inquiry Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Well thanks to richard, we all know that any transfer preempt loses on average 2 imps everytime you use it. Fred should IMMEDIATELY alert his teammates (Ron and Russ) and have them stop this sillyness right away. But as I showed earlier, the real world frequency of weak to strong hands is not 5 out of 100 as richards latest post uses in his calculations (to over dramaticaly emphasize his point), but more like 4 out of 10 (that high even surprised me). So if his frequency and imp estimates was right 16*0.4 + (-2)*0.6 = net plus 5 imps for the opening 3 bid. Of course, +16 imps is also wrong. (As an aside, an opening bid of 3 earns these average scores on BBO over 3 million hands.... 3C +0.40 imps, 54.31% MP3D +0.41 imps, 58.24% MP3H +0.14 imps, 48.60% MP3S +0.23 imps, 48.49% MP So, I guess these "small" average plus is what is at stake here. Do you lose this advantage and go the other way? I think Richard underestimates the problem of bidding over the transfer preempt that may not have the promised suit, and that may be weak or strong, but time will tell. I will post another study, which no doubt he will object too as well. But while he claims "we're gonna rip you apart when its right and still be able to show a wide variety of constructive hands... ", I think this has yet to be shown. So how he gets his +2 imp and his 95% of the hands is still highly questionable. I guess real world experience like that by people who use such bids is a better indicator than what richard thinks will happen. From Fred's post it seems Ron and Russ are happy with it, I wonder if they would be if they are being "ripped up" when they use the transfer preempt? Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Well thanks to richard, we all know that any transfer preempt loses on average 2 imps everytime you use it. Fred should IMMEDIATELY alert his teammates (Ron and Russ) and have them stop this sillyness right away. At no point in time did I suggest that the numbers that I provided reflected the expected gains/losses of the particular methods being discussed. Rather, I provided an illustration regarding why the frequency of different methods might matter. The fact that I chose an example in which one hand type was 20 times more frequent than the other might be considered a clue that this wasn't reflective of the methods being discussed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 I think Richard underestimates the problem of bidding over the transfer preempt that may not have the promised suit, and that may be weak or strong, but time will tell. When devising defensive methods, I'd pretty much ignore the possibility that you held a strong 5-5 hand. If I hold a strong hand, the conditional probability that you also hold a strong hand drops fairly significantly... I don't claim that I'll never get burned, however, I'm willing to tolerate the rare chance of a large loss for a decent chance to pick up some IMPs here or there... >I guess real world experience like that by people who use such >bids is a better indicator than what richard thinks will happen. >From Fred's post it seems Ron and Russ are happy with it, I wonder if >they would be if they are being "ripped up" when they use the transfer preempt? I've see a LOT of weird methods in my time. This is the second time that I can recall seeing a transfer preempt in an otherwise natural bid. Bergen and Cohen used a 2-under preempt style, however, this was a deliberate choice to compensate for the extremely undisciplined preemptive style that Bergen used. The pair needed extra bidding room to sort out where to play. I have no knowledge regarding why Ekblatt's partnership has adopted this stuff. Certainly my own track record versus Russ leave me little room to critique his methods... With this said and done, I suspect that his 3♥ bid must encompass multiple meanings (maybe a good bad split range?) to justify the transfer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Ben: I'm going to steer this discussion off on a tangent for a second. Did you and Misho discuss the possibility of these multi preempts in sort of a "suction" format?. Here's what I'm thinking: 2N = preempt in ♣'s OR ♦'s + ♥? 3♣ = preempt in ♦'s OR ♥'s + ♠? 3♦ = preempt in ♥'s OR ♥'s + ♣? 3♥ = preempt in ♠'s OR ♣'s + ♦? 3♠ = solid suit OR ♣ / ♥ or ♦ / ♠ The reason why I'm considering this is because the 3 loser hand is solved easily enough by my 2♦ opener. Because its such a moose, we have room to figure out what we need to know. So what I'm thinking is that the big 2 suiters are 4 - 5 losers. But also - since Opener can have a smaller set of hands, that responder can bounce; to preempt, OR to show a certain # of cover cards. Thinking out loud - 3♣ - 4♥ might show three cover cards, but a club / heart fit. If the hand fits hearts - great - we might have a slam, otherwise, it might be a hand where its a cheap sac against 4♠. Something like: xx, Axxx, Axxx, Kxx feels about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Here is an independent study, so you can validate what is happening (I assume most of you don't have bridgebrowser). One of richards claims is that I "cherry picked" good examples for my method. Another is that the frequency question of weak to strong, and a third is how well does it work. So I approached this in a way anyone can check to be sure I was not “hand picking” the strong variety of hands, I started by gong though the BBO vugraph archives looking for hands that fit the requirements for MisIry love Company hands. These are, in general 4+ controls (four requires exceptional suit quality or extra length). No more than 4 losers, at least 10 cards in two long suits, no fewer than five either. And a minimum of around 15 hcp, which can be shaded downward with a void and 6-5 or 7-5, it is fitting cards, not HCP that win tricks here. I stated with the first two Italian champtionship sessions from today and go down the list of archived vugraph to Icelandic team trials, first session. For Frequency testing, this accounted for 512 hands of bridge, and 13 of them fit the requirements of strong, 4 losers or less, and they get to open (There were a few others, but you didn’;t get to open). For the record, this is a frequency rate of 2.53%, higher than I estimated. It is also worth noting that there were only six hands where the table I was checked for hand patterns opened with a preempt at the three level in a suit (lots of weak twos and opening 4 bids, but so few at three level). So in these hands, the rate of strong to weak would ACTUALLY have favored the strong hands by 2 to 1. Below I show the 13 strong hand varieties, suggest the MisIry bidding sequence, and describe what happened at the table. Judge for yourself its usefulness, the frequency, and how hard (or easy) these auctions are. This is the first I found Victorian Pennant SF 4 of 4, board 20 XAKxxxQxAKQxx AQxJ9ATxxxJ9x One pair ended up in 4H, lost two tricks. The other ended up in slam, but played 6D om 5-2 fit. That actually made. 6C is the best slam, of course. 3C – 3D – 3N - ? This is an ackward one for South. Two aces usually are worth two cover cards, even if partner is void in one side suit, as a pitch is possible from the other. The AQ of spades might be worth two on a hook. The doubleton heart is possibly worth a cover card if the heart queen is missing. There is too little room to investigate, however, as the bid to show this hand would be 5D (ace of spades, and K or A of dicamnods). But with support for clubs, that takes you beyond the “Safe” level for five clubs. So here, Responder has to guess to try for 6C or perhaps stop and ply 3NT (wrong sided no doubt), or bid 4H/5C. I think 6C is a reasonable gamble, as exploratory room does not exist, and the J9's in both partner's suit might prove useful after all. This hand actually makes 7C on the spade hook because the heart queen is missing (and hearts are 3-3). Hand 95 from Brazilian Team Trial finals, was AKQxxAKxxxTKx TxxXxA9xxQxxx 3C-3D-4H-? < - - opener shows 5-5 or better in majors, 3 losers. South has diamond ACE, likely cover, and doubleton heart, maybe cover if wayward queen. We haven’t covered how to proceed here. We will save this hand for later. Note, Not the best slam as requires great luck in the heart suit. but if you push to slam, it happens to make. I just point out you know for slam, you will have to be ruffing a heart, and partner will have to be missing the Queen. Hand 96, same event. QJ9xx VoidAKQJxAQx T87Qxx986KJTx 3D-3H-3S-4S-pass. Easy. One pair got to 6S, which wasn’t a success. Remember the 3S bid can be three or four losers, and with fit, responder bids game. You will see this type of hand fairly often. If partner bids 3H showing major two suiter, you NEED a cover to bid game, as that is always 4 losers. Board 73 of C_N_Echipe Diviizia A standza 5 is interesting. Both pairs stopped in 6H. With MisIry, grand slam is "automatic". Let's see why. AQ9xxAKxxxAQx KxQJxxxQxxATx 3C-3D-3H-4D-4S-5D-7H Here 3H = major 2 suiter, exactly 4 losers. 4D deines diamond control while showing Ace or King of clubs, and shows slam interest, 5C is third non-signoff step (first is 4S, 2nd is 4N), it shows opener is missing heart queen (we knew that), but promises the spade queen. With both missing queens and no grand slam chance (club ace missing), opener would jump to 6H (pass/correct) as responder must have enough cover cards since all his “maybe’s” are working (and if he had no maybe's he would have signed off instead instead of 4D). If partner has the club king (so that he knews we have the club ACE), he would bid 4NT, so when our “club ACE” is working, we show where we hold replacement for a wandering queen, and rather we have sure 3 covers or 2 covers with this wandering queen cover. So here, 5D shows not only missing heart queen, but also shows missing club King, you will find this bid useful on LOTS of hands. So responder knows his partner has two clubs, without the King, five spades, no K, five hearts, no Q. That is his four losers, so he must have diamond void, or more likely diamond ACE stiff. We get one club pitch on the Spade Queen, and one on the fith spade, so we take 5H, 4S, 1C, 1D, and 1S ruff, and 1 club ruff for 13 triccks, so 7H is bid. No doubt spiral scan finds this as well, but otherwise this is hard to duplicate by other methods. Board 7, Icelandic championship, round 11JxA9xxxVoidAKQTxx 5KJxAQxxxxx8x 3C-3D-3N-6H Not as nice as other auctions, but no easy way to bid. The KJx of hearts might be two covers (it turns out it was), Diamond AQ might be 2, likely 1 but maybe none (it was none), spade stiff might be one (it was). Six hearts makes on a heart hook. Neither team sniffed at slam, at 50% (or less), maybe best not too, but would work here. If you bid 4NT as south instead of 6H, north knows the diamond honor is “wasted” and will bid 5C and you end up in five hearts. As the last hand showed, not all hands are magic. Here is board 29 from Brazilian Team Finals, semi-finals (2 of 4). KQT87A96AQT54 93QT2AQ98xxJ7 3C-3D-3S-4S-all pass. As you can see, 4S is not horrible contact. You may escape losing a club, a heart and a spade. 3NT is down on a heart lead (it made at both tables). 4S has some play (clubs 5-1, spades 3-3, diamonds 1-5) but is not a sterling contract. I know 3NT can be beat, and it looks like 4S will be hard to make too. QTAKQ986KTxxxVoid AxxxVoidQJ932Qxxx 3H-3S-3N-4C-4N-6D 3N showed red 2 suiter, 4 loser. 4C showed no control in clubs, 4N was third non-signoff step, it showed, whatever is spades is working (hence partner has xx or Ax, but we are looking at ACE so he has two without the king), and that he (opener) is missing diamond Queen (we know that anyway). This also shows that partner has the heart queen. So we know, three of his sure four losers, which are two spades and the diamond queen. With so many diamonds, we can envision the chance to throw all our spades away if partner is missing a club or diamond honor (then he must have AKQ of hearts). If he is missing a heart honor, then we might avoid heart loser all together due to our five card support in diamonds. So, we bid the slam. Both teams easily bid this as well, perhaps with less certainty after 1H-1S-3D-5D-6D. They could be off two quick spade losers. Here is a more fun one from Icelandic Team trials, round 9 (board 9). AKTxxXAAJT982 8AKQJ53xxxxxx 3C-4H-6H is one quick way, 4H shows solid type suit, desire to play in hearts, even if partner has club-spade two suiter. With lesser type holdings bid 3H then 4H. One pair reached 5S down one, the other got nicely to 6H. If you like as opener you can invite to six hearts, partner will bid it. This hand is huge win for these methods Icelandic Team trials, round 8, Board 5xxxQTxxxxx9xx AQxxxAKAKxxx2 3D-3H-3S-4S, Ok, 4S with NO potential covers is hard to swallow. At least on earlier hand you had the king of clubs or king of diamonds as possible cover. But the rule I live by is over 3S with a fit, carry on to game. Since partner may have 3 loser hnad for the 3S rebid. Pass of 3S is also a reasonable option (The rule is to bid 4S with fit even without cover, but is 3433 a fit?) 4S makes as there is a doubleton spade King. The very next hand (board 6) wasAQJT7VoidAQxKJxxx XxJxxxxKJ9xxx 3C-3D-3S-4C-pass Here you have option of playing 3S (don’t raise, no fit), or 4C. 4C makes, 3S is problematic on heart lead. Also here, the diamond KING is not a sure cover (less than 50% cover). Remember if partner has Great 3 losere hand with nice spades, he would bid 4S (exceptional 3 loser hand), which is what you would need to make 4S with this doubleton support. Eiethe contract is better than 3NT which was played with these cards at one of the tables. And since 4C makes, it beats 2S making 2 (Which is what happened at the other). These methods also avoid the hopeless 3NT contract. Here is a hand from the same match… This type of hand lacks the right number of controls (only 3) and HCP, but if you choose to open these with great shape and when the major is strong, you will still do well. I show this as an example. Board 10 AKQxxxVoidKxJT8xx xxxxxxxATxxxx 3C-3D-3S-4S-pass Here diamond ace is a more likely cover than diamond King on earlier hand, and 4S is as good a guess as 4C since you have two cards in each. As you can see 4S is surely likely to make, and can make five. The contracts were 2S and 5Hx when this hand was played. I would open this hand 3C because I am never letting them play 4H, I may as well get both my suits into the auction. Board 7 Icelandic Team champtionship, round 3VoidKJAQJT95KQxxx AKQJxTxxxXxxX 3D-3S-4C-5D-pass (after 3S, 4H would be responders own two suiter), or 3D-3H-4C-4H-5C-5D-pass A word about this second auction. 5C is normally “we are off two quick tricks in hearts”. But it can also safely be, “any cover cards in the other major is wasted”. The reason why, if partner had three sure cover cards (say DK, C-AK), he will bid the slam despite your 5C bid. You simply can not be off two quick hearts in that case. But this warns that AKQJ of spade is worth exactly nothing. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 I'm going to steer this discussion off on a tangent for a second. Did you and Misho discuss the possibility of these multi preempts in sort of a "suction" format?. Here's what I'm thinking: 2N = preempt in ♣'s OR ♦'s + ♥? 3♣ = preempt in ♦'s OR ♥'s + ♠? 3♦ = preempt in ♥'s OR ♥'s + ♣? 3♥ = preempt in ♠'s OR ♣'s + ♦? 3♠ = solid suit OR ♣ / ♥ or ♦ / ♠ The reason why I'm considering this is because the 3 loser hand is solved easily enough by my 2♦ opener. Because its such a moose, we have room to figure out what we need to know. So what I'm thinking is that the big 2 suiters are 4 - 5 losers. But also - since Opener can have a smaller set of hands, that responder can bounce; to preempt, OR to show a certain # of cover cards. Thinking out loud - 3♣ - 4♥ might show three cover cards, but a club / heart fit. If the hand fits hearts - great - we might have a slam, otherwise, it might be a hand where its a cheap sac against 4♠. Something like: xx, Axxx, Axxx, Kxx feels about right. Misho actually prefers, I believe to use 2NT as transfer to clubs, or a strong two suiter with hearts and not clubs. Then 3C is transfer to diamonds, or strong two suiter in the black suits,then 3D is transfer to hearts, or strong two suiter with spades and diamondsthen 3H is transfe to spades, or strong minor two suiter. So all hands with hearts start 2NT, all other two suiters have the first suit bid and not the "transfer" suit. I simply refused to give up 2NT. I still liek to play with the field, as I humbly think I play as well or better than the average player. Giving up 2NT was just too radical for me despite the fact that I have multi 2D to show a big hand. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Case in point: Assume for the moment that you are considering playing the "Hibernian" 3♦. This opening is wonderous thing. Your expected gain from the Hibernian 3♦ is +2 IMPs any time the hand comes up. However, there is a catch... The Hibernian 3♦ opening is very much a top or bottom sort of bid. 50% of the time that this bid comes up, you expect to win 16 IMPs. However, the other 50% of the time, you expect to lose 12 IMPs. My willingness to play this method would very much depend on its frequency. Assume for the moment that the bid came up once per session. That -12 IMPs means that every other session, we expect to be knocked out of contention because the Hibernian 3♦ opening backfired. In contrast, lets assume that the frequency of the convention was such that it came up 4 times per session. In this case, adopting the convention becomes MUCH more attractive since the frequency of the event dampens the variance... This is an interesting thought - although I don't know that I follow, (or agree) with all the logic. Certainly there are other "high-variance" calls that are realtively standard. Some that I can think of are the stopperless 3N call in the balance chair, overcalling 'under the gun' vulnerable over a high-level preempt, etc.. Just because my downside might be significant doesn't mean the call is wrong, because of the potential upside. Going back to your example of the Hibernian 3♦. The EV of the call seems to be +4 IMPs, although the downside may be huge. I think you are trying to equate these high-variance situations to the following: You want to give me 2:1 odds on a coin-flip for a million dollar bet. While it makes economic sense to take the bet, if I lose, I'm wearing a barrel and making a sign of out cardboard boxes advertising my ability to work for food. However, if I'm playing a match against Meckwell, I definitely want to INCREASE my variance, especially when the variance call has a positive EV. If I'm playing a weaker team, I agree with Richard - keep the variance lower. Even if the EV is a slight negative, I still want to get the throw some variance into the game. Sometimes you have to cut the dogleg, sometimes you have to keep it in the middle. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Here is an independent study, so you can validate what is happening (I assume most of you don't have bridgebrowser). One of richards claims is that I "cherry picked" good examples for my method. Another is that the frequency question of weak to strong, and a third is how well does it work. So I approached this in a way anyone can check to be sure I was not “hand picking” the strong variety of hands, I started by gong though the BBO vugraph archives looking for hands that fit the requirements for MisIry love Company hands. These are, in general 4+ controls (four requires exceptional suit quality or extra length). No more than 4 losers, at least 10 cards in two long suits, no fewer than five either. And a minimum of around 15 hcp, which can be shaded downward with a void and 6-5 or 7-5, it is fitting cards, not HCP that win tricks here. I stated with the first two Italian champtionship sessions from today and go down the list of archived vugraph to Icelandic team trials, first session. For Frequency testing, this accounted for 512 hands of bridge, and 13 of them fit the requirements of strong, 4 losers or less, and they get to open (There were a few others, but you didn’;t get to open). For the record, this is a frequency rate of 2.53%, higher than I estimated. It is also worth noting that there were only six hands where the table I was checked for hand patterns opened with a preempt at the three level in a suit (lots of weak twos and opening 4 bids, but so few at three level). So in these hands, the rate of strong to weak would ACTUALLY have favored the strong hands by 2 to 1. Now I'm REALLY confused As I noted earlier, two suited hands with 5+/5+ shape are pretty rare 5-5-2-1 patterns make up 3.17% of hands5-5-3-0 patterns make up .9 % of hands.6-5-1-1's are .71%6-5-2-0s are .65% All told, this makes up 5.63% of hands. Even if we add in 7-5s and the like, we aren't going to get up past 5.8% or so... The interval 17-40 HCP encompases ~5.45% of all hands16 HCP = 3.311%15 HCP = 4.424 % Hands with 15+ HCP = 12.78% of the hands The combination of BOTH 5+/5+ shape and 15+ HCP is extremely rare.Roughly .7% of all hands would qualify for the strong hand type. This back of the envelop calculation is pretty close to AWM's script which estimated the frequency at .826% (I suspect that the difference is based on the fact that he was strictly looking at losers while I'm stuck with HCP) The data that you are presenting shows that the strong hand variant is four times are frequent across a reasonably large sample. Worse yet, you're only looking at Opening bids... The odds of this happening are absurdly low. We are INCREDIBLY far out of the tail of a distribution... (Far enough tht I'd be very suspicious of the Hand Generator being used) I haven't played much with Bridgebrowser and don't really know is capabilities; however, could you please check the following: First of all, you noted that you looked at 512 hands of Bridge. However, how many BIDS did you consider? For example, if the auction start P - P - 3♣, this would account for three bids and might substantially modify your frequency estimates... Next: Only look at North Hands (I'm not interested in who opened or gets a chance to open, but rather, simple questions of frequency) 1. What percentage of the hands have a 5-5 or 6-5 hand pattern? 2. What percentage of the hands have 15+ HCP? 3. What percentage of the hands have both 5/5 and 15+ HCP? 4. What percentage of the hands have both 5/5 shape AND 4 or fewer losers AND less than 15 HCP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Going back to your example of the Hibernian 3♦. The EV of the call seems to be +4 IMPs, although the downside may be huge. EV = 50%(+16) + 50%(-12) = 8 - 6 = 2 You point relating variance to the qaulity of the oppsoition is certainly valid. COnsider the following: If your main goal in playing bridge is to accumulate master points, the difference between placing 12 and placing 13th is immaterial, however, the difference between 1st and seconde is HUGE... (Completely off topic, I'm busily reading through some books on the derivatives markets right now. There is actually a formal term - "negative convexity" - that refers to this type of phenomena) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Case in point: Assume for the moment that you are considering playing the "Hibernian" 3♦. This opening is wonderous thing. Your expected gain from the Hibernian 3♦ is +2 IMPs any time the hand comes up. However, there is a catch... The Hibernian 3♦ opening is very much a top or bottom sort of bid. 50% of the time that this bid comes up, you expect to win 16 IMPs. However, the other 50% of the time, you expect to lose 12 IMPs. My willingness to play this method would very much depend on its frequency. Assume for the moment that the bid came up once per session. That -12 IMPs means that every other session, we expect to be knocked out of contention because the Hibernian 3♦ opening backfired. In contrast, lets assume that the frequency of the convention was such that it came up 4 times per session. In this case, adopting the convention becomes MUCH more attractive since the frequency of the event dampens the variance... This is an interesting thought - although I don't know that I follow, (or agree) with all the logic. Certainly there are other "high-variance" calls that are realtively standard. Some that I can think of are the stopperless 3N call in the balance chair, overcalling 'under the gun' vulnerable over a high-level preempt, etc.. Just because my downside might be significant doesn't mean the call is wrong, because of the potential upside. Going back to your example of the Hibernian 3♦. The EV of the call seems to be +4 IMPs, although the downside may be huge. I think you are trying to equate these high-variance situations to the following: You want to give me 2:1 odds on a coin-flip for a million dollar bet. While it makes economic sense to take the bet, if I lose, I'm wearing a barrel and making a sign of out cardboard boxes advertising my ability to work for food. However, if I'm playing a match against Meckwell, I definitely want to INCREASE my variance, especially when the variance call has a positive EV. If I'm playing a weaker team, I agree with Richard - keep the variance lower. Even if the EV is a slight negative, I still want to get the throw some variance into the game. Sometimes you have to cut the dogleg, sometimes you have to keep it in the middle. :rolleyes:Richard is quite correct that a high probability high variance method is a better choice than a low probabiltity high variance method. To make it clear, let's look at your 2:1 on a coin toss example. For a single toss, your expectation is to win $500,000 but the bet is scary because 50% of the time you lose everything. Now let's say the coin will be tossed twice, with the same bet on each. Now you expect to win $1 million, but your chance of losing money has gone down to 25%: You are +$4M if you win both tosses (25%), +$1M if you win one and lose one(50%), and -$2M if you lose both(25%). Add more tosses and your expectation goes up and your chance of losing goes down. If you are interested in more in-depth explanation of the concept, google "gambler's ruin": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gambl...G=Google+Search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 I've been playing transfer preempts for several years now, with GF (!!!) 55+ hands included. The results after 55+ hands are quite good, BUT the results after preempts don't seem to be much different from normal preempts. Ok, theoreticly, you have a huge disadvantage, but in practice it just works out fine, and the completely unknown hand plays. So the huge loss of preempts isn't thàt awfull. What strikes me the most is that, whenever there's doubt about the method, Ben comes along with examples of the strong 55+ methods, where he usually has a GF hand. Where are the examples of preemptive hands, or examples where you just have an invitational hand with total misfit? It seems like you never get hung for a number, but we all know it's just an illusion... Give us some examples of hands where you open a strong two-suiter and responder has a great sacrifice bid just in case you have a preempt. Give us the same responder, but with a preempt opener. Give some examples of hands where responder is sooo weak that after this bidding you even end up too high. Give us ... (you get my point) I think this thread has become a discussion about the method (great), but some people (both sides) are just a little too blind to see the situation from another angle (it's just theoretic vs practice).Strong 55+ hands are difficult to bid, so there you get advantages, but weak preempt hands lose in the long run because you give opps a penalty Dbl and a lead directing Dbl (or something else great), even if the unknown hand plays! That is in imps, in mp's you might get away just fine. But there's one thing I've always HATED (speaking from experience): if you're in 3rd seat with a 3-level preempt, you have to transfer, and you can't make a NF bid!!! This is imo the biggest disadvantage of ALL in this method! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Let me deal with a number of issues. First to FREE, I am trying to discuss ways to deal with probing slam and grand slam after the strong opening. To be honest, misho wants the "MisIry cue bid" to simply deny the ACE. I prefer it denies both. I tired to get around the critique that I am hand picking hands by using ALL hands in vugraph, that fit the requirements. (AKA no "picking"). I will continue to do this. How to deal with the weak hands, is pretty much like any other preempt. The problem with that, however, is you have to guess what the defense will do. Second, to Richard. I wonder if your math is off just a tad. If the chance that one hand will fit the requirement of 5+/5+ and the number of points is roughly 0.8, what affect does it have that there is not one hand, but rahter 4 hands on each deal. Does this increase this from 0.8 to 4 x 0.8 to a frequency somewhare around 2.4%? Third, to Richarrd, on the vugraph hands I spefically picked hands that would have opened (not all hands, if someone else bids first, the hand isn't included). To follow this up, So let me continue with examples from the 1970 world championship book. Of course they "hand picked" the hands show so you can only do stats on the finals, which had 96 hands. There were two such 5+/5+ hands in the finals, out of 96 (2.1%).. Here are these hands. [hv=w=sakqxxhk7daj9xxcj&e=sxxxha9xxdqca97xx]266|100|Final II, deal 11, page 173 3D - 3H3S - 6S Easy, DQ, two aces, partner has 3 losers. Both finalist got to slam. [/hv] [hv=w=sakqxxhk7daj9xxcj&e=sxxxha9xxdqca97xx]266|100|Final II, deal 11, page 173 3D - 3H3S - 6S Easy, DQ, two aces, partner has 3 losers. Both finalist got to slam. [/hv] Ok, no plus for system in the finals, in the rest of the same book, there was ____ more hands. The next one is a huge win for the MisiIry meithod... [hv=w=sakqxxhk7daj9xxcj&e=sxxxha9xxdqca97xx]266|100|Final II, deal 11, page 173 3D - 3H3S - 6S Easy, DQ, two aces, partner has 3 losers. Both finalist got to slam. [/hv] On this hand Italy got to 2NT making 12 tricks. Wolff and Jacoby got to 6NT going down. 6CLUBS is best contract, and can't go down. [hv=w=sakqxxhk7daj9xxcj&e=sxxxha9xxdqca97xx]266|100|Final II, deal 11, page 173 3D - 3H3S - 6S Easy, DQ, two aces, partner has 3 losers. Both finalist got to slam. [/hv] [hv=d=n&v=n&n=saj73hjt876dac754&w=sha3dk987432caqj8&e=st962hdqt5ckt9632&s=skq854hkq9542dj6c]399|300|PS - PS - 3C - PS3D - PS - 3H - 4D5H - PS - 6H Ok I wouldn't open 3C with this hand, as it has only 2 controls. But some may want to loosen the requirements, who knows. 5H ask for six if missing heart queen. On this hand EW can make 6D, NS can make 6H. There maybe ways WEST with diamonds can get into the auction earlier, but it is not clear. [/hv] There are some other hands in the book that "fit the strenth" requirement, but jsut like for vugraph, I only picked the hands where the strong hand would get a chance to open. So here is the next challenge I will do to address this issue. The ACBL runs 192 hands on BBO a day. Since Firday and Saturday hands have not been dealt yet, we will see how many of the hands fit these requirements (again as opener) and see how many such hands are found in the 384 tournement hands. Does that sound fair? Should we do next six days to get 1000 hands? Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Added note, I ran bridgebroswer on an old database I ahve on CD (faster than online version). Instead of looking at NORTH as richard suggested, I looked first at dealer, who had the 5/5 hand and 15+ hcp 0.77% of the hands. Then I ran the same data set where I only looked at hands were dealer passed, and asked if SECOND hand had the 5/5 hand (or better) and 15+ hcp. The chances of this was 0.63%. So just adding these two conditions together, the frequency of hands were either first or second hand will open 3C/3D/3H with strong pattern is already 1.4%. I think this shows the flaw in richard's math.. he applied it to a hand, not a deal, which has four hands. It looks like 3rd and 4th seat will have similar numbers (maybe getting slightly less as people have chance to open in front of hte strong hand). But the total will be somewhere around the 2% observed in the other test I did. (I still think it will be less than 2% because of the loser requirement). Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 A general question about transfer pre-empts - how should playing transfers affect your style of pre-empting? Should your pre-empts be more constructive, or more random than normal? I can see an argument either way: Because you're giving them a penalty double, maybe your pre-empts need to be sounder than normal. On the other hand, transfer pre-empts make it harder for partner to bounce, so maybe it makes sense to play a style where partner will not want to bounce very often (ie. a very random style of pre-empts). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Another note about transfer pre-empts in general: Here in England, as of last week we are allowed to play a 2♦ transfer pre-empt in most competitions. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes quite popular, because most other multi-meaning pre-empts are heavily restricted. So perhaps we will quickly become expert at defending against it! You may be wondering, why aren't we allowed any other transfer pre-empts? It appears that the answer is partly that no-one asked to be allowed to play them. So if there are any English players who want to play this sort of thing, then go ahead and apply to the EBU - it ought to stand a decent chance of getting through, now that 2♦ has been accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Second, to Richard. I wonder if your math is off just a tad. If the chance that one hand will fit the requirement of 5+/5+ and the number of points is roughly 0.8, what affect does it have that there is not one hand, but rahter 4 hands on each deal. Does this increase this from 0.8 to 4 x 0.8 to a frequency somewhare around 2.4%? Traditionally, when I have seen people discuss frequency of an opening bid, they analyze 13 cards in isolation from anything else and repeat ad-infinitum. The reason that this formulation is used is to avoid all sorts of cross-dependencies. If we analyze an entire deal the probability that hand A gets a strong 5-5 hands is conditional on the holding in hands B, C, and D. Ben is calculating a very different statistic and describing this as the frequency. Ben is looking across a large number of deals and making the following assumption. Assume that everyone at the table is playing their standard methods, with the exception that he "misiry" preempt substitutes for the standard three level opening structure ... Ben is then using BridgeBrowser to calculate the percentage of DEALs in which a Misery preempt would have occured. This is all fine and dandy. It even produces an interesting statistic. However, you are misapplying standard vocabularly. The word frequency is used within a specific context. If you tell people that you are estimating the frequency of an opening bid, they are going to make the same assumption that I did, which is that you are talking about individual hands rather than deals. From my perspective, the best way to present your results is to break out the information and present it as follows 1. The probability that you get deal a Misiry 3 level preempt in first seat...2. The conditional probability that are dealt a Misiry 3 level preempt given a first seat pass3. The conditional probability that you are dealt a Misiry3 level preempts given a 1st/2nd seat pass4. I'm assuming that you ditch the weak adjunct in 4th seat... Going back to my math... >The combination of BOTH 5+/5+ shape and 15+ HCP is extremely rare.>Roughly .7% of all hands would qualify for the strong hand type. I'll simply note that when you look at one hand in isolation, the frequency was .77% which looks pretty damn close. (I suggested that you look at NORTH, you used DEALER - the specific hand that you CHOSE is completely immaterial...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 A general question about transfer pre-empts - how should playing transfers affect your style of pre-empting? Should your pre-empts be more constructive, or more random than normal? I can see an argument either way: Because you're giving them a penalty double, maybe your pre-empts need to be sounder than normal. On the other hand, transfer pre-empts make it harder for partner to bounce, so maybe it makes sense to play a style where partner will not want to bounce very often (ie. a very random style of pre-empts). The biggest downside to the method I suggest is the inability to preempt to 3♣. My partner wants to use 2NT for this, but I am stubborn. We do play multi 2D, and use 2H/2S for lucas. I guess we could play 2H as major two suiter, weak, and 2S as tranfer to 3C, or even 2H as flannery. I guess we will wait until we decide to keep the transfer preempts before messing with the meaning of our two level bids. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Traditionally, when I have seen people discuss frequency of an opening bid, they analyze 13 cards in isolation from anything else and repeat ad-infinitum. The reason that this formulation is used is to avoid all sorts of cross-dependencies. If we analyze an entire deal the probability that hand A gets a strong 5-5 hands is conditional on the holding in hands B, C, and D. Ben is calculating a very different statistic and describing this as the frequency. Ben is looking across a large number of deals and making the following assumption. Assume that everyone at the table is playing their standard methods, with the exception that he "misiry" preempt substitutes for the standard three level opening structure ... Ben is then using BridgeBrowser to calculate the percentage of DEALs in which a Misery preempt would have occured. This is all fine and dandy. It even produces an interesting statistic. However, you are misapplying standard vocabularly. The word frequency is used within a specific context. If you tell people that you are estimating the frequency of an opening bid, they are going to make the same assumption that I did, which is that you are talking about individual hands rather than deals. From my perspective, the best way to present your results is to break out the information and present it as follows 1. The probability that you get deal a Misiry 3 level preempt in first seat...2. The conditional probability that are dealt a Misiry 3 level preempt given a first seat pass3. The conditional probability that you are dealt a Misiry3 level preempts given a 1st/2nd seat pass4. I'm assuming that you ditch the weak adjunct in 4th seat... Going back to my math... >The combination of BOTH 5+/5+ shape and 15+ HCP is extremely rare.>Roughly .7% of all hands would qualify for the strong hand type. I'll simply note that when you look at one hand in isolation, the frequency was .77% which looks pretty damn close. (I suggested that you look at NORTH, you used DEALER - the specific hand that you CHOSE is completely immaterial...) Well, when I responded to your earlier comments about the frequency of hands that fit the "bill" for my requirement for an opening bid, I gave the frequency at which the bid would be opened, which came out to be above 2%, you were incredulous, saysing, "The data that you are presenting shows that the strong hand variant is four times are frequent across a reasonably large sample. Worse yet, you're only looking at Opening bids... The odds of this happening are absurdly low." I think now, you will have to agree the odds are somewhat higher someone might be able to open with this bid than your calculations. The off by a factor 4 suggested to me where the diffeence came in. Let me describe how I searched on bridgebrowser. I said, give me the opening hand where opener has 5-5 or better, and some number of hcp, I may have used 14, 15, or 16 (I vary these, in the trial above, it was 15 to be specific). The computer then looks at all hands where someone has to have that specific pattern (one of the four hands..but here, anyone of the four hands).. no one else would get to bid first... So, I suspect this simply is the chance one of the four hands has the right pattern. I even commented that from my studies, this number appeared a little high... but when I am looking individually, no one would have been able to bid in front of the strong hand. Also 15 hcp is not a ridgid requirement. With 6-5, 13 does quite nicely very often, raising the frequency a small amount. Bridgebrowser can also limit searches by "absolute position" (by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th seat), If it can search by NORTH, I don't know how to do it. You can limit search by vul (any combitination), by imps versus mp, by controls, etc. So you can get quite sophisticated (how effective are 3D preempts vul at imps verus not vul if you like. Or how effective is a third seat preempt of 3D at this condition? How aobut 3 seat preempt iwth only 6 diamonds? How about thrid seat preempt with bad KJxxxxx diamond or worse? IT is easy to do. A further search turned up, that is third seat, the chance of two passes to you when you have 55+ and are strong is even lower still. The "frequency" of this pattern with two passes in front of you is only... 0.3%, down from 0.77%. This brings the total from first three positions to 1.6%. I haven't checked fourth seat yet, but I expect it lower still, so it will not reach 2%. I had estiamted it as under 2% in another thread, so the 2.5 % observed in the vugraph was a surprise. Not a large enough "n" obviously. Can we agree that the rate of these hands where someone will have the opportunity to open them with strong holding is approxiametly 1.5%? This is less than this caluculated rate, but not all 55+, 15+ hands can open this, and some with less hcp not included here can. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Can we agree that the rate of these hands where someone will have the opportunity to open them with strong holding is approxiametly 1.5%? This is less than this caluculated rate, but not all 55+, 15+ hands can open this, and some with less hcp not included here can. I'm not interested in the percentage chance that "someone" is dealt hand ABC, but rather, the percentage that my partnership is dealt a hand ABC... By assuming that everyone at the table is playing the methods, you're double counting. Now, take that 1.5%, divide by two and I think that you're in the right ballpark. (Of course, you're also back, once again to about .77%...) If you really want to model the frequency with which you are dealt a suitable hand for your methods, you need to calculate the following: (The percentage chance that my partnership is sitting in first seat/third) *(The probability that I have hand type ABC in first seat) + (The percentage chance that my partnership is sittng in second/fourth seat) *(The conditional probability that I have hand ABC given a first seat pass) *(The percentage chance of a first seat pass) + (The percentage chance that mypartnership is sitting in first/third seat) *(The conditional probability that I have hand ABC given a first/second seat pass) *(The percentage chance of a first/second seat pass) + (the percentage chance that my partnership is sitting in second/fourth seat) *(The conditional probability that I have hand ABC given a first/second/third seat pass) *(The percentage chance of a first/second/third seat pass) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 If you really want to model the frequency with which you are dealt a suitable hand for your methodsI like the word "really" here. When you're asking about the frequency of an opening bid, trying to consider all four seats in the same calculation is an odd thing to do. The first question to try to answer is whether transfer pre-empts are a good method in first seat. The answer to this does not depend at all on how often you expect it to come up in other seats. Once you've answered this question you can go on to ask whether the method is a good one in second seat - which is harder because it depends on the opponents' system. And so on. At no point is it useful to combine statistics for more than one seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Ok, I made a mistake in the calculation of the third seat bid after two passes. I didn't have all four vul conditions picked. The numbers below reflect the correction for all seats... This table is "frequency" on BBO of Opening bid of 3C/3D/3H or 3S with less than 12 hcp (first column), and frequency of hand with 5+5+ and 15 hcp (second column), the rows are by position (dealer, 2nd seat, 3rd seat, 4th seat). 1st 1.27 0.772nd 0.63 0.633rd 0.21 0.374th 0.19 0.20 A few things surprise me in this table, the first is that the third seat preempts at the three level are so low. I suspect this might be because of more frequent openign at four level if weak, and opening at one level with less than normal values instead of three level. The second is that the "frequency" of the weak bid is much closer to the strong bid than I would have ever suspected. Especially in seats other than the first. No doubt if people have passed to you, the chances you have a strong hand compared to a weak hand increase. Also note, while the total percent hands are 2.27 for preempt (all the same data set), and 1.97 for the chance to open the strong bid, a couple of issues here. The rquirement I used was "15 chp", not the correct 4 losers. so I think the 1.97% is still a tad high. Let's compare for Richard... . First and third seat, total is 1.27 and 0.21 for weak preempt, for 1.45. Forstrpmg ppair, +1.14% For second and fourth seat, weak hand are only 0.82% and strong 0.83%, Again, lets be clear on how these numbers were obtained. I looked at 2 million hands, 16 plays per hand (main room). I asked how many times 3C/3D/3H/3S was opened in each position (first bid). And calculated the total. On some hands, only one player opened 3C, everyone else passed. That hand counted as 1 out of 16... etc. Then I did same thing, I said based on position did someone have 5+5+ and 15+ hcp. In first chair, all hands counted. In other chairs, the bidding had to be all passes before that hand at the table, or it did not count. As I said, this represents over 2 million hands of bridge and more than 125,000 actual different deals, and it includes the variabilyt of what different people do with each hands (preempt or not light, open light in front of your 5+5+ hand or not), psyce a bid before you get a chance to open or not. I now put this question to rest, for me. The opening strong version occurs at least at a frequency worth using it if you don't have some other major objection (like not being able to open 3C). Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 Ok, I made a mistake in the calculation of the third seat bid after two passes. I didn't have all four vul conditions picked. The numbers below reflect the correction for all seats... This table is "frequency" on BBO of Opening bid of 3C/3D/3H or 3S with less than 12 hcp (first column), and frequency of hand with 5+5+ and 15 hcp (second column), the rows are by position (dealer, 2nd seat, 3rd seat, 4th seat). 1st 1.27 0.772nd 0.63 0.633rd 0.21 0.374th 0.19 0.20 A few things surprise me in this table, the first is that the third seat preempts at the three level are so low. I suspect this might be because of more frequent openign at four level if weak, and opening at one level with less than normal values instead of three level. The second is that the "frequency" of the weak bid is much closer to the strong bid than I would have ever suspected. Especially in seats other than the first. No doubt if people have passed to you, the chances you have a strong hand compared to a weak hand increase. Also note, while the total percent hands are 2.27 for preempt (all the same data set), and 1.97 for the chance to open the strong bid, a couple of issues here. The rquirement I used was "15 chp", not the correct 4 losers. so I think the 1.97% is still a tad high. You still need to divide by 2 to reflect that fact that your partnership does not sit North/South and East/West. With this said and done, we now have relative freqencies suggesting how how often you have a weak 3 level preempt relative to the strong hand type. The next step is to estimate expected gains and losses for adopting the methods... How much (if anything) does one lose by opening 3♦ with a weak heart preempt? How much does one gain by immediately describing a strong 5-5 shape and adding definition to our 1 level openings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2005 Friday's ACBL Event. Earlier in this thread, I said we would look at friday and saturday's ACBL event on BBO to examine how the bids would work (before friday). The friday's hands have been played. And here are the weak three and strong two suited hands from those events. There was only 180 ACBL hands played on Friday. If you bid 6C, it makes on any defense other than trump and trump. [hv=d=w&v=a&n=shaq765dq7ckqt843&w=s976hkj92dk94ca65&e=skj543ht84djt82cj&s=saqt82h3da653c972]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] North opened at most tables (he would not get a chance if I was WEST). My auction would be...(with E/W passing)3C-3D-3N-? Responder know, not quesses, that 5♣ is playable. The question is can he stick in 3NT? Since this is matchpoints, he can consider pass, or he can try for slam. If partner is missing the heart Queen, the slam will be a fair bet (his losers in that case will presumably be somehting like two off suit aces, heart queen, and one more, maybe a club honor or another heart honor). South might pass, or might bid 5C or 6C. No science here. If he bids 6NT, will EAST find the club jack lead? No one in 6C got the club lead, so I doubt it. And an auction that goes 3C-3D-3N-6C is hard to defend against. I will not guess where this auction will end (I would shoot 6C). Result Points Score3NS+1 630 100.00%5CN+1 620 90.91%3NN= 600 72.73%3NS= 600 72.73%3NS= 600 72.73%3CN+3 170 54.55%3CN+2 150 45.45%3CN= 110 36.36%6CN-1 -100 18.18%6CS-1 -100 18.18%5CN-1 -100 18.18%3CN-2 -200 0.00% The next hand of interest is a preempt hand. It was board 12 from #155 Pairs .----------- ACBL Fri 5pm --- [hv=d=w&v=a&n=shaq765dq7ckqt843&w=s976hkj92dk94ca65&e=skj543ht84djt82cj&s=saqt82h3da653c972]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Ok, I would open 3♦. I doubt this will have any affect of the auction, other than if north can DBL to show diamonds. Their getting to auction is probably not good for them.. As EAST I would bid 3♥ (remember at this vul, my preempt shows five undertricks, so heart ACE, and club AK cover three of those losers, I need to cover two more just to make 3H.. so I would never consider bidding 4H. Now the bidding goes back to north, do you really think he can stay out of the auction now? If NS bid, they will regret it. And I can make 3♥. So I don't think I am hurt here by the the transfer preempt. Result Points Score5HxW-2 300 8.775HW-2 100 5.235HW-2 100 5.235HW-2 100 5.235HW-2 100 5.234HW-1 50 3.77A-- 0 0A-- 0 04SxS-1 -200 -1.694HE= -420 -6.464HW= -420 -6.464SxS-2 -500 -8.084SxS-2 -500 -8.084SxS-2 -500 -8.08 The next is hand six from #100 Pairs .---------- ACBL Fri 6:30pm - [hv=d=w&v=a&n=shaq765dq7ckqt843&w=s976hkj92dk94ca65&e=skj543ht84djt82cj&s=saqt82h3da653c972]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Playing MisIry, south opens 3D, then rebids over 3H (or 3S), 3NT. This shows minor 2 suiter, 4 losers. North knows DQ is cover, and figures SA is a cover and heart King might be. The spade King is another possible cover. My auction would be... 3D-3H-3N-5N-6D-Pass Here 5N was pick a slam. If partner picks clubs, I will put the contract in 6NT. If he picks diamonds, he will have six. But if I respond a forcing 3♠, the auction will now be... 3D-3S-3N-5N-6D-Pass... but if partner had bid 6C, instead of bidding 6N, I would bid 6D giving choice between 6D and 6S. PArtenr would choose 6D. Result Points Score3NN+2 460 0.883NS+2 460 0.883NN+2 460 0.883NN+2 460 0.883NS+2 460 0.883NS+2 460 0.883NN+2 460 0.885NS= 460 0.883NS+2 460 0.883NN+2 460 0.883NN+2 460 0.884SN+1 450 0.884SN+1 450 0.885DS+1 420 -0.125DS+1 420 -0.125DS+1 420 -0.125DS+1 420 -0.126NxS-1 -100 -11 This is board 9, for the same tourney (100) above. [hv=d=w&v=a&n=shaq765dq7ckqt843&w=s976hkj92dk94ca65&e=skj543ht84djt82cj&s=saqt82h3da653c972]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I show this one because Some Did preempt 3C on the north hand. The way I play MisIry now, I have no way to preempt in clubs below the four level. So I would have to pass. But pass or bid 3C, the results are the same on this hand. Result Points Score6SxW-2 500 133HE-3 300 10.764SW-1 100 84SW-1 100 84SW-1 100 84SW-1 100 84SW= -620 -4.124SW= -620 -4.124SW= -620 -4.124SW= -620 -4.124SW= -620 -4.124SW= -620 -4.124SW+1 -650 -5.064SW+1 -650 -5.064SW+1 -650 -5.064SW+1 -650 -5.064SW+1 -650 -5.064SW+2 -680 -5.76 Finally, I show board 6 from #187 Pairs .----------- ACBL Fri 2am --- [hv=d=w&v=a&n=shaq765dq7ckqt843&w=s976hkj92dk94ca65&e=skj543ht84djt82cj&s=saqt82h3da653c972]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] A fair number of people opened 3D on this hand. Horrible. The vul was wrong, the suit quality was wrong, and you had a side four card major. Biddign 3D here would not occur to me. But even If I did, I doubt it would have had too much of an effect on the outcome versus a 3D opening bid. I will not rate this, because it is not a preempt I would use anyway. 4SS+1 450 5.624SN= 420 54SS= 420 55CW-4 400 4.255DE-3 300 1.884DE-2 200 -0.884CW-1 100 -3.384SxS-1 -100 -7.754SxxS-1 -200 -9.75 Summary: 180 hands. Two good strong hands, reeach laydown 6D on one, have shot for normal 3NT/5C or lucky 6C on the ohter. Really only one preemptive hand I would preempt on, and no differences on thiese that I can see. The rate is a little low here for both opening preempts at the three level and I think the strong hand. But Saturday is another day. Even if you accept the horrible preempts on 3D and 3C, the above, that is only 3 preempts at the three level. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Just a question about the 6♦ slam hand. Your suggested auction was: 3♦-3♥-3NT-5NT-6♦ Apparently 3♦ followed by 3NT shows a minor two suiter with four losers, and 5NT is pick a slam. But wouldn't the following hands for south also rebid 3NT: xAxAKxxxAKxxx xxAKxxxAKxxxx -xxAKxxxAQJxxx -AxAKxxxATxxxx Honestly I would have no great desire to be in slam with the north cards opposite any of these hands. With 2-1 in the minors it seems awfully aggressive by north to force to slam despite holding good cards. Unless there's some way your methods can find the SIXTH diamond, which is really what makes slam so good, this one seems unconvincing. Curiously, my relay auction starting with 1♣ has a fair chance to be unimpeded and find 6♦ on this hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 The analysis on the 3♥ preempt hand is also interesting. Certainly you get something of a win here because partner supposedly will not bid 4♥. This is especially interesting because 4♥ will make if one of the two heart honors is onside, or if the club finesse is on. Even with both heart honors off and a 6-1 diamond break, you will make if ♣Q is on. It's an excellent game that you happened to avoid (and find the magic lie of the cards such that avoiding it is right). However, regardless of east's raise or non-raise, playing natural preempts it will be very hard to pass with the north hand. The board results are good evidence of this. If north doubles, we could easily see: 3♥-X-4♥-4♠ And now the good easts are doubling for a top board. On the other hand, playing my preferred defense to transfer preempts: 3♦-Pass-3♥-PassPass-X... North passes initially, knowing he will get another chance to bid. The double at the second chance is a balancing double, but denies sound values. With a GOOD takeout double, north doubles 3♦ initially to show "cards." Knowing that partner has only a balancing double and not sound values, south becomes much less likely to compete to 4♠. It seems like finding hands and presenting hypothetical auctions can really go either way. And the field in ACBL tourneys is not that strong which may also bias the results. I guess there's no way to find out for sure except through actual play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.