[Gerben42]

"Pass or Blast" at MP does not seem right.

Different situations:

You bid 3NT, others invite and get accepted. As others have shown, you have the advantage here for the opening lead. After that you are not fooling anyone.
So a plus for the blasters.

You bid 3NT, others invite and get declined. In this case you gain when 3NT makes but lose whenever it doesn't (2NT - 1 wins against 3NT - 2).

So you choose to PASS with some hands that were marginal invites, since these rate to NOT make 3NT often enough. With these hands you are in 1NT and others are either in 2NT when declined or in 3NT when accepted. Again if you are wrong you pay, but you win when the others go down.

So gains for the blasters:

A. On the non-informative auction they make more tricks than on the informative auction.
B. You make games the others didn't reach.
C. You stop in 1NT with a marginal invite and others go down in higher contracts.

Gains for the inviters:

D. You go plus when the blasters go down in game.
E. You go less down when even the invite does not make and the blasters are in game.
F. You make game when the blasters did not make a marginal invite.

This is true for all invite situations so some general points:

The larger the range for opener, the bigger pluses D and F are.
If you blast, the cost of being wrong is higher.

This tells you the blasting method works best in high-level experienced partnerships and 3-point NT ranges. So even if it is a winning method for Fred & Brad, this does not mean it is right for you and me.

[FrancesHinden]

bid_em_up, on May 20 2006, 07:27 AM, said:

Once you learn to evaluate these hands properly, the odds of 3N actually going down DECREASE dramatically (I dont even remember the last time one actually went down, but I'm sure its happened in the last, umm, 6 months, year maybe??),

I find it hard to be polite about statements such as this.

It's likely that you have a very selective memory, but if your 3NT contracts always make, then all that says is that you don't bid 3NT enough.

[MickyB]

Gerben42, on May 22 2006, 12:09 PM, said:

"Pass or Blast" at MP does not seem right.

Different situations:

You bid 3NT, others invite and get accepted. As others have shown, you have the advantage here for the opening lead. After that you are not fooling anyone.
So a plus for the blasters.

I suspect that this advantage is less significant at MPs than at IMPs. At IMPs, you are aiming to take the contract down, and that may be best achieved with a passive or aggressive lead. At MPs, your lead will normally be (comparatively) passive because letting through the 11th trick can be as costly as letting through the 9th.

[hrothgar]

I'm going to broaden the scope of the debate somewhat by noting that there are entire families of bidding that are conciously designed to maximize the partnership's ability to "blast".

I don't know any good players who adopt storng club methods because they believe that opening 1♣ with 16+ HCP is going to give them a good score. Rather, they believe that the advantages from their limited constructive openings outweigh the losses from the strong club opening. Associated with this, the biggest advantage of limited openings is the ability to blast to a contract.

Furthermore, if you look a bidding systems like MOSCITO, things get even more extreme. MOSCITO uses a major's first opening style. MOSCITO opens a four card major in prefer to a five or even six card minor. Furthermore, MOSCITO's response style advocates making a single raise with three trump and a double raise with four. This response structure often results in the partnership playing 2M on a seven card fit without ever discovering that the partnership also holds a nine card fit in a minor.

The system designer's believe that the ability to blast to an acceptable contract ASAP is much more useful than slow systemic auctions searching for an optimal contract.

[lowerline]

whereagles, on May 19 2006, 04:13 AM, said:

lowerline, on May 19 2006, 08:46 AM, said:

1.
In my part of the world there seems to be an expert tendency to methods that conceal the 1NT opener's hand as much as possible.

2.
Usually 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦, after which responder starts showing his hand. 2♦ and 2♥ are still transfers but can be done on a 4crd suit for some stronger hand types. 2♠ asks for min/max and usually contains several hand types.

1. You know, this stikes me as a funny thing, seeing that the 1NT opener is already a pretty well-defined bid

2. You mean people are starting to play keri? You must be an aussie

No, I am not an aussie, I am belgian. Some dutch top players have come up with a structure they call Heeman. It is based on ideas from Scandinavia (1NT bidding, the scanian way) and since it looks like Keri there must have been an aussie influence as well...
So over here it is Heeman that is gaining popularity with ambitious and established partnerships (it is too complicated for most players).

[hrothgar]

Strangely enough, there is a thread on rec.games.bridge that is attempting to study some of these very issues. The author used a database of hands taken from Bermuda Bowls and European teams championships. He is explictly looking at auctions that start with a 1NT opening and terminate in contracts of 2NT or 3NT. He is attempting to measure the advantages associated with blasting.

I make no claims for the accuracy of his methodology. (As always, I'd like to see more formal statistical tests). Even so, I thought that the data might be interesting...

The initial posting which focuses on the auction 1N - 3N is at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...1930a5122716b9a

The follow-up (which deals with slow roads to 3N) is at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...1930a5122716b9a

[david_c]

hrothgar, on May 22 2006, 02:40 PM, said:

I make no claims for the accuracy of his methodology.

Very polite - it seems plain wrong to me, for the reasons that other posters on rgb have mentioned (and in fact awm pointed out the problem here before the thread on rgb even appeared).

[hrothgar]

Alex Martelli is also playing with this same question

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...075e458bf426fdc

[jdonn]

foo, on May 22 2006, 06:43 AM, said:

Jeff is using the term "HCP" as a shorthand for something =FAR= more sophisticated going on in his head when he decides whether or not he and Eric "have the majority of the HCP".

Taking him or any other world class player even vaguely literally when they use the term "HCP", especially when one does not have the personal or pairwise skills to back it up, is a recipe for bad results.

I don't know what I can do now but laugh and laugh and laugh

Seriously I can't stop. You're killing me.

My boss just asked what is so funny, he heard me! Thanks a lot, now you are just trying to get me in trouble at work

[bid_em_up]

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2006, 07:22 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on May 20 2006, 07:27 AM, said:

Once you learn to evaluate these hands properly, the odds of 3N actually going down DECREASE dramatically (I dont even remember the last time one actually went down, but I'm sure its happened in the last, umm, 6 months, year maybe??),

I find it hard to be polite about statements such as this.

It's likely that you have a very selective memory, but if your 3NT contracts always make, then all that says is that you don't bid 3NT enough.

And I find it hard to be polite about people addressing that which they apparently know nothing about.

No offense, but again, IF you learn to evaluate these hands properly, 3N will make much more frequently than it will go down. And yes, the ones that do go down are easily forgotten, usually because it is a normal and reasonable contract.

Heck, I was in a 28 count NT game that went down yesterday. Do you think I will remember it six months from now?

Obviously, some people tend take things too literally, instead of buying a sense of humor and reading things as the smart-aleck/humorous comments they are intended to be.

And if you think I dont bid 3N enough, you obviously dont know me at all.

[FrancesHinden]

I repeat: if 3NT makes much more frequently than it goes down (at IMPs) then you aren't bidding 3NT enough. (and saying 'no offense' before making an offensive comment doesn't stop it being offensive.)

p.s. it's the 28-point 3NT contracts going off that I remember....

[foo]

I'm going to broaden the scope of the debate somewhat by noting that there are entire families of bidding that are conciously designed to maximize the partnership's ability to "blast".
There is a large qualitative difference between designing System so it gives you the =ability= to blast vs designing System so it =forces= you to blast.

No matter how you slice it, there are hands where maximizing Our likely score is based on staying low, and there are hands we should blast with, and there are hands we should have thoughtful auctions with.
Removing the ability to choose how to handle a board has to harm Our results in the long run.


I don't know any good players who adopt strong club methods because they believe that opening 1♣ with 16+ HCP is going to give them a good score. Rather, they believe that the advantages from their limited constructive openings outweigh the losses from the strong club opening. Associated with this, the biggest advantage of limited openings is the ability to blast to a contract.
I don't know who you "know", but the above is not correct.
a= Forcing 1C systems are designed to limit the partnership's assets in 1 bid rather than in 2 bids as in Forcing 2C AKA "Natural" systems.

b= Forcing 1C Openings distinguish themselves by their superior slam bidding over Natural systems.

c= The limited openings in FC systems not only help those systems fulfill objective "a" above, they also allow FC pairs to use sequences that in Standard are reserved for maximums for shapely hands of great playing strength instead (ie reversing to show 64's or 65's)

Faster, more efficient exchange of information may indeed allow for more "blasting", but that is a consequence of all of the above, not the reasons.


Furthermore, if you look a bidding systems like MOSCITO, things get even more extreme....
...and the last WC won using MOSCITO was? ...and the number of players in the Top 100 in the world who use MOSCITO is? ...and just how good is MOSCITO's record at slam bidding, especially minor suit slams?
In the partscore zone, almost any reasonable contract is fine. We've all played 2M in our 43 with a side 9 card minor fit.
However, playing 4M in our 43 while cold for 6m in our 9 card minor fit is not likely to yield a good score...


Invitational hands exist. IMNSHO, Systems that give us the ability to choose whether to bid "slow" or bid "fast" with them are strategically and tactically superior to Systems that force us to treat certain hands less flexibly.

Pass, bid slow, or blast as you like; but it seems foolish to argue that having less options is better than having more options.

[bid_em_up]

foo, on May 21 2006, 09:04 PM, said:

Invitational hands are just that. Invitational. They should be bid that way. No, we should not bid more than we have to. OTOH, we should not bid =less= than we have to get to the right spot either.

The fallacy in this logic is that most other invitational sequences in 2/1 or SAYC are defined by wider ranges that might be available for either opener or responder. Assume 2/1 for a minute, and it goes 1C 1H 2H 3x? This auction has a much wider opening range for the 1C opening bid, than a 1N opening bid that is clearly defined as 15-17 (or 16-18 or whatever you use), making the invitational sequence a necessity.

In the NT sequence, I will say again, the extra Jack/Queen that partner may or may not have is unlikely to materially affect the result on the board. If you deem the hand to be worth an invite, then you may as well just bid 3N.

Part of the reason for this.....the NT opener is not going to be able to evaluate his fit for your unknown 5 card suit, when making his decision to bid 3N or pass 2N. He will frequently pass a good fitting 15-16 count, where 3N always makes or alternatively, he will bid 3N on a 16-17 non-fitting hand and go down. Since there are no effective methods available to find out how well the hands fit together, and by definition the NT opener will usually have at least a minimum fit (2 card, frequently 3), you simply are better off just bidding 3N without giving any information away.

[bid_em_up]

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

I repeat: if 3NT makes much more frequently than it goes down (at IMPs) then you aren't bidding 3NT enough. (and saying 'no offense' before making an offensive comment doesn't stop it being offensive.)

p.s. it's the 28-point 3NT contracts going off that I remember....

Either that, or you are bidding it too often

[foo]

jdonn, on May 22 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

I don't know what I can do now but laugh and laugh and laugh
Seriously I can't stop. You're killing me.

My boss just asked what is so funny, he heard me! Thanks a lot, now you are just trying to get me in trouble at work

The comment was neither intended as humor nor intended as disparaging in any way of any specific reader's bridge skills. Nor am I trying to get you in trouble at work.

The important point is that taking Meckstroth literally means you should bid game on every board where you have a fit and 21+ HCP... ...and we all know that is just wrong.

I'm also very curious who, in the opinion of a player of your obvious caliber, are the best technician(s) in Bridge at this time?

[foo]

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

I repeat: if 3NT makes much more frequently than it goes down (at IMPs) then you aren't bidding 3NT enough. (and saying 'no offense' before making an offensive comment doesn't stop it being offensive.)

p.s. it's the 28-point 3NT contracts going off that I remember....

What she said. On both points and the ps.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 22 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

I'm going to broaden the scope of the debate somewhat by noting that there are entire families of bidding that are conciously designed to maximize the partnership's ability to "blast".

There is a large qualitative difference between designing System so it gives you the =ability= to blast vs designing System so it =forces= you to blast.

Certainly true...

I brought this point up because the fact that people explictly design systems to permit them to blast is a useful data point in and of itself.

If "blasting" is used as a design criteria, this suggests that there are significant gains associated with blasting.

[jdonn]

foo, on May 22 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 22 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

I don't know what I can do now but laugh and laugh and laugh     
Seriously I can't stop. You're killing me.   

My boss just asked what is so funny, he heard me! Thanks a lot, now you are just trying to get me in trouble at work     

The comment was neither intended as humor nor intended as disparaging in any way of any specific reader's bridge skills. Nor am I trying to get you in trouble at work.

The important point is that taking Meckstroth literally means you should bid game on every board where you have a fit and 21+ HCP... ...and we all know that is just wrong.

I'm also very curious who, in the opinion of a player of your obvious caliber, are the best technician(s) in Bridge at this time?

It would make for a fun thread. I'd clearly put Rosenberg first. I think Rodwell is something like 10th or so, but I also think Rosenberg is so far ahead of everyone else that even whoever is 2nd isn't close.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 22 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

b= Forcing 1C Openings distinguish themselves by their superior slam bidding over Natural systems.

Bullshit...

Back in the 1970s system designers could say this sort of thing with a straight face. These days, where 60% of strong club auctions seem to start

1♣ - (2♠) or
1♣ - (3♥)

Most strong club players that I talk to view the 1♣ opening as the Achilles heel of their systems.

I used to keep fairly extensive records of my IMP and MP scores over different opening bids. I scored great with my constructive and preemptive openings and relatively poorly when I opened a strong club. The ratio of strong club hands to "average" hands was actually one of the best predictors of my score during a given session.

[foo]

bid_em_up, on May 22 2006, 11:05 AM, said:

Part of the reason for this.....the NT opener is not going to be able to evaluate his fit for your unknown 5 card suit, when making his decision to bid 3N or pass 2N. He will frequently pass a good fitting 15-16 count, where 3N always makes or alternatively, he will bid 3N on a 16-17 non-fitting hand and go down.  Since there are no effective methods available to find out how well the hands fit together, and by definition the NT opener will usually have at least a minimum fit (2 card, frequently 3), you simply are better off just bidding 3N without giving any information away.

This seems like slightly circular logic, or at least a cop-out to some degree.

"Since there are no effective methods available to find out how well the hands fit together," We should just punt trying to find or use such methods and just pass or blast?

History shows that when this was true of NT response structures, experts avoided opening in NT as much as they possibly could... ...and Theorists worked very hard to fix the problem so that pairs could evaluate how well hands fit together in this situation. Especially in the Majors or when Responder held a shapely hand.
That's how we got Marx AKA Rapee AKA Stayman. That's how we got Carter AKA Jacoby and Texas Transfers. Etc, etc.

It could certainly be argued that at this point in history we've swung the pendulum to the other extreme and now are often bidding too much with too little to obtain best results. That doesn't mean we should throw out all the work and good ideas of previous theorists. That means we should be more careful about when and how we use the tools available to us.

My POV remains that =we should have as many choices as possible=. Systems that allow us to invite do not prohibit us from being able to blast. OTOH, systems that force us to pass or blast do prohibit us from being able to invite.
Always using pass or blast or being forced to only use pass or blast is reducing the number of options you have on a specific board from 3 to 2.
That's a bad thing in the long run IMHO.