[mw64ahw]

Dealer North

---

[DavidKok]

I'll treat the hand as a 24+ balanced hand.

2♣ (art strong) - 2♦ (waiting)
2♥ (Birthright) - 2♠ (forced)
2NT (24+ BAL) - 3♣ (puppet)
3♦ (4cM, no 5cM) - 3♠ (hearts not spades)
3NT (spades) - P

I'm not getting to the good 6♦. In my previous partnership we played a version or Birthright where we split the NT ladder in 2-point ranges all the way from 20-21 to 32-33 by including jump bids. This defeats the purpose of staying below 3NT (the original intention of Birthright) but hasn't been an issue so far. In that case I would treat the hand as 26 balanced - despite the amazing number of aces I'll take the advice to not upgrade a 4441-type hand.

2♣ (art strong) - 2♦ (waiting)
3NT (26-27 bal) - 4♣ (regular Stayman)
4♠ (natural) - 5♦ (natural, NF)
5♥ (control for diamonds, positive) - 6♦
P

I think 5♥ is justified on this sequence as North's hand is huge facing 4 hearts and 5(+) diamonds.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-July-27, 04:12, said:

I'll treat the hand as a 24+ balanced hand.

2♣ (art strong) - 2♦ (waiting)
2♥ (Birthright) - 2♠ (forced)
2NT (24+ BAL)

Your current approach?
2♣ (art strong) - 2♦ (waiting)
2NT 20-21,24-27,26-27 or a transfer?

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2023-July-27, 04:12, said:

I'll treat the hand as a 24+ balanced hand.

2♣ (art strong) - 2♦ (waiting)
2♥ (Birthright) - 2♠ (forced)
2NT (24+ BAL) - 3♣ (puppet)
3♦ (4cM, no 5cM) - 3♠ (hearts not spades)
3NT (spades) - P

I'm not getting to the good 6♦. In my previous partnership we played a version or Birthright where we split the NT ladder in 2-point ranges all the way from 20-21 to 32-33 by including jump bids. This defeats the purpose of staying below 3NT (the original intention of Birthright) but hasn't been an issue so far. In that case I would treat the hand as 26 balanced - despite the amazing number of aces I'll take the advice to not upgrade a 4441-type hand.

2♣ (art strong) - 2♦ (waiting)
3NT (26-27 bal) - 4♣ (regular Stayman)
4♠ (natural) - 5♦ (natural, NF)
5♥ (control for diamonds, positive) - 6♦
P

I think 5♥ is justified on this sequence as North's hand is huge facing 4 hearts and 5(+) diamonds.

I think 5♥ in the second auction is an underbid if it means that, you really want to GSF as xxxx/KQxxx (or Kxxxxx) in the reds is plenty for the grand. If you can't do that it's awkward.

Really old style Acol which I don't play handles this with ease, 2♣-2♦(neg)-2♠-3♦ and on via GSF

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-July-27, 04:12, said:

I'll treat the hand as a 24+ balanced hand.

2♣ (art strong) - 2♦ (waiting)
2♥ (Birthright) - 2♠ (forced)
2NT (24+ BAL) - 3♣ (puppet)
3♦ (4cM, no 5cM) - 3♠ (hearts not spades)
3NT (spades) - P

I'm not getting to the good 6♦.

Identical sequence for us, although with our Stayman 3♦ merely denies a 5cM.
.

[TylerE]

For me it'd start...

1♣ (strong) - 1♦ (<8)
1♠ (4+, F1R) - 2♣ (5-7, <3 ♠)
3♣ (Nat) - 3♦ (nat)
4N (RKC for ♦) - 5♦ (0)
5♥ (Q?) - 5N (Yes, no K♣)
6♦

The queen ask is a bit dubious... in theory it will allow us to bail out in 5N on at least some continuations where S doesn't have the QD, but even without it given the 9 card fit you've still got chances. But basically I think once N knows 5-7 and a fit, I think they pretty much force slam in some way. S's points have to be somewhere in the reds, we know we have no spade losers (since S can't have 3+).

My auction might even get us to grand when S has KQxxx of ♦ and out.

(None of this is super mad science or anything, just standard SMP/Mecklite precision)

[DavidKok]

mw64ahw, on 2023-July-27, 04:25, said:

Your current approach?
2♣ (art strong) - 2♦ (waiting)
2NT 20-21,24-27,26-27 or a transfer?

The top of my current NT ladder:

2NT opening shows 20-21.
2♣ then 2NT shows 22-23.
2♣ then 2♥ then 2NT shows 24+ and is GF.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-July-27, 12:38, said:

The top of my current NT ladder:

2NT opening shows 20-21.
2♣ then 2NT shows 22-23.
2♣ then 2♥ then 2NT shows 24+ and is GF.

Ok - I've just started playing reverse 'Birthright' and working out what the relay breaks after 2♥ mean.
2NT opening shows 22-23
2♣ then 2NT shows 24+ GF
2♣ then 2♥ then 2NT shows 20-21

[gszes]

21+ 4441 4450 (no 5 card major) are part of Multi for me (does not come up much).
2d multi
2h to play if possible
4h heart ace and 24-28 hcp 4144 (3h/3n bids would cover lesser hands and hands with a heart void)
6d (a tad scary but should have decent play) shows about 1 useful king
p nothing extra

[shyams]

I can't see any sequence where my partnership would reach 6D. It is 3NT for me...

[sfi]

LOL, this is trivial playing the version of strong club I've been using lately:

1C (16+) - 2D (0-8, 5+ diamonds, 4 hearts)
2NT (19+) - 3NT (5-8, 2452)
4D (optional KC ask) - 4H (bad hand in context)
4S (KC ask) - 4NT (0 KC)
5C (Q ask) - 5H (trump queen, no side kings)

I'd probably have bid 6D even without partner showing the trump queen, but might as well ask. This looks like the poster child for why my partner likes playing this system.

[mw64ahw]

gszes, on 2023-August-08, 19:14, said:

21+ 4441 4450 (no 5 card major) are part of Multi for me (does not come up much).
2d multi
2h to play if possible
4h heart ace and 24-28 hcp 4144 (3h/3n bids would cover lesser hands and hands with a heart void)
6d (a tad scary but should have decent play) shows about 1 useful king
p nothing extra

I've made a small tweak to my Multi-2D recently switching the strong 4441s into 'Birthright' so now the Multi-2D is weak Majors ,22-23 balanced or diamonds such that:
2D-2M
--3C 6+D
----3D bust
--3D 5D4M
--3M 6D4M
with
2NT opener now xx55 weak or xx54+ strong
and
2C-2D
--3C 5+C or 4414 (so max. 3D ) transfers now work, completing with 3
--3D 4144
--3H 1444
--3S 4441

[gszes]

mw64ahw, on 2023-August-14, 19:52, said:

I've made a small tweak to my Multi-2D recently switching the strong 4441s into 'Birthright' so now the Multi-2D is weak Majors ,22-23 balanced or diamonds such that:
2D-2M
--3C 6+D
----3D bust
--3D 5D4M
--3M 6D4M
with
2NT opener now xx55 weak or xx54+ strong
and
2C-2D
--3C 5+C or 4414 (so max. 3D ) transfers now work, completing with 3
--3D 4144
--3H 1444
--3S 4441

nicely structured. IMHO one of the biggest advantages to using 2d weak majors are the times partner can use the information to preempt. Combining the weak majors with strong balanced or diamonds is incompatable with the preempt concept mentioned above. If you do not mind missing out in this small area this is highly playable and solves many other problems associated with those pesky 4441 type hands.

[mw64ahw]

gszes, on 2023-August-23, 06:43, said:

nicely structured. IMHO one of the biggest advantages to using 2d weak majors are the times partner can use the information to preempt. Combining the weak majors with strong balanced or diamonds is incompatable with the preempt concept mentioned above. If you do not mind missing out in this small area this is highly playable and solves many other problems associated with those pesky 4441 type hands.

This inability to preempt is something that is often quoted, but I don't think all preempts are out if structured appropriately to marry up with strong option. E.g. with 43+♥♠. 2♦-P-P is a no go though unless perhaps if Bust.
In terms of rough probabilities 22-23 registers 0.2% and the strong ♦ options are beyond the first decimal point.
My weak options are actually 6♥, 5♠ exactly 4+m and 5♠ balanced 8-11 not opening.
This gives the Multi about a 6.4% chance.

[DavidKok]

mw64ahw, on 2023-August-23, 07:19, said:

This gives the Multi about a 6.4% chance.

I think the real number is much lower, although writing a simulation to find it is very difficult. Most of the hands in the, say, "4-10 points (or <insert your range here>) exactly 6 hearts" range are not suitable for a preempt - values in the wrong suits or insufficient suit quality, some people are squeamish about a possible 4c♠ suit and almost everybody excludes a 5c♠. It is quite common to upgrade to 3♥ when favourable first or third on a nice 6-card suit, or even to 4♥ with a 6-5 distribution at certain seats and vulnerabilities. Over to the 5♠4(+)m, two-suiters will more frequently have their values in the long suits, but here in the Netherlands you can make a living purely from defending the ill-advised Muiderberg 2M openings (6-10, 5M4(+)m). If you bite the bullet and robotically open all hands that meet a superficial description of a preempt you can get a high frequency but have a terrible opening, while if you are more sensible about your preemptive bids the frequency will be far lower than the number you cite.
Chris Ryall has a website on two-level openings including frequencies, and every single number on there is plagued by the above and useless at best and deceptive at worst. I think computer generated frequency analysis can be helpful in deciding how to structure possible bids, but only if we are careful about the hands that we wish to include and exclude in our actions.

But even if you correct for that, most of the time when you have a preempt someone else at the table has an opening. Maybe the hand type is dealt with some frequency, but sitting second or third seat drastically cuts the chance that you can open your gadget. And obviously fourth hand preempting is excluded entirely. The correspondence between "How often am I dealt a hand type that matches my simulation parameters" and "How often will I get to take this action at the bridge table" is not trivial, and preempts suffer more than most other hand types (as they require shapely and weak hands, increasing the chance that other players hold shapely hands and/or some additional values).

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-23, 07:54, said:

I think the real number is much lower, although writing a simulation to find it is very difficult. Most of the hands in the, say, "4-10 points (or <insert your range here>) exactly 6 hearts" range are not suitable for a preempt - values in the wrong suits or insufficient suit quality, some people are squeamish about a possible 4c♠ suit and almost everybody excludes a 5c♠. It is quite common to upgrade to 3♥ when favourable first or third on a nice 6-card suit, or even to 4♥ with a 6-5 distribution at certain seats and vulnerabilities. Over to the 5♠4(+)m, two-suiters will more frequently have their values in the long suits, but here in the Netherlands you can make a living purely from defending the ill-advised Muiderberg 2M openings (6-10, 5M4(+)m). If you bite the bullet and robotically open all hands that meet a superficial description of a preempt you can get a high frequency but have a terrible opening, while if you are more sensible about your preemptive bids the frequency will be far lower than the number you cite.
Chris Ryall has a website on two-level openings including frequencies, and every single number on there is plagued by the above and useless at best and deceptive at worst. I think computer generated frequency analysis can be helpful in deciding how to structure possible bids, but only if we are careful about the hands that we wish to include and exclude in our actions.

But even if you correct for that, most of the time when you have a preempt someone else at the table has an opening. Maybe the hand type is dealt with some frequency, but sitting second or third seat drastically cuts the chance that you can open your gadget. And obviously fourth hand preempting is excluded entirely. The correspondence between "How often am I dealt a hand type that matches my simulation parameters" and "How often will I get to take this action at the bridge table" is not trivial, and preempts suffer more than most other hand types (as they require shapely and weak hands, increasing the chance that other players hold shapely hands and/or some additional values).

Yep - I agree with what you say and am looking on refining a simulator to include these points, but useful for me from a relative use perspective.

Any thoughts as to a best estimate for changing the range of hands in first position to cater for suit quality. Say from 4-10 to 6/7-10?

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-23, 07:54, said:

I think the real number is much lower, although writing a simulation to find it is very difficult. Most of the hands in the, say, "4-10 points (or <insert your range here>) exactly 6 hearts" range are not suitable for a preempt - values in the wrong suits or insufficient suit quality, some people are squeamish about a possible 4c♠ suit and almost everybody excludes a 5c♠. It is quite common to upgrade to 3♥ when favourable first or third on a nice 6-card suit, or even to 4♥ with a 6-5 distribution at certain seats and vulnerabilities. Over to the 5♠4(+)m, two-suiters will more frequently have their values in the long suits, but here in the Netherlands you can make a living purely from defending the ill-advised Muiderberg 2M openings (6-10, 5M4(+)m). If you bite the bullet and robotically open all hands that meet a superficial description of a preempt you can get a high frequency but have a terrible opening, while if you are more sensible about your preemptive bids the frequency will be far lower than the number you cite.
Chris Ryall has a website on two-level openings including frequencies, and every single number on there is plagued by the above and useless at best and deceptive at worst. I think computer generated frequency analysis can be helpful in deciding how to structure possible bids, but only if we are careful about the hands that we wish to include and exclude in our actions.

But even if you correct for that, most of the time when you have a preempt someone else at the table has an opening. Maybe the hand type is dealt with some frequency, but sitting second or third seat drastically cuts the chance that you can open your gadget. And obviously fourth hand preempting is excluded entirely. The correspondence between "How often am I dealt a hand type that matches my simulation parameters" and "How often will I get to take this action at the bridge table" is not trivial, and preempts suffer more than most other hand types (as they require shapely and weak hands, increasing the chance that other players hold shapely hands and/or some additional values).

I 've run 400,000 simulations given the my full constraints versus seat , suit quality and any upgrades etc giving
1st seat 0.60%
2nd seat 0.32%
3rd seat 0.14%
4th seat strong only negligible
so as expected much lower

[DavidKok]

Those figures seem too low, I'd expect the real number to be somewhere in between. Around 2% in first seat, perhaps.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-28, 11:20, said:

Those figures seem too low, I'd expect the real number to be somewhere in between. Around 2% in first seat, perhaps.

Yep too low, but still not as high as 2% in first seat (disciplined weak 2s?) I had my Muiderberg set-up incorrectly - new figures
1st seat 1.15%
2nd seat 0.68%
3rd seat 0.39%
4th seat strong only 0.03%