[Flame]

kes, on Sep 20 2006, 03:29 AM, said:

" . . . when you open 1D . . . you are in trouble if opponents preempt "

Example :
1D (2D) X (3D) - then opener PS with 44= / X with 55+ / 3M with 5= (& 4= oM)

Not so good :
1D (3D) X (PS) - then opener 3H with 44= or 4=5= / 3S with 5=4= / 3N with 55+

Better :
1D (3C) X (PS) - then opener 3D with 44= / 3M with 5= (& 4= oM) / 3N with 55+

The problem is not how to show opener's hand, the question is how to decide whather we should compete to the 3 level or not when opponenets bid 3m.
On many hands we wouldnt want to compete if opener has 4-4 but want to compete if opener has 5-5 (and maybe with 5-4)
It doest solve the problem to say that opener will continue with 5-5 or pass with 4-4 because sometimes we are in a total misfit.
This isnt saying The system is inferiour to normal systems when coming to make competitive decision, what i mean is that exact major usuallly put you in supper position while after 1D opening you might even be in worse then normal 5 card majors openers.

[kes]

Flame, on Sep 20 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

. . . while after 1D opening you might even be in worse then normal 5 card majors openers.

You are right , there is a problem (and I cannot solve it - open 1H with 4=H & 0-4S is worse ! ) . But I don't see why a normal 5 card major system is in a better situation after 1H (3D) .

[Flame]

kes, on Sep 20 2006, 01:14 PM, said:

Flame, on Sep 20 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

. . . while after 1D opening you might even be in worse then normal 5 card majors openers.

You are right , there is a problem (and I cannot solve it - open 1H with 4=H & 0-4S is worse ! ) . But I don't see why a normal 5 card major system is in a better situation after 1H (3D) .

Based on the LOTT you might have an advantage when you know partner has 5 cards in the major. I agree it can qork both ways since you know both majors.
Just seemed strange for me to see that you giv the same bid with 2 hands that are very different in their odr. It seemed strange because when i was trying for systems like that i based everything on the odr of the hands, which i thought is what you do as you have different bids for 4/5/6 cards suits.

[awm]

So here's the thing I find confusing. Sometimes the best fit is not in opener's suit. It's nice to be able to do one or both of the following:

(1) Have responder name a suit with less than GF values. If opener likes that suit we can look for a game there. If opener doesn't like that suit, then we can get out in a reasonable spot (say 1NT or two of opener's suit).

(2) Have responder ask opener for a second suit. If opener has a second suit that responder likes, we can look for a game there. If responder doesn't like that suit, we can get out in a reasonable spot (say 1NT or two of opener's original suit).

It's pretty obvious that standard methods allow you to do at least one of these things (typically the first opposite a minor opening and the second opposite a major opening). Methods where neither of these avenues are available unless responder holds enough strength to force game are going to be substantially inferior. To give some examples:

(1) Suppose I have a 2353 ten count. Partner has 5♠. In typical methods, partner opens 1♠ and I bid 1NT. Now if partner bids 2♦ I can get excited and start hunting for game. If partner bids 2♣ or 2♥ I correct to 2♠ and we play a reasonable 5-2 major fit with about half the values. Compare to playing MALEX where partner opens 2♦ (showing 5♠). My hand isn't a real invite opposite the opening range specified, so I assume I'm expected to bid 2♠. This is a potential disaster if partner holds a 5-card diamond suit, or even in some cases a 4-card diamond suit.

(2) Suppose I have a 3145 eight-count. Partner has 5♥. In typical methods, partner opens 1♥ and I bid 1NT. Now if partner passes we're in a reasonable spot (say 1NT is semi-forcing). If partner bids two of a minor I can pass and again we're okay. Now suppose we're playing MALEX. Partner opens 2♣ showing 5♥. I suppose I could pass this, but that's disastrous if partner has short clubs and a diamond suit (say 2551 in the worst case). We must have a better fit than hearts (if partner's 5332-ish 2m is better, and if partner's 5-4 or 5-5 the second suit must be a minor and we have a great fit there). Can I guarantee to find this fit without being forced to the three-level?

(3) Suppose I have a 3442 nine-count. Partner has 4♠ without 4♥. In typical methods, partner opens a minor. I respond 1♥. Partner bids 1♠. Now I can bid notrump if partner's minor is clubs, and bid 2♦ if partner's minor is diamonds. Either of these contracts is likely to play better than 1♠ (4-3 fits with the 3-card holding in a balanced hand usually don't play much better than NT, and 4-4 or 5-4 diamond fits typically do better than 4-3 spade fits). Playing MALEX, partner opens 1♠. Now I am expected to pass, even though 1♠ will almost never be the right spot. In fact partner could even have six diamonds and four spades, and we could be making 5♦ only to play in 1♠.

Am I missing something here? Keep in mind that when responder is game forcing and opponents are passing, your opening structure is usually not that important, so the interesting cases are when responder is invitational or worse, or competitive sequences.

[Flame]

awm, on Sep 20 2006, 05:03 PM, said:

Am I missing something here?

As i see it, those kind of systems have an advantage in competive bidding, but this must come from somewhere and this is from non competitve biddings when we wont find our best spot, usually in a minor.

[kes]

Flame, on Sep 20 2006, 03:47 PM, said:

Just seemed strange for me to see that you giv the same bid with 2 hands that are very different in their odr. It seemed strange because when i was trying for systems like that i based everything on the odr of the hands, which i thought is what you do as you have different bids for 4/5/6 cards suits.

I need 7 opening bids to differentiate 4+& 4+ / 4= / 5= / 6+ majors . I don't see a way for more differentiation (without summarizing on the other hand) .

Besides :
If you open 1D with 4=4= majors (worst case) in Malex AND next opp has a 6+m (he needs for the bid 3m) , your pd has a 4+ M (may be both) about 75 % .
If you open 1M with 5=cards (worst case) in a 5card major system AND next opp has a 6+m (he needs for the bid 3m) , your pd has 3+cards in that M about 65 %.

[kes]

Flame, on Sep 21 2006, 03:23 AM, said:

awm, on Sep 20 2006, 05:03 PM, said:

Am I missing something here?

As i see it, those kind of systems have an advantage in competive bidding, but this must come from somewhere and this is from non competitve biddings when we wont find our best spot, usually in a minor.

Flame's answer is as good as it can be - it is just a matter of task to like or not (as everybody is perfectly rigth to do ) the philosophy of the weak opening systems .

[glen]

What are the key differences between WELOS and MALEX, and which system should a player adopt, if one of the two?

[joshs]

Personally I think adam has it backwards.

The claims from the forcing pass players were

a. Gains on the frequent 8-12 hands, especially in slam bidding
(Both the strong pass systems, and the Big diamond systems with intermediate 1C openers such as magic diamond, supposidly get there system wins from opening the intermediate hands in 1/2 seat)
b. Mild losses in the pass and fert auctions.
c. Bigger losses from the fert when red. When red vs white the fert passed out is rarely ever a good score.

(Note: having never done a statistical study on this stuff, and having not played this stuff in serious competition, I just have assume these claims from the people who play this stuff are accurate. I do think that many of these systems are well thought out.)

Yes if you play pairs with no agreements about how to defend a fert, you can get wins that way, but thats at best a short term system gain through confusion not through technical merits. the reason to keep playing it after people learn how to defend it is because you have enough gains in other places to make up for the loss with the fert.

The higher the fert bid, the more descructive it is and the easier it is to penalize. Back in the heyday of FP, it was fairly common to see a 1D fert Vul (or even a 1C fert), but a 1H or higher fert NV. I think Burgess-Marsden played a 2C fert NV if I recall correctly.

Todd's system uses a 1H fert, which is totally unsound Vul. They actually score better with it than they deserve, because most people don't understand that the way to defend this bid, at least when the fert bidder's side is vul, is to aim for penalties, and to pass out the fert when close. Getting 300's with no risk of going down in game will be good scores Vul when you only have a marginal game (say 12 opposite 12), and great scores when NV. Play a direct x as a strong hand which sets up a forcing pass where you can get blood.

[hrothgar]

joshs, on Sep 25 2006, 06:10 PM, said:

The higher the fert bid, the more descructive it is and the easier it is to penalize. Back in the heyday of FP, it was fairly common to see a 1D fert Vul (or even a 1C fert), but a 1H or higher fert NV. I think Burgess-Marsden played a 2C fert NV if I recall correctly.

Paul likes to tinker with his systems a lot.

The final version of his forcing pass structure used

a 1♠ fert when vulnerable
a 2♣ fert when non-vulnerable

[DrTodd13]

When I first started playing FP, it was for fun and something different to distract me from the mundane 2/1 everyday. I had always suspected that 1♥ fert vul was not sound. Playing it for 3 years, we ran into a few cases where we went for a number against air. I wanted to try to make the system more sound for the BBO league tournament where people have advanced time to prepare and are more likely to adopt a good fert defense as Josh proposes. Our results may vary but I can try to dig up some statistics that I generated a few months ago on how many IMPs we gained or lost on each of our opening bids. I think the only thing that differs from what those here have said is that we haven't had the experience that the forcing pass is an IMP loser. Maybe my memory is fuzzy but I'll dig out the numbers and post them when I get a chance.

Todd

[joshs]

hrothgar, on Sep 25 2006, 10:16 AM, said:

joshs, on Sep 25 2006, 06:10 PM, said:

The higher the fert bid, the more descructive it is and the easier it is to penalize. Back in the heyday of FP, it was fairly common to see a 1D fert Vul (or even a 1C fert), but a 1H or higher fert NV. I think Burgess-Marsden played a 2C fert NV if I recall correctly.

Paul likes to tinker with his systems a lot.

The final version of his forcing pass structure used

a 1♠ fert when vulnerable
a 2♣ fert when non-vulnerable

Wow, a 1S fert red! Paul is a wild and crazy guy. I guess I knew that from his 5332 red 2M bids....

[akhare]

joshs, on Sep 25 2006, 12:40 PM, said:

Wow, a 1S fert red! Paul is a wild and crazy guy. I guess I knew that from his 5332 red 2M bids....

I should probably wait for an more objective evaluation of this statement, but I think that it's pretty difficult to effectively punish a 1♥ fert at any vul. over the long run. It's true that you sometimes gain spectacular results (which makes a vul. 1♥ unsound for a team match), but in general, it isn't easy to find all the right circumstances to make it really pay off.

[awm]

Here are some comments about MALEX and light opening systems in general, which I see as potential weaknesses. Let's see where people disagree with me here.

1. A wider-ranging strong opening tends to make things more difficult for the opening side, especially when opponents intervene. Partner is better placed after 1♣(16+) - 2♠ than after 1♣(14+) - 2♠ for example. Playing strong club/diamond/pass systems with light openings, your "wins" should come primarily from the non-strong opening bids, not from the strong call.

2. Light, limited openings give you some benefits when your side has to make slam decisions. This is perhaps especially true using relay followups. However, it's not clear to me that 8-12 openings will actually be better in this regard than (say) 11-15 openings. While the 8-12 opening range is obviously much more frequent, we're more likely to be in the slam zone after the 11-15 opening. I'm not convinced that the odds that "I open and we have a slam" are much better playing the lighter range.

3. Light openings can help partner when you don't open, because of the strong inference that you have a very weak hand. For example, partner can pass an opposing preempt with 16 hcp knowing that game is unlikely, whereas after a "standard" pass he might have to find a call. However, this advantage is greatly reduced in systems like MALEX where you're not opening all hands in the 8-10 range. In fact some 20% of hands are without a four-card major, and these hands will routinely pass in MALEX holding 8-10 high. Some of them may be desirable to pass with 11-12 points as well since the alternative will be opening at the three level. This substantially reduces the advantage to partner after a pass.

4. Light openings can help you in competitive auctions. However, a one-level opening doesn't take all that much space away from the opposition. This is even more true for lower openings (for example playing transfer opening bids may even help the opponents). The real wins will come when partner can raise opener's suit obstructively. However, when you're routinely opening four-card suits (even in preference to longer side suits) the opportunities for partner to raise aggressively will be fewer. There is also less lead directional value to the opening bid. And if you happen to "pick off" the opponent's suit, for every time you scare them out of the best contract in "your" suit, there will be a time when they play in notrump instead of failing in "your" suit on an 8-card fit with a bad break.

5. Light openings can help you to find light fitting games, when it otherwise might be hard to even get into the auction. But if you have no method to look for secondary suit fits without "serious" values and you're not even opening your longest suit much of the time, it seems harder to win in this regard. The MALEX structure in particular seems to offer no avenue for investigating a secondary suit fit with less than serious values, especially after the openings showing a five card major suit.

6. Light openings can expose you to penalties, either doubled or undoubled, when your contract fails. This is most true at vulnerable, and when opener is relatively balanced and without a long suit. Using a "transfer" approach can also allow opponents more opportunities to penalize when it might otherwise be difficult. Looking at MALEX, the bids that seem most vulnerable are the 1NT opening (I know of virtually no serious pairs who play 11-13 or weaker notrumps at vulnerable) and the 2-minor openings (which could be 5332 patterns and give the opposition multiple ways into the auction).

7. Light openings can substantially help the opposition, because they help to locate values and suit lengths which would be virtually impossible to discover if our side passed throughout. This can propel the opponents into light making games, keep them out of failing contracts, and help them to declare or defend more accurately than they otherwise would. Of course, all of this is more applicable to stronger opposition.

8. The hands where it's best to get in early are typically those where our side may want to compete to a high level. These hands put the maximum possible pressure on the opponents. Typical hands include a long single suit or a 5-5 two-suiter. The more bids are devoted to opening hands in the "8+" opening range, the less likely you can bid with the 5-7 point hands including substantial shape. I'm not convinced that the advantages gained (for example in MALEX) by being able to open 8-10 point hands with a four card major cancel out the loss of the various preemptive two-level calls.

9. In all, I'm not trying to claim that a light opening system can't be effective. I just have serious doubts about the approaches a lot of people take to the methods. Frequently the followups seem to based around optimizing slam bidding, which is not going to come up all that often when the opening range includes such bad hands. The combination of opening a shorter suit in preference to a longer one, and sacrificing the ability to seek out secondary suit fits, also seems like a substantial weakness to me.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Sep 25 2006, 11:44 PM, said:

2. Light, limited openings give you some benefits when your side has to make slam decisions. This is perhaps especially true using relay followups. However, it's not clear to me that 8-12 openings will actually be better in this regard than (say) 11-15 openings. While the 8-12 opening range is obviously much more frequent, we're more likely to be in the slam zone after the 11-15 opening. I'm not convinced that the odds that "I open and we have a slam" are much better playing the lighter range.

I agree with most of Adam's points. I'd like to expand on one of them.
Its a subtle point, but its well worth considering for anyone with a serious interest in designing bidding system.

All 5 HCP ranges are not created equal...

In particular, compare a limited opening system in which a constructive opening shows 8 - 13 HCP with one in which a constructive opening shows 11-15 HCPs.

I'm going provide 2 tables showing the relative frequency of the different point counts.

Table 1: 8-12 HCP
8 HCP = 20%
9 HCP = 21%
10 HCP = 21%
11 HCP = 20%
12 HCP = 18%

Table 1: 11-15 HCP
11 HCP = 26%
12 HCP = 24%
13 HCP = 20%
14 HCP = 17%
15 HCP = 13%

Notice how the first distribution is (relatively) symmetric arround the middle observation while the second is skew sharply to the left. These types of factors can actually have a relatively significant impact on a bidding system.

Suppose that I need to identify the median of both distributions. (For example, suppose that I want to ask partner whether he has a maximum or a minimum hand and I decide that the median is the obvious break point) The first distribution gives me a 2.5 HCP spread on either side of the median. The second distribution has a 2 HCP spread below the median and a three HCP spread above the median.

I would go so far as to argue that its easier to discover partner's strength when he holds a skewed distribution as in the second example. A 11-15 HCP opening range is inherently tighter than a 8-12 HCP opening range. (Some people even go so far as to argue that the width of a constructive opening range should be a function of the degree of skew...)

[hrothgar]

awm, on Sep 25 2006, 11:44 PM, said:

2. Light, limited openings give you some benefits when your side has to make slam decisions. This is perhaps especially true using relay followups. However, it's not clear to me that 8-12 openings will actually be better in this regard than (say) 11-15 openings. While the 8-12 opening range is obviously much more frequent, we're more likely to be in the slam zone after the 11-15 opening. I'm not convinced that the odds that "I open and we have a slam" are much better playing the lighter range.

I agree with you're criticism, however, you seem to be attacking a strawman. I don't know many pairs that play light opening systems because they believe that opening an 8 eight count will help them to find good slams.

I know lots of pairs who say that opening eight counts is a good idea because they believe in pressure bidding. Equally significant, most of those same pairs argue that if we are going to open our eight counts we need to create good constructive response structures over these very frequent openings.

However, I think that your criticsm is putting the cart before the horse.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Sep 25 2006, 11:44 PM, said:

8. The hands where it's best to get in early are typically those where our side may want to compete to a high level. These hands put the maximum possible pressure on the opponents. Typical hands include a long single suit or a 5-5 two-suiter.

Not sure if I buy into this assertion.

I would argue that it is beneficial to get to the par contract as quickly as possible. There are a lot of different ways to do so. Case in point: Consider an assumed fit preemptive style like a Ekrens 2♥ or Frelling 2♦ opening. These opening typically show a 4432 pattern.

Because these openings are often based on balanced hand patterns, the limit of the contract is typically 7-9 tricks. If I immediately contract for eight, I place enormous pressure on the opponents...

[awm]

hrothgar, on Sep 25 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

I agree with you're criticism, however, you seem to be attacking a strawman. I don't any pairs that play light opening systems because they believe that opening an 8 eight count will help them to find good slams.

I know lots of pairs who say that opening eight counts is a good idea because they believe in pressure bidding. Equally significant, most of those same pairs argue that if we are going to open our eight counts we need to create good constructive response structures over these very frequent openings.

However, I think that your criticsm is putting the cart before the horse.

This claim is more or less responding to Josh Sher's point that:

The claims from the forcing pass players were
a. Gains on the frequent 8-12 hands, especially in slam bidding

My point is basically that slam hands opposite 8-12 are few and far between. The wins you'll obtain because you have a cleaner auction to slam after my 8-12 opening may not even compensate you for the losses when my nebulous opening on a 13-15 hand makes it awkward to reach slam. If you're going to claim substantial wins from the 8-12 range to compensate for the various other problems the system creates, "better bidding on slam hands after the 8-12 openings" isn't going to get you very far. You really need to demonstrate wins on competitive partscore hands and/or light game hands to justify the approach. In addition, I see a lot of methods opposite the 8-12 opening which are based on either a relay approach or a two-over-one game-force approach, either of which works well for the occasional slam hand and not so well for the more common game/no game type or find the best partial type decisions. The followup methods advocated in MALEX seem to be roughly of this form, as do the followups advocated in most forms of MOSCITO and in Josh Sher's TOSR system and in DrTodd's strong pass methods. The methods Echognome originally advocated in his strong club system and those in the original "symmetric relay precision" and in the viking club were even further in this direction (I believe the relays were always GF in this methodology and there was no way to explore for the best partial). Of course the degree to which these systems advocate light openings may vary.

[joshs]

hrothgar, on Sep 25 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

awm, on Sep 25 2006, 11:44 PM, said:

2. Light, limited openings give you some benefits when your side has to make slam decisions. This is perhaps especially true using relay followups. However, it's not clear to me that 8-12 openings will actually be better in this regard than (say) 11-15 openings. While the 8-12 opening range is obviously much more frequent, we're more likely to be in the slam zone after the 11-15 opening. I'm not convinced that the odds that "I open and we have a slam" are much better playing the lighter range.

I agree with you're criticism, however, you seem to be attacking a strawman. I don't any pairs that play light opening systems because they believe that opening an 8 eight count will help them to find good slams.

I know lots of pairs who say that opening eight counts is a good idea because they believe in pressure bidding. Equally significant, most of those same pairs argue that if we are going to open our eight counts we need to create good constructive response structures over these very frequent openings.

However, I think that your criticsm is putting the cart before the horse.

I have been told this my a number of different players. For instance Bill Cole used to play a strong Club with Eric Greco in their DC days and open all 8 counts with a 5 card major. What Bill said was:
"Opening Light really did not talk the opps out of game much. the main gain was in the slam zone, since you have begun to describe your hand at a low level." I haven't played this (extreme light opening bid ) style, so i wouldn't know, but thats what I have consistantly heard from expert practitioners.

As to the pre-emptive nature of 1M opening bids, would you believe that opening 1H pre-empts the opponents holding spades?
How many times have you seen the auction:
1H-(1S)-2H-(3H)
P-(3S)-All pass
where both sides have 8 card fits and 20 points.
And if you instead decided to play x of 2H in this auction as the 3 card limit raise, you have a problem when you have the minors and a good hand. 1M opening bids are quite good pre-empts....

The point is that the tempo is in your side's favor in these fast attack auctions. And these auctions are really frequent. When you have 8-12 opposite 8-12 (I would guess 1/3 of all hands) you usually end up up in your final resting spot (often at the 2 level) in the first round of the auction, and the opps have to work out what to do....
Its the same reason why intermediate 2 bids are really effective. The auction tempos much better for the opening bid side than for the intervenors...

Yes there are other weakness of an active style in that sometimes you tip off where all of your sides values are. But usually when the opps are in game on their 27 points, and you have announced 8-12 they can't work out if its 8 or if its 12, and can't work out the location of your values unless the defense shows 7 points in the other hand.

[akhare]

awm, on Sep 25 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

In addition, I see a lot of methods opposite the 8-12 opening which are based on either a relay approach or a two-over-one game-force approach, either of which works well for the occasional slam hand and not so well for the more common game/no game type or find the best partial type decisions. The followup methods advocated in MALEX seem to be roughly of this form, as do the followups advocated in most forms of MOSCITO and in Josh Sher's TOSR system and in DrTodd's strong pass methods.

Well, I don't know if you are referring to something specific here, but the system that DrTodd and I play gives us plenty of chances to settle down in a part score.

For instance over the 1♦ opening showing 4+♠ and 9-13:

1♥: Only forcing bid w/ invite+ values
1♠: NF; Pass w/ 5!♠
1N: NF
2♣: NF
2♦: NF
2♥: NF
2♠: Preemptive raise