[Chamaco]

Jlall, on May 26 2005, 01:58 PM, said:

This is all style of course but I think mainstream 3S openers do not include those hands, and we should probably aim at mainstream.

Ok, Justin.

I think of course it's a matter of style, but I wonder whether opening 3M with a 64 is mainstream :-)

Here in Italy I see a lot of people opening 3M with 6331 with, say AKJTxx, and much less people doing it with 64.

So I'll rerun the simulation changing the constraint so that a 6 bagger preempt is 6331, but I won't include 64 hands :-)

[luis]

If we are NV I'm happy to pass, I think I will have a hard time trying to do something with my 5 spades in a 4h contract. If pd has short spades he may reopen, in the worst scenario I can miss a non vulnerable game.

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on May 26 2005, 02:21 PM, said:

AKJTxx x xxxx xx
AKJTxx x xxx xxx

The first one is clearly a better hand with more playing strength. I don't understand why you would open a hand with LESS playing strength 3S, and more 2S (I would open both 2S btw). But the point remains 6-4-2-1 is obviously a better hand than 6-3-3-1, if you are willing to open the second one 3S then why not the first?

I've been taught weak 2 and weak 3 show only ONE place to play.

Actually, in "Preempts from A to Z" by Andersen-Zenkel, a side 4 bagger is mentioned as a serious flaw for opening a weak 2 or weak 3.

But I am no expert, so I'll just mention the authors.

[flytoox]

Mauro, it seems your simulation supports to bid 4H, right?

[Chamaco]

flytoox, on May 26 2005, 02:35 PM, said:

Mauro, it seems your simulation supports to bid 4H, right?

I am not sure

I mean, the simulation does support that 4H is usually the best spot, but it is not clear whether - if we bid immediately 4H - we can stop in 4H without North getting excited...

I mean, when south bids immediately 4H, it seems that many times North will not sit for 4H and will go looking for a hopeless slam.

In many hands, it seems to me that if south passes, nort will make a 2-suited call bypassing 4H, and south will offer a signoff in 5H.

So there are 2 different risks in the 2 scenarios:

a. south bids 4H, north assumes he is stronger and keeps bidding
b. south passes, nort looks for the minors and we end in 5H instead of 4H

I personally prefer the "pass first" scenario, at least when north is weak we do not go for a telephone number (e.g. herts stached in west's hand and we lose control with ♦ ruffs).

If pard has a little something, h'll certainly reopen, given his marked spades shortness; if he doubles, I will probably bid 4H rather than penalty pass.

But, I'd like feedback from the BB Gurus here :-)

[Fluffy]

Better than posting all the boards wich I can't take a look at is to post only the results IMO.

Justin, as far as I know you weren't sitting East, the fact you wouldn't open some of those hands at the 3 level doesn't mean other wouldn't, in fact it only means the % of it happening is less than others, and those boards should be taken as half a case or 2/3 a case, dunno, something like that.

[Chamaco]

Fluffy, on May 26 2005, 02:47 PM, said:

Better than posting all the boards wich I can't take a look at is to post only the results IMO.

Gonzalo, in a way you are right but consider the following:

1) I am not an expert so you would not be able to trust my analysis

2) RELATED TO POINT 1- being a "scientist" (well, sort of... LOL), I believe in showing the raw data besides their interpretation: your interpretation may be different from the one given by the analyst.
For instance, showing the first dataset (now substituted) allowe Justin to comment about the 6322 hands, so that I was able to rerun the simulation changing the criteria.
Had I only posted the results, that would not have been possible.

==========================

Bottomline: displaying the whole dataset is a bit "chunky" , but, IMO, more honest from the intellectual viewpoint.

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on May 26 2005, 03:15 PM, said:

I guess I am out of touch with mainstream if these 6322 hands are standard 3 bids now.

I have rerun the simulations, no 6322 anymore, only 6331 with good suit :-)

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on May 26 2005, 03:26 PM, said:

Sorry to be a pest, not trying to be contrary but I thought you said requirements were <10 HCP. Some of them are 10 HCP and have opening bids (or maybe 4S?) such as AKJTxxx Qxx xx x. Surely this is not a 3S bid as well as AKJxxx x xxx xxx? Perhaps this is hard to quantify since honor location is pretty important. How do you tell it AKJTxxx xxx xx Q is a 3S bid but AKJTxxx Qxx xx x is not? heh

Yes I had modified to < 11 hcp in the second run.

I can control honors location in the simulations and I can rerun again the simulation if you and other posters consider it's better to do so :-)

However, I think that allowing for some "imperfect preempts" to be included in the simulation is - in a way- more realistic.

In real life we meet all the time opps that preempt on occasion with hands close to 1M opening, on others on hands close to a 4M opening, and most of the times we do not know which style they use until the hand is over.

I am sure Justin you have played several times vs opps - even good opps - that would not bid the way you would, and I think that's the beauty of bridge. :-)

So, I argue that, even if some part of the simulated hands are not 100% model preempts, well, that approaches more real life, no ? :-)

[Antoine Fourrière]

In my book, a 3♠ opening is mandatory with about 5-9 HCP (not two aces) and seven cards or six cards and a five-card minor. If there are seven spades, their quality is indifferent, because the opponents should not be very long in that suit. With a six-five, KJ9xxx would certainly qualify. A six-four (even with hearts) is also permissible (except at unfavorable), but then, and only then, the spades must be very good. A void never hurts, except sometimes in the post-mortem.
($0.02)

Anyway, I would bid 4♥.

[Fluffy]

There are some 6322 I would open 3♠ nobody vulnerable, but withou the ♠Q I guess only AKJ10xx is possible. And its debatable.

[Cascade]

Chamaco, on May 27 2005, 03:34 AM, said:

However, I think that allowing for some "imperfect preempts" to be included in the simulation is - in a way- more realistic.

The trouble with doing this in a simulation is that the imperfections in the simulation are unlikely to match the imperfections from real life. This will introduce a bias in the results. It is not clear that this bias will be significant but neither is it clear that it will be not significant.

[Fluffy]

So.. what did you bid Wayne?

[Cascade]

I didn't have the hand nor was I at the table.

I think I would bid 4♥.

The person who gave me the problem passed and her partner bid 4NT.

Unfortunately I do no know the rest of the details for the table. It occurred in a Chicago game so there were not other players facing similar problems.

[hrothgar]

Couple quick comments:

First:

I've seen the expression "don't preempt over a preempt" a couple times.
As I learned things, this expression is definitional and describes the meaning over a jump shift over the opponent's preemptive openings. For example:

The auction (2♥) - 3♠ shows a strong hand with Spades.
In this case we're debating the virtues of a simple overcall.
Admitted, this hand doesn't have many HCP, however, it has great shape and a lot of playing strength.

Second:

I think that we are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...
If we declare a ♥ contract, parnter needs to be able to do something with all the Spades. If partner tries to suggest a two suited hand we don't have much to offer him.

Third:

We know that partner is short in Hearts. He is going to balanced aggressively. He very likely has a 1-2-5-5 shape or some some such. If partner choses to balance, he is likely to do so with 4♠ rather than double. Unfortunately, as I play, 4♥ would be a paradox advance... While this hand demonstrates that there are some hands that would like to pass 3♠ yet still insist in 5♥ rather than 5m, I'm not designing a bidding system to cater to this eventuality.

I'm bidding 4♥. This could go terribly wrong, but at least we'll be at the 4 level rather than iin 5m...