2/1 and light openers

[hrothgar]

That edge you are talking about only holds if We buy the hand in a reasonable spot. Else it helps =Them=.

 

If We open real trash, We =will= get X'd more frequently and more successfully. Or help Declarer. Or end in the wrong level. Or end up taking more phantom saves. etc.

 

Simply put, Hrothgar is correct.

I feel obliged to point out that I prefer to open on complete trash...

 

While I am highly critical of light openings within the context of a 2/1 GF system, I very much believe that opening light is the way to go. Given the choice, I'd be playing a strong pass system. In these benighted times, I am forced to play Strong Club. I can't (safely) open as light as I might like, but I can open on crap while not getting screwed over by my own response structure.

 

From my perspective, most of the "pros" continue to relax their requirements for an opening bid. Lots of stuff is getting opened today that would have been passed 10 years back. I think that this process is being artificially retarded in North America by system regulations. Players aren't allowed to use any of the constructive response structures that are necessary to support a 9 - 14 HCP opening range.

[ArcLight]

>Players aren't allowed to use any of the constructive response structures that are necessary to support a 9 - 14 HCP opening range.

 

 

Good. :P

 

I don't enoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play. Many of you are really into bidding systems, yet you are not competent card players (neither am I yet :( )

Many of you can't draw inferences. I would much rather play with/against great players where we all use a simpler system that is not destructive/obstructive.

Playing "your idea" of bridge doesn't appeal to me. I don't enjoy playing against "junk" bids where sometimes we get screwed (missing out on a game) and sometimes we set the opps for 1400.

 

I play a game that I find interesting (as do you). Your idea of interesting is not necessarily the same as others (and neither is mine everyones cup of tea)

[foo]

I'm firmly with Arclight on this. IMHO Bridge should be as much as possible a game of skill and logic and as little as possible a game of luck and random circumstance. Some methods introduce such a large random component to the game that it is effectively no longer Bridge because bridge skills and logic are no longer the primary determining factor of who wins.

I'm perfectly willing to agree "that other game" might be fun at times. It just shouldn't be called or confused with Bridge.

 

 

I also find it hard to believe that Hrothgar opens =all= 9-14 HCP hands.

Does he open all 4333's, 4432's, and 5m332's with 9-12 HCP? Even those not containing any A's or K's? At all vulnerabilities? At both IMPs and MPs?

 

I'll bet dollars to donuts that even within the context of a 9-14 HCP range, issues of shape, controls, losers, and suit texture are very carefully thought through by Hrothgar.

 

The point being that no matter what HCP range we talk about, the HCP are not gospel. They are =at best= a guideline.

 

(For that matter, even the choice of a 9-14 HCP as opposed to say a 7-12 HCP range for most openings is one based on utility rather than frequency given that the 7-12 HCP range is more frequent than the 9-14 HCP range is. But games and slams are going to be more frequently found opposite 9-14 vs 7-12. Evidently, even for Hrothgar frequency is not all that matters.)

 

Any conversation about opening "sound" or "light" is fatally flawed if it focuses solely or even primarily on HCP. Ditto any bidding methods that concentrate solely on frequency w/o taking into account issues of usefulness AKA utility.

 

Bridge is not about taking HCP. It's about taking tricks. In particular, even at MPs, bidding good games and slams and staying out of bad ones is a big part of how well you score.

[hrothgar]

I also find it hard to believe that Hrothgar opens =all= 9-14 HCP hands.

 

Does he open all 4333's, 4432's, and 5m332's with 9-12 HCP not containing any A's or K's?  At all vulnerabilities?  At both IMPs and MPs?

9 - 14 HCP is a placeholder for a much more complicated set of evaluation metrics. Its a close enough approximation for the discussions that we are having here.

 

Its pretty pointless to discuss opening tendencies outside the context of a specific bidding system. Case in point, MOSCITO has a fairly complex rule set regarding the minimum strength for a constructive 1 level opening.

 

1. If I hold a balanced hand or a three suited pattern, I normally require a good 11 count to open.

 

2. If I hold an unbalanced hand, I open most nine counts and many eight counts.

 

Left to my own devices, I would prefer to play a Weak Opening System. In this case, I would most certainly be opening balanced 8 counts with a "constructive" opening.

[mike777]

:Bridge is not about taking HCP. It's about taking tricks."

 

That is the whole debate, many say bridge is about winning, not taking tricks. Yes they would argue you can not take tricks or you can even lose tricks but win.

 

 

IMHO this is the whole debate. Is bridge about just taking tricks or bidding good games or slams? Many so no, it is much more than that, others disagree.

[pbleighton]

I'm firmly with Arclight on this. IMHO Bridge should be as much as possible a game of skill and logic and as little as possible a game of luck and random circumstance. Some methods introduce such a large random component to the game that it is effectively no longer Bridge because bridge skills and logic are no longer the primary determining factor of who wins.

 

This is absolute nonsense, and misses the point.

 

Peter

[foo]

:Bridge is not about taking HCP. It's about taking tricks."

 

That is the whole debate, many say bridge is about winning, not taking tricks. Yes they would argue you can not take tricks or you can even lose tricks but win.

 

 

IMHO this is the whole debate. Is bridge about just taking tricks or bidding good games or slams? Many so no, it is much more than that, others disagree.

Let's keep all my comments in context please. I was quite explicit that bridge skills and logic were the things that I felt should determine who scores better.

 

Issues involving constructive bidding are =part= of those skills. So are issues involving competitive bidding- =if= the "playing field" is kept level enough that skill and logic still matter most.

 

Either kind of auction leads to deductions and percentage actions based on the tricks to be won or lost. Again, if and only if the methods involved allow for a chance at equity to exist.

 

Some methods effectively turn Bridge into something akin to roulette because they remove too much of the element of bridge skill and logic. =That's= my objection.

 

I have no objection to the testing of bridge skills and logic within the context of competitive auctions where both sides have a reasonable chance at equity.

[foo]

I'm firmly with Arclight on this. IMHO Bridge should be as much as possible a game of skill and logic and as little as possible a game of luck and random circumstance. Some methods introduce such a large random component to the game that it is effectively no longer Bridge because bridge skills and logic are no longer the primary determining factor of who wins.

 

This is absolute nonsense, and misses the point.

 

Peter

Perhaps for you it is nonsense. For me, it is the crux of this particular issue.

 

Bridge is inherently a game of imperfect information. There will always be some element of chance to it. It's supposed to be there. Even if we could remove it, I would not advocate nor support such a position. For then Bridge would no longer be Bridge but something akin to Chess.

 

OTOH, IMHO the random element of Bridge is a minor theme. Bridge requires levels of concentration, logic, and skill that no other card game does to play it at its finest. =That's= what makes Bridge the game it is. Those are the major theme.

 

Changing the playing conditions so that Bridge is more of a crap shoot and less a contest of skill devalues those major themes and elevates the randomness element from its proper place to an inappropriate importance greater than the major themes of concentration, logic, and skill.

 

At that point, you may still have a fun game; but it is no longer Bridge. For increasing the randomness element past a certain point changes the fundamental emphasis of what is going on ATT.

[sheepman]

huh?

 

Surely pre-empts add a random element to the game?

 

They give you hard decisions, do they make it a crap shoot? At the highest level everyone has impeccable judgement and can pull off double criss cross squeezes routinely. So the way to win is to put pressure on your opponents and give them more decisions, sure they'll get a lot right but if you give them enough, more than you have to make, they'll eventually get some wrong.

 

Basically top class bridge is a crap shoot.

 

I ♥ your logic.

[pbleighton]

Changing the playing conditions so that Bridge is more of a crap shoot and less a contest of skill devalues those major themes and elevates the randomness element from its proper place to an inappropriate importance greater than the major themes of concentration, logic, and skill.

 

At that point, you may still have a fun game; but it is no longer Bridge.

 

You really don't understand the systems you are critiquing, so let me explain, using the example of an aggressive strong club system, where the one club opening shows 15+, most 10 counts and many 9 counts are opened constructively, plus some preemptive hands. Contrast this to a conservative standard approach, where 13 counts and many 12 counts are opened, plus some preemptive hands.

 

Both systems have a call for all hands. The first system will use the call Pass for roughly 40%-45% of hands. Pass then shows a bad 10 points or less. The second system will use the call Pass for roughly 65%-70% of hands. Pass then shows an average 12 points or less.

 

Most hands not passed in the first system are in bids which have a range of 7 hcp or less. Most hands not passed in the second system are in bids which have a range of ~10 hcp.

 

The first system thus has calls, including Pass, which have a much better definition of playing strength compared to the second system. If anything, it is more constructive than the first system.

 

Its major disadvantage in a *standard* field is that it's strong hands are subject to effective destructive bidding by the *standard* pairs. It is not *more of a crap shoot* than standard methods. It's just a different crap shot.

 

I freely admit that these systems do tend to intimidate certain weak players (such as yourself) who dislike unfamiliar bidding systems, because of their insecurity about their bidding judgment. But please, have faith in yourself, if you open up your mind you may become a good bidder and player, and you won't have such paranoid delusions about light opening systems.

 

Peter

[awm]

The issue with defending light openings is that you suddenly need to have methods to bid constructively after the opponents open the bidding at the one-level. This is definitely possible; after all we all need to bid constructively after opponents open at the two-level and having more space should only help us. But there are a number of issues with many people's approach to bidding after the opponents open:

 

(1) Most people pretty much give up on slam after opponents open one. This is usually right (barring a huge fit) after a standard opening, but not necessarily right after a light opening.

 

(2) Most people don't play a lot of forcing bids after opponents open one. Big hands have to start with double (which creates a lot of issues if not the "right" shape for a takeout double) or start with a one-level overcall (which now has a ridiculous range of values). A forcing hand for advancer after partner's overcall often has to start with a nebulous cuebid (which partner could easily mistake for support). Usually you don't notice these issues because the really big hands after opponents sound opening are few and far between, but they become more common when opponents open light.

 

(3) Many people will jump into an auction with a very wide range of values after a fit is shown. For example, 1♥-P-2♥-3♣ could be a lousy hand with good clubs and short hearts, or a moose with moderate clubs. Again the assumption is "we probably don't have game on values, so let's try and make a partial or push the opponents up." Reasonable enough if 1♥ showed 12+ and 2♥ showed 6+. But if 1♥ could be 8 points and 2♥ could be 5, you could easily have a 3NT on values (without even having running clubs) and it's going to be hard to reach if 3♣ could be "anything with clubs."

 

Again, I don't believe these issues are insurmountable, but they do require a close look at your methods after the enemy opens. The light openers often get themselves in trouble too, either because their openings are too wide-ranging (making their own constructive bidding difficult) or because their opening (or their pass) helps locate values for the opponents in the bidding and play, or because in order to avoid the "wide-ranging opening" problem they play a nebulous forcing club (or diamond, or pass) which exposes them to preemption. It's true that the light opening style tends to randomize results a bit, but any number of ploys that have been part of bridge from time immemorial randomize results (any action that might or might not work out and likely won't be taken at another table randomizes results, including virtually every opening lead you can make as well as all psychs, preempts, penalty doubles, sacrifices). The trick is to randomize while improving your own likely score.

 

The only real reason to ban certain methods is the unfair advantage that can be gained due to the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. It seems clear that if I play something weird that has a lot of inferences which can't be explained briefly and requires devising a defense that's pretty different from a good defense to anything else, opponents will be at a significant disadvantage (at least if they don't have several hours to prepare for the match in advance). Bridge is not a game of secret messages, or of "who can play the weirdest stuff" and so there is some incentive to ban certain things especially in the context of short matches (pair games, less serious events, etc). How far to go with this is a matter of opinion, as is what exactly to expect people to be familiar with.

[pbleighton]

The only real reason to ban certain methods is the unfair advantage that can be gained due to the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. It seems clear that if I play something weird that has a lot of inferences which can't be explained briefly and requires devising a defense that's pretty different from a good defense to anything else, opponents will be at a significant disadvantage (at least if they don't have several hours to prepare for the match in advance). Bridge is not a game of secret messages, or of "who can play the weirdest stuff" and so there is some incentive to ban certain things especially in the context of short matches (pair games, less serious events, etc). How far to go with this is a matter of opinion, as is what exactly to expect people to be familiar with.

 

Adam, would you give some examples of aggressive systems/bids which (regardless of their present ACBL regulatory status):

1. Should be GCC legal, and

2. Should be GCC illegal?

 

Specifically, how do you feel about

a. Very light openings in standardish systems, and

b. Very light openings in *mainstream* strong club systems (define as you wish)

c. Moscito

d. Forcing pass

 

Your statement above, while I disagree with it, seems like it might be reasonable, but it's vague enough so that I don't quite know what to think.

 

Peter

[Free]

Changing the playing conditions so that Bridge is more of a crap shoot and less a contest of skill devalues those major themes and elevates the randomness element from its proper place to an inappropriate importance greater than the major themes of concentration, logic, and skill.

 

At that point, you may still have a fun game; but it is no longer Bridge. For increasing the randomness element past a certain point changes the fundamental emphasis of what is going on ATT.

What a load of bull. What is bridge? It's a game, described with 93 articles in a little booklet. It has NOTHING to do with randomness of any kind of bids or plays, it has nothing to do with HCP, it doesn't care how good you concentrate, what your skills are,...

 

However it describes HOW you can win: by scoring points based on the contract bid and the number of tricks taken, and what other people have achieved with the same cards. It does NOT describe how you have to get to that contract, and how you have to make sure you get that number of tricks.

 

So what is bridge all about? It's a game, and everybody wants to win, end of story. It doesn't matter how, as long as we win. So we use methods that give us, with our limited amount of skills, the best results. If this is includes pure random methods, so what? Why should we play methods that give us worse results than we could achieve? Why should we help our opponents? Why should we decrease our chances to win? Why do we have to limit our capabilities with our bidding system?

 

You claim that you can hardly make logical deductions when opps make certain bids (like light openings). Why? These players use such systems so they can actually make better decisions! So the problem is not with the players, not with their system, but with you...

And what about random bids, like a 2M opening that shows 0-7HCP with 4+M (= Lorenzo two's)? Well ok, suppose it's really solid and you get bottom after bottom after such openings. Then why don't you apply these methods yourself? You know from experience that it works, so improve your chances to win, don't whine because you lose. And if it's not such a great method after all, again it's your own problem, because you don't defend well enough against it.

[foo]

All this is clearly quite off topic for the original intent of this thread.

 

Let's start another one to pursue the important issues being raised if people wish to give this the careful consideration and deliberation it deserves.

[hrothgar]

>Players aren't allowed to use any of the constructive response structures that are necessary to support a 9 - 14 HCP opening range.

 

 

Good. :)

 

I don't enoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play.

I am reminded of an earlier thread regarding mathematicians and lawyers and, more specifically, the hypothesis that the lawyers drove the mathematicans out of the game.

[Gerben42]

I don't enoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play. Many of you are really into bidding systems, yet you are not competent card players (neither am I yet  )

Many of you can't draw inferences. I would much rather play with/against great players where we all use a simpler system that is not destructive/obstructive.

Playing "your idea" of bridge doesn't appeal to me. I don't enjoy playing against "junk" bids where sometimes we get screwed (missing out on a game) and sometimes we set the opps for 1400.

 

How do you define "simpler" system? What makes a system simple or complicated? Simple is "what I'm used to"?

 

EVERY system has obstructive / destructive bids. They are called preempts. The most agressive system I've played is Magic Diamond:

 

In 1st 2nd:

 

1♣: 13 (14 if bal.) - 16, any

1♦: 17 (18 if bal.)+ any

1♥: 8 - 12, 4+♥

1♠: 8 - 12, 4+♠

1NT: 10 - 13

2m: 8 - 12, 5-4m or 6+ cards

2M, 2NT: 8 - 12, 5-5 distribution

 

This means that all 10-counts are opened (vuln. you may pass 10 bal.), and all unbalanced 9 and most unbal. 8 counts. Agressive? Sure! Destructive? No. Complicated? Not at all. We started out with 3 handwritten pages.

[ArcLight]

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive. (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)

A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot. It might be effective, it might not. But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much. Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP. It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting. It becomes more random. Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

[the hog]

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive.  (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)

A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot.  It might be effective, it might not.  But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much.  Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP.  It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting.  It becomes more random.  Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

I disagree. I think it offers you an intellectual challenge you have to solve. Where are you going to draw the line with your argument - a 6 card suit headed by 3 of the top 5, 2 of the top 5, 1 of the top 5, etc? Why is openeing very light a crapshoot? Where are you going to draw the line here, 11, 12, 13HCP? More?

 

You could also argue that someone who makes a play that is even obviously wrong to a beginner is creating a crapshoot, and yet this happens not infrequently.

[EricK]

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive. (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)

A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot. It might be effective, it might not. But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much. Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP. It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting. It becomes more random. Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

What exactly do you mean by "random" in this context?

[mike777]

Does random really have that many different meanings? Chance, luck?

Bridge can have several types of games with different laws/rules.

If you prefer a game that is more random, then pay your money.

If you prefer a game that has less random, then pay your money.

Allowing some style of bids, conventions or systems allow more random or less?\

Does a bid, convention, system, or style allow more random? We humans are rather poor at knowing this so we just vote with our dollars. We may vote wrong.

I repeat humans are rather poor at telling you if something adds more random or less, we just vote.

You decide and you pay.

 

edit:

 

I would add that we humans have a bias towards voting towards perceived less random. Note the word perceived.

[Gerben42]

If so, why do people like to play games that are completely random like bingo? I cannot imagine EVER liking that. You also won't see me at a slot machine or a roulette table. It's simply not my kind of thing.

[EricK]

Does random really have that many different meanings?  Chance, luck?

Bridge can have several types of games with different laws/rules.

If you prefer a game that is more random, then pay your money.

If you prefer a game that has less random, then pay your money.

Allowing some style of bids, conventions or systems allow more random or less?\

Does a bid, convention, system, or style allow more random?  We humans are rather poor at knowing this so we just vote with our dollars. We may vote wrong.

I repeat humans are rather poor at telling you if something adds more random or less, we just vote.

You decide and you pay.

 

edit:

 

I would add that we humans have a bias towards voting towards perceived less random. Note the word perceived.

Consider the case of Cohen and Bergen. I really have only heard about their exploits in tales, but as I understand it they introduced (or at least made use of) a lot of these so-called "randomizing" pre-empts and they consistently did very well! Now if this is true then "random" is being used in an unusual sense when it comes to describing bidding methods.

[mike777]

If so, why do people like to play games that are completely random like bingo? I cannot imagine EVER liking that. You also won't see me at a slot machine or a roulette table. It's simply not my kind of thing.

Gerben, I rest my case, Bingo is not perceived as random, do you really know bingo players who pay money? Lots of money? Do they vote that what ever pleasure, fun, value they get out of Bingo is random? NO!

 

I would go farther and say if you measure value only in terms of dollars or euros you are making a measuring error of value(utility).

[mike777]

Does random really have that many different meanings?  Chance, luck?

Bridge can have several types of games with different laws/rules.

If you prefer a game that is more random, then pay your money.

If you prefer a game that has less random, then pay your money.

Allowing some style of bids, conventions or systems allow more random or less?\

Does a bid, convention, system, or style allow more random?  We humans are rather poor at knowing this so we just vote with our dollars. We may vote wrong.

I repeat humans are rather poor at telling you if something adds more random or less, we just vote.

You decide and you pay.

 

edit:

 

I would add that we humans have a bias towards voting towards perceived less random. Note the word perceived.

Consider the case of Cohen and Bergen. I really have only heard about their exploits in tales, but as I understand it they introduced (or at least made use of) a lot of these so-called "randomizing" pre-empts and they consistently did very well! Now if this is true then "random" is being used in an unusual sense when it comes to describing bidding methods.

ok so where is your proof they bid random and won based on random. Luck or chance? year after year? I am sceptical. :angry: But if you have proof they won on random chance and luck for years, cool please show me your paper. :huh:

 

I also note even if they did they stopped playing in fact Bergen stopped playing tourney bridge 100%. You seem to present strong evidence against random bidding?

[skjaeran]

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive.  (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)

A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot.  It might be effective, it might not.  But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much.  Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP.  It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting.  It becomes more random.  Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

I can't see how opening 1♠ changes the nature of the game, makes it less interesting nor more random.

The game is the same, you only get more challenges. IMO it's even more interesting with various methods. If it get's more random - I really don't know.

 

In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence. Over pass we just played our own system on, the same vs 1♣ (double=1♣ opening, T-Walsh on) etc. It was great fun, and we had very little trouble with opponents system. We lost the match with some margin, but that was, as it normally is, due to bad judgement in a couple of situations (and some bad luck).