[csdenmark]

In another thread an example came up indicating a misjudgement in slam approach by Eric Rodwell. As the thread by the starter of that has asked not to de-rail the thread I think it is right trying to avoid so.

As the deal in question is not disclosed I am not sure whether the exact problems arise from misjudgement or a fall-back to their earlier disputed brownsticker features they now have abolished. I assume the latter.

I have noticed that 3 top-pairs for Bermuda Bowl 2005 all have handicapped themselves abolishing their brands.

Rodwell-Meckstroth: The weak preemptive openings
Hampson-Greco: The same preemptive openings
Bocchi-Duboin: Canape' overcalls over natural 1♣♦ openings

They are all disputed brownsticker features and at the same time ancher-features. This means they in general are only allowed for Bermuda Bowl and there only for team-trial.

To me it looks highly unlikely that all 3 pairs independent of each other have chosen by the same time to handicap themselves. To me it more looks like interference from organizers; might be a tiny hope to see new nations on top in Bermuda.


Does anybody know what is behind? New regulations or really a simple 0.0001% coincidence?

[Gerben42]

I'm not sure but I guess it has something to do with the lack of ability to practice the methods in tournaments. It's the same reason why no one plays forcing pass in the Bermuda Bowl anymore. The regulators have made it impossible to train such a system properly.

Quote

might be a tiny hope to see new nations on top in Bermuda.

I think this has nothing to do with system considerations. There WERE a lot of new nations on top in the Bermuda Bowl. Who would have expected India and Egypt to make the playoffs? Not I.

[FrancesHinden]

At a much less exalted level, Brown Sticker conventions are permitted in the English Trials. Yet only one pair (Townsend/Gold) played one convention, and that was an additional pre-emptive opening not part of their basic system.

I agree with Gerben: if you have to play something different in 75% of the events you play in, you aren't going to put new & unpractised stuff in for the few occasions you are allowed to play it. I doubt very much the WBF have told these top pairs what to play, or that the pairs would pay any attention if they did.

[hrothgar]

One quick (non bridge) related comment : I think that you should be using the word "Trademark" rather than "Brand". The two words mean almost the same thing. I've seen lots of people write about XYZ's "trademark" style. However, I've never seen brand used quite the same way.

If there is a shift in the use of BSC's, I suspect that it has to do with the ability to practice them.

[MickyB]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 26 2006, 01:25 PM, said:

At a much less exalted level, Brown Sticker conventions are permitted in the English Trials. Yet only one pair (Townsend/Gold) played one convention, and that was an additional pre-emptive opening not part of their basic system.

Half of my partnership wanted to do likewise

[whereagles]

Preemptive openings should be natural, so as to give opps only 2 shots at the cake. That's why experts changed their ways

[mr1303]

Not so much the case. How do you defend against a multi 2H? (showing a weak 2 in either hearts or spades).

I for one have absolutely no idea. That's why I'm glad it's been banned.

However, I consider it odd that I can play 2NT as a bad pre-empt in either minor on a normal Thursday night duplicate, or my local swiss teams congress, but I can't play it in an international match.

(It is legal at EBU level IV, but brown sticker in WBF events)

[fred]

Sometimes circles of players experiment with new methods and, after using them for a while, conclude that they are not effective.

The best example of this is the 10-12 1NT opening which was gaining popularity among American experts about 10 years ago. Now you almost never see this at the highest levels in America because these people came to a conclusion:

10-12 notrump openings lose more than they gain

Most likely not everyone came to this conclusion independently, but since most of the people I am referring to are friends, teammates, and/or frequent opponents, it should not be too surprising that they influence one another.

Meckstroth-Rodwell came to a similar conclusion regarding some of their artificial preempts. These guys are close friends (and sometimes teammates) of Hampson-Greco so it is not so strange that, even if Hampson-Greco did not figure this out for themselves, that they were influenced by Meckstroth-Rodwell.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

Hum.. Fred, do you happen to know what makes the 10-12 NT is a long-term loser? Is it because you get to the wrong part-score too often, or because you get doubled too often?

[csdenmark]

fred, on Jan 26 2006, 05:30 PM, said:

Sometimes circles of players experiment with new methods and, after using them for a while, conclude that they are not effective.

The best example of this is the 10-12 1NT opening which was gaining popularity among American experts about 10 years ago. Now you almost never see this at the highest levels in America because these people came to a conclusion:

10-12 notrump openings lose more than they gain

Most likely not everyone came to this conclusion independently, but since most of the people I am referring to are friends, teammates, and/or frequent opponents, it should not be too surprising that they influence one another.

Meckstroth-Rodwell came to a similar conclusion regarding some of their artificial preempts. These guys are close friends (and sometimes teammates) of Hampson-Greco so it is not so strange that, even if Hampson-Greco did not figure this out for themselves, that they were influenced by Meckstroth-Rodwell.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Thank you Fred. Looks reasonable and logical. I take your information as there have been no tightning of official rules. Whether any kind of pressure(nobody knows of course) or official modification of the rules.

But Fred the only thing in common for the americans and the italians I mentioned are that it is all regulated under the rules of Brownsticker. Bocchi-Duboin have never had special kind of weak features. It is a canape' overcall structure. Down to 2 card overcalls for second best suit but the best suit is 5+cards or in some cases 4-4 MAJORs. Sound suits and sound values.

May I read you in that way that it was all youth fancy stuff not well suited for mature persons?

I took a brief look into Bertheau-Nystrøm and here it looks too that they have lifted their lower level. I will be very excited to watch whether Lars Blakset also have abolished his 2♠ preempts. Those have been by him for more than 15 years now(Nusine Club). Until next European Championships we will need to wait for that. Same for Aa-Groetheim(Viking Precision) and their 7-11HcP, 5-5 openings excluding 1 minor suit. Openings 2♥ and 2NT.

[Free]

whereagles, on Jan 26 2006, 06:43 PM, said:

Hum.. Fred, do you happen to know what makes the 10-12 NT is a long-term loser? Is it because you get to the wrong part-score too often, or because you get doubled too often?

I don't think it's the NT opening itself which loses, but the rest of the system... Also when V it's not a winning thing (I've played it a while). So you need to change your system according to vulnerability and that's probably not worth the effort.

[whereagles]

mr1303, on Jan 26 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

Not so much the case. How do you defend against a multi 2H? (showing a weak 2 in either hearts or spades).

Hum.. that's a "simple" one:

2nd seat:
(2♥) ..?
dbl = take-out of hearts or strong 18+, Lebenshol responses, penalty dbl if RHO bids 2♠.
overcalls = natural, 12-17 or thereabouts
2NT = natural 16-19 or so, system ON
pass + dbl of 2♠ = take-out of spades.

4th seat, after pass:
(2♥) pass (pass) ..?
dbl = take-out of hearts or strong 15+
overcalls = natural, 10-14 or so
2NT = natural, 13-15 or so

4th seat, after 2♠: (2♠ is presumably some sort of pass/correct)
(2♥) pass (2♠) ..?
dbl = take-out of spades or strong 18+, pen dbl if LHO bids 3♥.
overcalls = natural, 12-17
2NT = natural 17-19 or so
pass + dbl of 3♥ = take-out of hearts

[fred]

whereagles, on Jan 26 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

Hum.. Fred, do you happen to know what makes the 10-12 NT is a long-term loser? Is it because you get to the wrong part-score too often, or because you get doubled too often?

I can't say for sure because I have never played 10-12 notrumps, but in my experience a huge downside is this:

If the opponents end up as declarer after either a 10-12 1NT opening or the lack of a 10-12 1NT opening on a hand that is clearly close to being one, the declarer can frequently place all of the missing high cards.

I have also noticed that some 10-12 pairs must open either 1C or 1D with balanced hands in a certain range regardless of their lengths in the minors. This makes it difficult or impossible for their partners to compete effectively by raising the suit that was opened. "Standard" bidding is hard enough in this regard, but the problem is a lot worse playing 10-12 (at least the way that many pairs play it).

Probably 10-12 notrumps are effective against inexperienced players, but I am always delighted to move to a new table in a pairs game and see "10-12" written on the opponents' convention card.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[luis]

Free, on Jan 26 2006, 05:46 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jan 26 2006, 06:43 PM, said:

Hum.. Fred, do you happen to know what makes the 10-12 NT is a long-term loser? Is it because you get to the wrong part-score too often, or because you get doubled too often?

I don't think it's the NT opening itself which loses, but the rest of the system... Also when V it's not a winning thing (I've played it a while). So you need to change your system according to vulnerability and that's probably not worth the effort.

I have played 10-12 NT and I would risk the following theory: The biggest problem of 10-12 NT is that the opponents will frequently blast into game in hands where if left alone they would have played a partscore. Things like (1N) - 2♠-pass-4♠ are common. Then you can argue you can defeat most of those games and it is true some of them can be defeated, others can't, others depend on the lead or a very good defense, the final point is that you really don't want to end up defending so many games .

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Jan 26 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

mr1303, on Jan 26 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

Not so much the case. How do you defend against a multi 2H? (showing a weak 2 in either hearts or spades).

Hum.. that's a "simple" one:

2nd seat:
(2♥) ..?
dbl = take-out of hearts or strong 18+, Lebenshol responses, penalty dbl if RHO bids 2♠.
overcalls = natural, 12-17 or thereabouts
2NT = natural 16-19 or so, system ON
pass + dbl of 2♠ = take-out of spades.

Sorry to contradict you, but your suggested defence is unplayable

Having played 2♥ multi in last year's 2005 Canadian Team Trials, I have some experience with it. We only played it when not vulnerable and our approach was that responder would frequently pass. Thus direct seat cannot safely pass with any good hand, since he may then end up on lead!

We suggested as a defence: double was takeout, either balanced or short in ♥ or any 18+ hand

2♠ was takeout of ♠

2N 15-18, balanced

3-level overcalls: natural

I am sure that there may be other and perhaps better defences, but I am also sure that it is far tougher to defend 2♥ multi than 2♦ multi

[DrTodd13]

Has anybody done an analysis of what the relative proportion between 3M and 4M is for both online and f2f? Maybe it is just me but I believe I've noticed a trend online to always bid game even when it is remotely close and 3M is relegated to a competitive situation where you want to stop in 2M because you know for sure you don't have game and then opps compete forcing you to 3M. If what Luis said is true that he doesn't want to be in the position of defending so many games then wouldn't the natural solution to be to almost always bid game against him? Maybe he shouldn't have said anything.

[MickyB]

I suspect Luis's assertion is partly psychological, and partly based on pushing opps into games where everything is breaking reasonably and the opps have info about your cards.

I agree with Mikeh that Whereagles underestimated the difficulty of defending a 2♥ multi, but I suspect it is better to play double of either takeout of spades or strong, and 2♠ as takeout of ♥ (particularly if the proponents are much more aggressive with ♠, which makes some sense). But losing a natural 2♠ overcall isn't good.

[cherdano]

Don't know about the psychological aspect of defending, but if I were declaring a close game, I would certainly love it if RHO announced he has a balanced hand, and exactly 10-12 hcps...

Arend

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Jan 26 2006, 09:23 PM, said:

Sorry to contradict you, but your suggested defence is unplayable

Having played 2♥ multi in last year's 2005 Canadian Team Trials, I have some experience with it. We only played it when not vulnerable and our approach was that responder would frequently pass. Thus direct seat cannot safely pass with any good hand, since he may then end up on lead!

We suggested as a defence: double was takeout, either balanced or short in ♥ or any 18+ hand

2♠ was takeout of ♠

2N 15-18, balanced

3-level overcalls: natural

I am sure that there may be other and perhaps better defences, but I am also sure that it is far tougher to defend 2♥ multi than 2♦ multi

I don't think it's that "unplayable" After all, your suggested defense is exactly equal to mine, except for the 2♠ bid

Your defense is willing to give up the natural 2♠ overcall (you'd have to double with 5 spades) to release some pressure off 2nd seat. Mine assumes RHO will bid 2♠ whenever he suspects pard's suit is spades.

The question is how likely is RHO to pass 2♥ knowing that pard probably has spades. Your experience is that he passes too often, making your defense slightly better than mine. But I believe passing systematically 2♥ when pard has spades will lead to bad scores for the opening side, so, in the long run, probably those systematic passes will become 2♠ bids.

[whereagles]

By the way... were those experts, by any chance, playing a 10-12 NT, VULNERABLE?