1

A number of people that I play bridge with started learning 2-over-1; but found when they tried using it that the frequency with which hands suitable for its use is low. One of them even quotes 8% and, like many of the others, has stopped using 2-over-1, preferring other methods of showing strength when responding to partner's opening bid.

I've looked through the usual frequency and distribution tables for bridge hands; but have not been able to answer my question: is there a statistical method for calculating the frequency of 2-over-1 hands ?

migrated from boardgames.meta.stackexchange.com Oct 19 '18 at 5:27

This question came from our discussion, support, and feature requests site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games.

  • 1
    8% is a LOT. If every time it happens, you win half a board, you are doing 4% better than the competition, easily the difference between winning a tournament and finishing 10th out of 40. – Alexander Woo Oct 23 '18 at 22:47
1

i don't have access to hard stats, but based on my 4+ decades of playing competitive Bridge that figure rings true. If we consider a 26 Board Duplicate session as a typical evening, our side can be expected to open the bidding 13 times, with perhaps 6-7 of those being a Weak 1NT opening or 1 of a minor, perhaps 3 being opened above the 1-Level either weak or strong, and the remaining 3-4 being opened 1 of a Major. For two of those to then employ either the Forcing 1NT or 2-over-1 response, the two key system bids, sounds about right.

Remember that 2-over-1 is designed as a teams-of-four system that trades off weaker performance in part scores for increased accuracy in slam bidding. This leverages the IMP scale to best advantage, but can hurt MatchPoint performance. For a pair with specific aspirations in MatchPoint events only the switch you describe might be worthwhile - it certainly worked for Barry Crane, who shone in both team and pairs play with a system designed very much for MatchPoint (and Board-a-Match) events.

  • Many thanks for your response FIWEH (Forget I was ever here), which is very helpful, especially the reference to the Babe Ruth of Bridge. Could you enlarge on your comment about 2-over-1 being designed as "a teams-of-four system" ? Alternatively, I have a voracious appetite for reading if you could provide a reference or two. . . . . . . . . . . Thanx ! – Stefanovitch Oct 28 '18 at 21:27
  • @Stefanovitch: Check out Richard Pavlicek's site. If you want to play a matchpoint-optimized system, build it around 4 card Majors and weak NT, with aggressive openings. This gives you the greatest advantage in the part-score auctions you will have on most hands. For an IMP-optimized system build it around 5-card majors and either 2/1 forcing responses to the same, or a Strong Forcing One Club opening, to maximize accuracy on slam auctions & decisions. – Forget I was ever here Oct 29 '18 at 19:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.