gwnn Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 cross-posted! curses! but thanks anyway for the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 Just because you are theoretically able to show any hand with 6 spades doesn't mean you will do nearly as well on those hands as the people opening 2♠, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kungsgeten Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 1CDHS = Natural1NT = Multi. 15-17 NT or weak two in a major (8-11 if spades)2C = Standard strong 2C or weak two in diamonds or 0-7 with 6(+) spades2D = Major + minor two suiter2H = Ekren. Both majors weak2S = 5-4 minors or better, weak2NT = 20-21 But really, we could go further. Let's change the 1-level. Pass = 13+ unbal, not GF, or 12--14/18--19 if NT.1C = 4+ hearts, 8--12. Not suitable for 1NT+1D = 4+ spades, 8--12. Not suitable for 1NT+1H = 0--7 any. Not suitable for 1NT+.1S = 8--12 with no 4 card major. Not suitable for 1NT+. Or Pass = 0--7 or 17--211C = 12--16 unbal or 12--14 NT1D = 8--11, no 4 card major1M = 8--11, 4+ major But then this isn't really "everything else equal". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 But then this isn't really "everything else equal".I think you and nullve are the only ones who ever thought "everything else equal" might be possible. It's an obviously ridiculous assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kungsgeten Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 I think you and nullve are the only ones who ever thought "everything else equal" might be possible. It's an obviously ridiculous assumption. Of course it is ridiculous. All opening bids should have a purpose, so changing openings obviously has impacts elsewhere. I simply made my best attempt to staying similar to standard while also including as many preempts as possible. I do not understand the hostility recieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullve Posted December 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) I think you and nullve are the only ones who ever thought "everything else equal" might be possible. It's an obviously ridiculous assumption.Let S = system with openings a la Greco-Hampson's Meckwell Lite system S' = system with openings a la Hurd-Wooldridge's aggressive 2/1 system Then * S and S' agree on what constitutes an opening hand* openings above 2♦ are the same in S and S'* of the remaining non-weak openings, S uses 1♣,...,2♦ for hands with opening strength, so if S is our candidate system A, m=7* of the remaining non-weak openings, S' uses 1♣,...,2♣ for hands with opening strength, so if S' is our candidate system B, n=6 In order for S and S' to be our systems A and B, respectively, they must also perform equally well after non-weak openings, something you seem to think could never happen. But we haven't said anything about the design beyond the openings yet. So suppose S and S' really were the systems played by Greco-Hampson and Hurd-Wooldridge, respectively, and suppose we found that Greco-Hampson' system performed better after non-weak openings. Then we could gradually either weaken the design of S or strengthen the design of S' until they both performed equally well. Agree? Edited December 23, 2015 by nullve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 I think you need to subtract i from your analysis to get the correct answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullve Posted December 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 Even more trivial: A and B are the same system except that 2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up)2♦ in B = Weak Two Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 Even more trivial: A and B are the same system except that 2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up)2♦ in B = Weak Two how about: A and B are the same system except that: 2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up)2♦ in B = 5-7 points and exactly 3-3-3-4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 how about: A and B are the same system except that: 2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up)2♦ in B = 5-7 points and exactly 3-3-3-4If that second 2D were gcc legal, I would totally play that! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 If that second 2D were gcc legal, I would totally play that!An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit ... knock yourself out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullve Posted December 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Looks like two-level ace-asking ferts (e.g. 2♦ = 0-6 hcp, asking for aces) might be allowed, too: STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto.Edit: Singleton-asking ferts might be more effective, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 knock yourself outOh, that is so sweet. Could mix it up with 4333, 3433, 3343, and 3334. Too tasty for words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 of course, you're stuck with "DISALLOWED, 7", but yeah, knock yourself out... (note: I did play 1-7 weak 2s in one event. No, we were not allowed to "psych" the yarboroughs :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevek Posted December 24, 2015 Report Share Posted December 24, 2015 Well, ultimate B is strong pass. We once did a bidding challenge with opener being dealt 13+ any (or equivalent), no intereference, otherwise random.We had our one opening call of PASS.They had their usual SAYC. Expecting a loss, we had a narrow victory and a credit to relay.Must try it again one day with BOT interference. 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.