[SixOfWands]

awm, on 2012-May-30, 09:36, said:

People tend to overestimate the frequency of 9-11 point ranges. This may seem like an odd thing to say, because the frequencies are readily available online (and easy to compute)! The issue is that frequencies change when we're not in first seat. Each pass ahead of us implies (assuming vaguely normal methods) that someone doesn't have the points to open, which gradually increases our expected point total. For example, playing this system it will be rare that you hold 9-11 in third chair, since you know that partner holds less than 9 and RHO holds less than 12 (or whatever their minimum opening is, which could easily be 10 or 11 on many hands given the modern style). In fact I'd expect that in this situation holding 12-14 is quite a bit more frequent than 9-11.

Game bidding is important at matchpoint scoring. Arguably it is more important than at IMPs, because at IMPs the game bonus is so significant that you can bash a lot of games reasoning that even if the contract is quite anti-percentage, the possibility of a defensive error (especially against a low-information auction) might bump it over the quite low bar for an IMPs game contract. Further, finding the right partial is important at matchpoint scoring. Landing in 2NT instead of 1NT is a significant minus position at MP, even worse than at IMPs (because at IMPs, the points you lose are at worst a partscore swing and the difference between -1 and -2 is even less significant, whereas at MP this could be just as bad as missing a game or slam). For these reasons I'd be quite wary of a system with extremely wide ranges even (or perhaps especially) at MP scoring.

If you bid with 9-11 you tend to be in first seat more so I'm not sure what you mean.
The system I'm suggesting opens a significantly higher proportion of hands that SAYC, Acol or Precision.

On the second point it doesn't use wider ranges than SAYC or Acol, their suit openings and suit rebids are generally at least five point ranges for instance...

1♣ 1♥ 2♣ shows 11-15 five clubs

1♠ 1NT 2♣ shows 11-18 points 5 spades four clubs - that's and 8 point range!

I'm just applying a similar degree of accuracy so that I can open 1NT more because it gets me tops.

[straube]

I just think you are opening too light.

Consider the name "kamikaze" no-trump which is 10-12. I don't see many top pairs using it. I mostly hear about it being used 1st and 2nd favorable (if at all). This tells me that it has been tried at other vulnerabilities and was found wanting.

So your NT is about the same strength (9-13) but 2 points wider and not necessarily balanced. I think most people would count the wider range and possibly unbalanced shape as negatives.

Your 1C opening is (for me) in the category of strong club, but I think that folks who play a 15+ club will admit to having more difficulty with this opening than those who play a 16 or 17 club. They would add that they make up for it on their other openings, but having an underpowered strong club makes subsequent bidding more difficult. it is harder to get into a game forcing auction which means that you don't have full use of higher bids.

A lot of strong clubbers open light when they have a suit. I think awm (for example) opens distributional 8 cts rather frequently even though his club is 16 unbalanced or 17 balanced.

Otoh, don't try to bid partner's hand for him (such as your 1N opening) and leave a little room to start a conversation. Hopefully most of your openings will support fit finding.

Even if you disagree with this point, you might consider that most experts are not opening so light and maybe they are right about it.

Another way of looking at this is that your structure devotes too little room to hands that have values. They can easily get lost in a competitive auction and then it hard to sort out 14 from...

Might read through the recent thread on weak no-trump if you haven't already for discussion of this issue.

[Cthulhu D]

It seems in lands without regulations about minimum NT opening strengths people play the kamikaze as 9-12 balanced typically, but 9-13 seems unworkably large.

[awm]

Suppose you agree that playing such a system, you will have an advantage over the field when you hold 9-11 hcp and get to open (when other people are passing)... but you will be at a disadvantage when you hold 12-14 because, while you definitely open, partner will play you for 9-11 and you may have trouble showing your "extras" especially in competition.

Does this mean you're ahead of the field, since 9-11 is more common than 12-14?

There are two reasons this may not necessarily be the case:

1. If you are in second seat, quite often when you have 9-11 RHO will open in front of you. So the probability that [you hold 9-11 and RHO doesn't open] may not be much higher than the probability that [you hold 12-14 and RHO doesn't open] because RHO is certainly less likely to open when you have more points. This becomes even more extreme if you are in 3rd or 4th seat, to the degree that you probably want to play a different opening structure if partner is a passed hand!

2. Some hands are higher scoring than other hands, and the ones where you have more values tend to present larger scoring opportunities. Doing worse on the "important" hands in exchange for doing better on "unimportant" hands is a bad tradeoff, even if there are a few more unimportant hands. At IMPs this is obvious. At MPs it may seem strange since every hand "counts the same" -- but there is some set of hands where the opponents have an obvious contract and we have no good sacrifice, such that our opening the bidding doesn't help us at all and in fact may assist the opponents in the play. In contrast, hands where we may be able to generate a good score by declaring are much more important to bid, and these tend to be the ones where we have more values and/or more shape.

I do like opening light on unbalanced hands, and play such a style in my most system-heavy partnership. However, I think it is a tradeoff, and while opening light is generally good, playing a more difficult range is a minus position which must also be considered (and I do believe 9-18 is quite a bit more difficult than 11-20, and 9-13 is definitely more difficult than 11-13).

[SixOfWands]

straube, on 2012-May-30, 17:52, said:

I just think you are opening too light.

Consider the name "kamikaze" no-trump which is 10-12. I don't see many top pairs using it. I mostly hear about it being used 1st and 2nd favorable (if at all). This tells me that it has been tried at other vulnerabilities and was found wanting.

So your NT is about the same strength (9-13) but 2 points wider and not necessarily balanced. I think most people would count the wider range and possibly unbalanced shape as negatives.

Your 1C opening is (for me) in the category of strong club, but I think that folks who play a 15+ club will admit to having more difficulty with this opening than those who play a 16 or 17 club. They would add that they make up for it on their other openings, but having an underpowered strong club makes subsequent bidding more difficult. it is harder to get into a game forcing auction which means that you don't have full use of higher bids.

A lot of strong clubbers open light when they have a suit. I think awm (for example) opens distributional 8 cts rather frequently even though his club is 16 unbalanced or 17 balanced.

Otoh, don't try to bid partner's hand for him (such as your 1N opening) and leave a little room to start a conversation. Hopefully most of your openings will support fit finding.

Even if you disagree with this point, you might consider that most experts are not opening so light and maybe they are right about it.

Another way of looking at this is that your structure devotes too little room to hands that have values. They can easily get lost in a competitive auction and then it hard to sort out 14 from...

Might read through the recent thread on weak no-trump if you haven't already for discussion of this issue.

Thanks for your thoughts straube.

On your first point one only has to look at the different systems played in different countries to know that conformity is relative.

In club bridge in England playing a strong NT is considered stuffy or paranoid.

I've just had a look at my bridge database of all trials and internationals since the 90s and found thousands of 1NT openers in the 8-11 range.

Years ago I created a computer program that would deal mini NT hands for me and let me quickly bid them, it soon because apparent that it was a big winner non-vulnerable and a winner at pairs vulnerable.

If you don't believe me I take the structure I suggest on www.forcingclub.co.uk and try playing it exactly as explained non-vulnerable and see what happens to you. If you play it for a few months to even out the scores and check your match points I think you'll be pleasently supprised!

(If it doesn't fit with five card majors then make 1C forcing and rebid 1NT in the 14-16 range or something like that)

Also given that we believe that 1NT is a winner it's easy to see how opening it more often would be a bigger winner, you just have to accept that 5 point ranges are good enough - and for most systems in most situations they are.

Don't knock it til you've tried it right?

[SixOfWands]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-30, 19:16, said:

It seems in lands without regulations about minimum NT opening strengths people play the kamikaze as 9-12 balanced typically, but 9-13 seems unworkably large.

It's not really rocket science...

When partner opens 1NT 9-13

Bid game with 15+

invite to game with 13, 14 and partner will put you into game with 11-13.

You miss no 26 point games and the only 25 point game you miss is...Opener 11 Responder 14

In this situation if you pass in SAYC some pairs will invite to show 10, 11 and some will bid 3NT and some stay in 2NT.

The pairs in 2NT can't beat playing in 1NT and the pairs in 3NT will beat you slightly more than half the time.

Overall not a disaster!

When we bid 24 point 3NT games we will not be alone either.

You do need to be disciplines and use judgement playing a mini but it does work!

[straube]

Yeah, I haven't played such a structure though I'd rather still reserve opening for better hands. Thanks for sharing your system and discussing it with us. Good luck with your development of it.

[SixOfWands]

awm, on 2012-May-30, 19:37, said:

Suppose you agree that playing such a system, you will have an advantage over the field when you hold 9-11 hcp and get to open (when other people are passing)... but you will be at a disadvantage when you hold 12-14 because, while you definitely open, partner will play you for 9-11 and you may have trouble showing your "extras" especially in competition.

Does this mean you're ahead of the field, since 9-11 is more common than 12-14?

There are two reasons this may not necessarily be the case:

1. If you are in second seat, quite often when you have 9-11 RHO will open in front of you. So the probability that [you hold 9-11 and RHO doesn't open] may not be much higher than the probability that [you hold 12-14 and RHO doesn't open] because RHO is certainly less likely to open when you have more points. This becomes even more extreme if you are in 3rd or 4th seat, to the degree that you probably want to play a different opening structure if partner is a passed hand!

2. Some hands are higher scoring than other hands, and the ones where you have more values tend to present larger scoring opportunities. Doing worse on the "important" hands in exchange for doing better on "unimportant" hands is a bad tradeoff, even if there are a few more unimportant hands. At IMPs this is obvious. At MPs it may seem strange since every hand "counts the same" -- but there is some set of hands where the opponents have an obvious contract and we have no good sacrifice, such that our opening the bidding doesn't help us at all and in fact may assist the opponents in the play. In contrast, hands where we may be able to generate a good score by declaring are much more important to bid, and these tend to be the ones where we have more values and/or more shape.

I do like opening light on unbalanced hands, and play such a style in my most system-heavy partnership. However, I think it is a tradeoff, and while opening light is generally good, playing a more difficult range is a minus position which must also be considered (and I do believe 9-18 is quite a bit more difficult than 11-20, and 9-13 is definitely more difficult than 11-13).

I'm not sure I follow these arguments but thanks for the feedback, in my view any feedback will either convince me more or less and either is a good thing.

Point 1 since we are considering whether it is better to open when the opportunity arises, the fact that the opponents may open is irrelavent. Given that both system have the same opponents this will happen with the same frequency.

Point 2 If my partner opens 9+ with 9-11 and the opponents pre-empt then I'm in a much better place than if he passed. If my partner opened 9+ with 12 points I'm not doing that badly in comparison to if he opened 12+ especially if my bid shows a five card suit. The net effect has to be positive I'd say. The 9-11 range will happen more than the 12-14 range just because it's more common being 27% compared to 20% of all hands!

http://www.bridgehan...ability_HCP.htm

Sound reasonable?

[awm]

I'll try one more time to explain. Suppose we play this system if we are first or second to bid. Should we do the same in 3rd/4th?

In 4th after three passes, we know LHO has 0-11. We know partner has 0-8 since we open all 9s. RHO probably has 0-9 since people open light in 3td chair. So in 4th after three passes my minimum point count is 40-11-8-9=12. I will never have 9-11! Thus it is silly to play openings that start at 9... claiming to play 9-18 in 4th makes no sense.

In 3rd after two passes, RHO has 0-11 and partner has 0-8. Obviously I could have 9-11... but this would mean either LHO has quite a big hand, or both partner and RHO must be very Max. I'm much more likely to have 12-14 than 9-11.

We can conclude that if I play these openings in 1st/2nd, I really should not play them in 3rd/4th. Do I want to play different methods based on seat?

Even in 2nd seat this case can be made. The frequencies you are using apply in 1st chair only.

[the hog]

A 10-12 NT is a winner, especially NV vs Vul, or even at = Green. Meckwell played it for a long time, and Bocchi and Duboin played it for some years, so Straube's argument is incorrect. Having said this, a 9-13 range is too wide. The problem lies in playing 2NT and going down when the filed is in one, making.

[SixOfWands]

awm, on 2012-May-31, 18:59, said:

I'll try one more time to explain. Suppose we play this system if we are first or second to bid. Should we do the same in 3rd/4th?

In 4th after three passes, we know LHO has 0-11. We know partner has 0-8 since we open all 9s. RHO probably has 0-9 since people open light in 3td chair. So in 4th after three passes my minimum point count is 40-11-8-9=12. I will never have 9-11! Thus it is silly to play openings that start at 9... claiming to play 9-18 in 4th makes no sense.

In 3rd after two passes, RHO has 0-11 and partner has 0-8. Obviously I could have 9-11... but this would mean either LHO has quite a big hand, or both partner and RHO must be very Max. I'm much more likely to have 12-14 than 9-11.

We can conclude that if I play these openings in 1st/2nd, I really should not play them in 3rd/4th. Do I want to play different methods based on seat?

Even in 2nd seat this case can be made. The frequencies you are using apply in 1st chair only.

I'm not bothered about fourth seat it hardly ever happens and yes you can pass. You don't have to bid 9-13 1NT just because it's in the system!

[glen]

SixOfWands, on 2012-May-31, 15:22, said:

It's not really rocket science...

invite to game with 13, 14 and partner will put you into game with 11-13.

You miss no 26 point games and the only 25 point game you miss is...Opener 11 Responder 14
...

What about Opener 13 Responder 12?

[straube]

the hog, on 2012-May-31, 22:55, said:

A 10-12 NT is a winner, especially NV vs Vul, or even at = Green. Meckwell played it for a long time, and Bocchi and Duboin played it for some years, so Straube's argument is incorrect. Having said this, a 9-13 range is too wide. The problem lies in playing 2NT and going down when the filed is in one, making.

I didn't say that no one played it. I said that I didn't see many top pairs playing it. Meckwell used to play 10-12 first second favorable only. That's pretty limited usage and they've since abandoned the 10-12 so hardly a ringing endorsement.

Here's from an old interview with Rodwell when they were actually using it...

http://www.bridgemat...com/rodwell.htm

This post has been edited by barmar: 2012-June-01, 11:33
Reason for edit: Replaced copied interview with link to web site

[kreivi68]

the hog, on 2012-May-31, 22:55, said:

A 10-12 NT is a winner, especially NV vs Vul, or even at = Green. Meckwell played it for a long time, and Bocchi and Duboin played it for some years, so Straube's argument is incorrect. Having said this, a 9-13 range is too wide. The problem lies in playing 2NT and going down when the filed is in one, making.

According to Pietro Campanile Kamikaze is winner. He has done statistical
analysis on hands in Bermuda Bowl and EC to figure out which NT range is the best.

http://www.migry.com...he%20winner.pdf

Any comments on this article?

T.

[Zelandakh]

SixOfWands, on 2012-May-30, 08:21, said:

I'd be interested to see a post of your system if you get one together,

There are lots of posts regarding various parts of my system dotted around these forums (some would probably say too many!). Essentially it is based on sysmmetric relay but using a mutli-way strong club. Basics:

1♣ = 15+ natural or 15+ balanced or 18+ any
... - 1♦ = most non-GF hands
... - ... - 1♥ = 18-20 any or 23+ bal
... - ... - 1♠ = 18+ 3-suited or any unbal GF
... - ... - 1NT = 15-17 bal or 4414
... - ... - 2♣ = 15-17, 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4M
... - ... - 2♦ = strong 2 in a minor
... - ... - 2M = strong 2
... - ... - 2NT = 21-22 bal
... - ... - 3♣ = 25-26 bal with 4-5 hearts
... - ... - 3♦ = 25-26 bal with 4-5 spades, 2-3 hearts
... - ... - 3♥ = 25-26 bal with 2-3 hearts, 2-3 spades
... - 1♥ = 4+ spades and not qualified for 2♥/2♠2NT responses, GF
... - ... - 1♠ = relay
... - ... - others = 15-17
... - 1♠ = 0-3 hearts, 0-3 spades, GF
... - ... - 1NT = relay
... - ... - others = 15-17
... - 1NT = hearts or hearts and clubs, GF
... - ... - 2♣ = relay
... - ... - others = 15-17
... - 2♣ = hearts and diamonds, GF
... - ... - 2♦ = relay
... - ... - others = 15-17
... - 2♦ = 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades, bal or 3-suited, GF
... - ... - 2♥ = relay
... - ... - others = 15-17
... - 2♥ = 4-5 spades, 2-3 hearts, bal, GF
... - ... - 2♠ = relay
... - ... - others = 15-17
... - 2♠ = 4-5 spades, 0-1 hearts, GF
... - ... - 2NT = relay
... - ... - others = 15-17
... - 2NT = running suit
1♦ = (9)10-17, 4+ diamonds, unbal
... - 1♥ = INV+ relay
... - ... - 1♠ = min, 0-3 spades or 4441/4450 (1NT GF relay, others natural and invitational)
... - ... - 1NT = 4+ spades (2♣ GF relay, others natural and invitational)
... - ... - 2♣ = max, 4+ clubs, GF
... - ... - 2♦ = max, 6+ diamonds, no side suit, GF
... - ... - 2♥ = max, 4 hearts, GF
... - ... - 2♠ = max, 4441, GF
... - ... - 2NT = max, 4450, 0-3 controls, GF
... - 1♠ = weak, nat
... - 1NT = weak with hearts
... - 2♣ = weak, nat
... - 2♦ = weak raise
... - 2M, 3♣ = 6+ suit, up to 7 hcp
... - 2NT = mixed raise
... - 3♦ = preemptive raise
1♥ = (9)10-17, 5+ hearts, unbal
... - 1♠ = INV+ relay
... - ... - 1NT = min, 0-3 spades (2♣ = GF relay, others = natural and invitational)
... - ... - 2♣ = 4+ spades (2♦ = GF relay, others = natural and invitational)
... - ... - 2♦ = max, 4+ clubs, GF
... - ... - 2♥ = max, 6+ hearts, no side suit, GF
... - ... - 2♠ = max, 5+ diamonds, GF
... - ... - 2NT = max, 4 diamonds, 5 hearts, GF
... - ... - 3♣ = max, 4 diamonds, 6 hearts, 0-1 spades, GF
... - ... - 3♦ = max, 2641, GF
... - ... - 3♥ = max, 3640, GF
... - ... - 3♠ = max, 1741, GF
... - ... - 3NT = max, 7+ hearts, spade void, GF
... - ... - 4♣ = max, 2740/1840, 0-3 controls, GF
... - 1NT = weak with spadess
... - 2m = weak, nat
... - 2♥ = weak raise
... - 2♠ = mini-splinter or in-between splinter
... - 2NT = GF raise
... - 3♣ = limit raise
... - 3♦ = mixed raise
... - 3♥ = preemptive raise
1♠ = (9)10-17, 5+ spades, unbal
... - 1NT = INV+ relay
... - ... - 2♣ = min, 0-3 hearts (2♦ = GF relay, others = natural and invitational)
... - ... - 2♦ = 4+ hearts (2♥ = GF relay, others = natural and invitational)
... - ... - 2♥ = max, 4+ clubs, GF
... - ... - 2♠ = max, 6+ spades, no side suit, GF
... - ... - 2NT = max, 5+ diamonds, GF
... - ... - 3♣ = max, 4 diamonds, 5 spades, GF
... - ... - 3♦ = max, 4 diamonds, 6 spades, 0-1 hearts, GF
... - ... - 3♥ = max, 6241, GF
... - ... - 3♠ = max, 6340, GF
... - ... - 3NT = max, 7141, GF
... - ... - 4♣ = max, 7+ spades, heart void, GF
... - ... - 4♦ = max, 7240/8140, 0-3 controls, GF
... - 2m, 2♥ = weak, nat
... - 2♠ = weak raise
... - 2NT = mini-splinter or in-between splinter
... - 3♣ = GF raise
... - 3♦ = limit raise
... - 3♥ = mixed raise
... - 3♠ = preemptive raise
1NT = (11)12-14 bal or 4414
... - 2♣ = Puppet Stayman
... - 2♦ = 5+ hearts
... - 2♥ = 5+ spades
... - 2NT = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV
... - 3m = natural, SI
... - 3♥ = 4414, GF
... - 3♠ = 4441, GF
2♣ = 10-14, 6+ clubs or 5 cluns and 4M
... - 2♦ = 4+ hearts
... - 2♥ = 4+ spades
... - 2♠ = range ask, INV+
... - 2NT = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV
... - 3♣ = weak raise
... - 3♦ = natural, sign-off
... - 3♥ = slam try in diamonds
... - 3♠ = slam try agreeing clubs


That is probably (more than) enough details to be getting on with. Obviously there is a lot more detail, especially in relay structure and relay breaks. I doubt this is actually very useful for you though. The aims of this system are much more about being constructive (particularly trying to get more closely defined ranges) while using a response structure that supports light openings.

[straube]

kreivi68, on 2012-June-01, 07:08, said:

According to Pietro Campanile Kamikaze is winner. He has done statistical
analysis on hands in Bermuda Bowl and EC to figure out which NT range is the best.

http://www.migry.com...he%20winner.pdf

Any comments on this article?

T.

1) Likely the 10-12 NT being tabulated was opened at only certain seats and vulnerabilites.

2) We don't know whether more imps were lost when the partnership opened balanced hands outside their NT range. It may or may not be that a weak/Kamikaze NT is a net winner.

[glen]

straube, on 2012-June-01, 06:42, said:

... large amount of copyrighted text ...

fair use said:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
...
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
...

[straube]

http://www.bridgemat...com/rodwell.htm

All better?

[glen]

straube, on 2012-June-01, 10:46, said:

http://www.bridgemat...com/rodwell.htm

All better?

No

[barmar]

glen, on 2012-June-01, 11:21, said:

No

I replaced the interview with the link in the earlier post. I hope that's acceptable to you.