simple vs complicated give more information away?
#1
Posted 2012-June-10, 21:06
Using simple systems, you just bid games and slams by your first impression and simple hand evaluation using HCPs and distributional points, which results in only 45% of the games made (at IMPs) or 50% of the games made (at MPs), but you just give so little information away that the opponents need to guess which suit to lead, and once they get the wrong lead, you can make otherwise unmakeable games or get an overtrick at makeable games. You just use natural bids all the way through, even after interference, you just continue with all your natural bids to the number of trumps you hold in total. You also don't risk the opener pushing you to game when you respond with 0 HCPs, using natural weak jump shifts.
Which way of bidding do you prefer?
#2
Posted 2012-June-10, 21:30
Sometimes "simple" means one player masterminding based on sims he produces in his head when he could have involved partner.
Sometimes "complicated" means torturing partner unnecessarily.
#3
Posted 2012-June-10, 21:51
I like to have a scientific approach available, but will often choose not to use it, especially if doing so will reveal information about the declaring hand. Often you can arrange things so that dummy is describing instead of declarer. I haven't often wished I had a natural 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦ response.
With Jacoby 2NT, it's unfortunate that opener will always be declarer but you have the same problem with any strong balanced hand with support because it's more effective for the unbalanced hand (i.e. opener) to describe. Only transfer openings can really avoid this.
#4
Posted 2012-June-11, 03:26
-- Bertrand Russell
#5
Posted 2012-June-11, 04:10
- hrothgar
#6
Posted 2012-June-11, 04:33
![:)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
The defence thing is not as you think. For example last year a complicated auction of 13 rounds led to me explaiaing everyone that I had 5134 with ♠AK and ♣AJ ♦K or something like. The real problem was that the final contract became 7 spades, and the guy on lead at our table was the only guy to underlead ♥Q10xxx into declarer's AKJ98x wich never were mentioned on the bidding, and we were the only pair to make the contract. The fact that one hand explains doesn't make the defence double dummy. Specially on lead, and specially when the explained hand becomes dummy.
#7
Posted 2012-June-11, 09:00
The standardish tools mentioned involve BOTH partners in the decision and you have options as to when to use them.
Always and never are not part of my system, ie. p - 1♥ to you holding 5-5 in the blacks and 1♠ is often a better choice than a revealing Michaels bid. If I choose the wrong strategic option it's just my ongoing battle to find consistency.
What is baby oil made of?
#8
Posted 2012-June-11, 16:38
#9
Posted 2012-June-11, 17:41
Statto, on 2012-June-11, 16:38, said:
I'm not sure complex and information leakage are a given pairing though. Compare the information disclosed in the 1C= clubs or balanced auction 1C!-1NT (to play opposite a weak NT), and the corresponding better minor auction (1C/D-1NT).
Similarly playing 1H-2NT(limit+)-3C (Any minimum) discloses more information when partner is minimum and you only have a limit raise, but discloses less information the rest of the time.
However, I've been tracking this particular (2NT = limit+ with 3C as a minimum) auction, and while 1H-2NT-3C-4H is reasonably frequent, it doesn't seem to make a difference compared to what tables playing standard methods are doing. That said, my sample size is 12 and it might have made a difference only once but didn't. Conversely when we disclose more information after 1H-2NT-3C-3H-4H it doesn't make a difference either.
#10
Posted 2012-June-11, 22:56
A bidding system is supposed to exchange enough information for you to correctly place the contract, and no more. It may well do that by being "simple" and just blasting, or it may do that by being complicated -- spiral-scan cuebids until you have enough information for a go/no-go decision on a slam, or even purely artificial sequences so that dummy's hand is completely described and declarer's hand is not revealed at all.
But the question of whether a system seeks to maximize information transfer or not is NOT the same as the question of whether a system is simple or not. "Complete" natural systems can still transfer lots of information, sometimes more than necessary, as in a game-try and counter-try auction.
#11
Posted 2012-June-12, 01:16
Extensive partnership agreements versus seat of the pants, concealed understanding, and/or no understanding. Some partnerships generally know what their partner's bids mean even on the third, fourth, and fifth round of the auction - even in competition. Others never agree past the opening bid/response or some named convention (and often they both don't understand the same details of a convention despite the same name).
Exchange as much information with partner in the bidding to reach the optimal dd result versus guess in the bidding and hide information to end up in the wrong spot more often but also to be far harder on opening leader and on defenders and on opps sac decisions.
Scientific/artificial agreements that are more technically accurate versus natural agreements that are more what they sound like and easier on the memory.
Play what conventions I'm used to (and I'll call that stuff some variation of "standard" to make my common conventions sound better) versus play a mish-mash of different conventions that is neither partner's first choice but some reasonable compromise.
Play something that is different than everyone else (either because it is fun, an experiment, something different, because opponents aren't prepared for it, or some combination of many of the above) or play what everyone else is playing. I play against one semi-local pair that plays strong 2's across the board, 4 card majors, penalty doubles, etc. - a totally natural and straight forward system that is still unexpected and different than what opponents expect.
I prefer to play with complete agreements because I think it leads to better disclosure, and it leads to better judgements of what is this worth rather than what do I think partner will think this bid means in light of what do I think partner thought his last bid meant. I prefer to have the choice to blast, versus have only one partner completely share (and hopefully become dummy), versus both opponents share depending on the hand and what I judge best. Relay auctions to slam are great. So is 1M-4M in precision. I prefer science bids that have an underlying rationality that makes it easy to figure why the agreement works that way as long as my memory can take it. Most people understand rkc 1430 even though it is a completely artificial scientific bid. Many other less familiar scientific conventions are no more complicated, once you know the structure/rules/logic. I prefer to play my partner's card with pickups, but I prefer to come to a compromise with a serious and/or regular partnership. Depending on field strength, there can be good reasons to play something different or something not-different. I usually like to play something that is fun and that I think is theoretically better, but playing something less different leads to more consistent results (not necessarily better results, depends on field strength).
#12
Posted 2012-June-12, 01:30
simple or complicated?
They won top MP event
Disect this guys and post
---------------------
OTOH if you want to tell how we(less than 48%) can do better....ok that is another thread.
#13
Posted 2012-June-12, 02:30
mike777, on 2012-June-12, 01:30, said:
simple or complicated?
They won top MP event
Disect this guys and post
---------------------
OTOH if you want to tell how we(less than 48%) can do better....ok that is another thread.
Frances Hinden made the point in another thread that scratch partnerships win MP events all the time, but never win IMP games. Why is this? It probably points to the reason that science is useful - it's good for finding close games and slams. At IMPs choosing between 3NT and 5D is a decision on which at a lot swings. At MPs unless you know 3NT is a sure loser you are going to bid it anyway. Pairs without science can just blast the most likely contract and hope to make it up in the play. If they don't, it's only a bottom (infact even this is unlikely because you're not the only person playing matchpoints in the field). Whereas at IMPs bidding 5D when 3NT makes is 1 or 2 imps out, but going off in 3NT when 5D makes can easily win a match.
#14
Posted 2012-June-12, 02:36
Cthulhu D, on 2012-June-12, 02:30, said:
and so?
We are tld this 50 years ago?
I am old.
#15
Posted 2012-June-12, 11:02
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself."
"One advantage of bad bidding is that you get practice at playing atrocious contracts."
-Alfred Sheinwold
#16
Posted 2012-June-12, 11:23
chasetb, on 2012-June-12, 11:02, said:
I will bet the fact that the opponents screwed up their system once or twice, and/or their less complex methods did not get screwed up actually did make a difference here and there. It makes a difference for us mere mortals.
#17
Posted 2012-June-12, 22:43
aguahombre, on 2012-June-12, 11:23, said:
I think their opponents likely screwed up some simple, no agreement situations (complex or simple) and some bad judgement (that wouldn't have even been a judgement with good system). It cuts both ways. The obvious "ha ha you went off the rails" can be seen by all, but the more subtle "you were put in a tough spot by lack of system and judged wrong, unlucky" is likely to be much less noticed.
Obviously playing good tough defense, accurate declarer line, trusting partner, and not making mistakes is most important.
#18
Posted 2012-June-12, 23:05
#19
Posted 2012-June-13, 01:56
- hrothgar
#20
Posted 2012-June-13, 03:03
I don't want to single this particular guy (or India, or Precision) out. Just a general observation. Most people see simplicity as a virtue but what we see as "simple" may be more about familiarity than inate properties of the system.