tysen2k

Absolutely.

Actually I did read a lot of your pages. The 10+ HCP is actually a quote from your own webpage: I was just using what you wrote as I'm guessing an "approximate strength" so that everyone can have a general idea about how strong a hand we're talking about. I know that B2 does not equal 10 HCP, it's just approximate. But the fact is that you cannot just make a sweeping arguement that your system can totally handle all preemption up to 3NT. It's just so glaringly false. If I'm wrong then give us some good examples with opponent preemption. Tysen

I'm trying to decypher some of the bid meanings for your system so I may have this wrong, but it seems that the system would be very vulnerable to preemption. This is essentially what, 10+ HCP any shape? I can see how this might get good results when the opponents don't come in, but how would this do against breathing opponents? A good system doesn't just win bidding contests.

One thing is bothering me a little about this. What kind of a hand could RHO have to pass the first time and then compete in spades after partner competes at the 3-level? [Edit]: Looks like pclayton had the same thought and posted at the same time...

Excellent problem, Ron. I think this is super close. My first instinct was Pass, then 1♥, then Pass again. I'm still not sure. The example hands given for justifying overcalling are naturally biased to favor the author's view. I can give an example in the other direction as well: [hv=d=e&v=b&n=skj64hat3d3cat863&w=sat32h94dt74ck954&e=sq985hkj7dkj652cq&s=s7hq8652daq98cj72]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] If you pass I can see it going: (1♦) Pass (1♠) 2C (2♠) 3C All Pass Overcall 1H and try to keep partner from going to game. But in general, I don't think the 1♥ overcall is bad. It could certainly work. Tysen

I don't think passing it out would be that bad. Partner didn't support my spades which he's likely to do with 3 of them and doesn't need any points. RHO didn't support hearts either. I bet partner has them. I'm not expecting to go plus on this hand, but I think bidding anything at all will give us a bigger minus. Partner could have a big hand, but I suspect that LHO is fairly strong. They might have a game even. Tysen

This is matchpoints. A good partner should balance with a much weaker hand than could be bid over 1S. He could easily be 4/4 in the rounded suits. My vote is for 2♥. Tysen

I'm not going to even try simulations. :D 2♣ is somewhat of a burden already in Precision, I can't imagine trying to do it at the 3-level. Restricting it to 6 cards makes it decent at the 2-level but I would never subject myself to the cruelty of trying to handle constructive bidding after a 3♣ opening... Tysen

B)

Yes, this gives a 5/3/1 system of distribution which I advocated for some time on this forum. I have no idea why Pavell doesn't value doubletons at all. Error = (frequency)*(real-predicted)^2 where frequency is the whole number percent of that hand pattern occurring. 4333 is 10.54, 4432 is 21.55, etc. Tysen

This should take care of everything: Tricks Tricks Tricks Tricks Error Error Error Real ZAR TSP Pavell ZAR TSP Pavel 4-3-3-3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4-4-3-2 0.296 0.400 0.200 0.000 0.233 0.199 1.888 4-4-4-1 0.810 0.600 0.600 0.750 0.132 0.132 0.011 5-3-3-2 0.339 0.600 0.400 0.000 1.057 0.058 1.783 5-4-2-2 0.595 0.800 0.600 0.000 0.445 0.000 3.745 5-4-3-1 0.864 1.000 0.800 0.750 0.239 0.053 0.168 5-4-4-0 1.519 1.200 1.200 1.250 0.127 0.127 0.090 5-5-2-1 1.183 1.200 1.200 0.750 0.001 0.001 0.595 5-5-3-0 1.643 1.400 1.400 1.250 0.053 0.053 0.138 6-3-2-2 0.660 1.000 0.800 0.000 0.652 0.111 2.458 6-3-3-1 0.918 1.200 1.000 0.750 0.274 0.023 0.097 6-4-2-1 1.154 1.400 1.200 0.750 0.285 0.010 0.767 6-4-3-0 1.624 1.600 1.400 1.250 0.001 0.067 0.186 6-5-1-1 1.703 1.600 1.800 1.500 0.007 0.007 0.029 6-5-2-0 1.964 1.800 1.800 1.250 0.018 0.018 0.332 7-2-2-2 0.999 1.200 1.200 0.000 0.021 0.021 0.512 7-3-2-1 1.208 1.600 1.400 0.750 0.289 0.069 0.395 7-3-3-0 1.697 1.800 1.600 1.250 0.003 0.002 0.053 7-4-1-1 1.712 1.800 1.800 1.500 0.003 0.003 0.018 7-4-2-0 1.923 2.000 1.800 1.250 0.002 0.005 0.164 Totals 3.841 0.957 13.429 The first column called "Tricks Real" is the actual number of tricks that each shape is better than a 4-3-3-3 shape. You want your distribution system to come as close to these numbers as possible. The next 3 columns are how the point count system for Zar, TSP, and Pavell's system say that each shape is better than the 4-3-3-3. Note that Zar and TSP use 5 points per trick while Pavel's uses 4. Now you can compare all 3 systems. The last 3 columns is the square of the difference between the point count estimate and the real thing. These are weighted by frequency. Smaller error is better. At the bottom you have the total error, again smaller is better. Pavel gets a horrible score, even though my previous test showed that it was in between Zar and TSP. How is this possible? Well it's due to 2 main factors. My first data used the best number of points per level while this study forces it to be what the author says. Pavell would do much better at 3.7 points per level. My first study also grades the proper scaling of distribution compared to high cards. This study only looks at distribution. This is where Zar falls down because Zar values distribution too much. You can use this table to see what kind of hands each system overvalues and undervalues. Tysen

I would caution against any Dbl or 1♦ overcall that is too frequent. Both of these bids give the strong club side more bidding space than if you shut up and pass. I'm fond of the system recommended by Rigal: Dbl = a real (not weak) overcall in hearts 1♦ = a real overcall in spades with your other overcalls not requiring any strength at all. Tysen

Hi Bert, You and I have talked previously about bidding system design. The funny thing is that some of the simulations I've run suggest that the opposite system might be better: 1♠ = 5+, wide point range 1♥ = 4+, more narrow range The possession of at least 5 spades makes partner's job a lot easier if the bidding gets competitive. If you only promise 4, then partner can't compete as well. Hearts is the suit you are most likely to "lose" if you don't bid it. So dropping the requirement to 4 cards increases the frequency, making sure you don't lose a 4-4 fit there and allows partner to bid spades if you have 4-4 there instead. Just some thoughts. Tysen

The separation of accuracy from aggressiveness has been a big issue of mine. It was one of the contentious points that I had with all of Zar's studies. He was esentially measuring how aggressive different systems were and there was almost no accuracy involved. For my studies, I took the aggressiveness out of the picture by using linear regression. So the computer picks the best "levels" for bidding game and slam that gives each method the best score possible, not relying on the levels given by the authors. So subtracting 1 level from all of the Zar results would give the same numbers. Zar is simply not that accurate. You may be interested in another study I did several months ago: here. It takes a look at how often the methods overbid or underbid. I purposely used a certain subset of hands (hands where NT was not the best contract and also where you could always make at least 9 tricks). I used this subset because it was argued that Zar is more accurate at higher levels and with unbalanced hands. This was the subset of data that made Zar look the best. TSP still performed better. Tysen

Since I play mostly ACBL GCC events, I couldn't use this against a natural 1♣ that shows 3+. However, any time I come across a "nebulous" club or diamond that could be less than 3, I rotate the meanings of double, 1NT, and the next step up. So over 1♣: 1♦ = takeout 1NT = diamonds Dbl = 15+ balanced The 1♦ pretty much shows the majors, so it makes the opps cautious to bid them. The 1NT shuts out the 1-level making it harder for the opps to find their 4-4 major fit. You can use the same thing over a nebulous 1♦, substituting the 1♥ overcall. Tysen

For what it's worth, in both simulations and at the table, I've found that I like including distribution count for my strength, even on artificial strong openings. So using a standard Precision system, I'd prefer 17+ or 18+ counting distribution for my 1♣ opening rather than 16+ HCP. My only suggestion is to not use definitions that are "either X Zar or Y HCP" and stick to one or the other. For your 1NT opening you might want to stick to just HCP. Tysen

Here's how Pavell's hand evaluation system stacks up compared to some others: ERROR SCORE HCP 1.23 -0.49 HCP+321 1.07 0.00 HCP+531 1.05 0.07 Zar 1.05 0.08 Pavel 1.04 0.11 <-- BUMRAP+321 1.03 0.14 BUMRAP+531 1.02 0.21 TSP 1.02 0.21 Binky 0.99 0.32 My usual disclamers for those who know me... :P ERROR is the average # of tricks there is in difference between how many tricks we think we can take and how many we actually take. This is calculated using a double dummy evaluation of over a million random hands. SCORE is an estimation of the IMPs/board we expect to gain against a team that uses a simple HCP+321 evaluation method. It’s a measure of how much payoff there is for using a better evaluation system. HCP is A=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1 HCP+321 is HCP + 3 per void + 2 per singleton + 1 per doubleton HCP+531 is the same with more points assigned to shortness Zar is HCP + Controls + twice the length of longest suit + once the length of second-longest suit minus length of shortest suit. http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/ BUMRAP is a substitute for HCP: A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.5, J=0.75, T=0.25 TSP is the method described in this article. It’s an attempt to find the best evaluator using simple whole numbers. Binky is Thomas Andrew’s evaluator: http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/bridge/valuations/ Tysen

It's growing on me too. :D

That's right. That's one of the reasons I limited pass to 0-16 since there is no bid available for a 4441 with 0-7, even in 3rd seat. You aren't allowed to bid anything. Passing a 7HCP 4441 isn't that bad even if partner has 16. Plus 4th hand may open and either partner can jump back in. I was thinking of using all 2x bids as EHAA style 5-6 in suit. The evil ACBL does put a 7-point range on the weak-2 though, so you could do 1-7 HCP and if you're happened to be dealt a 0 HCP hand you either have to pass or bid 3. This might put too much pressure on the 1-bids. Since very low HCP hands are much more rare, perhaps a better weak 2 range is 4-10, forcing you to pass or bid 3 if you have 0-3 HCP. Then 1-bids are 11+ (always unbalanced) and so are actually quite sound openings. Tysen

True, but I don't think this totally ignores games and slams. But maybe it is more suitable for a matchpoints system. I've been thinking about how to convert this type theory into something that's legal in most places. You'd have to adjust it a bit for ACBL, but I think this would be legal: Pass = 0-16 balanced, 0-7 any 4441. This wouldn't be a forcing pass and you would still bid all of your strong hands giving you extra help for those games and slams. :)

Why? If your partner has 0-4 hcp, no A, K, or QJ as a set, and you're both balanced, it'll take an incredible number of points in your hand to make any sort of game. Well, practically forcing then. I haven't designed a full system to go with this sort of pass, but I would assume that you'd be able to create opening bids that have more description than in standard methods. Maybe our 1♠ opener is "5+ spades and 4+ minor" or "4+ spades, 0-2 hearts" or something. You should be able to get something to work. Yes, the opps hear some LOTT info, but you've got 1 step in front of them. Anyway, just wanted to get some conversation going, not trying to preach that this is the end-all of bidding. Tysen

Forgive some rambling here. Let’s talk a little bit about bidding theory. What is the point of opening vs. passing? Traditionally it has been to show strength. If your hand is stronger than “x” you open and if it’s weaker then you pass. Sure there are preemptive bids but since in most systems you are opening constructively like 10x as often as you preempt, that’s pretty minor. Strength is the main consideration. Goren estimated that you needed 26 points for game so he said open with 13 since if you and your partner pass with 12 each you haven’t missed a game. Our thinking has evolved a little beyond this but not much. To me this is very 2-handed bridge thinking and not 4-handed bridge. To me the point of opening is to get in the first punch and describe myself as quickly as possible. Auctions can often be competitive and if you haven’t described yourself when you had a chance, you may fall behind. With that in mind, it seems like the more competitive an auction is likely to be, the more likely we should open. If we could predict that an auction would be competitive, then we should open almost regardless of points. If we could predict that it would not be very competitive, then it won’t really hurt to take the slow road. Unfortunately we can’t know 100% if an auction will be competitive, but we can estimate the likelihood. I can’t think of a better indicator for the chance of a competitive auction than total tricks. If there are a lot of total tricks available, it’s much more likely to be competitive. For any hand we have, we can estimate the average number of total tricks. You can do simulations and find that total tricks vary greatly by our shape and almost not at all by our strength. No big surprise there. Pattern Ave Tot Tricks 4-3-3-3 16.21 4-4-3-2 16.42 5-3-3-2 16.62 4-4-4-1 16.79 5-4-2-2 16.85 5-4-3-1 17.01 6-3-2-2 17.21 6-3-3-1 17.35 5-5-2-1 17.50 5-4-4-0 17.58 6-4-2-1 17.61 5-5-3-0 17.85 7-2-2-2 17.88 6-4-3-0 17.92 7-3-2-1 18.05 6-5-1-1 18.33 7-3-3-0 18.36 6-5-2-0 18.50 7-4-1-1 18.51 7-4-2-0 18.64 Since passing is going to be our most frequent “opening” it will provide the least information. What if we were to pass all of the hands that were least likely to be involved in a competitive auction? For you system designers out there, try this on for size: Pass = 0-37 balanced Every hand that is unbalanced and likely to find competition is now opened and you have a head start. If you can design the rest of your system around this and put shape before strength, you can compete more effectively. Each of your opening bids will carry a lot more shape information and partner can use that and the LAW to his advantage. If the auction turns out to be non-competitive, you can slow down and figure out how high to go based on strength later. Is the 0-37 Pass vulnerable to preemption? I don’t think so. Your hand has the same average strength as an unknown hand, so 2nd seat shouldn’t preempt any more than he does in 1st seat. In fact he should preempt less often since your hand is defense oriented, there are less likely to be a high number of total tricks out there. The LAW tells him to be cautious. The 0-37 Pass is forcing of course. If we have the balance of strength, we should have a decent amount of bidding space to find out where we belong. If the auction does turn competitive, then partner still has a lot of LAW information. That’s information you don’t have over a standard pass. A system built this way would have a lot of LAW information over both opening bids and passes. Has anyone ever encountered an opening Pass similar to this before? Tysen

I think you might be influenced by seeing both hands. xx Kxxxx x AQxxx P (1♠) P (3♠) ? Are you really going to force the 4-level?

There's the flip side to this too. Let's switch around the left hand: xx...........xx Kxxxx......AQxx x.............AKxxx AQxxx.....xx How are you going to get to game if the bidding goes: P (1♠) ? (3♠) You can get overboard if you bid distributional hands, but can miss out if you pass. You have to weigh the benefits with the frequency. I'm a firm believer in bidding with distribution. I disagree. I think 2-suiters require the most description of any hand type and so need to bid right away while the bidding is low. If you have a 5/5 hand then maybe you have a special bid to get back in after the bidding starts. But what about those 5/4 hands that are much more common? Tysen

Yeah, pretty much, but aggressive games pay off. I'll gamble that game is on given that partner has shown heart support with 2♥.