[goodwintr]

Not so difficult in theory, although perhaps more difficult in practice. You could easily work out how effective a weak 2D opening bid is (or has been) against, say, a pass: just gather all deals where someone opened 2D at one table, and the corresponding player at the other table passed (when he would have had the opportunity to open 2D if the spirit moved him); add up the results for the "2D team" and the results for the "pass team," et voila. Of course, on any particular deal the result may have depended on something else -- the opening-bid decision is not necessarily determinative of anything. But over a large enough sample size, you should be able to conclude something.

Next, you might want to break down the 2D openings, putting some of them into a "sound" pile and others into an "aggressive" (or "noisy") pile, and repeat the calculations. It would be interesting in itself to see whether "sound" is better or worse than "aggressive," and also interesting to see whether either or both is better or worse than "pass."

As you know, this is the type of methodology that led Vernes to the discovery of the Law of Total Tricks. When he did that work, back in the 'sixties, he didn't have ready access to computerized techniques: he cranked out the deals by hand from World Championship matches. (He employed similar methodology to discover that it was losing bridge to bid 1H over 1D on, say, x Qxxxx AQ98 Jxx.)

[TimG]

goodwintr, on Aug 13 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

Not so difficult in theory, although perhaps more difficult in practice. You could easily work out how effective a weak 2D opening bid is (or has been) against, say, a pass: just gather all deals where someone opened 2D at one table, and the corresponding player at the other table passed (when he would have had the opportunity to open 2D if the spirit moved him); add up the results for the "2D team" and the results for the "pass team," et voila.

I don't think that would be the end of it. You'd also need to look at hand where both sides opened 2D. Presumably the looser definition of 2D at one table will affect the result from time-to-time when 2D is opened at both tables -- maybe the looser definition makes it more difficult for the opening side or the more narrow definition makes it easier for the other side. There would also be times when neither side opens 2D that there would be different inferences available at each table. I think that in order to tell whether the looser style is better or worse you'd have to take into account all these things (and likely more) rather than just the situation where 2D is opened at one table and not at the other.

Quote

As you know, this is the type of methodology that led Vernes to the discovery of the Law of Total Tricks. When he did that work, back in the 'sixties, he didn't have ready access to computerized techniques: he cranked out the deals by hand from World Championship matches. (He employed similar methodology to discover that it was losing bridge to bid 1H over 1D on, say, x Qxxxx AQ98 Jxx.)

I have been told about this, but I have not read the studies myself. I would suggest the studies were flawed if they only looked at situations where the actions were different at each table.

There is also the possibility that competitive bidding has evolved since Vernes concluded that weak overcalls were losing bridge. Maybe they were losing bridge because advancer was not adequately prepared to deal with the weak overcalls. Today's players have available many more devices or methods to deal with competitive auctions (and more experience using them). Or, maybe weak overcalls are more effective today because of the methods (like negative doubles) that have been nearly universally adopted by the opening side. I'm not confident in my knowledge of bidding history, but I don't think that everyone, even at the World Championship level, played negative doubles in the 50s and 60s.

[gwnn]

goodwintr, on Aug 13 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

As you know, this is the type of methodology that led Vernes to the discovery of the Law of Total Tricks. When he did that work, back in the 'sixties, he didn't have ready access to computerized techniques: he cranked out the deals by hand from World Championship matches. (He employed similar methodology to discover that it was losing bridge to bid 1H over 1D on, say, x Qxxxx AQ98 Jxx.)

Why don't you post these findings in the main thread instead of parantheses at the end of your post? It's almost unanimous anyway.

[Double !]

I admit that I "might" open this mess 2D in 1st seat w.v.r and have done so, but I don't like it and I don't think it's a good bid. Call me obsolete but, in 1st & 2nd seat, I would want to have a better suit or, at least, a suit that I want partner to lead. I don't want my 2D opener to redirect my partner away from some other lead that might have been a more normal and advantageous lead, especially holding the queen of hearts. In addition, in competition, partner might make a decision based on anticipated suit quality in diamonds should I open the hand 2D.
OTOH: while there is the pressure or preemptive value of such a bid, when I do open such a hand 2D, a poor result usually occurs and/ or I wind up helping the opps by announcing the location of a key card that otherwise wouldn't have occurred had I not bid. In addition, partner has often decided to lead my suit when another lead would have been better.
Now, give me this hand in 3rd seat w.v.r. and it's anything goes!

DHL:

[655321]

I am a 3♦ opener here, even with a weak 2 available.

[gwnn]

I opened 3D but my p punished me he had a 14 count with no source of tricks but Ax of diamonds and bid 3NT:( he got doubled but didn't run. Sad story of gwnn trying to be 655321:( (actually it went 3D-x-3NT-x)

[PhantomSac]

Jlall, on Aug 13 2009, 05:26 AM, said:

2D, prefer pass to 3D.

Hmm, wow I didn't remember this thread and thought P>2D>3D lol

[jdonn]

2♦ seems quite normal to me. Wonder why I didn't answer the first time, I'm sure my mind hasn't changed.

[PhantomSac]

jdonn, on Feb 8 2010, 03:33 AM, said:

2♦ seems quite normal to me. Wonder why I didn't answer the first time, I'm sure my mind hasn't changed.

BUT WE HAVE A SIDE FOUR CARD MAJOR!!!!!!

[Fluffy]

I missed this one as well, and think its a clear 2♦.

people that argue about 4cM seem to think Jxxx is the same as AQxx and it is not remotelly close.

[pooltuna]

Phil, on Aug 12 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

I would open 2♦ without reservation w/r. I am closer to a 3♦ bid than a pass.

amen

[pooltuna]

PhantomSac, on Feb 8 2010, 03:40 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 8 2010, 03:33 AM, said:

2♦ seems quite normal to me. Wonder why I didn't answer the first time, I'm sure my mind hasn't changed.

BUT WE HAVE A SIDE FOUR CARD MAJOR!!!!!!

if the colors were equal it would be a consideration. If the colors were reversed I would be thinking what kind of idiot preempts with this

[jdonn]

PhantomSac, on Feb 8 2010, 03:40 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 8 2010, 03:33 AM, said:

2♦ seems quite normal to me. Wonder why I didn't answer the first time, I'm sure my mind hasn't changed.

BUT WE HAVE A SIDE FOUR CARD MAJOR!!!!!!

Ok sorry I bid stayman.

[awm]

I'd open 2♦. At a regional tournament over the summer I held a hand like this in a knockout match. At my table I opened 2♦. Partner held a strong notrump, and the auction continued (opponents passing):

2♦(1) - 2NT(2)
3♣(3) - 3♦(4)
3♠(5) - 4♠(6)

(1) Weak two
(2) Ogust
(3) Bad suit, bad hand
(4) To play
(5) Natural!
(6) Making four...

At the other table our opponents passed my hand (not sure if they decided not to open 2♦ based on the side major, or if they had some other meaning for the 2♦ opener). Their auction:

Pass - 1NT(1)
2NT(2) - 3♦(3)
Pass

(1) 15-17
(2) Unfortunately cannot bid stayman and get out in 3♦ if partner has 4♥ and no 4♠ so chose to transfer to diamonds
(3) Not a great hand for diamonds

So weirdly, the 2♦ opening helped us to find the 4-4 spade fit. Likely not a common situation of course.

[hanp]

I think it was your 3S bid that helped you find 4S, not 2D. Did you have any reason to suspect your partner had more than a strong notrump, or spade length? If not, it seems like it was your superior judgement to force to the 4-level that made you find the spade game.

[PhantomSac]

Fluffy, on Feb 8 2010, 06:53 AM, said:

I missed this one as well, and think its a clear 2♦.

people that argue about 4cM seem to think Jxxx is the same as AQxx and it is not remotelly close.

I mean I was joking but obviously having a 4 card major is a flaw, having shitty defensive values is a flaw, esp when your shortness is clubs, because them not making anything and partner phantom saccing becomes more likely, your suit has good intermediates but it's still a crappy suit and it's defensive, etc etc, so 3 minor flaws.

Obv I don't feel too strongly about 2D vs pass given that when it was first posted I bid 2D, and then when I saw it again I chose pass, I might choose either depending on a number of factors.

[jdonn]

hanp, on Feb 8 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

I think it was your 3S bid that helped you find 4S, not 2D. Did you have any reason to suspect your partner had more than a strong notrump, or spade length? If not, it seems like it was your superior judgement to force to the 4-level that made you find the spade game.

I think his point was fair. If you open 2♦ you are describing a feature of your hand immediately and may have time to describe another feature later. If you pass then you are describing nothing and may not have time to show both features later, so you may guess wrongly which one to go for. That's exactly what happened in his story.

[Codo]

The point of the story was that Adam forced to 3 NT on a misfit opposite a non fitting strong NT and the other player did not. It worked well.

Last weekend my teammates played in 6 Heart off two cashing aces. It worked well too. So I took Adams story as what it was: a nice little story.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Feb 9 2010, 02:15 AM, said:

The point of the story was that Adam forced to 3 NT on a misfit opposite a non fitting strong NT and the other player did not. It worked well.

Non-fitting? They had already found a fit.

Forced to 3NT? They could play in either 3♠ or 4♦ if they wanted to.

No need to make exaggerations to get our point across.