lovers of aggression & 4-cd majors needed!

[Oren Goren]

hi!

 

I posted WELOS (Webster's Extra-Light Openers) on rgb very recently, and it plus other material including EHAA-WELOS comparison will be on http://welos.blog-city.com when the b-c site gets a problem straightened out.

 

WELOS in Atlanta, late 70s, and Wichita, early 80s, opened 69% typically and 63% bottom, respectively, in the best duplicates, and won a third of the time in Wichita's best.

 

Natural! 4-cd majors and minors. ALL 8(+) point hands are opened somehow, and that includes old-Goren/Work distribution count.

 

Old/first partner and I bid many Bridge World Challenge the Champs hands and did very well because the idea is constructive (pre-compete, pre-respond, etc) rather than obstructive, but a minimum of 26% of their rote open-response sequences are down the toilet (at just 63%), and we find 213% as many instant 8(+) card fits as the opponents do, if they find theirs at all!

 

FUN! FUN! FUN!

 

Please give me and this unused forum a go!

 

Oren Goren

[Oren Goren]

Well, blog-city is screwing things up so badly that I have created http://welos.proboards61.com, where the file will be very shortly, without benefit of bold ext, etc.

 

Thanks!

[hrothgar]

I saw the summary description that you posted on rec.games.bridge...

 

I'll be quite honest: I'm skeptical about the system. In particular, I'm not fond of your two level openings. I used to play EHAA here in the US until I was driven away by the mandatory undiscipled weak bids. I wsn't comfortable opening 2♠ with hands ranging from a 5332 12 count to a 5521 8 count. Yes, the bids put pressure on the opponents, however, they ate up far too much bidding space for our partnership to survive the opening.

 

Quite frankly, your scheme looks worse because you're using (essentially) the same type of opening bid with stronger hands. We're much more likely to want to explore game opposite partner's 11-15 HCP hands than opposite EHAA's 8-12 HCP hands. Equally significant, the opponents are going to be less likely to intervene, decreasing our chances of extracting a tasty penalty. At a time where many strong clubs players are migrating to a 2♣ opening that explictly promises a 6+ card suit, your moving in the opposite direction with some very poorly defined openings.

 

You also don't provide nearly enough information to evaluate the system. A system is more than a random collection of opening bids. In particular you need good constructive response structures that will permit you to get to reasonable contracts opposite these opening. We have no way to evaluate any of this.

 

From my own perspective, I'd like to see a detailed description of the constructive response structure following three different bids:

 

1♠ openings

2♦ openings

2♥ openings

[Oren Goren]

Thanks, hrothgar.

 

I'll be quite honest:  I'm skeptical about the system.  In particular, I'm not fond of your two level openings.  I used to play EHAA here in the US until I was driven away by the mandatory undiscipled weak bids.  I wsn't comfortable opening 2♠ with hands ranging from a 5332 12 count to a 5521 8 count.

WELOS:

 

A note about the EHAA two-bid hands. Some of them WELOS considers to be, using classic Goren/Work count:

 

a. one-bid MINIs of 8-11 total count (♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦QJTxx ♣xx),

 

b. a borderline pass/MINI (♠Qxx ♥Qxx ♦xxxxx ♣Qx),

 

c. one-bid MAXIs of 16+ total count (♠x ♥Kxxx ♦AQJxxx ♣xx).

 

Note there was no deduction for no ace in the case of MINIs, which are considered responses-before-opener-opens; pre-responses.

 

EHAA's twos are more pre-empt than anything else, whether very weak or very strong. WELOS twos are pre-emptive by accident of algebra, as it were, and enable the much, much greater frequency of openers we enjoy, which means that EHAA's justified (I assume) claim about interfering with opposition's sequences is much more meaningful for WELOS.

 

hrothgar:

Quite frankly, your scheme looks worse because you're using (essentially) the same type of opening bid with stronger hands.  We're much more likely to want to explore game opposite partner's 11-15 HCP hands than opposite EHAA's 8-12 HCP hands.

WELOS:

 

Well, you have the count wrong, perhaps because of Nick's quote of Larssen's 1990 error.

 

Also, it is 12-15 TOTAL count, which includes distribution and long suit points.

 

Also, EHAA twos actually have a much wider range of strength than the WELOS twos, which complicates matters. Not that I like 12-15, a point too wide as far as I am concerned, but that is the range the basic math insists on, given the desire to open the 8-pointers.

 

None of this changes the fact that we lose a round of bidding when there is no interference by opponents, but the (MIDI) twos are fairly narrowly defined as to strength even though I dislike the size of that range (so if there is a feature that makes you consider the 12 particularly weak, count it 11, or count a strong 15 as 16 given that extra feature, perhaps texture or tens in both cases).

 

Which does not detract from your, hrothgar's:

Equally significant, the opponents are going to be less likely to intervene, decreasing our chances of extracting a tasty penalty.  At a time where many strong clubs players are migrating to a 2♣ opening that explictly promises a 6+ card suit, your moving in the opposite direction with some very poorly defined openings.

WELOS:

 

Poorly defined, but not compared to EHAA, as shown above, and not strengthwise, as compared to any 6-card weak two with 6-12 count. So many of those hands are very weak, some very strong, some in the middle.

 

WELOS twos are actually very narrowly defined versus other twos because of the Goren/Work count, which guarantees a much better, more narrowly defined range than HCP does for suited hands, and because of the alternative 1NT if the hand is flattish and the 5-card major, if any, is weak and should be treated as no better than a decent 4-cards suit (and there is no club or club+diamond suit(s) to open with).

 

WELOS bidders were born 4-cd major Gorenites, and know to open with a prepared rebid if at all possible. That tends to mean, in two- and three-suited hands, that opponents have a relatively maximized chance to stick their heads in and get whacked.

 

hrothgar:

You also don't provide nearly enough information to evaluate the system.  A system is more than a random collection of opening bids.  In particular you need good constructive response structures that will permit you to get to reasonable contracts opposite these opening.  We have no way to evaluate any of this.

WELOS:

 

Yep, that was a first intro I 'rushed' out because of comments made on rgp, and was written while both keyboard (changed) and system (re-installed) were giving me problems,

 

http://welos.proboards61.com gives a better, extended version, although not yet complete. Examples of the material you ask about will show up there shortly.

 

Thanks, hrothgar.

 

Really!

[Oren Goren]

[My partnership seeking being almost totallly dependent on WELOS, it seems correct to post this in this thread.]

 

WELOS one-bids. Responding to 1♣

 

In all discussions of WELOS it is Goren/Work point count in use. Total

points (TP). This includes the standard high-card count, A/K/Q/J = 4/3/2/1,

distributional count, Void/Singleton/Doubleton = 3/2/1, and long suit

points, 5th/6th+ = 1/2.

 

WELOS MIDI hands of any 12-15 count have been removed from one-of-a-suit

(OOAS) responder's burden, leaving hands of 16 or more, and however big a

range of hands with less than 12 count the system can handle.

 

The use of simultaneous equations with the count necessary to be safe at

some given level, or make game, resulted in both the point count limits of

MIDI openers, and of the minimum openers.

 

MINIs = 8-11 TP

MAXIs = 16(+) TP

 

MIDI NTs = 12-15 HCP

MIDI Twos = 12-15 TP.

 

Again, because it tells us so much about what responder must do:

 

MINIs = 8-11 TP

MAXIs = 16(+) TP

 

With 18/19 or more, what's the problem? Answer: standard bidders know they

can diddle around, temporize, not reveal their strength. But without a jump

shift response, or cue-bid of an opponent overcall, a WELOS MINI opener does

not have to rebid even with a max MINI. He'd like to and will with an

opportunity and something to show, but your temporizing response might have

prevented him from making his prepared rebid.

 

With 10 or more, responder must somehow show a minimum MAXI that game is

perhaps possible in NT or a major. But this isn't even a middling problem; a MAXI opener will give you chances to show your stuff.

 

With 15 or more, responder must somehow show a maximum MINI that game is

perhaps possible in NT or a major.

 

[summary + more at bottom]

 

Having said that, let's take a look at what may be the most troublesome hand

to have at duplicate when WELOS partner opens 1♣.

 

♠AQJ7

♥KQ62

♦976

♣A4

 

You have 16 HCP but shouldn't bid 2NT, showing 15-16. You have no length or

strength in diamonds, and if partner had near-equal diamonds and clubs he

would likely have opened in diamonds to give himself a rebid. With three 4-card

suits he might or might not have bid the one under the singleton; with 1-4-4-4 he might well have bid 1♦, letting partner bid hearts cheaply and reserving clubs for a rebid.

 

A MAXI opener won't let the auction end here. And if opener hasn't at least a maximum MINI with distribution and a fit, or a flat

maximum, what is it that you can miss here?

 

Not game, and partner has already insured your chance to find a

competitive fit, so maximize the chances of finding that best fit. And a

MINI partner with a good fit already, or a good rebid, will keep on keeping

on.

 

So, bid 1♥ or 1♠.

 

With a standard American partner you would like to bid 1♠ with the intention of

showing hearts on the next bid. But here you bid up the line: 1♥.

 

The worst possible flat hand opener could have, given your hand:

 

♠5432

♥J43

♦QJ

♣QJ32

 

Opener apparently counted the diamonds both as high cards, for 3 points, and as a doubleton, for 1 more. Between hands tell him not to do that.

 

On this hand opener will bid spades, you will jump raise to three just as you would had you been a standard American opener in clubs, diamonds, or hearts and gotten a 1♠ response. He will pass and you will likely make three.

 

A minimum distributional hand the WELOS opener might have been:

 

♠432 ♥J543 ♦Q ♣KJ432.

 

He now re-evaluates his hand as heart support. He promotes the J to 2 points, the singleton to 3 points, reaching a 10 total now. With distribution values he is very happy to raise to two.

 

But what should you do? This is your hand again:

 

♠AQJ7

♥KQ62

♦976

♣A4

 

You can figure his hand got better, but was it a min MINI that got better, or a max MIN? If your partnership thinks your 16 plus his raise is enough, go ahead and bid game, but a non-jump new suit here is natural and encouraging and DOES show the suit, hence can be passed.

 

If, instead, opener had this hand,

♠5432 ♥J43 ♦Q ♣KJ432,

he would rebid 1♠, you would jump to 3♠ to show 15-16, and he probably should pass. (It really is a terrible 9 or 10!)

 

[

While, and if, we are straining at gnats here, suppose partner passes.

 

A. RHO passes. What contract do you reach?

B. RHO bids 1♣ or 1♦. What contract do you reach?

]

 

Summary +; responses to 1♣

====================================

(Only 1NT response does not apply to other suit openers.)

 

Double Jump Shift: whatever your partnership chooses.

Single Jump Shift: 18+.

2NT: 15-16.

1NT/1♣: 12-14 (a natural suit is always available).

1NT/1♠♥♦: 6-10/11.

2/1: 10/11+ (usually denies support).

1/1: 6/7+ (usually denies support).

1-2: 6-14.

1-3: 15-16

 

Opener rebids

--------------------

1-2-3: stop (with distribution).

1-2-(overcall/takeout dbl)-3: stop

 

Cheapest NT: MAXI (16-18) (adjust at will).

Reverse: MAXI (16+).

Non-Jump new suit at 3-level: MAXI (16+).

Jump shift: game force.

Jump raise: MAXI (16+) non-force if 1-1-3.

Jump rebid: MAXI (16+) non-force if 1-1-3.

 

Any re-opening: MAXI (16+).

 

Not including reverses:

1x-1y-1z: suit+distributional values only, no extra count. Not MAXI.

1x-1y-2z: suit+distributional values only, no extra count. Not MAXI.

1x-2y-2z: suit+distributional values only, no extra count. Not MAXI.

==============================

 

Note: responder's hand came from Bridge World's Challenge the Champs Book I.

http://www.bridgeworld.com

[Oren Goren]

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