Paul Marston is wrong

[kes]

Paul Marston in reg.games.bridge in May, 25. 2005 "I would put forward 8-12 HCP openers and 13+ 1C as being my first guess at optimal design" .

 

hrothgar here , Sep 19. 2006 "I quite certain about Paul's beliefs on these matters. The only reason he switched away from light opening systems was series of ugly fights with the regulatory authorities."

 

BUT

 

hrothgar here , Aug 24. 2007 (in his kind answer to my post) " It’s extremely difficult to build a good system for all 13+ HCP hands when you start with pass. I can’t imagine doing after a 1C opening."

[Gerben42]

I agree that playing strong ♣, good ranges are 15+ and 16+, strong pass 13+ or 14+. Logically strong ♦ 17+ or 18+...

 

:)

[the hog]

You have misunderstood Richard's comment.

 

This is not Paul's idea, but rather Lukasz Slawinski's. The optimum range for opening bids is 8-12 because most hands fall into that ambit. What Richard was saying was that a 1C opening showing 13+ is not optimal. If you play pass as 13+, you have the added compensation of the fert. The pass is the weakest bid in a strong pass system, just as 1C is in Precision. The benefits are to be found elswhere. If you play a 13+ C you lose the fert.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: I don't agree with all of Paul's theories on bidding. Lord knows, he doesn't agree with all of mine. I suspect that he is a stronger player because of it.

 

Comment 2: Its unclear to me whether Paul's quote represents his actual belief or is simply a typo.

 

(A) Marston currently plays a strong club system. Said system uses a 15+ HCP 1♣ opening. If Paul genuinely believes that a 13+ HCP 1♣ is better, he doesn't practice what he preaches. (Its possible that he is worried that a 13+ HCP 1♣ would run into regulatory problems)

 

(B) Marston previously played a 13+ HCP Strong Pass system which he liked a lot

 

For all I know, Paul meant to say that he believes that a 13+ HCP pass is optimal...

 

Comment 3: If Paul's original comment wasn't a typo and he thinks that a strong club should optimally start with an average 13+ HCP... Well, I guess that this is one of those cases where we'd disagree. If I were to play a system that used 8-11 HCP limited openings and I couldn't play a strong pass, I'd want to be playing Magic Diamond or some such and use both 1♣ and 1♦ to clarify range...

[kes]

No need to meditate about the (may be superior) Forcing Pass System , as in Germany it is illegal (nearly) always . Playing Strong Club Systems since nearly 20 years , in my experience the 1 Club opening with 13+ HCP (no problem with the german regulations) is best , as Paul Marston said .

 

This opening leaves enough space for explorations , it limits the other openings in a very comfortable manner and , as I said in a previous post , reasonable opponents will not throw trash into the bidding . They will expect us to have only a partscore and they have to fear that they have still game .

[keylime]

For me, I am somewhat partial to the 15+ range for a forcing club just because it gets you into your matrix of responses "faster". And admittedly for me, there's a certain positive of going "hey, I got a good hand" internally. Call it a morale thing.

 

The minus of the 15+ is you have to be cautious on those soft 8 counts. That, and your NT ranges need to be carefully considered.

 

For the record, Larry and I play 16+ or equivalent strength, and 14-16 VUL NT's to try to keep things clean.

[rbforster]

You can compromise and get both a strong club and most light (8+) openers with a semi-forcing pass system. You heard it here first :).

 

P most 0-7 or 12-14 unbal

1♣ 15+

1♦ 8-11 4+ unbal, or 12-14 bal

1♥♠ 8-11 5+ unbal

2♣ 8-11 5+ unbal

1NT 9-11 (1♦...1NT 12-14)

higher - weak(er) bids to taste

 

No fert, almost all the high frequency 8-11 openers, and a strong club for those more familiar with that. Might want to drop the very weak NT for a more traditional 12-14 NT and an unbalanced 4+ 1♦ at Vul. Pass is only "semiforcing" in that responder bids naturally with 8+ points and passes (or preempts) with less. Should even be legal in the US, although there will be some restrictions over the weak NT range.

 

The minus of the 15+ is you have to be cautious on those soft 8 counts. That, and your NT ranges need to be carefully considered.

Heck you have to watch out for those soft balanced 8 counts playing a 16+ club - 24 3NT games don't always work out with a pair of flat hands, and 16 points balanced is the single most likely hand for the strong club opener (even more so when you're balanced). I agree on the NT range aspect of 15+ too - with 3 point ranges you can cover 9-14 balanced, but the ACBL makes it annoying to play <10 point NTs.

[kes]

Heck you have to watch out for those soft balanced 8 counts playing a 16+ club - 24 3NT games don't always work out with a pair of flat hands, and 16 points balanced is the single most likely hand for the strong club opener (even more so when you're balanced).

This is a common problem . Our 1C with 13+ and a (in principle) game-forcing answer with 11+ may be 13= & 11=. Therefore we have intercorporated an "emergency brake". If opener leaves the relays and bids 2NT he tells "only bad 13 , no fit - you may pass" . 2NT is not a good contract , but at least there are 13 + 11 = 24 on board .

[Free]

You can compromise and get both a strong club and most light (8+) openers with a semi-forcing pass system. You heard it here first :).

 

P most 0-7 or 12-14 unbal

2-way pass systems are even worse... It's not an original idea in the first place, and it doesn't work as well as you think.

[han]

The optimum range for opening bids is 8-12 because most hands fall into that ambit.

English is not my native language. Could you explain what the word "because" means in this sentence?

[hrothgar]

The optimum range for opening bids  is 8-12 because most hands fall into that ambit.

English is not my native language. Could you explain what the word "because" means in this sentence?

Here's the entry from Websters....

 

Main Entry: be·cause

Pronunciation: bi-'koz, -'k&z, -'kos, bE-

Function: conjunction

Etymology: Middle English because that, because, from by cause that

1 : for the reason that : SINCE <rested because he was tired>

2 : the fact that : THAT <the reason I haven't been fired is because my boss hasn't got round to it yet -- E. B. White>

 

Jesus Christ, I'm sure you've seen discussions about the relative merits of light versus sound openings for years. Is there any value what-so-ever in kicking off another one? No one is going to change their mind about anything.

 

Alternatively, if you're just looking for the chance to snipe at Ron then please stop acting like an passive aggressive little twit. Have to balls to come out and say what you actually think.

 

And please do so in a side channel or at least take it to the Watercooler. I'll happily start a pair of threads titled

 

"Ron is a ^$*(@#%^ head"

 

and

 

"Arend has ^(#)(# for brains"

[han]

I don't want to argue about light openers, I don't know enough about the subject.

 

I think I know something about the word "because" though, and I know that "the optimal range for opening bids is 8-12" does not follow directly from the fact that "most hands fall into that ambit".

 

Richard, you are supposed to be the purist here! I'm surprised you can stand such arguments.

[hrothgar]

I don't want to argue about light openers, I don't know enough about the subject.

 

I think I know something about the word "because" though, and I know that "the optimal range for opening bids is 8-12" does not follow directly from the fact that "most hands fall into that ambit".

 

Richard, you are supposed to be the purist here! I'm surprised you can stand such arguments.

I am able to recognize Ron's comment as fairly well established short hand.

 

I already know the supporting arguments. I know the counter arguments as well. I recognize that Ron is asserting an opinion (one that I happen to agree with by the way). I believe that he should not probably should not state this opinion as if it were incontrovertible fact.

 

I am thankful to be spared another trip arround the merry-go-round.

[awm]

Just a question for people who have tried forcing pass methods:

 

Assuming you are playing against competent, reasonably well-prepared opponents, do you expect to win IMPs/MPs when you open with the fert bid? In other words, do you feel the fert is a net win when you open it, or just that the system benefits sufficiently from re-arranging the other opening bids that accepting a small net loss for the fert is acceptable? Obviously this depends on which bid is the fert too.

 

Maybe another way to put this is, say you're playing a forcing pass with a 1♥ fert. If you were allowed two different passes, a "good pass" (showing the normal forcing pass) and a "bad pass" (showing the 1♥ fert) and then forced to discard your 1♥ opening completely, would you be better or worse off than the original system?

[Gerben42]

2-way pass systems are even worse... It's not an original idea in the first place, and it doesn't work as well as you think.

 

I agree, tried it and wasn't happy with the result.

 

Assuming you are playing against competent, reasonably well-prepared opponents, do you expect to win IMPs/MPs when you open with the fert bid? In other words, do you feel the fert is a net win when you open it, or just that the system benefits sufficiently from re-arranging the other opening bids that accepting a small net loss for the fert is acceptable? Obviously this depends on which bid is the fert too.

 

Maybe another way to put this is, say you're playing a forcing pass with a 1♥ fert. If you were allowed two different passes, a "good pass" (showing the normal forcing pass) and a "bad pass" (showing the 1♥ fert) and then forced to discard your 1♥ opening completely, would you be better or worse off than the original system?

 

Yes, I expect to win imps on all bids except the Pass opening. It is well-defined enough (yes my fert is 1♥ btw) as long as your maximum is about 8 or so.

[hrothgar]

Just a question for people who have tried forcing pass methods:

 

Assuming you are playing against competent, reasonably well-prepared opponents, do you expect to win IMPs/MPs when you open with the fert bid? In other words, do you feel the fert is a net win when you open it, or just that the system benefits sufficiently from re-arranging the other opening bids that accepting a small net loss for the fert is acceptable? Obviously this depends on which bid is the fert too.

 

Maybe another way to put this is, say you're playing a forcing pass with a 1♥ fert. If you were allowed two different passes, a "good pass" (showing the normal forcing pass) and a "bad pass" (showing the 1♥ fert) and then forced to discard your 1♥ opening completely, would you be better or worse off than the original system?

Unfortunately, I don't have any detailed records available any more.

 

As I recall, our ferts had a positive expected value, but nothing enormous.

 

The limited openings were big winners. The strong pass had a negative expectation.

 

We used a variable fert (2♣ white versus red. Otherwise 1♥...)

[rbforster]

P  most 0-7 or 12-14 unbal

2-way pass systems are even worse... It's not an original idea in the first place, and it doesn't work as well as you think.

Most of the time I hear about 2-way pass systems, it refers to 2-way forcing pass systems where the strong option in pass is 16+ or something similar to a strong club. My suggested pass is neither strong in that context, nor forcing. If there are systems out there like my proposed one, I'd welcome pointers. I haven't seen any.

[joshs]

Just a question for people who have tried forcing pass methods:

 

Assuming you are playing against competent, reasonably well-prepared opponents, do you expect to win IMPs/MPs when you open with the fert bid? In other words, do you feel the fert is a net win when you open it, or just that the system benefits sufficiently from re-arranging the other opening bids that accepting a small net loss for the fert is acceptable? Obviously this depends on which bid is the fert too.

 

Maybe another way to put this is, say you're playing a forcing pass with a 1♥ fert. If you were allowed two different passes, a "good pass" (showing the normal forcing pass) and a "bad pass" (showing the 1♥ fert) and then forced to discard your 1♥ opening completely, would you be better or worse off than the original system?

Based on personal experience, but no decent statistical study:

Fert=Loss

 

When Red,

FERT=Big Loss

 

At Red, I know higher ferts (1S>1H>1D>1C) have a bigger loss expectation then lower FERTs.

 

When White the trend hasn't been obvious to me.

 

The main point of the FERT (against decent defensive methods) is to fill a hole in the bidding structure.

 

BTW, I feel strongly the the best defense against a FERT at IMPS or when they are red at MPs, especially against a higher FERT, is to try to penalize them as much as possible.

[helene_t]

The optimum range for opening bids  is 8-12 because most hands fall into that ambit.

English is not my native language. Could you explain what the word "because" means in this sentence?

Not my native language either but I'm practicing a little due to my soon move to England:

 

It means that it's more likely to be an advantage than to be a disadvantage to be able to show a distributional feature early in the auction. Assuming that the opening range must be five points broad and that the advantage of being able to show a distributional feature is the same no matter how strong the hand is, one should adopt the most frequent five-point range.

 

I have three issues with this. First, why should the range be only five points broad? 0-37 surely is the most frequent range! I suppose the more space-consuming bids should be more precisely defined. Now if playing natural MAF major suit openings, 1♥/♠ are not very descript in terms of distribution so that style should probably be compensated by a narrow range, while transfer openings and/or five-card majors (or Canape) would allow for a broader range. FWIW, I believe in the "color first" principle so I would rather play wide-range 5cM than narrow-range MAF 4cM. (Among 4cM systems I have the most sympathy for something like Little Major with wide-range transfer openings, but that's an armchair theory, I have never played that).

 

Second, whether one should emphasize weak, intermediate or strong hands probably depends on circumstances. At IMPs favorable, it it relatively important to show shape early with the weak hands where a lot can be gained by jamming opps' slam bidding and suggest a sac. At IMPs unfavorable, it is important to show the strong hands before opps jam us. At MPs, it is important to get a head start in the partscore battle with the intermediate hands. Consider the Loranzo system with an 8-11 pass. This is the antithesis of what Ron says. An expert I once met who plays this says it doesn't make sense at MP.

 

Third, in second seat 8-12 is no longer the most frequent 5-point range, assuming RHOs pass shows weakness.

[han]

It means that it's more likely to be an advantage than to be a disadvantage to be able to show a distributional feature early in the auction.

Maybe that's what he meant but that's not what the sentence means. So keep practicing. :P

[MickyB]

You can compromise and get both a strong club and most light (8+) openers with a semi-forcing pass system.  You heard it here first :P.

 

P  most 0-7 or 12-14 unbal

2-way pass systems are even worse... It's not an original idea in the first place, and it doesn't work as well as you think.

The effectiveness of two-way bids depends on the precise definition.

 

I maintain that a 1♣ opening showing 11-13 bal or any 17+ does very well, because -

 

* Partner can assume you have 11-13 bal (the dominant handtype) unless you tell him otherwise, which you'll usually be fine to do

* He never wants to bid opposite 11-13 bal but not opposite 17+

* If partner bids on the assumption you have 11-13 bal, it is still useful information opposite the strong type

* If partner wants to bid opposite 11-13 bal, you are happy to be in a GF auction opposite the strong type

* The dominant hand-type never wants to take another call in competition unless raising partner

 

The following definitions for opening bids fall down on at least some of these points -

 

* 1♣ as 11+ with clubs or 15-19 bal

* Pass as any 0-7 or any 16+

* Pass as any 0-7 or 12-14 bal (the stronger hand will often feel unable to take a call in a competitive auction, so pard will go on assuming you have 0-7)

 

Pass as 0-7 or 12-14 unbal does fairly well on these points. Often, the unbalanced nature of the strong type will enable you to bid at your second turn.

[Impact]

Having almost 30 years experience of ferts:-

 

a) vulnerable ferts are a big mistake even at imps while at mps -200 is a frequent disaster. Corollary : for more than a decade I have resisted playing any system which required a vulnerable fert. Pass when vulnerable is a great option!

 

:P when you own the partscore, opening a fert is likely to be antipercentage and unsurprisingly makes finding the right partscore that much more difficult (pre-emption works against you here fairly obviously). These are the hands you are most likely to lose out on particularly a secondary (eg 44) fit or fit based on primary length in fert's hand;

 

c) when you have a real dog and can up the ante with a 1S or 2C fert at favourable, your opponents labour to bid slams (much less grands) : the pre-emption works in your favour;

 

d) against good opponents the fert can give them information in the play of the hand;

 

e) like any other pre-empt a fert may stop them bidding some games and push them into others (which may make) thereby causing a randomisation or swinging effect;

 

f) the only "2-way forcing pass" I like is at radical extremes of the range and is pretty much prohibited by ACBL: ie Pass is either 0-4 or 16+ so that there is an injection of additional risk in the defenders' destructive actions (their "weak jump overcall" on a tactical basis on 15HCP now looks stupid when it is their hand, or moving on some 44 generates too high an auction etc). Note if HUMs are permitted the 2-way structure is permitted but in most jurisdictions it is increasingly rare;

 

g) other 2-way forcing or non-forcing pass systems are "hole-fillers" for your constructive system but place your side at a radical disadvantage when those hands occur in both theory and practice;

 

h) Richard & Ron are correct as to statistical frequency of occurrence of the 8-12 HCP range on any given deal, but of course the corollary as to whether frequency of occurrence ALONE is sufficient justification for allocation of bids is a separate matter. Funnily enough it makes sense at pairs where frequency is king (but now you as superior players will be disadvantaged by rarely playing in the same contract as others) but size of result matters more at imps (clearly) and my experience is that it is less clear here (in fact doubtful). This does not mean that methods in 3rd & 4th seat should be exactly the same as 1st and second - au contraire as who would wish to fert in 4th seat to give the most obvious example!

 

i) The experience is based on records of every auction that Bob & I have played in ANY competition and bidding competitions and practice hands over 20+ years as he maintains such scrupulously!!! It is still anecdotal but I suggest there are few if any southern hemisphere players with an equivalent database.

Against better players not trying to get clever the fert at teams is an overall loser, but a frequent winner against their slams (sort of like a mini -2NT slam killer...).

 

j) ferts appeal to juniors to get a chance to bid on really bad hands and jam the opponents but like big club/strong pass, it is the remainder of the hands (midrange) which derive benefit.;

 

k) If you are going to fert, to do so "safely" via 1C/D is losing bridge as it gives the opponents a fielder's choice to bid to their par contract with improved information or to attempt penalties with no pre-emptive risk: it is VERY easy to design systems which take advantage of 1m fert to clarify your own constructive bidding;

 

l) subject to the usual adjustments my view is to go fairly mainstream to allow maximum exposure with bids: 10-15HCP approximately which requires less fiddling with your judgement in responding -developed over many years as well, while allowing play in most events;

 

m) I find it bizarre that so many organisations have placed a regulatory ban on 2-way methods and/or psyching the strongest possible bid both in terms of taking the tactical nous out of the game and placing too great an advantage in the hands of the defensive side.

 

Finally, I find it remarkable that organisations have gone out of their way to ban intelligent system design: eg encryption, limiting the "number of systems" a partnership may play when it is clear that at unfavourable say a system based on ROMEX big bid rinciples has advantages, all vul a big club is reasonable, n/v a strong pass is playable and at favourable a strong pass and fert actually sensible!! Particularly in the latter instances fairly obviously the 3rd and 4th seat bids are different from those in 1st and 2nd which also fall foul of the regulatory requirements!

 

Of course, being that rara avis, a system maven and designer, I see the benefits but that does not necessarily make it practical even were it allowed as very few partners are able to cope with 1 system both on memory and derivation/application of principle in the heat of battle, much less many!

 

IMHO that is not an excuse for regulatory bodies to deny the opportunity!

 

regards

[the hog]

I don't want to argue about light openers, I don't know enough about the subject.

 

I think I know something about the word "because" though, and I know that "the optimal range for opening bids is 8-12" does not follow directly from the fact that "most hands fall into that ambit".

 

Richard, you are supposed to be the purist here! I'm surprised you can stand such arguments.

Yes it does. I am surprised that you don't understand the comment as your English seems to be a lot better than your partner's. Perhaps his recent bad manners and arrogance are rubbing off on you.

 

"The optimum range for opening bids is 8-12 because most hands fall into that ambit."

 

I will make it easier for you. Most hands fall into the 8-12 range. Therefore that is the optimum range for opening bids. The reason of course, is that you are opening more often. Now if you wish to continue being an a******e, (Engllish spelling), you can.

[matmat]

I will make it easier for you. Most hands fall into the 8-12 range. Therefore that is the optimum range for opening bids. The reason of course, is that you are opening more often. Now if you wish to continue being an a******e, (Engllish spelling), you can.

so opening more often is better for my scores?

[han]

I should have known that English wasn't your problem Hoggy.