[Danlo]

I've read some post of the recent forcing pass thread and have some thoughts I'd like to share.

First of all, I don't think that getting out of the starting blocks as quickly as possible is the best way to start the bidding. Starting the bidding is all about getting your partner into a good position to judge the continuation.

I think bidding is a bit like (formula 1) racing. If there is only one corner to take, you want to take it as fast as possible. But if you have to take another corner right after the first, it may be best to slow down a bit in the first and get into a good position to take the second corner. It's all about controlled effort, not all out effort at every corner.

This bugs me in the 8-12 opening bid range. It seems like a good idea looking at the opening bids only, but does it really get partner into the best possible position on the second bid? I know the 13+ pass probably doesn't, and I doubt whether the 8-12 opening bids really works that way.

Secondly, the pass bid is the only bid that opponents cannot double, and passing after a (second seat or later) pass does not guarantee that partner gets another turn. So the preemptive effect of passing may be greater than the preemptive effect of opening 1C. So where a first seat forcing pass may or may not have merit, the second seat forcing pass may have a distinct disadvantage.

Thirdly, the question is whether information theory is the best model for bidding theory. Bidding is not only about conveying information, it is also about finding the right contract to play. So passing should be an option for partner. I like to keep the number forcing bids to a minimum and I want to locate them where they balance loss (by not being able to play that contract) and gain (by being able to investigate other contracts).

But balancing loss and gain is not only a question of passing on information. It is a question of grouping situations that require alike handling by partner and it is a question of frequency. A frequent situation takes more weight in the score than an infrequent situation. And if bid the same with two hand types where partner should pass if you have one type and bid if you have the other, partner has a true problem.

So even if you give partner the best information possible, it may lead to your partner knowing that he is making the wrong decision, but not being able to help it.

Since 8-12 opening bids put more strain on the subsequent bidding and invite opponents interference, they may suffer more from the above problems than standard opening bids.

[TimG]

Danlo, on Aug 16 2004, 04:51 AM, said:

Since 8-12 opening bids put more strain on the subsequent bidding and invite opponents interference, they may suffer more from the above problems than standard opening bids.

I don't know about 8-12 opening bids inviting interference. They almost demand it. If the opponents go quietly, the weak openers will steal from them; if they act aggressively, the weak opening side will sometimes catch them speeding.

I believe the idea behind most light opening systems is to get to a playable spot (not the best spot) quickly in an effort to make it more difficult for the opponents to get to a playable spot when it is their hand.

[hrothgar]

Danlo wrote:

>Thirdly, the question is whether information theory is the best model for bidding
>theory. Bidding is not only about conveying information, it is also about finding
>the right contract to play.

This statement is nonsensical. You are comparing apples and oranges.

1. Information theory is a mathematical discipline that is used to develop efficient methods to convey information subject to a set of constrains.

2. "The right place to play" a hand (more formally, the par contract) is a constraint.

>So passing should be an option for partner.

Once again, this has to do with your choice of constrainst/design goals. Players who employ Strong Club and Strong Pass systems recognize that they will suffer systemic losses on certain types of hands. So be it.

>But balancing loss and gain is not only a question of passing on information.
>It is a question of grouping situations that require alike handling by partner
>and it is a question of frequency. A frequent situation takes more weight in
>the score than an infrequent situation. And if bid the same with two hand
>types where partner should pass if you have one type and bid if you have
>the other, partner has a true problem.

This is precisely why players who employ a strong pass attack conventional methods that used a single poorly defined bid (Pass) to define almost 2/3rds of all hands.

[jtfanclub]

Danlo, on Aug 16 2004, 04:51 AM, said:

This bugs me in the 8-12 opening bid range. It seems like a good idea looking at the opening bids only, but does it really get partner into the best possible position on the second bid? I know the 13+ pass probably doesn't, and I doubt whether the 8-12 opening bids really works that way.

Sorry for repeating myself....

In Precision and similar systems, the hands where you need to find out whether game is possible after an opening bid have 11-15 hcp on one side and 8-12 on the other. When you're exploring for game (in contrast to just finding a good place to die), I don't think 8-12 or 11-15 openers makes any difference. And when you're just trying to find a cheap part score to play in, hcp stop mattering for the most part.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Aug 16 2004, 07:28 PM, said:

Sorry for repeating myself....

In Precision and similar systems, the hands where you need to find out whether game is possible after an opening bid have 11-15 hcp on one side and 8-12 on the other. When you're exploring for game (in contrast to just finding a good place to die), I don't think 8-12 or 11-15 openers makes any difference.

This line of reasoning only holds true for non-competitive bidding.

The stronger your requirements for an opening bid, the more opportunity that the opponents have to strike the first blow in the auction. If they're opening with 8-12 HCP and you're opening with 11-15, they're going to be opening a LOT more than you.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Aug 16 2004, 12:30 PM, said:

This line of reasoning only holds true for non-competitive bidding.

The stronger your requirements for an opening bid, the more opportunity that the opponents have to strike the first blow in the auction. If they're opening with 8-12 HCP and you're opening with 11-15, they're going to be opening a LOT more than you.

Yes, true. My point was only that 8-12 is not a difficult hand to respond to at the second bid.

[Danlo]

HRothgar wrote

Quote

This statement is nonsensical. You are comparing apples and oranges.

1. Information theory is a mathematical discipline that is used to develop efficient methods to convey information subject to a set of constrains.

2. "The right place to play" a hand (more formally, the par contract) is a constraint.

You're right, my statement was sloppy.

What I'm talking about is that the primary goal of bidding is not always conveying clear information. Even though I realise that any bridge action (assuming that you want to maximize your expected score) does convey information, it may not be possible to state this information in a simple, declarative sentence (like: holds 8-12 HCP and has at least four spades).

If you look at relaytype systems, the goal is often to narrow down the hcp range and give clear distributional information. This is what I meant when I talked about information theory as a model, but that was rather unclear. Especially early in the bidding, I have doubts whether this is the right strategy.

I feel for a 'course coding' type of approach, where you do not give specific information.

For example, you may have a bid that says 'spades is likely to be the right strain for this hand'. That may contain hands with long spades, but also 4432 hands with 44 in the minors. Because par analysis shows that for these 4432 hands spades is as likely a par contract as both minors.

[Danlo]

jtfanclub wrote

Quote

In Precision and similar systems, the hands where you need to find out whether game is possible after an opening bid have 11-15 hcp on one side and 8-12 on the other. When you're exploring for game (in contrast to just finding a good place to die), I don't think 8-12 or 11-15 openers makes any difference. And when you're just trying to find a cheap part score to play in, hcp stop mattering for the most part.

I do think 8-12 or 11-15 openers make a difference. The balance of power shifts, the frequencies shift, therefore the priorities shift. After an 11-15 opening bid, game is much more likely and therefore has much more priority in the response structure. It may be (but I'm exagerating here) that after an 8-12 opening bid it pays to give up on most of the game investigation because you need all non forcing bids you can get to get into a reasonable spot.

As I said, opening more does not have to be better. It may be that your the fastest car around the first corner, but get caught on the second. And it may be that you make life for opponents easier because they have more bids or rounds of bidding available and more information to go on in bidding and play.