Oren Goren

I have now read the WJ2005 ( WJ05 ) file on www.bridgewithdan.com.systems and can report that the missing hands in the BBO Convention Card are also missing there. Hunh? oren

Hmmm. It does have clubs so it is 11-14 HCP and 4414 that is trouble? I'm not sure I get your point. A hand in the 11-14 range that is 4414 can't be opened with 1♣ because the weak variety of 1♣ shows a balanced hand. 1♣ seems the best option, the lie that will likely work out best. A hand in the 15-17 range that is 4414 can't be opened with 1♣ because the medium variety of 1♣ shows an unbalanced hand with at least 5 clubs. Probably best to also open this hand 1♣, once again the lie that will likely work out best. Maybe I have missed something that is particular about specifically 12 HCP and 4414? No, the 12 HCP was just an example. I was just elaborating on your post, having noted that "15+ Clubs" includes 4414. Hence it is 4414 and 4405 up through 14 HCP that isn't covered. Bluecalm is telling us that those hands will be opened 1C (and that he hates the 4+ card 1D). So, don't know if it is the translator missing part of Jassem's description or what, unless Bluecalm tells us in a post I haven't read yet. As to the 15+ clubs 1C, the definition in the WJ2005 file definitely says no. THE difference with WJ2000 is the change to 4+. I like this and the whole philosophy of WJ2005, which seems to be clarity and near-simplicity compared to other clubs. I am working my way upwards on the openings chart so haven't seen the responses to 1C to know that the 4414 or 4405 hands are covered in the <15 HCP range. Will see. Thanks for joining the discussion! oren

It is the HCP condition combined with shape that leaves us no bid stated.

Hmmm. It does have clubs so it is 11-14 HCP and 4414 that is trouble?

We never hold this shape. At least not in combination with that number of HCP. I suspect the answer is to open 1♣. LOL. Perhaps Poland's one and only ACBL-like restriction is no 4414 w/12 HCP?

I would guess the first item has come up before but "convention error" didn't find it for me. Apologies. A. On the WJ2005 "convention card" the continuation of the 3S response to the opening 2D seems to be wrong. Should be "weak two in hearts", right? (yes, "trivial".) B. The opening bid descriptions seem to show nothing available for 12 HCP and 4414. So, please, what should the opener be? oren

Well, there has been little interest in playing the most aggressive yet constructive WELOS, so how about WJ2005? No, I don't know it yet but reading Jassem's page document intrigues me. Some very good ideas there versus any other club system I have read. Especially (south) central Tennessee?

If anyone did peek at my Favorite Convention Card, it probably showed the weird 1C I set for myself as a challenge to find a way to avoid the one opening call I disliked in WELOS: 2S. Well, try as I might I could find no way to make it work, but that was the challenge I set for myself. 1C strange and artificial, begone! Let's talk system, folks. And play.

Marten's page says "free download" but the button seems to be a dead end.

Let's play the super aggressive WELOS. A recent study of Ginsburg's file of 717,102 boards showed that partnerships with 11 HCP minimum openers in seat one/two allowed 107,724 15+ HCP hands to be opened by the opponents out of 1,434,204 "possible". Diluted WELOS (per ACBL's 8+ HCP requirement) allowed 62,035. Original WELOS allowed 26,441 minimum. My Favorite Convention Card does not show original WELOS. The strange 1C would be just like other suit openers in the original, and 2-bids would all be 12-15 Total points. Please peek and then email me, and discuss light openers, and opening 63% and more of the hands every session.

That was the right era for Wichita. Did you play against the young guys who'd fold their hand, put an elbow on the table, lean their head against the folded hand, and then turn the hand toward partner for a peep at the revealed card? Complex opening lead conventions but local director said no damage done. Next thing ACBL is going to ban: minor suit contracts at 5-level, and only one minor suit slam per session.

I do take your point. And, because I am returning to the Great Game from a long hiatus and with no remotely current bridge friendships or partnerships and with rusty non-expert status, all I have to offer - to those with eyes to see - is probably the most unique natural system ever, with the most aggressive+constructive bidding ever. EHAA and Moscito, etc are somewhat passive compared to WELOS. (Well, before the ACBL outlawed the most aggressive openers.) However, Larsson evaluated WELOS 8-11 Total Point hands - and 12-15 TPers, etc, as if they were HCP only evaluations and EHAA was rated more aggressive by his measure. And, as opposed to those systems, and virtually everyone's, WELOS was "engineered" to fit its basic structural insight, even using simultaneous equations to assign point limits to the critical bids. No hodge-podge of fiddled limits and conventions is my offering. [ I didn't figure out how to insert a usable URL so please Google "Larsson WELOS"] However, in current negotiations with a dreaded Big Clubber over a system, I have given thought to improvements (well, changes) that alleviated the single 2-part piece of WELOS that felt like a problem (though never was in practice), and maybe added one at a lower level. So, folks, there is no such thing as more fun bidding-wise than WELOS. Come play with me! "Friend" me a check out my Favorite Convention Card, which has had afore-mentioned changes in the last 24 hours. Come play with me!

When I "backed"out of viewgraph the right side of the window did not clean up and I was not able to find out how to retrieve the Friends/host/etc panel w/o logging off.

Your obviously sincere interpretation was accurate as far as you went but you forgot to add in distribution which in your example was 1345, which with 2HCP, 1 dist (actually should be 2)+5pts length gives you a grand slam value of 1353 (actually 1354). Thanks for your helpful response. Just the quality partner I hope to find!

Before ACBL diluted WELOS (Webster's Extra-Light Openers) by demanding 8 HCP, we opened ALL 8 TP (Total Points; HCP+dist+length) hands in seat one and two. This in very aggressive Atlanta and Wichita duplicates. Different now, of course. Probably only 55%-70%, certainly 60%. Balance before LHO opens. PRE-balance. Compete before they open. PRE-compete. Respond to partner at one level lower than other responders. PRE-respond. Open light before they Big Club you. PRO-scribe. Find your 8(+) card fit instantaneously as much as 200% as often as they do. Find the minor suit slams - and some in majors- they don't. (Enabled by structure they don't have.) The unique structure highly defines openers & enables all of the above "safely". (Some protection lost by loss of, say, 6HCP + 5-4 or 6-card hands?) Please mark me "friend" and check out my favorite Convention Card.) Thanks.

The following link is to a fixed-column file (actually, a post) that shows every HCP count for every shape, with the number of hands with that shape&HCP. Dividing whatever number of hands are of interest by 635,013,559,600 gives you the exact probability. SHAPEbyHCP Oren Goren

Ahem. That's Responding to WELOS MIDI-twos.

[My partners-seeking efforts being so highly dependent on WELOS, this is aparently the right place to put this.] MIDI Twos: Prologue ================ Stephen Pickett, programmer of BRidgeBRowser and compiler of a huge database of hands played on OKBridge and BridgeBaseOnline, has run studies showing that a 1NT opener with a flattish hand and a five-card major is highly advantageous both at IMPs and matchpoints, as compared to one of a major with the same HCP count and the same distribution. He believes the reason lies in the many gadgets used to respond to 1NT, and to the limited range of that NT opener. This is good news for WELOS, which has always preferred to open flattish hands of the right strength with 1NT, even with a five-card major. Opening all flattish 12-14 HCP hands with a MIDI/weakno and all distributional hands with a MIDI 12-15 TP Two (enabling the extra-lite MINI openers) means that many standard One-of-a-Suit (OOAS) openers must be opened with a two-bid, a MIDI Two. This loses a round of bidding on these hands (although it gains a round on more hands, the MINIs). This space problem can be a huge pain in spades, and a biggy in hearts. But if the 5-card major is in a flattish hand, one without at least two distributional points (a singleton or two doubletons) a NT opener with 12-14 count is called for (if the hand isn't really a MINI or MAXI OOAS, deservedly counting only 11, or as much as 16). Partnerships need to make their own agreements. What about 5-4-2-2, with or without the five being a major, or the five and the four? With or without both doubletons protected by Qx or better? The gadgets-over-NT theory says we can do what ever we need to do. Examples of MIDI Twos ================== A. ♠T ♥A8632 ♦6 ♣QT9864 Count it as 14, high cards, long suit, distribution. Open 2♣[/size]. B. ♠AQ8 ♥J9543 ♦Q842 ♣K Count it as 14 or 15, depending on what you give to the king singleton. Open 2♥ C. ♠85 ♥98 ♦AKT6 ♣QJ932 Count it as 12 (13). Open 2♦. D. ♠AK7 ♥K9863 ♦QT76 ♣4 Count it as 14. Open 2♥. E. ♠J9543 ♥QT84 ♦K6 ♣A4 Count it 12. Open 1♠. F. ♠5 ♥J964 ♦KQ6 ♣KJ972 Count it as 12 and wish the hearts had a K instead of the clubs. Open 2♣, and hope partner responds 2♦ or 2♥. G. ♠72 ♥KQJ92 ♦- ♣T97643 Count it 12 or 13, including 1 point for the 5th heart, and at least one for the sixth club. Open 2♥ or (if you have come to a previous meeting of minds with partner about it) 2♣. H. ♠QT72 ♥KJ83 ♦AJ52 ♣J Count it 13 and open 2♥. Fine rebids no matter what happens. Clearly, using the long-suit count (even conservatively) makes the WELOS MIDI Twos 12-15 in trump play strength rather than in the standard quick-trick defensive strength one-bids show in many systems. So, as responder, don't make borderline/hair-trigger doubles of overcallers. Remember, too, that by opening with a Two instead of a one has made things extra-difficult for the opponents. Examples too strong for MIDI Twos ========================== I. ♠Q8 ♥QT4 ♦Q2 ♣KQJ864 Count it a horrible 16 (no ace) or 17. Yes, it is the kind of hand you may like to open two with, but it is a MAXI, so open 1♣. Or listen to yourself and decide it should be opened 2♣. J. ♠5 ♥KQ83 ♦AJT952 ♣75 Count it 16 and open 1♦. K. ♠95 ♥2 ♦AK ♣QJT98643 Count it way more than 15 and open 1♣. Three-bids (first and second seat) are reserved for game force hands. Example too weak for MIDI Twos ========================= L. ♠9853 ♥6 ♦K98 ♣AQ532 Once you have played WELOS for a while you will 'know' this hand is too good to be a MINI, but that is what it is. Count it 11 and open 1♣. Or listen to yourself and either count the 5th ♣, or the fact that you have such a great rebid available. Responding to MIDI Twos =================== Responses to WELOS Twos are not WELOS per se, and different partnerships may have different approaches, just as they might in responding to opening Weaknos. The critical choice is about two-level takeouts: escaping, constructive, or forcing? In any case, a relay can be very helpful. But in this incarnation we reject the cheapest suit relay. Points to consider: a. finding the fit, especially the major fit, when game is not on. Therefore, responder tends to bid up the line, and opener rebids up the line, certainly not supressing a side suit to show a (even a) 6-card opening suit. b. finding the/a game, while letting part-score fits be found. Responses to 2♣ ---------------------- 2♦: 4+ (usually 5+); NF. 2♥: 4+ (usually 5+); NF. 2♠: 5+; NF. 2N: general, unspecified hand, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 3♣: pre-emptive. Responses to 2♦ ---------------------- 2♥: 4+ (usually 5+); NF. 2♠: 5+; NF. 2N: general, unspecified hand, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 3♣: natural, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 2♦: pre-emptive Responses to 2♥ ---------------------- 2♠: 5+; NF. 2N: general, unspecified hand, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 3♣: natural, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 2♦: natural, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 2♥: NF, invitational. Responses to 2♠ ---------------------- 2N: general, unspecified hand, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 3♣: natural, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 2♦: natural, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 2♥: natural, forcing on opener to 3NT or 4 of a suit. 3♠. NF, invitational. Many of the responses are forcing on opener to 3NT or four of a suit but not on responder because he/she knows much more about the overall hand than does opener.

SPOILER! Using 'quotes' just to clearly separate the hands. All 'quoted'bidding and commentary is Gerben's. Neither pair used doubles and Eisenberg-Goldman got to losing slam, for a disastrous zero they overcame. Well, a WELOS partner has no more reason to respond in third seat than a standard opener's partner. A standard opener also can have 16+ (15 hcp balanced). Opener's partner took the double out to 1D. Spades split so the answer is yes. Sonny gave 7/11 for the club slam. 11 for NT.

For the casual reader, the WELOS openers in question are all natural. I had noted but not read the Fantunes/Mosca piece on your page ( Gerben). But now ... I note that WELOS twos include most of yours (some of yours are too strong, and the flattish ones are opened 1NT) plus MANY others. Besides having to do a lot of data entry and progamming changes for the new NFL season (my methods apply only after week 4) I have vascillated on the writing of the WELOS twos response scheme. 'We' played a variety of methods, none demanded by the basic concept. Your response scheme seems perhaps fitting for WELOS; the HCP ranges are highly similar-looking once you add distributional count to your HCP count. At least version of the system. The short file/version differs from the long description, at least in the terminology. I'm tending to think that the non-relay bids over non-clubs may be the way to go. As of yet I do not feel I know how much of the response systems are based on opener having a 5-card suit. Also, I have no feel for auctions in which opener might rebid in a 3-card major. (Or minor.) LOL. I already appended your Hitchhiker/etc to WELOS MIDI/weak no-trump openers (but wonder - just superficially so far) about switching 2C and 2D. Thanks!

Gerben: Very poorly, actually. When such a poor and inexperienced partnership as Eisenberg-Goldman eked out a 63, and even the likes of such beginners as Averelli-Belladonna managed as much as 50 out of 101, one would expect you to do much better than just 78. But, in your defence, you got no score on hand 6. I'll email you what you need to know to complete the hand. Well, you getting a much better result than either of two world champion partnerships does somewhat detract from the basic question: how does your method work over interference? "The fact that the 1-level is opened often is not decisive" is ambiguous. Often not decisive? Opened often? No way in Alabama will getting 38% of your strong hand openers taken from you be inconsequential? However, one point was to see if someone would decide to play some kind of cooperative double of the one-bid openers. The hands being so very strong, for the most part, made trying to take penalties a perhaps attractive option for one of the partners on some/many of the hands. Were the E-W hands less powerful there would be lots of raises and other interference, and if we switch the WELOS responder's hand with the second hand of the E-W partnership things could be very interesting. WELOS would be one important round up in the competition for part scores. Thanks! Oren Goren

Still actively seeking players of WELOS, which has yet to be completely defined online ... These are the West hands in a Bridge World Challenge the Champs match, Book III, Match A. The East hands are in a separate post/file. The matches were a series pitting World or National champion calibre pairs against each other, each independently bidding on sets of prepared and pre-scored hands. Each challenge was a new pair against the previous winner. Can you score well with WELOS interference? Most of the hands were bid without opponent interference. We have changed any E-W first seat hands to second seat and used the first WELOS one-bid opener random shuffling produced for first seat,but the vulnerability conditions for the E-W pair were not changed. WELOS one-bid openers count either 8-11 including distribution and long suit points, and do not discount for no ace. They also could be 16(+). Prepare your partnership methods to punish such effrontery, and see what contract you arrive at. If you decide that WELOS' incidental (!!) interference was significant, perhaps you should check out http://welos.proboards61.com. You can check the results yourself with Book III, inexpensisve and valuable from http://www.bridgeworld.com, http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...orld_books.html, or post/email your result and I will tell you how you scored (in confidence by email). ..... West Hands ========= 1. N deals and bids 1♦; Neither vulnerable. ♠ KJ64 ♥ 3 ♦ K842 ♣ T642 2. N deals and bids 1♥. N-S vulnerable. ♠ KT4 ♥ 986 ♦ AT87543 ♣ -- 3. S deals and bids 1♠. E-W vulnerable. ♠ K ♥ K6532 ♦ A9542 ♣ K7 4. S deals and bids 1♠. Both vulnerable. ♠ 532 ♥ AK75 ♦ 3 ♣ AKQJ2 5. N deals and bids 1♣. N-S vulnerable. ♠ KT632 ♥ 54 ♦ KT3 ♣ QT3 6. N deals and bids 1♣. E-W vulnerable. ♠ Q542 ♥ 6 ♦ 54 ♣ AQ6542 7. S deals and opens 1♦. Both vulnerable. ♠ K6 ♥ AT4 ♦ AK6 ♣ AKT53 8. S deals and opens 1♣. Neither vulnerable. ♠ 95 ♥ K7653 ♦ AQ75 ♣ AQ 9. N deals and opens 1♥. E-W vulnerable. ♠ QT ♥ AQ ♦ KJT76 ♣ J862 10. N deals and opens 1♥. Both vulnerable. ♠ AQ ♥ 75 ♦ AJT764 ♣ JT5 Bid 'em up! Oren Goren http://welos.proboards61.com

Still actively seeking players of WELOS, which has yet to be completely defined online ... These are the East hands in a Bridge World Challenge the Champs match, Book III, Match A. The West hands are in a separate post/file. The matches were a series pitting World or National champion calibre pairs against each other, each independently bidding on sets of prepared and pre-scored hands. Each challenge was a new pair against the previous winner. Can you score well with WELOS interference? Most of the hands were bid without opponent interference. We have changed any E-W first seat hands to second seat and used the first WELOS one-bid opener random shuffling produced for first seat, but the vulnerability conditions for the E-W pair were not changed. WELOS one-bid openers count 8-11 including distribution and long suit points, and do not discount for no ace. They also could be 16(+). Prepare your partnership methods to punish such effrontery, and see what contract you arrive at. If you decide that WELOS' incidental (!!) interference was significant, perhaps you should check out http://welos.proboards61.com. You can check the results yourself with Book III, inexpensisve and valuable from http://www.bridgeworld.com, http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...orld_books.html, or post/email your result and I will tell you how you scored (in confidence by email). ..... East Hands ========= 1. N deals and bids 1♦; Neither vulnerable. ♠ A ♥ KT82 ♦ A5 ♣ KQJ973 2. N deals and bids 1♥. N-S vulnerable. ♠ AQ53 ♥ A ♦ KQJ62 ♣ J72 3. S deals and bids 1♠. E-W vulnerable. ♠ A973 ♥ QJT ♦ T ♣ A8542 4. S deals and bids 1♠. Both vulnerable. ♠ A7 ♥ QT963 ♦ AJ86 ♣ 65 5. N deals and bids 1♣. N-S vulnerable. ♠ Q94 ♥ K62 ♦ AQ8542 ♣ K 6. N deals and bids 1♣. E-W vulnerable. ♠ AK7 ♥ AKQ53 ♦ J7 ♣ K93 7. S deals and opens 1♦. Both vulnerable. ♠ 8543 ♥ 8763 ♦ 8 ♣ 9872 8. S deals and opens 1♣. Neither vulnerable. ♠ 742 ♥ A2 ♦ KJ42 ♣ KJ32 9. N deals and opens 1♥. E-W vulnerable. ♠ AK4 ♥ 97 ♦ AQ5 ♣ KQT74 10. N deals and opens 1♥. Both vulnerable. ♠ KJ854 ♥ AQ93 ♦ Q ♣ 742 Bid 'em up! Oren Goren http://welos.proboards61.com .....

An expanded and materially revised version of this material has been posted to WELOS. It includes a small but significant change of the range of no-trump openers, from 12-15 to 12-14, and a revised/logical approach to opener's NT rebids. Thanks Oren Goren

This may be too premature, given that I haven't finished the thread, but IMHO restricting the bidding on the heart openers to 1♥-2♥ sequences doesn't allow the full comparison. Given that I (mis)understand the hands to be largely duplicates: If the BridgeBrowser allows it the hand selection should be (1st and 2nd seat?) those that at some tables are opened 1♥ and at other tables 1NT - at least once each - without regard to how the bidding proceeded, including the final contract. Certainly, the requirement of a 2♥ raise over 1♥ is not really relevant. What is it about the basic issue of ♥ versus NT that requires that limitation? What is it about the basic issue that enforces the final contract? Is there anything in the study so far that says 1♥ is not superior in NOT reaching game? Oren Goren