[cherdano]

rhm, on 2013-August-16, 02:47, said:

I agree there is no point trying to convince people, who are blinkered. My contributions are not for the benefit of those.
Fortunately there are a few left, who try to keep an open mind.

I point out a serious flaw in your simulation, while making an off-hand comment hinting that I frequently disagree with the assumptions in your simulations.
Your reply with an insult, and don't bother to fix your simulation.

I stand by my bet.

[rhm]

cherdano, on 2013-August-17, 12:26, said:

I point out a serious flaw in your simulation

You did nothing like that, not even coming close.
You just made some claimes

Quote

If I have 14 random hcp with xx of hearts, I will not try for game over 2H.

Fair enough, I guess your maximum vulnerable weak twos look different from mine.
You never pointed out anything of substance.
You just make unsubstantiated silly claims and when you get answered with your own rudeness you complain.

Rainer Herrmann.

[steve2005]

if you play a 3N response to a 2N ask as solid ♥ then i'll open 2♥.
without it i'll open 1♥

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2013-August-18, 01:57, said:

Fair enough, I guess your maximum vulnerable weak twos look different from mine.

Bingo! Isn't this the whole point of the thread?

For me a Weak 2 looks something along the lines of 5-9. For you it seems it is more like 7-11. I would guess that a (North American) standard is in the middle of these. The general advice over such a Weak 2 is to pass with a random weak NT, of which "14 random hcp with xx in hearts" will usually qualify. It is quite wrong to assume your (stronger) requirements for a Weak 2 when there is no evidence that these are agreed. We could just as easily assume my (weaker) requirements, no?

In short, we do not really need a simulation to know that you should open this hand with 2 if it falls within the expected range for that call. The question is whether the flaws make it worth downgrading when playing a style for which the hand would normally be too good. Your simulation is great, but for the wrong question. This is what cherdano was pointing out and my understanding is that the style he is suggesting would be a more mainstream view.

As PK already pointed out, the perfect call for this hand would be a constructive weak 2. Perhaps we should assume this instead and simulate accordingly. I am sure we could then prove incontrovertibly that opening 2♥ is ideal.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2013-August-19, 05:39, said:

Bingo! Isn't this the whole point of the thread?

For me a Weak 2 looks something along the lines of 5-9. For you it seems it is more like 7-11. I would guess that a (North American) standard is in the middle of these. The general advice over such a Weak 2 is to pass with a random weak NT, of which "14 random hcp with xx in hearts" will usually qualify. It is quite wrong to assume your (stronger) requirements for a Weak 2 when there is no evidence that these are agreed. We could just as easily assume my (weaker) requirements, no?

In short, we do not really need a simulation to know that you should open this hand with 2 if it falls within the expected range for that call. The question is whether the flaws make it worth downgrading when playing a style for which the hand would normally be too good. Your simulation is great, but for the wrong question. This is what cherdano was pointing out and my understanding is that the style he is suggesting would be a more mainstream view.

As PK already pointed out, the perfect call for this hand would be a constructive weak 2. Perhaps we should assume this instead and simulate accordingly. I am sure we could then prove incontrovertibly that opening 2♥ is ideal.

As usual I have no qualms with PK. He is often right to the point.
I had said before that I can not have a hand, which is too strong for a vulnerable weak two but not strong enough to open one of a suit.
However, I believe that to be a mainstream.
If you play 5-9 you have just such a gap, since not all hands with 10 HCP and a six card major would qualify for an opening one bid, at least not for the majority.
Of course there are a lot of 10 HCP hands which do qualify and which I open with 1♥. This happen to be not one of them.
A 1♠ opening looks to me like ♠QT9865 ♥9 ♦AT8 ♣A87, which I recently held at all red as dealer.
By the way 42 opened this hand 2♠, while 15 including me opened 1♠.
Different to some I am not a HCP slave and do not believe this to be the sole criteria, nor am I particularly constructively oriented.
I look at my hand, 6331 distribution instead of 6322 for example being much more important than a stray jack.

Rainer Herrmann