cherdano, on 2014-November-26, 09:53, said:
Wow I really disagree. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe opening 2♠ on this is losing bridge. But in terms of IMPS expectancy - well I'd be surprised if it costs more than 0.3 IMPs or so, and I won't have many opportunities to make such bids. Just caring a little more than opponents about overtricks will already make up for this.
I don't disagree with your estimate of the net cost, altho I think we both understand that this is a seat-of-the-pants, or gut, feeling rather than a precise figure.
Indeed, I doubt that it is even theoretically possible to analyze the per-board net gain or loss from any treatment that is non-mainstream when such treatment alters other aspects of the methods. Thus if one found that a 2
♠ opening on this hand, against competent, informed opps, was a net winner when it came up, one would need to figure out how the method dealt with a classic weak 2 bid, such as KQ10xxx xx Kx xxx. If the solution was to pass: well, what was the result of that approach? If the solution was to use a multi 2
♦, not only do we need to know if that was effective, we also need to assess how the system dealt with hands that would otherwise be opened 2
♦, were we not playing multi, and so on and on and on.....
Given that one can't analyze this sort of information in a manner naïve to the skill of the players, and the level of the opps, I don't think it can be done in a meaningful way, at least not with precision.
However, my real reason for disliking this style is that even if it were neutral....were found on balance to have no positive or negative impact on imp expectation....I strongly believe that, compared to more mainstream methods, it maximizes variability of scores.
I fully accept that on occasion, getting in the first blow on hands like this will cause horrific problems for the opponents and we may well pick up game or even slam swings, including finding great saves or causing the opps to overbid, underbid, or find the wrong strain.
However, I think it equally obvious that on occasion we are going to get a very, very bad score.
Whether this variability is a 'good thing' or not depends, I suppose on several factors.
No matter what level one's game may be at, imo it is best to inculcate the belief that most of the time, assuming we play as well as we are reasonably capable of playing, we have a chance to beat our opps by simply playing bridge.
If so, and rightly or wrongly that is always my attitude no matter who I am playing, then I don't want to play a method that increases the randomness of the match.
Otoh, if one were clearly outclassed in the match and if one wasn't trying to become 'better'...so the only goals were short-term...then playing this style may make a lot of sense.
Personally, I tend to avoid team-mates who play really disaster-prone methods, even if I felt that the methods were long-term neutral. I hate having a good session at our table and finding that our results were irrelevant...we'd lost the match (or even won the match) due to silly things happening at the other table. When the other half is playing poker, not bridge, I'm not interested in being part of that team.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari