The_Hog, on Aug 11 2005, 10:42 AM, said:
Hannie, on Aug 11 2005, 02:10 PM, said:
The_Hog, on Aug 10 2005, 07:30 PM, said:
Optimum opening range is 8-12, as these rae the most common hand types. This meshes well into a strong pass system, or a system such as Moscito.
This seems believable, but can you prove this? It is clear that these hands are most common, but why does that make it the optimal opening range?
Prove it? Well Hannie, from my experience of playing Weak opening systems, yes. I mean any sort of proof to a large extent is anecdotal or based on one's own experiences. What i can say is that it pays to get into the auction early; 8-10 openings allo0w you to get in very quickly, and also give you a measure of security in that at least you have some sort of hand. I can produce blanket comments like "bridge is a bidder's game", but of course that is just a throw away line. From my experience it is definitely true however. It is really hard to bid over 1D - 8-12 4+S, (P), 2S 4-10, at least 3+S.
Whether it is worth paying the price of a strong C or a strong pass is something you have to decide.
The Poles did a lot of work on this area about 20 years ago or so and developed a whole host of wos based on this point range. Have a look if you can find it, at the original regres book. There is also a pamphlet by Lukasz Slawinski on weak opening sstems that goes into this in detail. Marcel Broeder, who at times posts here also has good thoughts on this.
I will try to give in the context of a historical point of view an answer why they came to the position that the 8-12 is the best range, supposing that most of you will not have that old literature.
1958 : spiral bound (privat)publication by Frederick J. Ebeling
Reproduced in 1984 (Ron Klinger/George Havas)
Openings (and even as overcalls!):
Pass= 13-17
1x = 8-12 , best suit
1NT= 0-7 OR 18-21
2x = 22+, best suit
Re: the 8-12 pointrange. I quote the original 1958 publication:
"with this count it is evident that the hands are probably more or less evenly divided, However, experience indicates that the use of this bid to which the partner is not obliged to respond, results in:
1) a part score
2) a good sacrifice
3) at worst, a small negative score rather than a passed hand.
Under any circumstances, the partner is given immediate and accurate knowledge as to the strength and character of the hand."
From point of completeness I mention the answers over an 1x= 8-12 bid:
a) with 0-10 count Pass
b: with 11-15 count, your best suit should be bid.
opener passes with an 8-10 count.
c) with 16+ jump into your best suit
opener indicates if he has a min. or max.
For the sake of good order as Mr.Klinger mentioned in his editor's note:
" .... you may wish to develop the bidding in more detail than is revealed in this manuscript, but this is no way diminishes the importance of this contribution to bridge theory...."
(-trusting to have not violated coyrights- MarceldB)
=========
In 1963 similar ideas crossed the mind of Lukasz Slawinski - not knowing at all Ebeling's private publication (see his article " the moons of mars") -, during 1963-65 elaborated the theory; met Ruminski; resulting in a first publication in 1967. Further theoretical development resulting end '60 beg. '70 in a couple of workable WOS.
I will sum up some lines of him.
Are there contradictions and paradoxes hidden in the foundations of systems regarding
- 12-18 as the basic opening zone
- passing with weaker hands (if no preempt)
- the way of signalling the distribution ?
•The paradox of the 12-18 opening zone
- with 12 points as a minimum it is believed that such a strenght gives enough chance to make the contract
- and you are secured normally from disastrous defeat.
Why then overcalling with less and the opponents have already exchanged information? Whilst to open is less dangerous because the opponent is unconscious of their reciprocal strength
•The paradox of an opening Pass
- large range of strenght and distribution diversity
- high frequency (every second deal and low agressiveness of bidding)
•The paradox of signalling the distribiution based on long suits
-it tells a lot about the opening suit, saying almost nothing about the side suits
-the simplicity of such an opening does not create any difficulties for the opponents.
Bridge is a two pairs game and preventing the opponents from finding their proper contract is almost as important as finding one's own.
------
Above contradictions lead to the following conclusion:
The present bidding axioms should be radically revised. Left unchanged, they will prevent any real progress and lead to overcomplicated systems
------
Introduction of new axioms:
- the Leadership principle
- the bidding should be led by the stronger hand
- one should open as frequently as possible to obstruct the opponent's bidding
and to forestall them in the exchange of information
- the most frequent hands should be treated with utmost care by the system
and finally coming all together to the point:
Why should the majority of opening bids be reserved for the 8-12 hands?
Well, because
-8-12 more frequent than the 12-16 ones
-This postulates creates the best ground to realize above principles:
- leadership
- maximal activity
- maximal frequency
To say it simply : more or less a combination/collaboration of "most common" (45% of the hands) ànd your goal (read principles, axioms,purpose)
=============
So far some historical background.
In my opinion not be "dusted" but still valid. See also Paul Marston's remarks in the Moscito2005 document that preferably in "a free world" he would like to return to his "old" 8-12 HCP for the limited openings.
The main problem is the fact that playing an 8-12 range, the Pass=13+ works finally the best (in spite of the disadvantages) in case that you are looking for consistence and symmetry and other postulates.
And just that Pass/Fert bid is prohibited in most events. Besides the fact that all your efforts will be in a total unbalance with the times you really can play it.
Mr. Slawinski wrote me:
"I think it is not possible to make a good (and easy!) WOS under present
WBF's restrictions ! especially a la Regres, Delta or Lambda.
I cannot construct a good 8+ system against present restrictions !
I tried..."
I must agree the same unfortunately taking into account the other axioms.
=============
Hoping to have given you herewith a little history
Best regards,
Marcel den Broeder