Discussing Bidding Theory-1

[mikeh]

Mike:

 

Alvin Roth is rightly regarded as one of the best theorists the game has ever produced: but, all theorists must be assessed (and Roth has been so assessed) in the context of their own times and the state of knowledge of their contemporaries.

 

Thus, Newton, if judged by comparison to a 1st year university physics teacher, would be woefully ignorant. His theories would be 'known' to be incomplete and, in some cases, 'wrong'. Yet his name will be famous, I suspect, for thousands of years.

 

It is essential to understand the state of bridge theory when Roth was at his most productive. It is also important to understand that very, very few of us retain flexibility of thought as we age. Thus Roth is still an advocate for the theories that made him famous, even though others, building on his work, have gone far beyond and have, in many ways, gone in other directions.

 

In Roth's day, his ideas contained a mix of brilliancies and failures.

Thus he advocated very strong single raises of a major opening: I think, altho it has been some time since I read on this, that a single raise was effectively forcing.

 

Another of his ideas that never really caught on was the 'free bid' issue: he argued that, after an overcall of our opening, responder required substantial values to make a 'free bid'.

 

And even his most famous invention, the negative double, was not originally used as it is commonly used today...

 

None of this is to detract from his genius: but theory moves on long after individual theorists have reached the end of their time in the sun.

 

Turning to the long list of arguments attributed to Roth in Mike's latest posts, I have some comments:

 

1 and 2 are common sense and apply regardless of opening philosophy

 

3. Avoid nerve-wracking insecurity!! Sure, we are all much more relaxed when we pass out a board rather than have to think about bidding game or resting in a partscore. Heck, why play the game at all... it's way to stressful to have to bid, and even Roth bids sometimes.

 

4-9, the same basic flawed point, reworded. Yes, we may give away clues by opening when it is not our hand. Yes, the opps may give us clues. But, when we hold a good 11 in 1st or second, the odds are that this hand belongs to us! And our overcall structure is not as well-developed as our opening bid structure. So we are at a handicap, in the bidding if not the play, if we pass and have to struggle to even get into the auction compared to those who open our hand. And it is of no avail to be the one who makes 11 tricks in 3♥ when the field is making 10 in 4♥. And so on. Remember that in Roth's day, even the best pairs in the world routinely screwed up hands that to the average expert today would be easy. Read reports of the WCs in the 1950s and you will see that even the Blue Team missed or went down in as many slams as they bid and made, and they were far, far better than the best americans, including Alvin and Tobias. So remaining quiet had a much bigger upside then than it does today, when all good pairs shine at slam bidding (relatively speaking) and almost none miss decent games when left to their own devices.

 

11 is simply illogical. It depends on your agreements: if you open a hand that is weaker than your systemic agreement, then partner is at a disadvantage should an opp overcall. But not if your hand is within expectation. Also, remember that Roth developed his notions when players lacked many of the competitive bidding tools we all use. No fit-showing jumps, no preemptive raises, cue-bids required huge hands (and, for some, promised 1st round control). In addition, he espoused the never-accepted free bid theory which required responder to have substantial values for a 'free bid'. Thus, after a 1♥ overcall, one required a significant hand to bid 1♠: such a bid showed much more than it would have done had RHO not overcalled. No wonder responder was at a disadvantage!

 

12: this shows that Roth is utterly out-of-date. In his day, people required real hands in order to preempt. Only the crazy fringe would open a 3 bid without a good 7 card suit. Weak 2s were in their infancy, and frowned upon by many experts... So opening preempts were relatively rare, compared to today.

 

 

13. You should take a look back, if possible, to the hands that RS experts opened weak twos on in the 50s and early 60s. The range of strength, length (7 card suits as well as 6, but never 5) and shape was such that I have to think he has his tongue in cheek on this point. Anyway, this is simply not true unless you agree to a strict set of rules about weak two bids.

 

 

14: Roth claimed that passing put him at a tremendous advantage. That was probably true in his heyday: his ability to sniff out a balance was legendary, but few, if any, of us can claim that ability. Most of us are less of a mastermind than he was: rumour has it that one of his regular partners was forbidden to bid ♠s or notrump unless he did it first.

 

15. So what: stay in method, don't stretch or distort, and you, too, can bid with confidence. The most confident I ever felt, and the best I ever played, was in my most aggressive partnership, in terms of opening bid philosophy: we spent countless hours over several years talking about these issues, and, by the end, we both felt confident in our constructive auctions to a degree I haven't experienced since.

[mike777]

thanks for thoughtful reply.

 

Btw these comments are from the 1990's book. Not from the fifties or sixties. His comments are about today's bidding not bidding from the 50-65 period.

 

Of course that does not mean he is right, just wanted to point out he is talking about modern bridge in these comments.

[han]

Mike, you have posted 5110 in this forum. I don't believe that you know as little as you claim to.

[inquiry]

 

 

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?

Well, I would call Roth-Stone methods unsound for reasons Mikeh and others have accurately stated, the bidding is not in a vaccum. In a bidding room, with no opposition bidding, Roth-Stone is fine. If you prefer to refer to that as a "sound" system that is ineffective, I will not argue sematics with you. That is fine.

 

They even had 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?

 

They have made a number other kludges. Their 1NT opening bids can be frequently quite off shape. Several of their 1m opening bids lack as many as 14 hcp but with some compensating values (mostly two suiter) that causes an upgrade. But one hand was ♠Qx ♥AQ4 ♦KQ98432 ♣6. I guess beer suit (7♦'s) make up for devaluation of ♠Qx. Let me give a three examples from BBO play (Jec team games) of their off shape 1NT, none are successes. I left out one 4441 that was a push, this was all the other 4441 1NT openers.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s87hkt8da62cqj942&w=sqj954hj72dk9c873&e=st6haq9dj743cat65&s=sak32h6543dqt85ck]399|300|Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1NT

 Pass  2♣    Pass  2NT

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

Here 2NT over 2C showed a singleton club. 1NT made the other direction at the other table. [/hv]

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s87hkt8da62cqj942&w=sqj954hj72dk9c873&e=st6haq9dj743cat65&s=sak32h6543dqt85ck]399|300|Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1NT

 Pass  2♣[/font]    Pass  2NT

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

Here 2NT over 2C showed a singleton club. 1NT made the other direction at the other table. [/hv]

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s87hkt8da62cqj942&w=sqj954hj72dk9c873&e=st6haq9dj743cat65&s=sak32h6543dqt85ck]399|300|Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1NT

 Pass  2♣[/font]    Pass  2NT

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

Here 2NT over 2C showed a singleton club. 1NT made the other direction at the other table. [/hv]

 

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.

 

Well, lets compare their system with an ultimately sound system, inquiry 2/1. :)

 

In inquiry 2/1 I open ridiculously lightly at the one level. Partner is not forced to respond. After I open, I show those 14/15+ hands via a new minor rebid (even if I opened a minor). So when I open 1x, first partner does not have to respond with 0 hcp, second I don't have to jump to show 18 opposite what could be 0.

 

Also i wonder how effective pass is for them when they have a classic weak two. Finding these hands were odd of sorts. Nunes passed first seat vul with ♠QT8643 ♥AQ5 ♦A8 ♣97. I am thinking maybe misclick.

 

Against our own Jlall, nunes held ♠T8 ♥AKJT85 ♦6532 ♣2 second seat, he passed. This allow justin and his partner to exchange information and stop sort of safely in 3♠ (p-p-1S-p-1nt-2H-dbl-P-2S-p-p-3H-p-p-3S-all pass. At other table it was 2H-x-3H-p-p-3S-p-4S- followed by a wack.

 

Will have to think if this is negative or positive, but these are things you might think about when you try to decide if the system is theoretically sound.

[pbleighton]

Ben, do you really think that a few anecdotes constitute an argument? You know better than that.

 

Peter

[inquiry]

Ben, do you really think that a few anecdotes constitute an argument? You know better than that.

 

Peter

The few hands point out a starting point for a discussion if the method is unsound or is sound. You call them anecdotes, I call them things I am worried about in their system (should I adopt it). I looked these up not because they had bad results (I didn't know what the results would be), but because as I think about their system, a weak NT with 4441 and 5431 is something I would think is flawed in my mind. Another is not being able to open a standardish weak two could be a potential flaw. I have some other issues I think are potential problems as well, but let me put these last two in perspective.

 

I play weak NT at MP it did fairly well, except when we missed a 4-4 major fit. Then I read a book called matchpoint precision that suggested not open weak NT with 4-4 the major at matchpoints. Of course, they are not playing matchpoints, but a 4441 hands with stiff minor gives risk of missing some really good PARTSCORES, and maybe a few great fit games. We did see a SLAM they missed.

 

I wanted to add mexican 2D to my bidding system, and throw out all weak twos (keep the major openings what I play them). Sadly, experience suggest not being able to open a weak two turned out to be bad for me.. and this despite that I open light 1H and aggressive 3 level preempts. There is still a need to bid weak twos.

 

So I have laid out several things I think that is at least theoretically open for discussion (off shape light 1NT, no weak twos, intermediate twos on five card suits and complications that might happen because of that). Now it is up for people to discuss why these are sound, or why removing these from 1 of a suit, makes the overall system more effective despite the problems these bids might create (if one agrees they create problems).

[mikeh]

thanks for thoughtful reply.

 

Btw these comments are from the 1990's book.  Not from the fifties or sixties. His comments are about today's bidding not bidding from the 50-65 period.

 

Of course that does not mean he is right, just wanted to point out he is talking about modern bridge in these comments.

You missed my point, Mike. Roth's 1990 book was a flop precisely because he had not advanced with the times. He was publishing a book in the 1990s which, altho not the same as his books from decades earlier, reflected an approach to the game that has long since proven to be inadequate.

 

Let me repeat: he was a genius in terms of the insight and originality he showed 50-60 years ago. Many of today's treatments can be traced back to him. But he got stuck in time, as happens to virtually all of us. The fact that his name and reputation was powerful enough to get his Picture Bidding ideas printed did not save the book from sinking like a stone. Name one player, of world class status who claims to have adopted his ideas from that book: I don' t mean someone who lent his name to a promotional blurb out of affection, respect or for some money... I mean a top level expert or pair whose methods have changed to incorporate Roth's current ideas... I bet you can't find one.

 

Then look at the methods increasingly in use by the top pairs. We see transfer responses to 1♣ openings, wide-spread use of multi-meaning bids, aggressive competitive tactics, routine openings on hands that would have RS shuddering in disbelief and so on. RS was revolutionary and some parts of it, heavily modified, survive to this day. But we still see DC3's in use in some parts of the world... no modern airline pilot would want to fly one of those compared to a Boeing 777.

 

Mike, you keep alleging that you are not advocating a particular style, but the reality appears to be that you are as stuck as Roth.... and as stuck as I am likely to become as time goes by (heck, I can already see signs of that attitude... I rarely listen to music by artists I have not known of for at least 20 years :) )

[pbleighton]

So I have laid out several things I think that is at least theoretically open for discussion (off shape light 1NT, no weak twos, intermediate twos on five card suits and complications that might happen because of that). Now it is up for people to discuss why these are sound, or why removing these from 1 of a suit, makes the overall system more effective despite the problems these bids might create (if one agrees they create problems).

 

No problem, they are valid issues. But, as I said in my first post on F-N:

 

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.

 

Having played a similar system, I knew for a fact that it will generate a lot of bad boards. This makes it *unsound*. It's *effectiveness* is, IMO, a different matter, though you may see this as a quibble :)

 

These types of systems generate a lote of good boards (including offshape NT and 5 card weak twos), plus the very sound one level openings have a distinct edge over standard systems.

 

Bottom line: I think the issues involved in comparing F-N to a standardish system are so complex that *theory*, while quite interesting, is totally nondeterminate.

 

Peter

[mike777]

thanks for thoughtful reply.

 

Btw these comments are from the 1990's book.  Not from the fifties or sixties. His comments are about today's bidding not bidding from the 50-65 period.

 

Of course that does not mean he is right, just wanted to point out he is talking about modern bridge in these comments.

You missed my point, Mike. Roth's 1990 book was a flop precisely because he had not advanced with the times. He was publishing a book in the 1990s which, altho not the same as his books from decades earlier, reflected an approach to the game that has long since proven to be inadequate.

 

Let me repeat: he was a genius in terms of the insight and originality he showed 50-60 years ago. Many of today's treatments can be traced back to him. But he got stuck in time, as happens to virtually all of us. The fact that his name and reputation was powerful enough to get his Picture Bidding ideas printed did not save the book from sinking like a stone. Name one player, of world class status who claims to have adopted his ideas from that book: I don' t mean someone who lent his name to a promotional blurb out of affection, respect or for some money... I mean a top level expert or pair whose methods have changed to incorporate Roth's current ideas... I bet you can't find one.

 

Then look at the methods increasingly in use by the top pairs. We see transfer responses to 1♣ openings, wide-spread use of multi-meaning bids, aggressive competitive tactics, routine openings on hands that would have RS shuddering in disbelief and so on. RS was revolutionary and some parts of it, heavily modified, survive to this day. But we still see DC3's in use in some parts of the world... no modern airline pilot would want to fly one of those compared to a Boeing 777.

 

Mike, you keep alleging that you are not advocating a particular style, but the reality appears to be that you are as stuck as Roth.... and as stuck as I am likely to become as time goes by (heck, I can already see signs of that attitude... I rarely listen to music by artists I have not known of for at least 20 years :) )

Yes, Mike I got your point, his ideas did not evolve despite his saying they have. He would argue some of his major theories have changed from 50-65 but I understand many did not see the change or think they were of value. I got your point when you made it a year ago but thanks and I do not disagree with your main theme or thesis.

 

Keep in mind I learned Ehaa as standard and then moved on to Red book Goren Precision, Blue Team, KS, some simple version of Eastern Sci. Simple Club(Weiss Club) and then basically know bridge only through BW magazine or Bridge Today(Granovetter), Ausi Bridge(Burgess, Marston, et al) British Bridge(Acol) for decades and decades. :) I would love to try out Inquiry 2/1 if I ever understood it for fun.

 

Not sure what I am ossified into now but I note the Granovetters have won playing close to Roth Stone at top levels. Just not Spingold, Blue Ribbons, yet.

Seems Nunes et all have some influence from Roth.

 

Beyond that ya 99.99% play just the opposite and that means something for sure.

Note with some old buddies online I do play junky openings....mexican 2d....2/1 fashion so I hope that will keep me young in spirit.

 

As for music, ya how many great groups since Smells Like Teen Spirit came out. :0

 

Reading 40th anniversary issue of Rolling Stone right now with some interviews from some new exciting rock and roll guys.

Dylan

Ringo

Paul

Patti

Keith

MIck

Neil

 

If you have no idea who they are NeverMind!

 

I think they have a chance to make it big. :)

[Gerben42]

I'm probably one of the few players who have played the Fantunes system in serious competition (live tournaments and German 2nd national league) so let me add my two cents here.

 

Point 1. If you open on the 1-level you are WAY ahead of the field. Since you know partner has more than a minimum opener you can bid games more quickly, double for penalty more quickly and compete more quickly.

 

Point 2: If you open 1NT through 2♠, which you will a lot, your success is a function of judgement. 1NT is a double-edged sword and perhaps the weak spot of the whole thing. The 2-level bids are also tough to defend against and in doubt just bid game and then the game is tough to defend against. A study of over 100 two-level openers has shown F-N are up more than an IMP a board on these opening bids (don't know if they are almost always up more than an IMP a board though!).

 

My overall conclusion is that:

 

The 2-level bids are theoretically unsound but since they are high and have a limited strength range, the trouble is bigger for the opponents. Secondly you don't have all the problems with opening 1x on junk like everyone else does. Third system is not THAT important I am sure Fantunes would be absolute top world class anyway, their card play is magnificent.

 

Some other thing: You don't open weak two bids. This is not THAT bad, we have had many sequences like:

 

Pass Pass 1♥ 2♣

Pass 2♠* Pass Pass

Pass

 

* Weak 2 in ♠

[mike777]

"Point 1. If you open on the 1-level you are WAY ahead of the field. Since you know partner has more than a minimum opener you can bid games more quickly, double for penalty more quickly and compete more quickly."

 

 

Interesting.

[awm]

Suppose we somehow had opening bids that always describe our shape and values to a high degree of accuracy. The argument is that we'd want to open most hands. Any hand where we can get in the opponents way with some degree of safety, or where we are likely to have the majority of the values seems to be a good opening. The exception is probably weakish balanced hands, where the opponents are more likely to have the majority of the values than we are, there's not a lot of competitive benefit, and any non-pass opening carries some risk of going for a number or helping declarer in the play.

 

Of course, the problem is that there aren't enough opening bids to be able to always describe our shape and values accurately at a safe level. So we have to either: (1) accept that some of our openings will be pretty wide-ranging in terms of shape and/or values or (2) start passing a bunch of hands that it would realistically help us to open, so as to keep our openings tightly described.

 

The modern trend has been to open more hands, since the loss from (2) seems to be larger than the loss from (1). Of course there are always tradeoffs involved.

 

A number of data sets seem to indicate that weak twos aren't netting very many IMPs. Of course, the methodology of these is somewhat suspect, but we can all remember hands where we went for a number in a weak two bid, or we pushed the opponents to a making game they otherwise wouldn't have bid, or we helped the opponents in the play of the hand by opening. If this is in fact the case, the F-N approach (which basically passes the normal weak two bids in order to keep the one-level openings up to strength while still opening the 9-12 point shapely hands at the two level) seems very effective.

 

Think about how often when you open 1M in 2/1 you end up playing 2M. Partner may raise to 2M directly, or bid 1NT forcing and correct to 2M on a two-card suit. A lot of people take false preferences even with 2-4 in opener's suits (since opener could have a 3-card second suit in 2/1 and game may be possible opposite a wide-ranging opening). Sometimes you have to even take false preferences with singleton in the first suit. It seems like by opening these hands at the two-level, you accelerate the bidding and make things tough on the opponents. Yes, sometimes you would have found a better contract by opening one and you lose, but 2M is a pretty frequent resting spot and you tend to win on those hands by pressuring the opposition.

[inquiry]

A number of data sets seem to indicate that weak twos aren't netting very many IMPs. Of course, the methodology of these is somewhat suspect, but we can all remember hands where we went for a number in a weak two bid, or we pushed the opponents to a making game they otherwise wouldn't have bid, or we helped the opponents in the play of the hand by opening. If this is in fact the case, the F-N approach (which basically passes the normal weak two bids in order to keep the one-level openings up to strength while still opening the 9-12 point shapely hands at the two level) seems very effective.

Well in third seat their 2 level bids are weak twos, lowering their requirements to as little as 5 hcp. So they bring them back if partner is a passed hand (makes sense to me).

[cherdano]

Sometimes I tend to think that in modern bridge there is more to gain by quick bids to game that could be made on strength or shape than pure preempts. After a pure preempt opps may bid to a 40% slam or miss a 60% slam (both gaining all of 2 IMPs for us), but when they fail to compete over a game they might miss a double game swing. That's why pairs like Greco-Hampson love to jump to 4M on all opportunities, or why light 1M overcalls are quite popular (you can't afford to lose out on your big fit).

Of course I am exaggerating, but I think there is some truth to this.

 

It seems to me that the Fantoni-Nunes 2M bids are perfect for this. It would be easy to construct loads of hands where the bidding would start 1H-1S (overcall) in standard, eventually ending in 4S=, where F-N would bid 2H-(P)-4H, either making or down one undoubled. Over this auction, it is of course quite dangerous to compete. This isn't quite comparable to the weak two-auction 2H-4H, where responder COULD have a huge hand that can double everything insight - it is just a lot less likely.

[Gerben42]

For those interested in seeing the F-N 2-bids at work check out my collection (all from vugraph)

 

http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/2levelopenings.pdf

 

About +1.5 IMPs / board per occurence.

[cherdano]

For those interested in seeing the F-N 2-bids at work check out my collection (all from vugraph)

 

http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/2levelopenings.pdf

 

About +1.5 IMPs / board per occurence.

This sounds impressive, but...Did you compare this with total their IMPs average in the same matches? Many of the hands are from the European championships, where the Italians were averaging an incredible number of won IMPs per match. The same is obviously true to a lesser extent for the Olympiad etc.

 

Arend

[cherdano]

Sometimes I tend to think that in modern bridge there is more to gain by quick bids to game that could be made on strength or shape than pure preempts. After a pure preempt opps may bid to a 40% slam or miss a 60% slam (both gaining all of 2 IMPs for us), but when they fail to compete over a game they might miss a double game swing. That's why pairs like Greco-Hampson love to jump to 4M on all opportunities, or why light 1M overcalls are quite popular (you can't afford to lose out on your big fit).

Of course I am exaggerating, but I think there is some truth to this.

I realized I can state a little more clearly what I was trying to explain above. Some classic preempt theory says that the weaker your total combined assets are, the more useful the preempt; see Ben's reasoning above about weak twos vs F-N two bids.

My claim is that assuming you can find a playable spot, a preempt is actually a lot more useful when the strength is divided 50-50 among the two partnerships. Both sides could be making something, and it is more likely that you can actually keep the opponents out of the auction (whereas they will always find a way into the auction with combined 30 hcp; sometimes the lack of space will cause them to miss a slam, but other times they will find a slam on a finesse through the non-preemptor, or due to knowing there is no duplication, etc.).

[Gerben42]

Sure they might make a lot of imps anyway, at least this shows these are not losing opening bids!

[dake50]

Recognize that hands are

a) obstructive with 60% surety;

:) constructive with 60% surety;

c) some middle third ambiguous.

To crime a constructive bid because THIS hand lands in the 40% obstructive and our bids began on the constructive course is missing the point: Is the system choosing Constr./Obstr bids effectively?

F-N constructs auctions when opener is strong; obstructs on weaker. AND pays a price when 1st guess(con/obs) is wrong. But is anyone claiming that the spectrum after F-N 2-bids isn't heavily for obstruction? Or after F-N 1-bids ain't heavy liklihood space wanted?

[Halo]

I remember an expert being asked what the problem was with weak NT and 4 card majors (eg old fashioned UK Acol). He said it is too predictable, so too easy to play against for an expert.

 

So the issue isn't (despite my trying 'Italian' 10-12 major two bids twenty something years ago) point ranges, and accuracy. That has not been the issue for a long time. For a long time the issue has been competition in the auction.

 

Maybe weak twos have become less effective, as weak NT became less effective. I know people who have reverted to 8 point plus superlight one level openings...

 

The game is played by human beings, and they are supremely capable of adapting: there is no ideal bidding system.

[Winstonm]

Guys, this thread is not about this hand type ok. See my first post, It is meant to be about hands around 8-13 hcp or so with a 6 card suit. 2 suited is very possible.

 

Mike, my thinking on this is a 2-fold criteria where: A) the opening bidder's hand will not be too disappointing to partner concerning defensive strength or B) the hand is so strongly unblanced toward offense than defense that we will virtually never be penalizing the opponents.

AQ9xxx, x, xx, KJxx

KQJ10xx, x, xx, KQ9x

 

Another factor is shape and high card location: a 6/4 pattern is typically very powerful in play if a fit can be located.

 

The other consideration is whether it is a minor or major oriented hand.

I would open 1S on: AQ9xxx, x, xx, KJxx but would pass KJxx, x, xx, AQ9xxx.

[pbleighton]

"Point 1. If you open on the 1-level you are WAY ahead of the field. Since you know partner has more than a minimum opener you can bid games more quickly, double for penalty more quickly and compete more quickly."

 

 

Interesting.

 

Sound openings make the one bids work better, absolutely!

 

Now, if Roth-Stone players could figure out some way to avoid losses on the 9+-13- hands they currently pass. Hmm, I wonder how they might do that...

 

Might F-N/EHAA with 9-12 two bids be the Roth-Stone of the 21st century?

 

:)

 

Peter

[hotShot]

Lets assume for a moment we could open our hand with the the best spot for our side to play, what advantage would we have?

 

- LHOs first lead will more often be a gift for us, because he does not have enough information about the other hands.

 

- opps will have problems to find their best spot, because they might not have enough bidding space left or they might not have the strength or distribution needed, to bid over our bid.

 

If opps open, they will reach their best spot to play, if they are allowed an undisturbed bidding. Disturbing opps bidding to limit communication and exchange information with your own partner, makes their life harder and will pay off on the long run.

 

So weak 2's and strong 1's have an advantage.

[inquiry]

For those interested in seeing the F-N 2-bids at work check out my collection (all from vugraph)

 

http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/2levelopenings.pdf

 

About +1.5 IMPs / board per occurence.

This sounds impressive, but...Did you compare this with total their IMPs average in the same matches? Many of the hands are from the European championships, where the Italians were averaging an incredible number of won IMPs per match. The same is obviously true to a lesser extent for the Olympiad etc.

 

Arend

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.

[pbleighton]

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