[nullve]

Suppose

* S is a bidding structure (system, convention, treatment...)
* S' is the structure whe get by replacing the substructure T of S with the structure T' and making the obvious updates (pretending that makes sense)

Then say that the replacement of T by T', which I'll denote by 'T -> T'', is a 'utilitarian sacrifice' with respect to S if

* S is better than S' on hands suitable for T or T' (i.e. T -> T' is a "sacrifice")
* S' is at least as good as S (i.e. T -> T' is "for the commmon good")

Are there good examples of utilitarian sacrifices in this sense?

To give you a better idea what I'm talking about, suppose

S = 2/1
T = WJS
T'= RFR

Then, just arguably,

* S is better than S' on hands suitable for T (true, IMO)
* S is better than S' on hands suitable for T'(debatable, although 1m-2♠ as inv RFR is horrible when used, IMO),
* S' is at least as good as S (that's what RFR proponents believe, anyway)

in which case WJS -> RFR would be a utilitarian sacrifice with respect to standard 2/1.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-February-25, 04:42

[mgoetze]

It's pretty obvious that if you're playing a 1♥ opening as showing 6+ hearts and 4 diamonds, you will do better with a replacement (S'), except in those cases where you actually happen to hold 6+ hearts and 4 diamonds. This is probably not a "good" example, but then, what is a "good" example? And how is your question any different from just asking "are there good examples of incrementally improving a bidding system"? There are thousands of examples of that, which ones are you looking for?

[nullve]

mgoetze, on 2016-February-24, 09:11, said:

And how is your question any different from just asking "are there good examples of incrementally improving a bidding system"? There are thousands of examples of that, which ones are you looking for?

Consider this quote from http://bridgewinners...l-brad-moss-3/:

Brad Moss said:

i think flannery is best when not bid. that is not responding 1s to 1heart for instance. i absolutely didn't appreciate how valuable those auctions were, and instead focused on the 2d opening itself (which i consider to be ok). if i weren't playing the structures i do now, i would absolutely bite the bullet and play it.

With

S = normal system like 2/1
T = Weak 2D (say)
T' = Flannery 2D,

Moss seems to think that

* S is better than S' on hands suitable for T (I can't imagine he thinks Pass is better)
* S is better than S' on hands suitable for T' (because the Flannery 2D opening itself is just "ok")
* S' is better than S (otherwise he wouldn't "bite the bullet" and play Flannery?),

so for him, at least, the replacement

Weak 2D -> Flannery 2D

may be a utilitarian sacrifice in my sense.

Typical Flannery proponents, on the other hand, would say that S is actually worse than S' on hands suitable for T' (because Flannery makes otherwise unbiddable hands biddable), so, for them, Weak 2D -> Flannery 2D would not be a utilitarian sacrifice in my sense, but maybe still an incremental improvement in your sense.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-February-25, 04:40

[mgoetze]

nullve, on 2016-February-24, 10:31, said:

may be a utilitarian sacrifice in my sense.

I mean it seems to me almost every improvement to a bidding system fits your definition of a "utilitarian sacrifice". Maybe you are actually trying to define something more strict, such as "S' is better than S on the hands not suited for T or T'". The problem with this is that you're pretending you're not changing the non-2♦-opening parts of your system when you adopt Flannery, when actually you are.

Anyway, as usual, I do not understand why you are asking this question.

[nullve]

mgoetze, on 2016-February-24, 15:41, said:

I mean it seems to me almost every improvement to a bidding system fits your definition of a "utilitarian sacrifice". Maybe you are actually trying to define something more strict, such as "S' is better than S on the hands not suited for T or T'".

No, it's essential that S is better than S' on those hands. But you just made me realise I should have written

'S is better than S' on hands suitable for T or T''

instead of the clumsy and ultimately ambiguous

'S is better than S' when restricted to deals suitable for T or T'',

now edited.

mgoetze, on 2016-February-24, 15:41, said:

The problem with this is that you're pretending you're not changing the non-2♦-opening parts of your system when you adopt Flannery, when actually you are.

When I wrote

'S' is the structure whe get by replacing the substructure T of S with the structure T' and making the obvious updates (pretending that makes sense)',

the main idea was that after replacing T with T', we would at least have to make the necessary changes to the non-T' parts of S to fill the holes created. E.g. if

S = 2/1
T = 15-17 NT
T' = 12-14 NT,

then we would have to fill a few holes after the replacement T -> T' just to have a way of bidding hands suitable for T. But even when

S = 2/1
T = Weak 2♦
T' = Flannery 2♦,

in which case the replacement T -> T' doesn't create any holes at all, the non-T' parts of S will still be automatically be affected, because e.g.

* by not having Weak 2♦ available, more hands will have to be passed or opened 3♦
* 1♥-1N, 2♣ will now promise 3+ C.

In addition to this, there are of course many changes it would make sense to make, e.g.

1♥-1♠ = 5+ S,

but I wasn't really thinking of those.

mgoetze, on 2016-February-24, 15:41, said:

Anyway, as usual, I do not understand why you are asking this question.

I'm interested in whether/how bad-looking conventions/substructures can be justified.

[WellSpyder]

I have always felt that opening 1C to show 16+ in a Precision-style system fits your definition of a utilitarian sacrifice. It is not worth playing because of the 1C auctions, but because of the benefits of removing 16+ hands from all the other 1-level opening bids.

[nullve]

WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 10:45, said:

I have always felt that opening 1C to show 16+ in a Precision-style system fits your definition of a utilitarian sacrifice.

If you start with 2/1, then you might get something close to Precision by replacing 2/1's 1C opening with Precision's and then making the obvious updates (whatever that means). So if it's true that Precision is the better system, although worse on hands suitable for a 1C opening in either system, then, yes, Precision's 1C opening (or, more pedantically, the replacement 1C(2/1) -> 1C(Precision)) might be viewed as a utilitarian sacrifice wrt 2/1.

WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 10:45, said:

It is not worth playing because of the 1C auctions, but because of the benefits of removing 16+ hands from all the other 1-level opening bids.

This is exactly the kind of reasoning I'm interested in.

[gwnn]

What would a Kantian sacrifice be? Perhaps playing non-disruptive preempts out of respect for the opponents.

I guess a virtue ethicist "sacrifice" might be "I am brave so I want to play 10-12 NT in all seats and vulnerabilities."

[nullve]

gwnn, on 2016-February-26, 06:45, said:

What would a Kantian sacrifice be? Perhaps playing non-disruptive preempts out of respect for the opponents.

Or playing standard preempts because noone should be forced to face unfamiliar methods.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-February-26, 13:11

[Kungsgeten]

I'm a bit confused with all the letters and stuff, but here's a couple of examples (if I understand things correctly):

S = Natural system with 5 card majors
T = Weak twos
T' = 2D multi, 2M Roman with 5+ major and 4+ clubs, 11--15 hcp.

In S: 1M-1X; 2C is natural and non-forcing. We can stop in 2C, so should be safer than S'.
In S': 1M-1X; 2C is 16+ artificial (Riton), which is the benefit.
Also, in S' you lose weak 2D and weak twos are more effective than multi.

S = Natural system, very few conventions
T = 1X-1Y; 1NT-2C non-forcing.
T' = 1X-1Y; 1NT-2m is two-way checkback.

In S: You can stop in 2C.
In S': You can not stop in 2C, and the opponents can make a lead directing double of 2C/2D. You invite/GF at lower level.

I guess the same would be true for Stayman and many other conventions as well.

[nullve]

@Kungsgeten: Assuming S' is better than S in both your examples, the first looks like a perfect example a utilitarian sacrifice; but the second like a non-example, because although S is clearly better than S' on hands suitable for T, it is also worse on hands suitable for T'.

[mikestar13]

WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 10:45, said:

I have always felt that opening 1C to show 16+ in a Precision-style system fits your definition of a utilitarian sacrifice. It is not worth playing because of the 1C auctions, but because of the benefits of removing 16+ hands from all the other 1-level opening bids.

This is quite on point. It also explains the effort expended by Precision players to enhance the quality of 1♣ auctions in order to mitigate the downside--the magnitude of the sacrifice.

For example, John Montgomery's Revision Club uses a 16-18 1NT and a 19-20 2NT, so that 1♣ has shape or 21+. (12-15 balanced is opened 1♦,1♥, or 1♠.)
This makes 1♣ much better able to handle competition (in JM's opinion), while only impacting limit bids slightly by widening the range of opener's 1NT rebid. One could argue that the notrump openings are a utilitarian sacrifice vs. a more orthodox Precision, as 1NT 16-18 suffers from low frequency compared to say a 14-16 range,
and 2NT 19-20 will get hurt more often than a higher range.

[nullve]

In all the examples considered so far, T' has been some ok-looking structure like

* strong 1C
* 16-18 1NT + 19-20 2NT
* Multi 2D + Roman 2M.

But what prevents T -> T' from being a sacrifice more of the aztec kind*, where we'd expect T', but not T, to lead to significant loss or even disaster when used?

* by thinking of the hands involved as people

[gwnn]

We're moving a bit too fast. Could we just start with your first example?

You said that (perhaps)
2/1+WJS
works better than
2/1+RFR
on "WJS" or "RFR" hands. But somehow the fact that a RFR hand is impossible in a 1M response, the second system is (perhaps) better than the first. Why is that? Could you make your case for that first?

This whole thread is very theoretical and I don't know if it has any connection to reality.

[mgoetze]

gwnn, on 2016-February-27, 07:43, said:

This whole thread is very theoretical and I don't know if it has any connection to reality.

I haven't seen one. I don't see what information this is supposed to gain other than "better bidding systems are better".

[fromageGB]

gwnn, on 2016-February-27, 07:43, said:

This whole thread is very theoretical and I don't know if it has any connection to reality.

At least you can see it is theoretical, so congratulations. I have not been able to understand a word of it.

[nullve]

gwnn, on 2016-February-27, 07:43, said:

You said that (perhaps)
2/1+WJS
works better than
2/1+RFR
on "WJS" or "RFR" hands. But somehow the fact that a RFR hand is impossible in a 1M response, the second system is (perhaps) better than the first. Why is that? Could you make your case for that first?

I didn't give the example because it's convincing to me personally (it's not), but rather because it might be convincing to someone already convinced that 2/1+RFR is better than 2/1+WJS. After all, a player might believe that 2/1+WJS works better on WJS and RFR hands and still believe that 2/1+RFR is the better system overall because "when Levin-Weinstein play it, it must be for good reasons".

[gwnn]

OK that's what they believe. But why would it be so? I don't want to start a fight, I just don't know why it would be like that.

[nullve]

gwnn, on 2016-February-27, 12:04, said:

OK that's what they believe. But why would it be so? I don't want to start a fight, I just don't know why it would be like that.

I think most RFR proponents would agree that 2/1+WJS has the edge over 2/1+RFR on WJS hands. That the majority also believe it has the edge on RFR hands seems more far-fetched, but even Bobby Levin (http://bridgewinners...haracteristics/) admits that

Quote

the beauty of reverse flannery is how much it defines other bids when you can rule out the hand types needed to make a reverse flannery response-although always right siding spades and sometime right siding hearts is also a huge benefit along with playing 4h instead of 2m when you are 5+-4 in majors and partner opens and rebids his minor and you dont have enough to bid on. its the same thing with playing flannery–its not the actual flannery auctions that are so great but the inferences you have when your partner bids 1s over 1h, or when your partner opens 1h and you can assume he doesnt have 4 spades unless he has reverse values. Also bidding 1nt/1h gets you a spade lead into your 4 card suit sometimes, along with bidding 1nt with 4 spades allows you to next bid “impossible” 2s to show other hand types. You are often so much better placed in competitive auctions when you know partners spade holding is limited. I can see why Reese hated flannery so much–lets just say he didn't neeeed it….

I wish I had chosen a different/better example, though.

[gwnn]

I'm asking the following question: If I accept that 2/1+WJS is better than 2/1+RFR responses for both WJS and RFR hands, when/how can 2/1+RFR recover? The whole point of 2/1+RFR was that the RFR hands are very awkward to bid. So you're saying that 2/1+WJS does in fact have very good solutions for RFR hands but when you implement those solutions, there are other costs you have to pay that will be bigger than the gains of a WJS structure (such as cheap invites etc). Is this what your example would imply? If you want us to play your game, why don't you give an example in which you are actually explaining how and why it would apply instead of me having to try to figure out what you meant in your opening post? With bridge auctions perhaps.