MALEX - part 3

[kes]

MALEX - Major's Length Exact - Moscito based bidding system , strongly modified

 

The basis of MALEX is described in part 1 & part 2 . But there are some points , I would like to get opinions about .

 

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

 

Point 1 : Moscito was (caused by regulations) derived from Forcing Pass , where the strong "opening" pass had 13+ P and I think , this was originally the strength of 1C . There are other Strong Club systems of course , up to 1C with 18+ P (?) . During several years (playing Precision) we tried 16+ P / 15+ P / 14+ P / 13+ P . We felt , that 14+ P (and 16+ P in 3. / 4. seat) works best .

 

I think , we get fewer disturbing actions by the LHO , than in the other ranges .

May be : The better players don't feel forced to enter the auction with garbage , as they do after stronger 1C . The not so-good-players respect 14+P as "nearly strong" , (like strong NT with 15+P , mostly played here) and prefer to pass with limited hands No proof - no exact data - just our feeling .

 

Of course MALEX would not be dramatically different by choosing another strength .

Besides , the opening of 1C has a frequency of about 11,5 % - rough summary for MALEX : 11,5 % + 16,0 % (13,5 % with 4+M + 2,5 % without M) about 27,5 % (for each partner) .

 

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

 

Point 2 : We open 1N (with good 11 P to bad 13 P) without 4+M (as in Match-Point Precision) . We don't want (playing 1N that weak) to miss a 4:4-fit , when pd is too weak to enter level 2 AND we want to stop in 1M with a 4:3-fit , when the hand belongs to the opponents (there may be no 5card suit in the 4 hands) .

 

Of course MALEX would not be dramatically different by choosing 1N with 4=M . The obvious advantage would be , that the opening 1M is non-balanced - then pd can go to 2M with only 3card support , as in Moscito (rare in MALEX) .

 

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

 

Point 3 : One of the corner-stones of MALEX is the 2M opening with 6+M , strength as in Trent Two (but as normal opening for us) .

 

I think the usual Weak Two (say up to 10 P) has the following flaws :

 

1. Weak Two is not very frequent . You have 6+M (with 0-3 oM) about 5 % .

BUT the hand should have concentrated honors (suit-quality / red / white) AND you must be in pole-position (very rare with 0-10 P at 3. / 4. seat , somebody has opened earlier - may be your pd with Weak Two in the other major) .

 

2. Weak Two is unnecessary - if your pd is strong (you will get another try) - if the hand fits with normal opening (not so rare in a Weak Opening System) - if the hand can be opened 3M .

 

3. Weak Two is even harmful , if the opponents find their best contract despite of your opening (huge advantage in declarer-play) AND if they find their contract because of your opening (they may win 5m instead of losing 3N) .

 

When developping our system some years ago , I asked some other players when they had the last good score because of a Weak Two opening . Not even one could remember . Of course Weak Two HAS its merits (and it would be silly , not to use the opening 2M for something , if you don't have a better idea) . But I prefer separating the normal opening with 6+card M from the other openings (even when playing Precision , I would open 1M with 5=cards and 2M with 6+cards , both 10-15 P) .

[whereagles]

Ok, let me see if I get this straight

 

1♣ = 14+ any shape (16+ in 3rd/4th seat)

1♦ = 44 majors or better, 10-13

1♥ = 4 hearts, no spades, 10-13

1♠ = 4 spades, no hearts, 10-13

1NT = no major, 11-13. Could be unbalanced

2♣/♦ = 5 hearts/spades, 10-13

2♥/♠ = 6 hearts/spades, 10-13, trent 2 style

 

Right. So here are my comments:

 

1. 1♣ starting at 14 absorbs too may hands. The reason why a strong club starts at 16 and not lower is statistical and should not be twinked with too frequently. The only positive side of opening 1♣ on 14+ is opps may still have a game on and might want to bid more constructively instead of just trying to mess you up.

 

2. The precision in major suit openings lives off dumping minor suit hands into 1NT. Putting aside the fact that some NBOs don't allow opening 1NT on singleton/voids, you still have the problem of how to reach a good contract after opening 1NT. To me, this doesn't seem as easy as you make it.

 

3. Weak 2s are NOT worthless. They are the most fantastic, superb and flexible tool of aggressive bidding, especially if you open on 5 cards NV. Your system loses one of the most effective means of preemption ever devised.

 

4. You should probably lower your major suit openings to 9-13 or even 8-13 so as to take full advantage of the scheme when those hands come up.

 

5. Since you'll open most 10 hcp hands in 1st/2nd, 3rd and 4th seat openings need to be stretched all the way to 16. Otherwise you could never have a game one after a normal opening and would have to change all the response scheme. Not only that, opps would also know they have some values and could take advantage of that. So the 3rd/4th seat openers should show 9-16, with 1♣ starting at 17.

 

6. All in all the scheme seems playable but it gambles on overloading the 1♣ and 1NT openings. It requires a lot of experience to be played sucessefully. It isn't clear to me the excessive load on 1♣/1NT and the loss of weak 2s is compensated adequeately by the added precision in the majors. Right now I'd say NO.

[kes]

Thank you , whereagles , for your interest !

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

Your point 1 :

 

Yes , 1C with 14+ absorbs many hands - but too many ? You say yes , I say no .

I think it is no use , to repeat my arguments of above (and I have no new ones) .

 

But I have a prominent supporter :

Paul Marston in reg.games.bridge in May, 25. 2005 "I would put forward 8-12 HCP openers and 13+ 1C as being my first guess at optimal design" .

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

Your point 2 :

 

The opening 1N is not UN-balanced (with void / single) but SEMI-balanced (which may be 22.54 / 322.6 , 4+ m) , otherwise it would not be allowed (as you mentioned) .

 

The un-balanced hands without 4+ M are in 2N / 3m (which are not the best pieces of the system , but have pleasantly low frequency) .

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

Your point 3 :

 

The openings with 4+ M(s) are stated not as 10-13 P , but "Rule of 18 up to 13 P" (and up to 15 P in 3rd / 4th seat of course) .

 

On level 1 the openings must fulfil this rule , otherwise it counts for a bluff . But 1D

with 55= M & 1S with 4=S & 6=m may start as low as with 8 P.

 

On level 2 our openings are stated "Rule of 18 (may be a little bit weaker)" .

2S with 6= S & 4= m starts at 8 P , or (a little bit weaker) at 7 P .

 

Of course there are still weaker hands , one may want to open , but you can't keep the cake and eat it - and see other arguments in point 3 above . I never said , Weak Twos are worthless , but I think they are overrated (and they don't fit our system) .

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

Your point 4 : We do , see above .

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

Your Point 5 : Yes , in 3rd / 4th seat 1C is 16+ P , other openings up to 15 P .

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

Your point 6 : We play it for some years , of course changing around a lot .

[whereagles]

1. Strong club as 14+: in the 90's there was a lot of interest on systems with the scheme that Paul Marston advocates. They were played with moderate to good sucess, but were eventually dropped due to 2 things: overload of the 1♣ and truncation of the 8-12 openings. Truncation means this: a 8-12 isn't usually strong enough to make a free bid in competition, and this limits its usefulness. Anyway, 1♣ as 14+ is playable but you'll face a higher frequency of difficult, guessing decisions.

 

2. 1NT opening: ah, I see. I missed that. Well, if you were allowed to open 1NT on those unbalanced hands you'd be much better. Having to open them 2NT is kinda pushy. And takes out your 3m preempts.

 

3. Weak 2s: actually, the more I play, the more I realize how people UNDERrate weak 2s. Especially weak 2s in the minors. A 5 card weak 2♣ or 2♦ is one little, seemingly-innocent convention that can royally mess up opponents bidding. I speak from experience: the best players in my country, some of them WBF grandmasters, have had disasters against me because they simply had to bid over the weak 2 and it was the wrong time to do it.

 

4. Opening 8-13: ok. That definitely helps.

 

5. 3rd seat 1♣: I would go as far as recommending 17+ for it. Maybe even 18+.

[hrothgar]

1. Strong club as 14+: in the 90's there was a lot of interest on systems with the scheme that Paul Marston advocates. They were played with moderate to good sucess, but were eventually dropped due to 2 things: overload of the 1♣ and truncation of the 8-12 openings. Truncation means this: a 8-12 isn't usually strong enough to make a free bid in competition, and this limits its usefulness. Anyway, 1♣ as 14+ is playable but you'll face a higher frequency of difficult, guessing decisions.

I can't speak for everyone, however, I quite certain about Paul's beliefs on these matters. The only reason he switched away from light opening systems was series of ugly fights with the regulatory authorities. I've seen very similar comments from the Passing Poles and the Carrotti folks, however, I haven't the opportunity to discuss this face to face with any of them.

 

Where are the examples of pairs who abandoned their weak opening systems because they felt that they felt that they were technically flawed?

[whereagles]

This was before I started playing bridge, but when Poland won the 1993 Menton european championships, their top pair Balicki-Zmudzinsky was playing stong pass. They stopped playing it later on, and were still on top for a long time.

[hrothgar]

This was before I started playing bridge, but when Poland won the 1993 Menton european championships, their top pair Balicki-Zmudzinsky was playing stong pass. They stopped playing it later on, and were still on top for a long time.

Which shows what?

 

As I commented earlier, the "Passing Poles" (aka Balicki-Zmudzinski) switched to more mainstream methods because of system regulations - NOT any strong conviction that their strong pass systems were flawed.

[whereagles]

Well, do you know of any statement from strong pass players saying why they stopped playing their systems?

[hrothgar]

Well, do you know of any statement from strong pass players saying why they stopped playing their systems?

Yes...

 

Paul Marston and I have discussed this extensively. The ONLY reason that he and Burgess switched away from forcing pass was system regulations.

 

Balicki-Zmudzinski have made similar comments, though I haven't spoken to them directly.

 

My notes on Magic Diamond and Carrotti also specifically state that the system evolution was in response to system regulations, not technical merit.

[awm]

I'm less than convinced by the light opening systems. In fact I'd be happy to play against a 13+ 1♣ and 8-12 openings. There are many weaknesses to this system:

 

(1) The 8-12 opening tends to locate values/shape for the opposition. Especially if you're opening balanced 8-12s, these bids don't help your side a lot in competitive auctions but they do help the opponents. Even the pass now locates values for opponents.

 

(2) The 1♣ opening is very frequent and nebulous. This works okay in an uncontested auction but you'll have trouble catching up when opponents intervene.

 

Forcing pass is different for many reasons -- the fert bid in particular is hard to defend. Forcing pass is banned in many regions to a great degree because of this. But 1♣ 13+ and openings 8-12 are allowed in many places (including the often-criticized acbl general chart). I don't see people playing them.

 

Back to the system in question, we still haven't seen followups to the opening bids. My feeling on these:

 

(1) The nebulous 1♣ is quite likely to get you in trouble against people who know how to defend it. Most precision players will tell you that the 1♣-(interference) part of their system is not where they win. The lower you start the 1♣ the more common this becomes.

 

(2) The openings with no 4-card major are awful. These hands aren't really all that rare. I wouldn't want to be playing 11-13 NTs at vulnerable in any case, and the 2NT/3m openings will make it very hard to judge your best fit and level. How do you find a 5-3 major fit after 2NT? After 3♣? Are you giving up 5-3 major fits completely in these auctions?

 

(3) What are the followups to the 2m openings? How do you explore alternative strains with non game forcing hands? This is fairly easy in a five-card major structure (and not too hard even if you play 4cM with canape) but seems difficult over the 2m opening.

 

(4) It seems like you might do substantially better by playing 1M = 4-5 cards in the major and 2m natural with no 4cM. This is especially true in light of the recent threads about the relative lack of value in playing 5-3 fits with the 3-card suit in a balanced hand. It fixes the issues with 2NT and 3m, at least to a degree, and helps you find a minor suit fit when opener is 5M+4m and responder is short in the major.

[whereagles]

Paul Marston and I have discussed this extensively. The ONLY reason that he and Burgess switched away from forcing pass was system regulations.

 

Balicki-Zmudzinski have made similar comments, though I haven't spoken to them directly.

 

My notes on Magic Diamond and Carrotti also specifically state that the system evolution was in response to system regulations, not technical merit.

Ok. That's good enough for me.

 

Guess we should organize a marathon match of "strong pass vs the rest" to sort this out :)

[hrothgar]

>But 1♣ 13+ and openings 8-12 are allowed in many places >(including the often-criticized acbl general chart). I don't see >people playing them.

The GCC allows you to play an 8-12 HCP 1M opening bid. It does not allow any of the conventional follow-ups necessary to score well after your 8-12 HCP 1M opening bid.

 

Light openings are VERY different than standard opening structures. They pretty much either

 

1. A transfer based response structure

2. Extensive use of relays

 

Neither of these are permitted in GCC events.

 

I experimented with a 8-12 HCP openings within the context of a gcc legal system for roughly a year and a half. I concluded that it was unsound.

 

YMMV

[awm]

Dr Todd on BBO used to play a forcing pass, and recently has switched to forcing pass only NV and a somewhat more sound strong club method at vulnerable. This was obviously not for regulatory reasons -- perhaps he or his partner would like to comment further.

 

I suspect that forcing pass/light opening methods have not been played/tinkered with very much for regulatory reasons, and that they attain a lot of advantage from opponents who are unfamiliar or have not discussed defenses when they are played. For this reason there's not a very accurate sample size to judge how effective they might be.

 

Nonetheless, my experience with strong club (and most precision players experience matches this) is that 1♣ opening is not a big winner in competitive auctions, and that it's more of a "necessary evil" to trade off for wins via light and/or limited opening bids on other hands. I wouldn't be eager to switch to a method where I was opening 1♣ on all 13-counts or better. The gains from the 8-12 range would have to be substantial to compensate for this. Given the number of top players who have tried 10-12 NT and then switched back to a stronger range, I suspect there is not a lot of benefit in opening light on balanced hands (this also matches my own practical experience).

[kes]

Thank you , awn , for your interest !

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

To the second half of your post (1.12 PM):

 

Your point 1 : My experience is opposite , see point 1 of my post above .

 

Your point 2 : Opening without 4+ M , 11-13 P (11-15 P in 3rd / 4th seat) .

1N about 2,7 % - 2N / 3m are together about 1 % - you must not only count the hands of the correct distribution & strength , you must also consider when in pole-position . 3M after opening 2N / 3m is game-forcing , no chance to play 3M - those openings are (solid) barrages , of course you may block your pd .

Besides , those hands may be passed with bad 11 P , opened 1C with good 13 / 15 P .

 

Your point 3 : The followup after opening 2m are described in MALEX - part 1 .

Pd may bid non-forcing , 2M with 2+ cards . After 2C with 4=1=4=4 and after 2D with 1=4=4=4 (and passing opponents) pd has a problem , indeed . We are still waiting for this accident .

 

Your point 4 : Yes , your proposed system is better for the hands without 4+ M .

No , it is not better for the hands with 4+ M - and it is not MALEX .

[hrothgar]

Guess we should organize a marathon match of "strong pass vs the rest" to sort this out :)

These types of issues don't get resolved in isolated challenge matches...

 

You need hundred's if not thousands of pairs testing the methods on a daily basis against all comers. Throw open the gates. Watch where the system converges.

 

Unfortunately, the powers that be decided to cut short this experimentation and created institutional protection for existing methods.

 

Such is life...

[Flame]

The fact that focing pass with 13+ is good doesnt nececarly mean 1C 13+ is good.

About the system, i like exact major alot although i think you dont need to open with 4Hs. The exact major here has a problem when you open 1D since majors can be 5-4 or 5-5 and you will be in trouble if opponenets prempt.

[kes]

" . . . when you open 1D . . . you are in trouble if opponents preempt "

 

Example :

1D (2D) X (3D) - then opener PS with 44= / X with 55+ / 3M with 5= (& 4= oM)

 

Not so good :

1D (3D) X (PS) - then opener 3H with 44= or 4=5= / 3S with 5=4= / 3N with 55+

 

Better :

1D (3C) X (PS) - then opener 3D with 44= / 3M with 5= (& 4= oM) / 3N with 55+

[whereagles]

1. These types of issues don't get resolved in isolated challenge matches... You need hundred's if not thousands of pairs testing the methods on a daily basis against all comers. Throw open the gates. Watch where the system converges.

 

2. Unfortunately, the powers that be decided to cut short this experimentation and created institutional protection for existing methods. Such is life...

1. Indeed. There are however a few things we know already, e.g. strong club/pass scores better when opps stay quiet. Whether or not lowering the strong bid to 14+ improves on that remains to be seen, but it is quite likely that whatever advantage it may bring will be marginal at best.

 

2. Politics is, as usual, far more complicated than the game itself :rolleyes:

[kes]

 

1. Indeed. There are however a few things we know already, e.g. strong club/pass scores better when opps stay quiet.

And we know already , that each system scores better when opps stay quiet . :rolleyes:

[akhare]

Dr Todd on BBO used to play a forcing pass, and recently has switched to forcing pass only NV and a somewhat more sound strong club method at vulnerable. This was obviously not for regulatory reasons -- perhaps he or his partner would like to comment further.

We switched to a strong ♣ system when vul. primarily because we felt that the 1♥ fert was probably too big of a risk to take during team matches. The really bad results were far and few in between and on on every occasion, the opponents could have a (grand) slam (not that it was biddable). However, it's difficult to explain the "the system made me do it 1100s" to team mates when they were in 3N/4M and were expecting a push.

 

To a lesser degree, it was to minimize exposure over active interference by the opps. especially at unfavourable vul.

 

As such, over the years, we haven't really found any shortcomings caused by light openings. Now, if you are speaking of (non chemically induced) "light headedness" (my pard will probably call it "block headedness"), it's a different matter B)...

[Flame]

" . . . when you open 1D . . . you are in trouble if opponents preempt "

 

Example :

1D (2D) X (3D) - then opener PS with 44= / X with 55+ / 3M with 5= (& 4= oM)

 

Not so good :

1D (3D) X (PS) - then opener 3H with 44= or 4=5= / 3S with 5=4= / 3N with 55+

 

Better :

1D (3C) X (PS) - then opener 3D with 44= / 3M with 5= (& 4= oM) / 3N with 55+

The problem is not how to show opener's hand, the question is how to decide whather we should compete to the 3 level or not when opponenets bid 3m.

On many hands we wouldnt want to compete if opener has 4-4 but want to compete if opener has 5-5 (and maybe with 5-4)

It doest solve the problem to say that opener will continue with 5-5 or pass with 4-4 because sometimes we are in a total misfit.

This isnt saying The system is inferiour to normal systems when coming to make competitive decision, what i mean is that exact major usuallly put you in supper position while after 1D opening you might even be in worse then normal 5 card majors openers.

[kes]

. . . while after 1D opening you might even be in worse then normal 5 card majors openers.

You are right , there is a problem (and I cannot solve it - open 1H with 4=H & 0-4S is worse ! ) . But I don't see why a normal 5 card major system is in a better situation after 1H (3D) .

[Flame]

. . . while after 1D opening you might even be in worse then normal 5 card majors openers.

You are right , there is a problem (and I cannot solve it - open 1H with 4=H & 0-4S is worse ! ) . But I don't see why a normal 5 card major system is in a better situation after 1H (3D) .

Based on the LOTT you might have an advantage when you know partner has 5 cards in the major. I agree it can qork both ways since you know both majors.

Just seemed strange for me to see that you giv the same bid with 2 hands that are very different in their odr. It seemed strange because when i was trying for systems like that i based everything on the odr of the hands, which i thought is what you do as you have different bids for 4/5/6 cards suits.

[awm]

So here's the thing I find confusing. Sometimes the best fit is not in opener's suit. It's nice to be able to do one or both of the following:

 

(1) Have responder name a suit with less than GF values. If opener likes that suit we can look for a game there. If opener doesn't like that suit, then we can get out in a reasonable spot (say 1NT or two of opener's suit).

 

(2) Have responder ask opener for a second suit. If opener has a second suit that responder likes, we can look for a game there. If responder doesn't like that suit, we can get out in a reasonable spot (say 1NT or two of opener's original suit).

 

It's pretty obvious that standard methods allow you to do at least one of these things (typically the first opposite a minor opening and the second opposite a major opening). Methods where neither of these avenues are available unless responder holds enough strength to force game are going to be substantially inferior. To give some examples:

 

(1) Suppose I have a 2353 ten count. Partner has 5♠. In typical methods, partner opens 1♠ and I bid 1NT. Now if partner bids 2♦ I can get excited and start hunting for game. If partner bids 2♣ or 2♥ I correct to 2♠ and we play a reasonable 5-2 major fit with about half the values. Compare to playing MALEX where partner opens 2♦ (showing 5♠). My hand isn't a real invite opposite the opening range specified, so I assume I'm expected to bid 2♠. This is a potential disaster if partner holds a 5-card diamond suit, or even in some cases a 4-card diamond suit.

 

(2) Suppose I have a 3145 eight-count. Partner has 5♥. In typical methods, partner opens 1♥ and I bid 1NT. Now if partner passes we're in a reasonable spot (say 1NT is semi-forcing). If partner bids two of a minor I can pass and again we're okay. Now suppose we're playing MALEX. Partner opens 2♣ showing 5♥. I suppose I could pass this, but that's disastrous if partner has short clubs and a diamond suit (say 2551 in the worst case). We must have a better fit than hearts (if partner's 5332-ish 2m is better, and if partner's 5-4 or 5-5 the second suit must be a minor and we have a great fit there). Can I guarantee to find this fit without being forced to the three-level?

 

(3) Suppose I have a 3442 nine-count. Partner has 4♠ without 4♥. In typical methods, partner opens a minor. I respond 1♥. Partner bids 1♠. Now I can bid notrump if partner's minor is clubs, and bid 2♦ if partner's minor is diamonds. Either of these contracts is likely to play better than 1♠ (4-3 fits with the 3-card holding in a balanced hand usually don't play much better than NT, and 4-4 or 5-4 diamond fits typically do better than 4-3 spade fits). Playing MALEX, partner opens 1♠. Now I am expected to pass, even though 1♠ will almost never be the right spot. In fact partner could even have six diamonds and four spades, and we could be making 5♦ only to play in 1♠.

 

Am I missing something here? Keep in mind that when responder is game forcing and opponents are passing, your opening structure is usually not that important, so the interesting cases are when responder is invitational or worse, or competitive sequences.

[Flame]

Am I missing something here?

As i see it, those kind of systems have an advantage in competive bidding, but this must come from somewhere and this is from non competitve biddings when we wont find our best spot, usually in a minor.