[NickRW]

Open or not?

---

In another thread I posted the above hand. Some might open this, some might not. The subject of whether you do or not (and why) is, I thought, a worthwhile B/I topic.

When I first learnt bridge ages ago, one opened with 13hcp. Then I learnt you can count points for length. Then I learnt that you can count points for shortages. Then I learnt you can get overboard and count both these things at once which can get you being a bit too enthusiastic sometimes. Then I learnt that aces were a bit undercounted at 4 and so on. Then there was the "rule of 20"... (and 19 and 18!).

I suppose probably the most important thing about "opening style" (like a lot of other bidding issues) is that partner is on the same wavelength. Just how weak (or otherwise) does that opening 1 of something from the person you're actually playing with today actually go?

These days I've settled on this (for unbalanced hands):

1. Count hcp + length of 2 longest suits (as per rule of 20)
1b. Add controls (2 for ace, 1 for king), subtract the length of the shortest suit.

2. Open 22s
2b. Also open 21s where there is decent quality 6 card suit (i.e. the best of the ones that some people would think of as a weak 2)
2c. Also open the 21s that have a 5/4 shape, the second suit is worth mentioning and the relative ranks of the 2 suits are such that you're always going to be able to show the second suit over any simple response from partner (e.g. 5 hearts and 4 diamonds as in the example hand).

3. Requirements can be dropped by a point in 3rd seat.

This seems to be a set of rules that, as near as can easily be done with a realtively simple formula, encapsulates what I think expert judgement is (or my idea of what it should be).

My partners and I play the above - except that getting them to remember rule 2c seems to be problematic sometimes.

Anyhow..... what's your poison on this topic?

Nick

[NickRW]

Jlall, on Sep 3 2008, 05:47 AM, said:

I certainly would not recommend opening this in a standard system/style. That is because partner can reasonably play you for more and force to game/double them/whatever too often.

As far as the merits of playing a style where opening this hand is possible I think that there are a lot of gains but I would not play such a style if I played a 2/1 system base because partner will need too much to make a 2/1 and the frequency of the dreaded forcing 1N response will increase.

Playing a style where you can open this in a standard system base is possible and better than in 2/1 but you have the problem of a really wide range which hurts you when the opponents preempt. That being said opening as opposed to passing can also help you if the opponents are going to preempt, but I think the wide range hurts you overall in these competitive auctions.

Playing a strong club/limited opening bid system I think playing a style where you can open this hand is very winning.

Fair comment Justin. I guess I was hoping to make to make a thread about what was called "style" in another thread - but hard systemic agreement comes into it too.

Probably my suggestion is a tad too aggressive for SAYC style 2 openers in that it makes 1 openers even more wide ranging. Without going into details I play a set of 2 openers that limit the top end for 1M quite strongly, a touch less so for 1m.

Nick

[mike777]

NickRW, on Sep 3 2008, 12:39 AM, said:

Open or not?

---

In another thread I posted the above hand. Some might open this, some might not. The subject of whether you do or not (and why) is, I thought, a worthwhile B/I topic.

When I first learnt bridge ages ago, one opened with 13hcp. Then I learnt you can count points for length. Then I learnt that you can count points for shortages. Then I learnt you can get overboard and count both these things at once which can get you being a bit too enthusiastic sometimes. Then I learnt that aces were a bit undercounted at 4 and so on. Then there was the "rule of 20"... (and 19 and 18!).

I suppose probably the most important thing about "opening style" (like a lot of other bidding issues) is that partner is on the same wavelength. Just how weak (or otherwise) does that opening 1 of something from the person you're actually playing with today actually go?

These days I've settled on this (for unbalanced hands):

1. Count hcp + length of 2 longest suits (as per rule of 20)
1b. Add controls (2 for ace, 1 for king), subtract the length of the shortest suit.

2. Open 22s
2b. Also open 21s where there is decent quality 6 card suit (i.e. the best of the ones that some people would think of as a weak 2)
2c. Also open the 21s that have a 5/4 shape, the second suit is worth mentioning and the relative ranks of the 2 suits are such that you're always going to be able to show the second suit over any simple response from partner (e.g. 5 hearts and 4 diamonds as in the example hand).

3. Requirements can be dropped by a point in 3rd seat.

This seems to be a set of rules that, as near as can easily be done with a realtively simple formula, encapsulates what I think expert judgement is (or my idea of what it should be).

My partners and I play the above - except that getting them to remember rule 2c seems to be problematic sometimes.

Anyhow..... what's your poison on this topic?

Nick

easy 1h opener if you open all 11 hcp bal or many ten hcp unbalanced.

easy pass if pass most 13 hcp balanced hands...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we use the rule of 20 / contains the hand 12HCP to decide,
if we open or not.
Of course, if I speak about the rule of 20, you should use
it sensible, the example hand fullfills the rule, but the single
Ace makes it dubious.

Additionnally I use the LTC to decide on the level, the given
hand has 7, but the lack of controls makes it only worth 8.

As Justin pointed out, the system you play has an influence,
but of course this may just mean, that if you want to
open those hands, you may need to choose a different system
or set of agreements.

A 2/1 style ownt work well, because the amount of hands,
which need to go through a forcing 1 NT would grew.

A system, in which a 2/1 response promises another rebid
may become playable, ... but you may need to say, that after
a 2/1 response + intervention, that this does not create a
forcing pass sequence.

Acol will work, since it was designed to be a light opening system,
but you may have problems with slam bidding (can be solved, if
you add lots of art. things to it).

Precision will work, of course you may have problems after you open
1C / 1D and they intervene, which may or may not be easy to deal
with.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rbforster]

It's not like 1♥-1♠-2♦ is the best start to a constructive auction in standard methods either. That, together with the weakish hand and too many quacks make this a clear pass in standard for me.

Like Justin, I like opening these hands, but you need to have a system that lets you do it "safely", so that partner is expecting a bad 10-11 count as a typical hand when he responds.

[mike777]

easy 1h=1s=2d
If partner knows you open lite and rebid lite



You pass do not open 1h other....

this all seems easy.
discuss what an opening bid is in first and second seat....just agree....

[helene_t]

The hand satisfies the rule of 20 and it has some useful intermediates. On the other hand our only prime card is a sec ace, so overall I think the hand it's a tad too weak for a rule-of-20 opening. Here in the Lancaster club I would certainly open but England is England .... I probably wouldn't open it playing SA but it's close.

[benlessard]

Even if the system permit it i think the profits of opening this hands in particular is pretty small.

1- For me the number of spades ive got is primordial with 5H and 1S the chance that im going to bury their fit is quite low. With with 3♠ & 5♥ or with ♠ instead of ♥ the chance to bury their fit is much higher.

2- Lead directing. here the H are ok but a diamond might easily be a better lead.

3- The ability to describe my hand later if i pass. Here if partner open 1S i have a near perfect response of 2H. If the opps open and raise to 2S my hand is still good enough to make a move.

[brianshark]

Playing a "standard" system with "standard" opening requirements, I would not open this. While the raw point count and shape suggest it is close to an opening bid, the main demerits are the singleton ace which isn't as useful as if it were in your long suit, and the lack of a second quick trick, important especially if partner doubles them and expects an opening hand to have a bit of defense.

[Lobowolf]

benlessard, on Sep 3 2008, 06:18 AM, said:

Even if the system permit it i think the profits of opening this hands in particular is pretty small.

1- For me the number of spades ive got is primordial with 5H and 1S the chance that im going to bury their fit is quite low. With with 3♠ & 5♥ or with ♠ instead of ♥ the chance to bury their fit is much higher.

2- Lead directing. here the H are ok but a diamond might easily be a better lead.

3- The ability to describe my hand later if i pass. Here if partner open 1S i have a near perfect response of 2H. If the opps open and raise to 2S my hand is still good enough to make a move.

Also on the downside is that partner tends to assume more than one quick trick in your hand for defensive purposes and make competitive bidding decisions accordingly. On the upside, this hand has decent trick-taking potential if a fit is found.

[jdonn]

IMO the most likely advantage to opening this hand is partner responds 1♠ when the opponents can make 4♠.

[FrancesHinden]

It's interesting that no-one has really mentioned vulnerability.

Vulnerability in particular should definitely make a difference in first or second seat, particularly if you have a balanced hand.

As an example, take a hand such as

Axx
Q10x
KQ10x
xxx

In my partnership style I would open this hand in first or second seat NV, but pass vulnerable. I don't want to play in 1NT or 2NT with insufficient high cards if I am going off in 100s, but playing in 1NT NV is rarely a bad thing whatever our combined point count. (This doesn't imply playing a weak NT, we are planning to rebid 1NT after a 1M response.)

(Famous Marty Bergen quote: "Vulnerability is for children")

The other question to consider when opening a marginal hand is the opening lead. When you have a good, sound, opener you are trying to have a constructive auction finishing by declaring the best contract for your side. If you open a marginal, or light, opener you are more likely to end up defending or at least having a competitive auction. Playing an SAYC style system, I would much prefer to open a marginal 1D on

A10xx
Q10xx
KQx
xx

than on
AKxx
KJxx
10xx
xx

and I would prefer even more

A10x
Q10xx
KQxx
xx

because if partner raises in competition I do at least have 4 of them...

[fromageGB]

Definitely a style question. My preferred style is constructive, so I keep my 1 bids up to strength ; this does not qualify. However, that turns it into a system question, because if you play a "strong" 1 you need weak 2s to cover hands like this. It's important to try and get in the way of opponents' bidding.

I'd open it 2H. We play a 2M open is 5 card 8-11 and a multi2D is 6 card 6-10 (all other things being equal) which means there's a bid for any hand you care to bid on.