[straube]

I think there's some consensus that it doesn't pay off to open vulnerable balanced hands with fewer than 11 hcps. What about NV balanced hands? Obviously the lighter one opens, the more hand strengths one has to differentiate...and doing a bad job of this gums up one's game and slam bidding.

We're using an artificial 1D and our 1N rebid is 11-13. For NV, would it pay off to use a 10-bad 13 range and make our 1N good 13-16?

[mike777]

love to open nv bal hands with 4s and ten hcp and not 4333.

sure that means I must rebid 1nt(11-13) or bid 2d after a 1d response(which denies a major unless gf) but can respond 1s after a 1h response.

This can work out pretty good if pard is gf or if pard is very weak and scrapes up a bid over 1c.

Of course pard and the opps need to know you may open lite.

[CSGibson]

There is a hidden downside to opening very light balanced hands - you frequently don't get the bid, and then good player tend to play double dummy since they have your shape & HCP down to a limited range. Or, that was what I found with a 10-12 NV NT. The upsides may compensate (preemptive value, people not having as crisp of agreements over a 1N start, etc), but the downside still exists.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing light openings NV (10-12 1NT, 10 HCP for 1 of a suit) for many years, and I find that the benefits far outweigh the occasional bad result.

The 10-12 1NT opening in particular is a great method for stealing the contract.

[wclass___]

I would much rather open 1N with 11-13 and 1D with 13-16 NV.

[CSGibson]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-21, 11:41, said:

I have been playing light openings NV (10-12 1NT, 10 HCP for 1 of a suit) for many years, and I find that the benefits far outweigh the occasional bad result.

The 10-12 1NT opening in particular is a great method for stealing the contract.

Honest question, not something barbed - have you analyzed how it does specifically against strong opponents, vs your typical results against strong opponents?

I would hypothesize that weak opponents would have a really high positive ev for you using this method vs your typical results vs weak opponents, but that against strong opponents (by which I mean top 2%, the type you'd find in the 2nd day of a nationally rated event) you would find closer to 0 EV difference, and I would love to see if you either had data to dispute/confirm my hypothesis, or at least anecdotal evidence one way or another.

[ArtK78]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-21, 13:25, said:

Honest question, not something barbed - have you analyzed how it does specifically against strong opponents, vs your typical results against strong opponents?

I would hypothesize that weak opponents would have a really high positive ev for you using this method vs your typical results vs weak opponents, but that against strong opponents (by which I mean top 2%, the type you'd find in the 2nd day of a nationally rated event) you would find closer to 0 EV difference, and I would love to see if you either had data to dispute/confirm my hypothesis, or at least anecdotal evidence one way or another.

Is the second day of the Spingold against the 7th seed considered strong opponents?

It was some time ago, but we did play them into overtime, and some of our positive swings were due to our light openings.

[CSGibson]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-21, 13:30, said:

Is the second day of the Spingold against the 7th seed considered strong opponents?

It was some time ago, but we did play them into overtime, and some of our positive swings were due to our light openings.

I recognize that you will have some specific good results. You can also probably think of some specific bad results. I'm looking for whether you have a flavor for overall effectiveness. If you don't, that's ok, I was just curious.

[ArtK78]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-21, 14:18, said:

I recognize that you will have some specific good results. You can also probably think of some specific bad results. I'm looking for whether you have a flavor for overall effectiveness. If you don't, that's ok, I was just curious.

As I said, I have been playing this method for many years with one partner. I like our results.

Some years ago, we were playing in a strong Regional Flight A open pairs (immediately after winning the Wednesday through Saturday Flight A morning KO). Things were not going well (can't say if any of the bad results were due to our methods - these things happen). In the last two rounds of the afternoon session, we scored about 90% of the available matchpoints (and some of these good results were due to the light openings). This brought us up to above average.

During the dinner break, the top 60 scores were listed on a sheet outside of the playing area. Our names were not on that list.

In the evening session, everything we did worked. This included a number of light openings which either worked on their own merits or prompted our opponents (including some very well known ones) to do silly things. The upshot of this was that our evening session score was about 72%, and we won the event by about a full board.

Is this an endorsement for light openings? I think so. I can only say that it is my experience that we gain more from light openings than we lose. And, quite frankly, I find that we get better results against stronger players than against the weaker players. Anything works against the weaker players.

[wclass___]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-21, 13:25, said:

Honest question, not something barbed - have you analyzed how it does specifically against strong opponents, vs your typical results against strong opponents?

I would hypothesize that weak opponents would have a really high positive ev for you using this method vs your typical results vs weak opponents, but that against strong opponents (by which I mean top 2%, the type you'd find in the 2nd day of a nationally rated event) you would find closer to 0 EV difference, and I would love to see if you either had data to dispute/confirm my hypothesis, or at least anecdotal evidence one way or another.

Your hypothesize holds true for all auctions and methods.

There is no magic bidding cure to weak NT's that only top of the top knows.

[CSGibson]

wclass___, on 2012-June-21, 14:35, said:

Your hypothesize holds true for all auctions and methods.

There is no magic bidding cure that only top of the top knows regarding weak NT's.

My assumption is that the top of the top have better agreements dealing with non-standard methods, and better judgment as to when to apply those agreements. Therefore my additional assumption is that a better ev than normal against the top of the top is less because of unfamiliarity, and more because the method itself is superior.

Furthermore, I want to make sure you know that I am not talking about EV in general, but instead EV vs expected EV for playing against top pairs.

Now, it is possible that I am oversimplifying things, or just blatantly wrong in my assumptions. I think the assumptions are sound, though, and I'd like to be able to apply this methodology to any of my own non-standard methods.

[ArtK78]

I can't say that light opening systems are intrinsically superior to standard systems. However, there is certainly a school of thought that it is better to get into an auction early rather than later. It is ususally better to be the first side into an auction, as constructive auctions tend to be more accurate than defensive auctions (i.e., the auction of the pair which did not open the bidding).

[Mbodell]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-21, 14:43, said:

My assumption is that the top of the top have better agreements dealing with non-standard methods, and better judgment as to when to apply those agreements. Therefore my additional assumption is that a better ev than normal against the top of the top is less because of unfamiliarity, and more because the method itself is superior.

Furthermore, I want to make sure you know that I am not talking about EV in general, but instead EV vs expected EV for playing against top pairs.

Now, it is possible that I am oversimplifying things, or just blatantly wrong in my assumptions. I think the assumptions are sound, though, and I'd like to be able to apply this methodology to any of my own non-standard methods.

While I think that you make reasonable points (that some systems will gain more from unfamiliarity than from theoretical soundness, and that bad players may be least well prepared for this), there is also a reasonable chance that against the very best player if you play a style they are familiar with then they have like 10000 times your experience in these situations and they will crush you, but if you instead play something they play against less often they may only have 100 times your experience (or whatever) and that your EV against them will go up. Just because an expert will handle the sorts of judgement calls that they have to make over mini-nt and wide ranging preempts better than a lol doesn't mean they handle it perfectly or as well as they handle "normal" mainstream auctions and situations. Sort of like in Chess if you study a more obscure opening and really focus on learning it, you may have a better EV playing it against a random expert chess player than you would with a normal Ruy Lopez or Sicilian opening.

[rhm]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-21, 14:43, said:

My assumption is that the top of the top have better agreements dealing with non-standard methods, and better judgment as to when to apply those agreements. Therefore my additional assumption is that a better ev than normal against the top of the top is less because of unfamiliarity, and more because the method itself is superior.

Furthermore, I want to make sure you know that I am not talking about EV in general, but instead EV vs expected EV for playing against top pairs.

Now, it is possible that I am oversimplifying things, or just blatantly wrong in my assumptions. I think the assumptions are sound, though, and I'd like to be able to apply this methodology to any of my own non-standard methods.

I wonder what will work against the top of the top? What is the optimal strategy for underdogs? Should underdogs mimic the same methods as played by the top of top?
As far as I know Fred shares your attitude. He believes he gets a lot of inferences not only when you open 1NT (10-12), but also when you pass playing such methods. He considers mini-notrump unsound.
However, suppose you open 1NT(10-12), there must be not infrequent gains when it is too risky for the top of the top to come in, but when that would turn out to be very beneficial to them on the actual deal.
Game swings may be rare, but part-score swings should occur not that seldom.
Or they do take the risk, because it is worthwhile in the long run, but on the actual deal they will incur a sizable penalty.
This gain is certainly biggest if you play such methods white on red, when obstructive methods have more to gain and constructive methods less to loose.
What worries me is that Meckwell playing these methods for many years have given them up.
Frankly I do not really understand why, though I understand all the counterarguments in isolation. One argument for them giving up these methods, was (I think) being themselves top of the top, they had no interest in "randomizing" results.

Rainer Herrmann

[akhare]

I think it's an interesting idea and in fact try and take the experiment one step further, i.e., open 1N NV with 10-13(-) and 1♦ with (13)14-15 bal (among other hands). Of course, this means that the 1♥/1♠ hands in the 14-15 range have to be opened 1M as well.

No doubt, on occasions, it may allow the opponents to make a contract in DD which they will otherwise be hard pressed to bid or make. On the flip side, there's something to be said about forcing the opps to come in one level higher.

Regarding the efficacy of the methods vs. the creme de la creme, I really don't know and one guess one can always find out and adapt after getting there .

[awm]

My feeling is that a two-level preempt does not, by itself, generate good results against good opponents. Yes, you will sometimes win a board by disrupting their auction, but you will also go for an occasional number or help them bid/play a hand double dummy.

What does help against good opponents is higher level preempts. Often they will just double you for a small plus, because it is difficult to guess the right game or slam. So the goal in a low level preempt is to maximize the chance partner can raise. The problem with the 10-12 notrump "preempt" is that it tends to be a low ODR hand, and that it carries just enough values that it will be "our hand" more often than not. This makes it much less suitable for further competition than a one or two-suited bid.

Its not that 10-12 notrump (at NV anyway) is a big loser against good players; its just not a big winner. Usually the damage to the rest of your bidding structure is such that it's not worthwhile.

As for "randomizing" -- this can certainly be good tactics against a superior team. But if you really have a shot to win the event, you can't be the worst team in the field! Randomizing gives you a shot at losing to a much weaker team too, and in a Swiss or round-robin or pairs format where your team is (say) slightly above average this is a real issue. Of course you could try playing different methods against different opponents, but this has its own issues.

[ArtK78]

awm, on 2012-June-22, 10:08, said:

Of course you could try playing different methods against different opponents, but this has its own issues.

I am pretty sure that this is not legal, but I cannot quote chapter and verse.

[dake50]

Theory is backward at IMP.
nv vs VUL and VUL vs VUL they only need a 37.5+% (10::6IMP)to
try their game (maybe up to 40% if double is possible).
Conversely, VUL(nv) vs nv, they just have to make the
right game decision (6::6). Their game payoff is at 45+%.
Thus, if your system guards against too high VUL,
opponents have a tougher game decision: 45%::38%.
VUL light @IMP makes more sense. Just guard against too high.
Little swings of -200 against -140 are acceptable. Win those
-200 against -420/-620 game decisions.
Especially against 1NT, THEY nv Is in it to win it. -90,+50,+100
all swing goodly for them - get in there. They VUL has the option
to defend for +200 - a much dearer decision.

[straube]

How light do Meckwell open for NV balanced hands?

Adam, how light do you open? Our openings are similar.

[awm]

My openings for balanced hands have gotten sounder. At this point I open about half of balanced 11s and no balanced 10s. Unbalanced hands are aa different story.