<p>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 <em>system bids</em>, sounds about right.</p>

<p>Remember that <strong>2-over-1</strong> 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.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-28T21:27:59.453Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-29T19:30:56.850Z
@Stefanovitch: Check out [Richard Pavlicek's site](http://www.rpbridge.net/). 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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-20T06:36:17.507Z
2018-10-20T06:36:17.507Z
Forget I was ever here
<p>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. </p>

<p>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 ?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-23T22:47:35.390Z
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
<bridge><bidding>
What the is frequency with which a bridge partnership is dealt hands suitable for bidding 2-over-1?
Stefanovitch
# What the is frequency with which a bridge partnership is dealt hands suitable for bidding 2-over-1?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-10-19)

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 ?

**Tags:** bridge, bidding

> **Comments:**
> **username_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.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-10-20. Score: 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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Many thanks for your response FIWEH (username_2), 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 !  
> **username_2**: @username_0: Check out [Richard Pavlicek's site](http://www.rpbridge.net/). 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.  

---

