[luke warm]

flytoox, on Jan 23 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

Jimmy, 4-card will do well in uncontested auctions. However, in the competitive auctions, 5-card major will have some advantage over 4-card major.

Of course, 5-card major has its flaws. My point is that to say precision has a fundemental flaw is too exaggerate to say the least.

hi fly... i used to think the same as you, that anyone who opened 4M was just begging for trouble... but i now believe i was not completely correct (soloway/hamman would argue with you, as well)... it's all about distribution, shape... there shouldn't be many reasons for missing a fit with partner (about the only good one is if opps preempt you), and playing shape bids help a lot in finding that fit... in my opinion

[flytoox]

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2005, 09:39 AM, said:

"Jimmy, 4-card will do well in uncontested auctions. However, in the competitive auctions, 5-card major will have some advantage over 4-card major. "

Disagree strongly! It is precisely in contested auctions that opening 4 card Majors has a huge advantage over 5 card major systems. 5 card Majorites have to open 1D, whereas 4 card Majorites can immediately open the Major. Note that this also has a slight pre emptive effect.

This is not what I said. This is what Lawrence said. Please check lawrence's 2/1 workbook.

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

[flytoox]

luke warm, on Jan 24 2005, 11:05 AM, said:

flytoox, on Jan 23 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

Jimmy, 4-card will do well in uncontested auctions. However, in the competitive auctions, 5-card major will have some advantage over 4-card major.

Of course, 5-card major has its flaws. My point is that to say precision has a fundemental flaw is too exaggerate to say the least.

hi fly... i used to think the same as you, that anyone who opened 4M was just begging for trouble... but i now believe i was not completely correct (soloway/hamman would argue with you, as well)... it's all about distribution, shape... there shouldn't be many reasons for missing a fit with partner (about the only good one is if opps preempt you), and playing shape bids help a lot in finding that fit... in my opinion

Hehe, I would never argue with Hamman. I actually like his 4-card major strong club system. However, there are some relay in their 2/1 system, which is not easy for many of us. Furthermore, they know how to handle the interference much better than us. Give you an example, 1H-(3S)-? if you have 3-card support and some limit raise strength. What do you do?

Both 4-card major and 5-card major each have their merits. Dont get me wrong. I am not saying 4-card major is bad. I am just saying 5-card major with strong club is not that bad.

[Free]

flytoox, on Jan 24 2005, 12:25 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2005, 09:39 AM, said:

"Jimmy, 4-card will do well in uncontested auctions. However, in the competitive auctions, 5-card major will have some advantage over 4-card major. "

Disagree strongly! It is precisely in contested auctions that opening 4 card Majors has a huge advantage over 5 card major systems. 5 card Majorites have to open 1D, whereas 4 card Majorites can immediately open the Major. Note that this also has a slight pre emptive effect.

This is not what I said. This is what Lawrence said. Please check lawrence's 2/1 workbook.

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

Imo it depends not only on how you open your majors, but also on the rest of the system, and how you deal with the 1M openings. In strong ♣ systems, 4 card Major (mafia style) work very well! Opening canapé makes it very clear to find 4-4 fits, but it's quite easy to find your 5-3 fits as well (since your rebid is a 5+ card).

4 card Majors vs 5 card Majors, it's always been a matter of style and preference, and it always will be. Fact is that both 5 card Major systems and 4 card Major systems have won huge events. Ok, it's not only the system, but it seems like the system doesn't affect much to the end result.

Btw, is a system good because sooooooo many people play it? I think not...

[flytoox]

Free, on Jan 24 2005, 11:34 AM, said:

Ok, it's not only the system, but it seems like the system doesn't affect much to the end result.

Yes, this is just my point.

"Btw, is a system good because sooooooo many people play it? I think not..."

Free, wrong logic. Many ppl play it and succeed, so the system cannot be very bad, at least it has no fundemental flaw. I didnt say many ppl play it so it must be a good one.

[luke warm]

flytoox, on Jan 24 2005, 05:25 AM, said:

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

i didn't say 4 card majors are 'so much better' than 5 card majors... to answer your question tho, i think most people play 5M because it's simpler (at least they think it is)

[flytoox]

luke warm, on Jan 24 2005, 01:03 PM, said:

flytoox, on Jan 24 2005, 05:25 AM, said:

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

i didn't say 4 card majors are 'so much better' than 5 card majors... to answer your question tho, i think most people play 5M because it's simpler (at least they think it is)

Yes, Jimmy I understand your point. The reason you gave here is a very simple but good one: ppl like it cos it is simple and easy to learn.

[Gerben47]

You want your 1M opening bids to be frequent to put pressure on opponents, and also they should have high information content. There is always a tradeoff between those. I guess from this point of view 5-card majors work better than 4-card majors in a standard system and 4-card (with canape!) works better than 5-card with limited opening bids.

However with Precision I like 1M to be 5-card major and opened on thin air showing 9 - 15 HCP or the like (extremely high frequency).

[hrothgar]

flytoox, on Jan 24 2005, 02:25 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2005, 09:39 AM, said:

"Jimmy, 4-card will do well in uncontested auctions. However, in the competitive auctions, 5-card major will have some advantage over 4-card major. "

Disagree strongly! It is precisely in contested auctions that opening 4 card Majors has a huge advantage over 5 card major systems. 5 card Majorites have to open 1D, whereas 4 card Majorites can immediately open the Major. Note that this also has a slight pre emptive effect.

This is not what I said. This is what Lawrence said. Please check lawrence's 2/1 workbook.

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

From my perspective, 5 card major systems replaced 4 card major systems because the 5CM structure is easier to teach.

5 card major based structures are often taught using a rules based approach: With shape XYZ, bid A. With shape QRD, bid B, ...

In contrast, in the US, the dominant 4 card major based systems required a fair amount of judgement to apply effectively. There were all sorts of requirements surrounding bidable suits, quick trick requirements, and the like.

As an analogy consider the difference between Milton Work's point count structure and the earlier point count metrics. Work's 4321 structure didn't win out becuase it was more accurate. It won because it was simple...

[mila85]

luke warm, on Jan 23 2005, 11:52 AM, said:

flytoox, on Jan 23 2005, 06:12 AM, said:

I understand your point. However, this logic applies to most system. If you open 4-card major then there are other problems.

that might be true fly, but what if the 4 card opening guaranteed another, usually longer, suit?
1c= 16+ if balanced, 17+ if a Major, 18+ if a minor oriented hand
1d= 5x4x; x54x; xx44+
1h= 54xx; x45x; x4x4+
1s= 45xx; 4x5x; 4xx4+
1nt= 12-15 balanced, all 5332 and no 54xx hands
2c= all 3 suited hands
2d/h/s= all one suited hands, 6+ long and limited (11-16/17)
2nt= one suited club hands, 14-17
3c= the same but 11-14

What do you bid with 5-4♣-2-2?

[pbleighton]

"However with Precision I like 1M to be 5-card major and opened on thin air showing 9 - 15 HCP or the like (extremely high frequency)."

I agree. I play 9-14. It's very descriptive, and common.

The 15+ one club opening is a bit of a stinker, though

Peter

[tysen2k]

MickyB, on Jan 22 2005, 06:45 PM, said:

I showed you a system a while back which had 1♥ as 5+ cards 11-19 and 1♠ as 4+cards 10-15, which allowed 1♥ to be a strong relay after a strong club and negative response. Tysen has said on here that his simulations suggest that the 1♥ and 1♠ openings are actually better reversed; I don't know to what extent this took into account the effects on the 1♣ opener, or how a response structure would work.

When I did my simulations, the definition of each bid measured not only the effectiveness when it was bid, but it's effect on other definitions as well. Although I did not do an exhaustive search of all possible definitions, I tested several possibilities within a natural system.

The strongest thing suggested by the simulations was that unbalanced hands need to be opened as much as possible, even when weak. Balanced hands can afford to pass at first, even if moderately strong (thus my earlier proposal of a 0-16 balanced pass).

The simulations also greatly valued a 5-card spade suit. It felt that whenever you had one, that information was so valuable to give to partner that you should open 1♠ whenever possible. I don't remember the exact numbers, but within a GCC context I think 8-18, 5+ cards was the best range if unbalanced, 11-18 balanced.
For a 1♥ bid it prefered a more narrow point range with only 4+ cards. Something like 8-13 unbalanced, 11-14 balanced.

I also found it interesting that the simulations suggested that a strong 1♦ was superior to a strong 1♣. The extra bidding space was more valuable for the limited hands than it was for the strong ones.

Tysen

[Chamaco]

Quote

The thing to notice here is that the strength required to open 1C is almost independent of the distribution of the hand. This is what I perceive to be a problem with the system.

I believe the strong club hand types which can give more headaches are 2-suiters.
Balanced hands are relatively easy to handle, and strong one suiters will usually come out alive from a contested auction.

But 2 suiters are:

a. VERY vulnerable to preemption (side suit may disappear)
b. even in uncontested auction, minor suit slams are often missed, especially at MP (when 3NT is an option).

Quote

And finally we've reached my pet system which is a good deal closer to Millennium Club than it is to Precision. But, as I said, I don't like Precision.

Most of the pitfalls you mention can be avoided by using Fantoni-Nunes system (all 1-level bids forcing unlimited, 14+ hcp - weak NT- 1♣ may be clubs OR strong NT or stronger bal - 2 level opening bids natural 5+, 8-13).
The system gives up wild weak 2s (daring people can use 3 level bids for them), but on balance has a sound mix of solidity and aggressiveness.

[the hog]

"This is not what I said. This is what Lawrence said. Please check lawrence's 2/1 workbook. "

Fly I don't care who said that, I still disagree. everyone has their own barrow to push. dO you think if I wrote a 2/1 book I would be extolling the virtues of a 4 card major system. Ask other players and you will get other opinions.

5 or 4 card systems are all playable provided your partner is on the same wavelength. 4 card Majors clearly have a greater pre emptive effect as you get to open them more often. That is obvious!

[DenisO]

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2005, 09:39 AM, said:

Off topic: One of the most effective of all openings was in the early versions of Moscito, where 1D or in later versions 1NT, showed both majors. When you opened something else you immediatley knew whether the opps had a Major suit fit or not.

Is there anywhere that describes how "mainstream" Moscito has evolved over the years? It would be interesting to see how/why bids have changed in the search for greater efficiency.

Denis

[MickyB]

tysen2k, on Jan 24 2005, 09:33 PM, said:

The simulations also greatly valued a 5-card spade suit.  It felt that whenever you had one, that information was so valuable to give to partner that you should open 1♠ whenever possible.  I don't remember the exact numbers, but within a GCC context I think 8-18, 5+ cards was the best range if unbalanced, 11-18 balanced.
For a 1♥ bid it prefered a more narrow point range with only 4+ cards.  Something like 8-13 unbalanced, 11-14 balanced.

I also found it interesting that the simulations suggested that a strong 1♦ was superior to a strong 1♣.  The extra bidding space was more valuable for the limited hands than it was for the strong ones.

Thanks, Tysen. What other openings worked out well with the 4 card heart, 5 card spade described below? and with a strong diamond? Cheers.

[flytoox]

tysen2k, on Jan 24 2005, 09:33 PM, said:

I also found it interesting that the simulations suggested that a strong 1♦ was superior to a strong 1♣. The extra bidding space was more valuable for the limited hands than it was for the strong ones.

Tysen

What is the negative response to strong 1D opening?

[junyi_zhu]

flytoox, on Jan 24 2005, 11:25 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 24 2005, 09:39 AM, said:

"Jimmy, 4-card will do well in uncontested auctions. However, in the competitive auctions, 5-card major will have some advantage over 4-card major. "

Disagree strongly! It is precisely in contested auctions that opening 4 card Majors has a huge advantage over 5 card major systems. 5 card Majorites have to open 1D, whereas 4 card Majorites can immediately open the Major. Note that this also has a slight pre emptive effect.

This is not what I said. This is what Lawrence said. Please check lawrence's 2/1 workbook.

If 4-card major is so much better than 5-card major, why most ppl play 5-card major? Why 2/1 and Sayc are so popular?

Because 4 card major isn't an easy system for beginners and intermediate players, and the most difficult part is not even the bidding, it's those shaky 4-3 fit you have to play sometimes. For beginners, intermediate players or even advanced players, 4-3 fit , especially very shaky 4-3 fit, always brings up a big challenge to them. When 5 card major opening can often exclude this possibility, why people bother to figure out how to play a 4-3 fit? However, in gamebidding area, 4 card major opening system has a big advantage, that it often discloses way less information than 5 card major systems. 4 card major opening systems find major 4-4 or 4-5 fit much faster than 5 card major systems and that's why negative double was invented. In major suit slam bidding area, 5 card major system has some advantage, that's partially because of such kind of sequences: 1S p 2N(jacoby), opener has more hand types to describe if he plays 4 card major opening system, so the accuracy isn't as good as 5 card major, especially when you want to confirm a 9 card fit at early stage which is often critical for slams. However, playing 5 card system, it's often not very easy to confirm at minor suit 9 card fit early, for example, you may hold 5 clubs when partner opens 1C and you often don't how whether he holds 3 clubs or 4 clubs, which can be very important in slam bidding. So it's just a trade off in my point of view.

Overally, I believe 4 card major is a very good opening scheme and more and more good players might at least give it a try.

[tysen2k]

MickyB, on Jan 26 2005, 07:38 AM, said:

Thanks, Tysen. What other openings worked out well with the 4 card heart, 5 card spade described below? and with a strong diamond? Cheers.

Within a precision or strong diamond context, a natural 2♣ bid was best when it promised 6+ cards and no 4cM. The optimal point range was also quite wide, something like 8-18 as well, although points didn't make that much of a difference and narrowing the range did not hurt much.

The optimal range for a natural 1NT opening is up for discussion, mainly because of the double-dummy assumptions used in the simulations. In real life at the table, after 1NT - P or 1NT - 3NT a declarer will usually do much better than double-dummy results. So the simulations felt that 1NT was doomed a lot more often than it really was and it sought shelter in a suit contract. Therefore the simulations rated a weak NT worse than it would fare in real life. I made my own adjustments to the DD results, giving bonus fractional tricks to NT contracts, based on Peter Cheung's research on how DD results compare to SD declarers. Even after these adjustments, the sims still thought strong NT was better. The sims also felt that a wide point range was acceptable, and if the minimum points are high enough, you should be able to handle the wider range. Something like 17-21 or even 17+ or 18+. Playing that at the table should raise some eyebrows of the opponents.

Tysen

[tysen2k]

flytoox, on Jan 26 2005, 08:49 AM, said:

What is the negative response to strong 1D opening?

I've seen a 1♥ bid used as a negative response, but the beauty of the simulations that I ran is that you don't even have to know what the continuations are to be able to judge the merits of the opening bids.

For those of you who are wondering how that's even possible, I use a method described by Matt Ginsberg here. The basics are that you don't assume what the continuations are going to be but rather assume that you will be able to define the continuations later at some given level of efficiency (I assumed 18% which seemed to work out quite well).

Tysen