[the hog]

Well we used to play
1C/D = 8-12 H/S respectively
1H 0-8
1S = 8-12 both ms
1N = 9-12,

[helene_t]

Hannie, on Aug 12 2005, 05:05 AM, said:

However, you'll have to make sacrifices with the stronger hands. The expected number of IMPs that is at stake for these hands is larger than the number of IMPs per 8-12 hand.

This makes sense. But my feeling is that is is above all relevant when you play IMPs.

Another issue is if the balance between strength-related information and shape-related information is optimal. Todd/Foobar play 1♣ as 4+ hearts, 8-13. It's not obvious to me that this is better than, say, 5+ hearts, 7-17. Of course, the designers of the WO systems have put a lot of thought into this, so who am I to suggest they are wrong. It would take more elaborate arguments than "8-12 is the most frequent range" to convince me, though. After all, 0-37 is the most frequent range.

Also, if the opps play standard, 8-12 is less frequent in 2nd seat than in 1st seat.

With all this said, I find it plausible that WO systems are better than standard systems. First, I like playing light openings myself and I find it easier to bid against opps playing sound openings. Second, it is easy to explain why they are not allowed, assuming that they are technically superior. It is possible that the reason is that opps need specific defense against them but I doubt it. It is not difficult to construct diabolic methods that are allowed under BSC restrictions (Apstro-preempts, 3-card major openigs etc), and if diabolicness alone was a significant advantage many pairs would play such methods. Yet few do.

[EricK]

The_Hog, on Aug 12 2005, 02:47 AM, said:

officeglen, on Aug 12 2005, 11:31 AM, said:

So skip the simulations, are you are saying, and since bridge is four handed, you think 8-12 must be optimal, instead of, say 9-13, 7-11, 10-14 etc.?

No Glen, what I am arguing is that because this is the most common range it is also the optimal range. You get in and out of the auction very quickly.

Some anecdotal evidence:
(1D) P (2S) ?

xx
AKJxx
Axx
KJx

1D = 8-12 with 4+S, 2S = 5-12 with 4+S
The opponents hold between 13 and 24 HCP with 8+S. How safe is it for you to enter this auction?

But why 8-12 and not 7-12 or 8-13 or 7-13 etc etc. These are more common than 8-12!

Eric

[MarceldB]

EricK, on Aug 12 2005, 11:42 AM, said:

But why 8-12 and not 7-12 or 8-13 or 7-13 etc etc. These are more common than 8-12!

Don't look to the total percentage of a pointrange only. F.e. the difference between 7-11 and 8-12 is 0,0012%... but a world of difference.

Recalculate in each pointrange the percentages per Pointcount. Next step is to divide the points left equally and see then how this works in a total-pointrange.

I will give you the results:

6-10 pointrange with 6,11 % below average
7-11 pointrange with 3,16 % below average
8-12 pointrange with 0,16 % below average
9-13 pointrange with 2,83 % above average
10-14 pointrange with 5,86 % above average

6-11 pointrange with 4,47 % below average
7-12 pointrange with 1,67 % below average
8-13 pointrange with 1,20 % above average
9-14 pointrange with 4,08 % above average
10-15 pointrange with 6,95 % above average

Now you can choose according your style.
Kamikaze? More safe? Afraid ;-)

Above figures definite the 8-12 pointrange as the most average one.
Completely fitting to the axiom of a 20/20 diviation.

And the rest why to open I have already mentioned in my previous posting.

Marcel

[glen]

Still baffled. Say one is playing a strong ♣ system. One could choose between:

a ) 1♣ 13+, 1♥/♠ 8-12, 2♥/♠ whatever; or
b ) 1♣ 16+, 1♥/♠ 10-15, 2♥/♠ 4-9 with 5 or longer.

Now b has these advantages:
- Bidding is escalated on 4-9 hands;
- The stronger 1♣ (compared to A) allows the partnership to handle interference better;
- The 1♥/♠ 10-15 opener contains maximums that can double for blood once responder shows some values.

So why is 8-12 considered optimal by some, when one can open 4 to anything in other frameworks?

[glen]

The_Hog, on Aug 12 2005, 02:47 AM, said:

...Some anecdotal evidence:
(1D) P (2S) ?

xx
AKJxx
Axx
KJx

1D = 8-12 with 4+S, 2S = 5-12 with 4+S

btw what system wants to risk playing a 4-4+ major fit on the two level with 24 HCP?

[the hog]

This is standard in weak opening systems. The chances of you having 24 are remote, and furthermore nothing is to stop opener making a gt with a suitable hand. You gain far more in the long term by opponents coming in on hands such as the previous one I posted and going for a number.

I have played, and played against these systems and believe me, it is not so easy as you seem to think it is. Why do you think people like Wolff and Damaniani campaigned so hard against them?

[glen]

The_Hog, on Aug 12 2005, 11:50 PM, said:

...it is not so easy as you seem to think it is...

where did I say it was "so easy"?

Note that with ETM Tops, I played 8-16 1♦/♥/♠ openers and 10-12 1NT in IMP play for a number of years. With that system 1M-2M is to play.

[awm]

Some of this depends on exactly how bad your openings are. My belief is that opening bad balanced hands is, for the most part, losing bridge. You are too likely to be doubled at a low level with no playable contract, or to locate many high cards for opponents when they end up playing the hand (in an auction where, for most, your side is not bidding). With this in mind, my suggestion would be to open aggressively with shapely hands and fairly conservatively with balanced ones. So opening hands will usually have seven or fewer losers (even KJxxx KJxxx xx x has seven losers).

I'd recommend:

(1) If you're not playing a strong club or diamond, use something like Gazilli to distinguish good major suit openings from bad on the second turn.

(2) Don't play 2/1s game forcing, it would require too many points to force game opposite a shapely 8-count if you have no fit. Instead, adopt a standard-like style where 2/1s are forcing but not always to game. Nonetheless, 2/1 continues to show 12+ (like in 2/1) and 1NT can be up to 11.

(3) There are effectively two invitational ranges. One is the "old-style" invitation with something like 10-11 points. With these hands, start with 1NT. If partner bids 2C (gazilli variant) to show 15+ you go to game. If not, you can get out at the two level. The other is the hand that would force game opposite a sound opening style. These start with 2/1 calls and then make some kind of invitational noise (since 2/1s not game forcing).

(4) It's very helpful to have further asking bids below game opposite limit raises. Having at least one bid available as a "counter-try" can help since the limit raise range is a bit wider opposite the potentially light opening.

[the hog]

officeglen, on Aug 13 2005, 10:02 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 12 2005, 11:50 PM, said:

...it is not so easy as you seem to think it is...

where did I say it was "so easy"?

Note that with ETM Tops, I played 8-16 1♦/♥/♠ openers and 10-12 1NT in IMP play for a number of years. With that system 1M-2M is to play.

8-16 seems like far too wide a range, Glen. That is one reason why I like 8-12. Incidentally I think any wos like this is unplayable unless you have invit relays and maybe an invit and a gf relay.

Marston-Burgess had a great deal of success with this until Damiani got on his high horse and got onto their case.

I assume you are Glen Ashton btw?

[glen]

Yes to Glen Ashton

The wide range was not much of a problem. More of a problem was the 8-10 hands. The opponents often bought the contract opposite these (1NT and 3NT being the most common contracts) and then if responder was on lead suit quality played a role. However if we had a "quality suit" (2 of top 3 etc.), we were generally better off opening on the two level and consuming space. The one exception is with both majors - here opening on the one level was better, in order to find the other major, but even better would be a two level opening showing both majors. Ultra light minor suit openings had their share of wonderful results, but also had a stream of small losses.

So in redesign:

1♣: ♣s 10 to unlimited, or balanced 10-12/15-17 (range not covered by 1NT) or 24+ balanced. When vulnerable and 10-12 balanced only with a four card major.

1♦: ♦s 10 to unlimited, or 13-14 balanced.

1♥/♠: 11+, unlimited.

1NT: 10-12 white, 15-17 red.

2♣: 18-21 balanced.

2♦: Both majors, 5-10 or so. I hate not being able to play this in ACBL land.

2♥/♠: 7/8-11, five card suit possible except red vs white. Decent suit promised, except when white vs. red.

2NT: 22-23 balanced
etc.

[Double !]

officeglen, on Aug 12 2005, 09:37 PM, said:

Yes to Glen Ashton

Thanks for clarifying.
Suspected as much when saw reference to ETM TOPS (which I still can't remember much of no matter how hard I try.)

These new ranges: are they for ETM Tops, Victory, or what? They don't look like what I recall for Tops.

I used to play that 5-5 major 2D opener for a long time years ago until someone said I couldn't. But I think you can use it by opening 2H and make 2D show something else. BTW, Have you completely scrapped ETM Tops or just refined it? I like those Goldilocks 2-bids (which actually can be very useful in an otherwise normal 2/1 or sayc system, as I'm sure you're aware). Helps address the problem of the jump suit-rebid by opener.

DHL

[glen]

Funny story around Goldilocks. First played them with one partner. He taught them to another. This one then put them in a new parternship formed this last season. When my wife and I played the last two this spring in an IMP league match they used Goldilocks (bid and responding structure) to get to a slam and beat us. Killed with my own sword!

Goldilocks bids are great when vulnerable. However when not vulnerable, Fantoni-Nunes have convinced me that putting in some five card suits works - higher frequency, can still bounce often.

For the system I framed just above, does anybody know if this is mid-chart:
2♦: weak two bid in ♥s (effectively 7/8-11 with 5/6♥s). or any GF.
2♥: both majors.

For both majors, it seems it might have to be at least 5-4 either way to fit in mid-chart methods allowed.

For the ETM systems, there are four in various stages:

ETM TOPs - matchpoint/light initial action system - will modify around the framework given above - that is start initial action at one level at 10 points instead of 8, except for 1♥/♠ not vulnerable very tempted to put in a modified Landen/Rajadhyaksha approach to majors - the 1M is the usual or 8-10 with 4 (I'm told the results of this is somewhat random, but a matchpoint system should have optional-use toys that allow the partnership to shoot for tops).

ETM VICTORY - weak notrump/super science system. This will get a retrofit sometime in the future (i.e. not this year!).

ETM GOLD - the latest and the system I'm very happy with.

A fun/easy canape system - hope to get this going in the near or medium term. I like the one bids starting at 10 - as can be seen from above, nobody has convinced me that 1 level 8-12 bids are right - two level bids sure.