[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

That's the whole point. The pros !don't! open "real trash".

Even if "light " on HCP, they tend strongly to have hands with good ODR and 2 defensive tricks and a reasonable rebid.

I agree with you 100% that there is a difference between an opening that has less than 10 HCP and a light opening, let alone 11 or 12 HCP hands.

That being said, I respectfully disagree that the "pros" are not opening utter garbage these days. I have seen many on vugraph from major events. Not all are, but many are.

And, I would suggest that a qualification of a good ODR and two defensive tricks is by most people's definition a "light" opening. Sound openings express an expectation of 2 1/2 quicks, not "two defensive tricks," which is substantially and materially less. The term "good ODR" is simply a way of burying in Segalian terms a low losing trick count and an unexpectedly high control count.

The addition of a "reasonable rebid" gains something, but little really. What you are really saying, it seems, is that Hrothgar is right that light openings are bad, for many reasons, and that pros do not make light openings because they must have precisely the right hand for a light opening, with which they will make a light opening, which is a good idea.

Damn policitians. What have they done to us?

[foo]

IME, "defensive tricks" AKA "honor tricks" AKA "quick tricks".
Their definitions are the same in any book I've seen:
AK= 2, AQ= 1.5, AJ= 1.25, A= 1, KQ= 1, KJ= .75, Kx= .5

Other than Roth-Stone's 14 HCP and 2+ Quicks requirements, what system have you seen that requires more than 2 Quicks for a sound opening bid?

What I'm saying is that HCP are a p*ss poor way of evaluating what a minimum Opening is. Even if I don't take it to the extreme of the Karen McCallum's of the world.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 10:47 PM, said:

IME, "defensive tricks" AKA "honor tricks" AKA "quick tricks".
Their definitions are the same in any book I've seen:
AK= 2, AQ= 1.5, AJ= 1.25, A= 1, KQ= 1, KJ= .75, Kx= .5

Other than Roth-Stone's 14 HCP or 2 1/2+ Quicks requirements, what system have you seen that requires more than 2 Quicks for a sound opening bid?

Culbertson is all the rage. Both the Blue Book version and the modern Gold Book version.

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jun 25 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 10:47 PM, said:

IME, "defensive tricks" AKA "honor tricks" AKA "quick tricks".
Their definitions are the same in any book I've seen:
AK= 2, AQ= 1.5, AJ= 1.25, A= 1, KQ= 1, KJ= .75, Kx= .5

Other than Roth-Stone's 14 HCP or 2 1/2+ Quicks requirements, what system have you seen that requires more than 2 Quicks for a sound opening bid?

Culbertson is all the rage. Both the Blue Book version and the modern Gold Book version.

...if you call ~1938 "modern"

In all seriousness, the "physics" of the cards doesn't change. Simply our understanding of them. From time immemorial until eternity bridge will be "The game of A's and K's".

No matter what happens, reasonable 4M or 3N games light on HCP are going to require ~7+ controls, low loser counts, and well fitting hands.

Thus you should not open "light" on HCP unless the odds are good that such a situation might exist.
...and that deductively leads to the ODR and loser count stuff.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 10:55 PM, said:

...you should not open "light" on HCP unless the odds are good that such a situation might exist.

OK. So, we are getting closer now. Keep coming, little bird.

Your argument has been fine-tuned to a conclusion that one should not open on a "light" hand unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the combination of your two defensive tricks, high ODR, and reasonable rebid with partner's completely unknown hand will yield a better than 50-50 chance of having a minimum of about seven combined controls, a low loser count, and well-fitting hands when you will end up in game because of a possible 2/1 GF call by partner on his unknown hand.

Do you notice the wild pimple in the middle of that sentence? How precisely does one look at his hand to gauge whether a hypothetical hand deemed by partner as gameworthy will in fact combine with this specific hand to produce this result?

Again, this sounds quite erudite.

Why not simply admit that you like light openings with hands that intelligent people would open light? You sound so silly arguing in favor of sound openings while describing and endorsing the theory of light openings perfectly.

[foo]

Because I =don't= open light. I =despise= the Rule of 20 (unless my opponents are using it )

Playing "natural" systems,
I =routinely= pass 8-9 loser 4333's with as many as 14 HCP unless I am playing 1N= 12-14 or they are control rich. Same goes for many 8-9 loser 4432's and 5m332's.

In 1st or 2nd, I =always= have my 2 defensive tricks when I open at the 1 level.
When I have less than "traditional" opening values, I have 6- losers rather than 7-.

Even in 3rd with 2way Reverse Drury as a "safety net" I do not open trash.
At the bare minimum, I have a Major suit I want pd to lead above all others.

In sum, I have a definition of "proper" opening that has far more kinship with "sound" than "light" because it is based on having considerably more assets than the the theoretical "average" hand which is a balanced or semi-balanced ~10 HCP.

What I !don't! do is "bow down before the holy writ of HCP". HCP are good to get novices playing reasonably. They are not what advanced or expert Bridge is about.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 11:20 PM, said:

Because I =don't= open light.

Just out of curiosity, what would be your typical minimum hand for a 1♦ overcall of 1♣? How about a 2♣ overcall of a 1♠ opening? How about a 1♠ overcall of a 1♦ opening? Does vulnerability matter?

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jun 25 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 11:20 PM, said:

Because I =don't= open light.

Just out of curiosity, what would be your typical minimum hand for a 1♦ overcall of 1♣? How about a 2♣ overcall of a 1♠ opening? How about a 1♠ overcall of a 1♦ opening? Does vulnerability matter?

In general, Direct Overcalls are 7-5 loser hands with decent shape and values.
=Particularly= in front of pd.
...and yes, vulnerability matters. So do conditions of contest and state of the match.

(1♣)-1♦ is usually a =solid= overcall. I may very well have the best hand at the table. Particularly if I do not have Major suit length, 6-4 losers and at least a Strong NT in terms of trick taking strength is not unusual.
(in contrast (1♣)-2♦ is very wide ranging)

The general theory of "how much space has been consumed and how much more will you consume with your overcall" definitely matters.

(1♣)-1♠ or (1♦)-2♣ or (1♥)-2♦ or (1♠)-2♥ can often be 6-8 losers even if pd is an unpassed hand. (We have agreements as to when it isn't.)

[kenrexford]

Interesting. I admittedly was suspecting a different answer.

I find myself somewhat sound to old-fashioned (maybe that's the word) standards when it comes to overcalls, wildly aggressive as to weak jump overcalls (when not unfavorable), and light openings. Meaning, for example, that there are hands that I might open but would consider too weak for a one-level overcall.

I expected you to have a converse theory, namely hyper-sound openings and relaxed overcalls, but you seem to just not bid much, except perhaps late.

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jun 25 2007, 11:53 PM, said:

Interesting. I admittedly was suspecting a different answer.

I find myself somewhat sound to old-fashioned (maybe that's the word) standards when it comes to overcalls, wildly aggressive as to weak jump overcalls (when not unfavorable), and light openings. Meaning, for example, that there are hands that I might open but would consider too weak for a one-level overcall.

I expected you to have a converse theory, namely hyper-sound openings and relaxed overcalls, but you seem to just not bid much, except perhaps late.

Oh no. I bid quite a lot according to everyone who plays with me.

When We bid, I want to be as close to Absolute Par in as few bids as possible on every board. In contested auctions, I want Them to be taking the Last Guess.

If my hand says that the most likely way to get a good score on this board is to defend, I'm as quiet as a church mouse unless or until pd gets me in the auction or They make a mistake- at which point They start getting hit with penalty X's.

My openings are =far= from hyper sound from the POV of HCP most of the time.
I simply believe in shape, controls, and sources of tricks more than most advocates of "light initial action".

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 26 2007, 05:33 AM, said:

That edge you are talking about only holds if We buy the hand in a reasonable spot. Else it helps =Them=.

If We open real trash, We =will= get X'd more frequently and more successfully. Or help Declarer. Or end in the wrong level. Or end up taking more phantom saves. etc.

Simply put, Hrothgar is correct.

I feel obliged to point out that I prefer to open on complete trash...

While I am highly critical of light openings within the context of a 2/1 GF system, I very much believe that opening light is the way to go. Given the choice, I'd be playing a strong pass system. In these benighted times, I am forced to play Strong Club. I can't (safely) open as light as I might like, but I can open on crap while not getting screwed over by my own response structure.

From my perspective, most of the "pros" continue to relax their requirements for an opening bid. Lots of stuff is getting opened today that would have been passed 10 years back. I think that this process is being artificially retarded in North America by system regulations. Players aren't allowed to use any of the constructive response structures that are necessary to support a 9 - 14 HCP opening range.

[ArcLight]

>Players aren't allowed to use any of the constructive response structures that are necessary to support a 9 - 14 HCP opening range.


Good.

I don't enoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play. Many of you are really into bidding systems, yet you are not competent card players (neither am I yet )
Many of you can't draw inferences. I would much rather play with/against great players where we all use a simpler system that is not destructive/obstructive.
Playing "your idea" of bridge doesn't appeal to me. I don't enjoy playing against "junk" bids where sometimes we get screwed (missing out on a game) and sometimes we set the opps for 1400.

I play a game that I find interesting (as do you). Your idea of interesting is not necessarily the same as others (and neither is mine everyones cup of tea)

[foo]

I'm firmly with Arclight on this. IMHO Bridge should be as much as possible a game of skill and logic and as little as possible a game of luck and random circumstance. Some methods introduce such a large random component to the game that it is effectively no longer Bridge because bridge skills and logic are no longer the primary determining factor of who wins.
I'm perfectly willing to agree "that other game" might be fun at times. It just shouldn't be called or confused with Bridge.


I also find it hard to believe that Hrothgar opens =all= 9-14 HCP hands.
Does he open all 4333's, 4432's, and 5m332's with 9-12 HCP? Even those not containing any A's or K's? At all vulnerabilities? At both IMPs and MPs?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that even within the context of a 9-14 HCP range, issues of shape, controls, losers, and suit texture are very carefully thought through by Hrothgar.

The point being that no matter what HCP range we talk about, the HCP are not gospel. They are =at best= a guideline.

(For that matter, even the choice of a 9-14 HCP as opposed to say a 7-12 HCP range for most openings is one based on utility rather than frequency given that the 7-12 HCP range is more frequent than the 9-14 HCP range is. But games and slams are going to be more frequently found opposite 9-14 vs 7-12. Evidently, even for Hrothgar frequency is not all that matters.)

Any conversation about opening "sound" or "light" is fatally flawed if it focuses solely or even primarily on HCP. Ditto any bidding methods that concentrate solely on frequency w/o taking into account issues of usefulness AKA utility.

Bridge is not about taking HCP. It's about taking tricks. In particular, even at MPs, bidding good games and slams and staying out of bad ones is a big part of how well you score.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 26 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

I also find it hard to believe that Hrothgar opens =all= 9-14 HCP hands.

Does he open all 4333's, 4432's, and 5m332's with 9-12 HCP not containing any A's or K's?  At all vulnerabilities?  At both IMPs and MPs?

9 - 14 HCP is a placeholder for a much more complicated set of evaluation metrics. Its a close enough approximation for the discussions that we are having here.

Its pretty pointless to discuss opening tendencies outside the context of a specific bidding system. Case in point, MOSCITO has a fairly complex rule set regarding the minimum strength for a constructive 1 level opening.

1. If I hold a balanced hand or a three suited pattern, I normally require a good 11 count to open.

2. If I hold an unbalanced hand, I open most nine counts and many eight counts.

Left to my own devices, I would prefer to play a Weak Opening System. In this case, I would most certainly be opening balanced 8 counts with a "constructive" opening.

[mike777]

:Bridge is not about taking HCP. It's about taking tricks."

That is the whole debate, many say bridge is about winning, not taking tricks. Yes they would argue you can not take tricks or you can even lose tricks but win.


IMHO this is the whole debate. Is bridge about just taking tricks or bidding good games or slams? Many so no, it is much more than that, others disagree.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I'm firmly with Arclight on this. IMHO Bridge should be as much as possible a game of skill and logic and as little as possible a game of luck and random circumstance. Some methods introduce such a large random component to the game that it is effectively no longer Bridge because bridge skills and logic are no longer the primary determining factor of who wins.

This is absolute nonsense, and misses the point.

Peter

[foo]

mike777, on Jun 26 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

:Bridge is not about taking HCP. It's about taking tricks."

That is the whole debate, many say bridge is about winning, not taking tricks. Yes they would argue you can not take tricks or you can even lose tricks but win.


IMHO this is the whole debate. Is bridge about just taking tricks or bidding good games or slams? Many so no, it is much more than that, others disagree.

Let's keep all my comments in context please. I was quite explicit that bridge skills and logic were the things that I felt should determine who scores better.

Issues involving constructive bidding are =part= of those skills. So are issues involving competitive bidding- =if= the "playing field" is kept level enough that skill and logic still matter most.

Either kind of auction leads to deductions and percentage actions based on the tricks to be won or lost. Again, if and only if the methods involved allow for a chance at equity to exist.

Some methods effectively turn Bridge into something akin to roulette because they remove too much of the element of bridge skill and logic. =That's= my objection.

I have no objection to the testing of bridge skills and logic within the context of competitive auctions where both sides have a reasonable chance at equity.

[foo]

pbleighton, on Jun 26 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

Quote

I'm firmly with Arclight on this. IMHO Bridge should be as much as possible a game of skill and logic and as little as possible a game of luck and random circumstance. Some methods introduce such a large random component to the game that it is effectively no longer Bridge because bridge skills and logic are no longer the primary determining factor of who wins.

This is absolute nonsense, and misses the point.

Peter

Perhaps for you it is nonsense. For me, it is the crux of this particular issue.

Bridge is inherently a game of imperfect information. There will always be some element of chance to it. It's supposed to be there. Even if we could remove it, I would not advocate nor support such a position. For then Bridge would no longer be Bridge but something akin to Chess.

OTOH, IMHO the random element of Bridge is a minor theme. Bridge requires levels of concentration, logic, and skill that no other card game does to play it at its finest. =That's= what makes Bridge the game it is. Those are the major theme.

Changing the playing conditions so that Bridge is more of a crap shoot and less a contest of skill devalues those major themes and elevates the randomness element from its proper place to an inappropriate importance greater than the major themes of concentration, logic, and skill.

At that point, you may still have a fun game; but it is no longer Bridge. For increasing the randomness element past a certain point changes the fundamental emphasis of what is going on ATT.

[sheepman]

huh?

Surely pre-empts add a random element to the game?

They give you hard decisions, do they make it a crap shoot? At the highest level everyone has impeccable judgement and can pull off double criss cross squeezes routinely. So the way to win is to put pressure on your opponents and give them more decisions, sure they'll get a lot right but if you give them enough, more than you have to make, they'll eventually get some wrong.

Basically top class bridge is a crap shoot.

I ♥ your logic.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Changing the playing conditions so that Bridge is more of a crap shoot and less a contest of skill devalues those major themes and elevates the randomness element from its proper place to an inappropriate importance greater than the major themes of concentration, logic, and skill.

At that point, you may still have a fun game; but it is no longer Bridge.

You really don't understand the systems you are critiquing, so let me explain, using the example of an aggressive strong club system, where the one club opening shows 15+, most 10 counts and many 9 counts are opened constructively, plus some preemptive hands. Contrast this to a conservative standard approach, where 13 counts and many 12 counts are opened, plus some preemptive hands.

Both systems have a call for all hands. The first system will use the call Pass for roughly 40%-45% of hands. Pass then shows a bad 10 points or less. The second system will use the call Pass for roughly 65%-70% of hands. Pass then shows an average 12 points or less.

Most hands not passed in the first system are in bids which have a range of 7 hcp or less. Most hands not passed in the second system are in bids which have a range of ~10 hcp.

The first system thus has calls, including Pass, which have a much better definition of playing strength compared to the second system. If anything, it is more constructive than the first system.

Its major disadvantage in a *standard* field is that it's strong hands are subject to effective destructive bidding by the *standard* pairs. It is not *more of a crap shoot* than standard methods. It's just a different crap shot.

I freely admit that these systems do tend to intimidate certain weak players (such as yourself) who dislike unfamiliar bidding systems, because of their insecurity about their bidding judgment. But please, have faith in yourself, if you open up your mind you may become a good bidder and player, and you won't have such paranoid delusions about light opening systems.

Peter