[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Jul 7 2007, 05:45 PM, said:

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

I happen to like dual range passes, such as 0-6 or 16+, forcing. Partner then bids as if the dual range bidder had a 5 count (ie., makes a nonforcing bid unless 18+)

Then you can do things like:

1. X can be 7-10 (as are 3 level bids), 1NT-2♠ are natural 11-15.

2. X is single suit, 1NT is balanced or 3 suited, 2♣-2NT is DONT.

3. X is balanced 7-10, 1NT is balanced 11-15, 2♣ promises a 4 card major but not a 5 card major, 2♦ is transfer to hearts, etc. etc. etc.

Or whatever flavor you like.

[hrothgar]

The_Hog, on Jul 8 2007, 01:45 AM, said:

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.

I was curious when SOAP would make its first appearance.

For anyone who isn't aware, the

2♣ = Hearts
2♦ = Spades
2♥ = 4 Hearts and longer minor
2♠ = 4 Spades and a longer minor

Is a meta system that Paul Marston uses in a number of situations. He applies this structure in some of his own purely constructive sequences as well as some competitive situations.

I suspect that Paul figures that the added familiarity with all the nuances with the resulting sequences is worth a lot more than trying to optimize for any given situation.

[hrothgar]

Here's another defense that just got posted on the OZ-One forums

General principle: this is like opening, not overcalling - don't get hung up on suit quality.

* X: 12+ hcp, BAL (sometimes semi-BAL), forcing up to and including 2♦
* 1NT: 12+ hcp, 5+♣ or 4441 [12-16 hcp]
* 2♣: 12+ hcp, 5+♦ or 4=4=4=1 exactly [12-16 hcp]
* 2♦: 12+ hcp, 5+♥
* 2♥: 12+ hcp, 5+♠
* 2♠: 17+ hcp, any 4441
* 2NT: 12-16 hcp, 5+/5+ minors
* 3+: "constructive" pre-empts


"Forcing" auctions, both above and below, mean that

* Pass: T/O or nothing much to add at that point
* X: PEN
* Bidding Directly: weaker than "PASS then PULL"

That is, like "Forcing Pass" auctions in other systems.

Responses to X:

* PASS: 4+♠, 10+hcp, now forcing up to and including 2♠, usually BAL or semi-BAL* (shape reduces the chance of a penalty so may as well bids constructively)
* 1NT: NAT, 6-9 hcp, "System On" (i.e. whatever you play over your normal 1NT)
* 2♣: ART, NEG, around 0-5 hcp (an ugly auction sometimes, but it rarely happens, and more importantly, it gives definition [6+ hcp] to all other bids). Then "PASS" = 3+, no game interest; 2♦ = ART, F1, at least game interest**; 2NT = to play, no game interest; others: scrambling, quite possibly only 2 if minimum.
* 2♦+: Lebensohl or Rubensohl - whatever your normal preference

* Our goal here is to have a crack at them whenever we have sort of balanced hands and a 4-2 (3-2 at the 3 level) fit and in the suit they are proposing to play in. To "guarantee" this, the x'er (or the passer of a X if the auction goes high enough for T/O to apply) needs 4 trumps (3 at the 3 level) and confidence that partner has at least 2 (hence the BAL or semi-BAL requirement).
** Then 2♥ = ART, 0-3 hcp; 2♠ = ART, FG, 4-5 hcp, nothing better to say (then 2NT by DBLer is NAT, F); 2NT = TRF to ; 3♣ = Puppet/5=card STAYMAN; 3♦ = TRF to ♥, 3♥ = TRF to ♠, 3♠ = TRF to ♣.

Responses to 1NT:

* PASS: Not strictly allowed, but if apparently mis-fitting and very weak, a view can be taken
* 2♣ (i.e. STEP): ART, NEG, around 0-7 hcp
* 2♦ (i.e. STEP+1): ART, POS, 12+hcp, FG
* 2NT: Semi-POS in the "Step+1 suit", so here, 8-11 hcp, 4+
* others: NAT, Semi-Pos

The responses to 2♣, 2♦ & 2♥ follow similar principles (though over 2♥, 2NT is simply ART, FG).

You can add some other complexity if you wish, by making the step after then NEG "artificial and strong"), e.g. (1♠) 2♣ (Pass) 2♦ (Pass) 2♥ as artificial and strong. Or, you can play a form of "Good/Bad or Bad/Good 2NT". Just choose a principle and stick to it - it will usually work.

Over 2♠, 2NT is an enquiry, over which you show singletons down the line, then 3 hcp range either explicitly in the case of ♣, or in response to a second query otherwise (i.e. 3NT would show 4=4=4=1 20-22 hcp).

Over 2NT, 3m is to play and 3M is NAT, F.

The weakest point of the defence is if you begin to penalise them after a X, but cannot finish the job - you occasionally have range definition issues in the ensuing constructive auction. Once again, both partners should use your own preference of Lebensohl/Rubensohl or equivalent here, but just be aware, partner may have a problem.

Hope this helps or provokes some other comments.

Regards, Newroad

PS No particular change in the balancing seat.

PPS The same defence works even better over a 1♥ fert. 1♠ becomes 12-16 NAT, over which you can play ACOL, if you like. It also takes all the 4♠441 hands. The only 4441 that 2♣ now gets is 1=4=4=4 exactly. 2♥ is now 17+hcp, 5+. You can extrapolate the 1 fert defence from this.

[foo]

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

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.

You evidently are changing the definition of study to suit your own purposes.

I never differentiated between DD and SD results, and I disagree with your premise that DD studies are not studies.

You may decide that you do not think they are valid, but they still are studies.

The only way you are beating DD results is if someone makes a mistake.
Yes, defenders blow tricks on opening lead all the time, but Declarers blow tricks also.
The better the level of play you are involved in, the more the ATT results are going to mimic DD.

However, BridgeBrowser can even handle your objection to DD studies since that is based on real boards from actual play.

[foo]

Hog,

The 1♠ Fert came up in a few discussions with folks who had done statisical work suggesting that the most effective Fert would vary according to vulnerability.
They certainly did not suggest playing it Red!

They gave me some example systems based on this idea, but I do not know of any situations where any of them was used in actual documented play. I do not feel it reasonable to present a system whose existence I can not objectively prove into a discussion that already has too much heat in it.

As for why I asked defenses for the SP systems I did, it was for the reverse reason. They were all systems that most in this discussion appear to have heard of, and I could point to an objective authoritative source as a definition for those systems. I am well aware they all use a 1♦ opening as their Fert.

I have to log out. I'll come back to this when able.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 8 2007, 08:18 PM, said:

Hog,

The 1♠ Fert came up in a few discussions with folks who had done statisical work suggesting that the most effective Fert would vary according to vulnerability.
They certainly did not suggest playing it Red!

For what its worth, I'm pretty sure that Marston used to play a variable FERT where

The FERT was 1♠ when Vulnerable
The FERT was 2♣ when Non Vulnerable

I don't recall seeing any other systems that were quite this ambitious, however, I could (easily) be wrong

[Cascade]

foo, on Jul 9 2007, 04:52 AM, said:

The only way you are beating DD results is if someone makes a mistake.
Yes, defenders blow tricks on opening lead all the time, but Declarers blow tricks also.
The better the level of play you are involved in, the more the ATT results are going to mimic DD.

I don't believe this is even close to accurate.

You beat double dummy for many reasons:

Declarer makes a normal safety play,

Defender's find the wrong lead - we had a hand at the club last Tuesday where a number of pairs bid 7♠ which has no play except on a club lead. At every table a club was led. Did they make a mistake? - their club holding was ♣ K Q J x ;


A finesse loses to a short honour that would have dropped;

A two way finesse is taken the wrong way;

With imperfect information the defenders switch to (or continue) the wrong suit;

An Ace is ducked when it would be better to rise (when 90% of the possible layouts suggest ducking);

etc etc

Bridge is not the same as DD.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Jul 9 2007, 05:30 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 8 2007, 08:18 PM, said:

Hog,

The 1♠ Fert came up in a few discussions with folks who had done statisical work suggesting that the most effective Fert would vary according to vulnerability.
They certainly did not suggest playing it Red!

For what its worth, I'm pretty sure that Marston used to play a variable FERT where

The FERT was 1♠ when Vulnerable
The FERT was 2♣ when Non Vulnerable

I don't recall seeing any other systems that were quite this ambitious, however, I could (easily) be wrong

I am not completely sure what you are saying Richard but I have seen pairs playing 1♠ Fert not vulnerable and 1♦ Fert vulnerable.

I have even played a system where we played Strong Pass with 1♠ Fert not vulnerable and Strong 1♣ with no Fert Vulnerable. In both situations we used transfer openings.

[hrothgar]

[quote name='Cascade' date='Jul 8 2007, 10:57 PM'] [quote name='hrothgar' date='Jul 9 2007, 05:30 AM'] [quote name='foo' date='Jul 8 2007, 08:18 PM']

I don't recall seeing any other systems that were quite this ambitious, however, I could (easily) be wrong [/QUOTE]
I am not completely sure what you are saying Richard but I have seen pairs playing 1[sp] Fert not vulnerable and 1[di] Fert vulnerable.

I have even played a system where we played Strong Pass with 1[sp] Fert not vulnerable and Strong 1[cl] with no Fert Vulnerable. In both situations we used transfer openings. [/QUOTE]
Sorry Wayne... I should have been a bit more clear.

When used the word "ambitious" I was referring to the level of the opening bid.

1[sp] is very high for a vulnerable FERT
2[cl] is similarly high for an NV FERT

It feels somewhat exposed to me.

[Cascade]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Jul 9 2007, 08:05 AM'] [quote name='Cascade' date='Jul 8 2007, 10:57 PM'] [quote name='hrothgar' date='Jul 9 2007, 05:30 AM'] [quote name='foo' date='Jul 8 2007, 08:18 PM']

I don't recall seeing any other systems that were quite this ambitious, however, I could (easily) be wrong [/QUOTE]
I am not completely sure what you are saying Richard but I have seen pairs playing 1[sp] Fert not vulnerable and 1[di] Fert vulnerable.

I have even played a system where we played Strong Pass with 1[sp] Fert not vulnerable and Strong 1[cl] with no Fert Vulnerable. In both situations we used transfer openings. [/QUOTE]
Sorry Wayne... I should have been a bit more clear.

When used the word "ambitious" I was referring to the level of the opening bid.

1[sp] is very high for a vulnerable FERT
2[cl] is similarly high for an NV FERT

It feels somewhat exposed to me. [/QUOTE]
I guessed that almost immediately after I posted.

I have seen a 2[cl] Fert too - maybe inspired by Paul Marston but perhaps not.

[the hog]

hrothgar, on Jul 9 2007, 12:30 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 8 2007, 08:18 PM, said:

Hog,

The 1♠ Fert came up in a few discussions with folks who had done statisical work suggesting that the most effective Fert would vary according to vulnerability.
They certainly did not suggest playing it Red!

For what its worth, I'm pretty sure that Marston used to play a variable FERT where

The FERT was 1♠ when Vulnerable
The FERT was 2♣ when Non Vulnerable

I don't recall seeing any other systems that were quite this ambitious, however, I could (easily) be wrong

Marston used to play 1H = 5-8 any and 1S = 0-4 any at ALL vulnerabilities in the first couple of Moscito versions. Wayne a later version did have a 2C bid showing any 5-8; this was played at a world champs, can't remeber which one though.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 7 2007, 05:48 AM, said:

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.

Ummm, No. I have not "backed off" in any sense.

I have clearly stated that I have been told that the evolution for the word "Destructive" in the Bridge sense and its final use can be found in minutes of official meetings of the ACBL C&C commitee, BoD and BoG during the early and mid 1990's. I have also clearly stated that I have been told there are similar records for the WBF. I have not inquired into other local SO's records on this matter.

I have also relayed that I have been told that all of these, while tedious to go through, are in the public domain and available to anyone who wishes to examine them.

I stand by what I have been told and have shared it as it was shared with me.

I have also suggested that other players inquire into this issue on their own with their local SO and the WBF.

What I have not done, and will not do, is dredge through all of the above at any pace other than whatever I wish to. As I have said, I am comfortable with the information I have recieved from the sources I have. My interest in doing all this digging is mild at best. Therefore I will dig at a mild at best pace.
Anyone who wishes to put more intensive effort into the process is free to do so.
I have provided the pointers to do so.

If you want someone to do research on your behalf at a pace you desire, I suggest you pay them for it.

[jtfanclub]

foo, on Jul 8 2007, 11:52 AM, said:

The only way you are beating DD results is if someone makes a mistake.
Yes, defenders blow tricks on opening lead all the time, but Declarers blow tricks also.

OK, now I get it.

I'm playing Bridge. You're playing something else.

If your defense against 1NT is even remotely close to Double Dummy results most of the time, you're either playing against terrible opponents or you're peeking. I don't care how good you are. There is no magic way to get the correct opening lead even half the time against 1NT. The 'proper' opening lead is not normally the correct one. Declarer and defense may very well 'blow tricks', but there's only one blind card where dummy is not visible. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that will ever cancel that out. And that's why I make 1NT over half the time with an 18 count between us (usually 12-6 or 13-5).

But if you honestly think that double dummy results and actual results are the same unless somebody makes a 'mistake', it explains a lot of crazy ideas you have.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

But if you honestly think that double dummy results and actual results are the same unless somebody makes a 'mistake', it explains a lot of crazy ideas you have.

I think this is just a terminology thing. Perhaps better would be to call it a "deviation from double dummy" rather than a "mistake". I don't think it matters whether you use "deviations from double dummy" or "less than optimal single dummy" or whatever you want to term a "bridge error" to evaluate a player's skill so long as you use the same criteria for everyone when you are trying to assess relative skills.

Oh, I would also expect an expert's play to be closer to double dummy than a novice's. (Though I don't have any study to back up that opinion.) So, the % of the time that you make an 18 HCP 1NT contract may vary with the skill of your opponents -- that is if the advantage that declarer has in 1NT is 1/2 a trick in a study of thousands of 1NT contracts, it may really be less than 1/2 a trick with an expect defending and more than 1/2 a trick with a beginner defending.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Jul 9 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

Oh, I would also expect an expert's play to be closer to double dummy than a novice's.

Well, I expect an expert's play to be better than a novice's, yes. And that will show as being 'closer' to double dummy. But that's coincidental...it's also closer to all 13 tricks than a novice's. I don't know that the play will more closely mirror double dummy's, but any alternative methods should be better.

On a 1NT swish auction, I don't know that an expert's lead would be significantly better than 4th (or 3rd/5th) from longest and strongest or top of a sequence. Maybe we can get an expert to comment.

[mycroft]

The only thing I would say about ferts is that I have no problem allowing a suitably charged environment playing anything, including forcing pass, if the fert is 1C.

"But that doesn't put enough pressure on the opponents. Why would anyone want to do that?" is inevitably what I hear.

I can understand the fert being a higher bid to aid in constructive auctions. But that's not the claim to not want a 1C fert that I hear.

If you play any standard system, the opponents get to play their system over a pass. You may not pass often (I play EHAA, so I know whereof I speak), but they get to play their system at least some of the time when not dealer. If you play a 1C fert, then they can play their standard system (with X=1C) and their standard defence to a strong Club when you pass (with 1C=X). They don't have to - but they can.

If you play a fert higher than 1C, then they defend when you pass, they defend when you bid, and they defend when you fert. They get to play their system X% of the half of the time that they deal that they open. That was why Lukasz Slawinski described them as "dominant".

JT is right - I challenge you to get back to par on average after a 1NT opening - no matter what that 1NT opening is - weak, strong, kamikaze, Rosenkranz, 4cM+5+m, or whatever. In fact, I played 1NT 8-~15 balanced in third seat NV playing EHAA, because there was exactly one hand that could have interest in game after that - 10-12 Marmic - and it was worth playing the 3 level when we had it and couldn't big game to play. Now, it never came up, given EHAA's propensity to open, but I think it would be difficult to average par even against that opening. And if that's the case, imagine what it's like trying to get back to par against an EHAA preempt (of course, you get a lot of it back when they preempt their own game or 2M vs 2m - +200 is the death result for EHAA).

However, that's a red herring. The point is that people put more work into their "we bid" system than they do into their "they bid" system - even the FPers. And reasonably so - that's something they can control. They can't control the 100 different systems they're going to have to play against this year. And when a pair gets stuck with "we play your system when you have a good hand and your system when you have a bad hand", they gripe, whether in fact there is an effective defence.

For the world championships, fine. For games qualifying for the world championships, fine. For prestigious games where full disclosure for a suitable length of time is available for building a defence to the system, fine. For random game? Not fine, unless you're weird like me.

Michael.