View Full Version : Dashing Dudes Hans Nunn at the NEC
Coming up are all the hands on which Tony or I opened a preempt at the NEC.
You are welcome to your own observations about our success rate.
Putting all this down took a couple of hours and if we are going to go any further with this preemption project, we need to work out a way to work with this data. To calibrate effectiveness somehow.
A database with columns like ?Were the opposition set a problem ?, ?Did they manage to solve it ?, ?Did you lose your own constructive bidding space ??,
?IMPS won/lost with teammates?, ?IMPS won lost on datum?, ?Was the opposition aided by additional knowledge due to the preempt?
Vulnerability, position,
Hmm?. Am not so sure this would be very effective . But these are my scratchy thoughts on the subject
One thing this small data set confirms and is something I have suspected for a long time, weak both majors is an opening that has a high frequency of occurrence.
Whether it has a high frequency of effectiveness is for time to judge.
Match 1. Board 6
East deals, E/W vul
West
AQxxx
xx
Kxx
KQx
East
Xx
Ax
Xx
A1098xxx
West North East South
- - P P
1S 2H 3C 3H
4C All pass
East West make 3NT or 5C on the likely heart lead.
If East chooses to open 1C or 3C, E/W likely to reach game.
On the same note, if west doubles 3H , East might bid 3NT.
Board 8
West deals, none vul
West
J10xxx
10xxxx
K109
-
East
Xx
Ax
Ax
AJ987xx
West North East South
2C(*) P P 2NT
2C = weak , both majors
All pass
EW -150 on a low spade lead ( accurate defence holds the score to ? 120)
On surface this was a triumph as East/West acting first in the auction were able to
Push NS to an awkward contract. But the unfortunate lead situation lost that edge.
Board 15.
West deals, NS vul
West
KQx
Xx
Jx
QJ97xxx
East
AJxx
AJxx
Axx
Ax
West North East South
Pass
3C pass 3NT
EW result -50
East should have made the contract even after clubs split 4-1 but in a concentration
lapse he pitched a heart from the west hand on the third diamond and went down 1.
Board 18
East deals, NS vul
West
Xxx
-
10xx
AQJ10xxx
East
Q10xxx
KJx
Qxxx
X
West North East South
P P
4C All pass
EW three down ? 150.
This was a poor result for E/W as most N/S pairs were going minus in 4H (North had AQx). Again E/W put the maximum pressure on but got burnt by an awkward lay of the cards. Say heart queen is with South then N/S would have missed a game.
For whatever its worth, if East had opened 2S, N/S were more likely to get to game over a non forcing 3C response.
Match2.
Board 14. None vul, East deals
West
X
Kxxx
KJ10xxxx
X
East
Jxx
Axxx
AQx
xxx
West North East South
P P
4D 4S 5D 5S
All pass
EW +50 against 5S
Well timed somewhat fortuitous agression by EW paid off in a game swing.
Board 15
South deals, N/S vul
West
Kx
Xx
Xxx
AQ87xx
East
Xxx
Ax
KQJxx
J109
West North East South
P
3C 3H 4D 4H
4NT P 5C X
5C doubled was ? 500 .
On paper this was a good result as North South are due 620 because of location of SA and CK.
At the other table, when no preempt was opened, NS scored +170, the normal result for those cards.
Both the 3C opening and the 4D advance tempoed NS into bidding on.
South hand was
Jxxx
10xxx
Axx
Xx
Would you raise 3H to 4 with no 4D interpose ?
Board 20
West Deals, All vul
West
X
A9xxxxx
10xx
xx
East
Axxx
KJ
Ax
Jxxxx
West East
2H 3H (not invite)
3H made ten tricks for + 170.
This was a 7 imp pickup as East West were -110 at the other table. That result can be attributed more to Franco-Indian wimpishness than Ozzie enterprise.
Ian thomson told me 3 years ago in canberra that a seven card suit is a seven card suit when I missed a vul game back then (by opening 2 instead of 3). He?s telling me the same thing again today on this forum after I?ve missed another game.
Perhaps its time I listen to him.
Match 3
Board 13
All vul, north deals
West
QJ98x
Kxx
Kx
Xxx
East
Xxx
AQJxxx
Xx
xx
West North East South
P 2H 3D
3H 4H P 5D
P 6D
EW -1370.
The location of diamond ace in north meant that the preemptive action lost again.
North had a stiff heart and much have been encouraged by the 3H bid to believe that her partner had not much wasted there.
Again, perhaps the preemptor?s partner is bidding too much ( a la 4D bid earlier) in a situation where he has far less to gain ??
Board 20
West deals, all vul
West
QJxx
KQ10xx
Qxx
X
East
X
Ajxxx
J109
Xxxx
West North East South
2C(*) P 3H 4C
P 5C All pass
EW ? 620
The opponents are always cold for slam in their 6-2 fit but its questionable whether they would have gotten there without disruptive action by EW
North
K9xxxx
-
Kxxxx
Q9
South
A10
Xxx
Ax
AKJ1087
Match 4
From this match on, we are north south
North opened 4H on as dealer, all NV
X
KQJ10xxx
10xxx
x
EW never took a bid on
West
KQ10xx
Xxx
A
Axxx
East
J98xx
X
Qxx
KJxx
This would probably never happen in Australia versus Australia as East would have an automatic takeout double of 4H and just in case he is sleeping, West would bid 4S anyways !!
Lets hope the coach doesn?t read this for he might start asking questions :)
Match 5
Board 3. EW vul South deals
North
Xxx
X
Kxxx
AQ109x
South
Jxxx
QJ10xx
Xx
87
West North East South
2C (weak, majors)
2D P 2H P
3C P 3NT end
South led a heart for ? 600. A club lead would beat 3NT.
North could have doubled 3C .
That double would be standard in north american expert circles but North is guilty of reading too many issues of Australian Bridge with its strong tirade against lead directional doubles .
But the case for doubling here is very strong and a large chunk of the blame for the result should rest on North , not on the preemptive opening method or on antipodean bridge philosophers.
Board 15
South deals, NS vul
North
Jxx
Qxx
Q109xxx
J
South
1087xx
A10xx
Axx
Xx
West North East South
2C (weak, majors)
pass 2D ?..
EW played in 5C down one with 3NT cold their way.
A success for the method for muddling the waters for EW.
Board 20
All vul, west deals
North
QJ9x
QJ9x
K98xx
-
South
A
Ax
QJxxx
KJxxx
North South
2C (weak, majors) 2H
N/S were +140 in the ultra-moyse with game cold their way.
North gets all the blame on this one for an undisciplined, non-systemic , second seat weak two bid.
South could have bid 2NT to play showing a misfit which might have led to NS rediscovering their magic diamond fit.
Match 6
Board 3.
South deals, EW vul
South opened 3S on
J98xxx
X
Xxx
Xxx
West bid 3NT making an overtrick. That is the normal contract for EW
Board 11
South deals, nil vul
South
Q10xx
J9xxx
Axx
X
North
Xxx
Kxxx
Xxx
Kxx
South W North East
2C(*) X 2H 3C
P 3NT end
Declarer judged the play really well, aided by the weak majors opening to score + 400.
Australian declarer in the other room, unaided , took his 75 percent line of two finesses and failed in 3NT.
If north chooses 3H,that doesn?t alter anything as West has a 3NT call .
Match 7
Board 3
South , dealer at favorable, chose not to open 2C on
10xxxx
K10xxx
-
KJx
As he felt his hand was way too strong. NS went -50 in 2H and an initial action by south would have led to a minus score with EW declaring 2NT.
Board 13
North opened 2C as dealer with both vul on
K98xx
KJ98x
Xx
X
South raised the ante to 3H over a pass by east on
10xxx
xxxx
Jx
Xxx
From this start, East West took the right views to bid 7D which was cold.
Howzatt !!
The enemy at the NEC in general seemed to withstand pressure and produce a good output a large proportion of the time.
In poker, we call this variance. Just a run of bad results produced despite strong,aggressive play. However, this tracking preempts exercise should demonstrate over time whether our aggressive attitude is a real winner or not.
Match 8
Board 19
South deals, EW vul
North
A109x
Jxx
Jx
AKxx
South
Jxxxx
Xxxx
Xxxx
-
West North East South
2C (*)
P 3S 3NT
3NT went down one on a spade lead.
Again in a philisophical sense, a triumph for the style. But then again, if NS never bid and south leads fourth highest of longest and strongest, they were due for +100 anyways
Quarter final set 1
Nothing came up in set 1
QF set 2
Board 12
East opened 2C weak, majors as dealer at favorable vul on
109xx
KQxx
Qx
Xxx
North overcalled 2NT which went down one when east cashed 6 diamonds.
If West were to pass, north would open a strong NT and play there.
Board 20
West opened 4H on
Q
KJ10xxxxx
Xx
Xx
The North South hands were
North
Axx
Ax
AQJ10
J10xx
South
KJ9x
X
Kxxx
AQxx
West North East South
4H P P X
P 4NT P 5C
end
The Australian North in the other room raised 5C to 6.
A good hand for partnership discussion.
Would you double with the north hand ? If so, would south bid just 4S ?
If you pass as north, do you raise 5C to 6 ? Or could partner be a lot weaker and you cut him some slack ?
Coming up are all the hands on which Tony or I opened a preempt at the NEC.
You are welcome to your own observations about our success rate.
Putting all this down took a couple of hours and if we are going to go any further with this preemption project, we need to work out a way to work with this data. To calibrate effectiveness somehow.
A database with columns like ?Were the opposition set a problem ?, ?Did they manage to solve it ?, ?Did you lose your own constructive bidding space ??,
?IMPS won/lost with teammates?, ?IMPS won lost on datum?, ?Was the opposition aided by additional knowledge due to the preempt?
Vulnerability, position,
Hmm?. Am not so sure this would be very effective . But these are my scratchy thoughts on the subject
One thing this small data set confirms and is something I have suspected for a long time, weak both majors is an opening that has a high frequency of occurrence.
Whether it has a high frequency of effectiveness is for time to judge.
We have to be weary of accumulating a lot of meaningless information. Reading through strings of preemptive hands may be interesting but it leads to no conclusion.
A good starting point would be to accumulate imps won and lost on hands when we preempt and they don't and when we don't and they do. This would also take into account different types of preempt - eg multi 2D v weak 2.
There would be no judgement involved in this process. Each partnership could easily do this then publish its results from time to time.
If the results are interesting, we can look at the hands and ponder why. If there is no significant result, let's concentrate on something more important.
paul
Board 20
West opened 4H on
Q
KJ10xxxxx
Xx
Xx
The North South hands were
North
Axx
Ax
AQJ10
J10xx
South
KJ9x
X
Kxxx
AQxx
West North East South
4H P P X
P 4NT P 5C
end
The Australian North in the other room raised 5C to 6.
A good hand for partnership discussion.
Would you double with the north hand ? If so, would south bid just 4S ?
If you pass as north, do you raise 5C to 6 ? Or could partner be a lot weaker and you cut him some slack ?
As north, I play for a big score or a safe score. Personally, I'd double 4H (one reason is that I don't know what to do if I pass and partner doubles) and try to guess well as south. But if North doesn't double, he should pass his partner's double for a safe 5-800 or drive to slam. Pulling the double to just play game (which might not make) is utterly pointless.
Sartaj's work is much appreciated and should make excellent BB reading for OzOne followers.
While Paul's ideas make bottom-line sense and should be implemented ASAP with one of our computer mavens, I believe ALL the issues raised by Sartaj should be logged once we have the raw deals. Sure, it's more work and it's not yet clear where we're going, but each sample deal provides a treasure trove of potentially useful information and we definitely should use the actual deal as comprehensively as possible and not just IMPs won or lost, which can be a random sort of thing. I believe that between Dave, Kieran, Bruce, Ron, Zol, David Morgan (perhaps), Tim Bourke, and any of our computer/statistics-minded dudes, we ought to be able to track these deals very effectively. I would recommend the more thorough approach hinted at hypothetically by Sartaj rather than the less-onerous-to-chart suggestion proposed by Paul, although there is merit in simplicity.
Given what we know of the "art" of preemption, it's such an important area that we can gain a big edge by doing it right more often than the rest of the expert world.
This might be a good area to bring in some of the personnel who did not make any of the OzOne cuts to provide clerical and computer assistance.
A point on format. I would prefer to see
West East
xxx xxx
xxxx xxxx
xxxxxxx ---
--- xxxxxxx
West North East South
3D Pass 4D Dbl
blah blah
etc, which is easier on the eyes.
Also, if posting players prepare a WORD or text file of whatever they intend to post and circulate that file by e-mail to staff and squad members, that can only help, because someone will surely think of the best way to sort and store the data.
Please, everyone, do this with everything posted so far, even if it takes an hour or two. You can send to Margi for circulation or build your own OzOne mailing list to send things out, but the Bulletin Board is only one medium for communication and not particular friendly for further using the material.
While there may be a case for doing less than more and arguing the merits of one approach vs the other, I believe we need to make a decision on following up on this originally enthusiastically-received project. Koach feels quite strongly about doing a thorough job here. We'll entertain further comments thru the first four days following Gold Coast and then endorse a procedure and live with it as a group.
David Morgan
21-02-06, 10:48 PM
My tuppence ha'penny's worth:
* This material is best stored in a database of some sort. I'm sure more than one of the OzOne team is familiar with an appropriate DB program that could be used for the purpose. If in doubt, and if other material will be coordinated by Margaret, ask her for her preferred option.
* Recording and entering the data will take some time. Even more will be involved if all of Sartaj's suggestions are pursued. (That should not be the determining factor but it may be relevant.)
* The biggest issue, though (and the point of difference between Sartaj and Paul), is whether all the data should be objective or whether it should include some subjective judgements (e.g. ?Were the opposition set a problem??, ?Did they manage to solve it??, ?Did you lose your own constructive bidding space ?"). The principal issue to be aware of is the tendency to judge situations by the methods you use ("we would have bid . . . so it is/is not much of a problem"); however, relying solely on how the opponents fared is also flawed.
* Whatever decision is made on that issue, I'd strongly support some recording of whether the preempt was within the partnership's limits or (like one of Sartaj's examples) outside them.
David
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.