal + you risk pushing opponents to a making 4♠
- I think 2♦ is extremely effective but the price too pay is probably too high in terms of constructive bidding

I have also played, the 1.5 opening approach in the past but frankly results were not convincing . Some restrict them to M+clubs for constructive bidding purposes but then the frequency is too low to bother

[Adebisi]

Hey, i dont play weak 2s already ca. 4 years.And after that im convinced i will never play them.They occur so rare. They were 1st preemtive bids players started to use, but 54 hands occur 3-4 times more than 6 card suit. So, Muiderberg 2H/S 5-10 5+MAJ/4+ minor is more effective.Im a regular tourney player and i can say 100% was winning decision to get them out.I bet when people started to use them , even weak 2 instead of strong 2 was "from other world", so it stayed, they dindnt come to that, that 54 hands happens 3-4 times more and that approach even more useful.Ok, sure you loośe some hands but SURE u gain more.U never get under - 500 or -800, sometimes u loose fit in other minor: i remember hands i played and made 4H when weak 2 plyers stayed in 2S -1.And I started to play without them when i read some article from BFallenius or MNilsland that weak 2s are loosers in the long run, and i could say they are.

[benlessard]

Im playing a strong club system and im not ready to give up my weak 2D to play Roman, so it will rain cows before im going to give up weak 2s in majors.

[dake50]

Without weak 2 doesn't mean without a meaning for 2D,2H,2S replacing 5-11, 5-6 suit. What is proposed for that replacement? As 'fred' noted a particular replacement. Now I can see a real discussion.

[Adebisi]

With my pd we started to play 2C/D in Precisonlike system as 11-15 6+suit or 5+suit with 4+ other minor.They worked very well, coz 1D was only 11-13 bal , any 4441(rare) or 4MAJ+any 5+minor,but only 2 level pre bids we had 2H/S.So we started to play Muiderberg and after that we could more frequently open with 2 of a MAJ.
Some players play 2H/S as 10-13 6+suit, or 2H as 10-13 4H/5+minor and 2S as
10-13 4S/5+minor.Those openings with 54 are very frequent and very precise, and after those openings pd has usually clear picture what to do.Thats why very effective.

[Free]

I'm not convinced that a Muiderberg 2♥ is very effective. That's why I play 2♥ as a weak hand with at least 4-4M. This is a real killer: even more frequent than Muiderberg, both suits are known, and a lot more difficult to defend against!
I play minimulti and Muiderberg 2♠ in combination with this, and it works great.

After playing a lot of Fantunes (not having any weak two's), I'm convinced that you lose huge on the weak two hands. I think the tradeoff might be worth it in some situations. The Fantunes two's however aren't (imo)...

[skjaeran]

Free, on Oct 6 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that a Muiderberg 2♥ is very effective. That's why I play 2♥ as a weak hand with at least 4-4M. This is a real killer: even more frequent than Muiderberg, both suits are known, and a lot more difficult to defend against!

Why is that? I used to play a lot against Ekren's 2♦ and 2♥ earlier, but those are uncommon in Norway these days, since most people had very little trouble defending.

Of course, when the Ekren opener hit a good fit with partner, it's hard to defend against it, since they jump to the 4-level (or higher) on the first round of bidding.

[Free]

skaeran, on Oct 6 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

Free, on Oct 6 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

I'm not convinced that a Muiderberg 2♥ is very effective.  That's why I play 2♥ as a weak hand with at least 4-4M.  This is a real killer: even more frequent than Muiderberg, both suits are known, and a lot more difficult to defend against!

Why is that? I used to play a lot against Ekren's 2♦ and 2♥ earlier, but those are uncommon in Norway these days, since most people had very little trouble defending.

Of course, when the Ekren opener hit a good fit with partner, it's hard to defend against it, since they jump to the 4-level (or higher) on the first round of bidding.

First of all, 2♦ is like the worst bid to open with both Majors! Both 2♣ (better at finding the best M part score) or 2♥ (non forcing) are waaaay more efficient.

After an Ekren 2♥, it's not easy to find a superior 5-3M fit (if that's one of your goals at least). Most of the time you just try to find 3NT or some minor fit. Fighting the part score battle is imo way harder after 2♥ than after a 2m opening.
After Muiderberg on the other hand, opps can easily introduce ♠ at 2-level (2♠ or Dbl). The second suit doesn't bother anyone, it's just handled like a weak two with a 5 card suit.

Just my experience

[PrecisionL]

Playing a Strong club and canape system we have played 2M = 5332 (MPs) or 5M & 4+♣ (IMPs) 10-14 hcp. 2 of a minor was usually 6 cards, sometimes 5-4 and 10-14 hcp (without Hxxx in a major). Both worked well at IMPs. 5-6 IMP swings when opponent's get too high or in the wrong suit. However, 5M332 were troublesome hands in our system. We (Dwayne and I) don't miss weak 2-bids in the majors.

Larry

P.S. System note url below includes 2M = 5332 / 5224♣ only.

Addition 10/8/08: Bridge World, October 2008, pg. 26

FREQUENCY vs. EFFICIENCY by Danny Kleinman

"The fundamental theorem of method selection is that there are tradeoffs. One is between frequency and efficiency. When Edgar Kaplan noted, in a 1958 essay [sorry my collection does not go back that far - LPL], that the weak two-bids used by Americans in world championships lost imps, he neglected to mention one of the reasons: their use on too many (and thus some inappropriate) hands. .... a consequence of permitting them [5-card weak two's at favorable vulnerability - LPL] routinely is that more than two-thirds of one's weak two's will deliver only five cards in the bid suit ... creating insoluble problems for responder in competitive auctions"

[pigpenz]

did not Barry Crane play strong twos in first and second seat?
Matchpoint wise he did just fine

[TylerE]

Barry Crane probably could have won playing Goren or Vanderbilt Club or...

[Lobowolf]

pigpenz, on Oct 8 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

did not Barry Crane play strong twos in first and second seat?

...and look what happened to him.

[glen]

I'll ignore the classless comment...

Here's the cc from Canada's Bowman brothers (Seniors squad):
Bowmans cc
ACOL anyone?