[kenrexford]

 nige1, on 2015-December-21, 13:34, said:

System B seems preferable (given that opening strength bids are equally effective in systems A and B; also given that system B's weak pre-empts are sensibly defined -- for example, you don't open 7N on a Yarborough). This conclusion seems inevitable unless you believe some pre-empts to be a liability.

Very true, including the caveat.

That said, I would be real curious how the hypothetical could ever occur. The hypo is rather silly.

I could pose a similar hypo to illustrate. If System A and System B both handled balanced hands efficiently to the same degree, but System B did not need any balanced 1NT or 2NT opening, then would ypu tather be able to open 1NT as strong rather than 2C and 2NT as minors? Of course you would. What would the point be, though?

Jow about making all hands described with no need to open 1D? Now, 1D can be a weak balanced or unbalanced hand with 8 to 10 HCP and 3+ diamonds. I actually played that. Those openings scored huge wins. No one else has such a 1D opening. Isn't it preferable to be able to handle these hands also?

[Kungsgeten]

Here's an idea for a 2/1 type system with maximum preempts. No intermediate stuff here

1CDHS = Natural
1NT = Multi. 15-17 NT or weak two in a major (8-11 if spades)
2C = Standard strong 2C or weak two in diamonds or 0-7 with 6(+) spades
2D = Major + minor two suiter
2H = Ekren. Both majors weak
2S = 5-4 minors or better, weak
2NT = 20-21

[gwnn]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-December-22, 01:57, said:

2C = Standard strong 2C or weak two in diamonds or 0-7 with 6(+) spades

Sounds awful. You can never raise this and strong hands with spades are seriously handicapped.

edit: oh, the point is to have a kokish by opener and pass the 2♠. It looks cute but I'm still skeptical. Anyway, spoke too soon I guess.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2015-December-22, 04:31

[nullve]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-December-22, 01:57, said:

2C = Standard strong 2C or weak two in diamonds or 0-7 with 6(+) spades

This is basically glen's 'Wicked' 2C: http://www.bridgemat...om/weakstng.htm

[Kungsgeten]

 gwnn, on 2015-December-22, 03:54, said:

Sounds awful. You can never raise this and strong hands with spades are seriously handicapped.

I didn't say that it was good, I just tried to squeeze as many preempts in there as possible, while still being playable Strong hands with spades (actually all strong hands) are handicapped in competition, but undisturbed it works okay. Raising is a problem, but at least you remove the 1-level.

The idea is taken from Glen Ashton. The idea is to use 2D waiting and Kokish Relay. I would play something like this:

2C---
2D = Non-forcing, "waiting"
...Pass = Weak two in diamonds
...2H = Kokish Relay. a) GF with hearts b) 25+ NT c) 0--7 with spades
......2S = Ok?
.........Pass = Spades
.........2NT = 25+ NT
.........3C+ = Hearts GF
...2S+ = Standard, strong
2H = Artificial, forcing
...2S = Spades, then perhaps 2NT as Ogust
...2NT = Diamonds, weak. 3C could ask SPL and 3D could be INV.
...3C+ = Strong
2S = Pass/correct
Higher = Not sure

[gwnn]

cross-posted! curses! but thanks anyway for the details.

[mgoetze]

Just because you are theoretically able to show any hand with 6 spades doesn't mean you will do nearly as well on those hands as the people opening 2♠, though.

[Kungsgeten]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-December-22, 01:57, said:

1CDHS = Natural
1NT = Multi. 15-17 NT or weak two in a major (8-11 if spades)
2C = Standard strong 2C or weak two in diamonds or 0-7 with 6(+) spades
2D = Major + minor two suiter
2H = Ekren. Both majors weak
2S = 5-4 minors or better, weak
2NT = 20-21

But really, we could go further. Let's change the 1-level.

Pass = 13+ unbal, not GF, or 12--14/18--19 if NT.
1C = 4+ hearts, 8--12. Not suitable for 1NT+
1D = 4+ spades, 8--12. Not suitable for 1NT+
1H = 0--7 any. Not suitable for 1NT+.
1S = 8--12 with no 4 card major. Not suitable for 1NT+.

Or

Pass = 0--7 or 17--21
1C = 12--16 unbal or 12--14 NT
1D = 8--11, no 4 card major
1M = 8--11, 4+ major

But then this isn't really "everything else equal".

[mgoetze]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-December-22, 06:37, said:

But then this isn't really "everything else equal".

I think you and nullve are the only ones who ever thought "everything else equal" might be possible. It's an obviously ridiculous assumption.

[Kungsgeten]

 mgoetze, on 2015-December-22, 08:14, said:

I think you and nullve are the only ones who ever thought "everything else equal" might be possible. It's an obviously ridiculous assumption.

Of course it is ridiculous. All opening bids should have a purpose, so changing openings obviously has impacts elsewhere. I simply made my best attempt to staying similar to standard while also including as many preempts as possible. I do not understand the hostility recieved.

[nullve]

 mgoetze, on 2015-December-22, 08:14, said:

I think you and nullve are the only ones who ever thought "everything else equal" might be possible. It's an obviously ridiculous assumption.

Let

S = system with openings a la Greco-Hampson's Meckwell Lite system
S' = system with openings a la Hurd-Wooldridge's aggressive 2/1 system

Then

* S and S' agree on what constitutes an opening hand
* openings above 2♦ are the same in S and S'
* of the remaining non-weak openings, S uses 1♣,...,2♦ for hands with opening strength, so if S is our candidate system A, m=7
* of the remaining non-weak openings, S' uses 1♣,...,2♣ for hands with opening strength, so if S' is our candidate system B, n=6

In order for S and S' to be our systems A and B, respectively, they must also perform equally well after non-weak openings, something you seem to think could never happen. But we haven't said anything about the design beyond the openings yet. So suppose S and S' really were the systems played by Greco-Hampson and Hurd-Wooldridge, respectively, and suppose we found that Greco-Hampson' system performed better after non-weak openings. Then we could gradually either weaken the design of S or strengthen the design of S' until they both performed equally well. Agree?

This post has been edited by nullve: 2015-December-23, 06:08

[kenrexford]

I think you need to subtract i from your analysis to get the correct answer.

[nullve]

Even more trivial: A and B are the same system except that

2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up)
2♦ in B = Weak Two

[glen]

 nullve, on 2015-December-22, 12:58, said:

Even more trivial: A and B are the same system except that

2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up)
2♦ in B = Weak Two

how about:

A and B are the same system except that:

2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up)
2♦ in B = 5-7 points and exactly 3-3-3-4

[kenrexford]

 glen, on 2015-December-22, 16:25, said:

how about:

A and B are the same system except that:

2♦ in A = AKQJ-AKQ-AKQ-AKQ precisely (never comes up)
2♦ in B = 5-7 points and exactly 3-3-3-4

If that second 2D were gcc legal, I would totally play that!

[glen]

 kenrexford, on 2015-December-22, 17:04, said:

If that second 2D were gcc legal, I would totally play that!

GCC said:

An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit ...

knock yourself out

[nullve]

Looks like two-level ace-asking ferts (e.g. 2♦ = 0-6 hcp, asking for aces) might be allowed, too:

 GCC said:

STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto.

Edit: Singleton-asking ferts might be more effective, though.

[kenrexford]

 glen, on 2015-December-22, 18:04, said:

knock yourself out

Oh, that is so sweet. Could mix it up with 4333, 3433, 3343, and 3334. Too tasty for words.

[mycroft]

of course, you're stuck with "DISALLOWED, 7", but yeah, knock yourself out...

(note: I did play 1-7 weak 2s in one event. No, we were not allowed to "psych" the yarboroughs :-)

[shevek]

Well, ultimate B is strong pass.

We once did a bidding challenge with opener being dealt 13+ any (or equivalent), no intereference, otherwise random.
We had our one opening call of PASS.
They had their usual SAYC.

Expecting a loss, we had a narrow victory and a credit to relay.
Must try it again one day with BOT interference.