[foo]

TimG, on Jul 6 2007, 05:32 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

opening 1♠ when you may or may not have any ♠'s and have 0-8 HCP is obviously designed to simply make it impossible for the opponents to use Bridge skills.

I thought it was a price paid for the other system choices.

Absolutely.

But if the other bids are Limited enough as to shape and value range (and I do not mean "either or" Wonder Bid like or Suction like stuff: I mean a limited continuous range in terms of both shape and values), They are far less of a problem to evaluate one's hand against.

This is not automatically true of all non Strong Pass openings in a SP system. Many are indeed troublesome because they are not as "limited" as they would look at first glance.

The Strong Pass is no more of a problem than a Forcing Club would be
(I note that "pass" is a call, not a bid. Thereby keeping my 1st paragraphs from contradicting this one.)

The universally problem bid is the Fert.

The universal =system= problem with Strong Pass systems is that adequate defenses usually mean doing something equivalent to abandoning your own system notes and adopting the SP pair's system notes.

As I've stated before, The best defenses I know of to a SP are based on a Fert; and the best defenses I know of to a Fert are based on a SP. Once you've done that, you've basically abandoned your approach to the game unless you were a SP pair to begin with.
Regulators consider that a problem. Many players do as well. I see some justification in their POV.

[DrTodd13]

You have this completely backwards. It isn't my job to provide an "optimal" defense. Out of courtesy I provide a simple suggested defense when I play something weird.
Your own statement proves my point. You said the mainstream view these as destructive. The mainstream has no workable definition of destructive and neither do you. You can't define destructive, you can't define soundness, and all your attempts to do so are pseudo-intellectual psychobabble. People don't like unfamiliarity and so they label things they aren't familiar with as destructive in order to ban them. The two methods you mentioned are allowed in some places around the world so those people must not consider them that destructive. I gave you a personal account of how people react to ferts in the real world and you simply refuse to accept that it doesn't create massive chaos.

Against 1♠ fert, my recommendation is X as intermediate hand with 3 or 4 ♠ or any big hand. 1N is intermediate hand with less than 3♠. Others are natural, new suits forcing by responder. This is a reasonable defense and people at my table don't have any problem using it (over 1♥ fert). If you don't think it is optimal then devise your own defense but it does allow reasonable auctions to take place. You can't have as much accuracy as you would without the fert because you are being preempted. It is only your feeble brain that can't comprehend the concept of a low-level balanced prempt.

2♦ two-suiter weak. X is 13-16 bal or 20+ bal or 17+ unbal, 2N is 17-19 bal. Others are nat.

[foo]

Let us please differentiate between a workable definition of Destructive and one that is acceptable to you.

I have at this point provided a workable definition multiple times. It is based as closely as possible to what I'm told regulators use as the definition of the term.
I've also provided pointers so that you or anyone else who wants can go find what those regulators have said in their official capacity as to the definition of the term, and the official record of how the term came to be and evolved.
(I will freely admit I wish the way to dig out this material was easier and more straightforward. I have expressed that opinion to those who gave me the pointers I later passed on.)

What I have not done, and no can ever do for you, is give you a defintion that you will accept.

Your vested interest in there not being such a definition paints you into that illogical corner.

Side Note: if you are not a paying member of a SO, you literally have no vote on this matter. For you gave up that right by deciding to not be a member.

[the hog]

The Fert as Todd, Richard and anyone else who has played a system like this knows, is NOT a problem bid. I have played against SP systems with Lol's as clients and they have had no problems at all. I have played SP systems against Lols and they have had no problem at all. I defy you to give me any opening bid to which I cannot come up with a workable defence with a scratch partner in 2-3 mins. In my reg partnerships we do not even need this length of time because of meta agreements.

[helene_t]

I played against Todd and Foobar last week, with a pick-up p (I had her on my friend list because sheś a good TD) who seemed barely to have heard about SP systems. We had a single incident where she overlooked an alert of an artificial bid and therefore made a cuebid in "their" suit which I took as natural - Todd and Foobar were nice enough to request a redeal, then. Btw it could have happened with any artificial bid (say a Benji 2♦, or transfers on in competition) so it has nothing to do with the SP system per se. I have also played against Richard and Frederick with my IRL p who never heard about Moscito before. Although our meta agreements are not that solid we did just fine, no major doubt about the meaning of any calls.

Beginners have problems with obstructive bidding in general, including simple non-jump overcalls. As for weird interference methods such as suction and Ghestem, my impression (I have no statistics on this so I might be wrong) is that they work in the advantage of the beginner opps because they will sometimes mess up the users' auction on when opps would otherwise have messed up their own auction in the absence of the weird interference.

On the other hand, when alert cards are flying over the table many beginners get nervous and then they may be more prone to making brain farts, even if the alerted calls are completely "benign". Some argue that the alert procedure should be abolished for that reason. IMHO the problem is that many think itś rude to ask opps not to alert, or even that itś rude not to ask for explanation or that opps have the right to alert. We have tried to preempt the problem by asking opps, before the team match starts, what they want us to alert, but we don't have too good experience with that.

[helene_t]

jtfanclub, on Jul 7 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

It is my believe that this is almost entirely due to the opening lead- after the opening lead, double dummy doesn't really favor declarer or defenders much on low level contracts. But the opening lead is crucial.

Off topic (sorry for trying to derail this idiotic thread into something sensible):

I have the same thought. For simulation studies, when DD is too unrealistic and SD is too computational demanding and/or requires the (arbitrary) specification of too many parameters, a DD analysis combined with a SD opening lead may be a good compromise.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 7 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

I've also provided pointers so that you or anyone else who wants can go find what those regulators have said in their official capacity as to the definition of the term, and the official record of how the term came to be and evolved.
(I will freely admit I wish the way to dig out this material was easier and more straightforward.  I have expressed that opinion to those who gave me the pointers I later passed on.)

Foo has back off on yet another of his bullshit claims

I guess that the "official" definition of destructive is going to be relegated to the same dustbin as

1. The hand records documenting that Reese - Shapiro were playing Little Major during the cheating scandal at the Bermuda Bowl

2. The reference from Marty Bergen explaining why he was no longer teaching Bergen raises

3. The clarification from those on high regarding why my proposed 3♠ overcall of a strong club opening should be banned as destructive

(I'm sure there have been more that I've forgotten. At least he had the sense to back off his from his definition of what a "High Reverse" is)

Pretty pathetic track record you're accumulating here. Its almost like you're constantly making stuff, claiming that you have real sources, and then praying that folks are going to forget about these claims.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 7 2007, 08:53 AM, said:

2D= 0-8 HCP, can show any 2 suiter, each suit can be 4-7 cards long.
Let's see your defense.

1S= 0-8 HCP, says nothing about ♠'s or about any other shape. It's a "placeholder" necessitated by the rest of the Strong Pass system.
My understanding is the best defense to a Fert is based on a Strong Pass.
I look forward to your illuminating missive refuting this POV and showing the actual optimal defense.

I await with great anticipation your scintillating and awe inspiring discourse on methods that will restore a chance for equity to the defending side against these treatments that the mainstream has deemed Destructive.

I hope that you understand just how ignorant this posting is:

1. The very notion that one can prove that any defense is "optimal" is ludicrous. You are setting an impossible standard. If you disagree, please provide me with a proof that any defense to any opening is "optimal". You can chose a NT defense like DON'T or Brozel. You can chose a specific defensive scheme over natural opening bids. The only restriction is that you can't choose a completely ridiculous opening like a 7NT opening showing a balanced 3 count or some such.

2. Defenses are not designed to restore equity to the defending side. "Restoration of Equity" is a specific expression that is used when dealing with procedural infractions like taking advantage of a Break in Tempo. (Equity discussions often crop up within the context of Law 12.C.3) The fact that you are suggesting this as a standard shows that you don't understand the different between a procedural infraction and the normal play of the hand.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 7 2007, 09:19 AM, said:

As I've stated before, The best defenses I know of to a SP are based on a Fert; and the best defenses I know of to a Fert are based on a SP.  Once you've done that, you've basically abandoned your approach to the game unless you were a SP pair to begin with.

Show me the defenses...
Tell me who is playing them or recommending them...
Ideally, provide a mechanism by which we can check said claims cause you keep lying about this sort of stuff.

As I noted in an earlier thread, I think that you are misinterpreting a completely different line of reasoning.

Many people state that the best way to combat a Strong Pass system is to ALSO adopt a strong pass system. You're simply fighting fire with fire. If we're dealer, then the opponents will need to defend OUR strong pass system. If they are dealer, we will need to defend against THEIR strong pass system.

As I pointed out in another thread, there are some VERY big problems with using a formal Strong Pass type system over the opponent's Fert. At the very least, you're going to need to use a Fert of your own over the opponent's Fert, which is going to get you uncomfortably high.

Me, I think that you're making things up again and I'm calling shenanigans.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 7 2007, 08:53 AM, said:

2D= 0-8 HCP, can show any 2 suiter, each suit can be 4-7 cards long.
Let's see your defense.

For what its worth, I have never seen anyone playing a method remotely resembling this in the real world. Opener has far too many hand patterns bundled into a single opening. Responser won't be able to bump the bidding unless he has a three pattern.

In general, when you see folks using 2♦ to show a two suited pattern, they're using one of three preemptive styles.

1. 2♦ shows one of two different two suited hand patterns. For example, Opener EITHER holds the Red suits or the Black suits. Alternatively, Opener either hold Majors or Minors.

2. 2♦ shows Diamonds and another know suit

3. 2♦ shows Diamonds and another unknown suit

In each of these cases, responder is much better position to advance the bidding.

Furthermore, when you have a two suited 2♦ opening, you're normally showing a range like 7 - 11 HCPs. 0 - 7 HCP hands are quite rare. Your also opening this at a fairly high level so you are very exposed.

As for devising an reasonable defense. If you really want, I can work on putting something together. I don't know the specifics yet. I will tell you the following: You're going to be dreadfully exposed to penalty oriented methods.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 7 2007, 12:08 AM, said:

 

>=What judgement?= How do you compete against an opening that at one
>extreme is best defended against using penalty X's and at the other extreme
>best defended against using T/O X's?

>...and T/O pf what? and what can you use as cue bids?

As you note, FERTS don't show any shape. I'm somewhat confused by your assertion that that the strong range of the FERT is best defended using a takeout type double. Perhaps a better formulations would be

Doubles that show a balanced hand versus
Doubles that show different unbalanced patterns

Regardless, I suspect that most competent individuals would note that players get dealt hands with 0 HCP .364% of the time. In contrast, players get deal hands 7 HCP occur 8.028% of the time.

[foo]

The_Hog, on Jul 7 2007, 02:13 AM, said:

The Fert as Todd, Richard and anyone else who has played a system like this knows, is NOT a problem bid. I have played against SP systems with Lol's as clients and they have had no problems at all. I have played SP systems against Lols and they have had no problem at all. I defy you to give me any opening bid to which I cannot come up with a workable defence with a scratch partner in 2-3 mins. In my reg partnerships we do not even need this length of time because of meta agreements.

So for all the heated rhetoric and personal attacks flying around, and despite claims as to how easy it is, I have yet to see anyone actually answer the Bridge charges with a Bridge counter-argument. IOW, let's see these "easy" defenses.

To keep the discussion practical, we'll focus defense to
a= a 1♠ Fert
b= a Fert that changes according to vulnerabilty (1S @ Favorable, 1H @ White all, 1D @ Red)
c= Regres
d= No Name
e= Delta
f= Carrotti
g= Marmic
"c" thru "g" are from p 89-91 of Vol 1 _Bridge Classic and Modern Conventions_ by Lindkvist

At "2-3 minutes" apiece, it should take a modest amount of time to come up with defense that the WBF could feel give the defending side a reasonable chance at using Bridge judgement and their own cards to achieve equity.
If said defense(s) do not give the opponents a reasonable chance to judge their own cards or to achieve equity, don't bother submitting it since in that case it fails the primary purpose of a "defense".

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 7 2007, 04:15 PM, said:

If said defense(s) do not give the opponents a reasonable chance to judge their own cards or to achieve equity, don't bother submitting it since in that case it fails the primary purpose of a "defense".

I will repeat my original comment:

Your use of the word equity here shows startling ignorance. Show me ANY defense that "achieves equity" after a 12-14 HCP 1NT opening. You have imposing a meaningless standard. Its already apparent how you're planning to weasel out of this one.

For what its worth, I'd like to see some of the suggested defenses as well. I'll even throw a email down to some of my buddies in Australia and ask what they use against some of the FERTS.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 7 2007, 07:33 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 7 2007, 12:08 AM, said:

 

>=What judgement?= How do you compete against an opening that at one
>extreme is best defended against using penalty X's and at the other extreme
>best defended against using T/O X's?

>...and T/O pf what? and what can you use as cue bids?

As you note, FERTS don't show any shape. I'm somewhat confused by your assertion that that the strong range of the FERT is best defended using a takeout type double. Perhaps a better formulations would be

Doubles that show a balanced hand versus
Doubles that show different unbalanced patterns

Regardless, I suspect that most competent individuals would note that players get dealt hands with 0 HCP .364% of the time. In contrast, players get deal hands 7 HCP occur 8.028% of the time.

LOL. As you well know, I have made no such assertion.

Penalty oriented X's are more useful the more flat the preempting hand is.
T/O oriented X's are more useful the more shapely a hand is.

Your previous posts show that you definitely know it is =shape=, not HCP strength,
that is the differentiator here.
Evidently you are once again simply trying to stir up flames.

1S= 0 HCP 4333's at one end, 7 HCP 7600's at the other.
Let's see how
a= We have a constructive auction after this opening
b= how They defend w/o adopting a Strong Pass as the basis for the defense vs this opening.

Oh, and the statement I made was that
a= you base the defense vs a SP on a Fert or Fert like bids
(The opening side is trying to save space, therefore the defending side should rob them of it as much as possible. Same strategy as vs a Strong Club only more so.); and
b= you base the defense vs a Fert on a Strong Pass
(They are trying to rob Us of space w/ hands that have little values and wide ranging shape. Thus we want to conserve space as much as possible for potentially complex constructive auctions and only bid with high ODR hands where it is unlikely We will further preempt Ourselves by bidding.)

There is no possibility of "a Fert over a Fert" in the suggestion I made.

Chip Martel & Lew Stansby are one of the pairs who I spoken to about this. They've actually had to defend against SP systems at the highest levels of competition. I figure they rate to know what they are talking about. I've spoken to others as well who say similar things.

I'll get to the rest of your commentary after I've dealt with some of my other responsibilities.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Jul 6 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

Oh yes. Another way to describe this is that I'm a half trick better as declarer than computers would be double-dummy. It is my believe that this is almost entirely due to the opening lead- after the opening lead, double dummy doesn't really favor declarer or defenders much on low level contracts. But the opening lead is crucial.

A few years ago, I did a study using GIB's DD solver and a few million OKBridge results. The study was never published, and I am not referring to it now, so the numbers I cite are approximate.

In 1NT and 3NT contracts, declarer had about a 1/2 trick advantage relative to the double dummy result. The advantage was greatest in a 1NT contract that was the result of a 1NT opening bid.

As jtfan speculates, the opening lead was a disadvantage for the defenders. After the opening lead was made, there was almost no advantage, relative to DD, for either side -- the small advantage that did exist was for the defense.

Declarer's Advantage (or more appropriately, Opening Leader's Disadvantage) decreased as the declaring side made more bids in reaching their final contract. Even 1N-2C-2D-3N and 1N-2N-3N were easier to defend against than 1N-3N.

[awm]

I think Foo has a nice idea -- it would be good to define system regulations in terms of some objective criteria rather than basing them almost wholly on what's familiar to whom. I disagree with most of the specifics though.

In fact, I don't think that banning destructive methods is really what the regulators are trying to do, or that many people really want to play destructive methods. The target for regulators is more the methods that are confusing, unfamiliar, or which seem to require a complicated defense in order to obtain any good results.

I'd define destructive in the following fairly simple way. Suppose I bid something on some hand. After my bid, everyone makes perfect double dummy decisions in bidding and play. What will my score be? In general with opponents making perfect choices, I cannot score better than par on the board. If I start with a pass, I will score exactly par. If I bid something other than pass, my expected score will be worse than par, because occasionally my opening was already "past par" and opponents can double to obtain a better result than they could otherwise get. I would define a bid to be destructive if my expected score after opening that bid (under assumptions of perfect decisions subsequent by both sides) is substantially worse than par. Such a bid will either be a long-term loser, or will win only because the opponents are making a lot of wrong decisions over it (often due to unfamiliarity or lack of a good defense, although potentially some things are just hard to make good decisions over).

Obviously we have to decide what is "substantially worse" but notice that a lot of conventions regulators hate are really not destructive. For example, 2♥ multi and transfer openings are certainly not destructive. 2♠ showing a three-level preempt in any suit is certainly not destructive. Wilcosz is certainly not destructive. Most ferts probably aren't destructive, although it has to depend on the level (I suspect a 2♠ fert is destructive for example).

Destructive methods are things like opening 3NT on 8-10 balanced. If opponents make the right calls over this, you are going to be in trouble a lot. The opening will win only because you fooled the opponents, say they had 13 opposite 13 and neither doubled (so you get a good undoubled sacrifice) or they have 13 opposite zero and the 13 doubled and now you get to play 3NTXX making (well they can try to run, but they could easily go for a big number here too). This is a bid where you're not really expecting that you'd get good results if opponents make the right calls -- you're just hoping they make the wrong calls. Of course, to some degree this is always the case (hard to win if opponents always make the right calls), but destructive conventions are ones that would be absolute suicide if the opponents made the right decisions -- they have no other merit besides hoping the opponents "judge wrong."

[jtfanclub]

Oh, come on. You're not this stupid.

You said a STUDY.

I'm still looking for this STUDY you mentioned.

I really don't care about what a double dummy analysis shows because, when I play bridge, the opponents can't see each others cards.

I care even less about somebody's rule of thumb. A rule of thumb which seems to say that you need 30 hcp for a grand slam, but since I don't care about it, I didn't look closely.

Quote

As these studies show, if you really are making 1N most of the time with 18 HCP between the two hands, you either have easy opponents or you are an wizard of 1N play.

Great, now I'm into the world of tweedledum and tweedledee. Which one are you?

Do you understand what a study is?

Are you aware that what you've shown here are not studies?

Do you realize why a double dummy analysis has about as much to do with what actually happens in a 1NT contract (particulalry a 1NT-swish contract) as trying to figure out what melds you can make if you switched to Canasta?

Maybe you don't play the same bridge as the rest of us. Maybe you guys look at each other's hands after the bidding and decide on the best lead. Because then, yeah, I'd go down one on the average. But mine don't have X-ray vision. And God knows, on a 1NT contract, you NEED X-ray vision to find the right opening lead.

But it would explain a lot.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Jul 7 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

Maybe you don't play the same bridge as the rest of us. Maybe you guys look at each other's hands after the bidding and decide on the best lead.

Yeah, that's how we play in New England. You mean it's not that way everywhere?

[the hog]

Hi Richard,
We used the following when playing against Ferts. Since Foo has suggested a sub optimal, but playable, 1S Fert, I will focus on this.

(1S)
1NT 12-15 NT. Flattish, but can be slightly off shape, eg 4522 with the ms.
2C Soap, T/f to H, 12-15. Pd bids 2D with 4S, otwerwise accepts or bids natuarlly
2D Soap, T/f to H, as above
2H/S, 4 of that M and a longer m. 2NT now strong relay
3 suit, 12-15, very good 6+ suit
2NT = 12-15 both ms
X any 16+

We found this worked fine.

edit: Soap btw is an acronym for System Over Artificial Pre emption and is a typical example of a "meta agreement'. We even played Soap over an opposing 1NT for a while, and it works.

In some partnerships we used the more complicated Anti fert -
1NT = 0-10, (Give them their own medicine.)
P = 11 - 14 flat
2 suit natural
X = 15+

This worked ok too and was more fun, but not as effective as the above.

c-f in Foo's wonder list indicate that he doesn't know what these systems are, as they all use a 1D fert.

Our prime aim in playing against Ferts was not to actively seek penalties, but take them IF they arise. The aim was to describe our hands in the best possible way, a little like over an opposition 1NT opening. In actively looking to punish the Fert, therein madness lies and I suspect that this is why players unused to these methods find it hard. "They had the gall, the temerity, the cheek to open this rubbish against us! Let's get them!"

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Jul 7 2007, 08:40 AM, said:

A few years ago, I did a study using GIB's DD solver and a few million OKBridge results. The study was never published, and I am not referring to it now, so the numbers I cite are approximate.

Thank you TimG. I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier.

For 1NT swish, I would expect Defender's Disadvantage to be higher.
-I've shown less information.
-The lead is probably more essential for 1NT than for any other contract.
It could be as high as a full trick, but I suspect it will be just a little less.

I'm glad that somebody's actually studied it. Thanks again.