BBO Discussion Forums: traditional opening criteria - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

traditional opening criteria

Poll: traditional opening criteria (39 member(s) have cast votes)

Are you still requiring these in your natural bids?

  1. A 1-level opening requires 2 1/2 quick tricks. (2 votes [4.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.44%

  2. A 1NT opening requires 3 suits stopped. (2 votes [4.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.44%

  3. A 2NT or 3NT opening requires all suits stopped. (1 votes [2.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.22%

  4. A 1st or 2nd seat preemptive opening requires 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5 in the suit, no side voids and no 5-card side suits. (4 votes [8.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.89%

  5. A strong 2 clubs opening requires at least 4 quick tricks and at most 4 losers. (11 votes [24.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.44%

  6. none of the above (25 votes [55.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.56%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   mikl_plkcc 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 321
  • Joined: 2008-November-20
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:sailing, bridge

Posted 2013-May-28, 07:08

In the original natural bidding system, all opening bids, except preemptive bids, require some sort of defensive strength. But today's players seem to open whenever the point count and the shape are correct, and disregard the defensive requirements. Personally, I think that some of the rules, e.g. a 2NT opening requires all suits stopped, are useful. However, I sometimes see players opening 1NT with two unstopped suits, opening 2NT with a singleton K, opening 1-level bids with quacky 12 HCPs, opening 2-level preemptive bids at the 1st seat with 6 small cards and a void, etc.

Do you still make bids according to the strict traditional criteria?
0

#2 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2013-May-28, 07:19

BBF's software seems to require me to vote for at least one of the options. Maybe you should add a "none of these" option?
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#3 User is offline   Codo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,373
  • Joined: 2003-March-15
  • Location:Hamburg, Germany
  • Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball

Posted 2013-May-28, 07:24

A "none of these" will be easily winning the poll...
Kind Regards

Roland


Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
1

#4 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,666
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2013-May-28, 07:58

Clearly a failed attempt to create the first ever unanimous poll with no responses.
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#5 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-May-28, 08:23

I don't like to use rigid rules at all. I prefer flexible use of judgment. Admittedly, in some cases I might find it hard to construct a hand that does not have certain criteria, but that is not quite the same thing.
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#6 User is offline   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,576
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2013-May-28, 10:42

The fifth option is not a bad guideline, but I think I broke the first four criteria just in one session tonight.
0

#7 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,240
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2013-May-28, 11:06

AQ2
AKJ
AJ54
AKT

That's 26 Miltons but five losers and only six tricks. Oh what the hell! I risk 2.

AQJT32
AQJ65
AQ
-

You got me again!
0

#8 User is offline   EricK 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,303
  • Joined: 2003-February-14
  • Location:England

Posted 2013-May-28, 12:05

I thought the traditional test for a 2 opening was "more quick tricks than losers" i.e if you only have 4 quick tricks then you would need fewer than 4 losers, but a hand with more than 4 losers might still be a 2 opening if it had even more quick tricks.
0

#9 User is online   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,060
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2013-May-28, 12:15

The strong 2 rule (assuming we're playing standard) is the only one I have any agreement with. Even then, I can't check it, because I will also do it with whatever balanced hand 2, then 2NT shows. My rule is that if I open 2 and partner doubles game with 13 cards, it's going down (barring crossed voids, et al).

I've played 1) playing K-S, but only in the minor and even then there's a "get out of jail free" 14 Work Point must-open (and a 12-14 NT that takes a lot of the other hands out of pass). I've never played 2) or 3) (heh, 12-14 NT with 3 suits stopped? That's like one of my partners who agreed to play 10-12 NT, but passed because "I don't open 10-loser hands"), and I've been playing for 30 years.

4) I've played everything from totally disciplined, Schenken 2s to EHAA 2s to 1-7HCP mini-Multi. I believe in convertible 3m openings in 1st and 2nd, and know that I'm giving away tempo when I have to pass a bunch of them (but I'm so much happier when I'm writing down either +400 when it's right or -110 (or +100, shh) against -150/-200 and more when partner didn't get a chance to guess wrong about 3NT). I've opened 3M on T-seventh regularly, and once, at favourable, a ten-6th=1=3=3 3.

I "promise" defensive strength with my constructive bids. I don't have to actually have it!
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#10 User is offline   rhm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,090
  • Joined: 2005-June-27

Posted 2013-May-29, 03:06

View PostPhilKing, on 2013-May-28, 11:06, said:

AQ2
AKJ
AJ54
AKT

That's 26 Miltons but five losers and only six tricks. Oh what the hell! I risk 2.

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.
For me that is a three loser hand:

AQ2 =1 loser
AKJ =0.5 losers
AJ54=1.5 losers
AKT =0.5 losers

----------------------
=3.5 losers corrected for the two useful red jacks and the T by another half loser

Rainer Herrmann
0

#11 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,240
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2013-May-29, 03:29

View Postrhm, on 2013-May-29, 03:06, said:

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.
For me that is a three loser hand:

AQ2 =1 loser
AKJ =0.5 losers
AJ54=1.5 losers
AKT =0.5 losers

----------------------
=3.5 losers corrected for the two useful red jacks and the T by another half loser

Rainer Herrmann


Well I don't use it myself.

I do remember from reading my Country Life Book of Bridge that you deduct a loser for having two more aces than queens, so I guess that comes to slightly under four with adjustments, since we have three more.
0

#12 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,471
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2013-May-29, 03:41

Regarding pre-emptive openings: I forbid P to pre-empt in a long major when holding 4-cards in the other major as well. I have just seen it too often that game is missed in the short major if you do. If the hand meets the Rule-of-20, open 1 in the long major. Even with an (8)9 count, open 1 of the long major if the suits look decent i.e. the high cards backed up by 10s and 9s.
0

#13 User is offline   mikl_plkcc 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 321
  • Joined: 2008-November-20
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:sailing, bridge

Posted 2013-May-29, 07:58

View Post32519, on 2013-May-29, 03:41, said:

Regarding pre-emptive openings: I forbid P to pre-empt in a long major when holding 4-cards in the other major as well. I have just seen it too often that game is missed in the short major if you do. If the hand meets the Rule-of-20, open 1 in the long major. Even with an (8)9 count, open 1 of the long major if the suits look decent i.e. the high cards backed up by 10s and 9s.


That means you open this 1?!
AQJ9753
Q9765
7
-

I would rather not open this, hoping an opponent opens a minor than use a Michaels cuebid.
0

#14 User is online   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,060
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2013-May-29, 11:22

I would think about opening that 1, and probably would. Pass-then-Michaels, even if it works (what about p-p-p-1NT?), will just not give partner what she needs to know to determine game. In fact, I had this hand just last night (I will admit, the primes are nicer, but not that much; and it's not 7=5...)


When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#15 User is offline   Siegmund 

  • Alchemist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,764
  • Joined: 2004-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beside a little lake in northwestern Montana
  • Interests:Creator of the 'grbbridge' LaTeX typesetting package.

Posted 2013-May-29, 19:27

I am much more a believer in having 2 defensive tricks to open at the 1-level than most players I know.... but never even heard of requiring 2 1/2 unless we are going all the way back to Culbertson.
0

#16 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2013-May-29, 20:46

I ignored strong balanced hands in checking the box for the strong 2 opening. In fact, my criteria for a 2 opening is 3 losers and 21+ HCP (ignoring the strong balanced hands).
0

#17 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,471
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2013-May-29, 21:50

The hand you posted meets the Rule-of-20 with flying colours; 9 in HCP and 12 in my two longest suits = 21. That gets opened 1 without a thaught.
0

#18 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-May-30, 06:06

View Postmikl_plkcc, on 2013-May-29, 07:58, said:

That means you open this 1?!
AQJ9753
Q9765
7
-

I would rather not open this, hoping an opponent opens a minor than use a Michaels cuebid.

I also open that 1, and I think a heavy majority here will do so.
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#19 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,516
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-May-30, 07:34

View Postrhm, on 2013-May-29, 03:06, said:

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.

[proceeds to use a count that treats AQx identical to AKx]
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
1

#20 User is online   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2013-May-30, 07:40

View Postrhm, on 2013-May-29, 03:06, said:

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.
For me that is a three loser hand:

AQ2 =1 loser
AKJ =0.5 losers
AJ54=1.5 losers
AKT =0.5 losers

Maybe I have it wrong but when someone says that a 2 opening shows a maximum of N losers I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users