MickyB

2♠ is absolutely clearcut IMO. ♠ rates to be our best strain (IIRC double dummy analysis showed the 5-2 beat the 4-3 by about one-tenth of a trick on average), and partner has to take into account that you may have the same hand without the ♥A when he is deciding whether to jump-shift or not. You could easily have a cold game.

Interesting Ron...what have you seen to make you include Justin Hackett but not Jason? No mention of Brogeland yet, mildly surprised.

I like to maximise the frequency of the 1♦ opener by opening 1♦ with 11-13 bal with 4 diamonds. 1NT is decent 12-15, and I use Keri to allow invites to play in 2major or 3minor - partner will have 14-15 if he has 4 diamonds, so if he is 12-13 then he will often have reasonable support for my 4 card major or 5 card club suit. With 4-4-1-4 shape I happily open 1NT at IMPs unless I am maximum, in which case I will usually open 1♥ or stretch to 1♣. In 3rd and 4th seat, I switch to 4 card majors, 14-16 NT, short diamond. Otherwise you will miss a few games (4-4 major fits) and a few partscores (12 opp 11 passed out).

Strange, I almost mentioned an Unusual 2NT opener as a 'worst convention'. Using Unusual over Unusual, direct seat can make a weaker bid, a stronger bid and a GF in each major, or show interest in penalties. You've also told the opps everything they need to know about the hand. Compare this to a 3♣ opener showing 5-5 in ♣ and another.

A GF 2♣ opening isn't worth too much - on some hands a natural auction can work out better, and you can leave the opps with some nasty guesses in passout seat if your 1 bids are unlimited. Preempts in minors are much more destructive than in majors because it leaves the opps with two major suits to look for a fit in. This more than overcomes the opps having a couple more bidding steps. So I think that in the right conditions, 2♣ and 2♦ openings should be some sort of preempt. I don't think the scoring matters too much. At IMPs, keeping the opponents out of game/slam is worth as much as missing a game yourself, you may even push them into the wrong game. I think the vul+position matters more - 1st NV anything goes, while 2nd vul a preempt is worth much less and a GF opening is worth much more.

Not only is the described 1♣ opener much more common than the 1♦ opener, but the opps will bid more often over the strong bid. I'm not sure that saying '5 cards NV, 6 cards vul' for a weak 2 is a good idea. My preempts are much sounder 2nd seat neither vul than 1st seat both vul. My opinion is that bidding like this should be saved for 1st NV.

Hmm, interesting. What sims did you do? I realise your 2!C wasn't pass or correct, was just adding in a general comment about a 1m opener showing either minor. I forgot to add before - 2N showing both minors again gives them lots of options (eg Unusual over Unusual). 3♣ showing both minors, or even better, 5-5 in ♣ and another, is a great improvement. I then use 2N as a preempt in ♣ or a bad preempt in ♦, and 3♦ as a good 3♦ opener (max with two top honours). This 2N opener is again level 4, but as you don't play f2f you probably aren't too worried about this!

I think you missed this bit Flame.

A friend of mine has been playing a very similar system, I will point out this thread to him. He has been very enthusiastic about the 1♣ opener. On the subject of your main system: I have considered a similar system with a 16+ club and a good 12-15 NT, then the 1♦ opener is guaranteeing an unbalanced hand with a primary minor. This leaves the opps still looking for a fit in all four suits, but allows you to compete most of the time that it is right. You will also benefit from opening 1♣ instead of 1♦ on strong hands, leaving room for symmetric relay responses. I see you live in London - if you are intending to play this f2f in the EBU, watch out for the Orange Book. Neither 1♣:1♦ as 'have you got a 4 card major?' nor a 2♣ response as 'pass or correct for your minor' are permitted at any level, although a 1NT response can be used as 'bid your minor' under the description 'natural and forcing'. Hopefully that will change when the next Orange Book is released, it is due out in early 2003. I dislike your suggested preempts - Asptro is a very good defence to 1NT, it works well constructively. However when you preempt it is primarily for destructive purposes, these bids will give the opps far too much room - they have a general purpose double and a cuebid available, and you won't be able to pass the opening bid very often, so you will often give them a chance for balancing actions. This is a problem for a defence against 1NT as well, but as opener has already described his hand so well the extra options it gives to the opps are less valuable. Here are my suggestions for 2♣ openers: 1: 6♦ or 5-4 majors - this takes the cuebid away. Could also include a weak 2 in spades as well if you so desire. 2: 5♣4other - can be passed out often and no low level cuebid. 3: 4-5♣4 major - very frequent, and not as risky as it sounds. 4: Either 4+/4+ minors (not 4♦5♣) or 6♥ - it is known as 'Inverted Psycho Suction' for a reason! No.4 isn't legal in any EBU comp, Asptro openings and my first suggestion are level 4, while no.2 and no.3 are legal at level 2, and are simple and effective. If you are curious about follow-ups to any of these then ask!

Mark, I think Ben's exclamation mark indicated that 1♣ was artificial. And I have no memory of agreeing voidwood on a sequence like that, otherwise I would have bid it!

I don't think 1♣ as 14+ ♣ or bal suffers too much from interference. Opener has already given a lot of info about your distribution - Opener will be balanced a lot of the time (over 70%) so I think it may work well to make responder's double optional. Opener now passes if bal/defensive unbal, and bids on with an offensive unbal (singleton/some doubletons in their suit). If he does bid on, he has shown his 2 suiter very accurately (it will usually be 5431 or similar) or his 6 card club suit. Your short minors, on the other hand, will suffer some problems, with or without interference. Many consider the nebulous Precision 1♦ opener to be more of a weak point than the strong 1♣ opener and unlike your suggested 1♣ and 1♦ openers, that has the benefit of being limited.

How about... 1♣ 14+, either primary ♣ or bal. Optionally including any game forcing hand too. Transfer responses, with completing the transfer showing one bal range and a 1NT bid showing another. When playing this I used two-way checkback after 1♣:1♦, 1♥. 1♦ is now natural unbal, a big improvement. Can be 5C4D 11-13. 1NT 10-13 - if you believe that opening 1NT is that big an advantage, I think you should extend the range by a point. It matters less on the lower ranges anyway (10-13 is less likely to give you an awkward decision than 15-18). 2♣ Precision style, 6C or 5C4M, 10-13. So you get a natural 1♦ opener and, if you want it, a forcing 1♣ opener that doesn't cause too much overbidding. The only weak point that I've found, besides the slightly dodgy 2♣ opener, is that you have trouble showing big bal hands after 1♣:1♠ (showing either diamonds or no 4 card major, depending on the scheme).

Richard's count is the same as Tysen's shape count, except hands with two singletons/voids count a point less.

Interesting, Ben. What happens if the target point count for both evaluators is optimised based on this data?

This is great Tysen, just the sort of data I've been waiting to see. With regards to required point counts for game and slam, double dummy analysis cannot be relied on too heavily anyway.

Read Mike Lawrence's "Complete Book on Hand Evaluation." He has a whole section of the book dedicated to just singleton aces. Yes, a very good book (like most of his). To say that singleton honours should not be devalued because they might be more useful than if they were not singleton is like saying AKQ♦ x♣ is no better than xxx♦ K♣ because partner might have A A void AQJT9876543. Yes, a singleton honour may be very useful; but it is less likely to be useful than an honour that is not singleton. If partner's bidding tells you that your honour is actually worth its weight in gold, adjust then.

If you differentiate between 1♣ and 1♦ openings, it isn't a convention, it's a different system. There are many systems out there - the obvious one is Short Club, which puts some or all of the balanced hands from 1♦ into 1♣, and sometimes even the 4-4-4-1 shape. There are strong clubs, where all hands of about 16+points are opened 1♣. And there is Polish Club, where 1♣ is 12-14 bal, 15-17 unbal priamary ♣ or 18+any, and the 2♣ opener is natural, 5+♣, 11-14. Is this the sort of thing you were thinking of? I wouldn't write off Better Minor. 1♦ is nearly always 4+ cards, and 1♣ normally is. It can help with competitive bidding and hand evaluation to know that partner will have some length in his suit. You expect Short Club to lose out slightly when you open 1♣ and gain when you open 1♦, but 1♣ will come up nearly three times as often as 1♦. BTW, what is the point of bidding your weaker minor when you are strong, Free?

Why do you think they are better? I've played 5 card weak 2s a lot, I grew to dislike them. It messed up our total tricks calculations and played in a few 5-1s when Muiderberg would have got us into a 4-4.

Zar, Tysen's method was, for each evaluation method: Compare the predicted number of tricks with the actual number of tricks on each hand. The difference between these two is the error. Take the mean of all these errors. This number worked out at 1.07 for HCP+321, 1.05 for Zar, and 1.02 for TSP. In other words, on average, Zar is 0.02 tricks more accurate than HCP+321, and TSP is 0.05 tricks more accurate. Hence the amount of improvement gained from switching from HCP+321 to TSP is 2.5 times as much as the improvement gained from switching from HCP+321 to Zar. The 0.08 and 0.21 are irrelevant really; they were calculated from the 0.02 and 0.05. While just claiming that one method is better than another doesn't make it true, which are we more likely to believe - a claim based on sound methods or flawed methods? It is quite worrying that you do not consider yourself a "Statistical Man", as creating and comparing evaluation systems is totally based on Statistics!

Yes, they are certainly interesting! I've played them a bit. The 3♥ bid is worse than useless, any suggestions for that are gratefully received! It might work to split the solid minor and solid major hands between 3♥ and 3♠, but that makes it even less legal :unsure:

Could you explain that calculation please? Does 'dN123+cN123' really equate to 1-3-5 evaluation? Have you included TSP's addition of one point for having two honours in a suit? Tysen's results did have an explanation. He said: 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. 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. What has this got to do with magic? What was sudden about it? It is his extension of BUMRAP+531, which he has always claimed to be superior to Zar. You are comparing Zar and TSP using different methods, and his method is more sound. Please check that your calculation of TSP is correct, then rerun your simulation on all of GIB's boards, seeing how many games are correctly bid, how many are missed, how many games are correctly stayed out of and how many part-score hands are overbid.

Game is 39 points in TSP, not 34, that gap of 5 points is closed up by the combined honours adjustment. What's wrong with subtracting points for singleton honours? It seems reasonable to me. About that hand: If you switch the minor suit holdings around, then you can't go past the 5 level. I think I am correct in saying that when calculating their respective evaluation scales, Tysen assumes that the hands are bid to the level recommended by their point count, regardless of two 1st round controls/2 quick losers in a suit; And Zar assumes that you manage to check for controls and stay out of slam without controls. Thus you would expect ZAR to be more aggressive in the slam zone - is that correct? They then both carry out their simulations based on the same idea. So you would expect Tysen to show that TSP is better, and Zar to show that ZAR is better! Assuming I haven't misunderstood something so far, the question arises - which of these methods is more useful at the table, the one that tells you when you are likely to have slam as long as you have the controls required, or the one that tells you when you are likely to have slam regardless of controls? Sometimes you won't be able to check for controls. Sometimes you will go down at the 5 level after a slam investigation. (Zar, if the ZAR points tell you to bid slam, but you are missing two fast tricks, do you assume the hand is then played in 5M or 4M?) TSP, on the other hand, will sometimes underbid on hands where you have got the controls, because of the hands used in creating the evaluation method that didn't have controls. So you would expect the optimum to be somewhere between the two methods. Sorry if I've got something wrong early on and continued to base the rest of this on something completely wrong :unsure:

I can't see any mistakes in the description of TSP. What do you believe they are? You have probably answered this elsewhere, but - you have all this data for the proportion of games bid. What about the times that a particular method of evaluation will get you to a game that goes off? Cheers

It's kinda like a presumed fit preempt. You open a Frelling 2♦ on a 4-4 shape because it is likely p will have 4 cards with you in one of your suits. Same applies here, and if not a 4-3 could well still make a trick more than 1NT in which case you haven't lost anything.

That's sounding like Reverse Benji. I know Ron Klinger has advocated Benji (2♣ any Acol 2 or a bal range, 2♦ any GF that doesn't want to open 2♣), it wouldn't surprise me if it was that. I think Reverse Benji is preferable because you need the space more when you aren't strongly suggesting your own suit, but I think either method is using too many bids to show strong hands, they are fairly rare.