BBO Discussion Forums: Big Pass - BBO Discussion Forums

In this very old thread Why I don't like Precision, on the 3rd page, tysen2k (who used to post here quite a bit, but not any more), gave very sketchy details of a potentially quite strong, but not forcing pass system.

Putting together a couple of posts from that thread he seemed to be thinking something along the lines of this sort of scheme for 1st seat openers:

Bal hands:
Pass = 0-16
1NT = 17-21
1♦ = 22+

Unbal hands:
1♣ = presumably a catch all for unbal hands that didn't fit elsewhere
1♦ = forcing
1♥ = 8-13, only guarantees 4 cards
1♠ = 8-18, 5+ cards
2♣ = 6 cards, no 4cM, potentially as wide as 8-18
2♦ = not specified, presumably similar to 2♣
2♥ and above, not given.
Pass = presumably 0-7

Nor were details of the 3rd seat openers given - which seem to include opening bal 9 and even decent 8 counts given the potential strength of the pass.

Yes, very whacky I know, but intensely interesting from a theoretical point of view.

Elsewhere there is a suggestion that this was being thrashed out on a yahoo discussion group - but, even if it still exists, I can't find it.

Did anyone have further communication with Tysen about this and have more detail? Was anyone here a member of the discussion group and know if it still exists?

Before anyone dismisses this as total rubbish, tysen2k was one of the most intelligent posters this board has seen.

Nick

Me too, tyson. Curious about the hands in strong pass. How strong? What shapes?

Next strong pass legal (ACBL) with those or similar agreements?

I play a pass with some 10-14 mainly minor dominant with poor playing tricks(honors in Majors +length in minors). Surely seems some 1-bid hands can start pass then back-in or not by hearing the auction. At least as a systemic plan.

dake50, on May 22 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

The exact list of shapes that were considered bal was not given. Certainly didn't include 5 spades as it is clear Tysen's simulations prized 5 spades very highly.

Your systemic plan of keeping your powder dry with some bal hands is, essentially the same idea - just that Tysen was, apparently, really pushing the envelope. I too, think that some folks these days trying to open bal 11s are going in the wrong direction - unbal hands need to get their foot in the door as soon as possible - but bal hands don't need treating the same way (IMO)

Nick

Potential problems that make this scheme rather unplayable

1. Pass is usually a balanced 8-16. If opps bid aggressively (i.e. open frequently), responder will be left in the dark as to the level of play far too often. Since pass also includes 0-7 hcp hands, it's even worse. Finally, on top of all that, there's the fact that pass in no way inconveniences opponents.

2. 1NT as 17-21 is too wide a range as well.

All in all, in this scheme the precision of the major suit openings is obtained at the cost of muddying the waters with other hands. The cons seem to outweight the pros by far, in my opinion.

Yes, there are potential problems. I am not sure that they are as unplayable as you think they are though.

For example, take the 2♣, 6 cards not 4cM as 8-18. Quite a few folk play this sort of opening, but none, so far as I know, anything like as wide ranging as 8-18. At first glance this is way too wide ranging. But is it? Think about it. I won't claim it is truly playable - but it is certainly a lot easier to respond to than one's initial thoughts might indicate.

Nick

NickRW, on May 22 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

Perhaps this is the (members only) group you're looking for: Yahoo Bridge Programming

It appears to last have been active in 2007.

Rob F, on May 22 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

Sadly not. Tysen didn't discuss his system ideas on there. But thanks for the link anyway - there was a link to very good thread on rgb.

Nick

NickRW, on May 22 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

Hi Nick. You might take a look at a similar approach I suggested previously, using a semiforcing pass approach to handle an additional balanced range. The basic idea is that you can put one NT range into "pass" and still handle things later (i.e. 3rd/4th seat openings) reasonably well, especially if you open distributional hands light already. Whether or not this means you have 3 NT ranges (1m, 1N, pass) or just 2 ranges (1N, pass, and 1m more natural) is up to you.

For example in a mostly precision context:

1st or 2nd seat:

Pass 0-9, or 13-15 balanced
1♣ art 16+
1♦ 4+ unbalanced, 9-15
1M 5+ 9-15
1N 10-12
2♣ 9-15 6+ or 5/4M
2♦+ weak

3rd or 4th seat:

Pass 0-7
1♣ art 16+
1♦ 2+ 8-12 balanced or 8-15 natural
1M generally 5+ 8-15 (minimum hands could be 4+, 1♥ with 4414)
1N 13-15
2♣ 8-15 5+
2♦ 4-10 6 card weak two
2M 4-10 6 card weak two

The 13-15 hand will bid Drury, P-1M-1N(semiforcing), or P-1♦-1N. If 3rd/4th seat has opened light with only 8-9, he can pass the latter of these or make the weakest Drury rebid. Otherwise, with 10+ opener will take another call and responder with the 13-15 NT can bid 2N as an invitation.

Rob F, on May 22 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Thanks. Its another use of the same idea.

10-12 1NT in 1st/2nd seems fine to me when we're white - would be too hot for my taste if we're red though

Nick

NickRW, on May 22 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

NickRW, on May 22 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

Is a 10-12 NT, even white, "going in the wrong direction"?

glen, on May 23 2009, 12:34 AM, said:

It wouldn't be to my taste - just commenting that if I had a partner that insisted on a system of that type, i.e. where 1NT is to be seen as a pre-emptive weapon in some situations - well - its playable.

Nick

glen, on May 22 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

Sadly, the ACBL won't allow meaninful methods over a NT range starting with < 10, but I guess that isn't what you meant ...

NickRW, on May 22 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Sure. I would probably only play that system at NV. You can use the same idea to cover the annoying "weak NT" hands in a strong NT system in order to give your other bids more clarification:

1st/2nd:

Pass 0-9 unbalanced, or 0-14 balanced
1♣ strong 15+, but 18+ if balanced (ala Revision Club)
1♦ 2+♦ 9-14 unbalanced 4+♦, or 10-12 balanced
1M 5+ 9-14
1N 15-17
2♣ 6+ or 5♣/4M 9-14

3rd/4th

Pass 0-7
1♣ 16+
1♦ 8-15 4+ unbalanced, or 8-12 balanced (1N rebid is 10-12, pass with less)
1M 8-15 5+ (or 4+ if min and balanced)
1N 13-15
2♣ 8-15 5+

There are lots of similar possibilities. You could play a standard strong NT system for example where 1m was 4+ most of the time (3+ only if 18-19 bal).

Quote

Not really, has been dead for quite a while.

Nice to see jimmy in the old thread being engaged in bridge related discussion

NickRW, on May 22 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

For those looking for some interesting reading, Tysen had a series of discussions involving better hand evaluation (in comparison to 4-3-2-1 points), which covered both the trick-taking value of honor cards, distribution values for each specific hand shape (5332 vs 4432, etc), extra points for combinations of honors, and similar analyses such as honors in partner's known suit vs side suits. Most of these are link to in this RGB post, but I suggest you start reading with the earlier ones.

Gerben42, on May 25 2009, 12:37 PM, said:

Wow. Sorry to hear that

Nick

NickRW, on May 26 2009, 01:55 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that Gerben meant that the THREAD was dead...

As far as I know, Tysen is alive and fine, though real life is interfering with his ability to post much.

Nick, as one who has played many strong and intermediate pass systems, i reallybelieve that this one is unplayable. the opening pass is far too wide ranging and liable to preemption. Any competent, (and lols), will tear shreds off this system.
I suggest you look at Suspensor, or TRS. TRS is a medium pass system played by the Poms. Suspensor was a well designed FP system. Another good one to look at is T-Rex. This is a truly horrible system to play against, which used to be played by Andy Braithwaite from NZ.

I too think it is nuts - I was just interested in seeing if anyone had more info as it is an interesting idea.

I myself don't play exactly this way - but I've noticed that being really quite conservative in the openings with balanced hands and behaving like a bull as soon as a singleton comes into view, never mind a void, seems to have its upsides. I was just interested if anyone had pursued that notion to its logical conclusion - big passes that are not forcing and are not showing values are quite legal in England - and, I saw in one thread, even in ACBL land (though seem to possibly fall foul of the wording under WBF rules)

Nick