foo

I started playing Multi around 1980, probably -81. The convention was in commom use in Norway around 1985. 2-suited preempts like Muiderberg (that name was unknown here) was also common at that time. In the early 90's I used some 2-way preempts too. yeah, that pretty much jibs with my memories as well. As I quoted above, all I claimed was that multi-suited preempts are relatively new compared to the 80+ year history of bridge. For some reason, that rather mild statement has or had hrothgar quite upset. *shrug* I'd think he of all people would be glad to see evidence that bidding methods are continuing to evolve.

The answer is clear to me: we can't agree. At least I can't agree with myself, much less with anyone else. Also, I don't think you will ever agree with, say, The_hog. Case closed. Over to question 2. I'm not so pessimistic. For the most part I don't think my POV and The_Hog's are that far apart. The only people I'm not going to ever see eye-to-eye with are those that feel there should not be any regulations. That doesn't work in any other game or sport. Therefore I see no reason to accept that Bridge can get away with no regulations. Every sport or game has rules and regs about how one can play and what equipment one is allowed to use. For Bridge, IMHO bidding methods are a class of "equipment". We even commonly call them "tools".

Actually, I think that may be unfair to the vast majority of regulating officials. IMHO, most of them try very hard to do the right thing as they see it for their membership. And they do it as unpaid volunteers. The problem with any evolutionary system rather than a designed system is that there usually exist internal contradictions. Over time, in fields like Law we deal with them by having the courts decide which precedent holds more weight under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, within Bridge we do not have a regulatory system with such a built-in ability to evolve or resolve conflicts. Thus our only option is to live with the contradictions and/or poor process unless or until the pressure gets too great so that a new system gets put in place.

I think that if we want to make any significant progess on this issue, we are endplayed into ignoring issues of "sportsmanship" for now. 1st let's see if we can agree on objective and objectively fair criteria for allowing or disallowing methods.

AQT96 + 8732 1st, you are not taking 5 tricks unless the suit is Kx+Jx, K54+J, KJ+54, KJx+x, or KJ54+0 If KJ+54, you are making 5 tricks no matter what you do, so let's ignore that one. If you feel Kx+Jx or Kxx+J is more likely, your line is Hook the Q and if the J drops run the 8; else play the A next If you feel KJx+x or KJ54+0 is more likely, your line is Put the 8 on the table, intending to run it unless covered. If the 8 is covered, try to win cheaply. If the 8 holds, put the 7 on the table and repeat the process. Apriori, the 1st set is ~20% and the 2nd set is ~17%.

South bears some blame as well. That's a lot of bidding on 5 HCP. Worse, it probably convinced N that they were 55 in the Roundeds. If S wanted to get their ♣'s in the auction with a hand of that (lack of) strength, they should either pretend they don't have 4 ♥'s (not usually recommended) or make a balancing X to show ♣'s but not enough strength to bid them. N, holding an 18 count, decided that S was at the top of the 0-9 HCP range they originally showed and was ?5?5 to boot and "fell in love with their hand."

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H? That hand is well within that "what's the least lie I can tell" catagory. I do not like passing pure 5 loser hands. Since AKx has the trick taking strength of many 4 card holdings, and so does Qxxxx, I'd very likely treat this as a 4144 ATT and make a T/O X with it. Make the hand Qxx.x.(KQxx.AKxxx), and I start to really dislike making a T/O X with it and would probably Overcall 2m instead. Make it Qxx.x.(AKxx.KQxxx), and at Favorable I might even trot out Unusual 2N with it. As I said, with these sorts of hands, it's about finding the least lie.

Helene, What I think awm started this thread to achieve, and what I know I've wanted to see for some time, is an attempt to make an objective and fair system for deciding on what new methods to allow. The present situation, evidently especially within the ACBL, seems fraught with subjective criteria and decisions that many feel were not based on Bridge merits but rather on less savory factors. So the questions are "Can we do better?" and if so, "What does 'do better' look like?"

If you want some more food for thought, I recommend Danny Kleinman's _The NT Zone_ I have some notes on a really "out there" 1N response structure somewhere that doesn't even use Stayman. I'll see if I can find them for amusement value if nothing else.

I thought Tartan Twos were -not- preempts?

How does 2 Q's and a stiff equal 4 cover cards? I could buy 3; assuming pd has length & values where I have Q's and length w/o values where I have a stiff. But how do you count 4 cover cards?

I'm going to make a Negative X and then support ♠'s. because: a= I'm definitely too good for a simple raise. I have 11 playing points in support of ♠'s here. b= I don't like to make a direct Limit Raise bid w/o 4+ trumps. X followed by support seems to describe my hand best. I also agree with mikeh's logic.

Back to the main point of this thread. What is the feeling regarding using "statistical equivalence" to existing methods as a yard stick for accepting new methods? So for instance we submit a new multi-suit 2level preempt that has provably the ~ same odds of Assumed Fit and of finding a makable contract as a traditional single suited Weak Two. As I previously stated, this =is= a conservative stance. But it is one that would make it very hard to refuse acceptance of a new method since it is provably just as Constructive as an already accepted method.

Matula's book on Polish club was translated into English and Copyrighted in 1994. My understanding is that the Polish version is a few years older. I put a post out on rec.games.bridge to double check the precise age. Thank you.

ROTFLMAO! Thanks, I needed that B)

Sorry, I have to retract my acceptance of your statement that Wilcosz 2♦ is "30+ years old". I Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library. It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago". Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is. He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

There we go. Objective evidence. That wasn't hard. Thank you. Now what =exactly= is the description of this 30+ year old multi-suited preempt according to the verifiable documentation? (I'll ignore that "30+" is less than 1/2 of "80+" and for the sake a getting along call it "close enough"). EDIT: Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library. It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago". Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is. He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"! The Wilkosz 2♦ seems to have had the traditional Weak Two range of ~7-11 or ~5-10 at Favorable. Matula spends an entire chapter on it.

This is kidna the opposite of what I think. Either you never double because you don't have a 4c major, in which case you don't compete enough; or you double even holding doubleton minor, and then, if you offer just 1 suit why don't you just bid 1♠ instead? When holding a hand that should overcall, I overcall. When holding a hand with support for all the unbid suits, particularly with 4 cards in the unbid major(s) and at least 3 cards in the unbid minors, I make T/O X's Great hand strength or some other weirdness does occasionally cause me, like anyone else, to reach for the "least lie" to tell. Sometimes that even means I pass because I do not systemically have the right bid available. C'est La Vie. Trust me, I both X and overcall plenty.

Read what you wrote idiot You stated that multi suited openings are relatively new. In fact, they date back 50+ years. (BTW, as I recall, Little Major also used a 2M opening that showed a two suited pattern) You stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere. They weren't. Two suited methods were in common use in Poland 30 years ago. That's 2x in the last few posts that you've crossed the ZT line. One more and you get reported. ??? I never denied Constructive 2suited openings existed (heck, Blue Team club had a Constructive multi-suited opening), I denied multi-suited =preempts= had been around for very long relative to the overall history of Bridge. Outside of Poland, we obviously agree this is true. Without reputable documentation one way or the other, we can't definitively state how accurate or not your suspicions are regarding multi-suit preempts being "old and hoary" within Poland. The statements you mention to that effect =are= anecdotal evidence. To the point of rumor. Now be polite please.

I'm attaching some comments from from original notes on the Frelling 2D. The figures that I came up with are slightly higher than some of the other staistics that have been quoted. I suspect that this is an artifact of the fact that this opening systemically denies a 4441 / 5440 shape. <snip> Simulations show that following a 2D opening, the partnership will be able to scramble to an 8+ card fit at the two level approximately 64.6% of the time. A similar analysis was performed for the two heart opening and found that the partnership is able to scramble to an eight card fit in Hearts, Spades, or Clubs 66.4% of the time. Both opening bids will identify a 7+ card fit 90% of the time. In this case, the more traditional preemptive style does come out ahead. Opposite a single suited preempt showing 6322 or 6331 hand type, the partnership will have an 8+ card fit in the bid major on about 76.4% of all hands. I did not ask for this, but thanks for providing it anyway. I think we can both agree that "7 card fits" are not what we traditionally mean by "fit" in Bridge. This Frelling 2bid of yours seems to exist in an interesting region regarding the assumption of 8+ card fit. The fit assumption is not nearly as good as traditional Weak Twos, but is clearly better than random. Depending on the value range shown by the opening, I can easily imagine this being a nightmare for regulating officials to adjudicate on the Constructive <-> Destructive continuum. Clearly, the conservative stance would be to insist that that any 2level preempt must have the same statisical assumption of fit and chances of being a makable contract as a traditional Weak Two. (If any regulating official objects to an opening with essentially the same chances of being Constructive as a traditional Weak Two, they are going to have a =very= hard time justifying themselves.) Please note that I am not advocating or opposing the conservative stance. Simply mentioning it as a reasonable starting point for theorists who are trying to get new methods adopted.

Once again, you demonstrate that you're full of crap. Roman Club was using various two suited and three openings back in the 1950s. Admittedly, this was with constructive strength openings, however, the basic concept of has been well established for 50+ years. If we want to limit ourselves to preemptive methods: I first saw reference to Wilkosz 2♦ back in the early 90s and was told that it was old and hoary at that point in time. I suspect (but can't prove) that the genesis of two suited preempts was the Polish work on weak opening systems. I believe that the first highly popular two suited preempt outside Poland was the Muiderberg 2M opening that Jan van Cleef introduced in Bridge magazine back around 1994. Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully. Bridge is ~80 years old. Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that. That's all I said. Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

ROFLSHWMP. I happen to play a system which is very close to F-N. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. They will open 2S on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. THis IS *supremely undisciplined*. I understand why they do this, as I do the same thing: combine this with a weak/mini NT, and you get very sound one bids. The two bids work, though, as long as you have the stomach for lots of anti-field results. Your attempts to lecture those of us who play non-standard systems is pretty funny. Peter 1= I'm not lecturing anyone. Just pointing out the logical conclusions of the evidence you are providing. 2= If you really are playing F-N in the style it is meant to be played, then you know those preempts =aren't= undisciplined. They are a price paid to remove certain hand types from their constructive auctions that start at the one level. There's a big difference between doing something just to create random action and doing something because it is part of the price of System. Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter. That's not the same thing as playing 1980's style Bergen preempts just to mess with the opponents heads.

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand. Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors. If you are going to expect your partnership to bid to good spots others might not get to because you use shape information, you have to make sure you provide good shape information.

Nice hand. Clearly we want to make a move with this, but what move? pd could have been forced to bid 2♦ on a (32)44 =zero= count by our T/O X. So as nice as this hand is, forcing to game is not a good idea. I do not like offering NT as a strain when ♣'s are wide open, especially at IMPs. (I figure that pd will strain to bid 1N rather than 2♦ with any close to suitable hand.) That leaves game in ♦'s. Our choices to pursue that are 3♦ and 4♦. Let's assume pd has 6-9 HCP and 4-5 ♦'s. Can we make 5♦ opposite most of those hands? It's close. I want to bid 3.5♦'s. I'm Red @ IMPs. I'll bid 4♦.

As usual, mikeh is 100% right.