[pbleighton]

Quote

Two-level suit openings are all intermediate. Typically the range is something like a good 9 to a bad 13. Usually these show five-plus cards in the suit, although at one point 2m could be four cards (it was the typical opening on 4414 with 12-13, now I think these more often open 1nt or pass). With very flat shape and/or a very weak primary suit they may pass or open 1NT instead.

Adam, my only disagreement with your post is that I believe that the 2 bids are rarely 5332, and that many 5422s in the 12-14 range are opened 1NT. I'm pretty sure this was the case at one point, but their system is evolving.

Peter

[inquiry]

Well, let me handle just one auction...a 2S opening bid.

If first and second seat, they play this as 10-13 hcp, 5+ spades/

In third seat, at least nonvul, this range is stretched, 5 to 12 hcp, 5+ spades, as I sit here, I don't know waht their vul 3rd seat 2S bid means, I suspect it will be a tad stronger, see their 3rd seat 2H bid below, vul.

For hearts, 1st 2nd seat still 10-13 5+H,
3rd seat not vul is interestingly reported as 6-12 hcp, 5+ hearts,
3rd seat vul, their 2H opener is 8-12 hcp, 5+ hearts

They don't seem to open 3 as much as other pairs. Here are some examples.

South
S J92
H J
D AQJ7643
C J4

Opened 3D, 1st seat, red versus white


South
S K
H KJ108542
D A95
C 87
Opened 3H!, 3rd seat red versus white


South
S
H K9
D QJ95
C J987543
Opened 3C 1st seat, none vul


South
S K75
H 2
D 94
C AJ98742
Opened 3C first seat white versus red


South
S 872
H 9
D 74
C KQ109876

Opened 3C, white versus red

South
S AQ109753
H K5
D 62
C 65
Opened 3S, 1st seat red versus white. Partner raised to gam on x 94 AQJTxxx AQ9, down only one despite DK wrong and 4-1 spade split no stiff honor


But what I meant by taking advantage of opponent lack of understanding is that when they open a 2H bid, no one seems to be trying to punish them for the bid. If you think about it, opener can have 10 hcp and a five card suit (up to 13). There is no certainty of a fit, there is no great way to investigate second fit if the doubling starts. Of course opener tends not be 3532 (open 1NT) so with no major fit they may have rollout options if the doubling starts. I haven't seen the doubleing start, so I don't know how they roll out.

[pbleighton]

Quote

But what I meant by taking advantage of opponent lack of understanding is that when they open a 2H bid, no one seems to be trying to punish them for the bid.

It is, I think, inherently difficult to punish them for the bid. How do you think familiarity would make punishment easier?

Quote

If you think about it, opener can have 10 hcp and a five card suit (up to 13). There is no certainty of a fit, there is no great way to investigate second fit if the doubling starts.

Are you arguing that the F-N system is theoretically unsound?

If so, what do you mean by "theoretically unsound"?

Do you think that a "theoretically unsound" system will perform worse than a "sound" system, as long as the opponents are familiar with it?

I think that soundness and effectiveness are two entirely separate system metrics. Consider the Roth-Stone system, which was the genesis of this thread. I think it is quite sound, no pun intended. I also think it's somewhat ineffective, for the reasons outlined by mikeh, which boil down to the competitive advantage of bidding first. Would you agree?

Peter

[inquiry]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

True, but do you really think this applies in the Bermuda Bowl?

Peter

Absolutely, I have read the WBF card for FANTUNES, and I assure you I don't understand all the nuances of their bidding. Now, if you were preparing for the BB, you have to prepare for the round robin, etc, so how long can you study FANTUNES system which is quite different (if you had adequate notes, does anyone?). One can adopt methods for polish club, precision and other forcing club type things quite easily, but here you get auctions like,,,

1C* - P - 1S*

1C = from 2 to any number of clubs, for 14 to any number or points but if only 2,3 clubs, then balanced hand

1S = 0 to 11 hcp, no four card major

Ok, opponents have anywhere from 14 opposite 0 HCP, to 11 hcp opposite 29. That is the first thing to think about, but then you have to figure out the nuances of various follow up auctions by them. What does responder know about opener and vice versa on susquent bids? Take this auction, it is easy enough

1C - 1S
1N - 3N

Opener has 14+ balanced, no five card major. Responder has no 4 card major, so he is probably on great 9 to 11 hcp.

How about

1C - 1S
1N - 2H?

What do you think that is? Is it on their notes? Did you prepare for it? It is not a transfer (responder has no major), it is a negative cue-bid, responder is WORRIED about hearts for NT. Is your double hearts? Is your double don't lead hearts? Do you know what your defense is?

There notes say that

1C - 1S
2H

Shows 23+ Balanced, or 21+ with diamonds, or 18-20 with short weak diamonds. HAve your really had time to prepare for this. What does dbl of 2H show? Hearts? Diamonds? Spades and diamonds? In real life when this auction occured, responder rebid 3C, does that show clubs? No it shows weak hand and 0-5 hcp and 2 or more diamonds. I still don't know what all that means and what hands have been excluded.

I am not saying this is why they do good (the confusion, if any), but unfamilarity has to favor the pair that knows their methods at least some. But I wondered if anyone had thoughts on the soundness of their auctions. They open the tremednous majority of their hands 1NT and 1C.

I like systems and bizarre conventions that might fix systemic holes. So I have made a mild study of their methods. It is certainly interesting and different. Since the followups on a lot of auctions are not documented that I can see, I can't judge how well it would work, at least for me. Clearly it works great for them, their results are excellent!!!

[mikeh]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

Quote

Bidding systems can be effective for a lot of reasons. One is that your opponents are unfamiliar with it. So their defensive bidding and defensive card play is not as sound as against familiar systems (can they draw the correct inferences, when they don't know the nuances of the system).

True, but do you really think this applies in the Bermuda Bowl?

Peter

Yes

And there is a lot of evidence in support of this, as well as common sense.

The BW does a great job of reporting on Bermuda Bowls.. not as detailed as the World Championship books, but very good, and there are often stories of screwups even by very good players when dealing with unusual systems.. and it seems (altho the reports probably self-select for this impression) that the NA players screw up more than the others of the same skill level: because NA players simply don't get exposed to the more unusual methods in their normal bridge lives.

Now, Nickell has used a coach for many years, and Nickell and pairs like Rosenberg-Zia or Berkowitz-Cohen have competed overseas for so many years that I wouldn't expect them to go wrong very often. Furthermore, many of the international players play in NA so often that the top players compete against them more than was the case 20 years ago.

But the BB is not all about the very best teams. There are always teams in the event who come from a second (or third) tier, especially in terms of international exposure: I know: I was on such a team in 2000. We didn't have the money, nor did we (all amateurs who work for a living) have the time to really study all of the unusual (to us) methods: we agreed upon some basic principles and hoped for the best.

While this is not a BB example, a well-known European pair recently inflicted some distress on a friend of mine and his partner: both very good players, altho not super-elite. One famous star opened a multi 2♦, alerted and explained. Other famous star bid 2♠, alerted as preferring ♥s, pass or correct. My friend held a borderline hand with 5♠s and decided to pass, expecting a correction if LHO held ♥s and, in the meantime, avoiding disaster if LHO held ♠s.

I am told that each of the 2 alerts was questioned and the explanation of the 2♠ call was as I have stated.

The famous 2♦ opener passed, with ♥s.

Setting 2♠ several non-vul tricks was no compensation for missing 4♠ red.

When asked, after the hand, famous star on the right said that opener retained the right to pass with ♥s, and that he had done so a number of times in the past. The director refused an adjustment.

Now, I don't know if the ruling was correct, and that is not the issue, but it had not occurred to my friend that a psychic pass was a tactic available to opener....this was at the St. Louis Nationals, and my friend rarely plays internationally so has had little exposure to multi.

Absent coaching or inordinate study, it is impossible to anticipate all the negative and positive inferences associated with an unusual (to you) approach.

[inquiry]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Quote

But what I meant by taking advantage of opponent lack of understanding is that when they open a 2H bid, no one seems to be trying to punish them for the bid.

It is, I think, inherently difficult to punish them for the bid. How do you think familiarity would make punishment easier?

Quote

If you think about it, opener can have 10 hcp and a five card suit (up to 13). There is no certainty of a fit, there is no great way to investigate second fit if the doubling starts.

Are you arguing that the F-N system is theoretically unsound?

If so, what do you mean by "theoretically unsound"?

Do you think that a "theoretically unsound" system will perform worse than a "sound" system, as long as the opponents are familiar with it?

I think that soundness and effectiveness are two entirely separate system metrics. Consider the Roth-Stone system, which was the genesis of this thread. I think it is quite sound, no pun intended. I also think it's somewhat ineffective, for the reasons outlined by mikeh, which boil down to the competitive advantage of bidding first. Would you agree?

Peter

I don't know if it is sound or unsound. One bid that makes little systemic sense to me is the opening of 2 of a suit on 10-13 hcp and a five card suit normally. Here is why I think this particular bid might be unsound. 13 hcp is enough to keep opponents out of most slams (even 10). Since the most they will have is 27 hcp.

The 2 suit bid is at the two level, advertised as "intermediate", they have bid it on five card suit to the JACK. There is no known second suit in case responder doesn't fit. With a weak two, you have three levels of safety, first you have a six card suit, second you are weak, and third you don't have to open.

Let's consider each of those. Since you are weak, they may have slam. Since you ahve a six card suit, that gives you an extra trick, maybe more, if you have to play the hand under distress. Finally, don't like your suit, you can pass. FANTUNES will not be able to pass, not with 13 hcp or they will miss too many games. They are compelled to open. So they will open at the two level, even vul on bad suits and a hand with enough value to stop slams the other way, and often games, and they have not struck any cord to help find a second fit.

They even ahd to come up with a kludge. They opened at two level with two suiters and 13 hcp and missed too many games, so they lower their requirements for a 1M opening bid, but it is still FORCING.

Let me put this particular "problem" into perspective. I paly an opening bid of 2M shows roughly 10 to 14 hcp and 5+ major, very close to their bid. But I add the stipulation that opener also has a club suit. And if opener is 6-5 I tend to open 1H, also many 6-4's. But my 1H is not forcing. I think I can just make up for the hands were we belong in 2C but 2M got us way too high because of other benefits I derive when I can open a major and rebid 2C as artificial and forcing and not showing clubs. We can talk about their other bids as well, I guess. I am not saying it is unsound, I am asking if it more sound than average, more sound than average basically (I mean average for well thought out, integrated bidding system).

[pbleighton]

Quote

I don't know if it is sound or unsound. One bid that makes little systemic sense to me is the opening of 2 of a suit on 10-13 hcp and a five card suit normally. Here is why I think this particular bid might be unsound. 13 hcp is enough to keep opponents out of most slams (even 10). Since the most they will have is 27 hcp.

The 2 suit bid is at the two level, advertised as "intermediate", they have bid it on five card suit to the JACK. There is no know second suit in case responder doesn't fit. With a weak two, you have three levels of safety, first you have a six card suit, second you are weak, and third you don't have to open.

Your argument that the expected results of a classic weak two will better than an F-N weak two is valid, on an expected results per hand basis. However, you can make the same argument for traditional, very disciplined weak twos versus the modern, less disciplined variety. The missing ingredient, of course, is frequency. In addition, the analysis of F-N has to take into account the performance of the two bids versus opening them at the one level (presumably somewhat bad), versus the advantage of strengthening their one bids.

Quote

They even ahd to come up with a kludge. They opened at two level with two suiters and 13 hcp and missed too many games, so they lower their requirements for a 1M opening bid, but it is still FORCING.

Oh, come on. This is a young pair with a new system. Change is surprising?

Quote

Let me put this particular "problem" into perspective. I paly an opening bid of 2M shows roughly 10 to 14 hcp and 5+ major, very close to their bid. But I add the stipulation that opener also has a club suit. And if opener is 6-5 I tend to open 1H, also many 6-4's. But my 1H is not forcing. I think I can just make up for the hands were we belong in 2C but 2M got us way too high because of other benefits I derive when I can open a major and rebid 2C as artificial and forcing and not showing clubs. We can talk about their other bids as well, I guess. I am not saying it is unsound, I am asking if it more sound than average, more sound than average basically (I mean average for well thought out, integrated bidding system).

Ben, I'm still curious whether you accept my distinction between soundness and effectiveness, with reference to Roth-Stone in particular?

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Quote

But what I meant by taking advantage of opponent lack of understanding is that when they open a 2H bid, no one seems to be trying to punish them for the bid.

It is, I think, inherently difficult to punish them for the bid. How do you think familiarity would make punishment easier?

Quote

If you think about it, opener can have 10 hcp and a five card suit (up to 13). There is no certainty of a fit, there is no great way to investigate second fit if the doubling starts.

Are you arguing that the F-N system is theoretically unsound?

If so, what do you mean by "theoretically unsound"?

Do you think that a "theoretically unsound" system will perform worse than a "sound" system, as long as the opponents are familiar with it?

I think that soundness and effectiveness are two entirely separate system metrics. Consider the Roth-Stone system, which was the genesis of this thread. I think it is quite sound, no pun intended. I also think it's somewhat ineffective, for the reasons outlined by mikeh, which boil down to the competitive advantage of bidding first. Would you agree?

Peter

Since you mention competitive advantage I thought that gave me an excuse, thanks, to quote some stuff from Roth on this issue. My goal is simply to further the discussion not be an advocate.

1) Appraise hands accurately, point count for no trumps is fairly accurate.
2) Suit games stress aces, kings, stiff, voids upgrade key cards in the right suits and judte accordingly for game or slam.
3) relieve some "nerve-wracking" insecuities after a series of bids by you and your partner.
4) Have no fear of passing when others are opening the bidding.
5) If you pass and the opp open the bidding you are at a tremendous advantage(many will disagree with this point, Wow!)
6) If you stay out of the bidding, Declarer will have no clues to help him.
7) Roth says by staying out of bidding that the opp play in they may go down at imps or miss overtricks at MP.
8) opp are left in the blind.
9) if the opp open the bidding and our side buy the contract your advantage is huge.
10) You can adjust your bidding up or down by listening to active opp. Your kings become Aces, etc.

[mike777]

11) opening the bidding at one level lacking hcp and the opp enter the bidding your partner is at a disadvantage.
12) If you pass the next guy may pass rather than preempt had you opened.
13) Opening a weak two bid gives your partner a better guide into your hcp and Defensive possibilities.
14) Roth says passing put him at a tremendous advantage (Wow expect most to strongly disagree on this one)
15) Opening sound in first or second seat gives partner a sense of confidence and if partner has to take a chance some assurance.
16) Roth heartily recommends making weak two bids with outlandish distribution with limited hcp depending on the vul.

[pbleighton]

Quote

My goal is simply to further the discussion not be an advocate

LOL, come out of the closet, Mike

Peter

[mikeh]

Mike:

Alvin Roth is rightly regarded as one of the best theorists the game has ever produced: but, all theorists must be assessed (and Roth has been so assessed) in the context of their own times and the state of knowledge of their contemporaries.

Thus, Newton, if judged by comparison to a 1st year university physics teacher, would be woefully ignorant. His theories would be 'known' to be incomplete and, in some cases, 'wrong'. Yet his name will be famous, I suspect, for thousands of years.

It is essential to understand the state of bridge theory when Roth was at his most productive. It is also important to understand that very, very few of us retain flexibility of thought as we age. Thus Roth is still an advocate for the theories that made him famous, even though others, building on his work, have gone far beyond and have, in many ways, gone in other directions.

In Roth's day, his ideas contained a mix of brilliancies and failures.
Thus he advocated very strong single raises of a major opening: I think, altho it has been some time since I read on this, that a single raise was effectively forcing.

Another of his ideas that never really caught on was the 'free bid' issue: he argued that, after an overcall of our opening, responder required substantial values to make a 'free bid'.

And even his most famous invention, the negative double, was not originally used as it is commonly used today...

None of this is to detract from his genius: but theory moves on long after individual theorists have reached the end of their time in the sun.

Turning to the long list of arguments attributed to Roth in Mike's latest posts, I have some comments:

1 and 2 are common sense and apply regardless of opening philosophy

3. Avoid nerve-wracking insecurity!! Sure, we are all much more relaxed when we pass out a board rather than have to think about bidding game or resting in a partscore. Heck, why play the game at all... it's way to stressful to have to bid, and even Roth bids sometimes.

4-9, the same basic flawed point, reworded. Yes, we may give away clues by opening when it is not our hand. Yes, the opps may give us clues. But, when we hold a good 11 in 1st or second, the odds are that this hand belongs to us! And our overcall structure is not as well-developed as our opening bid structure. So we are at a handicap, in the bidding if not the play, if we pass and have to struggle to even get into the auction compared to those who open our hand. And it is of no avail to be the one who makes 11 tricks in 3♥ when the field is making 10 in 4♥. And so on. Remember that in Roth's day, even the best pairs in the world routinely screwed up hands that to the average expert today would be easy. Read reports of the WCs in the 1950s and you will see that even the Blue Team missed or went down in as many slams as they bid and made, and they were far, far better than the best americans, including Alvin and Tobias. So remaining quiet had a much bigger upside then than it does today, when all good pairs shine at slam bidding (relatively speaking) and almost none miss decent games when left to their own devices.

11 is simply illogical. It depends on your agreements: if you open a hand that is weaker than your systemic agreement, then partner is at a disadvantage should an opp overcall. But not if your hand is within expectation. Also, remember that Roth developed his notions when players lacked many of the competitive bidding tools we all use. No fit-showing jumps, no preemptive raises, cue-bids required huge hands (and, for some, promised 1st round control). In addition, he espoused the never-accepted free bid theory which required responder to have substantial values for a 'free bid'. Thus, after a 1♥ overcall, one required a significant hand to bid 1♠: such a bid showed much more than it would have done had RHO not overcalled. No wonder responder was at a disadvantage!

12: this shows that Roth is utterly out-of-date. In his day, people required real hands in order to preempt. Only the crazy fringe would open a 3 bid without a good 7 card suit. Weak 2s were in their infancy, and frowned upon by many experts... So opening preempts were relatively rare, compared to today.


13. You should take a look back, if possible, to the hands that RS experts opened weak twos on in the 50s and early 60s. The range of strength, length (7 card suits as well as 6, but never 5) and shape was such that I have to think he has his tongue in cheek on this point. Anyway, this is simply not true unless you agree to a strict set of rules about weak two bids.


14: Roth claimed that passing put him at a tremendous advantage. That was probably true in his heyday: his ability to sniff out a balance was legendary, but few, if any, of us can claim that ability. Most of us are less of a mastermind than he was: rumour has it that one of his regular partners was forbidden to bid ♠s or notrump unless he did it first.

15. So what: stay in method, don't stretch or distort, and you, too, can bid with confidence. The most confident I ever felt, and the best I ever played, was in my most aggressive partnership, in terms of opening bid philosophy: we spent countless hours over several years talking about these issues, and, by the end, we both felt confident in our constructive auctions to a degree I haven't experienced since.

[mike777]

thanks for thoughtful reply.

Btw these comments are from the 1990's book. Not from the fifties or sixties. His comments are about today's bidding not bidding from the 50-65 period.

Of course that does not mean he is right, just wanted to point out he is talking about modern bridge in these comments.

[han]

Mike, you have posted 5110 in this forum. I don't believe that you know as little as you claim to.

[inquiry]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

Quote

Let me put this particular "problem" into perspective. I paly an opening bid of 2M shows roughly 10 to 14 hcp and 5+ major, very close to their bid. But I add the stipulation that opener also has a club suit. And if opener is 6-5 I tend to open 1H, also many 6-4's. But my 1H is not forcing. I think I can just make up for the hands were we belong in 2C but 2M got us way too high because of other benefits I derive when I can open a major and rebid 2C as artificial and forcing and not showing clubs. We can talk about their other bids as well, I guess. I am not saying it is unsound, I am asking if it more sound than average, more sound than average basically (I mean average for well thought out, integrated bidding system).

Ben, I'm still curious whether you accept my distinction between soundness and effectiveness, with reference to Roth-Stone in particular?

Well, I would call Roth-Stone methods unsound for reasons Mikeh and others have accurately stated, the bidding is not in a vaccum. In a bidding room, with no opposition bidding, Roth-Stone is fine. If you prefer to refer to that as a "sound" system that is ineffective, I will not argue sematics with you. That is fine.

Quote

Quote

They even had to come up with a kludge. They opened at two level with two suiters and 13 hcp and missed too many games, so they lower their requirements for a 1M opening bid, but it is still FORCING.

Oh, come on. This is a young pair with a new system. Change is surprising?

They have made a number other kludges. Their 1NT opening bids can be frequently quite off shape. Several of their 1m opening bids lack as many as 14 hcp but with some compensating values (mostly two suiter) that causes an upgrade. But one hand was ♠Qx ♥AQ4 ♦KQ98432 ♣6. I guess beer suit (7♦'s) make up for devaluation of ♠Qx. Let me give a three examples from BBO play (Jec team games) of their off shape 1NT, none are successes. I left out one 4441 that was a push, this was all the other 4441 1NT openers.

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1NT
 Pass  2♣    Pass  2NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Here 2NT over 2C showed a singleton club. 1NT made the other direction at the other table.

---

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1NT
 Pass  2♣[/font]    Pass  2NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Here 2NT over 2C showed a singleton club. 1NT made the other direction at the other table.

---

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1NT
 Pass  2♣[/font]    Pass  2NT
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Here 2NT over 2C showed a singleton club. 1NT made the other direction at the other table.

---

Quote

Your argument that the expected results of a classic weak two will better than an F-N weak two is valid, on an expected results per hand basis. However, you can make the same argument for traditional, very disciplined weak twos versus the modern, less disciplined variety.  The missing ingredient, of course, is frequency.  In addition, the analysis of F-N has to take into account the performance of the two bids versus opening them at the one level (presumably somewhat bad), versus the advantage of strengthening their one bids.

Well, lets compare their system with an ultimately sound system, inquiry 2/1.

In inquiry 2/1 I open ridiculously lightly at the one level. Partner is not forced to respond. After I open, I show those 14/15+ hands via a new minor rebid (even if I opened a minor). So when I open 1x, first partner does not have to respond with 0 hcp, second I don't have to jump to show 18 opposite what could be 0.

Also i wonder how effective pass is for them when they have a classic weak two. Finding these hands were odd of sorts. Nunes passed first seat vul with ♠QT8643 ♥AQ5 ♦A8 ♣97. I am thinking maybe misclick.

Against our own Jlall, nunes held ♠T8 ♥AKJT85 ♦6532 ♣2 second seat, he passed. This allow justin and his partner to exchange information and stop sort of safely in 3♠ (p-p-1S-p-1nt-2H-dbl-P-2S-p-p-3H-p-p-3S-all pass. At other table it was 2H-x-3H-p-p-3S-p-4S- followed by a wack.

Will have to think if this is negative or positive, but these are things you might think about when you try to decide if the system is theoretically sound.

[pbleighton]

Ben, do you really think that a few anecdotes constitute an argument? You know better than that.

Peter

[inquiry]

pbleighton, on May 4 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

Ben, do you really think that a few anecdotes constitute an argument? You know better than that.

Peter

The few hands point out a starting point for a discussion if the method is unsound or is sound. You call them anecdotes, I call them things I am worried about in their system (should I adopt it). I looked these up not because they had bad results (I didn't know what the results would be), but because as I think about their system, a weak NT with 4441 and 5431 is something I would think is flawed in my mind. Another is not being able to open a standardish weak two could be a potential flaw. I have some other issues I think are potential problems as well, but let me put these last two in perspective.

I play weak NT at MP it did fairly well, except when we missed a 4-4 major fit. Then I read a book called matchpoint precision that suggested not open weak NT with 4-4 the major at matchpoints. Of course, they are not playing matchpoints, but a 4441 hands with stiff minor gives risk of missing some really good PARTSCORES, and maybe a few great fit games. We did see a SLAM they missed.

I wanted to add mexican 2D to my bidding system, and throw out all weak twos (keep the major openings what I play them). Sadly, experience suggest not being able to open a weak two turned out to be bad for me.. and this despite that I open light 1H and aggressive 3 level preempts. There is still a need to bid weak twos.

So I have laid out several things I think that is at least theoretically open for discussion (off shape light 1NT, no weak twos, intermediate twos on five card suits and complications that might happen because of that). Now it is up for people to discuss why these are sound, or why removing these from 1 of a suit, makes the overall system more effective despite the problems these bids might create (if one agrees they create problems).

[mikeh]

mike777, on May 4 2007, 05:18 PM, said:

thanks for thoughtful reply.

Btw these comments are from the 1990's book.  Not from the fifties or sixties. His comments are about today's bidding not bidding from the 50-65 period.

Of course that does not mean he is right, just wanted to point out he is talking about modern bridge in these comments.

You missed my point, Mike. Roth's 1990 book was a flop precisely because he had not advanced with the times. He was publishing a book in the 1990s which, altho not the same as his books from decades earlier, reflected an approach to the game that has long since proven to be inadequate.

Let me repeat: he was a genius in terms of the insight and originality he showed 50-60 years ago. Many of today's treatments can be traced back to him. But he got stuck in time, as happens to virtually all of us. The fact that his name and reputation was powerful enough to get his Picture Bidding ideas printed did not save the book from sinking like a stone. Name one player, of world class status who claims to have adopted his ideas from that book: I don' t mean someone who lent his name to a promotional blurb out of affection, respect or for some money... I mean a top level expert or pair whose methods have changed to incorporate Roth's current ideas... I bet you can't find one.

Then look at the methods increasingly in use by the top pairs. We see transfer responses to 1♣ openings, wide-spread use of multi-meaning bids, aggressive competitive tactics, routine openings on hands that would have RS shuddering in disbelief and so on. RS was revolutionary and some parts of it, heavily modified, survive to this day. But we still see DC3's in use in some parts of the world... no modern airline pilot would want to fly one of those compared to a Boeing 777.

Mike, you keep alleging that you are not advocating a particular style, but the reality appears to be that you are as stuck as Roth.... and as stuck as I am likely to become as time goes by (heck, I can already see signs of that attitude... I rarely listen to music by artists I have not known of for at least 20 years )

[pbleighton]

Quote

So I have laid out several things I think that is at least theoretically open for discussion (off shape light 1NT, no weak twos, intermediate twos on five card suits and complications that might happen because of that). Now it is up for people to discuss why these are sound, or why removing these from 1 of a suit, makes the overall system more effective despite the problems these bids might create (if one agrees they create problems).

No problem, they are valid issues. But, as I said in my first post on F-N:

Quote

I've studied F-N but haven't played it. From what I can see, while it *less* unsound than my system, it will still be unsound, in that it will generate a high number of bad boards, and that it would clearly be a disaster in double-dummy bidding.

Having played a similar system, I knew for a fact that it will generate a lot of bad boards. This makes it *unsound*. It's *effectiveness* is, IMO, a different matter, though you may see this as a quibble

These types of systems generate a lote of good boards (including offshape NT and 5 card weak twos), plus the very sound one level openings have a distinct edge over standard systems.

Bottom line: I think the issues involved in comparing F-N to a standardish system are so complex that *theory*, while quite interesting, is totally nondeterminate.

Peter

[mike777]

mikeh, on May 4 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

mike777, on May 4 2007, 05:18 PM, said:

thanks for thoughtful reply.

Btw these comments are from the 1990's book.  Not from the fifties or sixties. His comments are about today's bidding not bidding from the 50-65 period.

Of course that does not mean he is right, just wanted to point out he is talking about modern bridge in these comments.

You missed my point, Mike. Roth's 1990 book was a flop precisely because he had not advanced with the times. He was publishing a book in the 1990s which, altho not the same as his books from decades earlier, reflected an approach to the game that has long since proven to be inadequate.

Let me repeat: he was a genius in terms of the insight and originality he showed 50-60 years ago. Many of today's treatments can be traced back to him. But he got stuck in time, as happens to virtually all of us. The fact that his name and reputation was powerful enough to get his Picture Bidding ideas printed did not save the book from sinking like a stone. Name one player, of world class status who claims to have adopted his ideas from that book: I don' t mean someone who lent his name to a promotional blurb out of affection, respect or for some money... I mean a top level expert or pair whose methods have changed to incorporate Roth's current ideas... I bet you can't find one.

Then look at the methods increasingly in use by the top pairs. We see transfer responses to 1♣ openings, wide-spread use of multi-meaning bids, aggressive competitive tactics, routine openings on hands that would have RS shuddering in disbelief and so on. RS was revolutionary and some parts of it, heavily modified, survive to this day. But we still see DC3's in use in some parts of the world... no modern airline pilot would want to fly one of those compared to a Boeing 777.

Mike, you keep alleging that you are not advocating a particular style, but the reality appears to be that you are as stuck as Roth.... and as stuck as I am likely to become as time goes by (heck, I can already see signs of that attitude... I rarely listen to music by artists I have not known of for at least 20 years )

Yes, Mike I got your point, his ideas did not evolve despite his saying they have. He would argue some of his major theories have changed from 50-65 but I understand many did not see the change or think they were of value. I got your point when you made it a year ago but thanks and I do not disagree with your main theme or thesis.

Keep in mind I learned Ehaa as standard and then moved on to Red book Goren Precision, Blue Team, KS, some simple version of Eastern Sci. Simple Club(Weiss Club) and then basically know bridge only through BW magazine or Bridge Today(Granovetter), Ausi Bridge(Burgess, Marston, et al) British Bridge(Acol) for decades and decades. I would love to try out Inquiry 2/1 if I ever understood it for fun.

Not sure what I am ossified into now but I note the Granovetters have won playing close to Roth Stone at top levels. Just not Spingold, Blue Ribbons, yet.
Seems Nunes et all have some influence from Roth.

Beyond that ya 99.99% play just the opposite and that means something for sure.
Note with some old buddies online I do play junky openings....mexican 2d....2/1 fashion so I hope that will keep me young in spirit.

As for music, ya how many great groups since Smells Like Teen Spirit came out. :0

Reading 40th anniversary issue of Rolling Stone right now with some interviews from some new exciting rock and roll guys.
Dylan
Ringo
Paul
Patti
Keith
MIck
Neil

If you have no idea who they are NeverMind!

I think they have a chance to make it big.

[Gerben42]

I'm probably one of the few players who have played the Fantunes system in serious competition (live tournaments and German 2nd national league) so let me add my two cents here.

Point 1. If you open on the 1-level you are WAY ahead of the field. Since you know partner has more than a minimum opener you can bid games more quickly, double for penalty more quickly and compete more quickly.

Point 2: If you open 1NT through 2♠, which you will a lot, your success is a function of judgement. 1NT is a double-edged sword and perhaps the weak spot of the whole thing. The 2-level bids are also tough to defend against and in doubt just bid game and then the game is tough to defend against. A study of over 100 two-level openers has shown F-N are up more than an IMP a board on these opening bids (don't know if they are almost always up more than an IMP a board though!).

My overall conclusion is that:

The 2-level bids are theoretically unsound but since they are high and have a limited strength range, the trouble is bigger for the opponents. Secondly you don't have all the problems with opening 1x on junk like everyone else does. Third system is not THAT important I am sure Fantunes would be absolute top world class anyway, their card play is magnificent.

Some other thing: You don't open weak two bids. This is not THAT bad, we have had many sequences like:

Pass Pass 1♥ 2♣
Pass 2♠* Pass Pass
Pass

* Weak 2 in ♠