Is there a hole in this logic?

[Echognome]

The math is pretty simple.

 

You hold 6 cards in a suit. There are 7 outstanding. Assuming these 7 cards are equally likely to be in any of your partner's or opponents' hands, your partner expects to hold 7/3 = 2.333 cards on average. If the distribution of the 7 cards is a binomial distribution, then the distribution of your combined trump length is approximately (note rounding):

 

6 cards 6%

7 cards 20%

8 cards 31%

9 cards 26%

10 cards 13%

11 cards 4%

12 cards 1%

13 cards 0%

 

So you will have an 8+ card fit, 74% of the time. The rest of the argument depends on what you believe about the law... I will make no argument for or against that part of the analysis.

 

If you open a 5 card preempt at the 2 level, then there are 8 cards outstanding and your partner will hold 8/3 = 2.666 on average. Again, if it's a binomial distribution, then your combined trump length is approximately:

 

5 cards 4%

6 cards 16%

7 cards 27%

8 cards 27%

9 cards 17%

10 cards 7%

11 cards 2%

12 cards 0%

13 cards 0%

 

So, you will have an 8+ card fit about 53% of the time. Now there are two things to note. First, this assumes your longest combined fit is in the preempted suit and that is not necessarily the case. Against that, you might either not be able to find your best fit OR you might play in your best fit at a higher level.

 

By the way, I'm just providing the mathematics. (and hopefully correctly. If someone feels that the Binomial is inappropriate, I'm up for suggestions.) You can argue whether having an 8+ card combined fit at the 2-level is the appropriate measure. However, there is also the argument of whether a 4-4, 5-3, or 6-2 fit is better, depending also on the combined assets.

[foo]

Please show me the math that proves that 2 level preempts should be 6 cards.

This has to be asked appropriately in order for it to be solved as a math problem.

 

The assumption is that the LOTT is valid. That is to say a 2 level contract when holding 18-22 HCP between the two hands and only one suit fit requires a trump fit of at least 8 cards (and a working side shortness, but that's a twiddle).

 

So if you hold 6 cards in a suit, and pd's expected support is 2+ in the vast majority of cases, then the hypothesis is proven.

 

I'll let hannie or helene_t or one of the other professional mathematicians do the calculations.

 

EDIT: Thank you Echognome.

 

I read Echognome results as "it's at least 74/53= ~1.5x safer to open a Weak Two with a 6 card suit than a 5 card suit."

Particularly given his quite accurate comments about making sure you are playing in what the odds say is your best trump fit.

[DrTodd13]

You've drastically oversimplified the problem. You can't look at what you expect to make in a vacuum. You have to look at how the opponents will react. It may be best to bid more than you can make if it preempts opps from finding their optimum spot. This all depends on vulnerability, opponents available methods and many other factors. Some of the factors are psychological which makes anything approaching "proof" nearly impossible.

[foo]

You've drastically oversimplified the problem.  You can't look at what you expect to make in a vacuum.  You have to look at how the opponents will react.  It may be best to bid more than you can make if it preempts opps from finding their optimum spot.  This all depends on vulnerability, opponents available methods and many other factors.  Some of the factors are psychological which makes anything approaching "proof" nearly impossible.

Not if you accept the axiom of the LoTT.

 

That's the entire point of the LoTT. You !don't! know what the other hands look like. You are taking action based on the assumption that the HCP are more or less scattered evenly around the table and bidding to the level of your best scoring assumed fit in one go.

 

The LoTT is all about "bidding what you expect to score best in a vacuum".

 

Of course, if you don't believe in any variation of the LoTT, that's a different story

(In which case I assume you don't make preemptive raises to the 3 and 4 levels in the presence of an appropriate trump fit either. I have a hard time believing that.)

 

Given that history proves that the traditional suit lengths for "n" level preempts are reasonable, I think anyone trying to argue otherwise has a very steep hill to climb.

[awm]

Certainly it's traditionally been true that weak twos are six card suits. However, plenty of people will preempt freely on five, especially at nonvulnerable. There's a substantial set of people who use the multi specifically to distinguish between a "bad weak two" (often five cards, opened with 2♦ multi) and a "good weak two" (very traditional, typically six cards to two top honors, opened with a natural 2M). Virtually everyplace that allows 2♦ Multi at all permits the opening of 2♦ Multi with a five-card major, and states its requirements as "2♦ opening showing a weak preempt of 5+ cards in either major" or the like. So while one could argue that Multi should have to show a six-card suit, that's simply not the case.

 

As far as subsets go, there is again an issue of style. Pretty much everyone will use their judgement when deciding whether to preempt. Some of this is even a subconscious thing -- you remember the last time you held a hand similar to the one you hold now and think about whether you preempted and whether your choice worked out. It seems likely that people who use multi as a bad major suit preempt might start to notice that:

 

(1) They seem to get "caught speeding" more often when they're 5332, because their hand plays worse offensively and there's no place to run if the major doesn't provide a good fit. Thus they might tend to pass the 5332 hands more often than not...

 

(2) After 2♦-pass or 2♦-dbl, sometimes it's right for responder to pass. They will come to some agreement (explicit or implicit) about how many diamonds this shows and what opener should need to remove 2♦-dbl-pass-pass to him. If the multi very often shows only five cards in the major, it is probably right to pass the 2♦ bid fairly often with only five diamonds and a singleton major, both because this puts a lot of pressure on the opponents and because a diamond fit of at least seven cards is probably more likely than a major fit. It's also quite possible to pass without even having a lot of diamonds when responder is desperately weak, in order to get the opponents out of their comfort zone.

 

(3) They may notice that the Multi seems to get better results when opener actually has some diamond length, because responder's passes hit a fit more often, so they may tend to open borderline hands with a diamond side suit and not without. Similarly, they may notice that having a second five card suit helps a lot when they get doubled in the major, and therefore tend to be 5-5 to open these hands.

 

The "subset" rule merely allows players to make these tendencies explicit and disclose them. SOs don't even have the authority to regulate judgement -- the laws are pretty clear that you can regulate "agreements" (see Law 40C) but not regulate "what people bid at the table" (see Law 40A). As long as it's possible to have agreements with overlapping definitions (and pass versus virtually any preempt have overlapping definitions in standard methods) this problem remains essentially unavoidable. This is why it seems necessary to permit opening bids which show strict subsets of a legal alternative, despite troubling aspects like legalizing Wilcosz (if Multi is allowed).

[hrothgar]

Not if you accept the axiom of the LoTT.

 

That's the entire point of the LoTT.  You !don't! know what the other hands look like.  You are taking action based on the assumption that the HCP are more or less scattered evenly around the table and bidding to the level of your best scoring assumed fit in one go.

 

The LoTT is all about "bidding what you expect to score best in a vacuum".

 

Of course, if you don't believe in any variation of the LoTT, that's a different story

(In which case I assume you don't make preemptive raises to the 3 and 4 levels in the presence of an appropriate trump fit either.  I have a hard time believing that.)

 

Given that history proves that the traditional suit lengths for "n" level preempts are reasonable, I think anyone trying to argue otherwise has a very steep hill to climb.

Comment 1:

 

You're using an extremely naive interpretation of the Law of Total Tricks. Lots of folks favor methods that are overly aggressive than the Law advocates preach. For example, MOSCITO systemically raises a 4+ card 1M opening to the two level with three support. MOSCITO raises a 1M opening to the 4 level with 4+ card support.

 

While I use this as a specific example, several other systems are adopting similar methods. For example, a couple years back the Bridge World published an article advocating raising a 5 card major opening to 2M with two card support.

 

In both cases, the rational is identical: If the auction starts

 

1M - (P) - 2M - (P)

P - ???

 

Its MUCH more difficult to make an accurate balancing decision if the opponents could be playing in a seven card fit. The benefits of concealing information may very well outweigh the loss in constructive accuracy.

 

Comment 2: In what way, shape, or form does history prove that the suit lengths that you quote are reasonable. Single suited openings are certainly popular in the United States. Of course, players are effective banned from using anything else so its not like this is a particular useful data point.

 

Over the past couple years, I produced quite some summaries of the methods being played in the Bermuda Bowl and other such events. One of the specific points that I focused on way the definition of the 2♦ / 2M openings. Take a look at the systems that are actually being used in top level play. You'll quickly find that most pairs from outside North America have abandoned traditional single suited preempts for methods based on either two suited openings or assumed fit type methods.

 

Their 2M openings typically show either 5+ cards or, in some cases, 4+ cards.

[DrTodd13]

All you have is anecdotal evidence. The "law" of total tricks is not a law. It is an observation that some do not agree with. If in any way the LoTT were true then it could only be true given perfect bidding and play by everyone. The only thing you can prove is that the expected trump fit is 8.33 (or whatever the number) but that is a long way from that to proving that 2♥ will yield the best result over the long term with 6♥. What you've also failed to mention is that HCP is an important factor. You don't open this way when you have 20 points because excepted value of partner's hand makes game likely. You have to limit HCP such that expected value of partner's hand makes points roughly split where LoTT applies most.

[TimG]

Given that history proves that the traditional suit lengths for "n" level preempts are reasonable, I think anyone trying to argue otherwise has a very steep hill to climb.

Reasonable? Perhaps. Optimal? Far from clear.

 

Twenty years ago, Bergen-Cohen were dominating national pair events with (amongst other things) a preemptive style that might have been described as "n-1" relative to traditional preempting. At the time, I'm sure people thought the "n" approach had been shown to be reasonable.

 

What the math so far presented in this thread has shown is that a 6-card weak-two has the expectation of an 8+ card fit about 74% of the time and a 5-card weak-two has the expectation of an 8+ card fit about 53% of the time. Nowhere has it been indicated how often we need to have an 8+ card fit to make a preempt worthwhile (or reasonable). I doubt math can answer that question.

 

Nor has the advantage to being the first side to get into the bidding been considered. It may be true that a five-card weak-two is unsound looking at all four hands, but that it works out OK because of the difficulty opponents have in coping with a weak-two.

[Echognome]

Strict subsets don't work, especially when combined with the ACBL's current definitions of natural. I mean, we can start with Frelling 2♦. But imagine the following strict subsets:

 

2♣ = 3 clubs exactly, and at least 4-4 in the majors.

2♣ = 3+ clubs, but either another unknown suit of 6+ OR 6+ clubs.

2♣ = Either both majors (44 min) and 3+ clubs OR both minors (44 length)

 

You can see where a lot of strict subsets of 3+ clubs can become a nightmare.

 

So you may restrict 2-level bids to show 4+. We can play around with that as well.

[foo]

awm,

My only contradiction with what you are saying is that I do not agree with any explicit or implicit assumption that a two suited hand is a subset of single suited hands.

Bridge-wise, they are completely different beasts.

 

I'm happy to go along with the idea that any single suiter in "n" is a subset of all single suiters in "n". Ditto that any two suiter in "n+m" is a subset of all two suiters in "n+m".

But a hand with a 2nd place to play is very different from a hand with only one suit to suggest is very different from a three suited hand.

 

Bridge "physics" has to trump context independent mathematical arguments.

 

 

As for Wilcosz, my only problem is that creating a defense vs it that allows the defending side a decent chance to achieve equity appears to be very difficult.

More than anything else, the Laws and Regulations are there to protect and insure a reasonable opportunity at equity. Unless or until we can do that with regards to a specific method, that method should not be allowed any more than we would allow unrestricted performance enhancing drug use or unrestricted equipment modifications in any other game or sport.

[awm]

Strict subsets don't work, especially when combined with the ACBL's current definitions of natural. I mean, we can start with Frelling 2♦. But imagine the following strict subsets:

 

2♣ = 3 clubs exactly, and at least 4-4 in the majors.

2♣ = 3+ clubs, but either another unknown suit of 6+ OR 6+ clubs.

2♣ = Either both majors (44 min) and 3+ clubs OR both minors (44 length)

 

You can see where a lot of strict subsets of 3+ clubs can become a nightmare.

 

So you may restrict 2-level bids to show 4+. We can play around with that as well.

But once again....

 

Suppose partner and I decide to play a very aggressive preempting style. We define 2♣ as showing a weak hand (say 4-9 hcp) with 4+♣. Our three-level preempt are natural, normally six-card suits.

 

After playing this for a while, we notice that every time I open 2♣ on a 3334 hand I seem to get a lousy result. Of course, no one is holding a gun to my head forcing me to open 2♣ every time I have four clubs and 4-9 hcp, so I decide that maybe occasionally discretion is the better part of valor and start passing the 3334 hands.

 

At some point I notice that we're still occasionally going for a number. The problem is that I open 2♣ and get doubled. Partner keeps running from 2♣X on a doubleton (who wants to play a 4-2 fit doubled?) but sometimes there just isn't a good place to go. I notice (perhaps even subconsciously) that we do a lot better when I have a second four card suit than when I have (332)5 distribution. So I start passing a lot of the (332)5 hands too (maybe not all).

 

So what's happening here? All I've done is agree to play a 4-card weak two in clubs (discouraged maybe, but allowed). Then I noticed certain hands seem to get me lousy scores when I preempt them, so I started passing those more and more often. Nobody opens a weak two bid with every hand including the right number of points and cards in the suit anyway (people have requirements about suit quality or lack of outside tricks or lack of side voids or no side four-card major or at most one of four negative features or whatever, some of which are just "table feel" and not even formalized anywhere).

 

It seems like I haven't done anything "wrong" here, just agreed to play a legal convention and then used a little bit of discretion to not open the ridiculously flat hands. But suddenly if my partner discloses this to the opponents I'm playing those dastardly (and illegal in ACBL-land) assumed fit preempts! Where did we go wrong?

 

It's just this kind of issue that allowing subsets prevents. If we want to disallow assumed fit preempts, I think we have to require weak bids at the two-level or above to show five or more cards in the suit. This rule is restrictive perhaps, but a lot less ridiculous than some of the things ACBL has done in the past...

[TimG]

You're using an extremely naive interpretation of the Law of Total Tricks. Lots of folks favor methods that are overly aggressive than the Law advocates preach. For example, MOSCITO systemically raises a 4+ card 1M opening to the two level with three support. MOSCITO raises a 1M opening to the 4 level with 4+ card support.

While I may agree with your point of view, citing MOSCITO methods neither proves the soundness of the method, nor demonstrates that the method is reasonable.

[Echognome]

Perhaps a better way to define it is to say that you cannot promise length in another suit. So, if by consequences of your system, a 4 card outside suit is guaranteed, then this is disallowed. E.g. in the modified EHAA we play, we play that 2x shows 5+, but not 5332. Thus it EITHER has a four card side suit OR has 6+ in the original suit, but certainly does not guarantee two places to play.

 

Then to tie the loose knots, there needs to be a disclaimer that it cannot promise a 4+ card side suit over X% of the time (to avoid the either 54 OR 9+ agreements). What is the best value of X? I have no friggin' clue.

[foo]

All you have is anecdotal evidence. The "law" of total tricks is not a law. It is an observation that some do not agree with. If in any way the LoTT were true then it could only be true given perfect bidding and play by everyone. The only thing you can prove is that the expected trump fit is 8.33 (or whatever the number) but that is a long way from that to proving that 2♥ will yield the best result over the long term with 6♥.

 

What you've also failed to mention is that HCP is an important factor. You don't open this way when you have 20 points because excepted value of partner's hand makes game likely. You have to limit HCP such that expected value of partner's hand makes points roughly split where LoTT applies most.

1= Results from 100's of thousands of boards over decades of play at all levels is !not! "anecdotal" evidence. It's experimental results. Lot's of them.

 

2= Since we must play SD but there is no objective way to build systems based on strictly SD work, it is unfortunately necessary to include DD analysis in the creation of system.

Besides, DD Bridge is the Holy Grail of SD play. "Beating baby seals" or "stealing" only works consistently against poor opposition and leads to poor Bridge habits and lax Bridge skills if over-indulged.

 

3= I explicitly mentioned the HCP component of the LoTT:

The assumption is that the LOTT is valid. That is to say a 2 level contract when holding 18-22 HCP between the two hands and only one suit fit requires a trump fit of at least 8 cards (and a working side shortness, but that's a twiddle).

Howard Schenken knew that hands in the 7-12 HCP range were the most common and made that the original range of Weak Twos based on that.

Later RW play ATT proved that the most effective range for Weak Twos was ~5-10 HCP even though that reduced their frequency.

[foo]

It's just this kind of issue that allowing subsets prevents. If we want to disallow assumed fit preempts, I think we have to require weak bids at the two-level or above to show five or more cards in the suit. This rule is restrictive perhaps, but a lot less ridiculous than some of the things ACBL has done in the past...

In fact, that was exactly what the ACBL's reaction was to Bergen & Cohen.

 

The creation of the infamous "5 and 5" regulation.

(A 2level or higher preempt must promise at least 5+ cards and at least 5+ HCP in the suit shown by the preempt.)

[TimG]

Later RW play ATT proved that the most effective range for Weak Twos was ~5-10 HCP even though that reduced their frequency.

I think that the common range for a weak-two is more a product of common systems than a proof that this is the most effective range.

 

Bergen-Cohen enjoyed quite a bit of success with a different range (that included weaker hands). Fantoni-Nunes are enjoying quite a bit of success with a different range (that includes stronger hands).

[awm]

Perhaps a better way to define it is to say that you cannot promise length in another suit. So, if by consequences of your system, a 4 card outside suit is guaranteed, then this is disallowed. E.g. in the modified EHAA we play, we play that 2x shows 5+, but not 5332. Thus it EITHER has a four card side suit OR has 6+ in the original suit, but certainly does not guarantee two places to play.

 

Then to tie the loose knots, there needs to be a disclaimer that it cannot promise a 4+ card side suit over X% of the time (to avoid the either 54 OR 9+ agreements). What is the best value of X? I have no friggin' clue.

Again, I think you're missing the point here....

 

Say we accept for the moment that an agreement is an assignment of a set of hands to a bid. When you make the bid, you're "supposed to have" one of that set of hands. Of course, you're allowed to violate agreements (psych) sometimes but partner will play you for one of the agreed set of hands. If you frequently have hands outside that set, you'll get in trouble.

 

Okay, so say we define a first seat pass as a set of hands P, a 2♦ bid as a set of hands W, and a 3♦ bid as a set of hands H.

 

The issue is that P, W, and H are probably not disjoint sets. There will be hands where more than one of these calls is feasible. This doesn't necessarily mean that my sets "aren't defined well" -- it means that I won't necessarily always choose the same opening bid on the same hand in all situations. Which I select may depend on factors like vulnerability, state of the match, what I think of my opponents, or simply how frisky I'm feeling that day. I may be experimenting or trying some sort of mixed strategy.

 

Now we could regulate in some way that you can't have overlapping sets P, W, and H. This is not necessarily a "ridiculous" set of regulations, but the fact is that virtually everyone's definitions for these bids do in fact overlap, and no SO is really trying to prevent that. You could also make some statement like "if your definition places this hand in set W, then you have to open it with 2♦ at least XX% of the time" but this is going to be impossible to enforce (in part because no one holds the exact same hand often enough to measure XX) and also tends to violate law 40A (stating that players can bid whatever they want, regulation is for agreements (40C) and not for bids).

 

So it's okay to have overlapping sets P, W, and H. You're allowed to bid whatever you want (40A), so when faced with a hand belonging to two or more sets you can open whatever you like. So even if your official definition is "set W = all hands with 5-9 points and 5 or 6 diamonds" there is really nothing preventing you from passing most of the 5332 hands and bidding 3♦ on most of the 6-diamond hands, to the point where most of your 2♦ openings actually have a 4-card side suit. It is not even unethical to bid in this way -- you're allowed to bid whatever you want! You might get in trouble if you open 2♦ "showing 5+" with only four (at least if partner fields it or if you do it a lot) but you certainly won't get in trouble for passing a hand with 5♦: even though you "could've opened 2♦" it's certainly also an acceptable pass.

 

Of course, it might be unethical if partner knows you bid this way and doesn't disclose it. But when he discloses it, he's not even necessarily disclosing an agreement. He's disclosing a tendency: "Our agreement is that 2♦ is 4-9 points and 5-6♦, but he tends to pass most 5332 patterns and open 3♦ with 6♦, so usually he has a four-card side suit." The laws don't allow us to ban this tendency but they do require that tendencies known to partner be disclosed. By attempting to ban 2♦ openings that guarantee a 4-card side suit, we're only banning an agreement -- people can still bid 2♦ only with a four-card side suit as long as it's just a "tendency." I'd argue that all such a ban accomplishes is to deter people from disclosing their tendencies in case they get accused of an illegal agreement.

[foo]

Comment 1: 

 

You're using an extremely naive interpretation of the Law of Total Tricks.  Lots of folks favor methods that are overly aggressive than the Law advocates preach.  For example, MOSCITO systemically raises a 4+ card 1M opening to the two level with three support.  MOSCITO raises a 1M opening to the 4 level with 4+ card support. 

 

While I use this as a specific example, several other systems are adopting similar methods.  For example, a couple years back the Bridge World published an article advocating raising a 5 card major opening to 2M with two card support. 

 

In both cases, the rational is identical:  If the auction starts

 

1M - (P) - 2M - (P)

P - ???

 

Its MUCH more difficult to make an accurate balancing decision if the opponents could be playing in a seven card fit.  The benefits of concealing information may very well outweigh the loss in constructive accuracy. 

 

Comment 2:  In what way, shape, or form does history prove that the suit lengths that you quote are reasonable.  Single suited openings are certainly popular in the United States.  Of course, players are effective banned from using anything else so its not like this is a particular useful data point.

 

Over the past couple years, I produced quite some summaries of the methods being played in the Bermuda Bowl and other such events.  One of the specific points that I focused on way the definition of the 2♦ / 2M openings.  Take a look at the systems that are actually being used in top level play.  You'll quickly find that most pairs from outside North America have abandoned traditional single suited preempts for methods based on either two suited openings or assumed fit type methods.

 

Their 2M openings typically show either 5+ cards or, in some cases, 4+ cards.

1= I'm well aware of this. What these pairs and theorists are advocating is basically systemic stealing: to bid =past= the point of safety in hopes of inducing mistakes by the opponents often enough that the payoff is greater than the price paid for speeding over the long haul.

Bergen & Cohen were doing the same sort of thing. In the long run, the tournament environment adapted to them and refuted the approach by giving it more bad results than good ones.

 

Time will tell whether the same holds true for this lastest fad for stealing.

My prediction is that there will be a resurgence and fine tuning of some old weapons to deal with this approach: the penalty X and penalty pass.

We'll see how well stealing works once the expert community adapts this time.

 

 

2= Multi-suited openings are relatively new in the history of bridge. For the vast majority of it, single suited preempts were the norm. Everywhere.

 

Various studies have been made of kinds of preempt openings and styles within those kinds in competition at the highest levels (for instance Brian Senior's study of the 1997 WC's). One of the interesting findings is how =little= most other kinds of say 2♦ prempts gain over the "old fashioned" Weak Two ♦.

(note I'm specifically talking about =preempts=. For instance the Mexican 2♦ or variations of it is/are a =huge= win playing IMPs.)

 

...and I =really= wish people would stop using the phrase "assumed fit" unless they can mathematically =prove= that a fit exists the vast majority of the time.

Say ~74% of the time or better. 53% or anything close to 50/50 odds of a fit is !not! an "assumed fit". It's little better than a coin flip.

Would you bet your home / your food money / yourself / your loved one's on said "assumed fit"? If not, you probably aren't in the position to call it much of an assumption.

[foo]

Also see Fantoni-Nunes multiple world championships playing supremely undisciplined two bids.

 

Peter

If you think Fantoni-Nunes are playing "supremely undisciplined two bids.", you are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing and that you should not attempt such an approach yourself.

 

Fantoni-Nunes, like most WC pairs play a system that is the equivalent of a Formula 1 race car: =very= tuned, =very= disciplined within its design parameters, and =very= ugly when it gets into an accident.

 

They do what they are capable of and what they think they have to to win against opposition much better than most of us will ever face under conditions of contest more strenuous than most of us will ever endure.

 

What they do is based on and driven by those facts.

Players not in that class or not competing at those levels should not be making assumptions or choices regarding their own system design or play style based on what a WC pair does.

[hrothgar]

1= Results from 100's of thousands of boards over decades of play at all levels is  !not! "anecdotal" evidence.  It's experimental results.  Lot's of them.

 

2= Since we must play SD but there is no objective way to build systems based on strictly SD work, it is unfortunately necessary to include DD analysis in the creation of system.

 

Besides, DD Bridge is the Holy Grail of SD play. "Beating baby seals" or "stealing" only works consistently against poor opposition and leads to poor Bridge habits and lax Bridge skills if over-indulged.

For kicks and giggles, I just went and looked through all of the conventions cards for the 2005 Bermuda Bowl in Estoril. I cataloged the definitions for all of the different 2H and 2S openings.

 

There were a variety of popular methods including

 

1. Single suited preempts that promise 6+ cards in the bid suit

 

2. Single suited preempts that promise 5+ cards in the bid suit. (these can be tricky to categorize. In some cases like Marston - Thompson, any 5 card suit is appropriate. In others, I think that folks typically promise 6+ cards, but people were being careful)

 

3. Two suited methods promising 5+ / 5+ shape (in some cases 4+ / 4+ shape)

 

4. Chimeras that promise EITHER 6+ cards a known suit or 5+ / 5+ shape (note, most of these methods force one to the three level with the single suited pattern)

 

5. Ekrens style assumed fit methods that promise 4+ /4+ shape

 

6. Flannery or some other three suited pattern

 

7. Artificial

 

Here's a frequency distribution of the different types of openings:

 

2♥ openings

 

Type 1 = 18

Type 2 = 14

Type 3 = 20

Type 4 = 5

Type 5 = 6

Type 6 = 1

Type 7 = 1

 

2♠ Openings

 

Type 1 = 17

Type 2 = 12

Type 3 = 26

Type 4 = 5

Type 5 = 1

Type 6 =

Type 7 = 2

 

Even if one makes the assumption that ALL of the single suited openings that promise 5+ cards in the bid suit are REALLY 6+ card preempts where one (rarely) stretches and opens a 5 card weak two in third seat, the preempt style style in which one opens a six card suit at the two level still isn't any more popular than the style that promises a two suited patterns (the 5/5 patterns, the 5/4 patterns, the Chimeras, and the Ekrens)

 

Furthermore, one could make the argument that the number of single suited preempts is artificially high given the presence of multiple teams from areas with fairly strict system regulations. I'd be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant relationship between local systems regs and choice of methods. I expect that there might also be a relationship between player age and methods.

[pbleighton]

If you think Fantoni-Nunes are playing "supremely undisciplined two bids.", you are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing and that you should not attempt such an approach yourself.

 

Fantoni-Nunes, like most WC pairs play a system that is the equivalent of a Formula 1 race car: =very= tuned, =very= disciplined within its design parameters, and =very= ugly when it gets into an accident.

 

They do what they are capable of and what they think they have to to win against opposition much better than most of us will ever face under conditions of contest more strenuous than most of us will ever endure.

 

What they do is based on and driven by those facts.

Players not in that class or not competing at those levels should not be making assumptions or choices regarding their own system design or play style based on what a WC pair does.

 

ROFLSHWMP.

 

I happen to play a system which is very close to F-N. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

 

They will open 2S on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. THis IS *supremely undisciplined*. I understand why they do this, as I do the same thing: combine this with a weak/mini NT, and you get very sound one bids. The two bids work, though, as long as you have the stomach for lots of anti-field results.

 

Your attempts to lecture those of us who play non-standard systems is pretty funny.

 

Peter

[Echognome]

I'm not quite sure what having the sets overlap has to do with it. The fact that we can choose different ways to show the same hand is not at question here.

 

To me, the fundamental difference is whether or not your opening bid is showing length in another suit than the one you bid. You can dice it however you like, but it's a simple premise. If it promises length in another suit, say 95% of the time (again, I don't care what the critical % is), then I say it's subject to regulation. You can 'treatment' or 'judge' all you want. All I care about is the objective criterion for the regulation. (i.e. that it does not guarantee a side suit) If it were up to me (and obviously it's not), I would define that length as 4+ cards. Then again, I'd allow it! But I'm talking about consistency in the regulation.

 

I take your point that people may get away with it because of improper disclosure, but that doesn't make it right. Just state your regulation based on hand shapes (and if you desire, hand strength) and how much leeway they have in terms of frequency and you're done. Wtp?

[foo]

If you think Fantoni-Nunes are playing "supremely undisciplined two bids.", you are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing and that you should not attempt such an approach yourself.

...

 

ROFLSHWMP.

 

I happen to play a system which is very close to F-N. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

 

They will open 2S on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. THis IS *supremely undisciplined*. I understand why they do this, as I do the same thing: combine this with a weak/mini NT, and you get very sound one bids. The two bids work, though, as long as you have the stomach for lots of anti-field results.

 

Your attempts to lecture those of us who play non-standard systems is pretty funny.

 

Peter

1= I'm not lecturing anyone. Just pointing out the logical conclusions of the evidence you are providing.

 

2= If you really are playing F-N in the style it is meant to be played, then you know those preempts =aren't= undisciplined. They are a price paid to remove certain hand types from their constructive auctions that start at the one level.

There's a big difference between doing something just to create random action and doing something because it is part of the price of System.

 

Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter. That's not the same thing as playing 1980's style Bergen preempts just to mess with the opponents heads.

[pbleighton]

1= I'm not lecturing anyone. Just pointing out the logical conclusions of the evidence you are providing.

 

Ahem.

 

If you think Fantoni-Nunes are playing "supremely undisciplined two bids.", you are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing and that you should not attempt such an approach yourself...Players not in that class or not competing at those levels should not be making assumptions or choices regarding their own system design or play style based on what a WC pair does.

 

Sounds like a lecture to me.

 

If you really are playing F-N in the style it is meant to be played, then you know those preempts =aren't= undisciplined. They are a price paid to remove certain hand types from their constructive auctions that start at the one level.

There's a big difference between doing something just to create random action and doing something because it is part of the price of System.

 

Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter.

 

You are correct that the two bids remove certain hand types from their constructive auctions that start at the one level. You are incorrect that the two bids perform badly. There was a thread a while back where one of the posters (Ben, I think) analyzed F-N's BBO results. The 2M bids performed somewhat better than the average board they opened, and their 2m boards performed worse. The overall *loss* from the 2 bids was small. Additionally, based on my(admittedly anecdotal) evidence, the weaker hands perform better than the stronger hands, as the field is opening the stronger hands 1x. For this reason, I chose the 9-12 range rather than 10-13, and *semi-forcing* 1 bids.

 

One thing I have found is that 5 card weak twos work much better with a limited range, whether it be 6-9 or 9-12. If this makes them *not undisciplined* in your phraseology, OK B)

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

...and I =really= wish people would stop using the phrase "assumed fit" unless they can mathematically =prove= that a fit exists the vast majority of the time.

 

Say ~74% of the time or better. 53% or anything close to 50/50 odds of a fit is !not! an "assumed fit". It's little better than a coin flip.

I'm attaching some comments from from original notes on the Frelling 2D. The figures that I came up with are slightly higher than some of the other staistics that have been quoted. I suspect that this is an artifact of the fact that this opening systemically denies a 4441 / 5440 shape.

 

The second simulation measured the safety of the preemptive

opening style. Our goal was to simulate the frequency with which a

preemptor would be able to successfully scramble to an eight+ card fit

opposite a 2D or 2H opening compared to players using traditional

preemptive methods. Responder will scramble whenever his diamond

length is less than or equal to his length in each major.

 

The percentage chance that the partnership will successful

scramble to an 8+ card fit can be modeled as the percentage chance

that [responder does not scramble and the partnership has an 8+ card

diamond fit] plus [the percentage chance that responder does scramble,

opener's hearts are greater than his spades, and the partnership has

an 8+ card hearts fit] plus [the percentage chance that responder does

scramble, opener's spades are greater than his hearts, and the

partnership has an 8+ card spade fit].

 

Simulations show that following a two diamond opening, the

partnership will be able to scramble to an 8+ card fit at the two

level approximately 64.6% of the time. A similar analysis was

performed for the two heart opening and found that the partnership is

able to scramble to an eight card fit in Hearts, Spades, or Clubs

66.4% of the time. Both opening bids will identify a seven+ card fit

90% of the time. In this case, the more traditional preemptive style

does come out ahead. Opposite a single suited preempt showing 6322 or

6331 hand type, the partnership will have an 8+ card fit in the bid

major on about 76.4% of all hands. However, as an interesting point

of comparison, "aggressive" players in the North America are

frequently including 5332 or 54xx hand patterns inside their 2M

opening bids. A 2M opening based on a 54xx or 5332 hand pattern will

hit an eight card fit in the bid major approximately 54.3% of the

time. Players who are interested in adopting a more aggressive

preemptive structure might find assumed fit methods to be a safe

alternative to highly undisciplined single suited preempts.