[the hog]

junyi_zhu, on Apr 10 2010, 05:34 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 9 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Apr 9 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

Still the major reason for no top players play 4 card major is that really few theorists study it.

Um, what? I second that the reason is simply because it's worse. I think your comment is just untrue.

Of course, it's worse. I am just saying that it's unpopular which makes it worse. Do you know any strong players play 4 card major with 2/1 scheme and a lot of gadgets and relays? If nobody studies and plays this system, this system can't be good. Still, if everything is quite optimized with a lot of people study and improve this system, 4 card major shouldn't be much worse than 5 card major. Just slightly worse IMO.

The Hacket twins, Tom Townsend.

[MFA]

I don't think the 4card <-> 5card major discussion is so important. Bidding has changed in every aspect that has little to do with just the basic opening bid approach. Takeout doubles, overcalls, competitive bidding. It's the fundamentals that has changed. The perception of what is required for making a natural bid in just about every sequence has altered.

Jlall, on Apr 10 2010, 12:32 AM, said:

Just had the following convo at work fwiw:
(...)

Me: Would you say the 40 seed of the vanderbilt would beat the best team of the 60s?
Hamman: Yes, but it's not really like that because given a month to study the new stuff, the old team would win easily.

(...)

There is no reason to doubt that the old guys didn't have the talent, so sure, if given the chance to catch up. One month sound like ridiculously short time though. This is not just about learning to operate some new hightech convention or some such. The fundamentals have changed.

[MFA]

Various posters:

Quote

Stuff about how bridge still can evolve immensely because of improvements in the bidding

[Snyde remark about the ACBL system regulations deleted due to risk of thread degeneration]

[mgoetze]

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

This is not to even mention polish club or strong club etc. I know nothing about polish club or how evolved it is or how far it can go, but strong club auctions are pretty much in their infancy still. Meckwell do a lot of stuff, but few of the other top pairs who play strong club do much at all.

Paul Marston on 1♣ auctions in MOSCITO:

Quote

The responses of 1♥, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are used to show the shape of semi positive strength hands, that is about 6-9 HCP. This is not the usual way – other strong club systems respond 1♥ up with game going hands and 1♦ with the rest. This approach is clearly wrong. About 19% of responding hands are junk, 45% are semi positives and the remaining 36% are positives. Besides this, the semi positive hands are the ones that are most likely to be contested.

The 1♦ negative says nothing about semi positives - it doesn’t even distinguish between semi positive and junk.

You might be thinking, if the semi positive approach is so superior how come no one is using it? I think the reason is that it takes quite a bit of work and understanding to get it all going and there is no body of experience or literature to help you.

[Jlall]

MFA, on Apr 10 2010, 05:27 AM, said:

I don't think the 4card <-> 5card major discussion is so important. Bidding has changed in every aspect that has little to do with just the basic opening bid approach. Takeout doubles, overcalls, competitive bidding. It's the fundamentals that has changed. The perception of what is required for making a natural bid in just about every sequence has altered.

Jlall, on Apr 10 2010, 12:32 AM, said:

Just had the following convo at work fwiw:
(...)

Me: Would you say the 40 seed of the vanderbilt would beat the best team of the 60s?
Hamman: Yes, but it's not really like that because given a month to study the new stuff, the old team would win easily.

(...)

There is no reason to doubt that the old guys didn't have the talent, so sure, if given the chance to catch up. One month sound like ridiculously short time though. This is not just about learning to operate some new hightech convention or some such. The fundamentals have changed.

1 month to beat the 40th seed, not to beat the 1 seed. Seems reasonable to me, the 40 seed would probably be very outmatched in talent and cardplay.

[bluecalm]

Quote

The responses of 1♥, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are used to show the shape of semi positive strength hands, that is about 6-9 HCP. This is not the usual way – other strong club systems respond 1♥ up with game going hands and 1♦ with the rest. This approach is clearly wrong. About 19% of responding hands are junk, 45% are semi positives and the remaining 36% are positives. Besides this, the semi positive hands are the ones that are most likely to be contested.

The 1♦ negative says nothing about semi positives - it doesn’t even distinguish between semi positive and junk.

You might be thinking, if the semi positive approach is so superior how come no one is using it? I think the reason is that it takes quite a bit of work and understanding to get it all going and there is no body of experience or literature to help you.

This is superficial analysis. If that's what theoreticians have to offer these days we have indeed long way to go.

[the hog]

bluecalm, on Apr 11 2010, 02:53 AM, said:

Quote

The responses of 1♥, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are used to show the shape of semi positive strength hands, that is about 6-9 HCP. This is not the usual way – other strong club systems respond 1♥ up with game going hands and 1♦ with the rest. This approach is clearly wrong. About 19% of responding hands are junk, 45% are semi positives and the remaining 36% are positives. Besides this, the semi positive hands are the ones that are most likely to be contested.

The 1♦ negative says nothing about semi positives - it doesn’t even distinguish between semi positive and junk.

You might be thinking, if the semi positive approach is so superior how come no one is using it? I think the reason is that it takes quite a bit of work and understanding to get it all going and there is no body of experience or literature to help you.

This is superficial analysis. If that's what theoreticians have to offer these days we have indeed long way to go.

Odd comment on a random post. Have you spoken to Paul about his ideas?

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Apr 10 2010, 07:36 AM, said:

Hamman ... thinks about bidding and systems much differently than most people. You should really see some of his stuff, it is both weird and logical/good.

Examples please

[hrothgar]

bluecalm, on Apr 10 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

Quote

The responses of 1♥, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are used to show the shape of semi positive strength hands, that is about 6-9 HCP. This is not the usual way – other strong club systems respond 1♥ up with game going hands and 1♦ with the rest. This approach is clearly wrong. About 19% of responding hands are junk, 45% are semi positives and the remaining 36% are positives. Besides this, the semi positive hands are the ones that are most likely to be contested.

The 1♦ negative says nothing about semi positives - it doesn’t even distinguish between semi positive and junk.

You might be thinking, if the semi positive approach is so superior how come no one is using it? I think the reason is that it takes quite a bit of work and understanding to get it all going and there is no body of experience or literature to help you.

This is superficial analysis. If that's what theoreticians have to offer these days we have indeed long way to go.

This isn't an analysis

Its a summary, intended to describe a general idea to a broad audience.

[EricK]

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 08:53 PM, said:

Playing natural bidding over 1C in combination with walsh is just clearly not even close to optimal. You bypass diamonds almost always...gee that's awesome you almost never get to bid the first step over 1C. How can that be right? It's not, obviously re-ordering the steps so that 1D shows hearts and 1H shows spades is better if your entire system is geared around showing the 4 card majors first etc.

Walsh was an improvement over "up the line." Transfers are an improvement on Walsh, etc etc and so it goes.

To what extent are system restrictions slowing down the improvement of bidding? eg if transfer Walsh is clearly an improvement over Walsh, then surely there is a reasonable chance that transfer openings are an improvement over standard.

[Jlall]

EricK, on Apr 11 2010, 06:59 AM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 08:53 PM, said:

Playing natural bidding over 1C in combination with walsh is just clearly not even close to optimal. You bypass diamonds almost always...gee that's awesome you almost never get to bid the first step over 1C. How can that be right? It's not, obviously re-ordering the steps so that 1D shows hearts and 1H shows spades is better if your entire system is geared around showing the 4 card majors first etc.

Walsh was an improvement over "up the line." Transfers are an improvement on Walsh, etc etc and so it goes.

To what extent are system restrictions slowing down the improvement of bidding? eg if transfer Walsh is clearly an improvement over Walsh, then surely there is a reasonable chance that transfer openings are an improvement over standard.

I agree there is a chance this is true, especially in non strong club systems. In strong club systems if you played transfer openings you'd have to play 4 card majors to make it playable imo (Hi Moscito!) which is probably a loss imo; I'm not sure how much the transfer element makes up for it.

I could imagine you could make it workable in a standard system that 1C is whatever, 1D=5+ hearts, 1H=5+ spades though.

Anyways your question obviously wasn't about the merits of transfer openings since that was just your example.

As far as system regulations, I don't really know how much they've hindered bidding development, I guess I'd say a lot. For instance, if forcing pass systems were allowed I think they'd be the dominant system among top players since they seem theoretically better to me (obv not sure, just my opinion).

That being said I think system regulations are definitely necessary for the health of the game, and have tried to never post on the forums my views on system regulations because I hate those threads/debates so I won't go beyond that I'll just say that I don't envy the people who have to make the decisions and try to balance it all, I think it's a tough problem with no great solutions sometimes.

[awm]

On the other hand, the vast majority of system regulations apply only to opening bids. A lot of the evolution of methods in the past few years focuses on responses and later rounds of the auction. Personally I think these types of methods are a lot more interesting than rearranging your opening bids, and I also think there's a lot more benefit to be obtained from the later rounds than the marginal gains from a different opening structure.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Apr 11 2010, 09:55 PM, said:

On the other hand, the vast majority of system regulations apply only to opening bids. A lot of the evolution of methods in the past few years focuses on responses and later rounds of the auction. Personally I think these types of methods are a lot more interesting than rearranging your opening bids, and I also think there's a lot more benefit to be obtained from the later rounds than the marginal gains from a different opening structure.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Your basic assertion certainly holds true in the US, where even the most innocuous openings are banned in 99.9% of all games. I doubt that this holds true for the rest of the world.

I suspect that if you weight conventions based on their frequency with which they impact bidding decisions, tweaking the opening structure has a much more dramatic impact on the game that esoteric sequences two or three rounds into an auction...

[bluecalm]

Quote

Odd comment on a random post. Have you spoken to Paul about his ideas?

No. I was commenting on quoted text.

Quote

The responses of 1♥, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are used to show the shape of semi positive strength hands, that is about 6-9 HCP. This is not the usual way – other strong club systems respond 1♥ up with game going hands and 1♦ with the rest. This approach is clearly wrong. About 19% of responding hands are junk, 45% are semi positives and the remaining 36% are positives. Besides this, the semi positive hands are the ones that are most likely to be contested.

Author came to the conclusion in bold using arguments which are very weak. I hope it's obvious why they are weak. Even more so it's supposed to be "clear" which again is not.
I don't like it when people try to convince other to their ideas using such gibberish, hence my comment.

[hrothgar]

bluecalm, on Apr 11 2010, 10:47 PM, said:

Quote

Odd comment on a random post. Have you spoken to Paul about his ideas?

No. I was commenting on quoted text.

Quote

The responses of 1♥, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are used to show the shape of semi positive strength hands, that is about 6-9 HCP. This is not the usual way – other strong club systems respond 1♥ up with game going hands and 1♦ with the rest. This approach is clearly wrong. About 19% of responding hands are junk, 45% are semi positives and the remaining 36% are positives. Besides this, the semi positive hands are the ones that are most likely to be contested.

Author came to the conclusion in bold using arguments which are very weak. I hope it's obvious why they are weak. Even more so it's supposed to be "clear" which again is not.
I don't like it when people try to convince other to their ideas using such gibberish, hence my comment.

I will repeat this once again, slowly and simply in the hopes that you might be able to understand...

The text that you are quoting isn't intended as any kind of rigorous proof.
It is a simple summation that describes the results.

Personally, I don't find the text that difficult to understand, though it is certainly very colloquial.

Since you apparently fancy yourself some special, perhaps you might show us how this should be done.

Pleas prove why a more traditional response structure -

1♥+ = GF
1♦ = semi positive or negative

would be better after a MOSCITO style strong club opening.

[helene_t]

You are being unreasonable, Richard.

Bluecalm didn't say that Marston's conclusion was wrong, much less did he claim to be able to offer a good argument (let alone a proof) that Marston is wrong.

He just claimed that Marston's argument is weak.

[mgoetze]

bluecalm, on Apr 11 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

Quote

The responses of 1♥, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are used to show the shape of semi positive strength hands, that is about 6-9 HCP. This is not the usual way – other strong club systems respond 1♥ up with game going hands and 1♦ with the rest. This approach is clearly wrong. About 19% of responding hands are junk, 45% are semi positives and the remaining 36% are positives. Besides this, the semi positive hands are the ones that are most likely to be contested.

Author came to the conclusion in bold using arguments which are very weak. I hope it's obvious why they are weak. Even more so it's supposed to be "clear" which again is not.

Have you ever played strong club? Did the auction fragment 1♣-(P)-1♦-(3♠) ever come up?

If not, I can see why it wouldn't be clear to you...

[bluecalm]

Quote

Have you ever played strong club? Did the auction fragment 1♣-(P)-1♦-(3♠) ever come up?

If not, I can see why it wouldn't be clear to you...

??
At least when 1♣ - pass - something above 1♦ - 3♠ comes up I have forcing pass/dbl here to deal with which I don't have after non game forcing response.
I am not saying classical approach is better, I am saying it's not clear at all which is better.

Quote

Pleas prove why a more traditional response structure -

1♥+ = GF
1♦ = semi positive or negative

would be better after a MOSCITO style strong club opening.

I don't know how to respond to you because you didn't even address anything I wrote. You just made up some assumptions (like me saying classical is better than Moscito) and then you flamed me.

I can however say why I commented on quoted text.
There was many tries to improve bridge bidding systems. I am from Poland so I am familiar with all forcing pass movement which brought many new ideas to bidding theory (particularly alternative meanings of various bids and many relay/slam bidding schemes). It was common for the authors of those system to give arguments like:

a)Hands from 8-12 range comes up most often
b)You have to open as much as possible

a + b -->> Most of your openings should be reserved for hands from 8-12 range.

This of course is shitty logic because it's not clear at all if:
-opening as much as possible is indeed profitable
-opening as much as possible with hands from 8-12 range is equally important as opening with descriptive bids with hands from 13+range, so even if you indeed open more often, you may not compensate for not opening with desriptive bids with stonger hands (even if they are less frequent).

Back to quote text about Moscito. Author used very similar arguments:
Some hands come up more often -->> more responses should be assigned to them. This "makes sense" for layman (ie. someone not good at thinking about math/bridge theory). This is however very bad argument because:
a)It may be that it's very important to establish game force as soon as possible (in case of opponents bidding)
b)argument about frequencies is completely pointless as it may be true that game forcing hands are less frequent than 0-7ones but there isn't much more bidding space in all reponses above 1♦ than in 1♦ itself (it depends how you define bidding space but it's either about equal or quite close anyway)'
c)it may be the case that it's important that strong hand can make descriptive bid at possible low level opposite weak hand in uncontested bidding. (maybe because it's important that weak hand should know asap which information is important to strong hand).
d)it may be the case that making descriptive bid with 8+hcp hands is much more profitable than losing descriptive bids with hands from 5-7hcp range (and there is no way these days to prove it one way or the other).

My point is it's not clear. Writing stuff like quoted text is just gibberish which is aimed at convincing people who aren't good at thinking about those things. I don't like when someone is doing this in any area of life. That's why I commented on this.

[Free]

Paul should've written his argument in a different order. He makes it look like he based his argument on frequencies, which I must agree with bluecalm is not the way to go. However, if he'd make the same argument starting with "the semi positive hands are the ones that are most likely to be contested", followed by the frequency to justify why these hands are indeed a problem for strong ♣ openings, you might be convinced he's right.

[helene_t]

I think Marston should not have claimed that his approach is better than classic. It is almost impossible to argue convincingly for such a thing, especially given that
a) the "classic" approach is not standardized. Even if Marston has a very specific thing in mind his readers may not.
b) The semipositive approach has not been tested by that many well-known pairs. It remains to be seen how it will work once lots of pairs get experience with it and opps get experience with defending against it.

Of course his approach may be better than classic but we just don't know. I think he should just have limited his case to pointing out some problems with the classic approach and that his method does not have those particular problems to the same degree.