Is there a hole in this logic?

[hrothgar]

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.

Once again, you demonstrate that you're full of crap.

 

Roman Club was using various two suited and three openings back in the 1950s.

Admittedly, this was with constructive strength openings, however, the basic concept of has been well established for 50+ years.

 

If we want to limit ourselves to preemptive methods:

 

I first saw reference to Wilkosz 2♦ back in the early 90s and was told that it was old and hoary at that point in time. I suspect (but can't prove) that the genesis of two suited preempts was the Polish work on weak opening systems.

 

I believe that the first highly popular two suited preempt outside Poland was the Muiderberg 2M opening that Jan van Cleef introduced in Bridge magazine back around 1994.

[foo]

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.

Once again, you demonstrate that you're full of crap.

 

Roman Club was using various two suited and three openings back in the 1950s.

Admittedly, this was with constructive strength openings, however, the basic concept of has been well established for 50+ years.

 

If we want to limit ourselves to preemptive methods:

 

I first saw reference to Wilkosz 2♦ back in the early 90s and was told that it was old and hoary at that point in time. I suspect (but can't prove) that the genesis of two suited preempts was the Polish work on weak opening systems.

 

I believe that the first highly popular two suited preempt outside Poland was the Muiderberg 2M opening that Jan van Cleef introduced in Bridge magazine back around 1994.

Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully.

 

Bridge is ~80 years old. Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.

That's all I said.

 

Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

[hrothgar]

Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully.

 

Bridge is ~80 years old.  Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.

That's all I said.

 

Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

Read what you wrote idiot

 

You stated that multi suited openings are relatively new. In fact, they date back 50+ years. (BTW, as I recall, Little Major also used a 2M opening that showed a two suited pattern)

 

You stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere. They weren't. Two suited methods were in common use in Poland more than 30 years ago.

[foo]

...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.

 

<snip>

 

Simulations show that following a 2D 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 7+ 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.

I did not ask for this, but thanks for providing it anyway.

 

I think we can both agree that "7 card fits" are not what we traditionally mean by "fit" in Bridge.

 

This Frelling 2bid of yours seems to exist in an interesting region regarding the assumption of 8+ card fit. The fit assumption is not nearly as good as traditional Weak Twos, but is clearly better than random.

 

Depending on the value range shown by the opening, I can easily imagine this being a nightmare for regulating officials to adjudicate on the Constructive <-> Destructive continuum.

 

Clearly, the conservative stance would be to insist that that any 2level preempt must have the same statisical assumption of fit and chances of being a makable contract as a traditional Weak Two.

(If any regulating official objects to an opening with essentially the same chances of being Constructive as a traditional Weak Two, they are going to have a =very= hard time justifying themselves.)

 

Please note that I am not advocating or opposing the conservative stance. Simply mentioning it as a reasonable starting point for theorists who are trying to get new methods adopted.

[foo]

Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully.

 

Bridge is ~80 years old.  Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.  That's all I said.

 

Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

Read what you wrote idiot

 

You stated that multi suited openings are relatively new. In fact, they date back 50+ years. (BTW, as I recall, Little Major also used a 2M opening that showed a two suited pattern)

 

You stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere. They weren't. Two suited methods were in common use in Poland 30 years ago.

That's 2x in the last few posts that you've crossed the ZT line. One more and you get reported.

 

??? I never denied Constructive 2suited openings existed (heck, Blue Team club had a Constructive multi-suited opening), I denied multi-suited =preempts= had been around for very long relative to the overall history of Bridge.

 

Outside of Poland, we obviously agree this is true.

 

Without reputable documentation one way or the other, we can't definitively state how accurate or not your suspicions are regarding multi-suit preempts being "old and hoary" within Poland. The statements you mention to that effect =are= anecdotal evidence. To the point of rumor.

 

Now be polite please.

[hrothgar]

??? I never denied Constructive 2suited openings existed (heck, Blue Team club had a Constructive multi-suited opening), I denied multi-suited =preempts= had been around for very long relative to the overall history of Bridge.

 

Outside of Poland, we obviously agree this is true. 

 

Without reputable documentation one way or the other, we can't definitively state how accurate or not your suspicions are regarding multi-suit preempts being "old and hoary" within Poland.  The statements you mention to that effect =are= anecdotal evidence.  To the point of rumor.

 

Now be polite please.

Quoting Matula in "The Polish Club", page 143

 

This weak two-suited opening has for years been one of the most characteristic parts of Polish Club.  In Poland, almost everybody has been using it for years.

 

It dates back 30+ years

[foo]

There we go. Objective evidence. That wasn't hard. Thank you.

 

Now what =exactly= is the description of this 30+ year old multi-suited preempt according to the verifiable documentation?

 

(I'll ignore that "30+" is less than 1/2 of "80+" and for the sake a getting along call it "close enough").

 

EDIT: Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library. It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago". Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is. He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

 

The Wilkosz 2♦ seems to have had the traditional Weak Two range of ~7-11 or ~5-10 at Favorable.

Matula spends an entire chapter on it.

[hrothgar]

There we go. Objective evidence. That wasn't hard. Thank you.

 

Now what =exactly= is the description of this 30+ year old multi-suited preempt according to the verifiable documentation?

 

(I'll ignore that "30+" is less than 1/2 of "80+" and for the sake a getting along call it "close enough").

If you look back to my original post, it should be fairly obvious that I was referring to a Wilkosz 2♦

 

I first saw reference to Wilkosz 2♦ back in the early 90s and was told that it was old and hoary at that point in time. I suspect (but can't prove) that the genesis of two suited preempts was the Polish work on weak opening systems.

[hrothgar]

I denied multi-suited =preempts= had been around for very long relative to the overall history of Bridge.

 

Outside of Poland, we obviously agree this is true. 

 

Without reputable documentation one way or the other, we can't definitively state how accurate or not your suspicions are regarding multi-suit preempts being "old and hoary" within Poland.  The statements you mention to that effect =are= anecdotal evidence.  To the point of rumor.

I was using Poland as one counter example. There might be others... Please recall, you were the one who stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere.

 

BTW, the high undisciplined EHAA 2M openings could probably be considered as another early example of a two suited preempt. (At the very least, this can't be considered single suited), For what its worth, I'm happy to agree that EHAA wasn't a particular popular system, even during its heyday.

 

Playing EHAA, a two level preempt was almost mandatory with any unbalanced hand holding 5+ cards in a suit and 7-12 HCP.

 

For example, many EHAA practioners would open 2♠ on

 

♠ 65432

♥ VOID

♦ KQ43

♣ AQ43

 

The two and three suited hand patterns were many times more frequent than the single suited hand types.

[foo]

Sorry, I have to retract my acceptance of your statement that Wilcosz 2♦ is "30+ years old".

 

I Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library. It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago". Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is. He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

[hrothgar]

EDIT: Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library.  It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago".  Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is.  He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

 

The Wilkosz 2♦ seems to have had the traditional Weak Two range of ~7-11 or ~5-10 at Favorable. Matula spends an entire chapter on it.

Matula's book on Polish club was translated into English and Copyrighted in 1994. My understanding is that the Polish version is a few years older.

 

I put a post out on rec.games.bridge to double check the precise age.

[foo]

EDIT: Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library.  It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago".  Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is.  He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

 

The Wilkosz 2♦ seems to have had the traditional Weak Two range of ~7-11 or ~5-10 at Favorable. Matula spends an entire chapter on it.

Matula's book on Polish club was translated into English and Copyrighted in 1994. My understanding is that the Polish version is a few years older.

 

I put a post out on rec.games.bridge to double check the precise age.

Thank you.

[foo]

Back to the main point of this thread.

 

What is the feeling regarding using "statistical equivalence" to existing methods as a yard stick for accepting new methods?

 

So for instance we submit a new multi-suit 2level preempt that has provably the ~ same odds of Assumed Fit and of finding a makable contract as a traditional single suited Weak Two.

 

As I previously stated, this =is= a conservative stance. But it is one that would make it very hard to refuse acceptance of a new method since it is provably just as Constructive as an already accepted method.

[the hog]

I have a copy of a 1975 Australian Bridge which discusses Tartan Two Bids. Among various strong options, Tartan Twos also include 2 suited opening bids. They are a Hugh Kelsey invention and were in vogue well before 1975 in Scotland. This seems to back up Richard's argument.

[foo]

I have a copy of a 1975 Australian Bridge which discusses Tartan Two Bids. Among various strong options, Tartan Twos also include 2 suited opening bids. They are a Hugh Kelsey invention and were in vogue well before 1975 in Scotland. This seems to back up Richard's argument.

I thought Tartan Twos were -not- preempts?

[the hog]

They have pre emptive as well as strong options.

[helene_t]

What is the feeling regarding using "statistical equivalence" to existing methods as a yard stick for accepting new methods?

 

So for instance we submit a new multi-suit 2level preempt that has provably the ~ same odds of Assumed Fit and of finding a makable contract as a traditional single suited Weak Two.

 

As I previously stated, this =is= a conservative stance. But it is one that would make it very hard to refuse acceptance of a new method since it is provably just as Constructive as an already accepted method.

So 5-card preempts would not be allowed since they are less "constructive" than 6-card preempts. Would Fantunes 2-openings be allowed? I'm sure one could parametrize the criteria and the Fantunes system such that they would not be allowed in 1st seat but may or may not be allowed in second seat depending on opps' opening style. Or they may or may not be allowed depending on responders ability to judge which partscores has the best chances, or depending on the influence the opening exerts on opps' choice of opening lead.

 

I can't get excited about technical criteria for allowing methods unless the target is clear: we first need to discuss what we want to achieve.

 

After all, it's easy to make up some enforceable criteria. "The promised number of hearts plus the promised HCP must be a Fibinacci number" or some such. That's not very interesting. What is interesting is

- what consequences would a candidate criterion have? This is complex since it depends on a bunch

of local setting parameters, such as local TDs' interpretation of the criterion, and players' creativity in

terms of inventing workarounds.

- Are those criteria desirable? Depending on the projected consequences this can be anything from

obvious to a matter of taste.

[foo]

Helene,

 

What I think awm started this thread to achieve, and what I know I've wanted to see for some time, is an attempt to make an objective and fair system for deciding on what new methods to allow.

 

The present situation, evidently especially within the ACBL, seems fraught with subjective criteria and decisions that many feel were not based on Bridge merits but rather on less savory factors.

 

So the questions are "Can we do better?" and if so, "What does 'do better' look like?"

[cherdano]

I can't get excited about technical criteria for allowing methods unless the target is clear: we first need to discuss what we want to achieve.

I think one of Adam's goals is pretty clear and highly desirable: that the fact whether a method is allowed doesn't depend on the way you present it, allowing for some ugly lawyering as shown by one of the BBF lawyers (not mikeh): "We don't play Muiderberg, that would be disallowed, but we play 5-card weak twos, the bid shows an unbalanced hand, and of course we don't open 2M with four cards in the other major."

[rbforster]

Richard, in your 2005 Bermuda search, where did you put 2♥ multi? I thought I recall it being popular at Bermuda events, but it's not quite the same as a single suiter in the bid suit.

[DrTodd13]

Adam seems to want a consistent and logical system. The problem is that the people writing the rules don't care about consistency.

[Free]

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.

 

Peter

A bit late in this discussion tnx to an entertaining discussion about 2-suited preempts. Fantunes do NOT open 2♠ on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. They open 1♠ when they have both Majors... However, the point is still valid for hands like Jxxxx-x-Kxxx-AKQ :(

[skjaeran]

Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully.

 

Bridge is ~80 years old.  Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.

That's all I said.

 

Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

Read what you wrote idiot

 

You stated that multi suited openings are relatively new. In fact, they date back 50+ years. (BTW, as I recall, Little Major also used a 2M opening that showed a two suited pattern)

 

You stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere. They weren't. Two suited methods were in common use in Poland more than 30 years ago.

I started playing Multi around 1980, probably -81. The convention was in commom use in Norway around 1985. 2-suited preempts like Muiderberg (that name was unknown here) was also common at that time. In the early 90's I used some 2-way preempts too.

[hrothgar]

Richard, in your 2005 Bermuda search, where did you put 2♥ multi? I thought I recall it being popular at Bermuda events, but it's not quite the same as a single suiter in the bid suit.

2♥ multi was listed under artificial.

 

(I only saw one pair playing it though. I think it was one of the Swedish pairs)

[helene_t]

What about this one:

Everything is allowed but adopting a system for the main purpose of stealing candy from children who don't know what a double on a 3+ canape bid, or a pass-or-convert bid, means, is considered poor sportsmanship

The problem with that one is not so much that some won't care if they are considered good sportsmen or not, but more that players may have different ideas about who the "children" are, and what it means to "steal candy". (If Major Flash is just inherently difficult to defend, rather than requiring specific agreements for the defense, it may not count). Maybe the biggest problem is that if Todd and Atul choose to play Dejeuner for whatever (maybe entirely constructive) reason, they expose themselves to claims from others that they have "ulterior" motives.

 

Still I tend to see the above as the best we have. I might be wrong. It's possible that players are actually happyer in a restrictive jurisdiction than in a permissive one, or that they could be happier if only someone invented some rational and logical restrictions.

 

Case in point: The Jansma dbl. An occasional double on 4N (Blackwood or whatever) if you think you can beat it. Hoping that opps don't remember what RoPi-like answers they agreed on. Is it good sportmanship to use that kind of strategies against novices? I'm not sure where to draw the line but if a pair designed their entire system based on that kind of strategies and played it against novices they would not have my sympathy (unless of course confined to a setting where that kind of strategies are the norm, and the newbies accepted that when they joined the club).

 

But my point is that I don't really believe in formal rules to restrict such strategies.