[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

I like to bid and I like to open light. Regrettably, I think my opening bids have again gone beyond ridiculous. Rate this opening and then tell me what needs to change to make it (just) acceptable for a very light opening?

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Jun 22 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: E/W Scoring: IMP

♠ Kxxx ♥ Kx ♦ A10xx ♣ Jxx

I like to bid and I like to open light. Regrettably, I think my opening bids have again gone beyond ridiculous.  Rate this opening and then tell me what needs to change to make it (just) acceptable for a very light opening?

I think this is more a matter of:

1) your skill level
2) your comfort level with opening this type of hand
3) your partners comfort level with opening this type of hand
4) your ability to accurately evaluate later auctions
5) how well this type of opening fits with the rest of your system.

Personally, I consider this hand to be an obvious pass. Others will claim it is an obvious light opening (possibly even missing the club J).

[jdonn]

This is an obvious pass playing normal methods. Of course you can make your style such that you open any hands you want to, but I think opening a hand like this is losing bridge.

[jillybean]

So what does your light opening look like? I' don't play 2/1

[awm]

There are several different ways to define a "light opening bid." I think what most people mean when they say they open light is that they will open hands with less than 12 points but which have substantial playing strength opposite a fit. So they would open some hand like:

KQxxx
Axxxx
xx
x

Despite only nine high, if you find a major suit fit this is better than a lot of 12 hcp opening bids. The idea behind these openings is that you can find good games when there is a fit, and that this may win you more net imps than passing despite the fact that you occasionally land in bad games when there is no fit. The expectation is that partner will bid as if you had a "normal" 12 hcp opening bid.

The hand you posted doesn't qualify under this definition. Even if partner shows up with a moderate fit, the club jack and heart king are not really working cards. Usually balanced hands don't upgrade very much in the presence of a fit.

Of course, you could also define light opening as "I always open ten counts" or something like this. Then of course the posted hand qualifies. But partner has to take this kind of style into account when responding, since otherwise you will reach random 22 hcp games that have no particular play.

[mike777]

jillybean2, on Jun 22 2007, 05:37 PM, said:

So what does your light opening look like?  I' don't play 2/1

Yes if you play a fully integrated lightish opening style 2/1 this is a clear opening bid. Basically you just make responders' invite or 2/1 game forcing hands stronger and you throw even more trash into that bin of garbage called "forcing or semiforcing nt". In fact I open this specific hand 1D NV even if you take away the J of clubs.

With no discussion I rather open very sound in first and second seat. At least partner will count on us to have our bids and hopefully we give her less problems in the bidding. My new crusade is to try and not give my partners any problems in the bidding or correct the ones I do create.

I remain convinced for players on our level we can move up a few more places by learning to play and defend better and worry less about bidding.

[Apollo81]

♣Jxx isn't worth 1 HCP.

[pbleighton]

If you open this hand (which is an average balanced 11 count) playing standard methods, you should play a 14-16 or 14-17 NT range, to narrow the 1NT rebid range to 11-13. You should also figure out what your weak, invitational, and GF ranges are. 13 counts are an issue opening light. If you don't go to game, you will miss a bunch of games, if you do, you will get too high sometimes. I recommend 6-10, 11-12, and 13+.

You should also:
1. Bid consistently. If you open average balanced 11 counts in the first two seats, you should always do so.
2. Your partner should play the same way. Don't inflict a light opening style on an unsuspecting pickup partner.

Some thoughts:

Consider opening lighter in the majors than the minors. There's a lt more upside as far as preemption and immdiate fit.

Consider a strong club, it's made for light openings.

Consider an 11-14 NT range. Your system will change a bit, and the wide range can be a bit sloppy, but you can open a lot of hands without impairing your 1 of a minor bids. If you do this, it's a good idea to keep your 1m bids up to snuff (12 unbalanced, 15 balanced). You can open light in the majors, as long as you avoid 2/1 GF. Playing that 1M-2x-2M is a minimum bid that would accept an invitation to 3NT, and which is frequently 5 cards, is an Acol treatment which is useful with light major suit openers.

Peter

[Robert]

Hi jillybean2

I have played for several decades now and the choice of system does not cause that many problems 'if' the rest of your bidding is solid. I have played 1NT ranges from 8-10 up to 17-20(Roman) The Romex 1NT is a forcing opening bid.

Changing your 1NT range to 14-16 would enable you to open balanced 11 counts and still rebid 1NT(11-13) without having a four HCP range. Some people play wide ranging NTs, I have tried them and they do not fit my style of play.

I used to play Precision Two Down and Two Up several decades ago. We opened two HCP light in 1st and 2nd seat and opened two HCP heavy in 3rd and 4th seats.

The replies were Precision 'with' the opposite adjustment. A 2/1 needed 13HCP over a 1st/2nd seat opening. A first/second seat Pass showed 0-8HCP and left a lot of room for wide ranging opening bids. We alerted opening bids and 'weak' two bids as being 'quite wide ranging.'

You seem to like opening 1NT with many hands. You might want to try playing a 11-14 range(or 10-12, 10-13 or 12-14) and see if you 'like' the style.

I played a lot of standard Precision in the 70s and changed to a style that opens 12+ balanced hands. Opening flat 11 counts just did not seem to have more gains than losses.

My current style is to pass flat 11 counts. This enables me to play a very agrressive style of bidding and doubling. Whatever style that you enjoy is the method that you should play.

My current bidding system is a Precision type base(well I still play 5 card majors), however, almost everything else is changed. I open 1NT=15-17 and bid 1C-1D-1NT holding 18-20.

Just my comment, however, your auctions seem to have the biggest problems in competition. Perhaps you should concentrate a little more effort on your bidding in that area.

Regards,
Robert

[kenrexford]

I would not hesitate to open this, myself.

Here's why.

First, I upgrade 14's to 1NT if five controls and not 4333. Thus, the high end for a 1♣/1♦ opening is a bad 14.

Second, with a high end of a bad 14, the low end can safely be a good 11. I consider this a good 11 because I am not 4333 and because I have one control more than average expectancy. In other words, an 11-count is a good 11-count if 4432 (neither 4-card being xxxx) and four controls.

Third, I have spades. No rebid problems.

Fourth, and most importantly, partner expects 1minor...1NT to show a minimum of a 4432 11-count with 4 controls to a maximum of 14 with only 4 controls or 14 with 4333 shape. That's a workable range.

As a caveat, though, I would open this 1♣ systemically (1♦ promises 6+ or a stiff/void somewhere). That one fourth-of-a-level advantage allows 1NT to show 8-11 and thus reduces the problem zone. 1♦-P-1NT showing 6-10 means that we end up too high with a 1♦ opening.

As a second caveat, if I were not playing the unbalanced diamond, I would open 1♣ anyway, if I opened this. If my partner would flip out on me for doing that, then I'd probably not open this.

In sum, then, I'd consider ♠Kxxx ♥Kx ♦Jxx ♣A10xx a clear opening with anyone, but the actual hand only opened if we have systemic tools to push these weak, balanced hands through 1♣ or if partner is one who allows me to fudge the minor length on 11-counts and open 1♣ with these.

Actually, I'd add a fourth possibility. If 1♦-P-1NT was agreed as 6-11, a strange agreement I play with a few select people, then 1♦ is fine. However, all the "6-11" folks also play the unbalanced diamond, negating this concern and caveat.

[foo]

jillybean2, on Jun 22 2007, 05:37 PM, said:

So what does your light opening look like?  I' don't play 2/1

The most important principle here is that =you and pd be on the same wavelength=.

Obviously, there are limits beyond which it becomes difficult to play good bridge within the context of SA. However, within those limits by far the most important thing is that pd be able to set a reasoably sized lower and upper limit on your bids.

SA 2♣ Openings promise at least 1/2 the 6 of the 12 controls in the deck. That puts you within 1 control of 3N or 4M.
SA 2♣ openings also promise either a very big NT hand or a hand that is within 1 - 1 1/2 tricks of game (8 1/2 - 9 tricks in a Major oriented hand, 9 1/2 - 10 tricks in a minor oriented hand.) That usually translates into no more than a 4 1/2 loser hand.
*Notable Exception: Don't open 2suiters 2♣ if you can avoid it.*

That's your ceiling; your upper limit on a 1bid.

If you open 1bids with 7- loser hands containing at least 2 defensive tricks, your hands easily fit into minimum: 7 losers, Medium: 6 losers, MAX: 5 losers

Nowadays waiting for a 7- loser hand with 2 defensive tricks is considered "old and stodgy" by some. Such pairs advocate opening 8- loser hands. Some don't even believe in waiting for 2 defensive tricks.
Such pairs inevitably have System problems on some boards playing SA that more sound SA bidders do not. Why? Because they've created problems for themselves with their wide ranging 1bids. (There are other problems as well, but let's stick to that one for now.)


With your OP example: ♠ Kxxx ♥ Kx ♦ ATxx ♣ Jxx, Even though you have your 2 defensive tricks (Kx + Kx + A= .5 +.5 +1= 2) I'd suggest not opening unless pd expects an 8- loser hand as your minimum 1opening.

[Cascade]

Apollo81, on Jun 23 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

♣Jxx isn't worth 1 HCP.

Is it worth more or less?

[cherdano]

Cascade, on Jun 22 2007, 11:16 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jun 23 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

♣Jxx isn't worth 1 HCP.

Is it worth more or less?

Are you kidding? LESS!

[skjaeran]

This is an obvious 1♣ opening to me, not 1♦ - that promises an unbalaced hand im my methods.

In practise I'd pass if you removed the ♣J, but the hand would still be stronger than some 11-counts I routinely open. Aces and kings are underevaluated in the Work point count, but I still don't open balanced 10-counts (unless you add some good interiors).

[ochinko]

I voted for marginal opener, but I am more inclined to pass rather than open that hand. It is flattish, and the values are scattered. It doesn't satisfy the rule of 20.

Here are some better hands with the same points and distribution:

KJxx
Kx
A10xx
xxx

Kxxx
Kx
AJ10x
xxx

KQJx
xx
AJ10x
xxx

AQxx
xx
AJ10x
xxx

[Fluffy]

I open any 11 with A+A+K (except 4333)

AKKJ is not opened normally. Only with 5 card major.

[jdonn]

I really think too much emphasis is put on controls by some people, and not enough on honor location and spot cards. I would far rather open with KQJx xxx AJTx xx than xxxx AKx xxxx Ax.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Jun 23 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

I really think too much emphasis is put on controls by some people, and not enough on honor location and spot cards. I would far rather open with KQJx xxx AJTx xx than xxxx AKx xxxx Ax.

My guess is Jdonn is good enough to win if knowingly playing with a partner who prefers to pass with both.

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jun 22 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

Rate this opening and then tell me what needs to change to make it (just) acceptable for a very light opening?

Um, switching to negative free bids?

Suppose the auction goes

1♦ 1♠ 2♥ P

If you don't play negative free bids, you can't just pass. You're going to have to say 2NT. How happy is that going to make you with your hand?

If you had KT9x in spades, that's almost certainly a double stopper. If you had Qx in clubs instead of Jxx, that actually is usually a useful stopper when you're declarer, and Qxx is better, of course.

So, in my very humble opinion

KT9x
Kx
ATxx
Qxx

is a definite opener, while

KTxx (hoping that the T can't get finessed out).
Kx
ATxx
Jxx

and

Kxxx
Kx
ATxx
Qxx

are both marginal openers.

This hand looks notrumpy to me, so I'm thinking in terms of no trump- stoppers and runnable suits. I'm not thinking in terms of a spade game because, if we do have a spade game, I can pass and partner will open.

I'd open it third seat, because at that point negative free bids are on. If the bidding gets frisky, I can opt out.