[glen]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 3 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall, that someone said, that Martel said, that he would switch to strong NT, if it would not mean that he had to rework large parts of their systems.

The Martel interview is at:

Chip Martel Interview (pdf)

Chip Martel Interview, on pg 5, said:

Q. ... If you established a new partnership, would you stick with the weak NT base you have now?

Chip Martel: The only reason I might be tempted to switch to a non-weak NT system is because more people now are playing those systems. As a result, more development of bridge theory has been geared towards strong NT-based systems ...

Also in the interview:

Chip Martel Interview, on pg 7, said:

Fundamentally, when you have a balanced hand opposite a shapely hand, it is superior to let the shapely hand describe the shape and the balanced hand evaluate how well their honors fit, the right level and the choice of game.

[mikeh]

MickyB, on Aug 3 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 3 2007, 04:06 AM, said:

in a weak NT context, where opener's hand is already quite well-defined, the defenders see the big dummy. Playing forcing stayman, or other relays, responder frequently declares (especially if using a souped up version that avoids opener bidding suit he holds) and the big hand is both undescribed in the auction and hidden during the play.

It's grossly inefficient to have a balanced hand describing itself to an unbalanced hand.

That statement is nonsense.

I have played relay methods with some success, and I can assure you that most relay methods work best when the relatively balanced hand describes. An important reason for this is that relays use some order of 'asking' (often but by no means always, with shape first), and a well-crafted method assigns the cheaper step responses to the more common hand-patterns. Balanced and semi-balanced hands arise with far more frequency than do 5-5 or wilder hands, so we can get a full shape description of a balanced or semi-balanced hand at a lower level than is possible with wild hands. This in turn means that the control/specific card relay steps operate at a lower level.

There is always, in relay, a tension between the need to ask for additional information and the bidding space available. Speaking from experience, there are times when relayer has to break the relay because a possible response would take the partnership beyond the level of safety.. and these situations tend to arise more often when the responder, to the relayer, has had to consume space early by describing a wild hand.

And even in a non-relay context, having the balanced hand describe itself to the stronger unbalanced hand makes nothing but sense. Basic theory should lead you to that conclusion. Bidding space only permits the exchange of limited information, unless the hands are so strong that methods become essentially irrelevant. A hand already constrained to a narrow point count and limited shape can define itself far more quickly than can a hand unlimited both as to hcp and shape.

[MickyB]

mikeh, on Aug 3 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

Quote

It's grossly inefficient to have a balanced hand describing itself to an unbalanced hand.

That statement is nonsense.

I have played relay methods with some success, and I can assure you that most relay methods work best when the relatively balanced hand describes. An important reason for this is that relays use some order of 'asking' (often but by no means always, with shape first), and a well-crafted method assigns the cheaper step responses to the more common hand-patterns. Balanced and semi-balanced hands arise with far more frequency than do 5-5 or wilder hands, so we can get a full shape description of a balanced or semi-balanced hand at a lower level than is possible with wild hands. This in turn means that the control/specific card relay steps operate at a lower level.

Fair point, but I think the factors working the other way are much more significant.

If a hand has a singleton, it is unlikely to have a (relevant) honour in the suit. If it has a void, it is even less likely This means that there are far fewer combinations of honours to show partner.

Most honours in the unbalanced hand will be "working". This isn't true of the balanced hand - any cards opposite shortage should be greatly devalued.

Quote

Bidding space only permits the exchange of limited information, unless the hands are so strong that methods become essentially irrelevant. A hand already constrained to a narrow point count and limited shape can define itself far more quickly than can a hand unlimited both as to hcp and shape.

Being unlimited in HCP isn't really an issue. The unbal hand shows shape, allowing the bal hand to reevaluate, then the bal hand either makes negative moves or positive ones.

[hotShot]

MickyB, on Aug 3 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

hotShot, on Aug 3 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Weak (12-14) NT works best with ACOL, with a 5 card Majors system, it is much less effective.

[snip]

If you use weak NT with 5-card majors, you don't benefit from the weak NT in the majors.

Is the second statement your justification for the first?

No it's the thesis, I prove in the following lines.

To use your syntax:
weak+4 1M promises 4 and implies 5 or strong
weak+5 1M promises 5 no information about extra strength => no benefit

MickyB, on Aug 3 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

hotShot, on Aug 3 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Playing weak NT you are more competitive, whenever you open 1m, because partner can expect a 5card minor or 3 extra HCP to compensate the missing card.

You are making the mistake of comparing by opening bid; instead, you should compare by hand-type.

I gave an example for the implications a weak NT has on other bids. For a comparison you need to things and I was only talking about one.

Quote

[snip]

When you have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you will occasionally be better position playing weak no-trump, because partner knows you either have clubs or 15+points.

I think thats what I said.

[MickyB]

Quote

hotShot, on Aug 3 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

When you have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you will occasionally be better position playing weak no-trump, because partner knows you either have clubs or 15+points.

I think thats what I said.

No, you said that you are more competitive whenever you open 1m. I am saying that your argument is an advantage for when you have clubs, but a (more significant) disadvantage when you have a strong balanced hand.

[hotShot]

Ok you are right, I was not clear enough.

Playing weak NT you have an advantage whenever strong NT player open 1m (♣ or ♦).
1) If your partner opened 1m too, you can expect 5+ cards or (not in this case) extra HCP .
2) Your partner opened 1NT, you reached that contract without giving distributional information to opps and you might have preempted them from entering the auction.

[JanM]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 3 2007, 10:54 AM, said:

I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall, that someone
said, that Martel said, that he would switch to strong NT,
if it would not mean that he had to rework large parts of
their systems.

Actually, what Chip has said is that he would "consider" switching to a STR NT system, not because it's inherently better, but because there has been more development of "gadgets" (for want of a better word) in the STR NT context. For instance, support doubles don't work as well with weak NTs as with STR. Ditto good/bad 2NT. I think there are some others but I have forgotten what.

My opinion is that the main advantage we get from playing weak nt's is when we don't open one. We get an extra round (sometimes two because we use transfer responses to 1♣) of bidding after 1m on our STR NT hands, and that often helps us find a better contract. And I think usually it's better to have opened a 5 card Major 1M than 1NT with 15-17. I know that most STR NT'ers open 1NT with 5332 and a 5 card Major, but I think that's not because it's better but because opening 1M with too wide a range is worse, if that makes any sense. One of the things I like about weak NTs is that I don't have to judge whether a particular 5332 should open 1M or 1NT - I just open 1M unless it's a very awkward pattern (2533 without a strong 3 card minor).

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Aug 3 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

My opinion is that the main advantage we get from playing weak nt's is when we don't open one. We get an extra round (sometimes two because we use transfer responses to 1♣) of bidding after 1m on our STR NT hands, and that often helps us find a better contract.

Sorry: I know this is snarky, but I can't resist

From the sounds of things, you're using

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ as showing 4+ Hearts (potentially in Walsh style where you could have a longer minor)

In a similar vein

1♣ - (P) - 1♥ shows 4+ Spades, could have a longer minor

I assume that 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand with Diamonds

Whats your suggested defense to these nefarious transfer responses? You see, I'm having an amazing amount of trouble getting defenses approved to some transfer opening bids that look to be very similar. It would be very helpful to understand the wonderously simple defense that you have available to these transfer responses. Who knows. It might even help me get a submission through the Conventions Committee.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 3 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

My opinion is that the main advantage we get from playing weak nt's is when we don't open one. We get an extra round (sometimes two because we use transfer responses to 1♣) of bidding after 1m on our STR NT hands, and that often helps us find a better contract.

Sorry: I know this is snarky, but I can't resist

From the sounds of things, you're using

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ as showing 4+ Hearts (potentially in Walsh style where you could have a longer minor)

In a similar vein

1♣ - (P) - 1♥ shows 4+ Spades, could have a longer minor

I assume that 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand with Diamonds

Whats your suggested defense to these nefarious transfer responses? You see, I'm having an amazing amount of trouble getting defenses approved to some transfer opening bids that look to be very similar. It would be very helpful to understand the wonderously simple defense that you have available to these transfer responses. Who knows. It might even help me get a submission through the Conventions Committee.

This has been discussed before, I think Jan has even posted the two possible defenses she suggests if opponents ask.

[Robert]

Hi MickyB

A top American expert Edgar Kaplan of Kaplan Seinwold bidding fame played a weak NT and sound minor openings. He did not feel that it was a disadvantage
to open 1m with 15+ balanced.

FN play a weak NT and they are one of the best pairs in the world. If they switched to a strong NT, you think that they would win more often? Why wouldn't they switch 'if' your theory was correct?

Likely the strongest U.S. team has two pairs playing a forcing club. Meckwell and a Blue Team Club offshoot.

If their outstanding record is any indication, your comment on players in your country avoiding big club methods because of the problems involved is just not supported by the facts. One of the best teams in the world has two out of three pairs playing and winning with big club methods. The problems from playing a big club method are vastly overrated by your comments since these two world class pairs use 1C forcing and have a proven winning track record.

Regards,
Robert

[awm]

Lots of different methods can certainly work. And there are a lot of factors that lead to a pair playing a particular set of methods which may not relate directly to the technical merit of the methods.

Nonetheless, it seems interesting that so many of the top British pairs are playing a natural system with strong notrumps. Certainly this is not due to those methods being "more familiar" than the four-card major/weak notrump base that's common in their country, nor due to some desire for "field protection" (either of which could be used to explain why such an overwhelming majority of American expert pairs use a natural system with strong notrumps).

I wouldn't use Fantoni-Nunes as an example, since their system is based on somewhat different assumptions than others (i.e. very sound one-level openings). I think there is a difference between claiming that "weak notrump is a bad method, anyone who plays weak notrump would do better if they switched to strong" (which is clearly not true) and claiming that "weak notrumps along with a natural, wide-ranging, light opening style is a poor combination" (which seems to be supported by British pairs switching away from their country's standard towards strong notrump methods).

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Weak (12-14) NT works best with ACOL, with a 5 card Majors system, it is much less effective.

I don't agree with this. One benefit of 4cM is preemption with weaker hands; with weak NT you already get that preemption, if you open 4cM on 4333/4342 15+ or such you are preempting your own side more often than your opponents. Also, if 1M can be 16/17 balanced, it puts a lot of strain on 1M-1NT auctions. If the 1nt is sharply limited (say 8 pts max), so that the strong NT can comfortably pass, then 2/1s become very light, and you need lots of NF sequences (as in traditional Acol), & your game + slam bidding suffers (which is why I think top British pairs have shown trend to going to stronger 2/1s, 5cM etc.). If 1nt is wider ranging to shore up the 2/1 responses, then the 16/17 hand either misses games or tends to gets too high if partner only has 6-7. I think in a natural system context 4cM works better w/ a strong NT, with the weak balanced hands you can preempt with 1M and pass partner's 1nt comfortably. 5cM works better with the wknt, it shores up the minor suit openings, & you can play forcing NT response to 1M.

BTW, it's Acol, not ACOL; it's named after a street not an acronym.

[Badmonster]

I'm a recent convert to 12-14 nt's. But my experience is more theoretical than practical at this point.

[JanM]

cherdano, on Aug 3 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 3 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

My opinion is that the main advantage we get from playing weak nt's is when we don't open one. We get an extra round (sometimes two because we use transfer responses to 1♣) of bidding after 1m on our STR NT hands, and that often helps us find a better contract.

Sorry: I know this is snarky, but I can't resist

From the sounds of things, you're using

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ as showing 4+ Hearts (potentially in Walsh style where you could have a longer minor)

In a similar vein

1♣ - (P) - 1♥ shows 4+ Spades, could have a longer minor

I assume that 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand with Diamonds

Whats your suggested defense to these nefarious transfer responses? You see, I'm having an amazing amount of trouble getting defenses approved to some transfer opening bids that look to be very similar. It would be very helpful to understand the wonderously simple defense that you have available to these transfer responses. Who knows. It might even help me get a submission through the Conventions Committee.

This has been discussed before, I think Jan has even posted the two possible defenses she suggests if opponents ask.

Richard doesn't really want to know what defense I recommend against a transfer response. He wants to complain that the Midchart does not require an approved defense for transfer responses but does require one for transfer opening bids, right, Richard? You almost sucked me in with this, but I think I'll just leave it alone - there are differences and similarities. Luckily for me, one ACBL committee I haven't ever served on is Competitions and Conventions, so I didn't make the rules. I'm not even sure why some members of C&C are so opposed to transfer opening bids. Oh, and don't assume things - our 1♠ response doesn't promise diamonds, just a hand worth a response that doesn't have a 4-card Major and doesn't fit into other bids. It's very often a balanced hand that wants to be able to pass opener's 1NT rebid, sometimes a decent hand with diamonds, sometimes both minors.

[awm]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2007, 03:37 PM, said:

Sorry: I know this is snarky, but I can't resist

From the sounds of things, you're using

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ as showing 4+ Hearts (potentially in Walsh style where you could have a longer minor)

In a similar vein

1♣ - (P) - 1♥ shows 4+ Spades, could have a longer minor

I assume that 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand with Diamonds

Whats your suggested defense to these nefarious transfer responses? You see, I'm having an amazing amount of trouble getting defenses approved to some transfer opening bids that look to be very similar. It would be very helpful to understand the wonderously simple defense that you have available to these transfer responses. Who knows. It might even help me get a submission through the Conventions Committee.

There are actually several significant differences between this scheme and transfer openings. In particular:

(1) It's much easier to defend artificial bids when they are forcing. To give an example, suppose I have a good hand with 6♠. If my RHO opens 1♠, I am guaranteed that either opponents will play in spades (likely good result for my side) or that I will get another chance to bid after passing RHO's opening. If my RHO opens 1♥ showing spades the same would be true if it's forcing, but not if LHO will frequently pass holding short spades and a weak hand. Note that 1♣-P-1♥ (transfer to spades) is unlimited and forcing whereas the Moscito-style 1♥ opening (showing spades) is limited and not forcing.

(2) One can argue that if a certain defense to a natural bid works well, then a similar defense to the immediate lower bid showing the same hand type will work reasonably well. Since 1♣-P-1♠ showing spades (might have longer minor) is essentially standard, everyone is presumed to have a "pretty good" defense to this. Using the same defense to 1♣-P-1♥ (showing spades, might have longer minor) will not be too great an inconvenience. But we can argue that 1♠ opening showing 4+♠, limited, possibly light, may have longer minor is already non-standard and that defending this as one would defend a 1♠ opening which is essentially unlimited and virtually always opener's longest suit is already substantially sub-optimal. Changing things around further so this hand opens 1♥ instead of 1♠ makes the defense people are using even less effective, at which point they really need some artificial defensive method. You can always get from a standard method to a really weird method via a sequence of seemingly small steps, but this doesn't mean the defense to the standard method will be any good as a defense to the weird method (especially if a lot of these steps were needed), or that the weird method should necessarily be allowed just because the standard method was.

[helene_t]

Echognome, on Aug 3 2007, 04:32 AM, said:

MickyB, on Aug 2 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 2 2007, 11:57 PM, said:

Do you really think that if this was such a disadvantage that there would be world class players playing a weak NT?

Well, on that basis, we can conclude that strong NT is clearly better than weak NT but not substantially so, and not go to the trouble of considering the matter for ourselves!

Exactly! Let me give you the contra-positive. If no world class players played a weak NT, then might we not consider that it was inferior. Let's take as an example a 17-19 NT or an 8-10 NT or even a completely artificial 1NT. How many are playing that? Why not? Can we conclude anything?

To answer the (retorical?) question: No, I don't think we can conclude anything.

Most good typist use the QWERTY layout. A few have tried out dvorak or some such but even among those, many have reverted to qwerty.

Even if we could dismiss the majority's tyranny as the decisive factor and conclude that SEF and SA are "better" than KS and Acol, we still don't know how a hypothetical Acol or KS system with gadgets and styles that had evolved through decades of MSC discussions etc. would perform.

We know even less about the weak vs strong in the context of other kind of systems. Is Hamway Club better than Auken-von Arnim Club?

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Aug 6 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 3 2007, 04:32 AM, said:

MickyB, on Aug 2 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 2 2007, 11:57 PM, said:

Do you really think that if this was such a disadvantage that there would be world class players playing a weak NT?

Well, on that basis, we can conclude that strong NT is clearly better than weak NT but not substantially so, and not go to the trouble of considering the matter for ourselves!

Exactly! Let me give you the contra-positive. If no world class players played a weak NT, then might we not consider that it was inferior. Let's take as an example a 17-19 NT or an 8-10 NT or even a completely artificial 1NT. How many are playing that? Why not? Can we conclude anything?

To answer the (retorical?) question: No, I don't think we can conclude anything.

Most good typist use the QWERTY layout. A few have tried out dvorak or some such but even among those, many have reverted to qwerty.

Even if we could dismiss the majority's tyranny as the decisive factor and conclude that SEF and SA are "better" than KS and Acol, we still don't know how a hypothetical Acol or KS system with gadgets and styles that had evolved through decades of MSC discussions etc. would perform.

Well of course your analogy is flawed (I am sure you agree with that), the only question is how flawed. The cost of playing a non-standard system is way lower than the cost of using a non-standard keyboard layout...
Expert/world class partnerships have always tried out a lot of things that aren't standard, and more specifically there used to be a significant minority of top partnerships playing weak NT (in an otherwise standard system). Their systems and styles also have evolved through decades of discussions etc. -- but of course you are right that they didn't have quite the same resources as the strong NT-5-card majors community, at least in the last 20 years.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Aug 6 2007, 09:08 PM, said:

One can argue that if a certain defense to a natural bid works well, then a similar defense to the immediate lower bid showing the same hand type will work reasonably well. Since 1♣-P-1♠ showing spades (might have longer minor) is essentially standard, everyone is presumed to have a "pretty good" defense to this. Using the same defense to 1♣-P-1♥ (showing spades, might have longer minor) will not be too great an inconvenience. But we can argue that 1♠ opening showing 4+♠, limited, possibly light, may have longer minor is already non-standard and that defending this as one would defend a 1♠ opening which is essentially unlimited and virtually always opener's longest suit is already substantially sub-optimal.

A 1♠ opening that promises 4+ Spades is perfectly legal at the GCC level. Hell, this opening is legal if you're using the "Limited Convention Chart" (not that I have ever seen a game that used this)

I'm sorry that most of the ACBL believes that they can shove their heads into the sand, pretend that everyone plays exactly the same methods that they do, and glory in their willful ignorance. When I started playing, the Convention Charts made explict mention that players are expected to be prepared to compete against a wide variety of different methods. Now-a-days, the average ACBL seems to need protection against a 4 card major opening.

Pathetic. Especially when one is playing a "competitive" game.

[awm]

The point I'm trying to make is just that "is similar to" is not a transitive relation.

There are certain assignments of hands which make up a relatively "normal" opening bid. If you want to use a different opening bid to show the same set of hands most people show with a "normal" opening bid, that's generally okay (both in WBF rules and on the ACBL midchart).

There are also certain "weird" opening bids that are allowed, like 2♦ multi, or a canape 1♠ opening, or a precision 1♦.

However, if you want to use a different opening bid to show the same set of hands that you could've used a "weird" (but legal) opening bid to show, this is not necessarily okay.

While WBF has no problems with the transfer opening bids, I don't think they'd be so happy about 2♥ multi......