Fancy more weak opening preempts, everything else equal?

2 Pages
←
1
2

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

Fancy more weak opening preempts, everything else equal?

#21 kenrexford

Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 9,586
Joined: 2005-September-21
Gender:Male
Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2015-December-21, 16:18

nige1, on 2015-December-21, 13:34, said:

System B seems preferable (given that opening strength bids are equally effective in systems A and B; also given that system B's weak pre-empts are sensibly defined -- for example, you don't open 7N on a Yarborough). This conclusion seems inevitable unless you believe some pre-empts to be a liability.

Very true, including the caveat.

That said, I would be real curious how the hypothetical could ever occur. The hypo is rather silly.

I could pose a similar hypo to illustrate. If System A and System B both handled balanced hands efficiently to the same degree, but System B did not need any balanced 1NT or 2NT opening, then would ypu tather be able to open 1NT as strong rather than 2C and 2NT as minors? Of course you would. What would the point be, though?

Jow about making all hands described with no need to open 1D? Now, 1D can be a weak balanced or unbalanced hand with 8 to 10 HCP and 3+ diamonds. I actually played that. Those openings scored huge wins. No one else has such a 1D opening. Isn't it preferable to be able to handle these hands also?

"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.

#22 Kungsgeten

Group: Full Members
Posts: 942
Joined: 2012-April-15
Gender:Male
Location:Skövde, Sweden

Posted 2015-December-22, 01:57

Here's an idea for a 2/1 type system with maximum preempts. No intermediate stuff here

1CDHS = Natural
1NT = 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(+) spades
2D = Major + minor two suiter
2H = Ekren. Both majors weak
2S = 5-4 minors or better, weak
2NT = 20-21

#23 gwnn

Csaba the Hutt

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 13,027
Joined: 2006-June-16
Gender:Male
Location:Göttingen, Germany
Interests:bye

Posted 2015-December-22, 03:54

Kungsgeten, on 2015-December-22, 01:57, said:

2C = Standard strong 2C or weak two in diamonds or 0-7 with 6(+) spades

Sounds awful. You can never raise this and strong hands with spades are seriously handicapped.

edit: oh, the point is to have a kokish by opener and pass the 2♠. It looks cute but I'm still skeptical. Anyway, spoke too soon I guess.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2015-December-22, 04:31

... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin

#24 nullve

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,234
Joined: 2014-April-08
Gender:Male
Location:Norway
Interests:partscores

Posted 2015-December-22, 04:17

Kungsgeten, on 2015-December-22, 01:57, said:

2C = Standard strong 2C or weak two in diamonds or 0-7 with 6(+) spades

This is basically glen's 'Wicked' 2C: http://www.bridgemat...om/weakstng.htm

#25 Kungsgeten

Group: Full Members
Posts: 942
Joined: 2012-April-15
Gender:Male
Location:Skövde, Sweden

Posted 2015-December-22, 04:30

gwnn, on 2015-December-22, 03:54, said:

Sounds awful. You can never raise this and strong hands with spades are seriously handicapped.

I didn't say that it was good, I just tried to squeeze as many preempts in there as possible, while still being playable

Strong hands with spades (actually all strong hands) are handicapped in competition, but undisturbed it works okay. Raising is a problem, but at least you remove the 1-level.

The idea is taken from Glen Ashton. The idea is to use 2D waiting and Kokish Relay. I would play something like this:

2C---
2D = Non-forcing, "waiting"
...Pass = Weak two in diamonds
...2H = Kokish Relay. a) GF with hearts b) 25+ NT c) 0--7 with spades
......2S = Ok?
.........Pass = Spades
.........2NT = 25+ NT
.........3C+ = Hearts GF
...2S+ = Standard, strong
2H = Artificial, forcing
...2S = Spades, then perhaps 2NT as Ogust
...2NT = Diamonds, weak. 3C could ask SPL and 3D could be INV.
...3C+ = Strong
2S = Pass/correct
Higher = Not sure

#26 gwnn

Csaba the Hutt

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 13,027
Joined: 2006-June-16
Gender:Male
Location:Göttingen, Germany
Interests:bye

Posted 2015-December-22, 04:32

cross-posted! curses! but thanks anyway for the details.

... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin

#27 mgoetze

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,942
Joined: 2005-January-28
Gender:Male
Location:Cologne, Germany
Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2015-December-22, 04:56

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.

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
-- Bertrand Russell

#28 Kungsgeten

Group: Full Members
Posts: 942
Joined: 2012-April-15
Gender:Male
Location:Skövde, Sweden

Posted 2015-December-22, 06:37

Kungsgeten, on 2015-December-22, 01:57, said:

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--21
1C = 12--16 unbal or 12--14 NT
1D = 8--11, no 4 card major
1M = 8--11, 4+ major

But then this isn't really "everything else equal".

#29 mgoetze

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,942
Joined: 2005-January-28
Gender:Male
Location:Cologne, Germany
Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2015-December-22, 08:14

Kungsgeten, on 2015-December-22, 06:37, said:

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.

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
-- Bertrand Russell

#30 Kungsgeten

Group: Full Members
Posts: 942
Joined: 2012-April-15
Gender:Male
Location:Skövde, Sweden

Posted 2015-December-22, 10:48

mgoetze, on 2015-December-22, 08:14, said:

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.

#31 nullve

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,234
Joined: 2014-April-08
Gender:Male
Location:Norway
Interests:partscores

Posted 2015-December-22, 11:24

mgoetze, on 2015-December-22, 08:14, said:

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?

This post has been edited by nullve: 2015-December-23, 06:08

#32 kenrexford

Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 9,586
Joined: 2005-September-21
Gender:Male
Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2015-December-22, 12:40

I think you need to subtract i from your analysis to get the correct answer.

#33 nullve

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,234
Joined: 2014-April-08
Gender:Male
Location:Norway
Interests:partscores

Posted 2015-December-22, 12:58

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

#34 glen

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,637
Joined: 2003-May-11
Gender:Male
Location:Ottawa, Canada
Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2015-December-22, 16:25

nullve, on 2015-December-22, 12:58, said:

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

'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift

#35 kenrexford

Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 9,586
Joined: 2005-September-21
Gender:Male
Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2015-December-22, 17:04

glen, on 2015-December-22, 16:25, said:

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

If that second 2D were gcc legal, I would totally play that!

#36 glen

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,637
Joined: 2003-May-11
Gender:Male
Location:Ottawa, Canada
Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2015-December-22, 18:04

kenrexford, on 2015-December-22, 17:04, said:

If that second 2D were gcc legal, I would totally play that!

GCC said:

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

'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift

#37 nullve

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,234
Joined: 2014-April-08
Gender:Male
Location:Norway
Interests:partscores

Posted 2015-December-22, 18:42

Looks like two-level ace-asking ferts (e.g. 2♦ = 0-6 hcp, asking for aces) might be allowed, too:

GCC said:

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.

#38 kenrexford

Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 9,586
Joined: 2005-September-21
Gender:Male
Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2015-December-22, 20:14

glen, on 2015-December-22, 18:04, said:

knock yourself out

Oh, that is so sweet. Could mix it up with 4333, 3433, 3343, and 3334. Too tasty for words.

#39 mycroft

Secretary Bird

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 7,128
Joined: 2003-July-12
Gender:Male
Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2015-December-23, 10:59

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 :-)

When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)

#40 shevek

Group: Full Members
Posts: 707
Joined: 2006-September-29
Location:Australia
Interests:whippets<br>anarchy<br>relay

Posted 2015-December-23, 20:10

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.

2 Pages
←
1
2

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

BBO Discussion Forums: Fancy more weak opening preempts, everything else equal? - BBO Discussion Forums

Fancy more weak opening preempts, everything else equal?

#21 kenrexford

#22 Kungsgeten

#23 gwnn

#24 nullve

#25 Kungsgeten

#26 gwnn

#27 mgoetze

#28 Kungsgeten

#29 mgoetze

#30 Kungsgeten

#31 nullve

#32 kenrexford

#33 nullve

#34 glen

#35 kenrexford

#36 glen

#37 nullve

#38 kenrexford

#39 mycroft

#40 shevek

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

BBO Discussion Forums: Fancy more weak opening preempts, everything else equal? - BBO Discussion Forums

Fancy more weak opening preempts, everything else equal?

1 User(s) are reading this topic 0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users