[mike777]

Here in North America it seems distributional hands with less than 13/14 hcp may often be opened at the one level as opposed to opening them with a weak(ish) two bid. I get the impression it is more common but perhaps still not standard in other parts of the world to open these with a weakish 2 bid.

Would the more expert/experienced players care to comment on the pros and cons of leaving opening one bids to stronger(hcp) hands or to reverse the discussion why opening dist hands with fewer hcp(under 14) at the one level seems very common expert standard practice?

[pbleighton]

Mike, the majority of U.S. players open the majority of balanced 12 counts. Many open any, or almost any, 12 count. Don't you know this?

It's not just a question of hands with 6 card suits.

Your opening criteria are basically 2 points above normal practice. My understanding of European practice is that in most countries they open as light as we do, or even lighter (Rule of 19 - decent unbalanced 10 counts).

The reason IMO people open lighter than they used to is that, in general, the side which opens first has the advantage in the part score wars.

Eric Rodwell made the point (in an interview on Glen's site, I believe) that if the opps never bid, there would be no reason to open light. However...

Peter

[cherdano]

Does anyone know a world class pair that would pass a 5332-shape with 11 hcp, including a nice 5-card suit?

[hrothgar]

You've raised a number of different issues which, unfortunately, are all tangled together into a god-awful mess. Here's my best effort at a simple answer. With apologies to Bill Murray: “It just doesn't matter...” I don't believe that there is any one true approach to bidding. Its possible to design reasonable (perhaps even good) bidding systems based on a number of different design philosophies. However, bidding systems (typically) need to be considered as an integrated whole. For example, if you make major changes to the strength requirement for a one level opening bid, you might very well break your response structure.

As to your question about opening weak distributional hands with a one level opening bid: My own take on matters is that this is (primarily) a function of system regulations. For better or worse, you can't use conventional preemptive openings in most North American events. Even relatively innocuous preempts like Muilderburg 2's are banned at the GCC level. If you want to be able to open these hands, you really don't have any reasonable option other than a one level opening.

[mike777]

Please note here I am only discussing Dist. hands. with few hcp and why opening them at the one level is better than the two level. In both cases you are opening the bidding. In both cases you are bidding first.

[Free]

cherdano, on May 4 2007, 12:13 AM, said:

Does anyone know a world class pair that would pass a 5332-shape with 11 hcp, including a nice 5-card suit?

Fantoni-Nunes when Vulnerable

[mike777]

hrothgar, on May 3 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

You've raised a number of different issues which, unfortunately, are all tangled together into a god-awful mess.  Here's my best effort at a simple answer.  With apologies to Bill Murray:  “It just doesn't matter...”  I don't believe that there is any one true approach to bidding.  Its possible to design reasonable (perhaps even good) bidding systems based on a number of different design philosophies.  However, bidding systems (typically) need to be considered as an integrated whole.  For example, if you make major changes to the strength requirement for a one level opening bid, you might very well break your response structure.

As to your question about opening weak distributional hands with a one level opening bid:  My own take on matters is that this is (primarily) a function of system regulations.  For better or worse, you can use conventional preemptive openings in most North American events.  Even relatively innocuous preempts like Muilderburg 2's are banned at the GCC level.  If you want to be able to open these hands, you really don't have any reasonable option other than a one level opening.

ty for feedback. Yes, please assume if you open a weak two bid it is natural, not some convention.

[goobers]

I imagine you're asking with regard to a hand like

J KQTxxx Ax xxx

I've wondered the same myself too... for example, what would you open this first seat?

[jdonn]

mike777, on May 3 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

Please note here I am only discussing Dist. hands. with few hcp and why opening them at the one level is better than the two level. In both cases you are opening the bidding. In both cases your are bidding first.

It is because people like to preempt on lighter and lighter hands these days, so hands like you describe which used to be considered maximum preempts are now so much better than many peoples' current minimum preempts that they feel it is unplayable to preempt on both. Therefore rather than having to pass any hands they want to open, they simply open 1 with these hands to keep their preempts.... well, preemptive.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 4 2007, 02:15 AM, said:

ty for feedback. Yes, please assume if you open a weak two bid it is natural, not some convention.

Comment 1:

Natural and conventional are not mutually exclusive

Comment 2:

Let's assume that you wanted to start opening 5-4-3-1 or 5-5-2-1 hand patterns with a weak 2 bid. Furthermore, you aren't allowed to use any conventional opening bids. In this case, your weak 2 opening is will show either a singled suited hand or some two suiters.

I'd argue that you're placing too many hand patterns into a relatively high opening bid. You're going to put a lot of pressure on the opponents, but you're also going to make life very difficult for partner. There are some bidding systems built on the philosophy that the loss in constructive auctions is more than balanced out by the preemptive effects. EHAA is one obvious example. F+N is another. (Nearly everyone lightens up in 3rd seat) However, by and large folks prefer to limit the number of hand patterns that fit into a single high level bid.

[mike777]

jdonn, on May 3 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

mike777, on May 3 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

Please note here I am only discussing Dist. hands. with few hcp and why opening them at the one level is better than the two level. In both cases you are opening the bidding. In both cases your are bidding first.

It is because people like to preempt on lighter and lighter hands these days, so hands like you describe which used to be considered maximum preempts are now so much better than many peoples' current minimum preempts that they feel it is unplayable to preempt on both. Therefore rather than having to pass any hands they want to open, they simply open 1 with these hands to keep their preempts.... well, preemptive.

Ty for feedback. I understand your point. I enjoy discussing both sides of an issue, esp bidding issues. Is there a downside to your points. I think you discussed only the upside.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on May 3 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

mike777, on May 4 2007, 02:15 AM, said:

ty for feedback. Yes, please assume if you open a weak two bid it is natural, not some convention.

Comment 1:

Natural and conventional are not mutually exclusive

Comment 2:

Let's assume that you wanted to start opening 5-4-3-1 or 5-5-2-1 hand patterns with a weak 2 bid. Furthermore, you aren't allowed to use any conventional opening bids. In this case, your weak 2 opening is will show either a singled suited hand or some two suiters.

I'd argue that you're placing too many hand patterns into a relatively high opening bid. You're going to put a lot of pressure on the opponents, but you're also going to make life very difficult for partner. There are some bidding systems built on the philosophy that the loss in constructive auctions is more than balanced out by the preemptive effectives. EHAA is one obvious example. F+N is another. (Nearly everyone lightens up in 3rd seat) However, by and large folks prefer to limit the number of hand patterns that fit into a single high level bid.

Richard thank you, you always deliver insightful bidding commentary and I learn.

To clarify lets assume your weak two bids are almost always 6 card suits for this thread but could often be 2 suited. Again I am not pushing this issue just enjoy seeing both sides of the bidding theory debate/discussion. Upside and downside.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 4 2007, 02:33 AM, said:

Is there a downside to your points. I think you discussed only the upside.

Of course there's a downside:

As you lighten up your opening style you're left with two unpalatable choices:

1. Adopt a strong club or strong pass opening bid and accept the fact that everyone is going to start crashing your strong auctions

2. Accept the fact that your wide range openings are going to complicate your constructive auctions

(a) You're going to need to adopt more complex response structures
(b) You're going to run into trouble during competitive auctions

Here's one interesting data point that might help frame some of these issues:

About 15 years ago, someone on rec.games.bridge did a study regarding the effectiveness of the Polish Wilkosz 2♦ opening. The 2♦ had a ridiculous expected value in top level play. The Poles were averaging somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8 IMPS per board whenever this opening came up. What I found most interesting about the study was the auctions at the table where the players didn't have this they available. Players couldn't bear to pass these gorgeous 5-5 hands with a major and chose to make a one level opening even though they (seemed) to be playing sound opening systems. These pairs kept coming to ruin when their partner drove them to unmakable 3NT contracts or made penalty doubles during competitive auctions. The primary gain from the Wilkosz opening style appeared to be the ability to discipline the one level opening bids...

[Winstonm]

Quote

You've raised a number of different issues which, unfortunately, are all tangled together into a god-awful mess.

So what makes this post different?

[Rebound]

I realize this question is targeted at the stronger players amongst us, but I feel the need to comment since it happens that I currently play semi-regularly with 3 different partners, each of whom have different requirements in this regard, in accordance with the different systems I play with each of them.

In one case, we play a very sound opening style, rarely opening on 12 hcp and sometimes even passing a bad, i.e. aceless 13. On the other hand, with another partner, we play precision, often opening on 11, and with the 3rd, 2/1 with openings falling somewhere in between. It seems to me they each have their plusses and minuses but most often, it is sound openings played against those who open aggressively, that seems to be most effective.That is, the weaker the opps are willing to open, the more I prefer to play a very sound style (and beat up on them).

I would appreciate some expert opinions on that.

[Fluffy]

cherdano, on May 3 2007, 11:13 PM, said:

Does anyone know a world class pair that would pass a 5332-shape with 11 hcp, including a nice 5-card suit?

If it is a minor yes.


I never open 5431 with 10 count at the 1 level, do many of you do it?

[whereagles]

cherdano, on May 3 2007, 11:13 PM, said:

Does anyone know a world class pair that would pass a 5332-shape with 11 hcp, including a nice 5-card suit?

doh, that's a 12 pointer

[Halo]

I come from a rule of 19 environment and would open:

AQxxx,Axxx,xxx,x

[inquiry]

what would you open with

x
AJ9xxx
xxx
Axx

When played in 2003 Bermuda bowl and venice cup finals, three tables opened 1H. One table was Merkwell, so no surprise, other was Lauria with versace. I don't remember which woman pair opened 1H.