[eagles123]

Ok, so I will start by saying this is a genuine enquiry, not a point scoring exercise.

I am mostly self taught, I have a very very long way to go but I've learnt a lot from both playing and observing BBO hands. The one thing I don't get is strong 2's. I play in the ACOL club and whilst a lot play weak 2's, an awful lot play strong. The disadvantages I see of strong 2's:

- un-necessarily pre-emptive
- can make new players over estimate their own hand
- more likely to be pre-empted against with jump raises
- very easy to find games/slams without strong 2's for example with reverses

This is not meant to be a rant against strong 2's, far from it, but I would like to know a) why they are taught and b) do they have any merit.

[Stephen Tu]

They are taught mostly out of tradition. Old people who grew up playing strong twos and are still playing them end up teaching newer players and they teach what they know. Plus in late 90s when the EBU published their "standard English" system they chose strong twos for whatever reason. Apparently strong two is more alive in UK playing Acol; they are dead in the duplicate community in the U.S.A, alive only in rubber-bridge playing senior centers.

Do they have merit? Sure. It lowers the limit of your one bids. Don't have to jump-shift/reverse into 3-cd fragments which is problematic when you are also doing that with real second suits, partner with support for the second suit has problems when that suit may not be real. You get the strength of your hand and your primary suit in before either opps or partner preempt you. Used properly one probably bids slightly more accurately on these hands than when not having them available.

But weak twos are considered by most to have more merit particularly because they come up quite a bit more often.

[squealydan]

I was taught strong twos (in an Acol environment) and still occasionally play them when playing in mixed-ability pairs events from time to time where a more experienced player partners a junior. (Not for much longer, as from this year I believe all juniors are being taught weak twos.)

To be honest I think strong twos are great bids. Playing them it becomes much clearer who has what when the bidding begins 2C-2D-2S vs 1S-1NT-3(anything) since the 19-20 point hands with a good 6-card suit aren't in there. With developing players usually playing fairly simple natural systems, strong twos make partner's life much easier. I have often opened a strong hand 1H/S and failed to get to slam only to look at the hand record and think "gee, we could hardly miss slam if I opened it a strong 2H/S"...

Of course, I am not willing to give up the descriptive and pre-emptive weak-two openings, so the solution to that perceived problem was to add more artificial bids to other auctions. But if playing in a partnership that doesn't like artificial bids in general, strong twos will certainly help the accuracy of your slam decision-making

[chasetb]

Like the two above me said, Strong 2s came about at the same time as Contract Bridge did. Its main attraction is with Rubber Bridge, where being able to bid slams was of very high importance so you can win by a larger margin (and gain more money when playing for stakes). The positives and negatives for it are below:

Positives (in order of strength):
1.) You are able to show the two main features of the hand in one bid - lots of strength, and your main suit.
2.) Slam bidding can be more accurate because you can set trump at a lower level.
3.) Lots of players know Strong 2s.

Negatives (in order of thought process):
1.) The frequency is VERY low.
2.) Most people bid very poorly over Strong 2s, either by opening them too often, or responding very poorly. Generally today, only weak players in the USA play them Strong.
3.) Many of the hands can be bid just as well by moving them into the 2♣ opener (which was underutilized). And in good partnerships, you don't have to be worried about opening some unbalanced hands with 20-21 HCP at the one level and getting passed out.
4.) With Matchpoints, averaging better scores over a set of boards was more important than finding slams. So Weak 2s came about.
5.) Weak 2s apply a lot of pressure on your opponents. It causes them to make mistakes, and I remember quite a few times when partner was able to bid 21-23 HCP games that were cold because of card placement.
6.) When using a Strong Club or Strong Diamond systems (like Precision, Polish Club, Swedish Club, Magic Diamond, etc.), the Strong 2 bids aren't needed. On top of that, those systems needed the 2♣ bid to be natural, to fill in a hole in the system.

Honestly, unless you are into the evolution of bidding or play with people who still use Strong 2s, don't bother with it. All you need is 2♣ in natural systems, and at teams possibly a Strong 2♦ that shows either Diamonds or a GF balanced hand.

[paulg]

Although the popularity of Strong Twos in UK tournament bridge has waned since the 1960s, they still have their supporters and can be seen on BBO Vugraph this weekend. The Northern Ireland pair of David Greenwood (jtr) and Rex Anderson (atra) are easily the most established partnership in the event and they have played them since the year dot.

In normal tournaments a fair number of Acol players include them in their Multi Two Diamonds and, I would guess, the dominant system in British clubs is Benjy Acol where the 2♣ opener is a Strong Two in any suit. I think inertia is the main reason for this. Few experts, aside from David and Rex, play them these days.

[Cyberyeti]

 paulg, on 2013-March-02, 03:29, said:

Although the popularity of Strong Twos in UK tournament bridge has waned since the 1960s, they still have their supporters and can be seen on BBO Vugraph this weekend. The Northern Ireland pair of David Greenwood (jtr) and Rex Anderson (atra) are easily the most established partnership in the event and they have played them since the year dot.

In normal tournaments a fair number of Acol players include them in their Multi Two Diamonds and, I would guess, the dominant system in British clubs is Benjy Acol where the 2♣ opener is a Strong Two in any suit. I think inertia is the main reason for this. Few experts, aside from David and Rex, play them these days.

Actually among middle ability players, you will see a multi 2♦ (which may include the minor suit strong 2s, and contains the major suit weak 2s) and strong 2s in the majors a fair bit.

There are 3 advantages.

1: you don't get 1M-P-P-P +4 quite so often

2: in attempting to avoid the previous, you don't have to devalue 2♣

3: If you have a good hand with 6♥/4♣ you get to bid both suits and show your strength by the time the auction has got to 3♣ without the risk of partner passing 1♥, or responding 2♠ to 2♣ where the clubs may get buried by the time you've rebid 3♥.

[the hog]

 eagles123, on 2013-March-01, 18:32, said:

Ok, so I will start by saying this is a genuine enquiry, not a point scoring exercise.

I am mostly self taught, I have a very very long way to go but I've learnt a lot from both playing and observing BBO hands. The one thing I don't get is strong 2's. I play in the ACOL club and whilst a lot play weak 2's, an awful lot play strong. The disadvantages I see of strong 2's:

- un-necessarily pre-emptive
- can make new players over estimate their own hand
- more likely to be pre-empted against with jump raises
- very easy to find games/slams without strong 2's for example with reverses

This is not meant to be a rant against strong 2's, far from it, but I would like to know a) why they are taught and b) do they have any merit.

I disagree with ever one of your points.
1) They are not pre emptive. They show specific hand types.
2) That can happen with any bid.
3) See 1)
4) Easier with strong 2s.

Having said this, I do not play them because i prefer to cause chaos with my 2 bids.

[blackshoe]

I think folks have overlooked one difference between "strong twos" as they were originally played in the US, and "strong twos" as played in England as part of the Acol system. The former were natural and forcing to game. They said basically "I have game in my own hand". Acol strong twos are not forcing to game; they're forcing for one round. They show, in essence, hands that might make a strong jump shift or a reverse in Standard American. Some 18-21 HCP, 4-5 losers. Conflating the two seems wrong to me.

Eric Crowhurst (Precision Bidding in Acol — which has nothing to do with the Precision Club bidding system) suggested folding the Acol 2 bids into an artificial 2♦ opening (the "multi-purpose" 2♦, not the same as the "multi-colored" — or "coloured" for our non-American readers — 2♦) thus allowing 2M to be weak.

In Romex, the "Acol 2s" (basically) are shown by opening an artificial 1NT.

The advantage to the Acol 2, whether natural, or via the multi-purpose 2♦ or the Dynamic NT, is that it limits the range of the opening 1suit bid to about 18 HCP, instead of 21 or 22.

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2013-March-02, 11:01, said:

I think folks have overlooked one difference between "strong twos" as they were originally played in the US, and "strong twos" as played in England as part of the Acol system. The former were natural and forcing to game. They said basically "I have game in my own hand". Acol strong twos are not forcing to game; they're forcing for one round. They show, in essence, hands that might make a strong jump shift or a reverse in Standard American. Some 18-21 HCP, 4-5 losers. Conflating the two seems wrong to me.

The OP talks about the ACOL club, so I presumed he was talking about ACOL 2s when I wrote my reply. Some people don't even play them as F1, I play occasionally with one older player who plays them as very precisely 8-8.5 playing tricks, 9 goes via 2♣ so you can pass freely with a flattish nothing.

[Vampyr]

 Stephen Tu, on 2013-March-01, 19:04, said:

Plus in late 90s when the EBU published their "standard English" system they chose strong twos for whatever reason.

I think that this is an unfortunate decision, and very hard to reverse because Acol Twos are included in all of the teacher manuals the EBU have sold to their accredited teachers, and in all of the students' textbooks.

I wonder if there was a debate on whether to use Benji or three weak twos, and when no agreement could be reached, they "compromised" by using the poor third-place option.

[1eyedjack]

There are two main problems with strong 2s, the first of which has already been mentioned, the second I think not directly addressed:
1) Low frequency.
Low frequency is not by itself necessarily a valid reason to dislike the method. A 7NT opener has a low frequency, but when the hand arises it is the perfect opening to describe it. But it in this case it is a drawback but only because there are more useful applications for 2-level openings that arise with higher frequency, whether pre-emptive, strong, or a combination.
2) Responder's bid in response to a 1-level opening may contain information of value to opener in adjusting his hand valuation as the auction develops, and if you open a strong 2 you may, depending on the circumstances, deny responder the opportunity to get that information across.

But some of the other so-called disadvantages of strong 2s mentioned in this thread, by the OP and others, are IMO illusory. The fact that some players do not know when to open a strong 2, and others do not know how to respond, are examples. These are not reasons why strong 2s are bad, but are reasons why whatever system and conventions you choose to play you should learn to apply them correctly. It is really only informative to consider the merits of a convention (any convention) when in the context of properly using optimal continuations.

I also take issue with some of the disadvantages mentioned by the OP:

Quote

- un-necessarily pre-emptive

and

Quote

- very easy to find games/slams without strong 2's for example with reverses

I think that both of these comments are making essentially the same point, and one with which I disagree. The space consumed when describing your hand is defined by the level of the last bid that you make in completing that definition. If you open 1-Suit on a hand which qualifies as a strong 2, then by the time that you have got the message across that your hand qualifies as a strong 2 you will generally be rather higher in the auction than had you been playing, and opened, a strong 2 in the first place. We accept that the total amount of information exchanged in the process of getting that high (most particularly imparted by responder, as mentioned above) in some way mitigates this disadvantage, but in general a system that allows you to convey the same information at a lower level will have an advantage (if properly used) over an alternative system that uses more space to get across the same information.

Personally, much of the time I do not find slams "very easy to find" after a very wide definition 1-suit opener, when I am constantly playing catch-up. And I find games very hard to bid when my 1-suit opener gets passed out.

Quote

- more likely to be pre-empted against with jump raises

I don't agree with this point at all. There are two issues to consider here: (1) Is pre-emptive intervention more likely, and (2) do we fear such intervention when it arises.
To some extent all pre-emptive intervention carries with it some fear, but in this case one of the disadvantages of a strong 2 (lack of frequency) is counterbalanced by the fact that it is quite narrowly defined; at least it is FAR more narrowly defined than a 1-level opener in a system that does not have strong 2s in its arsenal. As such we are less damaged when pre-emption arises. Responder is reasonably well placed regarding what to do. He is MUCH more well placed than if partner had opened 1 on a hand which might contain a strong 2. Given that pre-emptive overcalls are less damaging over strong 2s, so the incentive to make them is lessened and with that reduced incentive comes reduced frequency. If an opponent has a hand suitable for making a pre-emptive overcall over a strong 2, then there is a good chance that he has a hand suitable for making a pre-emptive overcall over a 1-suit opener. If I was responder and RHO made a pre-emptive overcall over my partner's opening bid, I would generally feel more comfortable if partner had opened a strong 2 than if he had opened a very widely defined 1-suit that might contain a strong 2.

It is a very different picture after a strong 2C opener which says absolutely nothing about opener's distribution. Against weak opponents there is a separate disincentive for pre-emptive overcalls, because most weak players are incompetent at developing an uncontested auction after a 2C opener, and where they are already incompetent so the marginal utility in pre-emption is lessened. But against strong opponents or those who have taken some time and effort over their 2C continuations, as with precision 1C openers, there is a big advantage to removing bidding space. But the critical point here is that the 2C opener is very widely defined and non-specific as to shape, whereas other strong 2s are narrowly defined. The point about 2C has additional relevance because if you do not have a natural strong 2-suit in your arsenal then when such a hand arises you have to choose between opening 1-suit (which will be the popular choice nearly all the time) and risk getting passed out (or forever playing catchup), and opening a nebulous 2C and subjecting yourself to potentially damaging pre-emption of just the sought feared by the OP.

I don't want to give the impression that I favour strong 2s. The real disadvantages as discussed are fairly compelling (not that I am that enthusiastic about the bog standard weak 2 alternative). I just think that the weight of the pendulum tends to be overstated by those who argue against them. When they arise and are used properly they are a powerful tool.

[eagles123]

Thanks guys for the comments I can see now that there are fundamental flaws in my arguments against Strong 2's. I guess I've never seen them used by a really established pair effectively, they tend to just cause a lot more harm than good in the ACOL club

one thing I don't get though:

Quote

There are 3 advantages.

1: you don't get 1M-P-P-P +4 quite so often

how often does that actually happen? I would argue next to never.

[Cyberyeti]

 eagles123, on 2013-March-04, 03:49, said:

(1M+ lots in this sort of auction)

how often does that actually happen? I would argue next to never.

Happened in our most recent county match to one of our other pairs.

[eagles123]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-04, 05:41, said:

Happened in our most recent county match to one of our other pairs.

Do you remember roughly what the deal was?

[mycroft]

I have played Acol twos with one partner, and really do like them. Whether I like them enough to lose my weak twos I don't know. But when you bid them, they're *very* descriptive, so *very* hard to disrupt - even 2♥-(4♦) gets us farther ahead than 1♥-(3♦). It's certainly better than 2♣-(3♦) - but we didn't bid Acol 2♥ with a 2♣ opener.

Bids can be played badly, and given that Acol (UK)/Strong (NA) twos have been effectively relegated to kitchen bridge/rubber bridge/very weak players, they're more likely to be played badly (except by the good rubber players, of course). But there are definitely partners who, could I switch them to Acol twos, I'd do it - just so they couldn't open a weak two! Even if they bid the Acol two as badly as their weak two, we'd still be ahead.

[Cyberyeti]

 eagles123, on 2013-March-04, 07:50, said:

Do you remember roughly what the deal was?

I didn't keep a copy of the hands, sorry, but IIRC (and I very probably don't) the opener had AKx, AQJ10x, x, AQJx or similar and responder had something like xx, 9xx, xxxx, Kxxx

[chasetb]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-04, 12:22, said:

I didn't keep a copy of the hands, sorry, but IIRC (and I very probably don't) the opener had AKx, AQJ10x, x, AQJx or similar and responder had something like xx, 9xx, xxxx, Kxxx

While I'm sure that it does happen that pairs can languish in 1M + 3 / 4, Opener is clearly to blame in this case. I would open this 2♣ and easily end up in 4♥.

[EricK]

 1eyedjack, on 2013-March-03, 03:05, said:

There are two main problems with strong 2s, the first of which has already been mentioned, the second I think not directly addressed:
2) Responder's bid in response to a 1-level opening may contain information of value to opener in adjusting his hand valuation as the auction develops, and if you open a strong 2 you may, depending on the circumstances, deny responder the opportunity to get that information across.

But this is just as likely to work the other way (if not more so). If you open 1♥, partner can bid 1♠ on ♠9xxx or ♠AQJTx. Whereas if you open 2♥ he won't (I hope!) mention the former ♠ holding. Thus opener can more properly evaluate honours or short suits.

[eagles123]

 mycroft, on 2013-March-04, 11:07, said:

I have played Acol twos with one partner, and really do like them. Whether I like them enough to lose my weak twos I don't know. But when you bid them, they're *very* descriptive, so *very* hard to disrupt - even 2♥-(4♦) gets us farther ahead than 1♥-(3♦). It's certainly better than 2♣-(3♦) - but we didn't bid Acol 2♥ with a 2♣ opener.

Bids can be played badly, and given that Acol (UK)/Strong (NA) twos have been effectively relegated to kitchen bridge/rubber bridge/very weak players, they're more likely to be played badly (except by the good rubber players, of course). But there are definitely partners who, could I switch them to Acol twos, I'd do it - just so they couldn't open a weak two! Even if they bid the Acol two as badly as their weak two, we'd still be ahead.

really? Surely white vs red and your LHO opens a strong 2 you're going to be quite aggressive with your pre-empts?

[eagles123]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-04, 12:22, said:

I didn't keep a copy of the hands, sorry, but IIRC (and I very probably don't) the opener had AKx, AQJ10x, x, AQJx or similar and responder had something like xx, 9xx, xxxx, Kxxx

Thanks for that I have to say I agree with Chase is this not suitable for a 2♣ opening? I know it's 3 suited but I'd always open this kinda hand 2♣ to avoid the risk of 1♥ p p p