Discussing Bidding Theory-1

[mikeh]

Please note here I am only discussing Dist. hands. with few hcp and why opening them at the one level is better than the two level. In both cases you are opening the bidding. In both cases you are bidding first.

Mike, you began with an original post that said you were discussing the opening of distributional hands with less than 13/14 hcp and now you say you intend to discuss distributional hands with few hcp. Those categories are not the same, at least not for the vast, vast majority of bridge players.

 

AQ10xxx A10xx xx x: maybe Grannovetter might open 2♠ (he plays an ultra-sound style from the reports I have read) but I doubt any other world class player would not open 1♠ playing a standard based method.... which eliminates methods such as Fantunes from discussion.

 

AQJxxx Kxx xxx x: I would open 1♠

 

xx xxx AKQJxxx x: I suspect the majority of experts would open 1♦ in 1st seat and probably 2nd as well.

 

Note that you will not see me (nor many experts) explain these openings by reference to the Rule of 20 or 19 or what have you.

 

KQJxxx QJx Jxx x: the same hcp as my first example, but now I think the vast majority would open 2♠, not 1...

 

As Hrothgar noted, this is a complex area and I suspect that different players would use different rationalizations for the same decision.

 

My considerations include:

 

Aces and Kings: 3+ controls suggest (but do not always require) a one bid

 

Rebid problems

 

Losing Trick Count

 

Spot cards.. I love 10's and 109 combinations.... yet the Work point count (the 4321 method) ignores these holdings

 

In and out valuation: cards in long suits are good, cards in short suits, not so good.

 

I have read that some players refuse to accept that there are hands that are too strong for a weak two and yet not right for a 1-level opening... when holding a 6 card (non-club) suit. I disagree. So for me, the choice is not always open 1 or open 2: sometimes (altho not often) it includes pass as an option... altho then I consider whether I am going to be uncomfortable if partner opens in 3rd or 4th chair.

 

I guess that what I am saying is that:

 

1) I agree with those who say that your criteria are about 2 hcp higher (for an opening bid) than the current popular view

 

2) the current popular view reflects the approaches of the most successful players in the world: note that bidding methods exist in a Darwinian environment, so we can assume that the more-aggressive-than-Mike777 approach has earned its place

 

3) no good player (to my knowledge) uses a simplistic metric as a go/no go method

 

4) hand valuation is a complex subject in which there is room for different weighting to different factors, including partnership methods and personality types

 

While I have never played Acol seriously, my suspicion is that this method, which contains less early committal calls, probably caters to light shapely openings better than does a strict 2/1. I also suspect that light openings in a strict 2/1, on shapely hands that can degenerate into misfitting nightmares, are more costly at mps than at imps..... so if I were to make a style choice, I would probably tend to be a little more conservative on my 1-level light openings in 1st and 2nd seat at mps.

[mike777]

Yes I see that my "topic comment" which I used as a header does not show up. I guess on the forum "topic headers" do not show up to all.

 

Yes I meant, 6 card suit and around 8-13 hcp...

[mikeh]

Yes I see that my "topic comment" which I used as a header does not show up. I guess on the forum "topic headers" do not show up to all.

 

Yes I meant, 6 card suit and around 8-13 hcp...

I seriously doubt that you will find many buyers for the notion that a 1st or 2nd seat weak two, in standard bidding methods, could contain a 6 card suit with 13 hcp... nor 12... some horrible 11's, yes.. but you remain 2 hcp higher than the world standard. Why? I am interested in knowing if this is a considered-choice or whether it is a holdover from having come under the spell of the good Dr. Roth at an impressionable age :)

[pbleighton]

Yes I meant, 6 card suit and around 8-13 hcp...

 

Mike, what is your question/appraoch for the hands in the 12-mediocre 13 range which most people except for you are opening. Are you assuming we should all pass them?

 

Peter

[mike777]

Yes I see that my "topic comment" which I used as a header does not show up.  I guess on the forum "topic headers" do not show up to all.

 

Yes I meant, 6 card suit and around 8-13 hcp...

I seriously doubt that you will find many buyers for the notion that a 1st or 2nd seat weak two, in standard bidding methods, could contain a 6 card suit with 13 hcp... nor 12... some horrible 11's, yes.. but you remain 2 hcp higher than the world standard. Why? I am interested in knowing if this is a considered-choice or whether it is a holdover from having come under the spell of the good Dr. Roth at an impressionable age B)

Thanks for comment, as I repeated I am not pushing anything, I do think simply accepting we need to open these hands as a one level bid without knowing the upside or downside of our other choices should be discussed in detail.

 

Dr. Roth has many ideas that were accepted and many that were not over the decades, I enjoy finding out why or why not. :)

[mike777]

Yes I meant, 6 card suit and around 8-13 hcp...

 

Mike, what is your question/appraoch for the hands in the 12-mediocre 13 range which most people except for you are opening. Are you assuming we should all pass them?

 

Peter

If you mean without a 6 card suit..some 5-5, 5-4 or balanced, Roth would say yes, almost always yes with some rare exceptions but that is another thread.

[inquiry]

Well, let me try to explain Zar's point of view, and my take on his view. I opened light hands long before I ever heard of ZAR, but his rules matched failry closely with my views.

 

Zar requires 26 Zar points for an opening bid. This includes preempts. So he will open 2H, or 3H, or 4H all promise at least 26 zar points (2S only promises 25). I suspect this is in part because opening bids with less than some mandatory minimum HCP is a violation of the rules on what you can open one of suit with.

 

As I showed in an earlier example, a hand only 9 hcp was opened 1H by three out of four people in the finals of a world championshiop. That hand total 27 ZAR points, and I think ZAR would have voted to open that one with 2H, which after all for him promises 26+ Zar points and six card suit (this is my recollection of is methods). I open that 1H. There are hands that total 26 or more ZARs that I will preempt on, but they are all flawed one way or the other, or I am VUL (where my preempts are better). But I open MOST 26 Zar point hands (and a few 25). But I am not religious about this. I pass some too. ACES and KING are valued higher in ZAR, but I also use HCP in long suits as added plus, in short suits as a minus. So I open 1H with x AJ9xxx xxx Axx, but I pass with A J9xxxx Ax xxxx. These hands have the same ZAR points and same distribution, but surely you can see the difference.

[mikeh]

Yes I see that my "topic comment" which I used as a header does not show up.  I guess on the forum "topic headers" do not show up to all.

 

Yes I meant, 6 card suit and around 8-13 hcp...

I seriously doubt that you will find many buyers for the notion that a 1st or 2nd seat weak two, in standard bidding methods, could contain a 6 card suit with 13 hcp... nor 12... some horrible 11's, yes.. but you remain 2 hcp higher than the world standard. Why? I am interested in knowing if this is a considered-choice or whether it is a holdover from having come under the spell of the good Dr. Roth at an impressionable age B)

Thanks for comment, as I repeated I am not pushing anything, I do think simply accepting we need to open these hands as a one level bid without knowing the upside or downside of our other choices should be discussed in detail.

 

Dr. Roth has many ideas that were accepted and many that were not over the decades, I enjoy finding out why or why not. :)

As an earlier poster said, referring to Rodwell, there is a good argument for conservative 1st and 2nd seat opening bids IF the opps promise to stay silent. We would need to open light in 3rd and 4th to balance this approach, else we may find ourselves passing out 26 hcp hands.

 

Having high requirements for an opening bid narrows the range covered by that bid, since the range between a 1 bid and a 2♣ opener is reduced. This cannot but have salutary impact on the accuracy of our constructive bidding once we do have an opening hand.

 

In Dr. Roth's day, there were far more uncontested auctions than we have these days. Indeed, he was one of the driving forces behind such revolutionary tactics as weak jump overcalls, weak two bids, and the unusual 2n overcall (which I think was first mentioned in print in an article by Sonny Moyse reporting on the Nationals held in Florida in 1948... when he attributed the concept to a discussion he had with a rising young expert by the name of Alvin Roth.

 

Back then, opening preempts were, by today's standards, ultra-sound... which in turn meant that they were infrequent. Jump overcalls were strong. Cuebid overcalls were strong takeouts: showing approximately a 2♣ opening, and so were also extremely infrequent and so on. Overcalling required a good suit and (by today's standard) a decent hand.

 

Thus, if we passed with 13 hcp, there was an excellent chance that partner, if blessed with 11 or so, could open untroubled by 2nd seat preempting or opening light. And when 3rd seat did open opposite our passed hand monster, the odds were that 4th seat would remind silent.

 

But today (and for at least the past 30 years), most players, even average players, get into the auction with any excuse. I remember, years ago, my partner opened at the 1-level with 9 hcp, protected by playing a home-grown big club method. I stretched my response on a 4 count and partner of course bid again. I passed, and the opps balanced and missed game. They were no better than we were back then and I am not claiming that we were brilliant.. but I still remember declarer's comment when dummy hit: 'These guys took 3 bids before we got into the auction, and we have 27 hcp!'

 

While that kind of scenario will rarely work today against good players, it will still work better than 'pass - pass' will work, by taking away bidding space, by creating a degree of ambiguity otherwise absent, and by directing the lead or allowing for even more dramatic preemption: in Verona, against a good Swedish team, one of my team's few good boards came when a teammate psyched 1♥ on a zero count. His partner bid 3♦, a constructive 4 card raise. The red v white 4th hand held 21 hcp with 3=2=4=4 shape and the KQ tight of ♥s. The bidding made perfect sense to him: LHO opens on 12 and RHO bounces on a decent 7 and so his partner has zero... and his best chance for a plus was to pass. Unfortunately +100 against 3♥ (it should have been 150) was not a good score compared to 1440 at the other table.

 

While that was an example of an outright psyche, the principle remains valid and applicable to light openings (and light responses). Destroy bidding space, maximize space consumption on light but fitting hands, and force the opps to deal with this barrage rather than give them a clear path to the best spot.

 

The downside is that the light opening, opposite a good but mis-fitting, hand will be driven too high, especially in the context of 2/1 methods. This is a price that cannot be ignored (some methods cater to this by limiting the range, but we are discussing standard methods, which do not). Experience has shown that the more active approach has been a consistent winner... those who succeed in big events generally play this style... so it appears that the downside of being aggressive does not outweigh the advantages.

 

Clearly, at least in theory, there must be a dividing line, beyond which the uncertainties caused to one's own constructive bidding by too-wide an opening range will offset the space-consumption benefits... which is why approaches such as EHAA (every hand an adventure) fizzled in, I think, the 70s or early 80s.

[pbleighton]

Clearly, at least in theory, there must be a dividing line, beyond which the uncertainties caused to one's own constructive bidding by too-wide an opening range will offset the space-consumption benefits... which is why approaches such as EHAA (every hand an adventure) fizzled in, I think, the 70s or early 80s.

 

But has been reborn in a more sophisticated, *disciplined* B) incarnation by Mr. Fantoni and Mr. Nunes. EHAA two bids with a four point range are a VERY different animal than those with a 7 point range (where you really can't bid your games with any accuracy).

 

BTW good post as usual, mikeh.

 

Peter

[inquiry]

While we are on the subject of bidding theory, anyone think Mr. Fantoni and Mr. Nunes system (FANTUNES) is ultra-sound theoretically, sound theoretically, a little unsound, or totaly unsound. Any opinions? I know a few posters here are playing it, so maybe a thread discussing its theoretical merits and demerits would be interesting.

[jdonn]

While we are on the subject of bidding theory, anyone think Mr. Fantoni and Mr. Nunes system (FANTUNES) is ultra-sound theoretically, sound theoretically, a little unsound, or totaly unsound. Any opinions? I know a few posters here are playing it, so maybe a thread discussing its theoretical merits and demerits would be interesting.

People talk about this system a lot here. Can someone give a quick rundown of the opening bids and general style?

[pbleighton]

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

[inquiry]

However, you have to admit it's effective, based on the results. I know they are wonderful card players, but so are their opponents.

Bidding systems can be effective for a lot of reasons. One is that your opponents are unfamiliar with it. So their defensive bidding and defensive card play is not as sound as against familiar systems (can they draw the correct inferences, when they don't know the nuances of the system).

[awm]

Here's my understanding of Fantoni-Nunes basic system:

 

One-level suit openings are very sound. In general this means 14+ hcp, but they will open a bit lighter with a good two-suiter especially with both majors. In any case it's probably about 2-3 points sounder than what most other people are opening. These one level openings are basically natural (1M 5+, 1♦ 4+ unbalanced, 1♣ 2+) and are all forcing one round.

 

One notrump is basically natural and 12-14. However, they will open 1NT on many "off-shape" hands including some 4441s and 5431s as well as the more common 5422 and 6322 shapes. Usually they want to open hands that other "fairly sound" openers are opening and hands with weak suits (for example) tend to be unsuitable for the two-level openings.

 

Two-level suit openings are all intermediate. Typically the range is something like a good 9 to a bad 13. Usually these show five-plus cards in the suit, although at one point 2m could be four cards (it was the typical opening on 4414 with 12-13, now I think these more often open 1nt or pass). With very flat shape and/or a very weak primary suit they may pass or open 1NT instead.

 

The responses include: a lot of relays over the 2-level openings, 1NT response to 1M showing 0-9 points, two-of-new-suit responses to one-level openings are 10+ points, GF (this includes jump sequences like 1♥-2♠), Gazilli rebids by one-level opener to distinguish minimum and extra-valued opening bids, transfer responses to 1♣, some Garozzo-style relays in late rounds of GF auctions.

 

I think there are definite theoretical advantages to these methods. As openings have gotten lighter and lighter, a number of problems have arisen. It's become hard to double the opposition when they step out of line (which they do more and more often) because partner's opening bid could be on trash. People who have started playing strong club methods can be pretty vulnerable to preemption on their strong hands. On the other hand, these light-opening methods wouldn't have become popular if it wasn't valuable to be able to open these shapely 9-counts and 10-counts. Fantoni-Nunes takes an interesting balance by making the one-level openings sound and allowing a lot of the "light opening bids" that others are opening at the one-level to open at the two-level. Some of these tactics are pretty high-variance (12-14 NT at V is pretty high variance, the two-level openings can be pretty high-variance) but it's not clear that they are negative expectation and in exchange F-N are consistently better positioned than the field when opener does have a good hand.

[pbleighton]

Bidding systems can be effective for a lot of reasons. One is that your opponents are unfamiliar with it. So their defensive bidding and defensive card play is not as sound as against familiar systems (can they draw the correct inferences, when they don't know the nuances of the system).

 

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

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

Two-level suit openings are all intermediate. Typically the range is something like a good 9 to a bad 13. Usually these show five-plus cards in the suit, although at one point 2m could be four cards (it was the typical opening on 4414 with 12-13, now I think these more often open 1nt or pass). With very flat shape and/or a very weak primary suit they may pass or open 1NT instead.

 

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

[inquiry]

Well, let me handle just one auction...a 2S opening bid.

 

If first and second seat, they play this as 10-13 hcp, 5+ spades/

 

In third seat, at least nonvul, this range is stretched, 5 to 12 hcp, 5+ spades, as I sit here, I don't know waht their vul 3rd seat 2S bid means, I suspect it will be a tad stronger, see their 3rd seat 2H bid below, vul.

 

For hearts, 1st 2nd seat still 10-13 5+H,

3rd seat not vul is interestingly reported as 6-12 hcp, 5+ hearts,

3rd seat vul, their 2H opener is 8-12 hcp, 5+ hearts

 

They don't seem to open 3 as much as other pairs. Here are some examples.

 

South

S J92

H J

D AQJ7643

C J4

 

Opened 3D, 1st seat, red versus white

 

 

South

S K

H KJ108542

D A95

C 87

Opened 3H!, 3rd seat red versus white

 

 

South

S

H K9

D QJ95

C J987543

Opened 3C 1st seat, none vul

 

 

South

S K75

H 2

D 94

C AJ98742

Opened 3C first seat white versus red

 

 

South

S 872

H 9

D 74

C KQ109876

 

Opened 3C, white versus red

 

South

S AQ109753

H K5

D 62

C 65

Opened 3S, 1st seat red versus white. Partner raised to gam on x 94 AQJTxxx AQ9, down only one despite DK wrong and 4-1 spade split no stiff honor

 

 

But what I meant by taking advantage of opponent lack of understanding is that when they open a 2H bid, no one seems to be trying to punish them for the bid. If you think about it, opener can have 10 hcp and a five card suit (up to 13). There is no certainty of a fit, there is no great way to investigate second fit if the doubling starts. Of course opener tends not be 3532 (open 1NT) so with no major fit they may have rollout options if the doubling starts. I haven't seen the doubleing start, so I don't know how they roll out.

[pbleighton]

But what I meant by taking advantage of opponent lack of understanding is that when they open a 2H bid, no one seems to be trying to punish them for the bid.

 

It is, I think, inherently difficult to punish them for the bid. How do you think familiarity would make punishment easier?

 

If you think about it, opener can have 10 hcp and a five card suit (up to 13). There is no certainty of a fit, there is no great way to investigate second fit if the doubling starts.

 

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

[inquiry]

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

 

Peter

Absolutely, I have read the WBF card for FANTUNES, and I assure you I don't understand all the nuances of their bidding. Now, if you were preparing for the BB, you have to prepare for the round robin, etc, so how long can you study FANTUNES system which is quite different (if you had adequate notes, does anyone?). One can adopt methods for polish club, precision and other forcing club type things quite easily, but here you get auctions like,,,

 

1C* - P - 1S*

 

1C = from 2 to any number of clubs, for 14 to any number or points but if only 2,3 clubs, then balanced hand

 

1S = 0 to 11 hcp, no four card major

 

Ok, opponents have anywhere from 14 opposite 0 HCP, to 11 hcp opposite 29. That is the first thing to think about, but then you have to figure out the nuances of various follow up auctions by them. What does responder know about opener and vice versa on susquent bids? Take this auction, it is easy enough

 

1C - 1S

1N - 3N

 

Opener has 14+ balanced, no five card major. Responder has no 4 card major, so he is probably on great 9 to 11 hcp.

 

How about

 

1C - 1S

1N - 2H?

 

What do you think that is? Is it on their notes? Did you prepare for it? It is not a transfer (responder has no major), it is a negative cue-bid, responder is WORRIED about hearts for NT. Is your double hearts? Is your double don't lead hearts? Do you know what your defense is?

 

There notes say that

 

1C - 1S

2H

 

Shows 23+ Balanced, or 21+ with diamonds, or 18-20 with short weak diamonds. HAve your really had time to prepare for this. What does dbl of 2H show? Hearts? Diamonds? Spades and diamonds? In real life when this auction occured, responder rebid 3C, does that show clubs? No it shows weak hand and 0-5 hcp and 2 or more diamonds. I still don't know what all that means and what hands have been excluded.

 

I am not saying this is why they do good (the confusion, if any), but unfamilarity has to favor the pair that knows their methods at least some. But I wondered if anyone had thoughts on the soundness of their auctions. They open the tremednous majority of their hands 1NT and 1C.

 

I like systems and bizarre conventions that might fix systemic holes. So I have made a mild study of their methods. It is certainly interesting and different. Since the followups on a lot of auctions are not documented that I can see, I can't judge how well it would work, at least for me. Clearly it works great for them, their results are excellent!!!

[mikeh]

Bidding systems can be effective for a lot of reasons. One is that your opponents are unfamiliar with it. So their defensive bidding and defensive card play is not as sound as against familiar systems (can they draw the correct inferences, when they don't know the nuances of the system).

 

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

 

Peter

Yes

 

And there is a lot of evidence in support of this, as well as common sense.

 

The BW does a great job of reporting on Bermuda Bowls.. not as detailed as the World Championship books, but very good, and there are often stories of screwups even by very good players when dealing with unusual systems.. and it seems (altho the reports probably self-select for this impression) that the NA players screw up more than the others of the same skill level: because NA players simply don't get exposed to the more unusual methods in their normal bridge lives.

 

Now, Nickell has used a coach for many years, and Nickell and pairs like Rosenberg-Zia or Berkowitz-Cohen have competed overseas for so many years that I wouldn't expect them to go wrong very often. Furthermore, many of the international players play in NA so often that the top players compete against them more than was the case 20 years ago.

 

But the BB is not all about the very best teams. There are always teams in the event who come from a second (or third) tier, especially in terms of international exposure: I know: I was on such a team in 2000. We didn't have the money, nor did we (all amateurs who work for a living) have the time to really study all of the unusual (to us) methods: we agreed upon some basic principles and hoped for the best.

 

While this is not a BB example, a well-known European pair recently inflicted some distress on a friend of mine and his partner: both very good players, altho not super-elite. One famous star opened a multi 2♦, alerted and explained. Other famous star bid 2♠, alerted as preferring ♥s, pass or correct. My friend held a borderline hand with 5♠s and decided to pass, expecting a correction if LHO held ♥s and, in the meantime, avoiding disaster if LHO held ♠s.

 

I am told that each of the 2 alerts was questioned and the explanation of the 2♠ call was as I have stated.

 

The famous 2♦ opener passed, with ♥s.

 

Setting 2♠ several non-vul tricks was no compensation for missing 4♠ red.

 

When asked, after the hand, famous star on the right said that opener retained the right to pass with ♥s, and that he had done so a number of times in the past. The director refused an adjustment.

 

Now, I don't know if the ruling was correct, and that is not the issue, but it had not occurred to my friend that a psychic pass was a tactic available to opener....this was at the St. Louis Nationals, and my friend rarely plays internationally so has had little exposure to multi.

 

Absent coaching or inordinate study, it is impossible to anticipate all the negative and positive inferences associated with an unusual (to you) approach.

[inquiry]

But what I meant by taking advantage of opponent lack of understanding is that when they open a 2H bid, no one seems to be trying to punish them for the bid.

 

It is, I think, inherently difficult to punish them for the bid. How do you think familiarity would make punishment easier?

 

If you think about it, opener can have 10 hcp and a five card suit (up to 13). There is no certainty of a fit, there is no great way to investigate second fit if the doubling starts.

 

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

I don't know if it is sound or unsound. One bid that makes little systemic sense to me is the opening of 2 of a suit on 10-13 hcp and a five card suit normally. Here is why I think this particular bid might be unsound. 13 hcp is enough to keep opponents out of most slams (even 10). Since the most they will have is 27 hcp.

 

The 2 suit bid is at the two level, advertised as "intermediate", they have bid it on five card suit to the JACK. There is no known second suit in case responder doesn't fit. With a weak two, you have three levels of safety, first you have a six card suit, second you are weak, and third you don't have to open.

 

Let's consider each of those. Since you are weak, they may have slam. Since you ahve a six card suit, that gives you an extra trick, maybe more, if you have to play the hand under distress. Finally, don't like your suit, you can pass. FANTUNES will not be able to pass, not with 13 hcp or they will miss too many games. They are compelled to open. So they will open at the two level, even vul on bad suits and a hand with enough value to stop slams the other way, and often games, and they have not struck any cord to help find a second fit.

 

They even ahd to come up with a kludge. They opened at two level with two suiters and 13 hcp and missed too many games, so they lower their requirements for a 1M opening bid, but it is still FORCING.

 

Let me put this particular "problem" into perspective. I paly an opening bid of 2M shows roughly 10 to 14 hcp and 5+ major, very close to their bid. But I add the stipulation that opener also has a club suit. And if opener is 6-5 I tend to open 1H, also many 6-4's. But my 1H is not forcing. I think I can just make up for the hands were we belong in 2C but 2M got us way too high because of other benefits I derive when I can open a major and rebid 2C as artificial and forcing and not showing clubs. We can talk about their other bids as well, I guess. I am not saying it is unsound, I am asking if it more sound than average, more sound than average basically (I mean average for well thought out, integrated bidding system).

[pbleighton]

I don't know if it is sound or unsound. One bid that makes little systemic sense to me is the opening of 2 of a suit on 10-13 hcp and a five card suit normally. Here is why I think this particular bid might be unsound. 13 hcp is enough to keep opponents out of most slams (even 10). Since the most they will have is 27 hcp.

 

The 2 suit bid is at the two level, advertised as "intermediate", they have bid it on five card suit to the JACK. There is no know second suit in case responder doesn't fit. With a weak two, you have three levels of safety, first you have a six card suit, second you are weak, and third you don't have to open.

 

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.

 

They even ahd to come up with a kludge. They opened at two level with two suiters and 13 hcp and missed too many games, so they lower their requirements for a 1M opening bid, but it is still FORCING.

 

Oh, come on. This is a young pair with a new system. Change is surprising?

 

Let me put this particular "problem" into perspective. I paly an opening bid of 2M shows roughly 10 to 14 hcp and 5+ major, very close to their bid. But I add the stipulation that opener also has a club suit. And if opener is 6-5 I tend to open 1H, also many 6-4's. But my 1H is not forcing. I think I can just make up for the hands were we belong in 2C but 2M got us way too high because of other benefits I derive when I can open a major and rebid 2C as artificial and forcing and not showing clubs. We can talk about their other bids as well, I guess. I am not saying it is unsound, I am asking if it more sound than average, more sound than average basically (I mean average for well thought out, integrated bidding system).

 

Ben, I'm still curious whether you accept my distinction between soundness and effectiveness, with reference to Roth-Stone in particular?

 

Peter

[mike777]

But what I meant by taking advantage of opponent lack of understanding is that when they open a 2H bid, no one seems to be trying to punish them for the bid.

 

It is, I think, inherently difficult to punish them for the bid. How do you think familiarity would make punishment easier?

 

If you think about it, opener can have 10 hcp and a five card suit (up to 13). There is no certainty of a fit, there is no great way to investigate second fit if the doubling starts.

 

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

Since you mention competitive advantage I thought that gave me an excuse, thanks, to quote some stuff from Roth on this issue. ;) My goal is simply to further the discussion not be an advocate.

 

1) Appraise hands accurately, point count for no trumps is fairly accurate.

2) Suit games stress aces, kings, stiff, voids upgrade key cards in the right suits and judte accordingly for game or slam.

3) relieve some "nerve-wracking" insecuities after a series of bids by you and your partner.

4) Have no fear of passing when others are opening the bidding.

5) If you pass and the opp open the bidding you are at a tremendous advantage(many will disagree with this point, Wow!)

6) If you stay out of the bidding, Declarer will have no clues to help him.

7) Roth says by staying out of bidding that the opp play in they may go down at imps or miss overtricks at MP.

8) opp are left in the blind.

9) if the opp open the bidding and our side buy the contract your advantage is huge.

10) You can adjust your bidding up or down by listening to active opp. Your kings become Aces, etc.

[mike777]

11) opening the bidding at one level lacking hcp and the opp enter the bidding your partner is at a disadvantage.

12) If you pass the next guy may pass rather than preempt had you opened.

13) Opening a weak two bid gives your partner a better guide into your hcp and Defensive possibilities.

14) Roth says passing put him at a tremendous advantage (Wow expect most to strongly disagree on this one)

15) Opening sound in first or second seat gives partner a sense of confidence and if partner has to take a chance some assurance.

16) Roth heartily recommends making weak two bids with outlandish distribution with limited hcp depending on the vul.

[pbleighton]

My goal is simply to further the discussion not be an advocate

 

LOL, come out of the closet, Mike ;)

 

Peter