[WesleyC]

---

Knockout match, IMPs scoring.

Your 2S is natural, usually 5 card suit. Partner expects a rotten hand at these colours.

What do you lead?

[whereagles]

another bird/anthias ♥J

[Fluffy]

♦K, we are desperate

[mikeh]

why bother?

With a bidding style like this, where we open 2♠, we are losing this match unless the opps are as clueless as we are.

[the_clown]

J♥. I will try to hit partner's suit and the bidding makes it more likely that its ♥ rather than ♦.
Second choice is a ♣

[cherdano]

 mikeh, on 2014-November-25, 12:38, said:

why bother?

With a bidding style like this, where we open 2♠, we are losing this match unless the opps are as clueless as we are.

Wow I really disagree. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe opening 2♠ on this is losing bridge. But in terms of IMPS expectancy - well I'd be surprised if it costs more than 0.3 IMPs or so, and I won't have many opportunities to make such bids. Just caring a little more than opponents about overtricks will already make up for this.

[cherdano]

 mikeh, on 2014-November-25, 12:38, said:

why bother?

With a bidding style like this, where we open 2♠, we are losing this match unless the opps are as clueless as we are.

Wow I really disagree. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe opening 2♠ on this is losing bridge. But in terms of IMPS expectancy - well I'd be surprised if it costs more than 0.3 IMPs or so, and I won't have many opportunities to make such bids. Just caring a little more than opponents about overtricks will already make up for this.

[mikeh]

 cherdano, on 2014-November-26, 09:53, said:

Wow I really disagree. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe opening 2♠ on this is losing bridge. But in terms of IMPS expectancy - well I'd be surprised if it costs more than 0.3 IMPs or so, and I won't have many opportunities to make such bids. Just caring a little more than opponents about overtricks will already make up for this.

Well, I was using the device of hyperbole to attempt to make a point. Unfortunately, internet postings rarely read in the tone in which they were written

In addition, my experience is that players who think this sort of approach is good bridge tend to display this sort of thinking in other aspects of their bidding, with (imo) what are likely to be bad results.

As an example, if one opens a weak 2 on this hand, what does one open with KQ10xxx xx Kxx xx?

And so on. Bridge bidding, if well-designed, is an integrated method, with an overall philosophy or style. I know a lot of non-experts think that they can come up with a system by combining various sexy gadgets, but all experts know that (on the whole, not in every detail) a good system is more than the sum of its parts...the parts interact in subtle ways. If a significant 'part' is opening a weak 2 on the OP hand, then there are likely to be problems elsewhere as well, at least imo.

[gnasher]

 mikeh, on 2014-November-26, 10:37, said:

Well, I was using the device of hyperbole to attempt to make a point. Unfortunately, internet postings rarely read in the tone in which they were written

Have you considered the idea of writing in a tone which is appropriate to the medium?

[gnasher]

I don't mind a style where this is a 2♠ opening. I'd be surprised if it had any significant effect on your IMP expectation.

Quote

As an example, if one opens a weak 2 on this hand, what does one open with KQ10xxx xx Kxx xx?

Something else, I expect. Perhaps in the OP's methods this is a 2♦ opening, or a 3♠ opening, or even a pass.

Quote

Bridge bidding, if well-designed, is an integrated method, with an overall philosophy or style.

Some partnerships have the philosophy that it pays to take away bidding space when the hand is likely to be the opponents', and that this makes up for the resulting losses in constructive hands. I think it would be very hard to show that one approach is better than the other.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-November-26, 12:38

[mikeh]

 gnasher, on 2014-November-26, 12:35, said:

I don't mind a style where this is a 2♠ opening. I'd be surprised if it had any significant effect on your IMP expectation.

[/size]

Something else, I expect. Perhaps in the OP's methods this is a 2♦ opening, or a 3♠ opening, or even a pass.

Really?

That would never have occurred to me! Wow! what a concept...that using a very aggressive style for weak two bids means using other calls for 'normal' weak two bids. Why didn't I think of that...the idea that when one adopts a certain style for some calls, that would have implications for the rest of the system?


Oh...I did.

However, to recognize that would mean you'd lose an opportunity to take a shot, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

Thanks for the ongoing lessons. I appreciate the help.*






*any problem understanding the intended tone on that one?

[gszes]

While not caring much for the opening 2s bid myself (It is a game after all and if we enjoy
it more this way so be it) It would seem trying to set this hand requires some great luck.
Since the opps took little time trying to locate a heart fit (usually a priority) we would
seems to have a far greater chance of finding p (who also owns most of the defensive assets)
with long hearts than anywhere else.

Heart J

[Phil]

Did I miss some little skirmishes between Mike and Gnasher while I was gone?

[mikeh]

 Phil, on 2014-November-26, 13:08, said:

Did I miss some little skirmishes between Mike and Gnasher while I was gone?

I don't think so: I think you timed your return fortuitously, assuming that you find such skirmishes amusing

I don't, which is why I shouldn't give in to the temptation to rise to the perceived bait. Oh well.

I almost always agree with Andy on bridge matters, but I suspect that our posting styles are just a little off kilter in terms of how each of us read what the other has written, just enough to be irksome on occasion.

[Phil]

 mikeh, on 2014-November-26, 13:37, said:

I don't think so: I think you timed your return fortuitously, assuming that you find such skirmishes amusing

MikeH, I didn't amass about 18K posts when life was slow by not enjoying turf wars. Even the ones I was involved in Now that life is normal I doubt I'll be posting as much, especially since it seems the pipeline for good content on BW has slowed.

[mikeh]

 cherdano, on 2014-November-26, 09:53, said:

Wow I really disagree. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe opening 2♠ on this is losing bridge. But in terms of IMPS expectancy - well I'd be surprised if it costs more than 0.3 IMPs or so, and I won't have many opportunities to make such bids. Just caring a little more than opponents about overtricks will already make up for this.

I don't disagree with your estimate of the net cost, altho I think we both understand that this is a seat-of-the-pants, or gut, feeling rather than a precise figure.

Indeed, I doubt that it is even theoretically possible to analyze the per-board net gain or loss from any treatment that is non-mainstream when such treatment alters other aspects of the methods. Thus if one found that a 2♠ opening on this hand, against competent, informed opps, was a net winner when it came up, one would need to figure out how the method dealt with a classic weak 2 bid, such as KQ10xxx xx Kx xxx. If the solution was to pass: well, what was the result of that approach? If the solution was to use a multi 2♦, not only do we need to know if that was effective, we also need to assess how the system dealt with hands that would otherwise be opened 2♦, were we not playing multi, and so on and on and on.....

Given that one can't analyze this sort of information in a manner naïve to the skill of the players, and the level of the opps, I don't think it can be done in a meaningful way, at least not with precision.

However, my real reason for disliking this style is that even if it were neutral....were found on balance to have no positive or negative impact on imp expectation....I strongly believe that, compared to more mainstream methods, it maximizes variability of scores.

I fully accept that on occasion, getting in the first blow on hands like this will cause horrific problems for the opponents and we may well pick up game or even slam swings, including finding great saves or causing the opps to overbid, underbid, or find the wrong strain.

However, I think it equally obvious that on occasion we are going to get a very, very bad score.

Whether this variability is a 'good thing' or not depends, I suppose on several factors.

No matter what level one's game may be at, imo it is best to inculcate the belief that most of the time, assuming we play as well as we are reasonably capable of playing, we have a chance to beat our opps by simply playing bridge.

If so, and rightly or wrongly that is always my attitude no matter who I am playing, then I don't want to play a method that increases the randomness of the match.

Otoh, if one were clearly outclassed in the match and if one wasn't trying to become 'better'...so the only goals were short-term...then playing this style may make a lot of sense.

Personally, I tend to avoid team-mates who play really disaster-prone methods, even if I felt that the methods were long-term neutral. I hate having a good session at our table and finding that our results were irrelevant...we'd lost the match (or even won the match) due to silly things happening at the other table. When the other half is playing poker, not bridge, I'm not interested in being part of that team.

[whereagles]

 gnasher, on 2014-November-26, 12:35, said:

I don't mind a style where this is a 2♠ opening. I'd be surprised if it had any significant effect on your IMP expectation.

I don't have any imp expectation figures, but I can tell you I played such a style when I was a junior and I wasn't impressed with the results.. lol.

By the way, I'm an open minded person. I wouldn't mind playing such a style again.. I just doubt it's a long term winner.

[jogs]

 WesleyC, on 2014-November-25, 08:32, said:

---

Knockout match, IMPs scoring.

Your 2S is natural, usually 5 card suit. Partner expects a rotten hand at these colours.

What do you lead?

I think opening this hand is a losing strategy.

♠ KT953
♥ 64
♦ 72
♣ J642

It is better to gamble when the points are in our long suits.

[Cthulhu D]

I'd lead the J♥ without much conviction. Hopefully partner knows I do this so the spade return doesn't get fired though.

 mikeh, on 2014-November-26, 16:35, said:

Otoh, if one were clearly outclassed in the match and if one wasn't trying to become 'better'...so the only goals were short-term...then playing this style may make a lot of sense.

Personally, I tend to avoid team-mates who play really disaster-prone methods, even if I felt that the methods were long-term neutral. I hate having a good session at our table and finding that our results were irrelevant...we'd lost the match (or even won the match) due to silly things happening at the other table. When the other half is playing poker, not bridge, I'm not interested in being part of that team.

So you'd never partner with team mates playing assumed fit preempts?

I personally find this weird, because it's clear that preemptive bids are modest winner over all, but assumed fit preempts definitely have some more varience than weak twos. If I contrast these two opening styles:

     Style One        Style Two
2C   Strong only      Weak 2 diamonds or strong
2D   Weak 2 Diamonds  Weak with diamonds and a major
2H   Weak 2 Hearts    Weak 2 hearts
2S   Weak 2 Spades    Weak 2 Spades

Style Two is behind Style One on Strong 2C auctions (arguably, and not very much, though the odd slam bidding that starts 2C-2NT-?? Damnit, I've got the strong hand and he's inviting to game opposite a weak 2? is difficult to bid), you're behind on weak 2D auctions because you must cater for the strong hand when you are weak with diamonds, but you're ahead on the 6% of hands when you open the assumed fit 2D. BUT, that Frelling 2D opening has a bunch of disaster potential.

I feel it's perfectly reasonable bridge though.

[mikeh]

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-26, 18:26, said:

I'd lead the J♥ without much conviction. Hopefully partner knows I do this so the spade return doesn't get fired though.



So you'd never partner with team mates playing assumed fit preempts?

I personally find this weird, because it's clear that preemptive bids are modest winner over all, but assumed fit preempts definitely have some more varience than weak twos. If I contrast these two opening styles:

     Style One        Style Two
2C   Strong only      Weak 2 diamonds or strong
2D   Weak 2 Diamonds  Weak with diamonds and a major
2H   Weak 2 Hearts    Weak 2 hearts
2S   Weak 2 Spades    Weak 2 Spades

Style Two is behind Style One on Strong 2C auctions (arguably, and not very much, though the odd slam bidding that starts 2C-2NT-?? Damnit, I've got the strong hand and he's inviting to game opposite a weak 2? is difficult to bid), you're behind on weak 2D auctions because you must cater for the strong hand when you are weak with diamonds, but you're ahead on the 6% of hands when you open the assumed fit 2D. BUT, that Frelling 2D opening has a bunch of disaster potential.

I feel it's perfectly reasonable bridge though.

I don't have any familiarity with the assumed fit style, altho I am aware of it and the frequency-based arguments that suggest that most of the time one has a playable fit.

So maybe my dislike of the method is more due to the innate conservatism that grows in most people as we age, but for a good imps event I don't want to play with team-mates who on a completely routine 'nothing' hand can go for 800 or 1100 at the 2-level into the opps' game, even if it only happens 10% of the time.

Mps: sure...frequency of gain is the main parameter. Imps, not so much

As for justifying the methods as 'perfectly reasonable bridge', colour me unimpressed.

I am capable of mediocrity at any time with any method: I don't need to adopt inherently flawed methods to attain that level of bridge. I would far rather pursue the less attainable, but far more enjoyable, goal of 'reasonably perfect bridge'