[mtvesuvius]

Go to "My Settings" -> "Profile" -> "Manage Ignored Users"

Bye now.

[Zelandakh]

If you are interested in anything and willing to make your own decisions you should also check out Chris Ryall's site which has pretty much every option available collected together with frequencies, pros and cons.

[the hog]

wclass___, on 2010-November-04, 14:32, said:

No need to play all that stuff to realize that nothing comes close to natural 2M.

IMO analysing methods gives better estimation than playing experience, because it is hard to remember all those deals and get out some objective estimation. And normally you test your methods vs weaker opponents. (What works vs. noobs, might suck vs. really good opponents)

Silly comments. Some of these methods have been analysed extensively and shown to be highly effective in world class competition. Just to name 2 Wilkosz and using 2H as a weak 2 in either Major.

[gnasher]

the hog, on 2010-November-04, 22:16, said:

Some of these methods have been analysed extensively and shown to be highly effective in world class competition. Just to name 2 Wilkosz and using 2H as a weak 2 in either Major.

Where can I find this analysis?

[the hog]

gnasher, on 2010-November-05, 06:13, said:

Where can I find this analysis?

Andy, if you look at Chris Ryall's site, there is lengthy debate on Wilkosz where he has copied the posts from rgb. Read that.

[hrothgar]

gnasher, on 2010-November-05, 06:13, said:

Where can I find this analysis?

There's a fairly well known study of the Wilkosz 2♦ opening that showed that it generated ridiculously good results when it cropped up. You can find references to this on rec.games.bridge

My own take on matters is that this analysis was valid when it was originally performed, however, I think that the results are too dated to be trustworthy at this point in time. As I recall, many of the big wins for Wilkosz occured on hands where

1. The Poles opened with a Wilkosz 2D
2. Their opponents opened with a 1 level opening bid and then self destructed

Simply put, the high score of the Wilkosz 2D had less to do with the merits of this specific opening and more to do with issues with the opponent's one level openings and the subsequent response structures.

Over the last couple decades folks have gotten a lot better at integrating light / distributional one level openings into a 2/1 framework. Methods have changed somewhat and judgement has improved enormously. I think that many of those self inflicted wounds wouldn't occur in this day and age.

Consequently, the Wilkosz 2♦ probably wouldn't look nearly as good.

[NickRW]

My problem with analyses which "prove" that bid X gains Y IMPs is not that with the figures, but it does not tell you what the rest of your system gains/loses by using bid X for that purpose versus some alternative structure. Such an analysis is nearly infinitely more complex. (And that is without the further complexity of how opps vary their defense to the alternatives under consideration)

Nick

P.S. Sorry to any mathematical pedants for "nearly infinitely".

[gnasher]

the hog, on 2010-November-05, 06:36, said:

Andy, if you look at Chris Ryall's site, there is lengthy debate on Wilkosz where he has copied the posts from rgb. Read that.

So anecdotes and subjective opinions published on rec.games.bridge constitute "analysis", whereas similar material published here is "Silly comments"?

[the hog]

gnasher, on 2010-November-05, 10:48, said:

So anecdotes and subjective opinions published on rec.games.bridge constitute "analysis", whereas similar material published here is "Silly comments"?

Andy, are you an idiot? The thread on rgb was not anecdotal or subjective; it presented the results of a study over a series of several hundred hands. See Richard's post above. Do you even read what people post? You are engaging in obstreperous behaviour for its own sake.

[MickyB]

Despite, apparently, noone agreeing with me, this thread has made me really want to play 2D as S+m or H and 2H as H+m or S - this seems to have nearly all the advantages of Wilkosz and 2H multi, without a lot of the disadvantages. I think I would play 2S as a good weak two, removing the top end from the 2H opening will make it more comfortable to pass at times.

If I had 2C and 2NT available as well, I think I would use 2C as 5+m4M and 2NT as minors or majors.

[the hog]

Another possibility you might like, MickeyB, is Tutti Frutti as played by Pszkola and Kwieken (spelling?)

2D Opening (5+H, or 5+S-5+m 4-10)

2H Opening (5+S, or 5+H + 5+m 4-10)

2S Opening (1 bad minor pre empt, or 5-5 majors 4-10)

2NT Pre empt in a both minors 5/5

[gnasher]

the hog, on 2010-November-05, 18:38, said:

Andy, are you an idiot? The thread on rgb was not anecdotal or subjective; it presented the results of a study over a series of several hundred hands. See Richard's post above. Do you even read what people post? You are engaging in obstreperous behaviour for its own sake.

This post seems to have changed since the last time I read it. Is the new version supposed to be less obnoxious, or just different?

[the hog]

It has changed. I realise I should not have said that you were an idiot, but merely asked if you were one. Well if anyone was obnoxious it was you as you totally, and I suspect deliberately, misinterpreted my answer to you.

[Free]

Disagreeing with the hog is destructive, but it's not a 2-opener! So get back on topic please