pbleighton

I find it easier to play that all bids show shape, and no extras, therefore 1M2x-2M always shows 6 cards. Where I play, this is by far the most common practice. Simplicity is a virtue, after all. I understand that the "extras" approach (which may also apply to auctions such as 1S-2D-3D) is popular among experts (as well as expert wannabes :P ). A rebid of the major may then show a not so great 5 card suit. I'd be interested if one of these folks would list which auctions show extras in their preferred system. Peter

This is what I do when playing 2/1. I am wondering if there is a better way. Peter

Thanks, Ben, it confirmed my impression that the 2m bids were the cost of these type of systems, having twice the frequency of a 4 card major side suit as 2M, with less preemption and field protection of 2m as the final contract. 1x is good, as expected. I was a little surprised that 2M performed as well, but it's a small sample, and 15-17 balanced, no 5cM probably did somewhat poorly, the rest of the 1x bids proably did wery well. Peter

Ben, if you would: What was their average imps loss/gain for: All of the boards they played? Thier 1NT openings? 1x? 2m? 2M? Vul vs non-vul? Peter

If you play 1D-2C and 1D-2D as GF: 1. What's the best treatment for invitational hands without a 4 card major? If you play 1D-3C as a diamond raise, and 1D-2NT as balanced, what do you do with hands with 6+ clubs? 2. Can one or both contain a 4 card major? Peter

Sound openings make the one bids work better, absolutely! Now, if Roth-Stone players could figure out some way to avoid losses on the 9+-13- hands they currently pass. Hmm, I wonder how they might do that... Might F-N/EHAA with 9-12 two bids be the Roth-Stone of the 21st century? :) Peter

Will the conditions of contest allow suction over a big club? Peter

Sure I can. It'll be at least 45 days before the video hits the web :) Peter

It varies by partnership, but generally good 16/17. Less than 16 would be with a 7 card suit or a solid 6 card suit. The North hand qualifies, though you would like to have a better suit. After 2D, I wouldn't bid 3C, since a new suit at the 3 level is forcing to game in Standard American. At matchpoints, I'd pass or bid 3D, depending on how I was feeling. At imps I would always bid 3D. Peter

I've known this for some time, that Fred is the most powerful man in bridge. He's pulling ALL of the strings. Peter

No problem, they are valid issues. But, as I said in my first post on F-N: Having played a similar system, I knew for a fact that it will generate a lot of bad boards. This makes it *unsound*. It's *effectiveness* is, IMO, a different matter, though you may see this as a quibble :) These types of systems generate a lote of good boards (including offshape NT and 5 card weak twos), plus the very sound one level openings have a distinct edge over standard systems. Bottom line: I think the issues involved in comparing F-N to a standardish system are so complex that *theory*, while quite interesting, is totally nondeterminate. Peter

Ben, do you really think that a few anecdotes constitute an argument? You know better than that. Peter

No. Peter

2C shows a max of 8/9 hcp, and is a big underbid. Boo hiss ;) It's still not easy to get there, though. The double is in the balancing seat, and in any case do you want to bid 4C and bypass 3NT? 3C will probably be passed. Peter

Sounds like *No*, if it's fine with you that they all stay in prison without a trial, if our government says so. Peter

LOL, come out of the closet, Mike ;) Peter

If George Bush ran a pension plan the way he runs the country the plan would be broke and he'd be in prison. Peter

So you don't think these people have a right to a trial? The main point of closing Gitmo is that they do. Peter

Your argument that the expected results of a classic weak two will better than an F-N weak two is valid, on an expected results per hand basis. However, you can make the same argument for traditional, very disciplined weak twos versus the modern, less disciplined variety. The missing ingredient, of course, is frequency. In addition, the analysis of F-N has to take into account the performance of the two bids versus opening them at the one level (presumably somewhat bad), versus the advantage of strengthening their one bids. Oh, come on. This is a young pair with a new system. Change is surprising? Ben, I'm still curious whether you accept my distinction between soundness and effectiveness, with reference to Roth-Stone in particular? Peter

It is, I think, inherently difficult to punish them for the bid. How do you think familiarity would make punishment easier? Are you arguing that the F-N system is theoretically unsound? If so, what do you mean by "theoretically unsound"? Do you think that a "theoretically unsound" system will perform worse than a "sound" system, as long as the opponents are familiar with it? I think that soundness and effectiveness are two entirely separate system metrics. Consider the Roth-Stone system, which was the genesis of this thread. I think it is quite sound, no pun intended. I also think it's somewhat ineffective, for the reasons outlined by mikeh, which boil down to the competitive advantage of bidding first. Would you agree? Peter

No. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Even in the U.S., with a U.S. citizen, the police can ask questions. Grandma can refuse to answer the questions. If so, they can take her into custody. Yes, none. It may be excellent evidence. If so, it may introduced at grandma's trial. No, Mike, if someone is declared a POW in a declared war, they can be held without a trial, but must be released (unless, of course, they ARE charged) when the war is over. Bush is trying to have it both ways. They are not POWs, and they are not entitled to a trial. This is fascist doublespeak. Mike, do you think we should renounce the Geneva Conventions, follow them, or not renounce them, but not follow them either? Were you in favor of Saddam being tried under them for war crimes (I was, though the *execution* was botched)? Do you think the Geneva Conventions only apply to *bad countries*, and that *good countries* should do whatever they want, becasue they are, after all, *good*? This is the number one question to see if someone is a neocon. Do you pass the test ;) Peter

Adam, my only disagreement with your post is that I believe that the 2 bids are rarely 5332, and that many 5422s in the 12-14 range are opened 1NT. I'm pretty sure this was the case at one point, but their system is evolving. Peter

True, but do you really think this applies in the Bermuda Bowl? Peter

I don't play F-N, I have played EHAA with 5 card majors, 10-13 NT, 14 bal/13 unbal openers, 9-12 2 bids, openers NF but we respond with 4 hcp. CLEARLY UNSOUND!!!!! But effective B) I've studied F-N but haven't played it. From what I can see, while it *less* unsound than my system, it will still be unsound, in that it will generate a high number of bad boards, and that it would clearly be a disaster in double-dummy bidding. However, you have to admit it's effective, based on the results. I know they are wonderful card players, but so are their opponents. Question: is any weak notrump system theoretically unsound? Peter

Some are lying, some are stupid. What's vague about try or release? It's very specific. Mike, you murmur darkly about how complicated it is. I don't think it is complicated at all: The government pays for the trial. The accused is entitled to representation if he/she can't afford it. Either a military tribunal or regualr courts can serve as the *where*. The government can apply for closed hearing if they feel national security would be jeopardized, this has been done before. We play by the rules. I know you don't like it, but what is complicated about it? Peter