[manudude03]

Whenever you do update it, you really need to be careful how you disclose it. What I was saying earlier is if you are planning on jump shifting or having strong NT rebids, then your 1x openers are not limited to 17HCP, they're unlimited.

Kinda like how polish club players don't put 12-14 or whatever for their 1C range (even though that is their most common hand type).

[fazzzoola]

manudude03, on 2011-March-19, 16:04, said:

Whenever you do update it, you really need to be careful how you disclose it. What I was saying earlier is if you are planning on jump shifting or having strong NT rebids, then your 1x openers are not limited to 17HCP, they're unlimited.

Kinda like how polish club players don't put 12-14 or whatever for their 1C range (even though that is their most common hand type).

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

OK, web site has been updated, but only up to opening bids page. It'll take a good many hours to work on the rest - LOL.

I hadn't considered the limit factor. I agree. I will keep only the minimums of each range.

THANK YOU.

[Vampyr]

fazzzoola, I realise that you have not found any of my comments particularly useful, so I will make just one more and then leave you alone.

I think you might want to seriously reconsider your under-utilising of the 1NT opening bid. It is far too valuable a bid to waste as a control-showing device.

A natural, non-forcing 1NT opener with a narrow, specified point range is one of the most important weapons in any bridge player's arsenal. The bid is preemptive and highly descriptive; also, very effective responses and followups to it can be devised. I do not know of any expert pair who do not play their 1NT openers this way.

The desirability of opening 1NT early and often is the principal reason that 16-18 has been universally supplanted by 15-17 as the optimum range for a strong NT.

I know that a change like this would make your system more like a standard system, which is the last thing you want. Presumably, though, you are not asking for advice because you want a system that is just for laughs, rather you would like to make it more effective. I think that this is one way to do that.

[fazzzoola]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-20, 13:00, said:

fazzzoola, I realise that you have not found any of my comments particularly useful, so I will make just one more and then leave you alone.

I think you might want to seriously reconsider your under-utilising of the 1NT opening bid. It is far too valuable a bid to waste as a control-showing device.

A natural, non-forcing 1NT opener with a narrow, specified point range is one of the most important weapons in any bridge player's arsenal. The bid is preemptive and highly descriptive; also, very effective responses and followups to it can be devised. I do not know of any expert pair who do not play their 1NT openers this way.

The desirability of opening 1NT early and often is the principal reason that 16-18 has been universally supplanted by 15-17 as the optimum range for a strong NT.

I know that a change like this would make your system more like a standard system, which is the last thing you want. Presumably, though, you are not asking for advice because you want a system that is just for laughs, rather you would like to make it more effective. I think that this is one way to do that.

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

Wow... OK, first things first:

1. I am not trying to put together this system just for the fun of it. A five year time investment should be sufficient evidence to that. Not being an expert, I doubt that I am building a better mousetrap. I merely hope that I am building a more interesting one as well as an effective one. In actuality, I am trying to put together something that can be very useful for beginners and intermediates, and easily adjustable for expert level usage.

2. I have found your comments and those of others rather pointed and useful! My willingness to alter things should be seen as my being willing to listen. (I am learning things, for sure!)

3. As to my seriousness, my willingness to accept most comments, and my appreciation for every one's time and efforts, I have come up with a new idea. Ready?


A. A weak NT opening, 12+ HCP. (12-15 hcp?)
Opener has no 5+ suit. This bid may be forcing for one round. (I'm figuring that if the opponents interfere, then it's quite likely that opener and responder do not have a competitive set of hands.)

Odds of randomly getting:
4-4-4-1 distribution = 3.0%,
4-4-3-2 distribution = 21.5%,
4-3-3-3 distribution = 10.5%. (35.1% of all hands.)

B. 1C, 1D, 1H, and 1S opening bids, 12+ points.
These bids indicate that opener has at least one 5+ card suit and probably one other 4/5 card suit. This bid is forcing for one round. (Rebidding the same suit, or bidding NT next, indicates a single 5 card suit, i.e. 5-3-3-2 distribution. Bidding clubs next indicates 4+/4+ in the minors.)

Odds of randomly getting:
5-3-3-2 distribution = 15.5%,
5-5-x-x distribution = 4.1%,
5-4-2-2 distribution = 10.6%,
5-4-3-1 distribution = 12.9%,
5-4-4-0 distribution = 1.2%; (44.3% of all hands.)

C. 2C, 2D, 2H, 2S, 12+ points, 6 card suit.
This bid indicates a 6 card suit with a good chance of having a good 4 card side suit as well. This bid is forcing for one round if responder has 9+ points.

Odds of randomly getting:
6-3-x-x distribution = 9.1%,
6-4-x-x distribution = 6.0%,
6-5-x-x distribution = 1.4%,
6-6-1-0 distribution = 0.1%, (16.6% of all hands.)

D. 2NT, 16+ hcp.
STRONG opening hand which guarantees 5+ of the top 8 cards (aces and kings) - and even distribution (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2). With a 5+ card suit, opener should use a 1 or 2 level bid and then bid 1 or 2 NT, or use a jump bid of some kind.

E. 3C, 3D, 3H, 3S, 11+ points
When opener has one 7+ card suit, showing 11+ total points and a highly distributional hand. These bids are about the same or slightly stronger than the conventional preemptive 3 level opening bids.

F. 4C, 4D, 4H,4S, 7+ card suit, 18+ points, 7+ hcp in honors.
When opener has a 7+ suit, at least 7 HCP in honors, and a singleton or a void. These bids describe highly distributed hands.

Odds of randomly getting:
7-x-x-x distribution = 3.5%,
8-x-x-x distribution = 0.5%. (4.0% of all hands.)

I have been wrestling with the artificial club and can't find a comfortable solution. Perhaps this one might work? It is not on the web site. I'm holding back before making any more changes.

So, what do you think?

[matmat]

I think I might like LIO better than this, although both systems appear to be slaves to the milton work count...

fazzzoola, on 2011-March-20, 23:48, said:

A. A weak NT opening, 12+ HCP. (12-15 hcp?)
Opener has no 5+ suit. This bid may be forcing for one round. (I'm figuring that if the opponents interfere, then it's quite likely that opener and responder do not have a competitive set of hands.)

Odds of randomly getting:
4-4-4-1 distribution = 3.0%,
4-4-3-2 distribution = 21.5%,
4-3-3-3 distribution = 10.5%. (35.1% of all hands.)

Your assumption about opponents interference implying that you do not have a competitive set of hands is a very poor one. Opponents who are familiar with your system and with this "assumption" will strive to interfere early and often. Even if they interfere on decent hands, you might still have game. Also, a ton of imps is lost on part-score battles; whereas opening a weak NT will be somewhat preemptive, not competing after their overcalls might leave you poorly placed.

If you are hoping to play this in ACBL land you have to be carful about your NT range (which is limited to a 5 pt range), otherwise you forfeit the ability to play conventional responses (stayman, transfer, etc.). In that case if you got dealt something like KQJ KQJ KQJ KQJx, you either don't have an opening bid in your system for it, or you don't have good followups to 1nt.

Quote

B. 1C, 1D, 1H, and 1S opening bids, 12+ points.
These bids indicate that opener has at least one 5+ card suit and probably one other 4/5 card suit. This bid is forcing for one round. (Rebidding the same suit, or bidding NT next, indicates a single 5 card suit, i.e. 5-3-3-2 distribution. Bidding clubs next indicates 4+/4+ in the minors.)

Odds of randomly getting:
5-3-3-2 distribution = 15.5%,
5-5-x-x distribution = 4.1%,
5-4-2-2 distribution = 10.6%,
5-4-3-1 distribution = 12.9%,
5-4-4-0 distribution = 1.2%; (44.3% of all hands.)

Do you open the lower ranking of your 5/4 suits? Is p's 1nt response forcing? how about 1 of a suit? Quoting percentages, distributions is all very nice, but its useless unless you have some thought-out follow-ups. so your auction of 1M-1N; 2c shows (50)44... you have a single, common, low level sequence for something like 0.2% of all hands (5=0=4=4, 0=5=4=4), with all the other two-suited hands with secondary clubs unresolved?

Quote

C. 2C, 2D, 2H, 2S, 12+ points, 6 card suit.
This bid indicates a 6 card suit with a good chance of having a good 4 card side suit as well. This bid is forcing for one round if responder has 9+ points.

Odds of randomly getting:
6-3-x-x distribution = 9.1%,
6-4-x-x distribution = 6.0%,
6-5-x-x distribution = 1.4%,
6-6-1-0 distribution = 0.1%, (16.6% of all hands.)

what does "this bid is forcing for one round if responder has 9+ points" mean, exactly? Do I always pass with an 8 count? This is sort of ridiculous. you are going to miss a ton of games, especially in your second suit (if you have one), and especially if you have extras beyond your 12 count. This is close to unplayable.

Quote

D. 2NT, 16+ hcp.
STRONG opening hand which guarantees 5+ of the top 8 cards (aces and kings) - and even distribution (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2). With a 5+ card suit, opener should use a 1 or 2 level bid and then bid 1 or 2 NT, or use a jump bid of some kind.

Nothing quite like playing 2NT with AK Kxxx Kxxx Kxx opposite a passed partner, or a yarborough when the rest of the field is a trick lower.

Quote

E. 3C, 3D, 3H, 3S, 11+ points
When opener has one 7+ card suit, showing 11+ total points and a highly distributional hand. These bids are about the same or slightly stronger than the conventional preemptive 3 level opening bids.

P will have no idea when to raise and when to pass. You will be shooting yourself in the foot more often than preempting opps.

Quote

F. 4C, 4D, 4H,4S, 7+ card suit, 18+ points, 7+ hcp in honors.
When opener has a 7+ suit, at least 7 HCP in honors, and a singleton or a void. These bids describe highly distributed hands.

Odds of randomly getting:
7-x-x-x distribution = 3.5%,
8-x-x-x distribution = 0.5%. (4.0% of all hands.)

errr... you are using percentages for randomly dealt hands while constraining the hcp and distribution on the x's. are you sure you got your numbers right?
do you not have any quality constraints on the suit? do you really open A xxxxxxx Kx xxx 4H? do you really consider 7-3-2-1 highly distributed?

Quote

I have been wrestling with the artificial club and can't find a comfortable solution. Perhaps this one might work? It is not on the web site. I'm holding back before making any more changes.

So, what do you think?

I think you should stop trying to build a better mousetrap until you've done some market research and purchased the appropriate cheese. I think you should stop "wrestling" with artificial club systems, and maybe read some literature about them, and try to actually play them. I think you should try to debug your own system for a while before asking others to do so. I think you should decide what jurisdiction your system is aimed at, and make sure you understand the restrictions that this choice places on it.

There is at least one (likely more) books on system design, there are a plethora of systems with descriptions out there for you to look at, there are tons of posts about systems on the forums (natural, artificial etc. etc. etc.)

[Vampyr]

You are definitely open to ideas; I was just saying that in your revisions you have not really taken up mine. I figured that my thoughts didn't really match what you were looking for. But it is true that any discussion has value, even if there is little agreement! Anyway, here are my general thoughts in response to your last message:

Your 1♣ opening has generally been Polish-style, and there is no reason not to keep it that way. Natural clubs, or weak NT, or strong. Then you can play a strong NT, and can put a lot of your 5-3-3-2 hands in 1♣->1NT or 1NT openings. If you intend to do this all the time, you might want to play some form of 5-card Stayman. This way you will not have to open 1♦♥♠ without a 2-suiter. Obviously there is a downside to not showing your one long suit when opening the bidding, but sometims it will work in your favour or you will get the chance to find a fit later. The thing is, I think that if the structure of your responses and rebids over suit opening bids is designed around 2-suited hands, you can't really have them sometimes and sometimes not. You might as well play standard methods.

So, the above is a way to keep 2-suited opening 1-bids without excessively (though some may disagree?) overloading 1♣ -- by having the 1NT bid take up some of the burden. (obviously switching from 5=5 to 5-4 helps as well.)

I don't quite understand C above; why is there a good chance of a second suit? What would the opening bid be without one?

If you do this, your 1♣ will be forcing, but not your other one-of-a suit openings.

You might want to start a new thread and see if anyone familiar with canape can outline the basic methods used after a one-of-a-suit opening that could be canape, so that you can open the higher of two suits with 5-4, which I think is what you want.

[fazzzoola]

matmat, on 2011-March-21, 02:19, said:

I think I might like LIO better than this, although both systems appear to be slaves to the milton work count...


Your assumption about opponents interference implying that you do not have a competitive set of hands is a very poor one. Opponents who are familiar with your system and with this "assumption" will strive to interfere early and often. Even if they interfere on decent hands, you might still have game. Also, a ton of imps is lost on part-score battles; whereas opening a weak NT will be somewhat preemptive, not competing after their overcalls might leave you poorly placed.

If you are hoping to play this in ACBL land you have to be carful about your NT range (which is limited to a 5 pt range), otherwise you forfeit the ability to play conventional responses (stayman, transfer, etc.). In that case if you got dealt something like KQJ KQJ KQJ KQJx, you either don't have an opening bid in your system for it, or you don't have good followups to 1nt.



Do you open the lower ranking of your 5/4 suits? Is p's 1nt response forcing? how about 1 of a suit? Quoting percentages, distributions is all very nice, but its useless unless you have some thought-out follow-ups. so your auction of 1M-1N; 2c shows (50)44... you have a single, common, low level sequence for something like 0.2% of all hands (5=0=4=4, 0=5=4=4), with all the other two-suited hands with secondary clubs unresolved?



what does "this bid is forcing for one round if responder has 9+ points" mean, exactly? Do I always pass with an 8 count? This is sort of ridiculous. you are going to miss a ton of games, especially in your second suit (if you have one), and especially if you have extras beyond your 12 count. This is close to unplayable.



Nothing quite like playing 2NT with AK Kxxx Kxxx Kxx opposite a passed partner, or a yarborough when the rest of the field is a trick lower.


P will have no idea when to raise and when to pass. You will be shooting yourself in the foot more often than preempting opps.



errr... you are using percentages for randomly dealt hands while constraining the hcp and distribution on the x's. are you sure you got your numbers right?
do you not have any quality constraints on the suit? do you really open A xxxxxxx Kx xxx 4H? do you really consider 7-3-2-1 highly distributed?



I think you should stop trying to build a better mousetrap until you've done some market research and purchased the appropriate cheese. I think you should stop "wrestling" with artificial club systems, and maybe read some literature about them, and try to actually play them. I think you should try to debug your own system for a while before asking others to do so. I think you should decide what jurisdiction your system is aimed at, and make sure you understand the restrictions that this choice places on it.

There is at least one (likely more) books on system design, there are a plethora of systems with descriptions out there for you to look at, there are tons of posts about systems on the forums (natural, artificial etc. etc. etc.)

I think I shall "retire" from further discussions and heed the advice... give me a while - period unknown - while I do some serious reading.

TYVM

[wclass___]

One needs a lot of knowledge to build a really good bidding system.

I remember myself when i started to play bridge. System i had to start with was some really old fashioned precision that was hand written on a A4 paper. I was told that we need 24 HCP to bid game and i didn't feel like that system would satisfy this goal. So i started to build my own bidding system with main priority to finding EXACT HCP on line. It was like relay system, with step answers each showing exact HCP. Like 1♠-1N®-2♣=11 HCP; 2♦=12 HCP, hilarious. (Will try to find notes, haven't seen them for a really long time, lol).

Basically i agree with other posts here, suggesting obtaining extra knowledge.


Systems, cc, books etc. especially i suggest reading ZAR books and Revision club, it has a lot of bidding psychology with explanations.

[fazzzoola]

wclass___, on 2011-March-21, 11:01, said:

One needs a lot of knowledge to build a really good bidding system.

I remember myself when i started to play bridge. System i had to start with was some really old fashioned precision that was hand written on a A4 paper. I was told that we need 24 HCP to bid game and i didn't feel like that system would satisfy this goal. So i started to build my own bidding system with main priority to finding EXACT HCP on line. It was like relay system, with step answers each showing exact HCP. Like 1♠-1N®-2♣=11 HCP; 2♦=12 HCP, hilarious. (Will try to find notes, haven't seen them for a really long time, lol).

Basically i agree with other posts here, suggesting obtaining extra knowledge.


Systems, cc, books etc. especially i suggest reading ZAR books and Revision club, it has a lot of bidding psychology with explanations.

Thanks for the reply and encouragement. I've been studying the ACBL descriptions of the many systems out there. I will come up with something too! LOL... I've already taken a peak at ZAR points and will take a deeper look. What is interesting is that even top level players seem to have "major" disagreements and disapprovals. So, from that standpoint, I may yet find a diamond, even if only in the rough, and, If I don't, at least the journey is educational.

[PrecisionL]

PITBULLS:

"Benito Garazzo is arguably the best Bridge theoretician the world has ever known. He writes in one of his books that describing suits is more important than any other aspect of Bridge bidding . Suits are more important than HCP’s , singletons , controls or any other aspect of Bridge bidding. I agree with him whole heartedly . Due to Charles Goren & Standard American , we are overly fixated on HCP’s . The 2/1 in competition for example announcing that you have 10 HCP is very misguided in my opinion. The 2/1 when not forcing to game , should be based on a suit , so HCP’s should have nothing to do with it."

Thanks to the Alberta Bridge Site: http://www.pitbulls....-%20Garozzo.htm

My third generation Strong Club System (in cooperation with Keylime) uses transfers to suits and distributional bidding and asking before asking for controls or denial cue bidding. I recommend such an approach to save you years of learning the hard way - by experience.

[fazzzoola]

PrecisionL, on 2011-March-21, 21:35, said:

PITBULLS:

"Benito Garazzo is arguably the best Bridge theoretician the world has ever known. He writes in one of his books that describing suits is more important than any other aspect of Bridge bidding . Suits are more important than HCP’s , singletons , controls or any other aspect of Bridge bidding. I agree with him whole heartedly . Due to Charles Goren & Standard American , we are overly fixated on HCP’s . The 2/1 in competition for example announcing that you have 10 HCP is very misguided in my opinion. The 2/1 when not forcing to game , should be based on a suit , so HCP’s should have nothing to do with it."

Thanks to the Alberta Bridge Site: http://www.pitbulls....-%20Garozzo.htm

My third generation Strong Club System (in cooperation with Keylime) uses transfers to suits and distributional bidding and asking before asking for controls or denial cue bidding. I recommend such an approach to save you years of learning the hard way - by experience.

MANY THANKS FOR THIS MAJOR HINT!

[TylerE]

One thing to keep in mind, from historical context, is that the classic italian systems were really only considered so good because everything else out there was so bloody awful.

[Vampyr]

Investigate Terence Reese's Little Minor System. I don't know how successful the system was in its day, but I think you will like it.

[fazzzoola]

TylerE, on 2011-March-22, 14:04, said:

One thing to keep in mind, from historical context, is that the classic italian systems were really only considered so good because everything else out there was so bloody awful.

Thanks! I needed a good laugh!

[fazzzoola]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-22, 14:58, said:

Investigate Terence Reese's Little Minor System. I don't know how successful the system was in its day, but I think you will like it.

Thank you. I will read up on it.

[fazzzoola]

Somewhere/when earlier in these posts, it was suggested that I do an analysis comparing the differences between frequencies of normal (random) distribution versus tourney hands using 100 hands. I took the data off the vugraph 2000s Springold Finals, rounds 1-4, for a total of 256 hands - 64 boards, 4 hands each. Here are the results:

(See attachment - it wouldn't format too well on here.)

I did not try to compute the difference as a percent of the normal (random) distribution, but, a "good" read of the results does show that tourney hands are skewed and not randomly generated. As an aside, only 18 different distributional shapes appeared in that tour, as opposed to a maximum of 40.

Having said that, I'm still working on developing the new system, taking into account all the "goodies" - information - given to me by every one... Thanks,

Georges

Attached File(s)

•  ScreenHunter_03 Mar. 25 12.36.jpg (138.59K)
  Number of downloads: 7

[matmat]

fazzzoola, on 2011-March-25, 11:28, said:

Somewhere/when earlier in these posts, it was suggested that I do an analysis comparing the differences between frequencies of normal (random) distribution versus tourney hands using 100 hands. I took the data off the vugraph 2000s Springold Finals, rounds 1-4, for a total of 256 hands - 64 boards, 4 hands each. Here are the results:

(See attachment - it wouldn't format too well on here.)

I did not try to compute the difference as a percent of the normal (random) distribution, but, a "good" read of the results does show that tourney hands are skewed and not randomly generated. As an aside, only 18 different distributional shapes appeared in that tour, as opposed to a maximum of 40.

Having said that, I'm still working on developing the new system, taking into account all the "goodies" - information - given to me by every one... Thanks,

Georges

I can't download your attachment (no idea why).

if you use all four hands from a single deal, they are not going to be independent. Relying on results of 256 hands from 64 boards is not really a valid test o the dealing algorithm if you just blindly assume that they follow the same statistics as randomly generated hands. Think of it this way -- suppose bridge only had two suits, and only two players, and each player got dealt 13 cards at random; if the first player gets dealt 7-6 distribution, it's not really unrelated that the second player has 6-7....

Also, stating that only 18/40 show up (and appearing to be surprised by it), implies to me that you might not really grasp probability.

The odds only being dealt the top 18 distributions in a set of 256 random and independent deals is about 3.3%; albeit small, this is hardly impossible or indicative of a flawed dealer...

[chasetb]

First off, not to be rude but there are only 39 different suit-combinations. Second, 22 of the 39 hands each have less than a 0.4% probability, 16 of those are 0.10 or less. I personally have had two of the 0.00 - a 9-4-0-0 and a 10-1-1-1 in roughly 5000 hands. I also saw today in the JEC match a 9-3-1-0, which is 0.01. In only 256 hands, I'm not surprised to see only 18 combinations, that seems to be relatively normal. Now if you simmed 1000, you would likely get 22-25 of the combinations.

[fazzzoola]

matmat, on 2011-March-25, 12:38, said:

I can't download your attachment (no idea why).

if you use all four hands from a single deal, they are not going to be independent. Relying on results of 256 hands from 64 boards is not really a valid test o the dealing algorithm if you just blindly assume that they follow the same statistics as randomly generated hands. Think of it this way -- suppose bridge only had two suits, and only two players, and each player got dealt 13 cards at random; if the first player gets dealt 7-6 distribution, it's not really unrelated that the second player has 6-7....

Also, stating that only 18/40 show up (and appearing to be surprised by it), implies to me that you might not really grasp probability.

The odds only being dealt the top 18 distributions in a set of 256 random and independent deals is about 3.3%; albeit small, this is hardly impossible or indicative of a flawed dealer...

As true as that is for only two suits, it is untrue with four suits. I looked at the data I collected from that match and the four hands were in fact quite different quite often, like unbalanced in one hand, and balanced in an other. Also, I didn't claim that this was a statistically correct analysis, did I?; however, on the whole, when adding all percentages, things came out fairly close, even though in some cases the variance was rather pronounced.

From a study of 40,000,000 random hands dealt, the first 16 shapes (4-x-x-x, 5-x-x-x and 6-x-x-x), accounted for almost 96% of the hands.

Now, I will admit that it was a quick look, to see if there was any probably correlation. Yet, assuming that I know little about probability is arrogant and offensive. I am fairly familiar with basic statistics and probabilities. So, please do not make the arrogant assumption that I apparently know little or nothing. TY.

[fazzzoola]

chasetb, on 2011-March-25, 13:26, said:

First off, not to be rude but there are only 39 different suit-combinations. Second, 22 of the 39 hands each have less than a 0.4% probability, 16 of those are 0.10 or less. I personally have had two of the 0.00 - a 9-4-0-0 and a 10-1-1-1 in roughly 5000 hands. I also saw today in the JEC match a 9-3-1-0, which is 0.01. In only 256 hands, I'm not surprised to see only 18 combinations, that seems to be relatively normal. Now if you simmed 1000, you would likely get 22-25 of the combinations.

You're right... I don't know where I got the 40, unless it was in a scheme where I was splitting 5-3-3-2 clubs suit from the other 3 suits. Ugh... mea culpa... LOL

btw, 420/40,000,000*100 = 0.0010500%, impressive.