Paul Marston is wrong

[the hog]

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?

Absolutely!

If you open 8-12 ranges you can get in and out of the auction very quickly. How do you think the opponents feel about this auction:

1D (P) 2S ?

Where 1D = 8-12 and 4+S and 2S = a non forcing S raise.

 

The limited opening bids are HUGE winners in such a system. The strong pass is a losing bid just like the Precision 1C opening bid. We also gained on the fert.

[matmat]

If you open 8-12 ranges you can get in and out of the auction very quickly. How do you think the opponents feel about this auction:

1D (P) 2S ?

Where 1D = 8-12 and 4+S and 2S = a non forcing S raise.

 

The limited opening bids are HUGE winners in such a system. The strong pass is a losing bid just like the Precision 1C opening bid. We also gained on the fert.

now, does this also work against good players who know what they are doing, or just against the LOLs?

[the hog]

If you open 8-12 ranges you can get in and out of the auction very quickly. How do you think the opponents feel about this auction:

1D (P) 2S ?

Where 1D = 8-12 and 4+S and 2S = a non forcing S raise.

 

The limited opening bids are HUGE winners in such a system. The strong pass is a losing bid just like the Precision 1C opening bid. We also gained on the fert.

now, does this also work against good players who know what they are doing, or just against the LOLs?

In fact those organisations that allow you to play such methods eg the Aust Bridge Fed., only let you play Strong Pass systems if you are in the top 25% of the field in 14+ board matches. Yes, it does work against strong players. To answer your next question, the reason people don't play these methods is the lack of opportunity.

[the hog]

Even good players have problems if they are forced to start their auctions at higher levels. Also note Josh's earlier comment regarding penalising the fert. From experience, I would argue that this is a sub optimal method. Bidding over a fert should be constructive imo, but somehow the fact that you can open 1H 0-7 is a red rag to a bull to many players.

[han]

joshs's name is Josh, not Justin.

[the hog]

He has also turned into a ventriloquist.

[skjaeran]

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

That 1♣ opening really sucks. Provided opps have an intelligent defence. (And it's ridiculously easy to defend against.) I used to play a lot against Carrot Club some ten years ago. When a competitive sequence occured where there was a fight for the part score we won 5-7 IMPs. ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME

 

The main reason why it sucks is that the 1♣ opener in competiton has to double on all 17+ hands (where he can't make a natural bid in a suit) even if the hand doesn't have a t/o distribution whereas a big club opener can pass those hands, knowing that partner will act.

 

What happened was that opponents didn't compete when they had the highers contract. Or that they competed and went down when we'd have gone down. And this had nothing to do with bad judgement or play, our opponents was a very strong pair, placing 10th in the 1991 European Pairs Championship.

[paulg]

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

That 1♣ opening really sucks. Provided opps have an intelligent defence. (And it's ridiculously easy to defend against.) I used to play a lot against Carrot Club some ten years ago. When a competitive sequence occured where there was a fight for the part score we won 5-7 IMPs. ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME

And the best defence is?

[keylime]

I hate to say it but, I don't think the lead Irish pair (Hugh McGann and Tom Hanlon if memory serves) and one of the better pairings in the world would agree with the level of "suck" with their 2 way club meaning.

[awm]

Contrary to what the_hog seems to think, I'm pretty sure the jury's still out on the light opening methods. There are many issues, for example:

 

(1) While 8-12 is certainly a more common range to hold than 13-16, there are also certainly more total 13-16 hands than hands with 8-12 and a particular distribution. This means that a minimum-range forcing pass is going to be much more frequent than any particular 8-12 opening bid. This is probably not optimum use of space: it would seem to make sense to have more than one opening call on the 13-16 range while still having several opening bids that potentially show the 8-12 range.

 

(2) Certainly you will win some partscore swings on auctions like the one given (1♦(spades) - P - 2♠) as it becomes hard for opponents to judge correctly whether to compete. But you will also lose some partscore swings when the field is bidding 1♠-P-2♠ and you are opening with a forcing pass, allowing opponents to get their suit bids in before yours. Obviously the first type of hand is more common (8-12 more frequent than 13-16 range) but there will be compensating losses.

 

(3) Especially at IMP scoring, game/slam bidding is often key. Yes, partscore swings do matter, but our own side's game/slam bidding will often be more difficult when we open virtually all hands where slam is at all probable (13+ hcp hands) with a single nebulous bid. The light initial action methods seem to be saying "we'll sacrifice accuracy in our own constructive bidding in order to get in your face early and disrupt your constructive bidding." It's not clear that this is even a net win.

 

(4) One thing that's hard to do, even with the best relay system in the world, is to locate opponents cards in the auction. Say I want to be in 3NT only when spades are 4-3, or I want to bid a slam only if a certain finesse is on. Nobody's developed the "opponent suit asking bid" yet to reveal the enemy holdings (okay maybe Xango club has it, and that pair suspended for cheating recently seems to have the methods). But by opening hands no one else will open when the eventual contract belongs to opponents, light opening methods can actually solve this problem for the opposition!

 

In any case, I suspect that light initial action/forcing pass methods will tend to win on the 8-12 hands and lose on the 13+ hands. While there are more of the former than the latter, the magnitude of the wins and losses (even at MP) has to be taken into account as well, and it's not clear that the system is really going to be a net win. It also seems that opening super-light balanced hands has more or less fallen out of fashion, and that this makes sense on many levels since balanced hands are often more suited to defending.

 

It's unfortunate that convention committees have tended to disallow these methods (making it hard to tell whether they're actually superior or not) but I can see the viewpoint that fert bids (in particular) are hard to defend using any standardized defense and also tend to randomize results. It's also difficult to judge how good "the system" actually is when you obtain a lot of wins from opponents who don't really have good defenses (this makes a lot of "weird" conventions look better than they actually are when analyzed from a bridgebrowser type approach; even relatively common non-standard methods like the multi 2♦ appear to be substantial wins on bridgebrowser while most expert players consider multi itself a small loss when compared to natural weak two bids, with compensating wins for the alternate uses of 2M openings).

[skjaeran]

And the best defence is?

The best - no idea?

What we used was:

pass=8-14 balanced

X=15+ balanced

1♦=0-7

1M=natural 8-14

1NT=15+unbalanced

I don't remeber if 2-level bids was natural or 2-way, they showed 8-14 hands.

Vulnerable we switched the meanings of pass and 1♦.

 

The basic idea is to tell at once strenght and hand type, so that partner will know if we should bid obstructively, compete for partscore, invite or force to game etc, while openers hand type is still unknown for responder.

[joshs]

Even good players have problems if they are forced to start their auctions at higher levels. Also note Josh's earlier comment regarding penalising the fert. From experience, I would argue that this is a sub optimal method. Bidding over a fert should be constructive imo, but somehow the fact that you can open 1H 0-7 is a red rag to a bull to many players.

Bidding over the FERT of course needs to be constructive. What does that have to do with penalizing them or not? The main question is:

Can you make up for the loss in bidding space in some other way?

If you think about it, its actually theorectically impossible to make up for the loss of a 1C,1D and 1H bid with only 1 call x. So you will do worse then average in constructive bidding here.

 

So how do you make up for the loss of space?

There are only 2 ways.

1. Taking more tricks when you play the hand

2. Gain when the Fert bidding side declares the hand, especially if you can x them effectively, or when they play in a silly strain when your side has no game.

 

In particular, if you can force them out of 1H and reveal what they have while providing valuable information to partner about your hand, even if they escape from an eventualy penalty x, you will play the hand close to double dummy (see advantage 1).

 

So from my forcing pass experience (and analysis) x of the FERT should be ART, and equavalent to a penalty x of a weak NT (typically any shape 15+, but 15's with very short hearts should do something else, and 14's with primary hearts should x tactfully just to make them reveal their hands) and should establish a forcing pass.

I play the 1N overcall as a sound takeout x of hearts, and otherwise things are pretty natural.

 

After, 1H-P-P

or 1H-P-A Non-Forcing bid

x's are takeout and NT is natural.

 

Occasionally you end up defending 1H-x when both sides are guessing, but mostly the x gives significant compensation to your side....

[han]

I agree with awm's long post.

 

A shorter way to say it is that there are many many factors that influence what the best system is.

[keylime]

I as well agree with Adam. I personally am not sold at all with light openers in a 2/1 style system versus a limited bid system. However it's strictly an opinion and not empirical in scope.

[glen]

Most hands fall into the 8-12 range. Therefore that is the optimum range for opening bids.

But is it the optimum to open these at the one level?

 

Say one played a modifed EHAA:

 

1♣: 15+ balanced or 12+ ♣s

1♦: 12+ ♦s

1♥: 4♥s quasi-balanced 9-11 or 12+ 5+♥s

1♠: 4♠s quasi-balanced 9-11 or 12+ 5+♠s

1NT: 12-14 balanced

2X: 5+ suit, 8-11

 

Isn't it quite possible that the 2X openings would be more successful than the 8-12 1X versions?

[the hog]

What we played when we played against those methods, ie 8-12 openings and a 1H fert

(1H) X = 16+, precision style with 1S neg

1S = natural, opening bid

1NT = bal/semi bal 12-15

2C = opening bid, t/f to H

2D= natural

2H = 4H, long minor

2S = 4S long minor

2N = both ms

3? = 14-15, excellent 6+ suit, s/s

[akhare]

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!

I can't hold a candle to Impact's 30 year experience, but for what it's worth, I concur with the statement.

 

DrTodd and I (foobar on BBO) having been playing a 1♥ fert system for a few years and switched over to playing FP only when non-vul.

 

We did go down -7 in a 1♥-X contract recently :) (in a 4-3 fit, but everything was wrong and the opps defended well too) and shudder to think of meeting such a fate if we had been vul...

[Gerben42]

We did go down -7 in a 1♥-X contract recently (in a 4-3 fit, but everything was wrong and the opps defended well too) and shudder to think of meeting such a fate if we had been vul...

 

just 300 points more :)

 

Don't tell me -1700 was siginficantly better than -2000.

[MickyB]

I used to play a lot against Carrot Club some ten years ago. When a competitive sequence occured where there was a fight for the part score we won 5-7 IMPs. ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME

 

Bizarre. Most of the time opener will be 11-13 balanced, in which case he has described his hand very well and rates to gain IMPs in a competitive auction.

 

The main reason why it sucks is that the 1♣ opener in competiton has to double on all 17+ hands (where he can't make a natural bid in a suit) even if the hand doesn't have a t/o distribution whereas a big club opener can pass those hands, knowing that partner will act.

 

Well, yes and no. If you don't have a takeout distribution and you don't have a suit to bid, you will be fairly balanced. These hands can choose to bid 2NT, double or pass depending on the actual hand and the auction.

 

I think it is unfair to compare how these hands are handled against a strong 1♣ opening. There is one type of hand that is well-placed in competition having opened a strong club, and that is it.

 

Try comparing it to SA. The 18-19 balanced hands are similarly poorly placed. Short club and 14-16 NT has a big following, and that too has to show the 17-19 bal hand at its second turn, no matter the level of the auction. In fact, you are better placed having opened a Swedish Club, because partner has had the opportunity to make a negative freebid/takeout double on the assumption that there is 11-13 bal opposite. Even if you play NFBs opposite a short club opening, you can't make them as frequently because partner may have a misfitting hand with clubs, whereas the Swedish Club guarantees either tolerance for your suit or GF values.

[skjaeran]

I used to play a lot against Carrot Club some ten years ago. When a competitive sequence occured where there was a fight for the part score we won 5-7 IMPs. ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME

 

Bizarre. Most of the time opener will be 11-13 balanced, in which case he has described his hand very well and rates to gain IMPs in a competitive auction.

Compared to the pair playing natural methods on the other table he's far behind. They have shown a 4-card suit or two, have found their fit and on occasion are bidding undisturbed. Whereas his partner only knows that opener has a balanced 11-13 and knows nothing about what suit(s) opener holds lenght in.

[jtfanclub]

Compared to the pair playing natural methods on the other table he's far behind. They have shown a 4-card suit or two, have found their fit and on occasion are bidding undisturbed. Whereas his partner only knows that opener has a balanced 11-13 and knows nothing about what suit(s) opener holds lenght in.

Hmmm? Take the auction:

 

1♣ (1♠) X (P)

1NT

 

X is takeout, promising 4 hearts or a GF hand.

 

If the 1 club is Carrot (so the hand is 11-13 balanced without 4 hearts), or SA (so the hand is 11-14 balanced or semibalanced, without 4 hearts) how is he worse placed?

 

How about an undisturbed auction? I don't play Carrot, but a hypothetical 2-way Precision might be....

 

1♣ 1♦

1♥ 1NT

 

In two-way, the auction shows....

1♣ 11-13 or 17+

1♦ 8+ hcp, any shape

1♥ 11-13, 4 card heart suit.

1NT 8-11 hcp, balanced, no 4 card suit.

 

Has this revealed more or less than the same auction in SA?

 

I don't buy the 'natural methods' argument compared to SA.

 

In Standard American, 1 club shows....

 

A) 12-14 hcp balanced, does not contain 4+ diamonds or a 5 card major

B) 18-19 hcp balanced, coes not contain 4+ diamonds or a 5 card major

C) 11-22 hcp 5+ clubs or exactly 4-4-1-4 distribution, may have a 5 card major.

 

In an undisturbed auction, it takes about as long to determine whether it's A, B, or C, compared to a 2-way like "11-13 balanced or any 17+".

 

Now, if you play a system where 1 club always has 4+ and denies a longer suit...

[MickyB]

I used to play a lot against Carrot Club some ten years ago. When a competitive sequence occured where there was a fight for the part score we won 5-7 IMPs. ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME

 

Bizarre. Most of the time opener will be 11-13 balanced, in which case he has described his hand very well and rates to gain IMPs in a competitive auction.

Compared to the pair playing natural methods on the other table he's far behind. They have shown a 4-card suit or two, have found their fit and on occasion are bidding undisturbed.

Haven't they shown one suit of three-plus cards? I fail to see how showing a three-card minor, or even a four-card minor, is as useful to partner as promising tolerance for his five-card suit.

 

Showing your longer minor on a hand unlikely to want to play in it is as likely to help the opponents as it is to help you, and prevents you from immediately describing your hand well on an unbalanced hand with a primary minor suit.

 

Or are you arguing that we will start 1♣-P-1♦ (ART negative) when you are starting 1m-P-1X? This doesn't happen often, as a positive response is only showing 7+ points or so, and our 1♣-P-2m auctions, where 2m shows 5+cards, unbal, 7-11 or so (GF opposite strong hand, to play opposite weak NT) are likely more descriptive and preemptive than the bid chosen at the other table.

Edited September 20, 2007 by MickyB

[skjaeran]

There are several ways for us to win boards vs the 2-way 1♣.

 

1♣ - p (8-14 bal) - 1♦ (neg.) - 2♠ ("pre")

x (17+) - p - ?

We've bid to 2♠ on a 5-2 fit, there's no way they can know, and they won't penalize us. Instead of us going down, they bid to the 3-level in a not so good fit and go down. At the other table our pair bid unnopposed to 2NT making or it goes 1m - p - p - 1♠ - 1NT all pass, making or an overtrick.

 

1♣ - x (15+bal) - p (neg) - 1♠

p (11-13) 2♠ all pass. +110 for us

Other table: 1♦ (4+) - 1NT (15-17) - 3♦ all pass. +110 for us

 

1♣ - 1♦ (0-7) - x (6+) 3♣ ("pre") all pass. +110 for us.

Other table: 1♥ (4c) - p 2♥ all pass. +110 for us.

 

Playing MP our guys should not be allowed to play 2♥ in the last example, but at IMPs they will quite often. These are just a few possibilities. I'm sure there are positions where the 2-way ♣ would work in competition. But having played against these methods quite often in teams games, those didn't come up. We layed against this pair both in the district teams championship and the national league several times over a period of 3-4 years (32-board matches) and also met them in swiss teams tournaments "regularly" (8-board matches).

 

The 2-way ♣ has never been popular in Norway, so we very seldom (if at all) met other pairs playing it. It's been (and is) a popular method in Sweden. I don't think anyone over there has deviced a similar defence to it. The pair using those methods here genereally did well, both at IMPs and MP. Noone else used our defence though.

[MickyB]

Sure, there are auctions it will do badly on, and I've never encountered your defence before. I suspect I could come up with something that makes good use of the extra space to describe responder's hand immediately, reducing the potential for damage. Even using standard agreements, we will sometimes take penalties when you are in a 5-2 fit, and I'd expect us to do well from reaching our 5-2 or 5-3 major fit quickly more often than you will from reaching your minor fit quickly.

[skjaeran]

Sure, there are auctions it will do badly on, and I've never encountered your defence before. I suspect I could come up with something that makes good use of the extra space to describe responder's hand immediately, reducing the potential for damage. Even using standard agreements, we will sometimes take penalties when you are in a 5-2 fit, and I'd expect us to do well from reaching our 5-2 or 5-3 major fit quickly more often than you will from reaching your minor fit quickly.

I'm also sure there's several possible counter defences to our defence. But since nobody else plays our defence nor something similar as far as I know, and the 2-way ♣ isn't popular where we play, those defences wont't be 'discovered'.