[awm]

Just trying to measure what people open these days in a strong club base.

[The_Badger]

awm, on 2017-September-15, 10:09, said:

Just trying to measure what people open these days in a strong club base.

What position, Adam, and what vulnerability, and under English Bridge Union or American Contract Bridge League regulation? (Apologies for being pedantic but there are some hands I would, and some I wouldn't, and I am sure that are some that will result in the director being called.)

[awm]

The_Badger, on 2017-September-15, 11:17, said:

What position, Adam, and what vulnerability, and under English Bridge Union or American Contract Bridge League regulation? (Apologies for being pedantic but there are some hands I would, and some I wouldn't, and I am sure that are some that will result in the director being called.)

Let's say first seat, none vul.

[The_Badger]

Thanks. I've used a criteria of 10-15 HCP. All hands are 5-4-3-1 so as long as they have at least 10HCPs I will open. 5-4-2-2 shapes are more problematic, I feel. Only hands less than 10HCPs where I've opened is AQxxx Kxxx xxx x and KQJxx QJxx xxx x as all the honours are in the long suits and there is an easy rebid.

[nullve]

For me it's important that the lower limit for 1M openings matches the 1N range (as in rule of 19 openings + 14-16 NT IMO) so that Opener can pass 1M-1N on all balanced hands that are too weak for a 1N opening. So even though I'm very comfortable with playing a wide ("10-21") 1M range in my 2/1-like system, and the strong club opening allows me to use a narrower, potentially easier-to-handle, "9-15" range, I wouldn't be able to handle that range the same way without changing the 1N range first. So default for me is to play rule of 19 1M openings + 14-16 NT, the same as in my 2/1-like system.

Btw,

KQJxx
KJxx
xxx
x

contains only about 9 hcp the way I count (using tenths), and so doesn't meet the (or my) rule of 19.

[Bermy]

It is easy really, Hcp and shape is everything, so first 3 ok, perhaps telephone numbers in major would want to make one undervalue the hand a bit.

1♦ min is just to get into the bidding early anyway

[The_Badger]

I was tempted to do a Kaplan and Rubens evaluation on all the hands (for what it's worth) but declined, as I followed the general rule that honours in long suits, and honours stacked together usually increase a hand's K&R value.

But obviously, there's the semi-pre-emptive value of opening lesser hands with 1♠ in first seat, non-vulnerable, that has to be taken into the equation too.

An interesting poll so far.

[Zelandakh]

I thought I opened light but I can see from the poll that I was mistaken. The 5th hand is the borderline for me; I can certainly imagine not opening it vulnerable if I was in a less aggressive mood on the day. Everything below that is a clear pass for me and everything above a clear 1♠ opening.

[nullve]

I would open the remaining hands with a canape preempt* (2♥) in my 2/1-like system.

* It's perhaps not worth noticing that

my canapé preempts = cr-ee-eam my p-p-pants.

[billyjef]

If I have a reasonable expectation of taking 4 tricks with my suit as trumps, and adhere to any silly HCP rules by governing bodies, then I like to bid...as that is the minimum my partner should be working with, 4 playing tricks. (It is my current temperament to round up, 3.5 playing tricks tend to get rounded up to 4.) Edit: I should add that I do expect 1M openers to have at least 1.5 defensive tricks as well.

[hrothgar]

I found hands 6 and 7 the most interesting.

For the most part, it felt as if hand strength was decreasing monotonically, however, I passed #6 and would open with #7

[awm]

FWIW the high card point total was decreasing monotonically. Within a HCP value I ordered the hands best to worse. It is probably the case that some 10HCP hands are worse than some 9HCP hands (or similar with any two nearby point totals) but I didn't make that judgment in my ordering.