[mike777]

Assuming little or no discussion except 2/1 100% game forcing, strong nt and a WC pickup partner:

If need be assume the WC partner knows you are not WC

What does a minimum one of a major look like for you in first and second seat?

With a balanced hand?
With an unbalanced hand?

Feel free to elaborate, ty in advance.

[hrothgar]

With an unbalanced hand:

♠ AQJ76
♥ x
♦ AT92
♣ xxx

With a balanced hand

♠ AKxxx
♥ Ax
♦ xxx
♣ xxx

[ralph23]

Assuming a true balanced hand -- at most, one doubleton -- then I have 12+ HCP. I'm playing strong NT, so don't have a choice to consider 1nt on a balanced 11 that doesn't otherwise qualify for an opening. I'm not opening a balanced 11-HCP, except I'll think about AKxxx with Axx riding along, if the spots in the long suit are good.

Not holding a true balanced hand -- e.g. a singleton or 5422 or the like -- I'll use the Rule of 20, with the proviso that points in long suits are better than points in short suits and adjust accordingly. I don't require ALL my HCP to be in the long suits when using the Ro20, but surely a lot of them should be. Other than "a lot of them" I don't have precise quantitative criteria about the HCP location.

Stray queens or jacks don't get as much respect as 4-3-2-1 gives them. Lots of tens with nines accompanying (or Jacks accompanying) get them more respect than 4-3-2-1 gives them when they're in longer suits.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-05, 09:11

[the hog]

No surprise that I agree with Richard's hands. His minor openings too btw. (Other thread.)

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Sep 4 2007, 03:12 AM, said:

With an unbalanced hand:

♠ AQJ76
♥ x
♦ AT92
♣ xxx

With a balanced hand

♠ AKxxx
♥ Ax
♦ xxx
♣ xxx

This is (far) better than my minimums.

I'd open AJxxx x KJxx Qxx and AQxxx Kx xxx Qxx for example. But only if that was an agreed upon style, of course.

[mikeh]

AQJxxx Kxx xxx x

AQxxxx x Axxx xx

AJ10xx x AJ10xx xx

KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

There will be hands on which I would open with 1♠ and not with 1♥, but this will be a very fine distinction indeed.

Other than that, agree with Richard

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Sep 5 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

1. AQJxxx Kxx xxx x

2. AQxxxx x Axxx xx

3. AJ10xx x AJ10xx xx

4. KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

Hmmm

If I were playing 2/1 under the conditions of contest that Mike set, I suspect that I would

1. Open 2♠ (and not feel all that bad)

This looks like a maximum weak two bid to me. I'll be happier with the 2♠ opening in 2nd seat than first. Either way, I think that I'd start with a preempt.

2. Open 1♠ (but not be happy about it)

A 6-4 with 2 bullets and a Queen is too much even for me to pass

3. Pass (but not be happy about it)

I'd pass this one. I've seen too much ugliness happen when people felt forced to open an under-strength hand with 5-5 shape.

4. Open 1♠ (and not feel all that bad)

Good choice of hands...

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on Sep 5 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 5 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

1. AQJxxx Kxx xxx x

2. AQxxxx x Axxx xx

3. AJ10xx x AJ10xx xx

4. KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

Hmmm

If I were playing 2/1 under the conditions of contest that Mike set, I suspect that I would

1. Open 2♠ (but not be happy about it)
2. Open 1♠ (but not be happy about it)
3. Pass (but not be happy about it)
4. Open 1♠ (and not feel all that bad)

Good choice of hands...

My approach to this type of opening, when I have a 6 card major or 5-5 is to look at controls, and LTC. I do NOT use the rule of 20, btw.

So for me, 3 controls, and an LTC of 7 or less and no rebid problem means I strain to open, especially with spades. Note that my shapely openings have controls, not quacks, and that the hcp are concentrated in the suits (in/out valuation, which is why the rule of 20 is nonsensical... it omits that critical element of valuation).

[skjaeran]

mikeh, on Sep 5 2007, 06:01 PM, said:

AQJxxx Kxx xxx x

AQxxxx x Axxx xx

AJ10xx x AJ10xx xx

KQxxx QJx Ax xxx

There will be hands on which I would open with 1♠ and not with 1♥, but this will be a very fine distinction indeed.

Other than that, agree with Richard

With my regular partner I'd open the first two hands 2♠. We play this as very constructive; 8-11 hcp and a 6-bagger. Both are very close to maximum, but we're allowed to hold a maximum hand on occasion.

The last two are obvious 1♠ openings in my style. (With my previous partner the 3rd would be an absolute maximum vulnerable 2♠ opening, showing 8-10 hcp and 5♠5m.)

[han]

I don't care much for pick-up bridge but I would like to make a few comments in this thread. First of all, consistency is most important. Partners won't know what to expect when you claim one day that you open super sound and the other day that you open super-aggressive.

For example, when someone claims in this thread that he agrees with Richard's 2/1 opening tendencies and writes in another thread (http://forums.bridge...showtopic=21041) that one should open with x AJxxx xx AJ10xx then partner is going to have hard time figuring out his style.

By the way, it seems to me that of the two hands that Richard gave, the unbalanced hand has better cards than the balanced hand (AQJ and A109 as opposed to AK A). While I understand Richard's reluctance to open much lighter with unbalanced hands, requiring better honors really goes too far.

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Sep 5 2007, 06:18 PM, said:

I don't care much for pick-up bridge but I would like to make a few comments in this thread. First of all, consistency is most important. Partners won't know what to expect when you claim one day that you open super sound and the other day that you open super-aggressive.

For example, when someone claims in this thread that he agrees with Richard's 2/1 opening tendencies and writes in another thread (http://forums.bridge...showtopic=21041) that one should open with x AJxxx xx AJ10xx then partner is going to have hard time figuring out his style.

By the way, it seems to me that of the two hands that Richard gave, the unbalanced hand has better cards than the balanced hand (AQJ and A109 as opposed to AK A). While I understand Richard's reluctance to open much lighter with unbalanced hands, requiring better honors really goes too far.

Was I the one to whom you were referring?

If so, I'd like to point out that I did not suggest opening with x AJxxx AJ10xx xx... reread my post and you will see that I need slightly stronger hands to open with hearts than with spades, and the example I gave of AJxxx x AJ10xx xx is an absolute minimum... while the line may seem thin, I clearly said it was there.

Note also that I said that 'apart' from my examples (and hands of that ilk) I agreed with Richard. Richard used 54 hands as his unbalanced examples. I will cheerfully open 5-5 hands, with controls and all strength in my suits, lighter than I would open 5-4 hands, and I would be very surprised if that were not universally true in an expert environment.

And I certainly don't see how AJxxx x AJ10xx xx is not an opening when AKxxx Ax xxx xxx is. On the first, I have no rebid issue at all (I rebid 2♠ over 2♥, and no other bid comes close to embarrassing me) and my LTC is 7, plus I have the 10 of ♦s (it was no coincidence that I gave myself a 10 in one of my long suits). In the second, while I have 'more hcp' and more controls, I have problems over a 1N response (yes, 2♣ is the system bid, but don't anyone claim they are happy with it) and a LTC of 8. I know which hand is the stronger, and it isn't the balanced hand...

On balanced and semi-balanced hands I agree with Richard's examples... on distributional hands, I am prepared to open a point or two lighter... but only with specific hands. I would NOT open, for example Jxxxx Ax AJ109x xx... and I know that you can see the difference between that and AJxxx xx AJ10xx xx

Only a rule of 20 follower could possibly confuse the two

[han]

mikeh, on Sep 5 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

Was I the one to whom you were referring?

No! lol

[the hog]

No he is talking about me. Btw I see no inconsistency in my comments. x AJxxx AJ10xx xx is at least as good an opening bid as AKxxx Ax xxx xxx , actually better. The first has 7 losers only, the second 8. Note that Mike did specify an expert pu pd. I would be very surprised to see any expert expert one of the more conservative Poles or French pass either of these 2 hands. Its too hard to catch up.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Sep 5 2007, 06:18 PM, said:

For example, when someone claims in this thread that he agrees with Richard's 2/1 opening tendencies and writes in another thread (http://forums.bridge...showtopic=21041) that one should open with x AJxxx xx AJ10xx then partner is going to have hard time figuring out his style.

The_Hog, on Sep 5 2007, 07:54 PM, said:

No he is talking about me. Btw I see no inconsistency in my comments. x AJxxx AJ10xx xx is at least as good an opening bid as AKxxx Ax xxx xxx , actually better. The first has 7 losers only, the second 8. Note that Mike did specify an expert pu pd. I would be very surprised to see any expert expert one of the more conservative Poles or French pass either of these 2 hands. Its too hard to catch up.

I think the sequence to which Hannie is refering is:
1.

CSGibson, on Sep 3 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: E/W Scoring: MP

♠ x ♥ AJxxx ♦ xx ♣ AJTxx

Sitting first seat at favorable vulnerability, I chose not to open this hand.

The_Hog, on Sep 4 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

Agree with the others. You should have opened and I would bid 2NT now. Mike, pass is NOT an option at any form of the game.

2.

The_Hog, on Sep 4 2007, 07:32 PM, said:

No surprise that I agree with Richard's hands. His minor openings too btw. (Other thread.)

3.

hrothgar, on Sep 5 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 5 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

AJ10xx x AJ10xx xx

I'd pass this one. I've seen too much ugliness happen when people felt forced to open an under-strength hand with 5-5 shape.

It's true that the sequence of events is such that he said he passes those hands AFTER you said you agree with his style, which means your comment about agreeing with his style might then have changed. On the other hand, you seem to feel extremely strongly about opening a slightly weaker hand with worse suits than Richard passes, which makes it fair that Hannie would see a contradiction with you agreeing with Richard's style per minimum strength openers.

[the hog]

[quote name='jdonn' date='Sep 6 2007, 09:08 AM'] I'd pass this one. I've seen too much ugliness happen when people felt forced to open an under-strength hand with 5-5 shape.[/QUOTE]

It's true that the sequence of events is such that he said he passes those hands AFTER you said you agree with his style, which means your comment about agreeing with his style might then have changed. On the other hand, you seem to feel extremely strongly about opening a slightly weaker hand with worse suits than Richard passes, which makes it fair that Hannie would see a contradiction with you agreeing with Richard's style per minimum strength openers. [/quote]
Fair comment, I didn't see R's post where he said he'd pass that 5/5. I certainly wouldn't, and that is playing a los, 2/1, Polish C or whatever you like! Must admit that having played with R a bit, I am surprised he would pass that hand and I doubt he could contain himself in reality.

[han]

Interesting, because here Richard often posts that he likes quite sound openings when playing 2/1. But then, you and Richard may not have been playing 2/1.

[the hog]

That's true. Most of the time we have played Moscito.

There have been one or two Polish C outings however, and as you are no doubt aware PC is a sound opening system. Then we also played Wilkosz so the above hand would have been opened with 2D.