Discussing Bidding Theory-1

[inquiry]

On the BBO against average bbo competition (hehehe) this pair has opened 2C to 2S a total of 101 times (bridgebrowser data through end of feb). They have a net loss of 6 imps. For an average minus 0.06 or so per time. Of course, we have to realize this is mostly in cayne matches so against fairly good competion.

 

Ben, if you would:

 

What was their average imps loss/gain for:

 

All of the boards they played?

 

Thier 1NT openings?

 

1x?

 

2m?

 

2M?

 

Vul vs non-vul?

 

Peter

well i will give you a flavor of what you asked for...

 

1. played 1305 hands, averaged +0.57 imps per hand

 

2. opened 1x 289 times, averaged +0.72

 

3. opened 1NT 160 times, averaged +0.58

 

4. opened 2m 87 times, averaged -0.65

 

5. opened 2M 72 times, averaged +0.75

 

I didn;t bother to break it down by vul, and note, their 2 opening bids in 3rd is different form in 1st and 2nd, and i didnt' seperate those either. Buy the program or a subscription to xbrbr and find all this stuff out for yourself. :)

[pbleighton]

Thanks, Ben, it confirmed my impression that the 2m bids were the cost of these type of systems, having twice the frequency of a 4 card major side suit as 2M, with less preemption and field protection of 2m as the final contract.

 

1x is good, as expected. I was a little surprised that 2M performed as well, but it's a small sample, and 15-17 balanced, no 5cM probably did somewhat poorly, the rest of the 1x bids proably did wery well.

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

If you want to find out how non-WC players fare with the system, check the same statistics for the pair Gerben42 - Ampelman / T_Foerster :)

[Chamaco]

I think that the main point of "intermediate weak 2" (say 10 to a bad 12) is to be a descriptive opening bid.

 

I do not view it in terms of high cards but rather in terms of OFFENSE to DEFENSE ratio

 

In traditional methods, a "regular openings" (used to?) guarantee 2-2.5 defensive tricks.

 

This is especially important in contested auctions: if opponents overcall, preempt, and/or sacrifice, responder can expect from opener at least 2-2.5 defensive tricks, and make an "educated guess" (which of course might occasionally fail, noone expect to succeed all the times) on whether passing, doubling or bidding can be a good idea in various situations.

 

But then, there are some hands that are WORTH AN OPENING BID ON OFFENSE, but not so on defense.

 

AKQJTx-xx-Qx-xxx

 

For example does NOT guarantee 2+ quick tricks in defense (very likely that the 2nd round of spades can be ruffed)

 

With this kind of hand one would be torn between:

 

a. distorting the defensive potential (so pard could be wrong if he doubles opps contract), by opening at level 1 and promising 2+ QT (quick tricks). Opening this kind of hand is usually alright when opps shut up, but if they do stick in, troubles may be awaiting us if our oard indeed expects 2 defensive tricks from our hand

One solution is "lower the defensive requirements" for opener, e.g. 1.5 QT is enough. But then, we'll lose all the times we fail to double opponents because responder cannot count on 2+ quick tricks from opener

 

b. underbidding the OFFENSIVE potential by passing

 

Then, the intermediate 2-level opening des the job of parking those hand types there. The result is that the 1-level opening bid, genuinely promise 2-2.5 quick tricks. And this is genuinely beneficial, especially in a world when people overcall and bounce on nothing, because we vcan have a fair idea of whether we can punish them using the red card :-)

 

Is this approach worthwhile ? I guess that it depends from the form of scoring. At MP, you want to open as frequently as you can, and lower the requirements of the weak 2 bids.

At IMPS; frequency matters less, and instead it is the MAGNITUDE of the cost benefits that matters.

So my guess is that the intermediate 2 bids are more effective at IMPS

[keylime]

Playing with Larry has for me, like Fantunes has shown for Gerben, positives when it comes to distributional hands.

 

Our 2 bids for the majors are balanced 5332 (sometimes 5224 with clubs) handtypes that are intermediate in strength. This unloads the 1M bids to be unbalanced, or balanced out of range of the NT. Since we do open at times very light, we do have to cater to the lightness of opener, so our g/f's (in our case, we have an omnibus 2C g/f) are normally sounder.

 

I'm of the view that weak 2 bids have become so common that unless it's a 2S preempt it's likely to cause not enough disruption in the bidding; i.e. there is a comfort level and a basic understanding in how to counter them. I confess that the Trent style of two-bids is the form I'd push for if I was forced to play 2/1 again.

 

As a byproduct, we are able to play a form of Leb to get out in 3m, and we also gain bids to show both canapes and 5-4/5's handtypes in competition. We're also able to in cases to effectively "steal" their major fit or side fit because we open before them and get into the auction.

[foo]

Here in North America it seems distributional hands with less than 13/14 hcp may often be opened at the one level as opposed to opening them with a weak(ish) two bid. I get the impression it is more common but perhaps still not standard in other parts of the world to open these with a weakish 2 bid.

 

Would the more expert/experienced players care to comment on the pros and cons of leaving opening one bids to stronger(hcp) hands or to reverse the discussion why opening dist hands with fewer hcp(under 14)  at the one level seems very common expert standard practice?

Wow. What a thread. Some thoughts.

 

1= Weak Two bids.

When Schenken invented Weak 2's, the 1st and 2nd chair requirements were

=8-12 HCP.

=You had to have a 5-6 playing tricks, especially Vul.

=Your suit had to be headed by at least 2 honors if a 6carder, 3 honors if a 5carder, and 1 high honor if a 7carder (was only allowed in a 7222)

=No side voids were allowed unless in S's IIRC.

Most importantly, Schenken was explicit that 1st and 2nd chair Weak Two's were !not! "Preemptive Two's".

 

The Weak Two as originally envisioned by its inventor was intended to be a descriptive bid, not a pure preempt. The concept of 2 level bids being purely preemptive is a reasonably modern fad which got its real "kick off" by Bergen in the 1980's.

"Descriptive Two Bids" have a long and illustrious history within Bridge. More so than "Preemptive Two Bids" do.

 

 

2= 1 level Opening Bids.

Regardless of how constructive or aggressive you want to be, you can't change the laws of probability nor the requirements of card play.

=3N needs enough controls to either establish or run 9 tricks.

=4M requires 7/12 of the controls or the equivalent to be odds on to make.

=5m requires 8/12 of the controls or the equivalent to be odds on to make.

=6foo requires 10/12 of the controls or the equivalent to be odds on to make.

The "or the equivalent" caters to useful stiffs and voids when "playing with a 3 suit deck".

 

If your constructive bidding is going to be anywhere near to successful enough ATT, your system must adequately deal with the above reality.

 

In practice, this means that in order to "play the odds" 1st and 2nd chair 1 bids need

=2 defensive tricks regardless of total HCP; and

=Appropriate trick taking power to make them significantly better than the prototypical "average" bridge hand (10 HCP, 3 controls, 8-9 losers, ~3 expected tricks.)

 

In addition, as Edgar Kaplan's once said "you can't fight tanks with pillows".

A good score is far more likely when opening lighter, more shapely Major suit oriented hands than it is to open such minor suit oriented hands.

IOW, 11- HCP hands with 8+ cards in tje Majors that are worth opening are far more likely than the same hand with 8+ cards in the minors.

 

 

3= I strongly agree that system unfamiliarity can and often does generate far more good scores than said system should if it was thoroughly analyzed and understood.

Bergen and Cohen super aggressive Weak Twos are an excellent example. Once people had enough familiarity with them, they ceased being anywhere near as effective. Same can be said for just about any hyper-aggressive system or treatment, up to and including Forcing Pass systems.

[pbleighton]

Same can be said for just about any hyper-aggressive system or treatment, up to and including Forcing Pass systems.

 

This is quite theoretical, as the powers that be banned Forcing Pass systems before people got used to them.

 

But the rest of your point is obviously valid, how can you explain the pathetic record of failure that Meckwell have accumulated playing their light opening system. Card players like these guys should be able to win a national championship or two, their failure to do so must be a result of their aggressive bidding...

 

:)

 

Peter

[foo]

Same can be said for just about any hyper-aggressive system or treatment, up to and including Forcing Pass systems.

 

This is quite theoretical, as the powers that be banned Forcing Pass systems before people got used to them.

 

But the rest of your point is obviously valid, how can you explain the pathetic record of failure that Meckwell have accumulated playing their light opening system. Card players like these guys should be able to win a national championship or two, their failure to do so must be a result of their aggressive bidding...

 

:P

 

Peter

Wise Guy :)

 

Actually, =look= at Meckwell's opening's

1= They usually have their 2 defensive tricks.

2= They always have a hand with decent trick taking prospects or HCP.

They are not opening 4333 10's or other such garbage unless they have a systemic bid for it like a Kamikaze 1N.

3= They are playing a Forcing Club system; which allows them to open lighter and still keep things under control because their 1 bids have less range.

4= They have, what? 700-800 pages of system notes? and have been playing together for 25+ years? I submit part of the cost of their aggressiveness is more system complexity and one of the requirements for their level of aggression is rock-solid familiarity with each other.

 

...and finally,

5= their most famous "aggressions" are when they are playing against top flight competition and =everyone= up there is pushing bidding and play to as close to the edge as they can.

Put them in a room where people aren't pushing the edge as hard and neither do they.

 

Oh, and let's not forget that Meckwell =have= "been caught speeding" on occasion and =have= had some bidding disasters due to the aggression of their system.

TANSTAAFL. Even if you are one of the top pairs in the world and each of you is one of the top 10 players in the world.

[pbleighton]

1= They usually have their 2 defensive tricks.

 

Usually, but quite often not. They open a lot of 9/10 counts with shape and < 2 QT.

 

5= their most famous "aggressions" are when they are playing against top flight competition and =everyone= up there is pushing bidding and play to as close to the edge as they can.

Put them in a room where people aren't pushing the edge as hard and neither do they.

 

Hmm.. So you are saying that the best players in the world bid more aggressively than average players? I agree with you. We must watch the same Vugraph. They obviously enjoy their pillow fights :)

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

1= Weak Two bids.

When Schenken invented Weak 2's, the 1st and 2nd chair requirements were

=8-12 HCP.

=You had to have a 5-6 playing tricks, especially Vul.

=Your suit had to be headed by at least 2 honors if a 6carder, 3 honors if a 5carder, and 1 high honor if a 7carder (was only allowed in a 7222)

=No side voids were allowed unless in S's IIRC.

Most importantly, Schenken was explicit that 1st and 2nd chair Weak Two's were !not! "Preemptive Two's".

Howard Vanderbilt was using Weak Two Bids a LONG time before Schenken...

[foo]

Howard Vanderbilt was using Weak Two Bids a LONG time before Schenken...

Source please.

 

Don't know who Howard Vanderbilt was, but

 

According to my copy of the Bridge Encyclopedia,

=Harold Vanderbilt (1884-1970)

is the inventor of Bridge and of the 1st Forcing Club system

=Howard Schenken (1905-1979)

is the inventor of Weak Two's, as well as a few other things regarding bidding and play, and is considered to be in the running as possibly the best player of all time.

[han]

Put them [Meckwell] in a room where people aren't pushing the edge as hard and neither do they.

Source please?

[hrothgar]

Source please.

 

Don't know who Howard Vanderbilt was, but

Sorry, meant to say Harold Vanderbilt...

 

Given that you seem to have a copy of the Encyclopedia of Bridge handy please note the following quote from the entry on Vanderbilt:

 

"He devised the first unified system of bidding and was solely responsible for the artificial 1♣ bid to show a strong hand, the negative 1♦ response, the strong (16 - 18 point) NT on balanced hands only, and the weak two bid opening"

 

Of course, the same lovely book has the following to say about Schenken

 

"He is credited with the introduction of several speccts of playing technique and deceptive play now standard, plus the weak two bid, the forcing two-over-one, the prepared opening bid ("anticipation"), and several other bidding devices"

 

And no one should neglect the following quote about Al Roth:

 

"His many contributions to bidding theory include unusual notrump, weak two bids, one notrump forcing, and negative doubles"

 

If you check the actual section on Weak Two Bids, its says the following:

 

The use of suit openings of 2♦, 2♥, and 2♠ as preemptive bids, in combination with Two Clubs storng artificial opening. A prototype of the weak two was used in auction bridge and adopted in the Vanderbilt Club System. Subsequently Charles Van Vleck, New York, was responsible for an ultra weak two. Howard Schencken developed the modern weak two-bid along lines similar to Vanderbilt's. It was later incorporated into most modern American bidding systems, and into the Neopolitan and Blue Team Club systems".

 

In short, I think that your identification of Schenken as the inventor is rather arbitrary...

[junyi_zhu]

Here in North America it seems distributional hands with less than 13/14 hcp may often be opened at the one level as opposed to opening them with a weak(ish) two bid. I get the impression it is more common but perhaps still not standard in other parts of the world to open these with a weakish 2 bid.

 

Would the more expert/experienced players care to comment on the pros and cons of leaving opening one bids to stronger(hcp) hands or to reverse the discussion why opening dist hands with fewer hcp(under 14) at the one level seems very common expert standard practice?

One basic problem of not opening distributional two suiters or three suiters is that if you don't open it at one level, you'll have a hard time to show them later when the bidding gets high.

One basic problem of opening distributional two suiters at one level is that if you open them and find no fit, you may get too high and partner may not be able to make successful penalty doubles.

 

So generally speaking, it's a problem of hand evaluation indeed. For fewer losers

hands, you can often make a lot of games or slams when you find a fit and when you don't find a fit, you may often get high.

 

Modern bridge players tend to believe that they may eventually find a fit more often and their opps may not be alerted enough to penalize them when they overbid, including not doubling or not defending accurately. Also, 2/1 is good for this aggressive opening purpose cause opponents seldoms know you have stretched when you are in a gf sequence and may not make enough penalty doubles.

[bhall]

One aspect that seems to have been neglected in this interesting discussion is dummy value. Most of mike777's examples make truly lousy dummies when partner insists on playing in his long suit or notrump. Two aces do not a decent dummy make, nor 5-5s a fit. And Fantoni-Nunes' 11-point 4441s are not even close to opening dummy values.

 

If one chooses to open a hand that is dummy-deficient (meaning less than 3 very likely high-card tricks), one should be able to handle all the likely developments, not just those where the opening side has a fit. Sometimes the best start for a 7-card suit is a one-level opening, but then opener can almost always rescue his deluded partner. Nine-point 6-4 shapes need not fear a pass-out, and it is easy to devise two-suit competitive methods for when the opponents open one of your short suits. If they open your 4-card suit, half of your problems are solved.

 

In the context of a "standard" system, I suspect that the real motivation for opening one bids on poor-but-shapely dummies is theft. Unless partner is in on the joke (as in strong-club, weak-opening systems), the infrequent-but-painful bad results tend to destroy confidence that useful cards will be found in opener's hand. That has radical, negative long-term effects on partnership bidding.