[TimG]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

Later RW play ATT proved that the most effective range for Weak Twos was ~5-10 HCP even though that reduced their frequency.

I think that the common range for a weak-two is more a product of common systems than a proof that this is the most effective range.

Bergen-Cohen enjoyed quite a bit of success with a different range (that included weaker hands). Fantoni-Nunes are enjoying quite a bit of success with a different range (that includes stronger hands).

[awm]

Echognome, on Jul 3 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

Perhaps a better way to define it is to say that you cannot promise length in another suit. So, if by consequences of your system, a 4 card outside suit is guaranteed, then this is disallowed. E.g. in the modified EHAA we play, we play that 2x shows 5+, but not 5332. Thus it EITHER has a four card side suit OR has 6+ in the original suit, but certainly does not guarantee two places to play.

Then to tie the loose knots, there needs to be a disclaimer that it cannot promise a 4+ card side suit over X% of the time (to avoid the either 54 OR 9+ agreements). What is the best value of X? I have no friggin' clue.

Again, I think you're missing the point here....

Say we accept for the moment that an agreement is an assignment of a set of hands to a bid. When you make the bid, you're "supposed to have" one of that set of hands. Of course, you're allowed to violate agreements (psych) sometimes but partner will play you for one of the agreed set of hands. If you frequently have hands outside that set, you'll get in trouble.

Okay, so say we define a first seat pass as a set of hands P, a 2♦ bid as a set of hands W, and a 3♦ bid as a set of hands H.

The issue is that P, W, and H are probably not disjoint sets. There will be hands where more than one of these calls is feasible. This doesn't necessarily mean that my sets "aren't defined well" -- it means that I won't necessarily always choose the same opening bid on the same hand in all situations. Which I select may depend on factors like vulnerability, state of the match, what I think of my opponents, or simply how frisky I'm feeling that day. I may be experimenting or trying some sort of mixed strategy.

Now we could regulate in some way that you can't have overlapping sets P, W, and H. This is not necessarily a "ridiculous" set of regulations, but the fact is that virtually everyone's definitions for these bids do in fact overlap, and no SO is really trying to prevent that. You could also make some statement like "if your definition places this hand in set W, then you have to open it with 2♦ at least XX% of the time" but this is going to be impossible to enforce (in part because no one holds the exact same hand often enough to measure XX) and also tends to violate law 40A (stating that players can bid whatever they want, regulation is for agreements (40C) and not for bids).

So it's okay to have overlapping sets P, W, and H. You're allowed to bid whatever you want (40A), so when faced with a hand belonging to two or more sets you can open whatever you like. So even if your official definition is "set W = all hands with 5-9 points and 5 or 6 diamonds" there is really nothing preventing you from passing most of the 5332 hands and bidding 3♦ on most of the 6-diamond hands, to the point where most of your 2♦ openings actually have a 4-card side suit. It is not even unethical to bid in this way -- you're allowed to bid whatever you want! You might get in trouble if you open 2♦ "showing 5+" with only four (at least if partner fields it or if you do it a lot) but you certainly won't get in trouble for passing a hand with 5♦: even though you "could've opened 2♦" it's certainly also an acceptable pass.

Of course, it might be unethical if partner knows you bid this way and doesn't disclose it. But when he discloses it, he's not even necessarily disclosing an agreement. He's disclosing a tendency: "Our agreement is that 2♦ is 4-9 points and 5-6♦, but he tends to pass most 5332 patterns and open 3♦ with 6♦, so usually he has a four-card side suit." The laws don't allow us to ban this tendency but they do require that tendencies known to partner be disclosed. By attempting to ban 2♦ openings that guarantee a 4-card side suit, we're only banning an agreement -- people can still bid 2♦ only with a four-card side suit as long as it's just a "tendency." I'd argue that all such a ban accomplishes is to deter people from disclosing their tendencies in case they get accused of an illegal agreement.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2007, 04:04 PM, said:

Comment 1: 

You're using an extremely naive interpretation of the Law of Total Tricks.  Lots of folks favor methods that are overly aggressive than the Law advocates preach.  For example, MOSCITO systemically raises a 4+ card 1M opening to the two level with three support.  MOSCITO raises a 1M opening to the 4 level with 4+ card support. 

While I use this as a specific example, several other systems are adopting similar methods.  For example, a couple years back the Bridge World published an article advocating raising a 5 card major opening to 2M with two card support. 

In both cases, the rational is identical:  If the auction starts

1M - (P) - 2M - (P)
P - ???

Its MUCH more difficult to make an accurate balancing decision if the opponents could be playing in a seven card fit.  The benefits of concealing information may very well outweigh the loss in constructive accuracy. 

Comment 2:  In what way, shape, or form does history prove that the suit lengths that you quote are reasonable.  Single suited openings are certainly popular in the United States.  Of course, players are effective banned from using anything else so its not like this is a particular useful data point.

Over the past couple years, I produced quite some summaries of the methods being played in the Bermuda Bowl and other such events.  One of the specific points that I focused on way the definition of the 2♦ / 2M openings.  Take a look at the systems that are actually being used in top level play.  You'll quickly find that most pairs from outside North America have abandoned traditional single suited preempts for methods based on either two suited openings or assumed fit type methods.

Their 2M openings typically show either 5+ cards or, in some cases, 4+ cards.

1= I'm well aware of this. What these pairs and theorists are advocating is basically systemic stealing: to bid =past= the point of safety in hopes of inducing mistakes by the opponents often enough that the payoff is greater than the price paid for speeding over the long haul.
Bergen & Cohen were doing the same sort of thing. In the long run, the tournament environment adapted to them and refuted the approach by giving it more bad results than good ones.

Time will tell whether the same holds true for this lastest fad for stealing.
My prediction is that there will be a resurgence and fine tuning of some old weapons to deal with this approach: the penalty X and penalty pass.
We'll see how well stealing works once the expert community adapts this time.


2= Multi-suited openings are relatively new in the history of bridge. For the vast majority of it, single suited preempts were the norm. Everywhere.

Various studies have been made of kinds of preempt openings and styles within those kinds in competition at the highest levels (for instance Brian Senior's study of the 1997 WC's). One of the interesting findings is how =little= most other kinds of say 2♦ prempts gain over the "old fashioned" Weak Two ♦.
(note I'm specifically talking about =preempts=. For instance the Mexican 2♦ or variations of it is/are a =huge= win playing IMPs.)

...and I =really= wish people would stop using the phrase "assumed fit" unless they can mathematically =prove= that a fit exists the vast majority of the time.
Say ~74% of the time or better. 53% or anything close to 50/50 odds of a fit is !not! an "assumed fit". It's little better than a coin flip.
Would you bet your home / your food money / yourself / your loved one's on said "assumed fit"? If not, you probably aren't in the position to call it much of an assumption.

[foo]

pbleighton, on Jul 3 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

Also see Fantoni-Nunes multiple world championships playing supremely undisciplined two bids.

Peter

If you think Fantoni-Nunes are playing "supremely undisciplined two bids.", you are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing and that you should not attempt such an approach yourself.

Fantoni-Nunes, like most WC pairs play a system that is the equivalent of a Formula 1 race car: =very= tuned, =very= disciplined within its design parameters, and =very= ugly when it gets into an accident.

They do what they are capable of and what they think they have to to win against opposition much better than most of us will ever face under conditions of contest more strenuous than most of us will ever endure.

What they do is based on and driven by those facts.
Players not in that class or not competing at those levels should not be making assumptions or choices regarding their own system design or play style based on what a WC pair does.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

1= Results from 100's of thousands of boards over decades of play at all levels is  !not! "anecdotal" evidence.  It's experimental results.  Lot's of them.

2= Since we must play SD but there is no objective way to build systems based on strictly SD work, it is unfortunately necessary to include DD analysis in the creation of system.

Besides, DD Bridge is the Holy Grail of SD play. "Beating baby seals" or "stealing" only works consistently against poor opposition and leads to poor Bridge habits and lax Bridge skills if over-indulged.

For kicks and giggles, I just went and looked through all of the conventions cards for the 2005 Bermuda Bowl in Estoril. I cataloged the definitions for all of the different 2H and 2S openings.

There were a variety of popular methods including

1. Single suited preempts that promise 6+ cards in the bid suit

2. Single suited preempts that promise 5+ cards in the bid suit. (these can be tricky to categorize. In some cases like Marston - Thompson, any 5 card suit is appropriate. In others, I think that folks typically promise 6+ cards, but people were being careful)

3. Two suited methods promising 5+ / 5+ shape (in some cases 4+ / 4+ shape)

4. Chimeras that promise EITHER 6+ cards a known suit or 5+ / 5+ shape (note, most of these methods force one to the three level with the single suited pattern)

5. Ekrens style assumed fit methods that promise 4+ /4+ shape

6. Flannery or some other three suited pattern

7. Artificial

Here's a frequency distribution of the different types of openings:

2♥ openings

Type 1 = 18
Type 2 = 14
Type 3 = 20
Type 4 = 5
Type 5 = 6
Type 6 = 1
Type 7 = 1

2♠ Openings

Type 1 = 17
Type 2 = 12
Type 3 = 26
Type 4 = 5
Type 5 = 1
Type 6 =
Type 7 = 2

Even if one makes the assumption that ALL of the single suited openings that promise 5+ cards in the bid suit are REALLY 6+ card preempts where one (rarely) stretches and opens a 5 card weak two in third seat, the preempt style style in which one opens a six card suit at the two level still isn't any more popular than the style that promises a two suited patterns (the 5/5 patterns, the 5/4 patterns, the Chimeras, and the Ekrens)

Furthermore, one could make the argument that the number of single suited preempts is artificially high given the presence of multiple teams from areas with fairly strict system regulations. I'd be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant relationship between local systems regs and choice of methods. I expect that there might also be a relationship between player age and methods.

[pbleighton]

Quote

If you think Fantoni-Nunes are playing "supremely undisciplined two bids.", you are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing and that you should not attempt such an approach yourself.

Fantoni-Nunes, like most WC pairs play a system that is the equivalent of a Formula 1 race car: =very= tuned, =very= disciplined within its design parameters, and =very= ugly when it gets into an accident.

They do what they are capable of and what they think they have to to win against opposition much better than most of us will ever face under conditions of contest more strenuous than most of us will ever endure.

What they do is based on and driven by those facts.
Players not in that class or not competing at those levels should not be making assumptions or choices regarding their own system design or play style based on what a WC pair does.

ROFLSHWMP.

I happen to play a system which is very close to F-N. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

They will open 2S on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. THis IS *supremely undisciplined*. I understand why they do this, as I do the same thing: combine this with a weak/mini NT, and you get very sound one bids. The two bids work, though, as long as you have the stomach for lots of anti-field results.

Your attempts to lecture those of us who play non-standard systems is pretty funny.

Peter

[Echognome]

I'm not quite sure what having the sets overlap has to do with it. The fact that we can choose different ways to show the same hand is not at question here.

To me, the fundamental difference is whether or not your opening bid is showing length in another suit than the one you bid. You can dice it however you like, but it's a simple premise. If it promises length in another suit, say 95% of the time (again, I don't care what the critical % is), then I say it's subject to regulation. You can 'treatment' or 'judge' all you want. All I care about is the objective criterion for the regulation. (i.e. that it does not guarantee a side suit) If it were up to me (and obviously it's not), I would define that length as 4+ cards. Then again, I'd allow it! But I'm talking about consistency in the regulation.

I take your point that people may get away with it because of improper disclosure, but that doesn't make it right. Just state your regulation based on hand shapes (and if you desire, hand strength) and how much leeway they have in terms of frequency and you're done. Wtp?

[foo]

pbleighton, on Jul 3 2007, 06:34 PM, said:

Quote

If you think Fantoni-Nunes are playing "supremely undisciplined two bids.", you are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing and that you should not attempt such an approach yourself.
...

ROFLSHWMP.

I happen to play a system which is very close to F-N. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

They will open 2S on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. THis IS *supremely undisciplined*. I understand why they do this, as I do the same thing: combine this with a weak/mini NT, and you get very sound one bids. The two bids work, though, as long as you have the stomach for lots of anti-field results.

Your attempts to lecture those of us who play non-standard systems is pretty funny.

Peter

1= I'm not lecturing anyone. Just pointing out the logical conclusions of the evidence you are providing.

2= If you really are playing F-N in the style it is meant to be played, then you know those preempts =aren't= undisciplined. They are a price paid to remove certain hand types from their constructive auctions that start at the one level.
There's a big difference between doing something just to create random action and doing something because it is part of the price of System.

Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter. That's not the same thing as playing 1980's style Bergen preempts just to mess with the opponents heads.

[pbleighton]

Quote

1= I'm not lecturing anyone. Just pointing out the logical conclusions of the evidence you are providing.

Ahem.

Quote

If you think Fantoni-Nunes are playing "supremely undisciplined two bids.", you are demonstrating that you do not understand what they are doing and that you should not attempt such an approach yourself...Players not in that class or not competing at those levels should not be making assumptions or choices regarding their own system design or play style based on what a WC pair does.

Sounds like a lecture to me.

Quote

If you really are playing F-N in the style it is meant to be played, then you know those preempts =aren't= undisciplined. They are a price paid to remove certain hand types from their constructive auctions that start at the one level.
There's a big difference between doing something just to create random action and doing something because it is part of the price of System.

Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter.

You are correct that the two bids remove certain hand types from their constructive auctions that start at the one level. You are incorrect that the two bids perform badly. There was a thread a while back where one of the posters (Ben, I think) analyzed F-N's BBO results. The 2M bids performed somewhat better than the average board they opened, and their 2m boards performed worse. The overall *loss* from the 2 bids was small. Additionally, based on my(admittedly anecdotal) evidence, the weaker hands perform better than the stronger hands, as the field is opening the stronger hands 1x. For this reason, I chose the 9-12 range rather than 10-13, and *semi-forcing* 1 bids.

One thing I have found is that 5 card weak twos work much better with a limited range, whether it be 6-9 or 9-12. If this makes them *not undisciplined* in your phraseology, OK

Peter

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 01:08 AM, said:

...and I =really= wish people would stop using the phrase "assumed fit" unless they can mathematically =prove= that a fit exists the vast majority of the time.

Say ~74% of the time or better. 53% or anything close to 50/50 odds of a fit is !not! an "assumed fit". It's little better than a coin flip.

I'm attaching some comments from from original notes on the Frelling 2D. The figures that I came up with are slightly higher than some of the other staistics that have been quoted. I suspect that this is an artifact of the fact that this opening systemically denies a 4441 / 5440 shape.

The second simulation measured the safety of the preemptive
opening style. Our goal was to simulate the frequency with which a
preemptor would be able to successfully scramble to an eight+ card fit
opposite a 2D or 2H opening compared to players using traditional
preemptive methods. Responder will scramble whenever his diamond
length is less than or equal to his length in each major.

The percentage chance that the partnership will successful
scramble to an 8+ card fit can be modeled as the percentage chance
that [responder does not scramble and the partnership has an 8+ card
diamond fit] plus [the percentage chance that responder does scramble,
opener's hearts are greater than his spades, and the partnership has
an 8+ card hearts fit] plus [the percentage chance that responder does
scramble, opener's spades are greater than his hearts, and the
partnership has an 8+ card spade fit].

Simulations show that following a two diamond opening, the
partnership will be able to scramble to an 8+ card fit at the two
level approximately 64.6% of the time. A similar analysis was
performed for the two heart opening and found that the partnership is
able to scramble to an eight card fit in Hearts, Spades, or Clubs
66.4% of the time. Both opening bids will identify a seven+ card fit
90% of the time. In this case, the more traditional preemptive style
does come out ahead. Opposite a single suited preempt showing 6322 or
6331 hand type, the partnership will have an 8+ card fit in the bid
major on about 76.4% of all hands. However, as an interesting point
of comparison, "aggressive" players in the North America are
frequently including 5332 or 54xx hand patterns inside their 2M
opening bids. A 2M opening based on a 54xx or 5332 hand pattern will
hit an eight card fit in the bid major approximately 54.3% of the
time. Players who are interested in adopting a more aggressive
preemptive structure might find assumed fit methods to be a safe
alternative to highly undisciplined single suited preempts.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 01:08 AM, said:

2= Multi-suited openings are relatively new in the history of bridge.  For the vast majority of it, single suited preempts were the norm.  Everywhere.

Once again, you demonstrate that you're full of crap.

Roman Club was using various two suited and three openings back in the 1950s.
Admittedly, this was with constructive strength openings, however, the basic concept of has been well established for 50+ years.

If we want to limit ourselves to preemptive methods:

I first saw reference to Wilkosz 2♦ back in the early 90s and was told that it was old and hoary at that point in time. I suspect (but can't prove) that the genesis of two suited preempts was the Polish work on weak opening systems.

I believe that the first highly popular two suited preempt outside Poland was the Muiderberg 2M opening that Jan van Cleef introduced in Bridge magazine back around 1994.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2007, 07:44 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 01:08 AM, said:

2= Multi-suited openings are relatively new in the history of bridge.  For the vast majority of it, single suited preempts were the norm.  Everywhere.

Once again, you demonstrate that you're full of crap.

Roman Club was using various two suited and three openings back in the 1950s.
Admittedly, this was with constructive strength openings, however, the basic concept of has been well established for 50+ years.

If we want to limit ourselves to preemptive methods:

I first saw reference to Wilkosz 2♦ back in the early 90s and was told that it was old and hoary at that point in time. I suspect (but can't prove) that the genesis of two suited preempts was the Polish work on weak opening systems.

I believe that the first highly popular two suited preempt outside Poland was the Muiderberg 2M opening that Jan van Cleef introduced in Bridge magazine back around 1994.

Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully.

Bridge is ~80 years old. Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.
That's all I said.

Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 05:46 AM, said:

Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully.

Bridge is ~80 years old.  Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.
That's all I said.

Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

Read what you wrote idiot

You stated that multi suited openings are relatively new. In fact, they date back 50+ years. (BTW, as I recall, Little Major also used a 2M opening that showed a two suited pattern)

You stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere. They weren't. Two suited methods were in common use in Poland more than 30 years ago.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2007, 07:17 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 01:08 AM, said:

...and I =really= wish people would stop using the phrase "assumed fit" unless they can mathematically =prove= that a fit exists the vast majority of the time.

Say ~74% of the time or better.  53% or anything close to 50/50 odds of a fit is !not! an "assumed fit".  It's little better than a coin flip.

I'm attaching some comments from from original notes on the Frelling 2D. The figures that I came up with are slightly higher than some of the other staistics that have been quoted. I suspect that this is an artifact of the fact that this opening systemically denies a 4441 / 5440 shape.

<snip>

Simulations show that following a 2D opening, the partnership will be able to scramble to an 8+ card fit at the two level approximately 64.6% of the time. A similar analysis was performed for the two heart opening and found that the partnership is able to scramble to an eight card fit in Hearts, Spades, or Clubs 66.4% of the time.

Both opening bids will identify a 7+ card fit 90% of the time. In this case, the more traditional preemptive style
does come out ahead.

Opposite a single suited preempt showing 6322 or 6331 hand type, the partnership will have an 8+ card fit in the bid major on about 76.4% of all hands.

I did not ask for this, but thanks for providing it anyway.

I think we can both agree that "7 card fits" are not what we traditionally mean by "fit" in Bridge.

This Frelling 2bid of yours seems to exist in an interesting region regarding the assumption of 8+ card fit. The fit assumption is not nearly as good as traditional Weak Twos, but is clearly better than random.

Depending on the value range shown by the opening, I can easily imagine this being a nightmare for regulating officials to adjudicate on the Constructive <-> Destructive continuum.

Clearly, the conservative stance would be to insist that that any 2level preempt must have the same statisical assumption of fit and chances of being a makable contract as a traditional Weak Two.
(If any regulating official objects to an opening with essentially the same chances of being Constructive as a traditional Weak Two, they are going to have a =very= hard time justifying themselves.)

Please note that I am not advocating or opposing the conservative stance. Simply mentioning it as a reasonable starting point for theorists who are trying to get new methods adopted.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 05:46 AM, said:

Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully.

Bridge is ~80 years old.  Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.  That's all I said.

Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

Read what you wrote idiot

You stated that multi suited openings are relatively new. In fact, they date back 50+ years. (BTW, as I recall, Little Major also used a 2M opening that showed a two suited pattern)

You stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere. They weren't. Two suited methods were in common use in Poland 30 years ago.

That's 2x in the last few posts that you've crossed the ZT line. One more and you get reported.

??? I never denied Constructive 2suited openings existed (heck, Blue Team club had a Constructive multi-suited opening), I denied multi-suited =preempts= had been around for very long relative to the overall history of Bridge.

Outside of Poland, we obviously agree this is true.

Without reputable documentation one way or the other, we can't definitively state how accurate or not your suspicions are regarding multi-suit preempts being "old and hoary" within Poland. The statements you mention to that effect =are= anecdotal evidence. To the point of rumor.

Now be polite please.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

??? I never denied Constructive 2suited openings existed (heck, Blue Team club had a Constructive multi-suited opening), I denied multi-suited =preempts= had been around for very long relative to the overall history of Bridge.

Outside of Poland, we obviously agree this is true. 

Without reputable documentation one way or the other, we can't definitively state how accurate or not your suspicions are regarding multi-suit preempts being "old and hoary" within Poland.  The statements you mention to that effect =are= anecdotal evidence.  To the point of rumor.

Now be polite please.

Quoting Matula in "The Polish Club", page 143

Quote

This weak two-suited opening has for years been one of the most characteristic parts of Polish Club.  In Poland, almost everybody has been using it for years.

It dates back 30+ years

[foo]

There we go. Objective evidence. That wasn't hard. Thank you.

Now what =exactly= is the description of this 30+ year old multi-suited preempt according to the verifiable documentation?

(I'll ignore that "30+" is less than 1/2 of "80+" and for the sake a getting along call it "close enough").

EDIT: Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library. It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago". Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is. He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

The Wilkosz 2♦ seems to have had the traditional Weak Two range of ~7-11 or ~5-10 at Favorable.
Matula spends an entire chapter on it.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

There we go. Objective evidence. That wasn't hard. Thank you.

Now what =exactly= is the description of this 30+ year old multi-suited preempt according to the verifiable documentation?

(I'll ignore that "30+" is less than 1/2 of "80+" and for the sake a getting along call it "close enough").

If you look back to my original post, it should be fairly obvious that I was referring to a Wilkosz 2♦

Quote

I first saw reference to Wilkosz 2♦ back in the early 90s and was told that it was old and hoary at that point in time. I suspect (but can't prove) that the genesis of two suited preempts was the Polish work on weak opening systems.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

I denied multi-suited =preempts= had been around for very long relative to the overall history of Bridge.

Outside of Poland, we obviously agree this is true. 

Without reputable documentation one way or the other, we can't definitively state how accurate or not your suspicions are regarding multi-suit preempts being "old and hoary" within Poland.  The statements you mention to that effect =are= anecdotal evidence.  To the point of rumor.

I was using Poland as one counter example. There might be others... Please recall, you were the one who stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere.

BTW, the high undisciplined EHAA 2M openings could probably be considered as another early example of a two suited preempt. (At the very least, this can't be considered single suited), For what its worth, I'm happy to agree that EHAA wasn't a particular popular system, even during its heyday.

Playing EHAA, a two level preempt was almost mandatory with any unbalanced hand holding 5+ cards in a suit and 7-12 HCP.

For example, many EHAA practioners would open 2♠ on

♠ 65432
♥ VOID
♦ KQ43
♣ AQ43

The two and three suited hand patterns were many times more frequent than the single suited hand types.

[foo]

Sorry, I have to retract my acceptance of your statement that Wilcosz 2♦ is "30+ years old".

I Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library. It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago". Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is. He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!