[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Sep 1 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

@Wackojack:

If you are going for something like a 2-way pass, I like Magic ♦ twisted around. This has the advantage that the opening structure is conservative, so that even the fearful can play it vulnerable.

What's truly amusing about this post is that Magic Diamond is an inverted version of the Carotti strong pass system.

(The pass / 1♦ inversion was introduced as a way to get around system regulations)

[hanp]

Gerben42, on Sep 1 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

@Han: If you are going to switch around 1♦ and Pass.

No way!

[Zelandakh]

One of the primary theoretical benefits is splitting up your hands into 3 relatively equal (by frequency) ranges, typically 0-7, 8-12, 13+. Side benefits are more space for constructive auctions, taking space away when it is the opps' hand, general unfamiliarity for most opps, and the fun factor of getting to bid almost every hand. The downsides are the regulations, the fact that your constructive auctions are more open to pre-emption than in 'standard', that you are passing info to the opps when they are highly likely to end up declaring, and that sometimes getting involved, even at a low level, is going to hurt alot.

[Free]

I don't like 2-way passes or ferts. It's theoretically inferior and gives you problems when opps interfere. Yes, many will say that you'll pass with the weak hand and bid with the strong, but your partner may have to act immediately over intervention, and this guy won't have an easy time.

Perhaps for the next BPO contest, Richard and I can try MOSPITO (didn't think of it)

[DinDIP]

Shevek and I have played a strong pass system with each other or in the same team for more than 25 years, when regulations allow and we've thought it a good thing to do. The structure we use is
P = 13+
1m = 7-12, 4+H/S
1H = 9-12 BAL, no 4M
1S = 0-7(8 BAL)
1N= 5+D, <4M
2C = 5+C, <4M
with symmetric relay continuations when we are strong enough.

Shevek has compiled records of how the different openings have gone (IMPs against the datum) for a number of these events.

As one might expect, the 8-12 openings that show a suit are winners; we're happy to break even after opening 1H, even with the range narrowed to 9-12.

Pass tends to be a small loser, mainly because competition is so difficult: O's range is very wide. But another reason is that we sometimes end up with thw weaker hand relaying and that's usually not as good as when the stronger hand relays.

The 1S fert is almost always a winner. It's hard to tell whether this is because the opponents mostly use poor methods to counter it, or because they lack experience about what to do so their judgement is MUCH worse than in routine auctions, or because it is genuinely hard to bid sensibly after so much room has been taken away by the fert. We see elements of all three in many deals. Our experience is that we do go for occasional numbers but they're rarely where the fert loses. Much more damaging -- or, at least, more memorable -- are the number of auctions where the opponents are forced to guess because they have no room and do so successfully.

David

[shevek]

It's been a while since the soundness of strong pass methods has been tested in top flight competition. Until that happens again - that may be never - there's not much to say. In the 80s, strong pass methods had some success in international events. The antagonists tended to suggest that this was due to surprise, catching opponents unprepared. They may well be right in part.
Since then, strong pass has died a slow, unnatural death due to regulators, fashion & the increasing average age of players.
Some critics suggest that strong pass would not make a comeback on merit, because the method has been found to be unsound when confronted by a coherent defence. I'm not so sure. As someone who has continued to play strong pass in national events in Australia, I'm confident that our current methods and judgement are much better than those of 20 years ago.
Here's a question. World-wide, how many pairs play strong pass in serious national events? Very few. Having fun on BBO, at home or at your club's youth night doesn't cut it.

[zenko]

Zelandakh, on Sep 2 2010, 12:27 AM, said:

One of the primary theoretical benefits is splitting up your hands into 3 relatively equal (by frequency) ranges, typically 0-7, 8-12, 13+. Side benefits are more space for constructive auctions, taking space away when it is the opps' hand, general unfamiliarity for most opps, and the fun factor of getting to bid almost every hand. The downsides are the regulations, the fact that your constructive auctions are more open to pre-emption than in 'standard', that you are passing info to the opps when they are highly likely to end up declaring, and that sometimes getting involved, even at a low level, is going to hurt alot.

I object to stated argument that "primary theoretical benefits is splitting up your hands into 3 relatively equal (by frequency) ranges". The key issue is to force opponents to compete honestly over pass and to remove the pressure from passers partner to act with marginal values. In order to achieve that pass should far more often show weak hand than strong, so instead of 0-7 or 13+ it is much better to play it say 0-10 or 17+, or something along those lines.

[the hog]

zenko, on Sep 8 2010, 12:09 PM, said:

Zelandakh, on Sep 2 2010, 12:27 AM, said:

One of the primary theoretical benefits is splitting up your hands into 3 relatively equal (by frequency) ranges, typically 0-7, 8-12, 13+. Side benefits are more space for constructive auctions, taking space away when it is the opps' hand, general unfamiliarity for most opps, and the fun factor of getting to bid almost every hand. The downsides are the regulations, the fact that your constructive auctions are more open to pre-emption than in 'standard', that you are passing info to the opps when they are highly likely to end up declaring, and that sometimes getting involved, even at a low level, is going to hurt alot.

I object to stated argument that "primary theoretical benefits is splitting up your hands into 3 relatively equal (by frequency) ranges". The key issue is to force opponents to compete honestly over pass and to remove the pressure from passers partner to act with marginal values. In order to achieve that pass should far more often show weak hand than strong, so instead of 0-7 or 13+ it is much better to play it say 0-10 or 17+, or something along those lines.

There have been some systems where pass is strong or weak. Some English pairs - Nardin and Lodge(?) and some others played this. These systems have proved to be very open to pre emption and difficult to play. They are not effective.

[Crunch3nt]

I get to play semi-forcing pass in big events (Australia, New Zealand) regularly. We play Crunch - a slightly different scheme as those stated so far. I totally agree that the chances of getting world championship play is low - my partner and I submitted it in time with full disclosure for the Bermuda Bowl in Sao Paulo. As per the regulations we knew we were not allowed to play it until the knockout stages - Didn't matter, the WBF banned it for the whole event regardless! Their official reason was inadequate disclosure on the system card, but this was nonsense and we were not told what the alleged shortcomings were. Unfortunately New Zealand did make the knockout stages anyway. We hadn't played it during the NZ trial either.

Our scheme is pass is 0-6 or 15-20. This makes dealing with competition much easier as responder assumes it is 0-6 and doesn't bid on marginal hands, while opener with 15-20 has enough strength to reenter the auction safely.

Our 1H "fert" is not a fert at all - it shows 7-10 any shape and is a huge winner, enabling good competition by us and extracting penalties when they overbid.

In terms of relay, forcing pass is a huge gain over a strong 1C, that extra step is gold in responding.